How would you vote in an Independence referendum?

[upthehill]

Anyone who voted no hasnt really thought this through.

No offence, but you havent.

 

How could anyone in their right mind want their country to be governed by another country. Esp England.

 

Oh, unless youre Rangers minded.

Jamie

 

Dont argue.

 

If you're wanting a football discussion, get to the Terrace and talk football there.

[Emma]

The Tories are going to win the next election.

 

I don't want to be under their boot heel again.

 

YES for me.

 

The Tories won the last one too, they were just disguised as the Labour Party

[rossthejambo]

My understanding was that it would be a 3 option referendum the (simplified) choices being as follows:

 

a) No change to the Scottish Parliaments current powers.

 

More Powers to the current Scottish Parliament.

 

c) Independance.

 

 

if that is the vote then id pick B. on the vote on here im unsure but im leaning towards no tbh

[Drew Busby !]

I know for a fact that post-independence, Salmond is planning to deport Romanov, nationalise Hearts and divert the entire oil tax-take to Tynecastle to buy success on a global scale.

 

Don't let that influence your vote though

[Deek]

It's Conclusive - the people of Kickback support Independence.

 

Absolutely, 45% have not said yes, so its conclusive.

 

But see when it gets to the tickley bit and you have to drop the paper in the box, I bet there are a lot of hypocrites on here.

 

How would you like to live in a country where 45% of the people don't want to be part of it. Sounds a bit like Northern Ireland to me.

[portobellojambo1]

I'll leave the others to fight in the thread, but a resounding no for me. I have my reasons, but tend to keep my views on politics to myself.

 

Similar Andy, a definite NO vote from me.

[NEILY1874]

Absolutely, 45% have not said yes, so its conclusive.

 

But see when it gets to the tickley bit and you have to drop the paper in the box, I bet there are a lot of hypocrites on here.

 

How would you like to live in a country where 45% of the people don't want to be part of it. Sounds a bit like Northern Ireland to me.

 

I touched on that earlier Deek.

 

Thats my great fear about a referendum of this sort.

 

 

 

Anyway thats the ton up for the yes votes.

[Aeontheblessed]

Done deal then! :-0

 

voted no

 

never been to covinced what happens when the oil runs out

 

but the thought of the torys having any power over Scotland again is just really wrong

 

 

 

and am i not right in thinking you need a 75% yes, so aint gonna happen labour know this and just wanna embarrass the SNP who have done a good job since they got into power. the SNP being a single issue party is a very big problem for them

[JamboSean]

No.

 

I don't the Euro. The Scottish pound is as good as Monoploy money across Europe.

 

Rule Britannia.

[Drew Busby !]

Absolutely, 45% have not said yes, so its conclusive.

 

But see when it gets to the tickley bit and you have to drop the paper in the box, I bet there are a lot of hypocrites on here.

 

How would you like to live in a country where 45% of the people don't want to be part of it. Sounds a bit like Northern Ireland to me.

 

If you're extrapolating the figures from this poll, then it seems like 53.4% of the people don't want to be part of the existing arrangement. That sounds a bit like minority dictatorship of to me.

[Ulysses]

The process where people in Scotland woke up to the realisation that having a third to a half of the people in the country dependent on the Government for their income is not a way to sustainable prosperity would be absolutely brutal.

 

Scotland would have the potential for a high growth, high income economy. We have no shortage of resources - but the dead hand of Government would have to be reduced in size for that potential to be untapped.

 

10 hard years of public spending cuts, cuts in the size of the public sector workforce, reductions in benefit culture etc as well as reductions in the squander on 'defence' - and Scotland could become a high growth economy. Would be a hard time though - and the political environment in Scotland is not ready for the debate necessary on these issues.

 

The trouble is that you wouldn't have 10 years in which to do it.

 

The first sovereign government of an independent Scotland would take office in a context in which the annual public sector borrowing requirement was 10% of GDP. That would have to be reduced. But more to the point, under the terms of the EU Stability and Growth Pact - which are legally binding on all member states - the annual PSBR would have to be reduced to under 3% of GDP. I can't see the Union offering much by way of a "period of grace" in the context of negotiation of terms of membership - the 10 new members who acceded in 2004 were given a maximum of 3 years.

 

That means that the borrowing requirement would have to be cut by at least of 7% of GDP in 2 or 3 budgets. To put that in context, that would mean raising taxes or cutting spending to close a gap of ?6.3 billion.

 

That's about the same as Scotland's entire education and training spend. It's about 80% of the country's health budget. It's three times what Scotland spends on public order and safety. It's a bit more than a third of spending on social security and protection. It's about ?2,750 for every household in Scotland.

 

Or look at it another way. It's about the same as raising everyone's taxes by around 17%. It's the same as having a VAT rate of 21%, or tax rates of 23% and 47%, or Corporation Tax rates of 35% (compared to 12.5% in your main competitor economies). Locally, it's the same as increasing the Band D Council Tax rate in Edinburgh from ?1,169 to ?1,368.

 

In short, the government would have some very tough decisions to make and implement - and that's just to get to a level of public debt that is manageably bad instead of appallingly bad. To get to a balanced budget would mean another ?2.7 billion in spending cuts or tax hikes.

 

Ireland endured 7 or 8 years of dreadful grind as we implemented the same type of cuts. We got economic growth subsequently, but you have to remember that we achieved that by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. If an independent Scotland is to be economically successful in the longer term, there may be a very heavy price to pay first.

[Drew Busby !]

The trouble is that you wouldn't have 10 years in which to do it.

 

The first sovereign government of an independent Scotland would take office in a context in which the annual public sector borrowing requirement was 10% of GDP. That would have to be reduced. But more to the point, under the terms of the EU Stability and Growth Pact - which are legally binding on all member states - the annual PSBR would have to be reduced to under 3% of GDP. I can't see the Union offering much by way of a "period of grace" in the context of negotiation of terms of membership - the 10 new members who acceded in 2004 were given a maximum of 3 years.

 

That means that the borrowing requirement would have to be cut by at least of 7% of GDP in 2 or 3 budgets. To put that in context, that would mean raising taxes or cutting spending to close a gap of ?6.3 billion.

 

That's about the same as Scotland's entire education and training spend. It's about 80% of the country's health budget. It's three times what Scotland spends on public order and safety. It's a bit more than a third of spending on social security and protection. It's about ?2,750 for every household in Scotland.

 

Or look at it another way. It's about the same as raising everyone's taxes by around 17%. It's the same as having a VAT rate of 21%, or tax rates of 23% and 47%, or Corporation Tax rates of 35% (compared to 12.5% in your main competitor economies). Locally, it's the same as increasing the Band D Council Tax rate in Edinburgh from ?1,169 to ?1,368.

 

In short, the government would have some very tough decisions to make and implement - and that's just to get to a level of public debt that is manageably bad instead of appallingly bad. To get to a balanced budget would mean another ?2.7 billion in spending cuts or tax hikes.

 

Ireland endured 7 or 8 years of dreadful grind as we implemented the same type of cuts. We got economic growth subsequently, but you have to remember that we achieved that by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. If an independent Scotland is to be economically successful in the longer term, there may be a very heavy price to pay first.

 

Economists can and will argue about figures till the cows come home. And hardly any of them will agree. "Economists" sympathetic to Scottish Labour were forecasting a 5000 pound tax hit per family if the SNP won. Aye, right.

 

The Irish experience may well have had the grind you describe. But I doubt there was a single Irishman who would have wanted to grab back the UK apron strings and renounce indepdendence on economic reasons. As you know, its NOT just about money.

[Ribble]

NO from me!

 

The SNP appeal to the yes voters by reeling out historical myth and fantasies!

 

Salmond continually refers to scotland as this great small celtic nation when in fact we have never been exlusivley a celtic nation, scotland has included anglo saxons, Normans and scandanavians from it's medieval beggings.

 

Likewise the notion that scotlands history as part of the British Empire is one of systematic abuse and exploitation is absurd, if anything scotland has been overrepresented as part of it's ruling establishment for well over two hundred years.

 

The effort to turn scot's into the irish (trying to make us bitter and resentful about our links to Britain) does a disservice not only to historical truth, but to scotland itself!

[Professor.Arturo]

A definate YES!

[Poseidon]

Yes. Why not. I'm going to feck off to Australia anyway...

[Ulysses]

Economists can and will argue about figures till the cows come home. And hardly any of them will agree. "Economists" sympathetic to Scottish Labour were forecasting a 5000 pound tax hit per family if the SNP won. Aye, right.

 

The Irish experience may well have had the grind you describe. But I doubt there was a single Irishman who would have wanted to grab back the UK apron strings and renounce indepdendence on economic reasons. As you know, its NOT just about money.

 

I'm not an economist. And this is not about arguing about figures until the cows come home. With independence comes fiscal responsibility, and the fact is that an independent Scottish government will start its fiscal life with a PSBR of ?9 billion. That means that the government will have to cut some ?6 billion of spending in its first 3 budgets, and another ?3 billion in its next three.

 

Can you see an independent Scottish government stepping up to the plate and doing just that?

[Drew Busby !]

I'm not an economist. And this is not about arguing about figures until the cows come home. With independence comes fiscal responsibility, and the fact is that an independent Scottish government will start its fiscal life with a PSBR of ?9 billion. That means that the government will have to cut some ?6 billion of spending in its first 3 budgets, and another ?3 billion in its next three.

 

Can you see an independent Scottish government stepping up to the plate and doing just that?

 

You completely discount oil tax-take though as far as I can see.

 

I don't for one second doubt that it will be a bloody and drawn out battle to get our rightful share of that. However if we are recognised as an independent nation state then that will be ours by right.

 

Christ, Brown recognised Kosovo at the drop of a hat. And this nation is has somewhat greater historic legitimacy that they, and any number of fractured east-european states that arose from the death of communism.

[Drew Busby !]

You completely discount oil tax-take though as far as I can see.

 

I don't for one second doubt that it will be a bloody and drawn out battle to get our rightful share of that. However if we are recognised as an independent nation state then that will be ours by right.

 

Christ, Brown recognised Kosovo at the drop of a hat. And this nation is has somewhat greater historic legitimacy that they, and any number of fractured east-european states that arose from the death of communism.

 

To clarify there, I should have written bloody and drawn out LEGAL battle

[PsychocAndy]

I voted yes.

I too remember Thatch one day we had school milk the next day gone. They should have thought about that in 1979(?). I never voted for them and Scotland never voted for them but wee still got the buggers.

If the vote was to join a european super union or a British one I choose europe for the same reason.

 

Hey you've got the right to oppose my views but there mine and I like them

[Makween]

Out of interest, does anyone think that Shetland should be independent?

 

After all, they only became a part of Scotland in the past few hundred years as security against a loan to Denmark, if I recall correctly, which was never paid back. The Shetland isles have just as valid a case for independence as Scotland - especially since it's their oil.

 

Why should those nasty Edinburgh bureaucrats have the right to steal their oil? And so on.

[Coco]

I'm not an economist. And this is not about arguing about figures until the cows come home. With independence comes fiscal responsibility, and the fact is that an independent Scottish government will start its fiscal life with a PSBR of ?9 billion. That means that the government will have to cut some ?6 billion of spending in its first 3 budgets, and another ?3 billion in its next three.

 

Can you see an independent Scottish government stepping up to the plate and doing just that?

 

The figures are not clear enough or detailed enough to make such detailed forecasts as that. There remain lots of grey areas on non-identifiable expenditure for example. And on 'shared' assets.

 

However, it is clear that the size of the State in Scotland is too large. It would need to be reduced by some amount.

 

In addition - as I said above the process of reducing the size of the State in Scotland would be absolutely brutal, but it could enable a higher growth economy in the future.

[davemclaren]

Out of interest, does anyone think that Shetland should be independent?

 

After all, they only became a part of Scotland in the past few hundred years as security against a loan to Denmark, if I recall correctly, which was never paid back. The Shetland isles have just as valid a case for independence as Scotland - especially since it's their oil.

 

Why should those nasty Edinburgh bureaucrats have the right to steal their oil? And so on.

 

15th Century I think. You'll be suggesting the Fife Independence party next.

[Toggie88]

15th Century I think. You'll be suggesting the Fife Independence party next.

 

They are a "Kingdom"

[Vic Vespa]

I'm with Mel Gibson on this one.

 

Joined the YSN many moons ago at 13 and that was many billions of pounds worth of oil revenue ago I can tell you.

 

Feel sorry for England, lived there for 10 years but the day they vote the Tories back in, i.e. very soon will be the final straw for many up here and a catalyst for major change.

[Toggie88]

I'm with Mel Gibson on this one.

 

Joined the YSN many moons ago at 13 and that was many billions of pounds worth of oil revenue ago I can tell you.

 

Feel sorry for England, lived there for 10 years but the day they vote the Tories back in, i.e. very soon will be the final straw for many up here and a catalyst for major change.

 

You were in the YSN? That couldn't have been yesterday. It changed to the YSI about 10 year ago I think.

[billco98]

NO from me!

 

The SNP appeal to the yes voters by reeling out historical myth and fantasies!

 

Salmond continually refers to scotland as this great small celtic nation when in fact we have never been exlusivley a celtic nation, scotland has included anglo saxons, Normans and scandanavians from it's medieval beggings.

 

Likewise the notion that scotlands history as part of the British Empire is one of systematic abuse and exploitation is absurd, if anything scotland has been overrepresented as part of it's ruling establishment for well over two hundred years.

 

The effort to turn scot's into the irish (trying to make us bitter and resentful about our links to Britain) does a disservice not only to historical truth, but to scotland itself!

 

Sorry, but you're way out of date with that argument.

 

The SNP do not pedal hatred towards the English - yes, they quite rightly point out that we are a nation and as such can stand up in the world on our own. We have our own legal system and strong identity which we have every right to be proud of. We have contributed far above our fighting weight in all aspects of the post-industrial revolution development of the UK. We have the universities, business acumen and resources to make a very good fist of it on our own.

 

I look very enviously across the sea to our cousins in Ireland. They achieved their independence in a violent struggle after the democratic means of reaching that end were thwarted. We will not be going down that route.

[Le Chat]

An independant Scotland couldn't afford Glasgow's Social Security bill.

[Drew Busby !]

An independant Scotland couldn't afford Glasgow's Social Security bill.

 

Easily sorted mate. When I'm president they can either accept a reduction in benefits or they can take a one-off never to be repeated SINGLE payment of ?10K. If they want to blow that on smack, the bookies, fish-suppers ... fine by me. As a result the economy gets a wee spending injection (christ even drug dealers have to spend their money in the shops) and the deadbeat generation will start to disappear through natural wastage.

 

Well thats the welfare part of my manifesto spelled out.

[Le Chat]

Easily sorted mate. When I'm president they can either accept a reduction in benefits or they can take a one-off never to be repeated SINGLE payment of ?10K. If they want to blow that on smack, the bookies, fish-suppers ... fine by me. As a result the economy gets a wee spending injection (christ even drug dealers have to spend their money in the shops) and the deadbeat generation will start to disappear through natural wastage.

 

Well thats the welfare part of my manifesto spelled out.

 

Add in a little machine-gunning and you've got my vote.

[Drew Busby !]

Add in a little machine-gunning and you've got my vote.

 

Thats under the Leisure section of my manifesto. Scotland will lead the way again. Paintball, laser-quest ... have all become deeply boring. Instead thrill-seekers will be given high-calibre hi-powered weapons to land as many (ahem) trophies as they can in the sink-estates of Glasgow.

 

Think "Predator".

[Ulysses]

The figures are not clear enough or detailed enough to make such detailed forecasts as that. There remain lots of grey areas on non-identifiable expenditure for example. And on 'shared' assets.

 

However, it is clear that the size of the State in Scotland is too large. It would need to be reduced by some amount.

 

In addition - as I said above the process of reducing the size of the State in Scotland would be absolutely brutal, but it could enable a higher growth economy in the future.

 

The figures are not clear enough because of the issues involved in non-identifiable expenditure (e.g. debt servicing) and shared and extra-regio assets and revenues.

 

However, the GERS publications have done a good job of mapping out what the likely fiscal situation would be. It would help if the most recent GERS reports were available (they won't be published until June 2008), but the imputed PSBR figures for Scotland have been quite constant over the years and there is no good reason why they should suddenly shift.

 

What those figures show is exactly what Coco says; the size and cost of government in Scotland is too high and would have to be reduced in an independent Scotland.

[Ulysses]

You completely discount oil tax-take though as far as I can see.

 

I don't for one second doubt that it will be a bloody and drawn out battle to get our rightful share of that. However if we are recognised as an independent nation state then that will be ours by right.

 

I've probably been more generous with North Sea revenues than I should have been. Scotland's PSBR excluding North Sea revenues would be closer to 12.5% of GDP than the 10% I've quoted. In the absence of 2006 and 2007 GERS estimates, I've assumed a higher share of oil revenues on the basis that this would be the outcome of a negotiated independence settlement.

 

In the "legal battle" scenario you envisage, what would actually happen is that oil would make a lower contribution to taxation than it does at present. If you start from today, negotiations on ownership and taxation of oil would take a number of years. If Scotland then refused to accept a negotiated settlement and went for a legal battle after independence, you are looking at several more years in the international courts. It is unlikely that you'd see a result this side of the end of 2017, and by that time production will be about half what it is today, with further declines as the industry phases out by about 2025.

 

None of the major oil producers are exploring the North Sea anymore. BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil have already sold out some of their fields, and are planning to sell the rest. The big guns are moving out, leaving the declining yields to companies who specialise in squeezing what they can out of dying oil fields.

 

When talking about the fiscal position of an independent Scotland, oil is a red herring, even with prices at record levels.

[Drew Busby !]

I've probably been more generous with North Sea revenues than I should have been. Scotland's PSBR excluding North Sea revenues would be closer to 12.5% of GDP than the 10% I've quoted. In the absence of 2006 and 2007 GERS estimates, I've assumed a higher share of oil revenues on the basis that this would be the outcome of a negotiated independence settlement.

 

In the "legal battle" scenario you envisage, what would actually happen is that oil would make a lower contribution to taxation than it does at present. If you start from today, negotiations on ownership and taxation of oil would take a number of years. If Scotland then refused to accept a negotiated settlement and went for a legal battle after independence, you are looking at several more years in the international courts. It is unlikely that you'd see a result this side of the end of 2017, and by that time production will be about half what it is today, with further declines as the industry phases out by about 2025.

 

None of the major oil producers are exploring the North Sea anymore. BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil have already sold out some of their fields, and are planning to sell the rest. The big guns are moving out, leaving the declining yields to companies who specialise in squeezing what they can out of dying oil fields.

 

When talking about the fiscal position of an independent Scotland, oil is a red herring, even with prices at record levels.

 

Been hearing that red-herring all my adult life. According to unionists theres no point in using that as part of post-independence planning because it's always on the verge of drying out. Thats been bollocks for years.

 

New oil-recovery technology, re-opening of previously uneconomic fields, new oil-field exploration and discoveries in the northern and particulary western areas... and all at premium barrel prices ... are all likely to maintain the oli-industry for nearer decades rather than years.

 

Anyway as interesting as these pro/con economic debates are, the quest for self-determination is about much more than contentious and ultimately unprovable economics. Historically as an Irishman you'll appreciate that.

[Ulysses]

Been hearing that red-herring all my adult life. According to unionists theres no point in using that as part of post-independence planning because it's always on the verge of drying out. Thats been bollocks for years.

 

New oil-recovery technology, re-opening of previously uneconomic fields, new oil-field exploration and discoveries in the northern and particulary western areas... and all at premium barrel prices ... are all likely to maintain the oli-industry for nearer decades rather than years.

 

Anyway as interesting as these pro/con economic debates are, the quest for self-determination is about much more than contentious and ultimately unprovable economics. Historically as an Irishman you'll appreciate that.

 

I'm not a unionist.

 

The big oil companies are getting out of the North Sea.

 

What new discoveries are being made are fields smaller than 50 million barrels, or about 30 days at current production levels.

 

Investment in exploration is falling despite rising oil prices.

 

The most generous estimates of the oil industry and the Norwegian and British governments is that oil production will continue on a declining basis for 25 years - and that includes estimates for undiscovered oil.

 

So this is not about unprovable economics.

 

We spent the first 45 years after independence making the most stupid political and economic policy decisions, based on irrational and romanticised notions of what we were and where we stood in the world. It was only in 1966 that we started to learn our way out of economic isolation and backwardness, and even then our progress was badly impaired by the dead hand of post-colonial politics and our inability to make tough decisions in the wake of our entry to the European Community and the 1973 oil shock. It took until the early 1990s for the Irish economy to start to really develop.

 

So my arguments are not for or against Scottish independence. My arguments are about the point of Scottish independence. So here's a proposition for you - argue against it if you wish:

 

There is one purpose in Scotland being independent and one purpose only - and that is to improve the economic and social wellbeing of the Scottish people.

 

So if you're planning on self-determination, it is crucial that your government and your political discourse is firmly centred around how an independent Scotland can deliver that purpose.

 

And if an independent Scotland is to avoid the awful mistakes made by an independent Ireland, its policies have to be clear-headed and rational. Oil money is windfall money and it cannot be relied on in future. Scotland can't hope to be lucky - it has to plan to be clever. And a good starting point is to say that spending over 50% of GDP on the public sector and running a high PSBR will not work, and to plan to change that. If Scotland doesn't do that and just tries to muddle through on the back of oil money, then independence will fail in the only way that really matters.

[Drew Busby !]

This week - and as todays Sunday papers will testify afters Wendy's incredible feck-up - there is a tangible prospect of a winnable independence referendum in 2 years time.

 

Never have I seen the political planets aligning so favourably. I take nothing for granted, much can yet go wrong from a nationalist perspective.

 

But the current prospects of possible success are without precedent since I cast my first vote in 1979.

 

Happy days

[Boab Mugabe]

I'm not a unionist.

 

The big oil companies are getting out of the North Sea.

 

What new discoveries are being made are fields smaller than 50 million barrels, or about 30 days at current production levels.

 

Investment in exploration is falling despite rising oil prices.

 

The most generous estimates of the oil industry and the Norwegian and British governments is that oil production will continue on a declining basis for 25 years - and that includes estimates for undiscovered oil.

 

So this is not about unprovable economics.

 

We spent the first 45 years after independence making the most stupid political and economic policy decisions, based on irrational and romanticised notions of what we were and where we stood in the world. It was only in 1966 that we started to learn our way out of economic isolation and backwardness, and even then our progress was badly impaired by the dead hand of post-colonial politics and our inability to make tough decisions in the wake of our entry to the European Community and the 1973 oil shock. It took until the early 1990s for the Irish economy to start to really develop.

 

So my arguments are not for or against Scottish independence. My arguments are about the point of Scottish independence. So here's a proposition for you - argue against it if you wish:

 

There is one purpose in Scotland being independent and one purpose only - and that is to improve the economic and social wellbeing of the Scottish people.

 

So if you're planning on self-determination, it is crucial that your government and your political discourse is firmly centred around how an independent Scotland can deliver that purpose.

 

And if an independent Scotland is to avoid the awful mistakes made by an independent Ireland, its policies have to be clear-headed and rational. Oil money is windfall money and it cannot be relied on in future. Scotland can't hope to be lucky - it has to plan to be clever. And a good starting point is to say that spending over 50% of GDP on the public sector and running a high PSBR will not work, and to plan to change that. If Scotland doesn't do that and just tries to muddle through on the back of oil money, then independence will fail in the only way that really matters.

 

Fantastic post. If Scotland were able to sustain itself then the argument would be completely different. As it stands, Scotland HAS to rely on going to Westminster cap in hand and with a giant public sector that nobody seems to want to reduce, seems it always will, no matter the astronomical price of depleting oil resources.

 

My mother grew up in the ultra-nationalistic De Valera Ireland where speaking an archaic, globally useless language took precedence over genuine skills and as a result she suffered. I believe Irish is still a necessary Leaving Cert for 6th Formers, which is quite frankly laughable.

[colinmaroon]

A resounding

 

 

YES

 

 

from me!!!

 

 

And there's a spin off benefit:

 

Rangers would leave the country!!!!

 

 

 

 

..................

[ecjambo]

Would vote No, but can see why people are saying Yes on this poll. Labour are a bunch of diddies the now and that Wendy Alexander should be given the bullet

[Toggie88]

Would vote No, but can see why people are saying Yes on this poll. Labour are a bunch of diddies the now and that Wendy Alexander should be given the bullet

 

So...you'd vote with Labour?

 

That doesn't make sense.

[S.N.T.H.]

It's a 'no' from me.

 

Doesn't surprise me that the OP wants independence, TBH. Anyone with the year of The Battle of Bannockburn in their signature is clearly radical.

[Ulysses]

I believe Irish is still a necessary Leaving Cert for 6th Formers, which is quite frankly laughable.

 

Irish has to be passed in order to get into University, with some exceptions for people who lived outside Ireland during some of their school years. A lot of people here regard it as laughable as well, but we're used to it. I speak the language quite proficiently, as does my son, and I'm cool with that.

 

I don't have a position one way or the other on Scottish independence - or to be more accurate, I don't live there so it's not for me to say. What I am saying is that the big question we should always ask ourselves about political arrangements and institutions is whether or not they are good for people.

[NEILY1874]

It's a 'no' from me.

 

Doesn't surprise me that the OP wants independence, TBH. Anyone with the year of The Battle of Bannockburn in their signature is clearly radical.

 

[haj]

Really? Honestly dude why do you bother?

 

Because he's a *****

[Drew Busby !]

Well well well...

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece

[mac]

DB, if that's the case, then I'm voting "yes".

 

If it's not the case, then I'm voting "yes".

[NEILY1874]

DB, if that's the case, then I'm voting "yes".

 

If it's not the case, then I'm voting "yes".

 

Cant see your name in the 'yes' votes mac.

[fordy]

I voted no, don't think independence would benefit the country.