Would you vote for independence?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

don't understand all the support for a council tax freeze alongside calls for more tax raising powers. Council tax hits the rich hardest and is difficult to avoid. Income tax is much easier to avoid. Most home owners have mortgages and at current low rates are quids in. Worst of all it turns Local

Councils into Holyrood lackies. Don't see the point of local elections if local parties can't have independent spending plans to justify to voters.

 

And BTW where is the incentive for any local council to reduce Council Tax. It has happened in the past you know.

Hmmm. So the young professional couple in a 1 bed flat in Gorgie pay more than a pensioner couple in a Corstorphine bungalow?

[jambos are go!]

This

 

Gideon's bright idea of taxing the oil companies more only serves to damage oil revenues in this country as much of the R&D budgets they have will be eaten up due to his plan. There is much more exploration to be done in the North Sea, only an idiot would tax the companies with the resources to do that. Oh wait...

 

 

 

 

As for a minimum pricing bill? Whisky is a premium brand across the globe, I don't think you'll find many Americans or Japanese that are fond of it going for the cheapest scotch blend they can find.

I favour the SNP policy but it is not enough. It will hit those who drink too much because cheap alcohol is plentiful. Largely the young and poor who know exactly how to get as much alcohol as possible for a fiver or a tenner etc. Usually cider , lager or fortified wines. It will have no affect on those who can afford not to drink plonk but are still are quietly getting sozzled in their homes and ruining their health and families. Pub prices will be unaffected because they are well above the proposed minimum price. If you buy propriety Spirits or wines these prices should not rise also

 

We need more than one weapon to tackle the scourge of Scotland. But minimum pricing is a start. Breath tests in the workplace would be a major step forward IMO.

[jambos are go!]

Hmmm. So the young professional couple in a 1 bed flat in Gorgie pay more than a pensioner couple in a Corstorphine bungalow?

no they would not. There will always be exceptions but folk with lots of money tend to live in big houses and council tax relief is harder to avoid unless you have really low income or non home asserts.

 

Whilst poorer pensioners/citizens get council tax relief no matter the value of their home a gripe amongst the middle class retired is that although their income (and Income tax)may have reduced substantially they still have to pay full council tax. Scrapping the freeze and extending council tax relief would be more progressive. All IMO.

[Patrick Bateman]

Breath tests in the workplace would be a major step forward IMO.

 

Err, why?

[jambos are go!]

 

Err, why?

Because it would stop folks drinking so much on the day or the night before

it would act either as a deterrent or a wake up call. Not my idea by the way just one I think might be effective.

[Alba gu Brath]

We have an abudance of natural resources which if successfully exploited will generate signinifcant income. However, there is loads of oil left, much of which hasn't yet been tapped into.

 

117 of 230 independent nations in the world have a lower population than Scotland and these countries manage just fine. The recipe to success is not spending loads of money you don't have.

 

Scotland would be re-industrialised, something which hasn't happened since Thatcher shut everything down, which would create mass employment and wealth, and atrract investment from abroad.

 

Good points. And to reply to an earlier poster, how many small independent countries have sought to rejoin their 'unions'? Every country has its woes from time to time. The UK economy is a constant cycle of boom and bust. Even Ireland and Iceland haven't sought London and Copenhagen rule again - maybe because they're not actually in that bad a situation. The UK is bust. The USA is kept afloat by Chinese money.

 

I honestly can't see any reason for Scotland not to do better than it does under the union. Seems strange that in the past decade or two, we've seen many 'new' nations emerge from the auld Soviet Union. Some are pretty poor but none to my knowledge are seeking to be ruled by Moscow again.

[Cabbie754]

Good points. And to reply to an earlier poster, how many small independent countries have sought to rejoin their 'unions'? Every country has its woes from time to time. The UK economy is a constant cycle of boom and bust. Even Ireland and Iceland haven't sought London and Copenhagen rule again - maybe because they're not actually in that bad a situation. The UK is bust. The USA is kept afloat by Chinese money.

 

I honestly can't see any reason for Scotland not to do better than it does under the union. Seems strange that in the past decade or two, we've seen many 'new' nations emerge from the auld Soviet Union. Some are pretty poor but none to my knowledge are seeking to be ruled by Moscow again.

[BervieJambo]

Interesting debate. I voted SNP and to me it was a personal view of the majority of the policies and the competence of the individual politicians representing each party.

However, I don't think Scotland is ready for independence, not yet at least. I think the whole scaremongering over the economy is nonsense, Scotland has more than enough resources, through oil, renewable energy, water (often overlooked and currently undervalued), whisky and tourism to maintain itself.

The main issue I perceive is one of a mindset - too many Scots continue to have the predominantly English view that we are an important nation in world affairs and we should maintain our influence in these matters. Independence immediately makes us small and insignificant and many Scots could just not accept that.

[davemclaren]

I think devolution is a step on the road. I think independent countries have to start with the right to everythiung but can negotiate away stuff via treaties etc... To me, doing that isn't about being less independent but accepting that working with other nations can have benefits. Ultimately, the Euro nations have the right to walk away from it though in practice that would be difficult.

 

A bit woolly I know but there you go.

 

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Jim-Sillars-Politics-of-.6768003.jp

[jumpship]

Just a half hour video that explains a lot to me!

 

Precious Few Heroes: The case for Scottish independence (Part 1 of 3)

 

Its 3 parts each, around 10 minutes long....

Its informative and funny(ish)....

[H2]

The kickback election poll was reasonably accurate. This would suggest that Independence is becoming nearer a reality.

[jambo_man]

I`d say maybe the next 10 years scotland will have independence.

 

Yes vote for mr

[Big D]

I would urge everyone who cares for the future of Scots in Scotland to read up on 1919. Especially the fact that the minister of war (Churchill) was able to order troops to control Scots' political opinions, with tanks and bayonets. Attitudes may have changed in 90 odd years, but the behaviour of the U.S. (london's masters) suggests direct military assault on political leaders is still their preferred tactic.

[davemclaren]

I would urge everyone who cares for the future of Scots in Scotland to read up on 1919. Especially the fact that the minister of war (Churchill) was able to order troops to control Scots' political opinions, with tanks and bayonets. Attitudes may have changed in 90 odd years, but the behaviour of the U.S. (london's masters) suggests direct military assault on political leaders is still their preferred tactic.

 

 

Are you warning us of an impending US dirty tricks poison plot against Alex's porridge?

[jambos are go!]

Are you warning us of an impending US dirty tricks poison plot against Alex's porridge?

If Big Eck keeps backtracking towards independence lite ( AKA as Dev+ or Federalism) it might be Big D who will be interfering with his breakfast cereal.

 

Hard to believe a few weeks ago I was being slagged for suggesting that there were different factions within the SNP after different end results. Long odds against the word 'independence' appearing on the referendum ballot paper according to pundits. I'd have a straight yes or no to independence question.

[Cabbie754]

If Big Eck keeps backtracking towards independence lite ( AKA as Dev+ or Federalism) it might be Big D who will be interfering with his breakfast cereal.

 

Hard to believe a few weeks ago I was being slagged for suggesting that there were different factions within the SNP after different end results. Long odds against the word 'independence' appearing on the referendum ballot paper according to pundits. I'd have a straight yes or no to independence question.

 

Salmond is a gradualist but he's very clever and is trying to woo those who have doubts by advocation fiscal autonomy or shared this or that. (independence light)

 

Fundamentalists believe Scotland should declair independence when a majority of SNP MSP's are elected but here lies the problem with the fundamentalist beliefs is that many would not vote SNP if that was the case so the gradualist approach is adopted.

 

Simple isn't it but independence is on it's way and it looks like the gradualist way is the way it will be achieved. The SNP became electable when they adopted the referendum policy as this is what stopped a lot of people voting SNP in the past.

[tcjambo]

Insanity if we ever went down this route. So it's a never ever from me!

[jambos are go!]

Salmond is a gradualist but he's very clever and is trying to woo those who have doubts by advocation fiscal autonomy or shared this or that. (independence light)

 

Fundamentalists believe Scotland should declair independence when a majority of SNP MSP's are elected but here lies the problem with the fundamentalist beliefs is

that many would not vote SNP if that was the case so the gradualist approach is adopted.

 

Simple isn't it but independence is on it's way and it looks like the gradualist way is the way it will be achieved. The SNP became electable when they adopted the referendum policy as this is what stopped a lot of people voting SNP in the past.

So the SNP is trying to hoodwink us into

independence then?

[Big D]

So the SNP is trying to hoodwink us into

independence then?

No we are trying to save us from dependence. Amazing the number of unionists who rail against individual dependence culture, yet advocate it for a nation of individuals.

The U.S depends on Scotland being controlled from london. Anyone who thinks they are not capable of anything to keep their way, hasn't been paying attention for the last 100 years.

[jambos are go!]

No we are trying to save us from dependence. Amazing the number of unionists who rail against individual dependence culture, yet advocate it for a nation of individuals.

The U.S depends on Scotland being controlled from london. Anyone who thinks they are not capable of anything to keep their way, hasn't been paying attention for the last 100 years.

 

Always get you and DAs root mixed up but did you not say you were not a member of the SNP?

 

Surely Salmonds ideas on relying on the UK for Defence and Foreign p0licy is dependence. So is the policy on shared social welfare with the UK that handles individuals soaked in dependence culture. Why bother with pseudo independence methinks - you are entitled to think differently. Why bother - a good slogan for the No campaign IMO.

[Big D]

Always get you and DAs root mixed up but did you not say you were not a member of the SNP?

Surely Salmonds ideas on relying on the UK for Defence and Foreign p0licy is dependence. So is the policy on shared social welfare with the UK that handles individuals soaked in dependence culture. Why bother with pseudo independence methinks - you are entitled to think differently. Why bother - a good slogan for the No campaign IMO.

When did you start believing anything I say? The British army has been dependent on Scots and Scotland for bases, leadership, special forces and cannon fodder for centuries. A Scottish defence force is SNP policy, but it makes sense to share security until the Rump pays us what it owes Scotland. Welfare is tricky. We certainly don't want herds of southern ne'rdowells(neds)sponging off solvent Scotland. So again, until we are paid what is owed, it makes sense to continue to subsidise the Rump.

"Why bother" is genius. But not I suspect in the way it was intended.

[JamboX2]

Just a half hour video that explains a lot to me!

 

Precious Few Heroes: The case for Scottish independence (Part 1 of 3)

 

Its 3 parts each, around 10 minutes long....

Its informative and funny(ish)....

 

Selective history.

 

Parcel of Rogues is a good story but thats all it was. Queensbury actually helped Scotland more than most men. In 1705 he'd been apart of a team of commissioners appointed by the Scottish Parliament to receive money from the Queen in order to help found a Professor of Laws at Edinburgh University. The money he received founded it in 1707. The riots of 1707 eventually died out and there was no insurrections until 1715, why? Because the atrocious financial and economic crises and the famine in Scotland up to 1707 were all but wiped out in the months following the Union. The English colonies in America were reopened to Scottish Trade and the free trade, which had not existed due to a tariff war on both sides of the border, became a key driver in Scottish modernisation. The Parliament in Edinburgh, which was widely seen in Scotland for decades as corrupt and bought by various foreign interests from across Europe, was closed. It's mix of Lords and Commoners in 1 chamber had caused Scotland to stagnate and remain largely feudal. The Pro-Unionists prior to the first round of negotiations in 1702, were known as modernisers. Their aim was to improve an old and out dated Scots law, an outdated near feudal system and improve economic conditions. The Anti-Unionists were in the pay of the Pretender King and his allies abroad, a King the majority of Scots had rejected in 1688, James VII & II.

 

Scotland was financially bankrupt. Courts couldn't pay judges and so they were frequently bribed. Political offices of State were also unpaid posts, leading to poor administration, poor leadership and bad governance. In fact the Scottish Parliament's notary abruptly stops recording parliamentary proceedings in the 1700s due a lack of payment for his work. Officers in what was a Scottish Military frequently deserted to become privateers to gain a wage. The nation was bankrupt due to the failure of the Darien colony, which was a terrible idea from the start. It had pretty much wiped out the Scottish Merchant fleet and on the collapse of the Scotland Company it took with it the vast private and economic wealth of Scotland. Adding to the economic crisis a famine caused by a potato blight wiped out scotlands remaining economy and caused mass social unrest.

 

Like it or not the Union was necessary, and was already widely accepted by the majority of well educated, modernisers in Scotland. It saved Scotland and forced a very narrow ruling elite to modernise or die. The nations wealth soared in the century after Union and it's popularity is proven in this period with the failures of the 1715 rebellion and the '45 rebellion in gaining a majority of Scottish support. In fact Prince Charlie in 1745 took Edinburgh but was welcomed with a general indifference. More Scots also fought for Cumberlands army than Prince Charlie's from his defeat at Derby on.

 

Scotland has been throughout its history been pro-unionist. It has been of immense good to Scotland, from our position in the world to our social services. The issue over things like Scottish Oil are I admit poorly handled, as in the USA the local state receives a share of natural resource wealth. But this was proposed repeatedly in the 1970s by both the Heath and Callaghan governments only to be rejected by the Scotland Office, not the ministers but the civil service, who said it was more of a problem than it was worth.

 

If we are to debate independence seriously we cannot look back to 1707 and the situation surrounding Union. We need to debate what the future holds for us. What would make our nation stronger and better. I want home rule, and I want more powers in Holyrood. But I don't see the solution to our problems being solved by independence. If anything I fear the removal of the UK and aspects of rule from London, such as our strong seat at the negotiating seat in the EU and elsewhere would be lost and we'd be no greater than Ireland. The pound is the only sensible economic option, the Euro, set to benefit Germany and France would decimate such a fragile economy as our own. I've said this earlier, but we need to have an idea of what we mean by Unionism and Independence. This is a grey debate, its not all black and white. Even Salmond has said that. We really do need to consider what we want. I suspect the majority of Scots want more fiscal control, more policy areas over social services, or amending powers here but hand in hand with the security and strength the Union gives us. If anything it's the English who should be demanding independence. I mean they are the only region not to have a devolved government. I think federalisation is the only real and workable answer. A federal government sitting in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster and an English parliament seated in Birmingham or another part of London.

[Cabbie754]

Selective history.

 

Parcel of Rogues is a good story but thats all it was.

 

If we are to debate independence seriously we cannot look back to 1707 and the situation surrounding Union.

 

Funny how you just looked back to 1707 but no one else should? I wonder why?

 

Anyway the rest of your post was all about Scotland being to wee, too stupid and too poor to be independent.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Funny how you just looked back to 1707 but no one else should? I wonder why?

 

Anyway the rest of your post was all about Scotland being to wee, too stupid and too poor to be independent.

I actually thought his post was very good in terms of spelling out the context of the Act of Union. The question now should not be about perceived injustices at that time or afterwards but what is best for Scotland now.

[JamboX2]

Funny how you just looked back to 1707 but no one else should? I wonder why?

 

Anyway the rest of your post was all about Scotland being to wee, too stupid and too poor to be independent.

 

I never meant to give that impression about Scotland today, which I view as having the building blocks to be a dynamic and modern society which looks forward. I was merely, as Geoff Kilpatrick pointed out, trying to set the context of why the Union happened, and its actual benefits. I fear that we have an extremely rose tinted view our past. Where as in actual fact we were pretty much a European backwater. The Union was forged in part by Scots and it made Scotland. It would be a radically different nation today, probably a lot more like Ireland, than what we know. And by that I mean no real industrial heritage and to a degree parochial in some respects up to the later end of the 20th century. After all Ireland pretty much modernised around about 1966. It was about a decade behind the UK and Scotland. But As I said the Union done a hell of a lot of good for us. It made us a world player, and gave us free access to the colonies and their resources. Tom Devine (I think it was him) wrote that in 1707 England lost a possible enemy, and Scotland gained an Empire. That is the true measure of what happened. We were immensely benefitted by the Union.

 

Despite all the doom and gloom and naysaying on both the Nationalist and Unionist side of the debate there is scope for greater control of Scotland through the Scottish Parliament. I think Unionists should embrace more powers and make the point that it is through Union and not separation that we can make Scotland greater. As said above today we boast some of the UKs best Universities and scientific research centres that go with that. We have an immense amount of renewable energy to take advantage of, we also have the basic blocks left from the deindustrialization process to rebuild areas of shipbuilding and high skill industry to make us a stronger, more diverse knowledge and skill economy. We do need MORE powers, yes. That's widely accepted. But we also need the strength and security the Union provides. We have a shared language, history and I believe, destiny, as our southern neighbours in Wales and England and Norther Ireland. We can be a great nation again, but greatness is not guaranteed by separation. Greatness is the best of what we make of our lot and how we build Scotland. We should take pride in both Scotland but also Britain. There's a lot to be changed and improved but through co-operation and competition within the Union we can make Scotland as strong and as dynamic as we want.

 

I'd also say a lot of our industry and trade is very much reliant on the Union. Especially in heavy industry. It is hard to imagine the remnant of the UK government wanting to build her destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers on the clyde and forth. That's simple politics. We need the Union as much as we need devolved power and decision making. It's mutually beneficial to the future prosperity of Scotland to have a degree of sovereignty and say in how we want Scotland to operate, whilst at the same time being apart of a wider nation that provides us free access to the wider world and greater economic viability and security than we'd have on our own. As recent events show.

[JamboX2]

I would urge everyone who cares for the future of Scots in Scotland to read up on 1919. Especially the fact that the minister of war (Churchill) was able to order troops to control Scots' political opinions, with tanks and bayonets. Attitudes may have changed in 90 odd years, but the behaviour of the U.S. (london's masters) suggests direct military assault on political leaders is still their preferred tactic.

 

How about in London in 1910. The UK govt ordered troops onto the streets around the East Docks where Ben Tillet and his strikers were gathered. Wales 1919 same business and in the general strike everywhere in 1926. The 1919 Red Clydesiders believed in Home Rule (Devolution) as many Socialists then did. To suggest that our political freedoms and futures at any time would be constrained by the UK govt, or the US for that, is absurd imo.

[Big D]

How about in London in 1910. The UK govt ordered troops onto the streets around the East Docks where Ben Tillet and his strikers were gathered. Wales 1919 same business and in the general strike everywhere in 1926. The 1919 Red Clydesiders believed in Home Rule (Devolution) as many Socialists then did. To suggest that our political freedoms and futures at any time would be constrained by the UK govt, or the US for that, is absurd imo.

 

Is what you have just written not your opinion. I really don't follow your argument.

[JamboX2]

Is what you have just written not your opinion. I really don't follow your argument.

 

If you read the whole quote I'm disagreeing with the suggestion the UK govt would constrain our rights with troops. Clearly I've not put it across well enough, but I meant that on each occasion they were withdrawn and not used in a forceful means. 1910, 1919, 1926...all never deployed in force, but by in large to ensure the continued operation of services caught up in strike. Like the Navy being used as fireman in England a few years back. I'd have more sympathy for the idea of UK govt being tyrannical to Scotsmen and women if there was a recorded massacre in the history of Scotland perpetrated by the British Armed Forces ordered to so by the British government. In fact the only time I can recall the extreme use of force being used against ordinary working men and women was the miners strikes in the 1980s and the Poll tax riots in London. Neither of those events were connected to Scottish self-determination, they were social and economic conflicts, in the case of the poll tax rightly won, in the case of the miners strike sadly lost.

[Cabbie754]

I'd also say a lot of our industry and trade is very much reliant on the Union. Especially in heavy industry. It is hard to imagine the remnant of the UK government wanting to build her destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers on the clyde and forth. That's simple politics. We need the Union as much as we need devolved power and decision making. It's mutually beneficial to the future prosperity of Scotland to have a degree of sovereignty and say in how we want Scotland to operate, whilst at the same time being apart of a wider nation that provides us free access to the wider world and greater economic viability and security than we'd have on our own. As recent events show.

 

You are just promoting a dependency culture where Scotland should be grateful for London giving us some jobs.

 

You are back to the too wee too stupid too poor to be able to survive without the union argument again! The fact is Scotland puts more into the union than it gets out.

[JamboX2]

I'd also say a lot of our industry and trade is very much reliant on the Union. Especially in heavy industry. It is hard to imagine the remnant of the UK government wanting to build her destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers on the clyde and forth. That's simple politics. We need the Union as much as we need devolved power and decision making. It's mutually beneficial to the future prosperity of Scotland to have a degree of sovereignty and say in how we want Scotland to operate, whilst at the same time being apart of a wider nation that provides us free access to the wider world and greater economic viability and security than we'd have on our own. As recent events show.

 

 

You are just promoting a dependency culture where Scotland should be grateful for London giving us some jobs.

 

You are back to the too wee too stupid too poor to be able to survive without the union argument again! The fact is Scotland puts more into the union than it gets out.

 

 

Maybe in heavy industry we are more reliant then. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Is it a bad thing that you rely on the baker for bread? Does that make you too poor and too stupid to be able to survive? No of course not. But if there were assurances that the projects there would continue to give time to adapt to a more commercial footing then I see no reason why they couldn't be a success in your favoured total independence. If you look at some of my earlier posts I'm kinda a bit of a unionist. So I am seeing this from a unionist perspective. The point you initially made on the earlier one about the context of why union happened though is a widely accepted view of the times then. Today is obviously markedly different. We do have the skills, people and ambition to be great at whatever we want to do. But I am yet to be convinced on independence for the fact that pro-independence scots haven't really expressed how an independent Scotland would look, in what ways it'd be different. I mean are we to have the Euro? Or the Scots Pound? Are we to be in the EU? Are we to be in NATO? Are we to continue to allow the UK govt to keep Faslane and other military bases? I mean these are all things the SNP are vague on and say wait till after the referendum. That's why I'm not convinced, there seems to be this great idea of full power in Scotland but then they fail to talk about the reality, or the concrete vision. I'd want a vote on the Euro, because I personally would view handing a large amount of our currency controls and rules over interest rates to Brussels and Hamburg pretty distasteful after being told the point of independence was total sovereignty.

 

There's a great stonewall outside Holyrood, with engravings on it, different sayings and phrases. And one says "when they were in Edinburgh we could through stones at 'em, when they went to London we couldn't" or something like that. To go independent and then join the Euro currency would be a big betrayal of that kinda sentiment.

[Big D]

If you read the whole quote I'm disagreeing with the suggestion the UK govt would constrain our rights with troops. Clearly I've not put it across well enough, but I meant that on each occasion they were withdrawn and not used in a forceful means. 1910, 1919, 1926...all never deployed in force, but by in large to ensure the continued operation of services caught up in strike. Like the Navy being used as fireman in England a few years back. I'd have more sympathy for the idea of UK govt being tyrannical to Scotsmen and women if there was a recorded massacre in the history of Scotland perpetrated by the British Armed Forces ordered to so by the British government. In fact the only time I can recall the extreme use of force being used against ordinary working men and women was the miners strikes in the 1980s and the Poll tax riots in London. Neither of those events were connected to Scottish self-determination, they were social and economic conflicts, in the case of the poll tax rightly won, in the case of the miners strike sadly lost.

Didn't know you were unaware of the tanks being sent in to break up lawful assembly in 1919, and the troop trains sent to Scotland to force miners back to work at bayonet-point. Ye ken noo. Massacres were avoided by the good sense of ordinary Scots and their leaders, not by the tyrannical behaviour of the westminster government against their supposed equals.(This was not one of Churchill's finest periods.)

[Cabbie754]

Maybe in heavy industry we are more reliant then. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Is it a bad thing that you rely on the baker for bread? Does that make you too poor and too stupid to be able to survive? No of course not. But if there were assurances that the projects there would continue to give time to adapt to a more commercial footing then I see no reason why they couldn't be a success in your favoured total independence. If you look at some of my earlier posts I'm kinda a bit of a unionist. So I am seeing this from a unionist perspective. The point you initially made on the earlier one about the context of why union happened though is a widely accepted view of the times then. Today is obviously markedly different. We do have the skills, people and ambition to be great at whatever we want to do. But I am yet to be convinced on independence for the fact that pro-independence scots haven't really expressed how an independent Scotland would look, in what ways it'd be different. I mean are we to have the Euro? Or the Scots Pound? Are we to be in the EU? Are we to be in NATO? Are we to continue to allow the UK govt to keep Faslane and other military bases? I mean these are all things the SNP are vague on and say wait till after the referendum. That's why I'm not convinced, there seems to be this great idea of full power in Scotland but then they fail to talk about the reality, or the concrete vision. I'd want a vote on the Euro, because I personally would view handing a large amount of our currency controls and rules over interest rates to Brussels and Hamburg pretty distasteful after being told the point of independence was total sovereignty.

 

There's a great stonewall outside Holyrood, with engravings on it, different sayings and phrases. And one says "when they were in Edinburgh we could through stones at 'em, when they went to London we couldn't" or something like that. To go independent and then join the Euro currency would be a big betrayal of that kinda sentiment.

 

I do accept that you may be a unionist but still believes in Scotland having more power. Fair enough. I can understand the reason you are asking these questions about what currency we would have or whether we would be part of NATO and so on. You may criticise the SNP for saying some of these things would be decided in a referendum but at the end of the day it would be up to the Scottish people to decide what type of nation we would be and what role in the world we would have.

 

A couple of examples; The SNP say they would have the Queen as the head of state as Canada and Australia have and many others, however they have a policy to hold a referendum on that question. There is nothing wrong with that as it's up to the Scottish people to decide. The SNP wish Scotland to remain in the EU but then that might not be the wish of the Scottish people. The difference with the SNP and the other parties is that they do not want to govern for the sake of it as they want the Scottish people to govern themselves, choose their own destiny, after all would the SNP remain a strong political party after independence was achieved? After all the negotiations there would surely be a general election. Would the Scottish people go back to voting for a real Scottish Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative parties or would the SNP still be the voters choice or fade away? There are many questions which can't be answered and the role of the SNP is to put forward the vision and ideas of what they would like Scotland to be but ultimately it's up to the Scottish people.

 

Just another thing where the SNP differ from the unionist parties is that we have MP's who campaign to loose their jobs and would be perfectly happy for that to happen and we don't send anyone to the unelected House of Lords.

 

I believe in independence as I want Scotland to play an equal role in the world, whether that is in NATO, EU, UN it is not up to the SNP it's up t you.

[ColinS1874]

YES!!!

[JamboInSouthsea]

I do accept that you may be a unionist but still believes in Scotland having more power. Fair enough. I can understand the reason you are asking these questions about what currency we would have or whether we would be part of NATO and so on. You may criticise the SNP for saying some of these things would be decided in a referendum but at the end of the day it would be up to the Scottish people to decide what type of nation we would be and what role in the world we would have.

 

A couple of examples; The SNP say they would have the Queen as the head of state as Canada and Australia have and many others, however they have a policy to hold a referendum on that question. There is nothing wrong with that as it's up to the Scottish people to decide. The SNP wish Scotland to remain in the EU but then that might not be the wish of the Scottish people. The difference with the SNP and the other parties is that they do not want to govern for the sake of it as they want the Scottish people to govern themselves, choose their own destiny, after all would the SNP remain a strong political party after independence was achieved? After all the negotiations there would surely be a general election. Would the Scottish people go back to voting for a real Scottish Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative parties or would the SNP still be the voters choice or fade away? There are many questions which can't be answered and the role of the SNP is to put forward the vision and ideas of what they would like Scotland to be but ultimately it's up to the Scottish people.

 

Just another thing where the SNP differ from the unionist parties is that we have MP's who campaign to loose their jobs and would be perfectly happy for that to happen and we don't send anyone to the unelected House of Lords.

 

I believe in independence as I want Scotland to play an equal role in the world, whether that is in NATO, EU, UN it is not up to the SNP it's up t you.

Well said, here here etc.