Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.

He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!

Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!

As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.

Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.

Yeah I didn't explain anything at all, not even the unimportant fact that a truly seccessionist party is expected to rule the Catalonian regional government in lieu of the current "we want independece but not really as long as you give us more money" one. (/sarcasm)
As independence of any part of Spain is ilegal under the Spanish Constitution that would end in an unilateral declaration of independence if ERC fulfills their promise. I didn't feel the need to point out what happens when a part of a country breaks away without the agreement of the rest but will link this for those that have not given it a thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

So another civil war would be the worse end possible but still within the realm of possibility, the economy is still very weak and there is over 24% unemployment currently. The situation is ripe for populist movements to turn the country in a copy of the one 70 years ago that ended in yet another civil war. (BTW in the period 1833-1936 we had 6 civil wars and major rebellions in mainland Spain and that's not counting the military coups or the wars we had in the Americas)

I do agree that the Scottish case is different to Yugoslavia because the London government agreed to have a vote for it but in Spain that vote would be imposible without an overhaul of the whole Constitution with the vote given to the entire population of 47 million not just to the 7.5 million living in Catalonia as the nationalist and separatists parties want. (Independent movements have about 49.12 of the catalonian popular vote currently, so about 3million)

So if Spain's central government wants to deal with the catalonian situation without it getting out of hand, they will have to veto an independent Scotland joining the EU for the next 6 to 10 years at least, enough time for a general economic improvement of the country and the EU to defuse the break away parties influence. Otherwise they will end the country as we know it right now.

M.

Apologies for using an inappropriate phrase, and I don't mean to belittle your knowledge of Spanish politics (which is considerably greater than mine) but...

The problems in Spain are obviously an internal matter for the Spanish people, and I still fail to see how this is going to affect Scotland's EU membership.

You say Spain will wield the veto, but this would cause massive problems with other EU countries. After all, why should Scotland (which meets every aspect of EU criteria) be subjected to Spanish internal matters. The President of the EU commission is very sympathetic to Scotland, and Poland (which has strong cultural links with Scotland) have said they would welcome Scotland into the EU. Other countries are likely to back Scotland.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU, wouldn't it obligated to hoi the Eurozone? I thought adopting the Euro is a pre condition for all future New entrants to the EU.

The idea that Scotland won't be in the EU is fantastical. We meet all the entry requirements already, access to our territorial waters under the terms of EU fisheries policy is necessary to sustain the fishing industries of a few EU countries including Spain, we have almost a quarter of all renewable energy resources in the EU and 60% of the fossil fuel reserves, and there is no mechanism in EU law to handle 5.3 million EU Citizens being denied the rights and privileges granted by that citizenship because they exercised their right to democratic self-determination(and yes, Scots would remain EU citizens after a Yes vote for the rest of our lives by virtue of our status as subjects of the UK, which the Home Secretary has confirmed will remain in place exactly as it does for someone born here who chooses to move abroad). We may end up with different terms of membership right away after negotiation, or the settlement might be for both Scotland and rUK to remain as members on the current terms until the already scheduled renegotiations for all EU countries in 2021.

And no, adopting the Euro is not a precondition of membership, a statement of intent that you will, at some unspecified future time, enter into the Eurozone is required, but in practice fulfilling that pledge is entirely voluntary since joining the Eurozone requires that you first have your own currency, and that you then peg that currency to the Exchange Rate Mechanism where it must perform at a specific standard for a minimum of two years, and no method exists within EU law or treaties to compel a member state to enter into the ERM. That's why it's particularly galling that the UK was willing to sacrifice the Scottish fishing industry(and many other "regional" interests in the rest of the UK) in pursuit of a completely meaningless "Euro opt-out".

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I didn't vote UKIP or Conservative... Can I shout and scream until I am my own country?

It will be interesting to see how regional differences are dealt with in "any aiaaiaiaai aiaaiaiaa" (my touch screen is not letting me delete or cut that bit for some reason! Just keeps adding words whenever I try...) The voting.... vTvT

What if a region has, say a 90%no and 10% yes within and overall yes vote? Is there grounds to use the same be "you don't represent me!" As the SNP are foisting on the UK to remain within the union and not join the SNP in getting a few people people's names in the history books and damn the consequences?

Sorry for weird typos - not sure what the hell this tablet is doing!

I really wish that if people are going to discuss this issue, they'd at least make an attempt to do it seriously rather than throwing around grotesquely simplistic strawmen they can easily knock down. Alastair Darling tried this exact same line during the debate that was the thread's original subject with his "*sputter blink blink blink* Well I didn't vote for Alex! Hardeeharhar" routine.

Every vote in a Scottish election has worth, value, meaning, because we have proportional representation(not an ideal form of it IMO, but better than not having it at all). Whether you or anyone else voted for the SNP is irrelevant to the argument, because your vote counted for something, it contributed to the number of seats that your chosen party received regardless of whether you cast the vote in a seat where that party won by a landslide or was totally buried by another. The makeup of the parliament, therefore, is a reasonably accurate representation of Scottish public opinion, and so it can be said to represent that polity.

That is not true of the UK. Even if we set aside the fact that a large part of the lawmaking process is undertaken by an ever-growing upper house of unelected appointed or hereditary peers and focus exclusively on the House of Commons, the fact that the UK uses the First Past the Post electoral system renders the votes of millions of British people worthless; I now own and live in the flat in which I grew up. It had a Labour MP when I was born in 1986, it has had a Labour MP in every year since then, and it will likely have a Labour MP for the foreseeable future because a combination of tradition among some voters("Ma faither wis a Labour man, as wis his faither, I'll be nae different!") and years of gerrymandering(which all the Westminster parties have been guilty of, I'm not singling Labour out here) has created a built-in majority for that party here which would require the number of "swing" voters to quadruple before there was even a chance of the seat changing hands. My vote, then, is pointless. Even if I cast it for Labour as I did for a fair few years it is pointless because Labour would win this seat regardless, but it is doubly pointless if I cast it for another party since voting for the "loser" under FPTP means nothing at all. That's a pattern that is repeated up and down the country in hundreds of Westminster seats, and taken in aggregate that becomes a problem, because more and more over the years elections are decided by the ever-shrinking handful of seats that contain enough "swing" voters to actually give them a chance of changing hands at each election. The political parties know that, politicians are generally self-serving and occasionally malicious, but rarely genuinely stupid, and so manifestos and policy direction are more and more determined by what will appeal to the handful of voters in the handful of seats which can actually change a general election result. Such a system cannot, by definition, be representative of its polity. Consider; polls consistently show around 70% support across the UK(and across the political spectrum, but marginally higher among the left and among Scots) for renationalisation of public transport and utilities. Not a three year price freeze, not tighter terms and conditions of contracts with private companies, wholesale renationalisation. Can you name one Westminster party that will even talk about renationalisation, nevermind actually support a policy that nearly 3/4 of the population wants? But what the population wants is irrelevant, because the population as a whole doesn't decide elections.

That is the argument, not that the UK is uniquely unrepresentative of Scotland(although it is around 5-10% more unrepresentative of Scots given polls tend to show us as around that much more "radical" than the rUK populace), but that it is inherently unrepresentative of the whole UK, and that in the referendum we have a chance to change that and be rid of that system.

And as a wee aside, I know this comes as a fair shock to some people who favour a No vote when they toss out the "Well what if Shetland or Dumfries wants to secede from Scotland then, what about that eh eh?", but I would say yes, they absolutely have the right to pursue that if they wish. They can do exactly what Scotland has done; elect representatives who stand on an independence platform, and either seek ever-increasing levels of autonomy eventually culminating in independence(as we have), or if they have the required support negotiate to hold a referendum immediately. Scotland has this opportunity now because our historical status as a "nation" gave those campaigning for independence a head start, but I have no objections at all to any group of any reasonable(ie capable of being economically self-supporting if they want full independence and statehood) size seeking whatever degree of self-governance they want, and incidentally one of the big reasons I and many others support independence is that once Holyrood has the powers of Westminster, we can begin taking them off Holyrood as well so we can have more European levels of local governance that allow regional variations in opinion on policy to be adequately expressed. Of course, polling suggests that the result won't get anywhere near a 90-10 split unless you break it down to the level of individual streets and neighbourhoods, and outside of the loony-fringes of Libertarian micro-nations you're not likely to find that many individual streets that seek total autonomy.

 Rick_1138 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Sorry Rick, Much Text that I didn't want to repeat just to quote..

(1)The bit I didn't like about the white paper was more about the main economical points such as currency, debt (the belief Scotland wouldn't have any from the banking crisis) and the idea that scotlands wealth would be better distributed and the idea that renationalisation of things like the NHS and royal mail would be sustainable in a taxable economy of some 4 million people, without increasing taxation quite a bit or lowering public spending dramatically, he white paper seemed to suggest we could both increase spending but lower taxes....this stumped me straight off.

(2)The main issue with it all is it is all so massively vague, the white paper was more of a very detailed manifesto of pledges, or things the SNP would like to do, it is not a detailed explanation of planning how an economy could work or an idea of how we would create the infrastructure for much that we take for granted that is currently housed in England, things like HMRC, DVLA, the MOD etc, these are very important and very little has been made mention of how these will be operated in Scotland.

(3)Also the line that the SNP wont be the govt after the vote as there will be an election, while true, doesn't make the point that the negotiations over independace will be started and carried out largly by the incumbent SNP government, i.e salmond, sturgeon and sweeny, 3 people who I have yet to see talk any clear and basic facts about what they plan to do if their main ideas about the economy prove to be incorrect, which many analysts and third parties have proven to be the very likely case.

(4)I know Scptland could work as an independent country, but this whole affair has been carried out to the tune of the belief that Scotland has been given the shaft by England for 300 years, when infact it has been a very succesfull partnership and the Tories hadn't been in power for over 14 years prior to the last government so Salmond and co decrying the Tories and 'the bankers' at every minute as the reason for Scotland ills is a bit daft given that the global recession was mostly due to collapsing hedge funds and mortgage arrears in the USA and 10 years of labour excessive public spending.

(5)The fact the UK is now the fastest growing post recession economy makes me want to stay part of it, instead of stepping of the ledge into economic uncertainty with a small GDP and sizeable debt that the rUK would hand to us as the bill for buying out the Scottish debt earlier this year in the event of a Yes vote, the markets needed the confidence of that debt being covered, we will still have to pay that back, and if that is in the Euro or a new currency, it will be a lot more costly to a start up nation.

However I hold no ill will to you or anything Yodhrin, in case you thought I was having a personal attack

Hey it's cool man, I'm a total anorak for this kind of thing so I love discussing it, it's just weird how often I find myself having to defend the SNP from people considering I'm non-party affiliated and my Political Compass result is Scottish Greens A few comments though, numbered for easy reading(ahahahaha, yeah; sorry for ye olde wall o' text);

(1) The currency issue is much discussed, but the policy is hardly vague, the Fiscal Commission(who remember are a group of pretty well regarded academics independent from the Scottish Government) considered a currency union, sterlingisation(using the actual pound without formal agreement), a Scottish currency pegged to sterling via currency board or similar mechanism, a free-floating tradeable Scottish currency backed by oil, and the Euro. The researched each option in relation to Scotland's economy present and projected, detailed the pros and cons of each arrangement, and made a final recommendation that a currency union is the best option on balance for both parties. Personally I disagree and would favour a pegged independent currency, but that's because my political views mean that a small short-term economic contraction is a price worth paying for the additional autonomy of our own central bank and control over interest rates, not because I disagree with their assessments of each option.

The debt issue is actually two distinct issues. In relation to the banking crisis, debt from bank bailouts is often used by Better Together to imply that an independent Scotland would have suffered a total Greece-style collapse in 2008, but the point being made in the White Paper and elsewhere by the Yes campaign is that the figures Better Together are using are dramatically oversimplified and fail to take account of the actual process by which international financial institutions are bailed out on paper and were bailed out in practice. The liability of a nation to the losses of banks is limited to a proportion of their losses equivalent to the proportion of their business which took place within that nation. RBS for example may be a "Scottish" bank, but around 90% of its losses were incurred by their investments and stock trading arm, who's activities took place in the City and abroad. Since the vast majority of the liabilities were generated by economic activity in London, the benefits of which prior to the crash accrued to London's economy first and, if Scotland had been independent at the time, England's second, the rUK government would still have been liable for that proportion of the RBS bailout. That's why, for example, the largest single bailout of a UK bank was Barclays by the US Federal Reserve, to the tune of over £600billion, and the USFR also contributed over £100billion each to the RBS and Lloyds/HBOS bailouts. So yes, an independent Scotland would have faced a higher liability from the banking crisis, but only around an additional 1% of the total(assuming 10% total activities in Scotland, and our usual slightly-over-population-share of around 9% was our actual contribution in '08 and the years after), not 100% of the whole banks' liabilities as Better Together imply. The second debt issue is essentially just a negotiating tactic, "give us what we want or we won't take the debt", the reality is that by far the most likely scenario is some form of currency arrangement is made(probably called something other than a "currency union" to allow Westminster to save face), and Scotland will take on a negotiated share of the debt roughly equivalent to a per-capita sum, plus or minus a few percent depending on offsets from negotiations over the assets.

The tax&spend issue is more a policy issue, and it's a huuuuge mess to get into, so forgive me if I skip over some things, but essentially the argument is that through a combination of spending reductions in areas we don't currently control(like defence), reform of the tax system including lowering APD and corporation tax to stimulate business alongside reductions in loopholes and exemptions to reduce evasion and avoidance, and various pokes and prods at the economic levers like long-term low-interest borrowing to fund infrastructure that will pay for itself like social housing, the Scottish government could achieve the balance of spending reductions and revenue increases to fund their policies, without having to increase direct taxation on the individual through income tax or VAT. It's a fairly standard centrist economic plan, and it may or may not work, but it's not completely unreasonable and the SNP's planned expenditures are actually pretty modest compared to what a lot of folk in the Yes campaign will be advocating and voting for post-independence, which could mean personal taxation will go up depending on who's elected, but that's true regardless of independence - the Tories swore blind they wouldn't increase VAT, yet they did. In '97 Labour swore blind they were still the party of the workers, then they cut corporation tax twice and planned to do it a third time. Essentially when it comes to the various economic arguments, the only point actually relevant to the referendum question itself is "Can Scotland's economy, as it stands or with a few very minor and predictable tweaks, support the same standards of living and access to services we have right now?" - the numbers suggest it can, and everything beyond that is straying into the more everyday political choices that will be made in elections post-independence.

(2) The infrastructure thing doesn't seem to be a huge problem to my eyes - as it stands a lot of taxation infrastructure, for example, already exists in Scotland, same for the benefits system, indeed we provide service to some parts of England in those areas. There is infrastructure in Scotland that services us and England, and some in England that services us as well as them. The only rational expectation is that there will be a negotiated transitional arrangement that allows Scotland and rUK to disentangle such services in the way that will cause the least disruption, and we're actually quite lucky in that regard since there's already a planned UK-wide IT systems upgrade due to take place over the course of the next parliament so, according to Professor Dunleavy of LSE, the actual "cost"(ie additional money over what we would have paid into that infrastructure upgrade as part of the UK through our taxes) of setting up the necessary infrastructure in an independent Scotland would only be around 200-600 million(in his view towards the lower end of the estimate), which as well we have to remember will be partially offset by the economic benefits of the government injecting that much money into the private sector and the additional public sector jobs created.

(3) I think I've addressed the economics/policy point above, so I'll stick to the negotiations/elections point here. While it's true that the SNP will play a big role in negotiations - Alex Salmond will still be first minister and they'll still be the elected government - they're savvy enough to recognise that the results of the negotiations have to be perceived as legitimate by the electorate, which is why there's already been a commitment that the actual negotiating team that will enter into talks with Westminster will be a cross-party, all-party affair with advisory input from charities and other civic bodies as well as independent non-partisan academic and legal support. Doubtless the SNP will attempt to portray the resulting deal as being largely their responsibility after the fact, they won't have a disproportionate influence over the actual forging of the deal.

(4) While there's certainly an element of the whole "parcel o' rogues" narrative, down at the actual campaigning level among the grassroots, the vast majority of people recognise that the Union has by no means always been a bad deal for Scotland as an entity, however there is a sentiment that the mismanagement began a little further back than Blair and the '08 crash, indeed I'd argue those things merely cemented an already-present resentment generated by Thatcher, and that it goes wider than just economics - I meet a lot of folk who wouldn't have voted Yes for a million quid ten years ago, but between Iraq and the fact that, when analysed in retrospect, since Thatcher the policies and attitudes of both Labour and the Tories have been too close for comfort, are willing to set aside their positive views of the rest of the people of the UK and any negative views they have of the SNP in order to take a stand against and hopefully change direction away from the Westminster system itself.

(5) The UK economy may be growing, but a lot of people are not seeing the benefit of that. A large portion of the growth is being generated by yet another housing bubble in London & the SE, and for a lot of people on low or even middle incomes things are tougher now than they were during the recession itself. Scotland's GDP is hardly small either, on a per-capita basis we'd be 14th in the world(UK 16th), and the majority of the countries in the top 10 are similarly-sized European states with far less natural resources than we have access to - Scotland's economic future is no more uncertain under independence than it is as part of the UK really - will the UK be in Europe come the by-2017 in-out referendum? Will the new housing bubble collapse again? Will the NHS be driven fully into the private sector if we sign up to TTIP and Cameron continues to refuse to negotiate an exemption? There are always challenges, for me it comes down to a question of whether or not you think Scotland is capable of self-governance, because if we are capable then solutions will be found, policies will be formulated, elections will be won, and we'll deal with them, just as other countries do.

One final point, the debt issue has already been clarified for the sake of the markets; the UK Treasury issued a statement acknowledging that, as the signatory, they bear sole responsibility for all debt accrued by the UK prior to September 18th 2014, by virtue of the fact that they will claim the status of "continuing state" in the event of a Yes vote. It is not functionally possible for the nation of Scotland, which will not have existed prior to our independence day in 2016 according to the UK's own policy, to default on debt it did not generate. Now of course, functionally, we were part of the UK when the debt was generated and so the "threat" to walk away from the debt is a negotiating tactic and political posturing, just as the "No pound for you, Jockos!" line is from the UK government, but it is at least a logically sound point to make; fair share of the debt, the liabilities, must be compensated for with a fair share of the assets, and while it's technically possible that the markets could choose to treat Scotland as having defaulted in effect if we were to walk away from our share of the debt, even though factually and legally we'd have done no such thing, that would require the markets to make a moral judgement of this hypothetical set of events, and given the choice between taking a principled ethical stance, or lending at generally favourable rates to a new customer with no debt weighing them down and access to substantial natural resources, do we really think the Great Googly Moogly in the sky of Capitalism is going to say "thanks, but no thanks, you were meanies to the UK"? Again though, it's not going to happen, because I genuinely don't think it's likely that the negotiations will be acrimonious enough to generate sufficient public support for such a move, we'll take a bit of the debt, UK will give us a bit of a deal on currency and a reasonable share of other non-physical assets, both sides will end up with the usual mix of wins and losses that happen in every negotiated compromise.

If you right now want a passport that will generally speaking let you go abroad without difficulty get a UK one. If there is a yes vote in September it still will take several years for an independent Scotland to be fully set up.

I don't know if the SNP has worked out how to allocate Scottish citizenship to people or what happens if they refuse it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.

He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!

Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!

It was explained, Miguelsan cannot be blamed for your inability to understand a reasoned position.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.

They dont need to , it only takes one to veto, so I never saw the need to look into it.
Nevertheless Belgian government officials have made comments:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snps-flemish-ally-warns-indy-scotland-cant-have-a-la-carte-eu-membership.1371372268

Amazing what a little Google search will bring up.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

6 out of 2000 or something like that!

So you are complaining now that Scotland doesnt have enough control over the EU. Are you on drugs?
First the six SNP MEP's are not all Scotlands quota, second there are not 2k MEP's, there are 751 and they are broadly apportioned according to population.

Anyhow weren't you mumbling something about wanting out of the UK for 'democratic self determination', along the deluded grounds that Scots don't currently have self determination as equal partners of the UK, and in the same breath worrying about not getting into the EU.
Could you at least show some sort of consistency; by that I mean logical consistency, your 'input' has been quite consistent in its own way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you right now want a passport that will generally speaking let you go abroad without difficulty get a UK one. If there is a yes vote in September it still will take several years for an independent Scotland to be fully set up.

I don't know if the SNP has worked out how to allocate Scottish citizenship to people or what happens if they refuse it.

There's still discussion over that, and that's one area in which I'd agree the White Paper wasn't as clear as it could have been, but I believe(and forgive me if I make a mistake I'm going from memory) it's since been clarified that anyone who presently resides in Scotland and was either born here or has "leave to remain" status with the UK will be offered citizenship automatically, anyone born in Scotland going forward will have Scottish citizenship automatically, and anyone currently residing abroad who was born in Scotland or who has a parent who was born in Scotland will be entitled to apply for citizenship(but will not be granted it automatically).

If someone were to refuse Scottish citizenship, they'd still be entitled to reside, work, or study here if they had a UK passport by virtue of EU laws, providing rUK remains within the EU of course, if they were to vote to leave in 2017 people would have to choose whether to then take Scottish citizenship as well, or to remain solely citizens of the UK in which case their status would be subject to whatever negotiations happened thereafter(although considering how things work with RoI right now, there shouldn't be too many issues with non-EU-UK people wanting to stay in Scotland).

Can't help but roll my eyes at all this "Scotland is a special snowflake! We'll,get our own way on everything! No other European country would reject our membership of the EU they'll all welcome us with open arms!" bollocks...

The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.

 Yodhrin wrote:


The idea that Scotland won't be in the EU is fantastical. We meet all the entry requirements already, <snip>

Scotland failing to get into the EU is not fantastical, its just a probably reality the Yes campaign is refusing to face, because honesty is bad for their case.

 Yodhrin wrote:

access to our territorial waters under the terms of EU fisheries policy is necessary to sustain the fishing industries of a few EU countries including Spain,

If you know anything about Spanish fishing is that they don't stick to boundaries or quotas. There have been tussles with Spanish trawlers right outside UK ports (and I don't mean Gibraltar) where nobody is supposed to fish due to nevigational safety.
The Spanish will fish in Scottish waters no matter what happens. It may affect other nations though.
Just ask a fisherman about Spanish trawlers, go ahead.

 Yodhrin wrote:

we have almost a quarter of all renewable energy resources in the EU and 60% of the fossil fuel reserves,

Even your glorious leader Wee Eck hasnt found a way to export waves, though in a North Koreanesque way he might get to invent one for Scots to marvel at.
As for the fossil fuel reserves the 60% figure is a myth.
The real fgiure you are bending is that Scotland currently produces 60% of the EU's oil, and thats production, not reserves. Nice try on the spin job.

As England has most of the coal and the gas, indeed Englands coal reserves are the densest and richest in the world, (its our unions not our mines that are unviable).
Meanwhile the oil fields are shared with Norway, and Norway is worried that Salmond will have to overpump to pay for his glorious new Scotland and will demand a renegotiation of the North Sea treaties. As Salmond has already threatened to block EU shipping from Scottish waters, thus actually cutting off Norwegian trade routes they are not exactly happy with you.
What oil Scotland does genuinely have is mostly in deep fields that are not profitable to extract from, however its easier to spin the whole figures rather than the practical figures as the true picture doesnt klook good for iScotland and the Yes camapign are reluctant for Scots to realise this.

Oh by the way, in case you start off on one, it's not called 'Project Fear' if much of the oil Salmond claims in his figures are in reality too deep to viably drill, its called geology.

 Yodhrin wrote:
and there is no mechanism in EU law to handle 5.3 million EU Citizens being denied the rights and privileges granted by that citizenship because they exercised their right to democratic self-determination(and yes, Scots would remain EU citizens after a Yes vote for the rest of our lives by virtue of our status as subjects of the UK, which the Home Secretary has confirmed will remain in place exactly as it does for someone born here who chooses to move abroad). We may end up with different terms of membership right away after negotiation, or the settlement might be for both Scotland and rUK to remain as members on the current terms until the already scheduled renegotiations for all EU countries in 2021.

This admittedly is a problem, which is why the French and the Spanish have carefully worded their warning, it was presented in the links earlier. If Scotland leaves the EU its leaves the EU by choice. A Yes vote voluntarily gives up EU citizenship on a national level, noone is stripping Scots of EU status, Scots do it themselves.
Scots are not forced however to give up their EU citizenship. They could decide to move elsewhere in the EU while they still can, they could also of course choose to vote No.

 Yodhrin wrote:

And no, adopting the Euro is not a precondition of membership, a statement of intent that you will,

It is for new member nations, especailly for ones that as you put it fulfil entry requirements. The only way out would be to share the pound. However the rUK is not stupid enough to agree to this. It would mean trusting Salmond with what is essentially a joint bank account for overdraft purposes. This may actually be in Scotlands interest, Salmond can borrow and borrow and an economy nine times larger guarantees the debt, but from our perspective it would be like handing out open credit cards to a hostile spouse on a shopping frenzy.

 Yodhrin wrote:

at some unspecified future time, enter into the Eurozone is required, but in practice fulfilling that pledge is entirely voluntary since joining the Eurozone requires that you first have your own currency, and that you then peg that currency to the Exchange Rate Mechanism where it must perform at a specific standard for a minimum of two years, and no method exists within EU law or treaties to compel a member state to enter into the ERM. That's why it's particularly galling that the UK was willing to sacrifice the Scottish fishing industry(and many other "regional" interests in the rest of the UK) in pursuit of a completely meaningless "Euro opt-out".

Amazing how the rules dont work in your favour, you have four choices. Try and bully the Uk into accepting the joint pound (which will NOT happen), Panamaisation, form your own currnecy and have to join the Euro, or make your own currency and not renter the EU. You could instead vote No, it looks like even more Scots are seeing that as the safest option, especially thanks to your glorious leaders refusal to even have a Plan B.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I really wish that if people are going to discuss this issue, they'd at least make an attempt to do it seriously rather than throwing around grotesquely simplistic strawmen they can easily knock down. Alastair Darling tried this exact same line during the debate that was the thread's original subject with his "*sputter blink blink blink* Well I didn't vote for Alex! Hardeeharhar" routine.

Actually Salmond was trying the propaganda routine of, we didn't vote half the Westminster governments. This is not valid because as part of the UK everyone got one vote and if Scotland did get half the Westminster governments it wanted then as 5% of the population they are getting a good deal on an individual level. There are many people in the UK who would want a 50% achievement rate, c10 million Lib Dems for a start.

In any event Darlings response about the Scots who are stuck with Salmond having not voted for him was favourably received, he got the first laugh of the evening and it was a good parry. It was equally valid and goes to show that in a democracy, you dont always get what you want, its why we have ballots by majority consent you see.

 Yodhrin wrote:


And as a wee aside, I know this comes as a fair shock to some people who favour a No vote when they toss out the "Well what if Shetland or Dumfries wants to secede from Scotland then, what about that eh eh?", but I would say yes, they absolutely have the right to pursue that if they wish.

Salmond however said a flat no to it. He cant have a proper gravy train with only have the gravy. Shetlands would take a way a lot of the oil with them, so no self determination for them.
In a way this is fair, the Scottish parliament is allowed to run the referendum and its rules and has chosen one vote yes or no for all that is currently Scotland.
Should the bid fail and the SNP renege on the agreement that the vote is final, both outcomes are increasingly likely, then there is a position to claim that any future referendum can be made on the UK's terms, not Holyroods.

 Yodhrin wrote:

They can do exactly what Scotland has done; elect representatives who stand on an independence platform, and either seek ever-increasing levels of autonomy eventually culminating in independence(as we have), or if they have the required support negotiate to hold a referendum immediately. Scotland has this opportunity now because our historical status as a "nation" gave those campaigning for independence a head start, but I have no objections at all to any group of any reasonable(ie capable of being economically self-supporting if they want full independence and statehood) size seeking whatever degree of self-governance they want,

You just be smoking the strong stuff. iScotland would be the most centralised state in Europe ratyher than the most relaxed as your idyllic picture paints.
That is some serious propaganda you are spouting, real Big Lie stuff, where people get to believe the complete opposite to what is happening. Do you actually believe it or did you just swallow it because it came from the Yes camp.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/scotland-most-centralised-in-europe-cosla-1-3387590
http://reformscotland.com/index.php/publications/details/2073
http://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=11332&article=www.thinkscotland.org
http://www.shetlink.com/index.php?/topic/8541-yet-more-centralisation/

Multiple sources from two think tanks, a press article and an eye on the ground (which in fairness the last is a partisan 'forum' opinion and is only included for flavour, not evidence)

I can imagine that the Yers camp is going to try and convince Scotls that power is being develoved to Scots, but in reality the only devolution been seen has been to Holyrood, not from Holyrood.
Frankly I dont beleive your honeyed words about parts of Scotland getting more autonomy, because the facts show the complete opposite. Indeed the police has now been completely centralised, which is worrisome frankly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.

Pity that would cause problems with Span and Italy then.

Also Salmond is the special snowflake, not Scotland, half the problems would disappear if he did. Threats against the EU do not endear, not when you are trying to join.
Also the is a process and the EU moves slowly, you need to grease the wheels liberally with cash and gravy, and that cant be sped up because the ker-ching only lasts as long as the process.
That isnt Scotlands problem its the problem dealing with the EU full stop.

I do not in any way contest, and never have that Scotland doesn't meet all the indexes, it does, very clearly; but the is always another angle.

If you dont/wont or cant beleive that remember what happened when the UK tried to join in 63 and 67, blocked both times by France alone, and for very trivial reasons brought forwards basically due to the racism of one man.

It is extremely naive to think that just because a nation is ready for EU membership in terms of infrastructure and indexing that it will just get in. WE DIDNT and that is the hard reality. Miguelsan has already explained by Scotland wont, and Salmond cannot bypass the Spanish veto right, no matter how much porridge he throws about the EU chamber. We know this is true, because Wilson and Heath could not bypass DeGaulls right to say 'Non' even if it was for bogus reasons and every other EU member was in agreement with the UKs application.

Sorry time to wake up. Killkrazy, life isn't fair, just because Scotland has the credentials doesn't mean it gets to join the club, there are other factors.

I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".

Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;

Michael Blackley ‏@Mike_Blackley 3h

There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Apologies for using an inappropriate phrase, and I don't mean to belittle your knowledge of Spanish politics (which is considerably greater than mine) but...

The problems in Spain are obviously an internal matter for the Spanish people, and I still fail to see how this is going to affect Scotland's EU membership.

You say Spain will wield the veto, but this would cause massive problems with other EU countries. After all, why should Scotland (which meets every aspect of EU criteria) be subjected to Spanish internal matters. The President of the EU commission is very sympathetic to Scotland, and Poland (which has strong cultural links with Scotland) have said they would welcome Scotland into the EU. Other countries are likely to back Scotland.

I'm sorry to say that it's because the system was designed for one country to veto certain things and it has never been changed.

I do agree that internal matters of one country affecting other countries joining or not the EU might seems unfair but it's the bread and butter of the Union. As Orlanth said the French have a story of it for petty reasons and not only blocked the UK access twice but the French president Giscard d'Estaing is on the record saying in 1980 that Spain would enter the then EEC when the internal matters of the Comunity were resolved (meaning never) it took a new French president and 5 more years of negotiations before Spain joined. With the political situation in Spain as is I expect a long road for an independent Scotland before joining.

Knowing the Union and the amount of backroom deals is entirely possible that a face saving compromise worthy of You Make da Call could be arranged to keep Scotland in but I don't see the Cameron government working on that. If the letter of the teatries is followed Scotland will be out of the Union as it is not expelling a country from the club but a new one that wants to enter and that from the moment of independence will have to sign its own treaties with others and will not be able to piggyback those already signed by the UK.

M.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".

If you want to convince people to vote Yes, as your icon sugsts, choose honest methods.

There are honest reasons to vote Yes, its means that there is no Westminster involvement, it means Scotland can have a completely separate foreign, defence and economic policy. It will allow Holyrood to repeal laws Scots don't want.
All are honest rrasons for voting Yes, there are of course opposite opinions to each of those issues, and some people will vote No on account of them.

Whwen those are the arguments forwarded here on Dakka, I offer a differing point of view politely and move on.

But we see cybernats promising the moon to Scots: promising a kept pound, early entry into Europe, more democracy and localisation while the SNP completes a stranglehold of centalisation, and of course boundless oil revenue, low taxes and high spending/
If you are going to vote yes for any reason, thats up to you. But when you try to convince others that Yes is the correct choice for the aforementioned bogus reasons then it is fair for me and others to point them out.
Yes I am a tough opponent, but I only get tough when people talk crap.

This is important, the referendum is the most important vote in living memory in Scotland, and probably in the whole of the UK, and there are people out there who will say anything to sway the vote, even damaging lies. That is contemptable.

And when the lies are exposed the first call is to claim its 'Project Fear'. There is no Project Fear, that was a lie made up by a Yes camp journalist in the Herald Scotland, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, but its jumped on as a de facto truth by Salmond at every opportunity. Just as there was no minister proposing monetary union between rUK and iScotland, again this was just a vacuous claim by another journalist with a vested interest in not telling the truth. We know this because every single minister publically claimed the complete opposite.

We can mitigate problems by pointing out bogus arguments as and when they are spouted. Such as:

Joint pound - no chance, with reasons given
Early EU membership - extremely unlikely, again with reasons offered
Massive energy reserves - the oil is there but the Yes camp figures do not add up
Low tax and high spending - only if Scotland borrows itself into outrageous debt.

As for your refusal to try to counter my comments, it is evidently because you cannot. All of thr above and more have independent quotes and links to verify them, and I always back up with quotes and facts you see, and thus the more you challenge them there more it is clear your arguments are not honestly represented.
I cannot say why this is, perhaps you are one of the cybernats who will say anything, tell people anything, to hoodwink them into voting Yes; or perhaps you met one or more such people who took you for a neep and filled your head with vacuous Yes camp twaddle which you in turn bring here innocently but ignorantly. Frankly it doesnt matter which.
However when you come to Dakka and spout it, as you have every right to do so, I and others will be waiting to shine a spotlight on your claims and expose them to some scrutiny.

I didn't even bother going past your first quoted comment in my last post, frankly I hadn't read the rest yet, there was enough misinformation to correct already.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;

Michael Blackley ‏@Mike_Blackley 3h

There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.

I agree with Boris, instead the promise to devolve should bypass Holyrood and give more power to Scottish councils, (and those elsewhere). This would be more practical more fair and fully keep the promise to the Scottish people of more devolution.

The one thing I still find odd is why all Scottish born nationals are not getting a vote in this if they don't currently reside in Scotland.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-scotland-independence-expats-insight-idUKKBN0FN0FM20140718

Surely that just leaves the option for lengthy courtroom drama if the yes vote was successful, especially if its by a very small margin.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".

If you want to convince people to vote Yes, as your icon sugsts, choose honest methods.

There are honest reasons to vote Yes, its means that there is no Westminster involvement, it means Scotland can have a completely separate foreign, defence and economic policy. It will allow Holyrood to repeal laws Scots don't want.
All are honest rrasons for voting Yes, there are of course opposite opinions to each of those issues, and some people will vote No on account of them.

Whwen those are the arguments forwarded here on Dakka, I offer a differing point of view politely and move on.

But we see cybernats promising the moon to Scots: promising a kept pound, early entry into Europe, more democracy and localisation while the SNP completes a stranglehold of centalisation, and of course boundless oil revenue, low taxes and high spending/
If you are going to vote yes for any reason, thats up to you. But when you try to convince others that Yes is the correct choice for the aforementioned bogus reasons then it is fair for me and others to point them out.
Yes I am a tough opponent, but I only get tough when people talk crap.

This is important, the referendum is the most important vote in living memory in Scotland, and probably in the whole of the UK, and there are people out there who will say anything to sway the vote, even damaging lies. That is contemptable.

And when the lies are exposed the first call is to claim its 'Project Fear'. There is no Project Fear, that was a lie made up by a Yes camp journalist in the Herald Scotland, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, but its jumped on as a de facto truth by Salmond at every opportunity. Just as there was no minister proposing monetary union between rUK and iScotland, again this was just a vacuous claim by another journalist with a vested interest in not telling the truth. We know this because every single minister publically claimed the complete opposite.

We can mitigate problems by pointing out bogus arguments as and when they are spouted. Such as:

Joint pound - no chance, with reasons given
Early EU membership - extremely unlikely, again with reasons offered
Massive energy reserves - the oil is there but the Yes camp figures do not add up
Low tax and high spending - only if Scotland borrows itself into outrageous debt.

As for your refusal to try to counter my comments, it is evidently because you cannot. All of thr above and more have independent quotes and links to verify them, and I always back up with quotes and facts you see, and thus the more you challenge them there more it is clear your arguments are not honestly represented.
I cannot say why this is, perhaps you are one of the cybernats who will say anything, tell people anything, to hoodwink them into voting Yes; or perhaps you met one or more such people who took you for a neep and filled your head with vacuous Yes camp twaddle which you in turn bring here innocently but ignorantly. Frankly it doesnt matter which.
However when you come to Dakka and spout it, as you have every right to do so, I and others will be waiting to shine a spotlight on your claims and expose them to some scrutiny.

I didn't even bother going past your first quoted comment in my last post, frankly I hadn't read the rest yet, there was enough misinformation to correct already.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;

Michael Blackley ‏@Mike_Blackley 3h

There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.

I agree with Boris, instead the promise to devolve should bypass Holyrood and give more power to Scottish councils, (and those elsewhere). This would be more practical more fair and fully keep the promise to the Scottish people of more devolution.

Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.

From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc

There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.

Where is the moral case for the UK?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
The one thing I still find odd is why all Scottish born nationals are not getting a vote in this if they don't currently reside in Scotland.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-scotland-independence-expats-insight-idUKKBN0FN0FM20140718

Surely that just leaves the option for lengthy courtroom drama if the yes vote was successful, especially if its by a very small margin.

Because it would have been a logistical nightmare and both sides agreed to limit the vote to the people who live and work in Scotland.

There have been many examples of people born in Scotland, leaving for Australia/Canada etc in their 20s, and saying they should have the vote, even though they've lived in their new countries for 50+ years!

Let's dial it down a bit please with regards to the colourful comments towards other users.

No need to throw in the unnecessary jibes and digs.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because it would have been a logistical nightmare and both sides agreed to limit the vote to the people who live and work in Scotland.

There have been many examples of people born in Scotland, leaving for Australia/Canada etc in their 20s, and saying they should have the vote, even though they've lived in their new countries for 50+ years!

A logistical nightmare.. it'd be the same as postal votes, folks need to apply, check the Scottish register to make sure they where born in Scotland.. and yeah.. not seeing it. The fact it is feared, rightly or wrongly by the Yes campaign that many of them would vote No has nothing to do with it of course.

As to the fifty years comment, so what... folks who move into Scotland in the next month and aren't even born there if a GB or EU citizen and apply by 2nd of sep are good to go, so why not those who actually where. Goes back to the concern they'll vote no.. seems dodgy to me.

So will be interesting to see if a yes vote happens, if court cases will follow.

The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.

From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc

There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.

Where is the moral case for the UK?

I believe I already answered that one?

I mean, I suppose I could throw about 'what is the moral case for England being a part of the UK', when England was subjected to New Labour (Scottish votes influenced their majority and political makeup). But you can't stop there, it then becomes, 'what is the moral case for Wessex being part of England?' And then, 'What is the moral case for this street here being aligned with that street over there'.

Ultimately, I think you have to stop and accept that in a democracy, you get a direct proportion of the results in line with the population count examined. As Yodhrin posted earlier (I believe him and me thrashed out with the figures in the past), there's something along the lines of a 5-10% political split between the rest of the UK and Scotland politically. You could point to that as evidencing the political differences between the two nations, but logically, you could then use that argument to justify splitting up all of the Uk safe seats into three different countries called 'Labourville', Conservativedom', and 'Liberalston'. Just because certain areas are more inclined politically in a specific direction doesn't mean they should be split up into independent fiefdoms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.

I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.

Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
The one thing I still find odd is why all Scottish born nationals are not getting a vote in this if they don't currently reside in Scotland.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/uk-scotland-independence-expats-insight-idUKKBN0FN0FM20140718

Surely that just leaves the option for lengthy courtroom drama if the yes vote was successful, especially if its by a very small margin.

Actually it was handled fairly.

Only those resident in Scotland get to vote, this means Scots whio live elsewhere dont and non Scots who live in Scotland do.
This is fair because it accounts for immigration.
While Scots living in Scotland get to vote and that is logical.
What about English living in Scotland. If you block them then people may cry race discrimination.
After all if Black and Asian immigrants are allowed to vote and English are not there would be discrimination, if Black and Asians were disallowed a vote there would be howling.

As for Scots not living in Scotland, who are the scots? Does it include people of non white origin who,lived in Scotland for a while, if not why not. As far as citizenship they are as much Scottish as someone who can claim ancestry, that is the way our society works.

Eventually the only way it can work is on residency. Do you live in Scotland, yes/No, if yes you vote, unless underage or in prison, otherwise you do not get to vote.

There is also a poetic justice that well known Scots that don't live in Scotland for tax purposes forfeit their opportunity to vote, Sean Connery for example . I would be saying this even if he was an avid No supporter. If they are really Scottish they can live in Scotland and pay Scottish tax.

Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.

Ok in turn.

Tell me that the foodbanks, - These occur because we had a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who really put us in a debt position that is difficult to recover from.
the poor being demonised, - Which poor are being demonised? cuts are hurting yes, but cuts were neceessary. iScotland will need cuts also, some analysts think Scotland will need more savings and cuts because they will have to create an administrative infrastructure from scratch. Setting up all the departments for a modern country gets less efficient the smaller the population. iScotland may need an administrative core of a department like the Ministry of Transport about the same size as the UK, but has less tax to make it out of.
billions spent on nuclear weapons, - More like millions in the anual costs, billions over time yes. Nukes give the UK status as one of the five powers, with UN veto etc. It's important.
the assault on the NHS, - What assault on the NHS? That is New Labour standard spin, trolled out year in year out: "NHS not safe under tories blah blah". The NHS is safe. However like other departments you need a lot of tax to cover it, iScotland will struggle to achieve this.
the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West - Unequality reinforced by New Labour, byy taking the voting ground of the left and then pissing on the left. Salmond is Scotlands Blair, he is doing the same to a large extent. iScotland will largely emulate New Labour, the Uk is heading back in the opposite direction.
the rise of child poverty in a rich country - If you want to see child poverty check out Glasgow. It will only get worse without a UK tax to help out. As fro general child poverty, its a side effect of the Gordon Brown's catastrophic 'leadership'.
and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, - Farage will not get his way. Britain may indeed renogotiate its EU terms, just like thatcher did, but that is because the Uk is strong. One of the things Salmond promised Scotland is the same breaks the Uk gets. This is not going to happen, the Uk gets to negotiate its position on favourable grounds because it is a major part of the EU and a major contributor, Scotland will be a lot smaller and will have to do as its told. Salmond probably realises this, but wont admit it, its not his way.

is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits. - You are free to consider it is not, and as far as reasons go they arent basd ones. What you said above is not false. however iScotland is no better, and probably will be a whole lot worse. It wont be a fairer society, that is certain because of th extreme centralisation and the bully boy mentality of the SNP leadership.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc

You have posted a picture of doom and gloom about statying in the UK.
If the Bt case sounds even doomier and gloomier it is because the message is bad news. We frosee iScotland being a financial disaster at least in the short term You cant blame Better Together for a 'negative' campaign, the negativities shown are frankly valid, and are stark warnings because they happen to be true.

Currency union wont happen, bad news for anyone who wants to vote Yes, but the reasons are not to cause doom, but to oprevent a greater doom that will occur if iScotland gets to have a joint account with the rUK, and borrows heavily leaving the rUK to foot the bill.

However the real 'negativity' comes from having to rebute the number of false positives of the Yes campaign. It may seem like Salmonds message on Europe is 'optimistic' wheras the Better Together view is 'pessimistic', that is only because one is saying 'we can' the other saying 'we cant'. But the message that 'we can' is frankly spurious, its a matter of truth and falsehood.

As for Doctor Who, it will be syndicated. Scottish version of the BBC will buy it in just as BBC America does.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.

There are lots of things positive about the Union. its one nation from Land's End to John O Groats that has lived in peace for centuries.
We have a lot of shared history and culture. Built the largest Empire the world has ever known together, brought humanity into the Industrial age together, defeated Hitler and Napoleon together. Great Brtiain is a lage island, but a smallcountry, yetv has had more influnce, much of it positive on human development than any other nation state with the possible exception of Ancient Rome and the Middle Kingdom.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it, and while all nations have broken bits, this one is still working in spite of poor governance, because it is inherently strong. UK is a small nation but a G8 economy, that has to count for something.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Where is the moral case for the UK?

I ask in turn, whats the moral case for the USA?
If you believe the US has the moral right to exist then you can also apply that to the Union, even more so because the 'natives' got to join in rather than be wiped out and has lasted over seventy years longer.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.

An aberration. The vote eligibility could not have been justly handled any other way.

Put it this way the results of the referendum will have huge impact south of the border. Yet I dont get to vote. I would have liked to vote (No) but cant. I do not consider this in any way unfair and dont lament the lack of opportunity to vote for myself. I am English and i live in England, while I have a vested interest (family north of the border) and national concerns (rUk may lose its UN security council seat) I don't actually have a problem with the vote being exclusive for Scottish residents only. Its just and fair that it is that way, and I dont consider myself hard done by in any way because I am not being balloted.

Yes the referendum affects England too, in a big waty, but I would comment against proposals to give the English the vote on this issue, it would not be justifiable. If I lived with my family members who live in Aberdeen, or with my mates in Paisley though, I would expect to have a voting slip and a voting opportunity, even though I don't consider myself Scottish, because it would be fair for me to be balloted as I lived there.

As one of those affected by the voting, I have reservations about the process. As you can see by the flag I'm not currently resident in Scotland, yet I am a registered voter, I own property. Yet I cant vote on something that will have an affect on just about everything of material value that I have.

I have to watch this entire process with trepidation down here not knowing what I'm coming back to.

Cheers

Andrew

If you own property there can't you just go up to register for voting and to vote? However if things go the "wrong" way you don't have to go back.

Anyone residing in Scotland who does not like the result of a "Yes" vote will be able to keep their current citizenship and refuse Scottish citizenship when it eventually is created. For that matter, the UK allows dual citizenship so technically everyone who became "Scottish" would retain their UK citizenship unless they voluntarily gave it up. Their children would also qualify for UK passports on the basis of the nationality of their parents.

Presumably there will be a mechanism for people residing south of the border to claim Scottish passports if they want to. Meanwhile they still will be UK citizens too, and can stay in the UK.

Furthermore if the newly created Scotland wishes to join the EU it will no doubt extend the legal rights of EU citizens to any EU citizens wishing to enter Scotland immediately.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.

But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.

The biggest problems here are:

The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.

Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.

Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.

Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.

Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.

I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.

Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.

What about those people who's parent's were resident in Scotland, were born in an English hospital (Due to being away from home, or being close to the border) and lived in Scotland for most of their life and then moved somewhere else? Under your plan those people would not be able to vote, but someone born in Scotland in the 1920's who moved at a young age and never went back would be able to (like my grandmother. Born in Glasgow, left aged 16 and has lived all over the world, and at the age of 93 has never lived in Scotland again).

Much better to give the vote to people it effects, i.e. those who live in Scotland right now. People living on the boarders have far more at stake than someone living in London for 20 years, yet they don't get a vote.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.

From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc

There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.

Where is the moral case for the UK?

I believe I already answered that one?

I mean, I suppose I could throw about 'what is the moral case for England being a part of the UK', when England was subjected to New Labour (Scottish votes influenced their majority and political makeup). But you can't stop there, it then becomes, 'what is the moral case for Wessex being part of England?' And then, 'What is the moral case for this street here being aligned with that street over there'.

Ultimately, I think you have to stop and accept that in a democracy, you get a direct proportion of the results in line with the population count examined. As Yodhrin posted earlier (I believe him and me thrashed out with the figures in the past), there's something along the lines of a 5-10% political split between the rest of the UK and Scotland politically. You could point to that as evidencing the political differences between the two nations, but logically, you could then use that argument to justify splitting up all of the Uk safe seats into three different countries called 'Labourville', Conservativedom', and 'Liberalston'. Just because certain areas are more inclined politically in a specific direction doesn't mean they should be split up into independent fiefdoms.

I agree to an extent that in a democracy that you have to put up with decisions you don't like, but there is such a huge imbalance between 5 million scots, 3 million Welsh, and 1 million Northern Irish Vs 60 million English men and women.
A federal system, would nip this in the bud. Replacing the house of lords with an elected chamber made up of senators from Scotland/Wales/NI and England divided into regions, could have addressed this problem, but Westminster will never agree to this, hence the unhappiness in Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.

But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.

The biggest problems here are:

The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.

Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.

Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.

Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.

Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.

I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.

Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.

What about those people who's parent's were resident in Scotland, were born in an English hospital (Due to being away from home, or being close to the border) and lived in Scotland for most of their life and then moved somewhere else? Under your plan those people would not be able to vote, but someone born in Scotland in the 1920's who moved at a young age and never went back would be able to (like my grandmother. Born in Glasgow, left aged 16 and has lived all over the world, and at the age of 93 has never lived in Scotland again).

Much better to give the vote to people it effects, i.e. those who live in Scotland right now. People living on the boarders have far more at stake than someone living in London for 20 years, yet they don't get a vote.

Not true about the Euro. You can agree in principal to adopt it, but there is no time limit for adoption. Sweden have been stalling on the euro for years, even though they agreed to adopt it.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.

Ok in turn.

Tell me that the foodbanks, - These occur because we had a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who really put us in a debt position that is difficult to recover from.
the poor being demonised, - Which poor are being demonised? cuts are hurting yes, but cuts were neceessary. iScotland will need cuts also, some analysts think Scotland will need more savings and cuts because they will have to create an administrative infrastructure from scratch. Setting up all the departments for a modern country gets less efficient the smaller the population. iScotland may need an administrative core of a department like the Ministry of Transport about the same size as the UK, but has less tax to make it out of.
billions spent on nuclear weapons, - More like millions in the anual costs, billions over time yes. Nukes give the UK status as one of the five powers, with UN veto etc. It's important.
the assault on the NHS, - What assault on the NHS? That is New Labour standard spin, trolled out year in year out: "NHS not safe under tories blah blah". The NHS is safe. However like other departments you need a lot of tax to cover it, iScotland will struggle to achieve this.
the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West - Unequality reinforced by New Labour, byy taking the voting ground of the left and then pissing on the left. Salmond is Scotlands Blair, he is doing the same to a large extent. iScotland will largely emulate New Labour, the Uk is heading back in the opposite direction.
the rise of child poverty in a rich country - If you want to see child poverty check out Glasgow. It will only get worse without a UK tax to help out. As fro general child poverty, its a side effect of the Gordon Brown's catastrophic 'leadership'.
and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, - Farage will not get his way. Britain may indeed renogotiate its EU terms, just like thatcher did, but that is because the Uk is strong. One of the things Salmond promised Scotland is the same breaks the Uk gets. This is not going to happen, the Uk gets to negotiate its position on favourable grounds because it is a major part of the EU and a major contributor, Scotland will be a lot smaller and will have to do as its told. Salmond probably realises this, but wont admit it, its not his way.

is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits. - You are free to consider it is not, and as far as reasons go they arent basd ones. What you said above is not false. however iScotland is no better, and probably will be a whole lot worse. It wont be a fairer society, that is certain because of th extreme centralisation and the bully boy mentality of the SNP leadership.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc

You have posted a picture of doom and gloom about statying in the UK.
If the Bt case sounds even doomier and gloomier it is because the message is bad news. We frosee iScotland being a financial disaster at least in the short term You cant blame Better Together for a 'negative' campaign, the negativities shown are frankly valid, and are stark warnings because they happen to be true.

Currency union wont happen, bad news for anyone who wants to vote Yes, but the reasons are not to cause doom, but to oprevent a greater doom that will occur if iScotland gets to have a joint account with the rUK, and borrows heavily leaving the rUK to foot the bill.

However the real 'negativity' comes from having to rebute the number of false positives of the Yes campaign. It may seem like Salmonds message on Europe is 'optimistic' wheras the Better Together view is 'pessimistic', that is only because one is saying 'we can' the other saying 'we cant'. But the message that 'we can' is frankly spurious, its a matter of truth and falsehood.

As for Doctor Who, it will be syndicated. Scottish version of the BBC will buy it in just as BBC America does.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.

There are lots of things positive about the Union. its one nation from Land's End to John O Groats that has lived in peace for centuries.
We have a lot of shared history and culture. Built the largest Empire the world has ever known together, brought humanity into the Industrial age together, defeated Hitler and Napoleon together. Great Brtiain is a lage island, but a smallcountry, yetv has had more influnce, much of it positive on human development than any other nation state with the possible exception of Ancient Rome and the Middle Kingdom.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it, and while all nations have broken bits, this one is still working in spite of poor governance, because it is inherently strong. UK is a small nation but a G8 economy, that has to count for something.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Where is the moral case for the UK?

I ask in turn, whats the moral case for the USA?
If you believe the US has the moral right to exist then you can also apply that to the Union, even more so because the 'natives' got to join in rather than be wiped out and has lasted over seventy years longer.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.

An aberration. The vote eligibility could not have been justly handled any other way.

Put it this way the results of the referendum will have huge impact south of the border. Yet I dont get to vote. I would have liked to vote (No) but cant. I do not consider this in any way unfair and dont lament the lack of opportunity to vote for myself. I am English and i live in England, while I have a vested interest (family north of the border) and national concerns (rUk may lose its UN security council seat) I don't actually have a problem with the vote being exclusive for Scottish residents only. Its just and fair that it is that way, and I dont consider myself hard done by in any way because I am not being balloted.

Yes the referendum affects England too, in a big waty, but I would comment against proposals to give the English the vote on this issue, it would not be justifiable. If I lived with my family members who live in Aberdeen, or with my mates in Paisley though, I would expect to have a voting slip and a voting opportunity, even though I don't consider myself Scottish, because it would be fair for me to be balloted as I lived there.

The NHS is not safe in Scotland. The creeping privatization in England (which is the fault of New Labour and the Conservatives) will result in the money the government allocates to the English NHS being cut. Scottish NHS funding reflects English NHS funding, so a cut in England = a cut in Scotland, even though they are separate. £30 billion of NHS funding in England has been put out to private tender. If there is a NO vote, there is no way Westminster will allow two separate systems in the same country. The result will be privatization in Scotland.

Given how brilliant and wonderful privatization of energy companies and the trains has been, I'm sure Scots will look forward to paying for prescription charges and fees to see their GP.

There are not prescription charges in Scotland.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are not prescription charges in Scotland.

I know, but the fear is, they could make a comeback. Scottish Labour have already rallied against them, and seem strongly in favour of scrapping them.

Regarding the NHS and the issue of things like trident and wasteful spending, remember that Trident system costs circa £22billion over the 10 year upgrade, the NHS in the UK costs annually some £700billion, the welfare bill is somewhere in the £1.7Billion annually region also.

Scotland has a higher percentage of welfare dependants that the rest of the UK, with a lower tax take, this will becaome a greater issue in an independent Scotland, the SNP keep talking about a fairer society, which basically means the richer will pay higher taxes. Many go, "fine, they have lots to spare", well this is true, but higher earners already pay far more in tax than lower earners, they pay their fair share already, its the reason for a percentage based system, 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 10.

However this doesn't simply mean the millionaires will pay a little more each year, it means people earning over £30k a year will suddenly find themselves £150 a month worse off, with no real noticeable benefit as it just goes into the black hole that is the welfare budget.

Regarding the NHS, privatisation isn't necessarily going to appen, though many decry the privatisation of the trains as a terrible thing, many forget that the public state owned rail system was falling apart and was never getting any money spent on it, and the cost of travel today is still massively subsidised by the state, if it wasn't the cost of trains would be massively higher, many assume the train operators juist suck up all the cash and laugh, they do actually put a lot back in to replace the system, east coast being a good example.

The NHS also needs massive restructuring, it is far too wasteful, a few trusts have taken on the idea of running as a partnership, a bit like John lewis, and have started to make a 'profit' from their budget which is put back into the hospital, this should be done on a national level, therefore it is state run and funded, but pays for itself at each hospital.

privatisation doesn't just mean making it a PLC to make money.

I would much rather be part of a country with a stronger financial foundation that can work through economic issues (as we are doing) than start a new nation up that is already going to have massive start up costs (even the SNP admit it will be close to some 1.5 billion, not the £200 million originally claimed) and we will be on a knife edge economically for many years, it could all go wrong and be almost impossible to fix, why do all that for the chance to self determine that we get the same bunch of politicians 150 miles away rather than 500?

I get the idea behind it all, but its been so badly sold and set-up by salmond and the SNP as a vote winner 5 years ago rather than an actual planned process in hand with the rUK that could have worked so much better.

It all seems a bit slap dash to be honest, and with it being so important I cannot fathom any other vote than No.

Kill, I live 8,500 miles away it's not as if I can jump on a train.

To be honest I have no problem paying for attending GPs, Dentists or Prescription fees, as long as the money goes back into the NHS and not Govt coffers. It might have the side effect of reducing missed appointments.

Cheers

Andrew