# Everyone Vote in Scotland Independance



## deema (10 Sep 2014)

I love Scotland, and try to visit as often as I can. The topic on postage got me thinking. I would like Scotland to remain part of the UK, but as I reside in England (and have no Scitish blood that I'm aware of) I cannot vote. So today I decided to vote with my pocket.

My theory is that if I don't want Scotland to vote yes, economic pressure is more likely to succeed than three chaps heading north. Therefore, for my support of keeping the Union I have decided to stop buying anything Scotish, connected with Scotland and close any bank accounts I may have with banks based in Scotland until the No vote wins.
I'm sure that if everyone followed along the impact would be significant and make those determined to leave the union think again about how successful they would be Independant.

I belong to no political party, or have any other political ambition. I just want to keep us all as one country. I would therefore urge you, if you feel the same, to take similar action. 

It may not make any difference, but is as likely to have the same impact as single vote in an election. One vote is meaningless, thousands make a difference.


----------



## RogerS (10 Sep 2014)

Haggis has now been vetoed in this household. 

But I'm struggling with whisky.


----------



## Silverbirch (10 Sep 2014)

"Therefore, for my support of keeping the Union I have decided to stop buying anything Scotish, connected with Scotland and close any bank accounts I may have with banks based in Scotland until the No vote wins.

Mmm......... do you think that would work for me?
By the way, Scottish blood wouldn`t help you at all. On the other hand, if you were a sixteen year old Englishman/Bulgarian/Singaporean, living up here, you`d be in luck!

ian


----------



## theartfulbodger (10 Sep 2014)

Whichever way the vote goes, one thing seems certain - a rift has been created :|


----------



## Walney Col (10 Sep 2014)

I thought it was mars bars in batter that created the original rift.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Sep 2014)

deema":u9d1izdp said:


> I love Scotland, and try to visit as often as I can. The topic on postage got me thinking. I would like Scotland to remain part of the UK, but as I reside in England (and have no Scitish blood that I'm aware of) I cannot vote. So today I decided to vote with my pocket.
> 
> My theory is that if I don't want Scotland to vote yes, economic pressure is more likely to succeed than three chaps heading north. Therefore, for my support of keeping the Union I have decided to stop buying anything Scotish, connected with Scotland and close any bank accounts I may have with banks based in Scotland until the No vote wins.
> I'm sure that if everyone followed along the impact would be significant and make those determined to leave the union think again about how successful they would be Independant.
> ...



I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's as simple as that. My mother's pension is administered from Scotland, so what happens to that if they vote 'yes'? Will she have to visit the border once a week and be paid in baubies? Will baubies be legal tender in Cheshire?

And that's just one small example of the knots that will have to be untied, financial and otherwise.

Being an English resident, I don't have a vote, which I rather resent because it's my Union too, as it is for the Welsh and Northern Irish. I hope it's a 'no' vote in the end; after 300 years it's just starting to shake down nicely, and throwing it out now would be a great shame. Especially as Scotland has always had quite a lot of independence anyway - it's own legal system, it's own education system, religious independence, it's own system of local government, and it's own cultures. The disconnect with Westminster politicians is not a uniquely Scottish complaint either - talk to anybody in England, Wales or NI.

Still, it's Scotland's choice, and we'll all have to live the consequences of whatever choice they make, good or bad, for evermore.


----------



## Silverbirch (10 Sep 2014)

Unfortunately, the polls are showing Yes and No being neck and neck, so whichever side wins, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people. Not so much a case of Scotland deciding, as "just over half of Scotland" deciding and the rest having to put up with it.
But that's democracy.  

Ian


----------



## deema (10 Sep 2014)

I run a company, and as a consequence see the problem with democracy. My employees don't always understand the rationale behind my decisions as I'm unable to give them all the facts for various reasons. Equally, if the MD were elected, they would not vote for me, but for someone who would promise them a shorter working week, more holiday, a large pay rise, free this and that etc etc, the company would survive for about two minutes, but still they would vote them in. Very few understand a P&L, and fewer still understand cash flow. I would not blame their decision, in fact I understand it. But like Lemmings rushing over the cliff edge I would morn their loss.


----------



## Kalimna (10 Sep 2014)

I have tried to avoid most internet discussions on this because I find it difficult to control my responses to those whom I feel are basing their decisions on an emotionally charged 'We hate Westminster' notion without rationally analysing the available evidence. Would Scotland work outside of the union? Most assuredly. Will it be the nirvana that Salmond et al suggest it will be? Most assuredly not. On so many fronts, from the local to the international stage, Scotland (and the remainder of the UK) will be considerably poorer than it is now.
I truly fear for the future if Scotland are to go it alone, and I would strongly consider moving south if I was in a position to.
I also have the feeling that, give the importance of such a decision, having a simply >50% vote = winner is the wrong thing to do. I think it should be higher, e.g. at least 75% of the population eligible to vote (and not just those who turn up to vote) need to vote Yes for a change.
However, it is a democracy we live in and should be thankful for. A democracy doesn't mean you get the result you vote for, it means the result most people vote for, and this is a point I have tried to make to those who go down the 'We didn't vote for Westminster' route. Everyone in the UK has to live with the result, so I hope it is the rational, sensible choice.

Cheers,
Adam

(Just noticed your post, Deema, as I typed this up - I think you have hit the nail well and truly on the head, and in a much more succinct way than I could!)


----------



## Silverbirch (10 Sep 2014)

I absolutely agree. The notion that, if we vote for independence, the people of Scotland will thereafter always get the government we vote for, is such nonsense. Some of us will, some of us won`t, just as at present.

I also don`t like the way Scottish politicians of a certain persuasion assert that "the people of Scotland" want this or that, as if we are all one homogenous group, and separate from the rest of the U.K. 
We`re not and I hope we never will be.
Ian


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

This isn't about Scotland v England. It's about democracy. It's definitely anti-Westminster, and for sure it's not only Scotland that's being let down by the Union. Friends in Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham all feel that the UK only works for rich people in the south east. We don't live in a democracy right now; we live in an elected dictatorship! 90% of the cabinet are millionnaires, and their priorities after their second house paid for by the taxpayer, are helping out their pals from Eton who run big business. Elected by around 30% of the electorate, but given over half the seats, due to selective gerrymandering and a bad electoral system. The UK and Belarus are the only countries left in Europe using First Past The Post! Then we have the House of the Lords; an unelected plutocracy of old men sleeping on expenses! Right now Scotland has 1 Conservative MP out of 59; yet we are ruled by a Conservative led coalition. That's not some people not getting what they want; that's the overwhelmingly majority. It's the absolute definition of democratic deficit. In an Independent Scotland, with a fairer system, most people would get what they want. This isn't about the politicians or parties; it's about us, the people who live and work in Scotland. We're fed up of subsidising London. We're a rich country yet we have foodbanks, people choosing between heating and eating and massive child poverty (worse than 1in 5). We have the worst pensions in Europe, we work the longest hours and for the lowest pay. There is an awakening right now in Scotland. We are realising that we have an opportunity to redefine politics and representation and fundamentally change the system for the better. Not only that, but we could be the inspiration for progressive change in the rest of the UK too! I wont' stop buying English goods. The corrupt and biased mainstream media, newspapers and TV particularly, especially the BBC, who fear losing £300mn in funding from Scotland, is such that I can understand those not living in Scotland being out of touch with the actual debate. There's been a dramatic increase in engagement, which Yes or No only bodes well for more accountability in the future.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Sep 2014)

I don't have a vote as I live in Somerset but do strongly support the union both an intuitive sense and believe that both countries would be weaker apart - economically, politically and world level influence. I can sympathise to some extent with the independence campaign as even only 200 miles away Westminster can seem remote.

However I have come to he conclusion that the YES vote is an emotional decision, but NO is the rational choice. 

10 or 20 years hence in a "steady state" it is not possible to confidently project what the outcome will be - jobs, employment, incomes, public services etc etc. We are starting from a very similar place and future projections depend entirely on small differences in assumptions made.

However the transition will be fraught. Despite confident assurances, there are many large issues to be resolved - currency (Euro, Sterling, other), EU membership, businesses relocation south, pensions, borders, national debt. A new Scottish government will also need to set up all the machinery of an independent state - eg: tax, vehicle registration, bank regulation, embassies, foreign office, etc etc. Some may go well but some will not - and the outcome is not wholly in their hands.

The real question for the voters is whether to trade a likely 3-5 years of aggro for the possibly illusory benefit of independence.


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

themackay":b78p3evw said:


> This isn't about Scotland v England. It's about democracy. It's definitely anti-Westminster, and for sure it's not only Scotland that's being let down by the Union. Friends in Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham all feel that the UK only works for rich people in the south east. We don't live in a democracy right now; we live in an elected dictatorship! 90% of the cabinet are millionnaires, and their priorities after their second house paid for by the taxpayer, are helping out their pals from Eton who run big business. Elected by around 30% of the electorate, but given over half the seats, due to selective gerrymandering and a bad electoral system. The UK and Belarus are the only countries left in Europe using First Past The Post! Then we have the House of the Lords; an unelected plutocracy of old men sleeping on expenses! Right now Scotland has 1 Conservative MP out of 59; yet we are ruled by a Conservative led coalition. That's not some people not getting what they want; that's the overwhelmingly majority. It's the absolute definition of democratic deficit. In an Independent Scotland, with a fairer system, most people would get what they want. This isn't about the politicians or parties; it's about us, the people who live and work in Scotland. We're fed up of subsidising London. We're a rich country yet we have foodbanks, people choosing between heating and eating and massive child poverty (worse than 1in 5). We have the worst pensions in Europe, we work the longest hours and for the lowest pay. There is an awakening right now in Scotland. We are realising that we have an opportunity to redefine politics and representation and fundamentally change the system for the better. Not only that, but we could be the inspiration for progressive change in the rest of the UK too! I wont' stop buying English goods. The corrupt and biased mainstream media, newspapers and TV particularly, especially the BBC, who fear losing £300mn in funding from Scotland, is such that I can understand those not living in Scotland being out of touch with the actual debate. There's been a dramatic increase in engagement, which Yes or No only bodes well for more accountability in the future.



..until this one, we've had some very sensible and reasoned arguments so far in this thread and, of course, you are entitled to your own viewpoint but phrases such as *we live in an elected dictatorship!* are simply ridiculous. You are deluded.


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

If we lived in a true democracy we would have proportional representation and MP,s would be free to vote for the views of their constituents not told how they will vote to suit the agenda of the leadership.


----------



## Kalimna (11 Sep 2014)

Proportional representation isn't ideal either. Neither option is any good if a large proportion of the population are too bored/lazy/apathetic to vote, however. We do live in a true democracy, in that anyone of legal age and residence is eligible to vote, whatever system is chosen.
Not all parliamentary votes are closed either, as I am sure you know. 

Adam


----------



## Mark-numbers (11 Sep 2014)

All salmond has created is a divide within his own country - scots versus scots.


----------



## finneyb (11 Sep 2014)

themackay":2tcgmo2n said:


> If we lived in a true democracy we would have proportional representation and MP,s would be free to vote for the views of their constituents not told how they will vote to suit the agenda of the leadership.



But most MPs haven't the ability to get elected without the party machine - so they have to toe the line

Brian


----------



## finneyb (11 Sep 2014)

I don't think Salmond has the balls to take Scotland Independent.
If its a Yes vote you will see some devious footwork (is the referendum binding on the Scottish Govt - I doubt it) - it's a political game that he is enjoying.

Then we have Cameron, Clegg & Miliband travelling to Scotland - giving him oxygen to fan his flame.
They should be taking the line if you want to leave that's your choice - settle your account as you check-out because we don't give credit.

BUT, of course the likes of Gordon Brown, Darling and others with constituencies north of the Border would not have a Westminster seat if Scotland went independent - surprising how the threat of redundancy motivates.

Just my 2p worth

Brian


----------



## duncanh (11 Sep 2014)

It was interesting driving up to Skye from Newcastle last week. Around the border and south of Edinburgh the signs we were seeing for yes or no in gardens and windows were split about 50/50. When we got into the Highlands there were definitely more yes than no. When we were north of Fort William and all around Skye we didn't see a single sign for No. Back in Edinburgh on the way home we saw some nos but it was still mostly yes.
It's hard to know if this is a good indication of how things will go as I think most of the population is city based and we only really saw one, but my guess would be for a yes vote. It's clear that the country is very divided.


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

duncanh":3hputypr said:


> .... It's clear that the country is very divided.



That, sadly, is the legacy that Salmon and his vanity project will inflict on the population of Scotland regardless of whichever way the vote goes. The same thing happened in Canada when Quebec was voting....it was very divisive. As you say, it will be the same in Scotland.


----------



## Kalimna (11 Sep 2014)

And the divisions will only remain, perhaps more indignantly, whatever the outcome.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Yorkshire Sam (11 Sep 2014)

So if Scotland vote yes will this mean a change of name for the rest of Britain too... United Kingdom? Come to think of it hardly appropriate now anyway .. who's next? Independence for Wales and Northern Ireland, shortly followed by Cornwall?


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

Whatever happens for the good of the whole country we need to stop running it for the benefit of the bankers etc and the south east.


----------



## deema (11 Sep 2014)

I believe that Scotland would potentially have too small a population to sustain itself as an independent state. It's economic mass is too small to have its own currency that would have a stable exchange rate that would allow business to flourish. The only option would therefore be for Scotland to try and join the EU and accept full monetary union and adopt the Euro. At this point it's integration into the EU would be inexorably sealed. Full political union and the harmonizing of tax laws, and in fact of all fiscal policy is inevitable when you have the same currency to avoid the issues created in countries such as Italy and Spain. Far from becoming independent I believe they will have less autonomy than they enjoy today. 

Whilst the concern over currency continues which will last for a long time after the vote business will rush south of the border, shareholders will demand their investment is protected, creating a decline in the economy creating a situation where launching their own currency becomes almost impossible, 

With economic decline will come economic migration, these who can flee south will. The brain drain will further reduce industries desire to invest in Scotland. 

Mr Salomns only possible solution will be to try and attract more people to live in Scotland to stabilise the economy. Opening the gates for migration will not only upset the Scots but also alarm England. This will be seen as an easy port of entry to England and Scotland will only used as a transit zone. Mr Salomn will exert political pressure on England for the use of sterling in exchange for closing the immigration door. 

Why can't Scotland use sterling? Well it's like giving your bank account details to a stranger, they can run up a bill (national debt) with impunity knowing you will have to pay it off. The population of England are unlikely to stand for that and UKIP's popularity will grow if they jump on the band wagon, something none if the three main parties can allow. Further the fiscal joining will destabilise the currency on world markets as the policies necessary for a government to contain debt, economic growth, reserves etc will be spilt between two countries, the likelihood of agreement and alignment will be slim and seen as decisive by the world currency markets. 

A scenario which you may or may not agree with, but I'm sure there are elements you can see that nay arise and are best avoided.


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

Deema, your post makes an awful lot of sense. Sadly you are spot on.

Meanwhile ..



themackay":2x6x81pl said:


> Whatever happens for the good of the whole country we need to stop running it for the benefit of the bankers etc and the south east.



Yawn..............


----------



## wizard (11 Sep 2014)

Yorkshire Sam":1h4oyq7j said:


> So if Scotland vote yes will this mean a change of name for the rest of Britain too... United Kingdom? Come to think of it hardly appropriate now anyway .. who's next? Independence for Wales and Northern Ireland, shortly followed by Cornwall?


Yes bring it on


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Sep 2014)

During the various debates and discussions about Scottish independence, I've heard a great deal from the 'Yes' campaign about how an independent Scotland would distribute it's wealth more fairly. What I haven't heard is how that wealth will be earned, except through oil. Oil is a finite and diminishing resource. Independence is for ever, not just for the next few years. So - how will Scotland earn it's living in the future?

Part of the duty of government is to encourage economic activity to ensure wealth generation. That's a damned sight harder than spending it, but unless you have a vibrant private sector, tax revenues will not be sufficient to sustain the public sector - we should know, the whole UK has just been in that boat.

Railing against the 'bankers in the South East' is a false argument. The financial services industry generates a lot of wealth, and can consequently contribute a lot in tax revenue. There is plenty to argue about in the details, but the basic fact remains unalterable and unarguable. The tax money is spent all over the UK - not all the public services are paid for out of Council Tax. Defence, the NHS, the Welfare State and more are centrally funded. Consequently, Scotland gets as much benefit from the financial services industry as any other part of the UK. The whole UK benefits from the bonanza of oil revenues and the taxation on that. Given the choice of keeping one or the other - well, we know oil will run out, so financial services does look the better long-term bet as things stand. Currently, the whole UK benefits from both, which does seem the best and fairest of all solutions.


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

Cheshirechappie":esc1cppc said:


> .....
> Part of the duty of government is to encourage economic activity to ensure wealth generation. That's a damned sight harder than spending it, but unless you have a vibrant private sector, tax revenues will not be sufficient to sustain the public sector - we should know, the whole UK has just been in that boat.
> 
> ...



You have only to look at the corollary of the Council Tax to see the accuracy of your statement. Here in Herefordshire we pay more per band (in fact, well over double for Band D, for example) in Council Tax than they do in the City of Westminster. Even though the population and hence demand on council resources is considerable greater in Westminster. Herefordshire simply does not have the businesses to generate the revenue needed.


----------



## deema (11 Sep 2014)

Turnout in the 2011 Scotish parliament elections was 51%, so just over half of the over 18's voted for their own parliament. It's difficult to predict turnout for the vote in a few days, since the age limit has been reduced to 16, but needless to say that this was only done by Mr Salmon on the presumption that the younger voters will have a higher turnout and vote yes. 

However, the point of the statistic is to pick up on a post earlier, it won't potentially be 50.1% of the Scots who voted yes and 49.9 voting no, it could be 25.6% voting yes, 25.4 voting no, or invalidating their paper and 49% who did not wish to vote.

So, the union could be broken by just 25.6% of the Scots voting yes. What an appalling prospect. That's another good reason to use your economic, vote.


----------



## deema (11 Sep 2014)

If you want to encourage others to cast an economic vote to keep the union, may I ask that you push the idea through your Twitter, Facebook etc it will only work if enough people care about the union and take action. At the moment Mr Salmon is swatting away the No campaign. A real economic hiccup would definitely shift the debate away from personalities, freeby give always he is promising and give a real stop and think moment. 

By the way, I don't belong to any political party, I'm just an individual who would like to keep the union together, and I believe that like me, there are lots of people who think the same.


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

If you want to encourage others to cast an economic vote to keep the union, may I ask that you push the idea through your Twitter, Facebook etc

Be carefull what you wish for if people in Scotland were to retaliate it would hurt you more.


----------



## deema (11 Sep 2014)

That's a really interesting perspective, and one that I think would actually work against the YES vote, I'm all for retaliation, the economic stall would be far greater and faster acting and crystallise minds faster.

To put a little meat on the bones on my perspective, any retaliation would affect the profitability of Companies that have invested in Scotland, the downturn would magnify their boards perspective of the risk of the union split. The number of companies coming out against the YES vote would increase with further statements of how they pull out of Scotland. This will further damage Mr Salmons view that an Independant Scotland will thrive and offer its people a higher level of prosperity.


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

Im not saying we should retaliate I find it dissapointing that you should be encouraging people to discriminate against Scottish goods, mind you that ties in with the totally negative better together campaign


----------



## deema (11 Sep 2014)

Your absolutely right TheMackay, it's a very sad day when the only way you can have a voice is to positively discriminate against the excellent goods, services and products produced by Scotland. There appears to be little in the way of other options for all of us south of the border to have our voices heard.


----------



## Mungo (11 Sep 2014)

Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.


----------



## themackay (11 Sep 2014)

Mungo":tebbn3rg said:


> Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.



Any BBC programes worth watching can be bought for a reasonable fee


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

themackay":2lz3l0qq said:


> Mungo":2lz3l0qq said:
> 
> 
> > Taking up TheMackay's post on the BBC fearing the loss of £300m. I wonder what sort of programming the Scottish equivalent of the BBC will provide for £300m. I suspect that the viewers near the English border will be the lucky ones.
> ...



How so? Are you privy to the contractual terms of the programme makers?


----------



## RogerS (11 Sep 2014)

themackay":z5npbm7h said:


> Im not saying we should retaliate I find it dissapointing that you should be encouraging people to discriminate against Scottish goods, mind you that ties in with the totally negative better together campaign



It seems to me quite clear that you are for independence. I would be interested to understand why you say the better together campaign is totally negative. Examples please.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2014)

Who is for the No vote? - Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, banks, supermarkets, estate agents and so on. All those who have most failed Britain over the last 30 years or so. Thatcher would be a no.
Pretty convincing argument for voting Yes IMHO. 
I hope they take over the land and reverse the highland clearances. 
It could be an interesting place to live (except for the midges) - there’ll be huge queues - maybe time to move there before they close the borders!


----------



## Silverbirch (11 Sep 2014)

Jacob":37q0y51g said:


> Who is for the No vote? - Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, banks, supermarkets, estate agents and so on.



Not forgetting at least half of the Scottish electorate.




Jacob":37q0y51g said:


> I hope they take over the land and reverse the highland clearances.



Or better still, divide the country in half (it`s already been divided idealogically). Let the Yes side have the Northern half, with all the midges and oil and let the No`s have the southern half. They say St Kilda is very nice at this time of year.

Ian


----------



## Silas Gull (11 Sep 2014)

If this thing goes Salmond' s way, and then turns out to be a huge mistake, say, a decade down the line, with social divisions between Nationalists and Unionists, will there be sinister men rattling Scotaid tins in New York bars?


----------



## gregmcateer (11 Sep 2014)

Wow,
So unsurprisingly, there is a divergence of opinion even on this lil ole forum.
For me this kinda sums up the difficulty. None of us, (and I mean NO ONE, not just us forumites), seem to be able to agree on who 'subsidises' whom, or who provides more in terms of tax revenue, labour, etc, etc. There probably is some way of calculating all the ins and outs on purely financial terms, but it would be a pretty mammoth task. Once we get onto emotions, prejudices, history, etc, etc, I think we are on a non-starter.
I certainly don't know the answer.

Maybe we should go for a trial separation, perhaps sharing the Welsh on alternate weekends :lol: (Joke - just trying to lighten the mood! Hat, coat - I'm off to France....)


----------



## themackay (12 Sep 2014)

RogerS":3oz9q9pc said:


> themackay":3oz9q9pc said:
> 
> 
> > Mungo":3oz9q9pc said:
> ...




It's not easy to find; the BBC don't want us to know, but RTE, the Irish national broadcaster isn't so shady. Their accounts from 2012 show that they spent around £21mn at current exchanges rates acquiring not just single programmes, but the complete output of BBC1, 2, 3 and 4. Now given that Ireland's population is around 4.6mn, fairly similar to Scotland's, it's fair to think we should get a similar deal. 

Don't just take my word for it though:
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/about ... he-web.pdf

So, Scotland currently pays around £300mn in licence fees; BBC spends around £86mn in Scotland. I'll let you do the math but that should give us a healthy saving of nearing £200mn. Funny that the BBC support a No vote?! ;-)


----------



## Walney Col (12 Sep 2014)

Follow the money and more times than not you'll get straight to the heart of any problem.


----------



## themackay (12 Sep 2014)

RogerS":ja6r9i2b said:


> themackay":ja6r9i2b said:
> 
> 
> > Im not saying we should retaliate I find it dissapointing that you should be encouraging people to discriminate against Scottish goods, mind you that ties in with the totally negative better together campaign
> ...



Wow! Where do I start! I could go on all night, but I'll limit myself to 10...

1. Say goodbye to the pandas; on Westminster official said: “No one has fully understood the ramifications for the pandas of any bid for Scottish independence.”

2. Mobile phone bills will rise, especially roaming; (although the EU already announced plans to abolish roaming charges)

3. Scotland would be at risk to attacks from space - Defence Secretary Philip Hammond!

4. Trident and Faslane would be annexed!

5. You'll need a passport to visit relatives in England - Theresa May, Home Secretary

6. Massive exaggeration of setup costs, as high as £2.7bn; shortly after rubbished by the man who wrote the report the figure was based on, Dr Patrick Dunleavy who said the Treasury had 'badly misrepresent[ed] LSE research' (he put the figure nearer £250mn)

7. The world will end! George Robertson said an Indy Scotland would be 'cataclysmic' for the West, threatening global stability and be welcomed by 'the forces of darkness'! 

8. We'll never see Dr. Who or Eastenders ever again! Despite 75 countries around the world showing it, including our near neighbour and similarly populated Ireland, who pay around £21mn for full access to BBC1, 2, 3, and 4! Scotland currently pays around £300mn! 

9. No Currency Union said all the big guns of the mainstream parties; then privately Westminster Government ministers admitted currency union makes econmic sense to maintain fiscal and monetary stability on both sides!

10. Scotland will have to drive on the right hand side - Andy Burnham, shadow Health Secretary! The Guardian even thought this so ridiculous they ran it as their April Fool's Day story this year! 

So there you have it? You want more, just ask!


----------



## Ali (12 Sep 2014)

born and bred in the south of east of england so don't have a say in this matter, but desperately do not want the UK broken up. 

Divorce from my experience is never pretty or cheap. Even if there was a successful independent Scotland it would take time and great sacrifices to make that happen - the current and next few generations would pay for it.

Having just about survived a brutal recession I don't want to wake up next Friday to more economic armageddon


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

Oh dear, themackay. Have you never heard of 'tongue-in-cheek' comments which virtually all your examples are ?


----------



## themackay (12 Sep 2014)

Roger that was just a few examples of the nonsense from the No side.the amount of lies being told by the no campaign they dont deserve to win.


----------



## ballibeg2 (12 Sep 2014)

I'm not overly political. In the last week I've had abuse shouted at me for refusing a Yes leaflet on the street. My kids have been verbally abused school for not supporting yes.

Demonstration enough independence is wrong. 

Dave


----------



## theartfulbodger (12 Sep 2014)

That Salmond chappie seems to have incited a certain amount of racial hatred.


----------



## deema (12 Sep 2014)

In 2009-10, according to records which are the last I can find, although there may be more recent data that my search has not turned up, Scotland received £16.5 billion for the rest of the UK than it paid in taxes / contributions to the public purse. This represents a 10% higher public spend per person in Scotland than for anywhere else in England and Wales. This takes into account North Sea oil revenues. 

To put the economic size of Scotland into perspective, the population is only 3/4 that of London. No one would suggest that London has sufficient financial might to go it alone and this one city is responsible for approximately 50% of the total GDP of the country. This goes some way I believe to explain why there is so much focus of MPs on this area of the country as it is the economic power house that provides so much for everyone else. Now that's a hard statement to make being a Yorkshire man living in Cheshire!

Scotland has a higher level of unemployment than the average of the UK and also has more chronic illness such as heart disease etc. these factors, primarily require a higher public spend / head if population than the rest if the UK. If we take this underlying need that cannot be turnaround quickly coupled with an immediate lower GDP as the subsidy enjoyed from the rest of the UK disappears the economic future for everyone in Scotland would be significantly worse. 

I believe that the 'negativity' of the NO campaign is based on the very real prospect that Scotland will enter into a much deeper and longer recession than seen since 2008. The Scotish National debt will have to rise to support it's social needs, economic output will fall as company's fly south, and the damage to not just one, but multiple generations of Scott's will be palpable. Inevitably like Germany, a reunion will be necessary and desired by Scotland. The question will be whether the rest of the UK will accept the cost of the debt it will have to absorb to allow it to happen.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Sep 2014)

"5. You'll need a passport to visit relatives in England - Theresa May, Home Secretary"

Some things like this Salmond just blusters his way through - why should this not be true? Scotland will be be a foreign, non eu country (and the Spanish and one or two others will veto their joining). We don't let Australians and New Zealanders in without a passport, and many of them have closer ties to England than many Scots have. But Salmond still bumbles along,... of course we won't need a passport, of course we'll keep the Queen as head of state, of course we'll keep the pound, of course we'll still have free prescriptions, of course we'll still have an NHS, of course we'll still have free university education, of course....I'm getting tired...


----------



## themackay (12 Sep 2014)

phil.p":xpb93hoz said:


> "5. You'll need a passport to visit relatives in England - Theresa May, Home Secretary"
> 
> Some things like this Salmond just blusters his way through - why should this not be true? Scotland will be be a foreign, non eu country (and the Spanish and one or two others will veto their joining). We don't let Australians and New Zealanders in without a passport, and many of them have closer ties to England than many Scots have. But Salmond still bumbles along,... of course we won't need a passport, of course we'll keep the Queen as head of state, of course we'll keep the pound, of course we'll still have free prescriptions, of course we'll still have an NHS, of course we'll still have free university education, of course....I'm getting tired...




None of these things are Issues majorty easily sorted out with a bit of common sense We may be more lilely than you to be members of the EU in a few years time if we are both in the Eu no need for passport. you dont there are no border controls at the southern Ireland border.


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

themackay":nrtgkz49 said:


> .....
> None of these things are Issues majorty easily sorted out with a bit of common sense We may be more lilely than you to be members of the EU in a few years time if we are both in the Eu no need for passport. you dont there are no border controls at the southern Ireland border.



So you're going to swap one 'remote' group (ie Westminster) making laws for you and deciding how things go ( a group over who you have at least a modicum of influence and control) for another even 'remoter' group (ie the EU) who will dictate to you what you can and can't do and over who you have even less control ?

What now for 'independence' ? 

In the words of Spock..'that is not logical'.


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

Deema...excellent post. Salmond has also stated that Scotland will be equivalent to Denmark and Hong Kong in terms of credibility in the worlds' money markets. Mmmmm...let's just look at that in more detail, shall we? Denmark has reserves equivalent to 26% of GDP. Hong Kong, 119% of GDP. To match either of those figures, Scotland would need reserves of £34 billion and £155 billion respectively. So far it has only about £15 billion. Wonder where the rest will come from? Methinks years and years and years of austerity.

OK..that's at the national level. Let's look closer to home, specifically people's homes and mortgages. Most are denominated in sterling. Very high probability that if Scotland wants to join the EU, it will have to adopt the Euro. Most likely have to devalue. Suddenly those mortgages are much more expensive.

Ah well, it's not all bad. North Korea thinks independence is a good idea. So that's all good then.


----------



## kdampney (12 Sep 2014)

My tuppence worth...

I don't want to see the Union broken up - I think it's great that we can have our own cultural identity (Highlands, Scottish, North Welsh, Cornish, Yorkshirian, rural-Herefordshire-Morris-Dancing, or whatever) yet still be in the same Nation of Nations. Politically we might disagree over exactly how much the rich ought to pay in taxes (45 or 50%?), or the needy receive in benefits, but there's far more that joins us than divides us. Gentle jibing during the 6 Nations, perhaps, but if we could export that to many parts of the world (Eastern Ukraine, Israel & Gaza, Iraq, etc.), we'd all be in a much better place (over-simplified I know).

If the Scots vote Yes, I think there will be economic uncertainty for both rUK and Scotland for 18 months to 5 years, but then I suspect it'll even itself out. The question is: will the end result be better or worse than now, and I'm not sure we'll know 'til we (all) get there. Basing your economy on oil looks like it'll add more uncertainty to me (suppose electric cars suddenly become popular in China, or peace breaks out in the Middle East, and the oil price collapses...).

I don't think boycotting Scottish goods shows Scots how much we appreciate them. But I accept the OP's willingness to try to make a practical difference in lieu of a vote.

Of course the biggest question is: would UK Workshop have to rename?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (12 Sep 2014)

It does seem that there are two approaches to the vote. Some are voting with their hearts, and some with their heads. Salmond is most definitely the former - listening to him, I seem to hear, "Wrap me in the Saltire, but don't bother me with details". Listening to Darling, I hear, "But what about the currency, Nato, the EU, defence, life after oil?". I can see why the former is attractive to some, but utterly baffles the more hard-headed. That maybe explains why one seems 'positive', and one 'negative'. 

If Scotland votes No next Thursday, Scots will not cease to be Scots. Three hundred years of Union has not diminished Scottishness. If anything, it's enhanced it by providing stability and a modicum of wealth. Scots have never been second class citizens in the Union, they have always taken a full and active part in all parts of the government, business, military, academic and cultural life of the UK. Several Prime Ministers have been Scots, which seems a tad incompatible with the feeling of disconnection from Westminster - Scots are far from excluded.

If Scotland votes Yes, leaves the Union and joins the EU (assuming the EU allows it, which currently seems in some doubt), will Scots have more influence over government from Brussels and the management of the Euro, or less than they do over Westminster and the Pound? How much say will they have in Nato, how much access to academe and business in the remaining UK? More, or less?

I sort of understand the Hollywood "Braveheart, Rabbie Burns, the Saltire and we'll all live happily ever after" approach as a sort of vision, but can't understand why anyone would regard that as a depiction of reality after even a few moments hard-headed reflection. Real life ain't like the movies.

That said, whatever Scotland decides, the rest of us will have to get on with it. I read somewhere that the usual response of the level-headed to divorce is first grief, then a period of anger, then moving on. I suspect the rest of the UK, with it's far greater population, GDP, and established place in the world would be slightly diminished, but would move on. However, if things didn't work out for an independent small rocky country (if some of the 'details' Salmond is currently batting away in interwiews didn't work out for him), and they decided in a couple of decades to rejoin to Union, would the rest of us want them - in all probability with enhanced debts - back again?

So - the 'positve' movie vision, or the 'negative' hard-headed approach? It's not your future you're deciding, Scots voters. It's your children's future, and their children's. Scotland will always be in their hearts, but your vote could decide how much bread they have on their tables.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Sep 2014)

A lot of this wouldn't have arisen if the UK wasn't so London centric - I remember some 15yrs ago talking to a Scottish guy about this, he said his grandfather had never been out of Scotland and was assumed to be pro independence, but when he broached the subject he was told that in no way did the old man want independence, he just wanted even handedness. He was just fed up with the whole country being governed to suit London and the S.E. That to me summed it up (although Scotland is far more socialist and subsidised now). Why, for instance is less money spent per capita on education in Cornwall than London? Of course the money is in London and the S.E. - but that's where the investment is. Which is why money is there. Which is why the investment is there...
Incidentally, it'll be good to see the Shetlanders get independence from Scotland - Salmond can't deny them, can he? Half the oilfields are in their waters.


----------



## finneyb (12 Sep 2014)

phil.p":3m7z1tyo said:


> .....Incidentally, it'll be good to see the Shetlanders get independence from Scotland - Salmond can't deny them, can he? Half the oilfields are in their waters.



And the Shetlanders could then re-join the UK 

Brian


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

Interesting perspective from some Shetlanders I met last year on holiday. They kept on talking about this or that on the mainland and I assumed that they were referring to the large lump of Scotland attached to the rest of us. But they were, in fact, referring to _their_ mainland. Or rather the largest of island of the Shetlands.


----------



## markturner (12 Sep 2014)

Voting should be compulsory in this country, then we would not have the unfair situation we have now, where we can be governed by people who only 20 or 30% of the population voted for. It should be the same in any vote, all concerned should vote, in a union ballot, an election, anything. Then truly, the result would be fair. And proportional representation would be fairer still. Too long the system in this country has been in need of overhaul. 

In relation to Scotland, I think it will be bad for both countries in the long run. It's a shame that the events of 4 or 500 years ago still fester deeply within many Scots and that self serving politicians like Alex Salmond see this as a way to further their own ambition.


----------



## deema (12 Sep 2014)

My nievity may be showing through, so I will apologise if my suggestions are found to be wanting in areas. Any corrections would be appreciated.

Having read everything I can on the subject, Scotland appears to have an extremely privileged position compared to the rest of the UK. It has the ability to create its own laws, and ignore those from Westminster, but not the EU. It has the ability to generate its own taxes. It has a pool of money that it is allocated that is larger than the taxes that are raised and autonomy to determine how these are spent. It has complete control of the Scotish NHS. It has free university places, it has free old age care. 

The reason for bringing this up, is I'm unclear what it is that Scotland needs in addition to the freedoms it already enjoys. In fact I'm sure that there are many in Scitland who do not actually realise what powers the Scotish Parliamnt actually has. 

I think most would agree that defence of the Island as a whole is something we should all participate in rather be separate. Energy Independance is a goal most countries would like to attain. The main deposits of shale gas and oil lie underneath soil outside of Scotland. With the North sea oil and gas drying up sharing in the bounty of Fracking (regardless of the pros and cons for the process, if it comes to cheap(re) energy, we will all eventually accept the inevitable) is a highly attractive prospect.

If we were to take out the personal interests of the politicians, and look at the facts, it would seem that Scotland has a very good deal at the moment, something that I don't believe many Scott's are aware of.


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

Yet again, Deema, a first rate post, mate and spot on.

The answer is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, SVP - Salmond's Vanity Project. Appealing to hearts (the Yes vote) and not the thinkers (the No vote).


----------



## Silverbirch (12 Sep 2014)

As a Better Together supporter, it pains me to say so, but, sadly, the SNP have been much more skilled at getting their message across than has been the case with some rather lacklustre NO campaigning .
Yes, they are mainly appealing to emotion, not logic. 
Having won over converts by playing on these emotions, they have a compliant audience only too willing to believe the selective and partial "facts" which are presented to them. 

Ian


----------



## NickWelford (12 Sep 2014)

I have to commend Mr Deema on a series of well thought out, non emotional, comments that seem extremely sensible to me.


----------



## doorframe (12 Sep 2014)

This a polite request to all those that are making totally logical, rational, sensible and correct posts about why Scotland is better off sticking with the rest of us.....







Keep it quiet!

Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.


----------



## RogerS (12 Sep 2014)

deema":m04jpzgg said:


> My nievity may be showing through, so I will apologise if my suggestions are found to be wanting in areas. Any corrections would be appreciated.
> 
> Having read everything I can on the subject, Scotland appears to have an extremely privileged position compared to the rest of the UK. It has the ability to create its own laws, and ignore those from Westminster, but not the EU. It has the ability to generate its own taxes. It has a pool of money that it is allocated that is larger than the taxes that are raised and autonomy to determine how these are spent. It has complete control of the Scotish NHS. It has free university places, it has free old age care.
> 
> ...



I'd really welcome any comments from the Yes camp as to what benefits they see.


----------



## Silverbirch (12 Sep 2014)

doorframe":3kccpk4k said:


> Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.




Now that's not very nice! :shock:


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Sep 2014)

Emotionally I support the union and think we would both be the poorer without it. However the price that Salmond will exact if he loses makes me wonder if we would actually be better off without them. It's worth remembering that Scotland is approx 8% of the UK (GDP, population) and the rest is 92%. The quantifiable impact of these changes is a hugely more important issue north of the border - for the rest of us it is nearly business as usual! 

It is not possible to confidently project 10 or 20 years hence in a "steady state" what the right action is now. Fine changes to complex assumptions related to oil prices/production, unemployment, interest rates etc etc can provide any answer wanted.

What is fairly clear is that the 3 - 5 year horizon will be troubled for Scotland with major unresolved issues - currency, EU, business relocation south. They also need to set up all the machinery of an independent state - tax, defence, foreign office, media, DVLA(S), bank regulation etc. Expectations have been raised for a fairer better Scotland with increased public services which need to be paid for. Not all of this will go as well as the SNP promise. I think that there will (at best) be some public distress north of the border that expectations are not met following a YES. In a worst case they will bitterly regret a catastrophic decision.

I find it extraordinary that so many people can unquestioningly accept the independence proposition when so much is unresolved, unclear or beyond the direct control of an independent Scotland. Credit is due to AS for his performance and presentation, even though his arguments rely upon unparalleled optimism and selective use of data.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":3pyj7cfk said:


> doorframe":3pyj7cfk said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.
> ...


Apposite, though.


----------



## Silverbirch (13 Sep 2014)

Terry - Somerset":1z6ovikb said:


> Emotionally I support the union and think we would both be the poorer without it. However the price that Salmond will exact if he loses makes me wonder if we would actually be better off without them. It's worth remembering that Scotland is approx 8% of the UK (GDP, population) and the rest is 92%. The quantifiable impact of these changes is a hugely more important issue north of the border - for the rest of us it is nearly business as usual!
> 
> It is not possible to confidently project 10 or 20 years hence in a "steady state" what the right action is now. Fine changes to complex assumptions related to oil prices/production, unemployment, interest rates etc etc can provide any answer wanted.
> 
> ...



Very well put! The only point with which I would take issue is your use of "we" and "them". Those of us who are opposed to separation see ourselves as being "we". Where the SNP have been successful is in emphasising and misrepresenting this largely non-existent difference.

Ian


----------



## finneyb (13 Sep 2014)

Interesting comment on BBC Radio 4 More or Less programme ' Understanding the Scottish referendum polls ' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcfml

Basically, the pollsters have little confidence in the accuracy of the polls - with Elections they have historical data with which to refine their polling results - the referendum has no historical data therefore significantly less confidence in the results.

Brian


----------



## deema (13 Sep 2014)

Business needs certainty. If you are going to invest your money in shares or start up your own business you are more inclined to do so if you believe the economic conditions are going to either remain stable or improve. The potential separation of Scotland from the UK creates a great deal of uncertainty on both sides of the potential border. Should the YES vote be successful, we will enter into a period in which no one can predict what will actually be decided over many parts of the two economies that will emerge. As a consequence there will be little appetite for investment until things become clearer. So far I have focused on the perils that Scotland may face, to a lesser extent the rest of the UK will equally be affected. Most opinions seem to agree that the English, Welsh and Irish economies will stall and may indeed see the return of recession not because the underlying economy is in a bad shape, in fact it's it rather good shape at the moment, but rather as a consequence of the unwillingness to invest until the value of sterling as ascertained again and has some history of monetary trading. The entirety of the UK will be affected by this vote, and I think its in everyone's interests to let your views be known. Everyone faces the prospect of stumbling into a recession as a consequence of the vote. Only a significant No vote will give assurance to the markets that the issue of Independance is removed from the political agenda for at least a generation. Anything less will see it bubbling up to the surface at every occasion and influencing political decisions to a larger extent than any form of political representation would justify, including proportional representation. This rightly will make the UK a zone where international business would prefer to avoid. We will potentially be seen to have the stability of a third world state. One which the value of sterling may change dramatically at any point if a vote is reserected. If your deciding to place a major investment such as a car plant for instance, you are looking into future decades, and not at the next few years. There are plenty of stable countries within the Euro zone only too willing to woe potential investment if the UK is seen as unstable. At the moment it is seen as a rising star in the Euro zone, the first to balance its budget with the fastest GDP growth rate. All placed at jeopardary by a vote carried out by a tiny minority of those within the United Kingdom.


----------



## RossJarvis (13 Sep 2014)

Bearing in mind that King James VI of Scotland was King James I of England, aren't they technically kicking the rest of the UK out if the yes vote goes through?


----------



## RogerS (13 Sep 2014)

Deema, it is already happening. EPFR, the funds data provider said it tracked an outflow of $672 million this week from UK equity funds, the second biggest total since its records began in 2001. Not good news. Union Investment, one of Germany's biggest asset managers announced that it was reducing its holdings of UK equities and bonds. Quote "For the capital markets, the independence of Scotland poses no opportunities, only risks".

I guess we're still waiting a reply from any Yes campaigners to your eloquent post earlier.


----------



## RogerS (13 Sep 2014)

Forgot to add that over 8000 jobs at HMRC Cumbernauld are at risk as current UK law states that personal data of individuals must reside in the UK. No incentive for HMRC or HMG to change the law were Scotland to vote Yes.


----------



## RogerS (13 Sep 2014)

A few interesting articles from the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1c2c1ea0-3b64 ... abdc0.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67017a0a-390d ... edition=uk

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ff9344d4-39fc ... abdc0.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/443a23d6-3841 ... abdc0.html


----------



## Ring (13 Sep 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiXDbgnc4M


=D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## RogerS (13 Sep 2014)

Ring":1oej7y1f said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiXDbgnc4M
> 
> 
> =D> =D> =D> =D>



What a load of tosh! The Yes camp must be really desperate. 

Now, can anyone from the Yes camp refute the excellent line of reasoning advocated by Deema?


----------



## StevieB (13 Sep 2014)

Scotland doesn't currently have the ability to fully set it's own tax rates, particularly business and corporate tax rates. If it wanted to attract investment by lowering corporation tax (as Ireland did some years ago, albeit with dire consequences!) then it could only do so as an independent country to the rest of the UK. The general feeling between Scotland and the rUK is very much the same as that of countries within the Eurozone - fiscal policy is not currently best managed for each country independently, but for overall eurozone stability. Scotland feel fiscal policy in the UK is not best managed for the benefit of Scotland, but for the UK as a whole (and in recent times this has become synonymous with the banking crisis and bank bail-outs). Now whether you believe Scotland has the assets to be able to survive as a strong independent country rather depends on how much oil you think can be extracted from under the North sea, how long it will last, where the tax revenues from it will flow to and what these revenues will be. Current estimates suggest Scotland would be better off as things stand, but that North Sea oil is a finite resource and revenue from it will drop over time. Thus additional (new) income streams need to be sourced - how quickly depends on how how much oil you estimate there is.

For me, both sides are guilty of either rose tinted spectacles (Yes campaign) or a certain amount of scaremongering (No campaign). Things will neither be as good as the Yes side claim, nor as bad as the No side claim. As stated previously, this vote has an added emotional dimension due to the recent recession and a general dissatisfaction with politicians, London, banks, bail-outs, wage freezes and so on. The surge in the yes vote is as much a chance to give England a kicking as it is a cry for freedom. Be careful what you wish for - you may just get it. As much as the yes campaign ignores answering the important questions, the No campaign has been guilty of some spectacular complacency as until very recently the polls suggested a convincing 'no' result. I don't think either campaign has been particularly 'dirty', but Alex Salmon has given a number of open goals that the no campaign have failed to exploit. They focused on a currency union, but there are many other opportunities that have been missed or ignored (Joining NATO and Europe, cost of stated policies such as free University education to all of Europe except rUK, free NHS, pension provision, rising healthcare costs to name but a few - all have been mentioned but none in the detail they might have been). I am far from convinced that a failed chancellor in Alastair Darling, so closely aligned to Gordon Brown as a failed prime minister (by most peoples standards) was the right choice to head the 'better together' campaign anyway, but perhaps his appeal is greater in Scotland that in England?

Whether the outcome is yes or no, either way it is going to cost the UK a packet of money - either in the costs of hiving off Scotland if it's a yes, or in increasing the subsidy to Scotland to prevent further dissent if it's a no. The former will take longer and be more uncertain than the latter. On that basis it is a no-win situation as either way our taxes will end up paying for either outcome.

Steve


----------



## finneyb (13 Sep 2014)

StevieB":vwzjdnkf said:


> Whether the outcome is yes or no, either way it is going to cost the UK a packet of money - either in the costs of hiving off Scotland if it's a yes, or in increasing the subsidy to Scotland to prevent further dissent if it's a no. The former will take longer and be more uncertain than the latter. On that basis it is a no-win situation as either way our taxes will end up paying for either outcome.
> 
> Steve



English won't stand for it either way - Salmond has got the genie out the bottle - it's not going back in - English Regions will want a lot more say and will have more political clout than Scotland. 

Newton's Third Law applies every action has a corresponding reaction.

Brian


----------



## deema (14 Sep 2014)

It's difficult at times to work out what is hype and what is fact. The problem I believe is that if the politicians had reacted initially to Mr Salmon, this fact would have been used by the No campaign to give ligitamacy to their claim. I.e the cry would be that Westminster is panicking because we are going to win, by not reacting the Yes campaign has also gained ground by the No campaign not putting forward the debate sufficiently. It's a tricky stage to play for the Wstminster team and only hindsight will determine if they got it right. At the moment they appear to have reacted too slowly.

The other problem I believe is that if that the No campaign had, or indeed does really highlight the plight that both countries may face if the Yes campaign were to succeed, they are likely to switch off the Scottish populous and be branded as reterics under the 'doomed' banner. It would be very easy for Mr Salmon to rebuff as he is at the moment doing any concerns that are raised. Any issues highlight about the aftermath for the rest of the UK would only endear Mr Salmon to his followers. The very poor analogy would be do you tell someone all of the details about both the perceived up side and definite down side of drugs, or do you just highlight that it's a taboo that should not be tried? The fear of most parents is that by giving too much detail only the perceived upside is remember and the downside either not heard of ignored. The basic human instinct is to switch off when hearing about the bad side of anything. So, how much do you tel them?

The plight of the bankers is a good political football that everyone seems to like to kick about. The truth appears to be that our US of A cousins actually created a package of debt that was bought and sold that in reality in simple terms was fraudulent. As clever as we all hope we are, anyone of us can fall foul of what would have been in the UK illegal dealing if we had packaged it up. The UK banks along with the rest of the world banks were drawn into the deals driven by everyone's desire to see profit. Let's not forget that the deals that we now like to 'kick' were the bed rock of most of our private pension funds. The profits were making our retirements look rather rosey. So, the bankers were duped, let them Rot is the cry that is still heard. What would have been the consequences if that had been allowed to happen, well in short anyone who had a debt with a bank that failed would have seen the debt called in. Anyone with savings or a current account would have seen it vanish. The effect of this would have been a complete melt down in property prices, wide scale evictions, and most of us having lost everything we ever worked for. In short Armagedon. This is something we should be very grateful to Mr Brown for stopping and finding a resolution for.

What about bankers bonuses. Well. Let's again look at some facts that get forgotten. The rotten debt caused massive losses, these needed to be rectified by large profits. Simple maths, billions lost = billions needed to plug the hole. Looking at it from a personal level, if we each created a lot of wealth for our employer, would we expect to be rewarded by some form of bonus or extra salary? Hopefully everyone would agree that this is a reasonable expectation, certainly the unions do that I deal with. However, the problem comes with people's expectations. It's very difficult for someone on the average salary which is I believe somewhere near £25K / year to feel that a bonus of £1 million or more is acceptable. Putting it slightly differently, if you were to say to the person in the street, that they have helped their company increase profits for the year by 100%, would they expect a share? And what level of share would they expect? Would 0.1% be acceptable? On average the percentage handed out in to bankers in bonuses is tiny compared to the profits generated - which go to paying off the debts. Seen as a percentage the bonuses would be to anyone laughable, and the unions would be up in arms that the employers were exploring the workforce. Same bonus, different perspective.

So, I would like to suggest that the banks, stock brokers and bankers bonuses are not the evil they are portraid to be, rather they are actually responsible for the largest proportion of the UK's GDP, far larger than the North Sea to put it into perspective. 

The very thing that Mr Salmon is arguing against has been a major contributor to the fund that the Scotish parliament is given to support the NHS and other services it controls.


----------



## Walney Col (14 Sep 2014)

deema":1tebst8e said:


> The effect of this would have been a complete melt down in property prices, wide scale evictions, and most of us having lost everything we ever worked for. In short Armagedon. This is something we should be very grateful to Mr Brown for stopping and finding a resolution for.



Oh that's a bit rich (no pun intended). As I understand it, it was Browns relaxation of the banking rules during Blairs thatherism style dash for popularity that nigh on bankrupt us.


----------



## RogerS (14 Sep 2014)

deema":32jvlm6u said:


> ....
> So, I would like to suggest that the banks, stock brokers and bankers bonuses are not the evil they are portraid to be, rather they are actually responsible for the largest proportion of the UK's GDP, far larger than the North Sea to put it into perspective.
> .



You're right. 12% of all UK taxes are paid by the finance sector.


----------



## RogerS (14 Sep 2014)

This research paper from the University of Glasgow paints a pretty bleak picture of Scotland's economics.

http://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/697/


----------



## Richard863 (14 Sep 2014)

Can you really se the Jocks and that Salmon guy accepting anything the DVLA says or does?? Let alone sing Land of hope and Glory. Yet we still have "Auld lang syne" Oh Well pity its a great place up there.


----------



## Stu_2 (14 Sep 2014)

At the outset I would have liked to see a No vote, but now I can only hope the Yes vote win the day, thanks to idiots in Westminster promising to throw truck-loads of extra cash to Scotland, which the rest of the UK will have to pay for!

If you can, please vote Yes. My wallet thanks you in advance. 

Cheers

Edit: Thinking about it, why didn't the rest of the UK get a vote on whether or not we wanted to stump-up even more cash to fund Devo Max. I know what the answer would have been, and it wouldn't have been a few points apart in the polls.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Sep 2014)

Didn't you mean "please vote Yes"?


----------



## Stu_2 (14 Sep 2014)

Oh b#gger, yes, I meant pleas vote Yes 

Now corrected. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## Jacob (14 Sep 2014)

RogerS":1o6nsw9x said:


> deema":1o6nsw9x said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Nonsense. They produce nothing at all. They merely handle money like cashiers. The man behind the till doesn't produce anything. Bankers merely exploit the cash flow which we all need and rake off as much profit as they can. If a cashier did the same he'd be sacked. The banks have been running systematic frauds for many years and having to pay back. That's on top of the overcharging and price fixing for their services.


----------



## RogerS (14 Sep 2014)

Jacob":3qza460q said:


> RogerS":3qza460q said:
> 
> 
> > deema":3qza460q said:
> ...



Hello, Citizen Smith has woken up again. Same old...same old. Rubbish, that is.

Why can't you actually read and understand something before shooting from the hip with your usual childish hyperbole.

I repeat. 12% of all UK taxes are paid by the finance sector.


----------



## Jacob (14 Sep 2014)

I was referring to the implications of previous comment - that the banks "produce". You have to offset the taxes raised against the cost of the various bail outs and the cost of the of the finance sectors massive failures over the last few years - the main cause of the current recession.


----------



## RogerS (14 Sep 2014)

My mistake, Jacob, for taking you off Ignore. Bye bye.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Sep 2014)

The bank bailouts were actually one and a half percent of the total debt left by the last Government. Put it in perspective.


----------



## deema (14 Sep 2014)

My suggestion that bankers and not as bad as most people think is not a very polically correct view point I appreciate and may have caused some indignation and I would hate for it to detract from the fundamental issue of whether Scotland should vote yes or no. 

The whole issue of the bankers raised its head when I started to look at Ireland which has been highlighted by both Mr Salmon and in one of the posts to this thread as an example of a small country doing well outside the UK. Ireland or Eire has prospered under the EU for many years. It has received very large grants and subsidies to develop its infrastructure from the EU. However, these have almost dried up with the expansion of the EU where newer states have a geater need for economic development. Scotland would not receive any more assistance than it does al ready unless it's economy following a YES vote reduces significantly. Therefore the prosperity Ureland enjoyed would not be repeated by Scotland.

One issue that has I believe has been missed is that Ireland in 2008 when every country was affected by the American created banking crisis is that on its own unlike the UK it was unable to stabilise its banking sector. In fact, Ireland was technically bankrupt. The stability factor that saved Ireland was the UK providing a massive bail out. This has steadly increased over the years as more funds have been necessary to keep the country from defaulting in its loans. (Sorry but the best arrival to highlight the loans is from the Telegraph. There are plenty of others if you prefer a different paper all have the same fundamental message.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... l-out.html

Scotland would equally be ill equipped to deal with such a crisis, which I'm sure many will say will never happen again, but as history proves, everything repeats if you wait long enough. Not only will Scotland be less likely to be able to manage by itself with such a massive issue, but the rest of the Uk will also be weakened and become less resilient. Let's not forget, that the two largest banks that needed the most government assistance were RBS and Lloyds TSB, both based in Scotland.

The EU needed massive (billions) of loans from the UK to prop up countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy to name a few. The Euro would not have survived had not the UK assisted in the European Central Bank. So, Scotland's potential other currency the Euro is not as stable as Sterling has proved to be. 

Overall, economically, personally and defensively the nation is stronger together should be just that, one nation.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Sep 2014)

If Scots vote 'No' on Thursday, will they be any less Scottish? Has three hundred years of Union in any way diminished Scottishness, or enhanced it?

And finally - would you buy a used car from Alec Salmond?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Sep 2014)

Just a thought about banks.

Banks may not 'produce' anything, but they do provide a service, and they're entitled to charge for providing that service, whether it is managing Jacob's overdraft or advising a multi-national company on mergers and aquisitions. Hence the taxable profit.

Whether the banks' charges are reasonable or not is another question entirely....


----------



## Jacob (14 Sep 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2qwlxmh3 said:


> Just a thought about banks.
> 
> Banks may not 'produce' anything, but they do provide a service, and they're entitled to charge for providing that service, whether it is managing Jacob's overdraft or advising a multi-national company on mergers and aquisitions. Hence the taxable profit.
> 
> Whether the banks' charges are reasonable or not is another question entirely....


Well yes I agree with that. But the point is they have moved a long way from being a "public" service and become a gambling joint - where their internal trading has completely overtaken the traditional function, mainly due to de-regulation. They were all guilty from Thatcher onwards - the tide still hasn't been turned by the govt.


----------



## RogerS (15 Sep 2014)

Another interesting 'unknown' flagged up over the weekend was regarding mobile providers. Scotland would need to set up its own equivalent to Ofcom. What is the legal situation of these companies and their contracts in any limbo period ? Would they have to rebid? Would, in fact, they want to rebid? The topography of Scotland is not ideal for mobile signals and hence very expensive to cover/maintain coverage. The countries demographics with an ageing population mean that potential call charges to offset the extra cost of providing a service won't come anywhere close.

One only has to take a look at the RoI where O2 have pulled out for more profitable markets. The topography and demographics of the RoI is very similar to Scotland.

The more you look into it, it seems to me that the Yes campaign is run very much on wishful thinking.


----------



## John15 (15 Sep 2014)

If the YES vote wins I doubt if the cost of a letter from Glasgow to The Shetlands will remain as cheap as it is at present.

John


----------



## Noel (15 Sep 2014)

RogerS":xo8w8l6m said:


> Another interesting 'unknown' flagged up over the weekend was regarding mobile providers. Scotland would need to set up its own equivalent to Ofcom. What is the legal situation of these companies and their contracts in any limbo period ? Would they have to rebid? Would, in fact, they want to rebid? The topography of Scotland is not ideal for mobile signals and hence very expensive to cover/maintain coverage. The countries demographics with an ageing population mean that potential call charges to offset the extra cost of providing a service won't come anywhere close.
> 
> One only has to take a look at the RoI where O2 have pulled out for more profitable markets. The topography and demographics of the RoI is very similar to Scotland.
> 
> The more you look into it, it seems to me that the Yes campaign is run very much on wishful thinking.



Nonsense: http://www.o2online.ie/o2/


----------



## Silverbirch (15 Sep 2014)

RogerS":4o17l1ie said:


> The more you look into it, it seems to me that the Yes campaign is run very much on wishful thinking.



I don`t know about mobile phones, but in general terms, this has been obvious right from the start.

On a more positive note, according to the Sunday Times, if Scotland becomes independent, the average rainfall for the rest of theUK will decrease, once Scotland`s contribution is taken out of the equation.
So, every cloud has a silver lining. :wink: 
Ian


----------



## RogerS (15 Sep 2014)

Noel":nkvtotrn said:


> RogerS":nkvtotrn said:
> 
> 
> > Another interesting 'unknown' flagged up over the weekend was regarding mobile providers. Scotland would need to set up its own equivalent to Ofcom. What is the legal situation of these companies and their contracts in any limbo period ? Would they have to rebid? Would, in fact, they want to rebid? The topography of Scotland is not ideal for mobile signals and hence very expensive to cover/maintain coverage. The countries demographics with an ageing population mean that potential call charges to offset the extra cost of providing a service won't come anywhere close.
> ...




WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Look who owns O2 Ireland. Three !! http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sect ... -1.1887387


----------



## theartfulbodger (15 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":3nx0zyf2 said:


> On a more positive note, according to the Sunday Times, if Scotland becomes independent, the average rainfall for the rest of theUK will decrease, once Scotland`s contribution is taken out of the equation.



As a (new) nation, we'll live longer, be thinner and more healthy as well :mrgreen:


----------



## Noel (15 Sep 2014)

RogerS":3nm38iev said:


> Noel":3nm38iev said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3nm38iev said:
> ...



Didn't know that. At least I made your day. I can imagine you jumping up and down shouting "he's wrong, he's wrong, woopeee!!!" 
But it's still a poor comment in context, so one Spanish owned company sells it's Irish off shoot to a Hongkong based company. They certainly got a good price for it and 3 plan to spend a further 300m on the network, so about 1b all in.
I think a large number of major companies in your part of the world are owned by overseas corporations.


----------



## RogerS (15 Sep 2014)

Noel":23fqkex1 said:


> RogerS":23fqkex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Noel":23fqkex1 said:
> ...



Not at all, Noel. Not at all. Being a little paranoid today?



Noel":23fqkex1 said:


> But it's still a poor comment in context, so one Spanish owned company sells it's Irish off shoot to a Hongkong based company. They certainly got a good price for it and 3 plan to spend a further 300m on the network, so about 1b all in.



Not a poor comment at all. Fits perfectly in the context of another unknown for the Independence vote. The key fact you have overlooked is that O2 - a seasoned player - did not view Ireland worth keeping as a market. 

From Business Irish...
_ Irish mobile operators have seen average monthly revenue figures falling by 50pc in the last six years. Previously lucrative services such as roaming fees and SMS texting charges have fallen dramatically as increased European regulation and new technology from services such as Whatsapp have eaten away operator profits.

Despite the fall in telecoms revenue, European competition commissioner Joaquin Almunia said that Ireland's telecoms market needed to be protected from a decline in competition here.

"A relatively high proportion of Irish inhabitants live in rural areas, raising challenges for the rollout of mobile telecoms networks," he said._



Noel":23fqkex1 said:


> I think a large number of major companies in your part of the world are owned by overseas corporations.


That's irrelevant to the point in question.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Sep 2014)

Jack Dee summed it all up nicely the other day.

If the Scots vote yes, then Scotland and England will become like North and South Korea. In a few years time, those of us on the English side of the border will be peering across the barbed wire and no-man's land between the two countries with binoculars, looking at the poor, benighted wretches on the Northern side all forced to have Alex Salmond haircuts.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (15 Sep 2014)

An odd thought - in the UK as it currently exists one can have a postal vote for 15 years after you have left the UK/been registered to vote. This means that Brits retiring to Spain, Florida etc etc can continue to vote. 

Similar rules were not applied to the independence vote. Alex Salmond has been very astute and Cameron and co. somewhat deficient or naive in extending the vote only to residents of Scotland. If applied in an independent Scotland how would this likely affect the outcome of future Scottish elections and what may have been the impact on he referendum. 

The high YES figures may be due (I suspect) to the above and additional voter registrations in Scotland among those who have previously never voted as they were apathetic thinking their vote would have no effect in Westminster. Now they have a chance to make a point - which they may regret!


----------



## NickWelford (16 Sep 2014)

So, the leaders of the three major parties in our sovereign parliament are all trying to bribe the Scots to vote NO on Thursday, promising to continue the deeply unfair Bartlett Formula, at the expense of the vast majority of English voters and taxpayers. Also, the Scots will pick up even more powers to determine their own affairs, whilst the English have to suffer from Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters, for which they have no electoral mandate whatsoever. This smacks hugely of bribery and corruption at the highest level. I am actually for the continuance of the Union, but not at any cost, and the cost is becoming too high, so, farewell Scotland, it was good to know you, but it's time for you to go your own way, and let's see how you manage when all of the Salmond lies come home to roost.


----------



## kdampney (16 Sep 2014)

In the event of a No vote, I'm increasingly in favour of a federal system where there are Scottish, Welsh, English and N.Irish parliaments with full tax-raising and spending powers, and then a UK parliament for things like defence and foreign aid. Then Scotland could be self-financing, as the SNP says they are.

The only problem would be that Wales (and I suspect Scotland) would still need some form of subsidy as they are more economically deprived. I'm sure there would be other problems on which people can enlighten me


----------



## RogerS (16 Sep 2014)

kdampney":dhvhfyju said:


> In the event of a No vote, I'm increasingly in favour of a federal system where there are Scottish, Welsh, English and N.Irish parliaments with full tax-raising and spending powers, and then a UK parliament for things like defence and foreign aid. Then Scotland could be self-financing, as the SNP says they are.
> 
> The only problem would be that Wales (and I suspect Scotland) would still need some form of subsidy as they are more economically deprived. I'm sure there would be other problems on which people can enlighten me



But both Wales and Scotland already get subsidies. Consensus certainly for Scotland is that it gets more out of the union than it puts in. At least that's what a quick google throws up.


----------



## wizard (16 Sep 2014)

If they go independent they can spent their money on themselves and not on going to war or foreign aid the royal family and other things


----------



## Silverbirch (16 Sep 2014)

I would remind people that, as things stand, Scotland is as much part of the UK as England, Wales or N.I., and many of us (at least half, according to the polls) would like it to continue that way, so talking of "them" and "us" is rather premature.
Alex Salmond has been very successful in promoting these feelings in Scotland, but he does not by any means speak for all of us, and not even, it can be argued, for the majority of Scottish voters. 
Any talk of "them" and "us" should wait until Friday, when the results will be known.

Ian


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Sep 2014)

I looked earlier at a link in a comment on an article in The Times, that gave a Scottish newspaper saying that Milliband, Clegg and Cameron had promised that in the event of a "no" vote the Scots would have a free hand in what they spent on "their" NHS. Unfortunately I didn't think to save it.
I think the national Press were wise not to make too much of that in England.


----------



## Jacob (16 Sep 2014)

It's revealing that the parties have nothing much positive to say about voting NO - just threats, vague bribes, dire warnings and pessimistic forecasts if it goes the other way.
Milliband, Clegg and Cameron just haven't twigged that most of the country is utterly p|ssed off with them and the establishment as a whole, and would be glad to have a chance to express this.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Sep 2014)

One problem the "no"s have of course is that it's difficult to make an unwelcome fact sound any other than a threat "You do realise that you won't automatically be a member of the eu" - You do realise that n amount of jobs will be repatriated by HMRC" - "You do realise that naval bases will close" - "You do realise that you won't automatically have a currency union" and so on...
I actually heard one woman say she was looking forward to independence, as it would mean full employment again and that the new government would be pressurised to open all the Clydebank shipyards again. It hadn't dawned on her that they shut because they couldn't compete on the international market - otherwise she'd have known they wouldn't stand a cat in hell's chance once their overheads were even higher. I heard a girl on the radio say of course, it'll take a while for Scotland to get it's own airforce... Irrespective of politics, some of these people do not inhabit the real world.


----------



## Jacob (16 Sep 2014)

phil.p":2ssp1dkq said:


> .... Irrespective of politics, some of these people do not inhabit the real world.


Ditto Milliband, Clegg and Cameron.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Sep 2014)

100%. Never thought I'd ever say that, did you?


----------



## NickWelford (16 Sep 2014)

It could all come down to a handful of votes, even one. Pretty stupid that the referendum wasn't set up with the need for a 66.6% majority for such a monumental change.


----------



## lanemaux (16 Sep 2014)

As a Canadian I have no opinion to add on this thread save one. In my lifetime there have been a number of referendums and a national and provincial political party formed around the possible separation of my francophone brethren from our confederation. My point is that even if separation does not occur , separatists are tenacious. Don't expect this to be over if they lose. Sorry if this is bad news to some , but that is the nature of the beast as I see it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

Jacob":1c6ogdp7 said:


> It's revealing that the parties have nothing much positive to say about voting NO - just threats, vague bribes, dire warnings and pessimistic forecasts if it goes the other way.
> Milliband, Clegg and Cameron just haven't twigged that most of the country is utterly p|ssed off with them and the establishment as a whole, and would be glad to have a chance to express this.



You can't make false promises about the status quo (though with this 'Devo Max' promise, Cameron Clegg and Milipede have had a damn good try). Most of the 'big' things the Better Together campaign have said are not sexy, but are demonstrably accurate.

You can make all sorts of promises about the currency, social justice, full employment, free NHS, free education, perfect democracy, free deep-fried Mars bars on Friday nights and anything else they can think of, and not answer difficult questions about how it's all going to be paid for, and deceive a surprisingly large part of the population, though.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

lanemaux":1faxgxc7 said:


> As a Canadian I have no opinion to add on this thread save one. In my lifetime there have been a number of referendums and a national and provincial political party formed around the possible separation of my francophone brethren from our confederation. My point is that even if separation does not occur , separatists are tenacious. Don't expect this to be over if they lose. Sorry if this is bad news to some , but that is the nature of the beast as I see it.



That point has indeed been made by some of the more switched-on commentators and journalists in the UK. The worst possible outcome is probably one that is desperately close - at least a fairly decisive result one way or the other should settle the matter for a few years, at least. It has also been pointed out that the very strong divisions opened up in Scotland could be very slow to heal. 

Whatever the result, there will almost inevitably be a push for more devolved government in all parts of the UK over the coming years - which would probably be a good thing; UK government has become very centralised over the last three decades or so. There was a representative of Mabion Kernow on BBC Radio 4 this evening calling for devolved government for Cornwall, for example. That may a step too far, but why not more decision-making more locally? If the Scots can have their own parliament, why not the English? goes the argument.

Oh well, We shall see.


----------



## RogerS (16 Sep 2014)

It's definitely catching..

_As the first minister, Alex Salmond, looks south and campaigns for an independent Scotland, leaders in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to his north have quietly begun talks among themselves about their own "home rule".

The three leaders, who run the three largest island groups in the British isles, will meet in Shetland on Monday 25 March to discuss a joint project on whether they should demand a split from the Scottish and UK governments after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 – the date of which is expected to be announced in Holyrood on Thursday._ The Guardian March 2013

Would that mean the oil belonged to the Shetland isles ?


----------



## Jacob (16 Sep 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1gcip02b said:


> ....
> You can make all sorts of promises about the currency, social justice, full employment, free NHS, free education, perfect democracy, free deep-fried Mars bars on Friday nights and anything else they can think of, and not answer difficult questions about how it's all going to be paid for, and deceive a surprisingly large part of the population, though.


No need to deceive them - higher taxation is the answer - tax is the price of civilisation - taxation and public spending drive the economy AND provide the services we all need. All 1st world economies are high tax economies - if you look for low tax nations you find places like Somalia, Estonia etc. (I'll check that one out - nothing to stop you doing the same!)


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

Jacob":1oevfnin said:


> Cheshirechappie":1oevfnin said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I don't recall anybody from the 'Yes' campaign mentioning higher taxes. Do you? Another little bit of deception, perhaps?

(On the wider political theory argument, you'll have to find someone else to debate with. This thread is about the Scottish independence referendum, and I'm sticking to that subject.)


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Sep 2014)

I'm not sure that Nick, Dave and Ed can commit the rest of the UK in the event of a NO as any changes to existing legislation on funding, taxation etc is subject to a vote at Westminster. I doubt they will command sufficient loyalty in their respective parties (if they still lead!) in view of the shambles they have created to be sure of support. 

For either YES or NO a sincere hope (probably naive) that their parliamentary colleagues have the resolve to address the RUK needs at the same time - Barnett formula, West Lothian Q and boundary commission. 

I think that a NO will cause more grief for RUK will want to keep them sweet and avoid accusations of "we were conned". A stressful compromise over devo max will follow and leave room for the same debate in 10 - 30 years time. YES is simple - RUK only need negotiate the best deal for RUK.

Worth bearing in mind that RUK is 92% - for them the world will continue largely unchanged. For Scotland it is pivotal. Having said that, I would still support the union - heart over head??


----------



## Silverbirch (16 Sep 2014)

Where are all the Yes supporters? This discussion is too one-sided :roll: 

Ian


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":1o1wludg said:


> Where are all the Yes supporters? This discussion is too one-sided :roll:
> 
> Ian




Isn't Jacob enough?


----------



## doorframe (16 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":2gahdbb1 said:


> Where are all the Yes supporters? This discussion is too one-sided :roll: Ian



HERE!

YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!


----------



## bugbear (16 Sep 2014)

doorframe":2wr3nrk6 said:


> Silverbirch":2wr3nrk6 said:
> 
> 
> > Where are all the Yes supporters? This discussion is too one-sided :roll: Ian
> ...



Shades of Meg Ryan?    

BugBear


----------



## NickWelford (16 Sep 2014)

bugbear":26bcb9y6 said:


> doorframe":26bcb9y6 said:
> 
> 
> > Silverbirch":26bcb9y6 said:
> ...



Very good!


----------



## Silverbirch (16 Sep 2014)

doorframe":35uhhmqf said:


> Silverbirch":35uhhmqf said:
> 
> 
> > Where are all the Yes supporters? This discussion is too one-sided :roll: Ian
> ...



You put forward a very well argued case! 
I can see you are well versed in the arguments of the YES campaign. :wink: 

Ian


----------



## Jacob (16 Sep 2014)

Interesting how the issue has come to the front so late in the day. 
Wossit all about? At the end of the day, when all's said and done etc - a YES will be probably the first major reaction in 30+ years to the cancer of Thatcherism, and about bloody time too. 
It will not be the end - not even the beginning of the end. But perhaps, the end of the beginning. Pass me a cigar.


----------



## RossJarvis (16 Sep 2014)

Being half Scottish but living on the wrong side of the border all my life, I was not particularly interested or decided. How-ever, now that all the "No" arguments seem to be totally fiscally based and down to being sold out and enslaved by the "global economy" and "international finance", then I think that "yes" can be the only viable option in terms of Scotland keeping its soul. England sold hers many years ago. If "Yes" means working harder and paying more, then it's a price worth paying not to worship Mammon.


----------



## Noel (17 Sep 2014)

I would say there's only about 10-15% of posts by members living in Scotland (going by location in their profile), those that actually can vote.
I don't understand why so many English are worried about a Yes vote. How will it directly effect the population of England other than holding some romantic notion of a united United Kingdom? 
I'm not sure the Yes voters will win but it could happen. If Scotland want to go it alone, fair play to them and let them get on with it. Can't see too many people in England worrying about, say Northern Ireland, going it alone, not that that will ever happen.


----------



## RogerS (17 Sep 2014)

Noel":2gorkqv3 said:


> I would say there's only about 10-15% of posts by members living in Scotland (going by location in their profile), those that actually can vote.
> I don't understand why so many English are worried about a Yes vote. How will it directly effect the population of England other than holding some romantic notion of a united United Kingdom?
> I'm not sure the Yes voters will win but it could happen. If Scotland want to go it alone, fair play to them and let them get on with it. Can't see too many people in England worrying about, say Northern Ireland, going it alone, not that that will ever happen.



Or perhaps we actually like the Scots and think that they are being hoodwinked by Salmond and his Vanity Project.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416


----------



## Ring (17 Sep 2014)

Well i'm from Scotland and i'm defiantly voting no with all the problems in the world today Isis, Ukraine ,Middle East in turmoil there has never ever been a better time to stick together. I posted a video in an earlier thread bit tongue and cheek about the top ten myths if only it was as easy as it,s made out to be,this vote will no matter the outcome will cause rifts for years to come no doubt about it and the way I see it just now if it,s not broken then don't try to fix it sure we are all sick of the goverments polices or lack of them but at the end of the day the UK ain't all that bad.
Jim


----------



## Jacob (17 Sep 2014)

Noel":19rgqonx said:


> .....
> I don't understand why so many English are worried about a Yes vote. How will it directly effect the population of England other than holding some romantic notion of a united United Kingdom?.....


The English are disturbed by politics as a whole nowadays. There's a widespread feeling of resignation and powerlessness. "What's the point it's all run by multi-nationals, banks, oil companies, out of our hands, what can parliament do?" etc
The media as a whole support and encourage this view as it benefits their proprietors and the establishment. Exceptions - George Monbiot is good today in the Grauniad.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Sep 2014)

I'm sure Scotland would be a much nicer place to live with no oil companies, banks and multi-nationals.


----------



## doorframe (17 Sep 2014)

bugbear":2z0qh00s said:


> doorframe":2z0qh00s said:
> 
> 
> > Silverbirch":2z0qh00s said:
> ...









OMG!! Is that Alex Salmond in the cap???


----------



## kdampney (17 Sep 2014)

Noel":374lpfxw said:


> I would say there's only about 10-15% of posts by members living in Scotland (going by location in their profile), those that actually can vote.
> I don't understand why so many English are worried about a Yes vote. How will it directly effect the population of England other than holding some romantic notion of a united United Kingdom?
> I'm not sure the Yes voters will win but it could happen. If Scotland want to go it alone, fair play to them and let them get on with it. Can't see too many people in England worrying about, say Northern Ireland, going it alone, not that that will ever happen.



I want Scotland to stay in the Union for various reasons, but just in terms of how a Yes will affect England (and Wales and N.Ireland):
* There will be 18 months - 5 years of uncertainty in the Pound as no one knows whether a) Scotland will use it in a currency union, use it not in a currency union, use the Euro, etc. b) will the national debt be shared out, or will Scotland shirk their share and the rUk Debt-to-GDP ratio jumps instantly from 90% to 100% with few oil reserves.
* The recovery could stall for the above reason.
* The armed forces shrink, and potentially Trident moves, so suddenly our ability to commit to NATO reduces (assuming the Scottish Defence Force won't want to fill in the gaps), right at the time when Russia's flexing it's muscles.
* Every government department, UK-wide charity and organisation needs to disentangle themselves. If you thought the Passport Office and Border Force were busy this year...!
* UK Workshop might rename and change logo (!).

Probably various other reasons, but it'll affect everyone to some extent (obviously Scotland much more).


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C6Utr027QY

This is a better one Doorframe


----------



## gwr (17 Sep 2014)

Well I would vote no if I was in scotland as I think strength in numbers, im married to a Scottish gal who would also vote no.Living so close to the border i hear points for both sides .With salmond giving votes to 16 year olds was a big mistake as believe it or not many of them are voting according to which side of the oldfirm teams they support or lean towards. I have a lot of connections with the scotts on many levels and would hate to see the union broke up.

According to a few reports today his birth certificate says that salmond was actually born in Essex and not Linlithgow perth as he claims if this turns out to be true you really couldnt make it up that an Englishman is leading Scotland into independence.


----------



## finneyb (17 Sep 2014)

NickWelford":viugx9cg said:


> It could all come down to a handful of votes, even one. Pretty stupid that the referendum wasn't set up with the need for a 66.6% majority for such a monumental change.



Salmond intended the referendum to be a negotiating ploy. 
If YES votes win he is stuffed; and he probably won't need laxatives for the foreseeable future.
The man wants stringing up he's a danger to Society.

Brian


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

As a YES voter I gave a lot of consideration to the issue before deciding and I like a lot of people throughout the country are totally P####d off with our politicians,constantly making promises which come to nothing when they are elected and blatently lying to the electorate, as far as I can see the Ruling class are just taking the P##s out of us and will continue to do so.The working class majority are just being left behind while the rich 5% just get richer.The YES campaign is largly a grass roots movement made up of all sorts (not just the SNP)and the energy is amazing from thousands of people never involved in politics before who are just wakening up to the fact that come Thursday they might just change things for the better.Hopefully the knock on effect of a Yes vote may have benefits for those south of the border as well.


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

Brian ,I think it will be Cameron and a few others that wont need laxitives,not Alex Salmond


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Sep 2014)

Salmond born in Essex? A few decades ago there was a guy called Trull campaigned for a Cornish parliament - the Telegraph opened an article one day with ----"Mr. Fred Trull, who was born in the old Cornish village of Dusseldorf...."


----------



## RogerS (17 Sep 2014)

themackay":3eani73w said:


> .....blatently lying to the electorate....



And Salmond is innocent? What about the NHS £400 million potential shortfall that they were trying to keep quiet?


----------



## Silverbirch (17 Sep 2014)

themackay":1au26agw said:


> As a YES voter I gave a lot of consideration to the issue before deciding and I like a lot of people throughout the country are totally P####d off with our politicians,constantly making promises which come to nothing when they are elected and blatently lying to the electorate, as far as I can see the Ruling class are just taking the P##s out of us and will continue to do so.The working class majority are just being left behind while the rich 5% just get richer.The YES campaign is largly a grass roots movement made up of all sorts (not just the SNP)and the energy is amazing from thousands of people never involved in politics before who are just wakening up to the fact that come Thursday they might just change things for the better.Hopefully the knock on effect of a Yes vote may have benefits for those south of the border as well.



I take your point about being p****d of with politicians and their promises, but last time I checked, Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney et al were politicians too. 
What special qualities does this particular set of jokers have that makes them different from the rest?
I do hope that the "thousands of people never involved in politics before", if they succeed in landing us in it tomorrow, are going to stick around and use their vote at the next Scottish election to sort out the mess they will have created.

Ian


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

Roger that £400 million is not as you have probably heard it reported

Re NHS 'revelations' today: Wow! This is really misleading. It's a 'funding gap', not cuts. If anything it's an argument for a Yes vote! First, £400-450 is less than half a billion! There are no cuts to the NHS budget planned by the SNP or any other Yes group. Rather, it's the gap between funding at the moment and projected cost rises. There's a similar issue in England too where the gap is £2 billion. Gideon has cut the Scottish budget by 7.2% but health spending in Scotland is at a record high, because of choices the SNP have made about spending priorities. The UK Government is only 30-40% through it's curreny austerity agenda and cuts, so with more cuts coming it'll be even harder for the SNP or any Scottish Government to maintain NHS funding. The Scottish Government has operational control but not budgetary. The only way to safeguard our NHS in Scotland is to vote Yes and give Scottish Governments more control over budgets! We can also enshrine our NHS, free at the point of use in our Scottish Constitution. ‪#‎IndyRef‬ ‪#‎VoteYES‬ ‪#‎NHS‬


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch,Im not a lover of any of them either but the point here is after a Yes vote there is an oppertunity to change the system for the better


----------



## Kalimna (17 Sep 2014)

How, exactly, can it be changed for the better? SNP or not, the public are still beholden to the politicians, short of armed conflict from the masses.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Jacob (17 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":2d282v54 said:


> ....
> I take your point about being p****d of with politicians and their promises, but last time I checked, Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney et al were politicians too. ....


I don't think many will be voting for them themselves - it's more the idea. They are disposable and have to stand for re election. The trouble with Cameron, Clegg, Milliband is that they have no ideas and seem out of touch with most of the country, but we don't seem able to get rid of them. Scotland has got them thinking - too little and too late perhaps.


----------



## Silverbirch (17 Sep 2014)

Well, if the referendum galvanises the UK politicians into action, it could become a stimulus to developing new ideas about how the people should be represented _within_ the different parts the UK. I`d be all for that .
Ian


----------



## themackay (17 Sep 2014)

I imagine they are likely to revert to normal in the event of a No vote


----------



## RossJarvis (17 Sep 2014)

Jacob":2obr9jg6 said:


> The trouble with Cameron, Clegg, Milliband is that they have no ideas and seem out of touch with most of the country, but we don't seem able to get rid of them.



Until the ballot paper has a box with "none of the above" it aint real democracy.


----------



## RogerS (18 Sep 2014)

True but that thing is Salmond wasn't exactly shouting about this, was he? That to means that he is as duplicitous a politician as the rest.

Be careful of what you wish for!

Anyway we shall all know tomorrow ....

IMO if the Yes win then Scotland should go it alone. No Queen. No pound. We will bring back the 8500 jobs that HMRC have back to the country 'Formerly-known-as-the-UK'. Hard bargaining by our Government. Salmond won't be able to 'pick'n'mix'.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Sep 2014)

One thing that does surprise me is the SNP's insistence that they'll stay in the eu. For one they'll have to reapply for membership, which will mean adopting the Euro (which they don't want) and they'll be vetoed, anyway - and for two it hasn't dawned on them that half of the regulation they think comes from their dictators in Westminster actually comes from their dictators in Brussels. If they think their financial calculations are correct, they'll be net contributors anyway - why queue up to give your money away for no conceivable benefit?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Sep 2014)

An interesting point in The Times - the last person to attempt to demolish the United kingdom was Hitler. Remember that, when voting.


----------



## RogerS (18 Sep 2014)

Cracking cartoon from Steve Bell !


----------



## finneyb (18 Sep 2014)

themackay":kok8pdko said:


> Brian ,I think it will be Cameron and a few others that wont need laxitives,not Alex Salmond



I can partly agree with you - if a Yes vote Cameron has another nail in his coffin as PM and the Westminster MPs North of the Border are redundant. Which is probably not a bad thing - we now have Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish issues at Westminster - why?

I do think the three Westminster leaders going to Scotland was a mistake, it just fanned the flames - it's a Scottish issue let the population with their local elected members decide. 

But Salmond has bitten off far more than he can chew if he gets a Yes vote. Independence is a massive undertaking - from my perspective I want no half measures or back peddling designed to up the Scotland take of the budget. If its a Yes vote we want a clean break as soon as possible, then we can all re-organise and move on. I strongly suspect we will see back peddling by Salmond eg we don't feel we have a mandate for full Independence as we only got a very small majority.

Brian


----------



## Silverbirch (18 Sep 2014)

phil.p":wbi4hz2l said:


> One thing that does surprise me is the SNP's insistence that they'll stay in the eu. For one they'll have to reapply for membership, which will mean adopting the Euro (which they don't want) and they'll be vetoed, anyway - and for two it hasn't dawned on them that half of the regulation they think comes from their dictators in Westminster actually comes from their dictators in Brussels. If they think their financial calculations are correct, they'll be net contributors anyway - why queue up to give your money away for no conceivable benefit?



Don`t let the facts cloud the issue! Scotland at the moment is full of YES stickers, posters, pennants on cars etc etc. Should an alien touch down in my town, they would be under the firm impression there weren`t any NO supporters at all. Thankfully, the polls tell a different story. 
It is quite worrying that so many people are seemingly carried away on a tide of euphoria, like football supporters, as if this was some kind of Cup Final day, where logic doesn`t enter the equation, all that matters being who you support.
The difference with a Cup Final, though, is that you can always hope for another go next year, should your team lose.

Ian


----------



## RogerS (18 Sep 2014)

Silverbirch":x17szo2o said:


> ......
> It is quite worrying that so many people are seemingly carried away on a tide of euphoria, .....
> 
> Ian



You've hit the nail on the head there, Ian. It is indeed very worrying. I always thought that the Scots were supposed to be canny but the Yes camp seems to have suspended belief and rational thought on a wave of group-hugs.


----------



## themackay (18 Sep 2014)

This is the first time in my life where I have felt my vote could actually make a difference


----------



## Silverbirch (18 Sep 2014)

Yes, it may well make a difference!

Ian


----------



## themackay (18 Sep 2014)

finneyb":1xusq1lz said:


> themackay":1xusq1lz said:
> 
> 
> > Brian ,I think it will be Cameron and a few others that wont need laxitives,not Alex Salmond
> ...



I agree Scottish MP,s should not be voting on non Scottish issues,I think that is something that might change irrespective of the outcome of the referendum if Labour arnt in power after 2015.


----------



## themackay (18 Sep 2014)

phil.p":1vccs7pk said:


> One thing that does surprise me is the SNP's insistence that they'll stay in the eu. For one they'll have to reapply for membership, which will mean adopting the Euro (which they don't want) and they'll be vetoed, anyway - and for two it hasn't dawned on them that half of the regulation they think comes from their dictators in Westminster actually comes from their dictators in Brussels. If they think their financial calculations are correct, they'll be net contributors anyway - why queue up to give your money away for no conceivable benefit?



Im not a lover of the EU ,but I dont see an issue with us rejoining if indeed we find ourselves not part of it,why would they not want us one of the top 20 richest countries with large energy reserves,I think we would probably be able to negotiate a good deal.I have no doubt the Scottish Government is well aware a large percentage of regulation comes from Brussels over which we have no say at the moment.

Dont we queue up at the moment to give money away for no conceivable benefit
I dont think we will be vetoed as any metion of that from Europe was a result of pressure from the UK government.


----------



## RogerS (18 Sep 2014)

I have to confess that I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the results as it seems to me that it has much more far-reaching effects than the General Election. At least in the General Election, if your party doesn't win this time round then there is always the next. I foresee a sleepless night.


----------



## xraymtb (18 Sep 2014)

I wouldn't be sure on there being no EU veto. Many of the larger European countries have separatist movements of their own and the last thing they want is a successful independence movement in Scotland. Spain, France even Germany all have groups that would use this as a precedent to push for their own independence.


----------



## marcros (18 Sep 2014)

RogerS":2rcob6yv said:


> I have to confess that I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the results as it seems to me that it has much more far-reaching effects than the General Election. At least in the General Election, if your party doesn't win this time round then there is always the next. I foresee a sleepless night.



They are expecting results from about 2am tomorrow with the final result around 06-30 to 07-30 I think


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Sep 2014)

themackay":2klryyy2 said:


> phil.p":2klryyy2 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that does surprise me is the SNP's insistence that they'll stay in the eu. For one they'll have to reapply for membership, which will mean adopting the Euro (which they don't want) and they'll be vetoed, anyway - and for two it hasn't dawned on them that half of the regulation they think comes from their dictators in Westminster actually comes from their dictators in Brussels. If they think their financial calculations are correct, they'll be net contributors anyway - why queue up to give your money away for no conceivable benefit?
> ...


 The Spanish for one have already stated they will veto - as probably will France and Belgium.


----------



## Martin_S (18 Sep 2014)

The trouble with coalitions is that you duck and dive to find a compromise that gives you enough votes to do this or that and within a short amount of time, that mode of operation becomes completely normal and when you are pushed on an issue and the SNP want a referendum in return you decide that staying in business now in exchange for a referendum which the SNP surely cant win in 2 years time is a good deal.

Then 2 years passes and today arrives. Definitely squeaky bum time...

And even if this gamble pays off, there is the EU referendum on the horizon which will probably go badly too.

If only some of these people had enough common sense to stop making these risky deals and the courage to 'go to the country' rather than deal, we would not be looking into the abyss we currently are, both north and south of the border, whatever the outcome.


----------



## themackay (18 Sep 2014)

phil.p":22iah8ks said:


> themackay":22iah8ks said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":22iah8ks said:
> ...



While none of the treaties support Scotland's removal, Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty does support Scotland's independent membership. Politics Professor Michael Keating's (full disclosure, old lecturer of mine) and Professor Steven Blockmans, a senior research fellow and the head of the EU foreign policy unit of the Center for European Policy Studies, both confirmed that Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows EU members to agree to make amendments through an 'ordinary revision procedure', was a route through which Scotland could gain membership of the EU. Under Article 48, Scotland could be permitted to join the EU by 26 March 2016, which is the day Alex Salmond says Scotland would officially become independent should the upcoming referendum on independence return a Yes vote. 

Dr Nicolas Levrat, head of the Institute of Global Studies at the University of Geneva, has dismissed claims that Scotland could find itself outside the European Union in the event of independence and have to wait to re-apply too. He said that Scotland being ejected from the EU would violate the core values upon which it is founded, adding that the EU was not "one day in and one day off," … "it doesn’t work like that". He also said that the so-called Veto, which No campaigners have claimed could be used by countries like Spain to block Scottish membership, "politically cannot be used".

Dr Levrat also said the consequences of Yes vote on the citizenship rights of Scots, "will not be as dramatic as people pretend": "So we can imagine where Scotland is not under the sovereignty of the UK, is not yet declared as a member state of the EU, but remains, because it was part of the UK, under the umbrella of EU law. That could be a solution."


----------



## Self Taught (18 Sep 2014)

Hi All,

I have been following along on the subject. I have noticed, many points, on both sides, that are valid. The post by Ring, on page ten, is a very good reason for keeping allies close at this time. Our family, on my mothers side, comes from the Scottish Highlands. The MacDonald Clan, who fought with King Robert the Bruce, in the battle of Bannockburn, 24, June 1314. Her farther was English, born here in the U.S., his mother eventually returned home to England. Our fathers side of the family came from County Cork. I have mixed feelings on the issue, but have no problems with our ties to The United Kingdom, and see no reason to upset the apple cart, at this turbulent time. I must say this in all honesty I hope the vote is no, as we all look to family, friends, and neighbors. in times of need. I am proud to be an American, of Scotts, English, and Irish decent. Jamey


----------



## Silverbirch (18 Sep 2014)

Just a little point of pedantry: I`ve noticed a couple of posters referring to "Scotts". 
A native of Scotland is Scottish, or a Scot. 
"Scott" is a first name or surname, so if we say "He is a Scott", we mean he is a member of the Scott family.
Sorry, I can`t help it. I`m an ex teacher. Lesson over for today.  

Ian


----------



## iNewbie (18 Sep 2014)

You guys/gals in Scotland know that if you vote yes and win you have to take Carole Smiley back across the border, eh?


----------



## finneyb (18 Sep 2014)

iNewbie":23ji1lzj said:


> You guys/gals in Scotland know that if you vote yes and win you have to take Carole Smiley back across the border, eh?



And RBS as well, after you paid the bail out costs :lol: 

Brian


----------



## RogerS (18 Sep 2014)

themackay":39lq4sve said:


> While none of the treaties support Scotland's removal, Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty does support Scotland's independent membership. Politics Professor Michael Keating's (full disclosure, old lecturer of mine) and Professor Steven Blockmans, a senior research fellow and the head of the EU foreign policy unit of the Center for European Policy Studies, both confirmed that Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows EU members to agree to make amendments through an 'ordinary revision procedure', was a route through which Scotland could gain membership of the EU. Under Article 48, Scotland could be permitted to join the EU by 26 March 2016, which is the day Alex Salmond says Scotland would officially become independent should the upcoming referendum on independence return a Yes vote.
> 
> Dr Nicolas Levrat, head of the Institute of Global Studies at the University of Geneva, has dismissed claims that Scotland could find itself outside the European Union in the event of independence and have to wait to re-apply too. He said that Scotland being ejected from the EU would violate the core values upon which it is founded, adding that the EU was not "one day in and one day off," … "it doesn’t work like that". He also said that the so-called Veto, which No campaigners have claimed could be used by countries like Spain to block Scottish membership, "politically cannot be used".
> 
> Dr Levrat also said the consequences of Yes vote on the citizenship rights of Scots, "will not be as dramatic as people pretend": "So we can imagine where Scotland is not under the sovereignty of the UK, is not yet declared as a member state of the EU, but remains, because it was part of the UK, under the umbrella of EU law. That could be a solution."



A lot of 'could' and 'might' there, my friend. AKA wishful thinking. If I was in your position, I'd be much more happier with 'will' !!


----------



## wizard (18 Sep 2014)

who cares who wins


----------



## jpt (18 Sep 2014)

All over now just have to wait for the count.

But the winners and losers are already known and have been for a long time.

Winners Scotland with lots more power and English money, losers the English still being ruled by Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs even though they have their own parliaments and we still wont have ours, oh and yes more of our money will go north of the border.

john


----------



## marcros (19 Sep 2014)

Well it is all over and a No. And so it all begins...


----------



## RogerS (19 Sep 2014)

The SNP heartland has voted NO
So now is the time for Salmond to go


----------



## RogerS (19 Sep 2014)

jpt":9r6cfep5 said:


> All over now just have to wait for the count.
> 
> But the winners and losers are already known and have been for a long time.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure about money flows but think it's probably swings and roundabouts, TBH. But regarding MPs voting, unless it is a free vote then I think you will find that they vote according to the Party line and so their nationality/country of residence is irrelevant.


----------



## Noel (19 Sep 2014)

jpt":1wt3nv3z said:


> All over now just have to wait for the count.
> 
> But the winners and losers are already known and have been for a long time.
> 
> ...



An Irish MP? What's that?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Sep 2014)

Now the fun starts when Cameron and Microband (I omit Clegg - he's never going to be PM, in fact he'll be lucky to still be an MP after May) realise they have no mandate to deliver the promises they've made, and will struggle to get anything through a Parliament full of English MP's who are already fed up with subsidising Scotland.


----------



## NickWelford (19 Sep 2014)

Whatever they decide, I do hope it is given enough thought and debate. Rushing through legislation is never a good idea.


----------



## Noel (19 Sep 2014)

Polls often not too accurate:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Sep 2014)

=D> :lol:


----------



## RogerS (19 Sep 2014)

All this talk of more devolution, English Parliament etc is IMO so divisive and adds more and more layers of complexity and cost. I think all the regional or whatever you want to call them parliaments should go. We are, after all, the United Kingdom. Or at least, should be.


----------



## stuartpaul (19 Sep 2014)

A real mixture of feelings ....... Just like the mother in law driving off a cliff in my brand new BMW!

Delighted the Union is 'safe' but I will not easily forgive the silly person Cameron for putting it at risk the way he has. The no campaign was a disgrace and promising even more 'stuff' at the expense of the English voter will bite him hard at the next election.

Unfortunately, now the Union is safe we'll have another 300 years of the scots whining that 'it's not fair' and I'm not sure how much more of that I can stand!

I think this will lead to a significant change in British politics as I don't think we can continue as we are without ending up with an even more mickey mouse lot running the show (please ...... no UKIP!).

PS - I don't have a BMW and my MiL was a rather special, wonderful person!


----------



## jpt (19 Sep 2014)

Noel":igi5ikbo said:


> jpt":igi5ikbo said:
> 
> 
> > All over now just have to wait for the count.
> ...



There are 18 of them I am not sure if any of them have ever sat in the house but they are there. Also 40 from Wales and 59 from Scotland. An interesting side note on the debate on an English parliament while Scotland voted in its own Parliament for no tuition fees for university the Scottish MPs in the commons voted for them in England. If they had not been eligible to vote on this as it was an English only matter there would be no tuition fees in England either.

john


----------



## Doug B (19 Sep 2014)

So Alex Salmond was right after all, Scotland CAN still use the pound after September 18th


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2014)

'ere, wot abaht tellin the scotch to ff off, all of em?
(I've just come back from an interesting political discussion in the pub)


----------



## RogerBoyle (19 Sep 2014)

I'd sooner tell you to do one from the forum instead :roll: :roll:


----------



## dickm (19 Sep 2014)

Well, as an English person living in Scotland and hoping for a closer vote at least, the postings on here have certainly convinced me that UKIP is just the tip of a very nasty iceberg in ENGLISH politics.


----------

