SCOTLAND

[Lampwick]

Well I've made up my mind!

 

It's a YES for me!

 

Dam it I can't vote, but if I could!!!! Yes yes yes.

[ben0850]

Spain will try everything in their power to stop Scotland joining as it gives the Basques hope of gaining their independance

 

Agreed, I think Spain are equally worried about the Catalans with regards to independance.

 

I don't hear much from Salmond about his post independance manifesto?? He seems hell bent on gaining independance and then what's he going to do? I can't seem to recollect him giving any firm answers on Scotland's way forward other than the Norway model, I wouldn't vote "yes" based on his rhetoric....

[figgy]

Spain will try everything in their power to stop Scotland joining as it gives the Basques hope of gaining their independance

France also as the disputed Basque region covers parts both countries.

 

Think there would be more block them too as it's more noses in the trough.

 

Figgy

[kdubya]

Well I've made up my mind!

 

It's a YES for me!

 

Dam it I can't vote, but if I could!!!! Yes yes yes.

:lol:

[aris]

[Nial]

World bank figures are $43,000 for Irish Rep,$36,000 for the U.K.2013

 

GDP per capita doesn't tell the whole story then.

 

I have been meaning to post that ireland should stand as a warning as to what might happen. The public spending cuts that would have to be made here would probably have a similar

effect the austerity measures had in Ireland, ie massive emmigration of the young in search for work leading to small rural communities dying....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024r9p6

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28690534

 

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-its-time-to-tackle-decline-in-rural-ireland-818388-Mar2013/

 

There is also the added cost of postage to the highlands and islands.

 

The Royal mail is currently forced to offer a uniform price through the UK. They can use the profits made in the big population centres

to offset the cost of delivering to Cornwall, rural parts of Wales and Endland, NI, and the Highlands and Islands.

 

A mail service just based in Scotland would have to chage _much_ higher prices to and from the Highlands and Islands, this would completely

hammer small industry, especially if it's selling into England/NI/Wales (post to a foreign country is even more expensive) .

 

I believe small rural communities have had a bit of a revival in the last 10 or 15 years. With a yes vote in 40 years the noth of Scotland could be almost completely deserted.

 

I don't want that to happen.

 

 

Nial.

[grrclark]

That is a good post Nial, to use the GDP figures ion their own is completely misleading, it does not give any sort of accurate measure.

[four-wheel-drive]

I must say that I for one am getting fed up with this hole thing to be honest I do not much care if they vote yes or no but it would be fun to see what would happen if they did vote yes.

[maxie]

I know that that GDP per capita on its own can be misleading but if you look at gross income Irish Republic $51,000 U.K.$44,000.That`s a gross figure and when you take taxation into account to get disposable income the gap still remains the same.On top of that the benefit system is far more generous than the U.K.The state pension for most people is 230 euros for a single person and 436euros for a couple.On the downside they don`t have a NHS.

[chrisjh]

just out of interest what do we think the position of the new Scottish parliament will be on ownership of firearms once they have powers to decide,

[Munzy]

Agreed, I think Spain are equally worried about the Catalans with regards to independance.

 

I don't hear much from Salmond about his post independance manifesto?? He seems hell bent on gaining independance and then what's he going to do? I can't seem to recollect him giving any firm answers on Scotland's way forward other than the Norway model, I wouldn't vote "yes" based on his rhetoric....

Spain is WAAAAAY more worried about the Catalans gaining independence than the Basques. Catalonia keeps Spain afloat and unlike the same financial debate regarding Scotland, here in this part of the world it isn't argued, Spain will be bankrupt if they lose Catalonia's income.

[grrclark]

just out of interest what do we think the position of the new Scottish parliament will be on ownership of firearms once they have powers to decide,

 

I honestly don't know, i guess it would depend on who came into power following the next election in 2016. In the interim I can't see any fundamental changes as so much time and energy would be given over to negotiation around the separation.

 

Gut feeling is that being much more left wing then I expect a more draconian approach to firearm licensing.

 

There is already the land ownership commission looking at sporting estates in Scotland and the sentiment is very much against large landowners and their 'elite' shoots, the SNP and Scottish Labour to a lesser extent favour a fundamental review of land ownership to remove much of the control from the relatively small number of landowners.

 

That approach could only have a negative effect on shooting.

[Nial]

I must say that I for one am getting fed up with this hole thing to be honest I do not much care if they vote yes or no but it would be fun to see what would happen if they did vote yes.

 

You're not the only one FWD, but the feelings of the potential of your adopted country going from a prosperous part of the UK to a banana republic, through no

fault or wish of your own, are hard to convey.

 

I just hope there is a silent majority who are keeping their heads down and who will get out and vote for unity next Thursday.

 

Nial.

[maxie]

The bookmakers are all still saying a no vote and they are rarely wrong.

[m3vert]

 

You're not the only one FWD, but the feelings of the potential of your adopted country going from a prosperous part of the UK to a banana republic, through no

fault or wish of your own, are hard to convey.

 

I just hope there is a silent majority who are keeping their heads down and who will get out and vote for unity next Thursday.

 

Nial.

I hope so

[Kes]

It would be very sad for all those Scots traditions which have percolated through English society to be swept away now. I can only speak for myself but my attitude to the Scots would change if there were a yes vote - for the first time I would become staunchly English instead of British. I would support Nials hope (above 2 ) too.

[m3vert]

It would be very sad for all those Scots traditions which have percolated through English society to be swept away now. I can only speak for myself but my attitude to the Scots would change if there were a yes vote - for the first time I would become staunchly English instead of British. I would support Nials hope (above 2 ) too.

 

The thing is Kes I truly believe that if a Yes vote goes through, there will be many Scots that will change their attitude towards the English! and I find that very sad indeed. Lets hope a No is returned next week!!

[Flashman]

By Sir John Major in today's Times:

 

"More than 20 years ago, I opposed devolution. I did so not because I thought Scotland could not govern itself. Plainly it can. I did so because I believed devolution would be a high road to separation. So it has proved. The vote next week is about far more than the future of Scotland. It is about the future of every part of the United Kingdom.

The previous Labour government left a deadly legacy when it passed a Devolution Act that was spectacularly one-sided. It offered Scotland all it asked for and — apart from a small reduction in Scottish MPs — ignored the impact on the rest of the UK. It would be ironic indeed if Scotland voted for separation, and Labour lost all its significant representation in the Commons. If this comes to pass, no one should weep for them.

I welcome the present cross-party consensus to save the Union, but we should not forget that, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Labour connived with nationalist opinion in demonising the Conservatives and, by implication, the English. They are doing it still, and have fed a divisive narrative that has bitten deep, ignoring the revolution in Scottish living standards brought about, in large part, by Conservative policies.

One example suffices: a hundred years ago, the English were far better paid than their Scottish counterparts. Today, they are not: a position achieved largely under Conservative governments sustained by a large majority of English MPs.

Nonetheless, despite all provocations, the Conservative party remains unionist and passionately in favour of keeping Scotland in the UK. The Scottish nationalists and Labour may taunt daily that the Conservatives have only one MP in Scotland, yet we continue to campaign for the Union. This is an act of conviction, not of self-interest. Surely that gives us the right to be heard with respect, instead of daily sneers and derision from the SNP?

Suppose Scotland won its independence and left the UK. What would this mean? I believe Scotland and the whole of the UK would be damaged. We need one another and, if separated, would all face unwelcome and unanticipated change.

If the UK lost Scotland, it would be diminished — be in no doubt about that. Our defence would be severely weakened. Trident would almost certainly be lost. Britain’s role as the second largest military force in the EU would be gone and, with it, many of our close ties to the United States.

The UK would be weaker in every international body and, most damagingly, within the European Union. Our chance of reforming the EU would be diminished, and the risk of our exit from it enhanced. Britain’s place as a member of the permanent five of the United Nations would no longer be viable. Moreover, the calls for independence in Wales would surely grow. The loss of Scotland would lead to the total reconfiguration of a United Kingdom that we have cherished for centuries.

But Scotland, too, would suffer — even if it were admitted to the EU (and there is no certainty of this). As a mere five million citizens among 500 million, the Scots would have far less influence upon important decisions than they do now. They would have made a lamentable choice: to leave the most successful union in history for one that still faces fundamental economic and currency problems and that would, in any event, be far less responsive to Scotland’s needs. Scotland has always been well represented in the UK parliament and government: how can Alex Salmond allow anyone to believe they would have comparative representation in the EU?

And what of defence and foreign policy? What defences would Scotland have? And does the SNP really believe that Nato would welcome them into the fold once they have destroyed the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent?

As for Scottish interests overseas, British embassies, high commissions and consulates exist in almost every corner of the world, representing UK interests and caring for any citizen in distress. How would an independent Scotland function outside its shores? Does Alex Salmond plan to establish a presence in all these countries? If so, at what cost — and who will pay?

For years, British ministers have campaigned for investment to come to a UK that includes Scotland. But an independent Scotland would find the same ministers campaigning only for the interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Does Mr Salmond give a thought to what this would do to the future prosperity of Scotland?

It is truly absurd for the SNP to claim that they can still use sterling. A currency union requires a political union — as the travails of the euro have shown us — and Scotland will have broken that union. The SNP are actively and knowingly misleading the Scots on this point — as they are on so much else.

The four nations of the UK have lived together, worked together and fought together for generations. What would a Scottish exit mean for that relationship? At present, around 750,000 Scots live and work outside Scotland but within the UK — none of whom, incidentally, can vote on the future of their country. They would, legally at least, become “foreigners”: a development that for us English is almost impossible to contemplate. A long-time neighbour, friend and colleague could suddenly and unwillingly become a citizen of a foreign country.

And should Scotland vote for separation some very practical questions arise: how would an independent Scotland survive in another financial crisis? How much of the Scottish financial industry would defect to London? By how much might taxes rise and public expenditure fall as oil revenues decline?

The youth of Scotland — who will live longest with the result (and will certainly live through the diminishing relevance of oil) — deserve answers to such questions. Yet, with just over a week to go, these are still not forthcoming from the Yes campaign.

I despair that the SNP promised a referendum without a UK-wide consultation on the implications of independence. It is, frankly, an absurdly inadequate way to bring about constitutional change. But that is what has happened, and I suspect history will judge them very severely on this.

Whether Scotland becomes independent or merely receives more powers from Westminster, the British constitution, which was in flux, will have been up-ended. There will be long-term serious changes as a result of what has been offered to Scotland, even if separation is defeated next week. No one, I believe, has fully appreciated the scale of what this might mean. We face a constitutional revolution.

The Union was, and is, precious. Once broken, it cannot be put back together again. And to break it in acrimony would be the worst possible parting.

In the 16th century, a Scottish philosopher who taught at Glasgow and St Andrews universities called for the union of England and Scotland. He offered wise words: “It is of more moment to understand aright and clearly to lay down the truth of any matter than to use eloquent language.” That is what the No campaign has sought to do, and, if its language has been less eloquent, less emotive, less positive than the pro-independence campaign, it can at least comfort itself with the virtue of having laid down the truth.

The name of this philosopher was John Major. He was right to call for union then: it is right to sustain it now, whatever the price in constitutional innovation. The decisions to be taken will affect all our futures.

Britain is Great. From the lochs and glens of Scotland, to the valleys of Wales, to the peaks and gorges of England to the coastline of Northern Ireland. Each has its own unique beauty, and its own unique people. But collectively, we four small and proud nations — for all our differences — have achieved so much together as a United Kingdom.

To splinter now, in such a turbulent and uncertain world, would be pure folly which is why, for all our sakes, I hope Scotland votes “no”."

[aris]

I can tell you who will pay for all the shortcomings of an independent Scotland - the rest of the UK. Scots will still have UK passports.

 

Possible solution? Make non-UK taxpayers pay a passport renewal of 1000 pounds. Yes this would affect other UK citizens living abroad, but in theory they could make use of UK services without contributing too. Bit more hard hitting - could disallow dual citizenship - or dual Scottish/UK citizenship. I don't see that happening though.

[johnphilip]

By Sir John Major in today's Times:

 

"More than 20 years ago, I opposed devolution. I did so not because I thought Scotland could not govern itself. Plainly it can. I did so because I believed devolution would be a high road to separation. So it has proved. The vote next week is about far more than the future of Scotland. It is about the future of every part of the United Kingdom.

The previous Labour government left a deadly legacy when it passed a Devolution Act that was spectacularly one-sided. It offered Scotland all it asked for and — apart from a small reduction in Scottish MPs — ignored the impact on the rest of the UK. It would be ironic indeed if Scotland voted for separation, and Labour lost all its significant representation in the Commons. If this comes to pass, no one should weep for them.

I welcome the present cross-party consensus to save the Union, but we should not forget that, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Labour connived with nationalist opinion in demonising the Conservatives and, by implication, the English. They are doing it still, and have fed a divisive narrative that has bitten deep, ignoring the revolution in Scottish living standards brought about, in large part, by Conservative policies.

One example suffices: a hundred years ago, the English were far better paid than their Scottish counterparts. Today, they are not: a position achieved largely under Conservative governments sustained by a large majority of English MPs.

Nonetheless, despite all provocations, the Conservative party remains unionist and passionately in favour of keeping Scotland in the UK. The Scottish nationalists and Labour may taunt daily that the Conservatives have only one MP in Scotland, yet we continue to campaign for the Union. This is an act of conviction, not of self-interest. Surely that gives us the right to be heard with respect, instead of daily sneers and derision from the SNP?

Suppose Scotland won its independence and left the UK. What would this mean? I believe Scotland and the whole of the UK would be damaged. We need one another and, if separated, would all face unwelcome and unanticipated change.

If the UK lost Scotland, it would be diminished — be in no doubt about that. Our defence would be severely weakened. Trident would almost certainly be lost. Britain’s role as the second largest military force in the EU would be gone and, with it, many of our close ties to the United States.

The UK would be weaker in every international body and, most damagingly, within the European Union. Our chance of reforming the EU would be diminished, and the risk of our exit from it enhanced. Britain’s place as a member of the permanent five of the United Nations would no longer be viable. Moreover, the calls for independence in Wales would surely grow. The loss of Scotland would lead to the total reconfiguration of a United Kingdom that we have cherished for centuries.

But Scotland, too, would suffer — even if it were admitted to the EU (and there is no certainty of this). As a mere five million citizens among 500 million, the Scots would have far less influence upon important decisions than they do now. They would have made a lamentable choice: to leave the most successful union in history for one that still faces fundamental economic and currency problems and that would, in any event, be far less responsive to Scotland’s needs. Scotland has always been well represented in the UK parliament and government: how can Alex Salmond allow anyone to believe they would have comparative representation in the EU?

And what of defence and foreign policy? What defences would Scotland have? And does the SNP really believe that Nato would welcome them into the fold once they have destroyed the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent?

As for Scottish interests overseas, British embassies, high commissions and consulates exist in almost every corner of the world, representing UK interests and caring for any citizen in distress. How would an independent Scotland function outside its shores? Does Alex Salmond plan to establish a presence in all these countries? If so, at what cost — and who will pay?

For years, British ministers have campaigned for investment to come to a UK that includes Scotland. But an independent Scotland would find the same ministers campaigning only for the interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Does Mr Salmond give a thought to what this would do to the future prosperity of Scotland?

It is truly absurd for the SNP to claim that they can still use sterling. A currency union requires a political union — as the travails of the euro have shown us — and Scotland will have broken that union. The SNP are actively and knowingly misleading the Scots on this point — as they are on so much else.

The four nations of the UK have lived together, worked together and fought together for generations. What would a Scottish exit mean for that relationship? At present, around 750,000 Scots live and work outside Scotland but within the UK — none of whom, incidentally, can vote on the future of their country. They would, legally at least, become “foreigners”: a development that for us English is almost impossible to contemplate. A long-time neighbour, friend and colleague could suddenly and unwillingly become a citizen of a foreign country.

And should Scotland vote for separation some very practical questions arise: how would an independent Scotland survive in another financial crisis? How much of the Scottish financial industry would defect to London? By how much might taxes rise and public expenditure fall as oil revenues decline?

The youth of Scotland — who will live longest with the result (and will certainly live through the diminishing relevance of oil) — deserve answers to such questions. Yet, with just over a week to go, these are still not forthcoming from the Yes campaign.

I despair that the SNP promised a referendum without a UK-wide consultation on the implications of independence. It is, frankly, an absurdly inadequate way to bring about constitutional change. But that is what has happened, and I suspect history will judge them very severely on this.

Whether Scotland becomes independent or merely receives more powers from Westminster, the British constitution, which was in flux, will have been up-ended. There will be long-term serious changes as a result of what has been offered to Scotland, even if separation is defeated next week. No one, I believe, has fully appreciated the scale of what this might mean. We face a constitutional revolution.

The Union was, and is, precious. Once broken, it cannot be put back together again. And to break it in acrimony would be the worst possible parting.

In the 16th century, a Scottish philosopher who taught at Glasgow and St Andrews universities called for the union of England and Scotland. He offered wise words: “It is of more moment to understand aright and clearly to lay down the truth of any matter than to use eloquent language.” That is what the No campaign has sought to do, and, if its language has been less eloquent, less emotive, less positive than the pro-independence campaign, it can at least comfort itself with the virtue of having laid down the truth.

The name of this philosopher was John Major. He was right to call for union then: it is right to sustain it now, whatever the price in constitutional innovation. The decisions to be taken will affect all our futures.

Britain is Great. From the lochs and glens of Scotland, to the valleys of Wales, to the peaks and gorges of England to the coastline of Northern Ireland. Each has its own unique beauty, and its own unique people. But collectively, we four small and proud nations — for all our differences — have achieved so much together as a United Kingdom.

To splinter now, in such a turbulent and uncertain world, would be pure folly which is why, for all our sakes, I hope Scotland votes “no”."

 

 

 

 

 

 

a great write up you have just delivered and all of what you say is very true . i moved here to scotland about 12 years ago from the north east . i had been coming to scotland all my life why because i love the place and its people . but if the yes does go ahead i fear so many changes ,and fear for this great nation of people ,

Edited September 10, 2014 by johnphilip

[Katzenjammer]

An interesting article by John Major and thanks to Flashman for posting that.

 

It sparked a few thoughts off in my mind that have not been thought of by the SNP or answered by them. Well not that I've seen anyway.

 

The Embassies question is interesting. An independent Scotland will have to establish its own and very expensive that will be. The other option is to get another power with embassy presence to act for you. This happens already for diplomatic purposes only in some circumstances. An important side of embassy work is trade and no foreign embassy will act in this regard for another rival trading partner.

 

Scotland will have to set up its own Government Departments where that function does not currently exist. For shared services from govt agencies and the like eg DVLA, Met Office, BBC etc Scotland will either have to set up its own or pay for the service to be undertaken by what exists already on their behalf.

 

The Student Loan Company presence in Scotland along with any other organisation or service that serves mainly English and Welsh will be moved to England. In the case of the SLC that will go to Darlington where an office already exists. The function that is, not the jobs.

 

The SNP have not yet answered the thorny question of nuclear waste. Sellafield and the local MP's have already pointed out that under international law an independent Scotland will have to build its own facility. Very very expensive! The Scots have in the past chucked it down a big hole in the rocks next to one of the nuclear facilities. You can't do that anymore.

 

UK Oil - - not automatically Scotlands whatever the rhetoric may be. Any revenue will be divided by pro rata. Yes Scotland may get the majority of that revenue but they won't get it all. I remember seeing the investment figures on a DTI policy file way back in the 80's. True Scottish investment was negligible then compared to other investment and I guess it still is?

 

I agree that Scotland needs more say in its country - devomax would have been a better way forward just as it would for the neglected North of England. North of Manchester, Leeds etc that is. Most may have forgotten the Northern Regional Assembly vote of some years ago in the North of England. The proposal was rejected. Not because we did not want it but because of the instigators and future players! Shysters and hucksters all. Salmond and Sturgeon strike me as being from the same mould!

 

Finally, one of the reasons why Scotland failed to resist takeover by England way back was because England was united by force, the Clans were not and fought or mistrusted each other and hence true unity was elusive at critical times.

[aris]

I can't help but wonder if devo-max is the end game plan. I.e. Either Independence or devo-max, Salmond wins

[grrclark]

I can't help but wonder if devo-max is the end game plan. I.e. Either Independence or devo-max, Salmond wins

 

That was my suspicion for a long time, Salmond didn't really want full independence as then he would have to stand by all his proclamations and almost certainly be found wanting. I suspected the independence referendum was being used a lever to try and win more powers for Scotland, which as a unionist I found distasteful to the rest of the union. I don't think that Eck actually believed that he could win it outright.

 

I suspect that they really are now believing their own hype, so many people have engaged with the Yes campaign that the wave of resulting emotion is propelling them forward and they can't do anything about it now.

 

Reading John Major's piece posted above was interesting, echoes my own thoughts.

 

Devolution was shockingly one sided, it is a travesty that England never got the option for a devolved assembly and I think that decision is now haunting Westminster, it is perceived that Westminster is the de facto English parliament. I think that belief permeates inside England as well as in Scotland, Wales and NI too and that is damaging for everyone.

 

I hope that if there is a no vote it does seriously mean discussions on a more federal type of approach with regional assemblies and a much smaller central government. Even if it is for no other reason to publicly discuss the merits/drawbacks and then rule it out, at least people would understand.

[Katzenjammer]

Well it may be. Devomax would be the safest bet for any region and lets face it there are English regions who are ignored by the South East seat of power and have lost out on investment which has been steered to Scotland or Wales for political purposes. Not steered there by Scottish or Welsh influence so much as that of the South East power base.

 

I have to say that for many years I have avoided buying Scottish goods and I am not the only one. The majority of Scotlands trade is with the rest of the UK not with the world at large. I mistakenly bought some Scottish potatoes the other day. They boiled away to mush and had no unity in mashing whereas some fine local English potatoes used the next day were tasty and had a good binding quality ;-)

Edited September 10, 2014 by Katzenjammer

[aris]

I have to say that for many years I have avoided buying Scottish goods and I am not the only one. The majority of Scotlands trade is with the rest of the UK not with the world at large. I mistakenly bought some Scottish potatoes the other day. They boiled away to mush and had no unity in mashing whereas some fine local English potatoes used the next day were tasty and had a good binding quality ;-)

 

If there is a yes vote I can forsee a backlash. If there is a no-vote and devo-max, I can see festering resentment on both sides - the Scots for being hard done by, and the English for getting less services yet paying the same level of tax into the system as everyone else.

 

And who do we have to thank for this mess? Labour. What were they thinking?!