A little bit of politics folks`

[Setanta]

+1 NielF and I would like to say that I am not necessarily for an independent Scotland but I do resent Cameron giving a Churchillian speech at the Olympic stadium when I have the impression that anyone outside of his definition of upper-class is worthy of less consideration, and if from the Celtic fringe, like Fielding, is one up from animal. Osborne's arguments of Economic disaster are so unsubstantiated by facts that they're laughable. Scotland can make a very, very good go of it alone but I remain neutral on Scottish independence, other than to say, I hope they do what is best for them.

[Shan]

A lot of words Neil but I think you are rather tip toeing around the question I asked. You appear to have assumed I mean economic advantages primarily even though I never suggested that.

I will grant that you mentioned self-determination though which is one of the fundamental changes of independence.......

........If we were able to discuss this matter while ignoring the existence of the EU then I would say the advantage for Scotland would be to allow them to plough their own destiny. That for me is the most important aspect and advantage of independence. We can't ignore the EU however so the opportunities are more limited but perhaps still tangible enough to add to the credit balance.


Taking your points about social policy-Scotland already has a parliament setting such policy so I can't see an advantage in this area.

[Shan]

+1 NielF and I would like to say that I am not necessarily for an independent Scotland but I do resent Cameron giving a Churchillian speech at the Olympic stadium when I have the impression that anyone outside of his definition of upper-class is worthy of less consideration, and if from the Celtic fringe, like Fielding, is one up from animal. Osborne's arguments of Economic disaster are so unsubstantiated by facts that they're laughable. Scotland can make a very, very good go of it alone but I remain neutral on Scottish independence, other than to say, I hope they do what is best for them.

Hi Setanta. I agree with you on Cameron and Osbourne of course. I rather liked watching Ed Milliband saying the Tory front bench are all millionaires during a PMQ session. We don't get that in our Parliament as none of our lot want to draw attention to how much money they have.

I think though there are plenty of folk in Scotland who would wary of the SNP getting their hands on all the power. They don't need the Tories or indeed Labour who are now gunning against Scottish independence to create that.

Funny thing is the Tories would likely win every General Election if Scotland was removed, unless they really fecked up. Labour on the surface have more to lose. But behind it all is the UN Security Council permanent seat and other Global bodies. If Great Britain was to no longer be Great Britain there is a potential threat to the remaining entity's influence in the world. Now the British Political Establishment are going to rightly concerned about that. Imagine only being just another run of the mill former Global Power like Spain. Unthinkable.

[Setanta]

Could save themselves 60 Billion getting rid of nuclear weapons that can/should not ever be used. They could have saved several battalions, naval vessels and sundry other armaments that could be used and paid off a large chunk of the national debt at the same time.

As you can see, I'm saying this not from pacifist reasons, but from the practical. A weapon is only a weapon if you can use it. Any right-minded person would never use a nuclear weapon, even tactical(read small). But the US have, I hear you say, re-read my last sentence. By the way, since it is sixty-odd years since the second world war, why do we have 30,000 US military personnel still based in the UK? I mean UKIP, the BNP, and the Conservative party all say that our independence is threatened by the EU!!

[Neil F]

A lot of words Neil but I think you are rather tip toeing around the question I asked. You appear to have assumed I mean economic advantages primarily even though I never suggested that.

I will grant that you mentioned self-determination though which is one of the fundamental changes of independence.......

........If we were able to discuss this matter while ignoring the existence of the EU then I would say the advantage for Scotland would be to allow them to plough their own destiny. That for me is the most important aspect and advantage of independence. We can't ignore the EU however so the opportunities are more limited but perhaps still tangible enough to add to the credit balance.


Taking your points about social policy-Scotland already has a parliament setting such policy so I can't see an advantage in this area.

Shan, I suspect I could level the same accusation but the point is well taken... As I said, though, my initial post was made from the basis of believing the wrong question is being asked. It should not be about whether Scotland would be better off or worse off, but if independence is viable.

I've seen no evidence that suggests independence is not viable.

In that situation, self-determinism is really all that is important.

Let me flip the question - why would Scotland need to be demonstrably "better off" (in whichever regard) to wish to exercise its right to self-determination?

Like Setanta, I'm actually rather neutral on the issue (two people in Switzerland and Sweden remaining neutral? Whudda thunkit?). I don't think Scotland will be objectively better off, one way or the other. Ultimately, therefore, self-determination is the only really relevant aspect.

If I were to be swung on this matter, therefore, it would be the behaviour of the No campaign. I'm basically sick of their "No You Can't" approach to begin with. But, for example, The Herald is reporting this morning that if the Westminster parliament doesn't find independence negotiations satisfactory, it will not honour the outcome of the referendum, should a Yes vote prevail. This is a hideous affront to self-determinisation. No country needs a "partner" that would behave in such a manner.

The EU debate is not the major issue it appears, as I said above. It is something that has been turned into a major issue by the No campaign. Anyone who believes, even in the short-term, that the EU will veto Scottish accession is living in a fantasy land. An oil-rich nation in Western Europe outside of the EU is not a good move. The Spanish have their incentives, of course but private incentives of a small number of states has rarely stopped accession. I'm not 100% convinced that an independent Scotland would be an EU member in 2016; I'd bet my house that it will be 2017. Even the Spanish position is clear enough - they haven't said they'll veto Scotland; they follow the EU line and suggest that Scotland must accede like any other nation.

[mikerob]

I thought a requirement of accession to the EU was a commitment to adopt the Euro (although joining the Euro has separate requirements from EU membership so the Euro may come a time after joining)

[Neil F]

I thought a requirement of accession to the EU was a commitment to adopt the Euro (although joining the Euro has separate requirements from EU membership so the Euro may come a time after joining)

Technically, every EU country apart from Denmark and the UK are committed to joining the Euro. So, let's take Sweden as an example; Sweden joined the EU long before the Euro was officially adopted but at a time when the idea was more than embryonic. Sweden has "been committed to joining the Euro" for almost twenty years and still has no timeline for when it will happen... I sincerely doubt that no immediate plans to join the Euro would be a stumbling block. And, of course, it's certainly not a criteria in any sense for joining the EFTA.

[Shan]

Ok Neil fair enough.

I deliberately did not mention the EU debate because I don't see it as the obstacle some do. My mention of the EU was in reference to its existence being a factor in a state's level of self-determination. A different argument I guess and perhaps a touch of trying to muddy things from me. I do love the EUSSR you see.

[BaggyTrousers]

Let me give one very good reason for independence. LONDON.

The UK is increasingly revolving around London and it's a trend that is only going one way. London's economy is greater than the combined economies of the next 9 largest cities in the UK and the gap is widening.

Anyone hear there is an economic recovery happening? Where? Belfast? Glasgow? Manchester? Liverpool? Cardiff? Edinburgh? I tell you where it is strongest - London & the South East.

Why? Because every major facility, with occasional exceptions is based there. Sure there is the odd development outside that area but the vast majority of major facilities and developments are there.

Obviously no other UK city is remotely positioned to become a competitor any time soon but independence gives Scotland the opportunity to build itself rather than remain a remote UK outpost.

Neil is right that it's not simply about economics, there are huge differences between the politics of Scotland & England/Wales. Education has remained free in Scotland & though I'm not sure with my memory, health has remained "free" without the prescription charges put in place though now rescinded in NI.

Scotland has huge reserves of oil & gas which the devious UK Together camp are hugely undervaluing in there outrageous attempts to turn the vote into a "no way you can afford it" campaign.

There may be one, but I've yet to see any reasoned argument put forward that is anything but an economic badgering designed to play to the supposed parsimonious nature of Scots, attempting to instil the notion that penury would be the only outcome for Scotland.

I would happily move to an Independent Scotland if they'd have me, for the prospect of seeing out my remaining years governed by the output of Eton College distresses me more than I can express.

Remember Bannockburn 1314

[Neil F]

Some fool from Unst in The Economist this week blethering about how awful an independent Scotland would be for his business because they'd raise alcohol and consumption taxes or some other nonsense. Turns out he's a brewer and exports most of his produce to Norway where alcohol duty on his products is four times higher than in the UK and consumption tax is 25% higher...

[BaggyTrousers]

Call me Dave today yammering on about how the medical profession and charity sector are just stummers, don't they see the unemployment figures as his sort of "proof" that everything is rosy. Sure malnutrition figures are rising, numbers using food banks are soaring but so what, the economy is racing forward based on part-time and zero hours contracts that approximate to here today gone tomorrow jobs so all must be well .

Yeah Dave, forget that only 1 in ten graduating teachers can find a job, ignore the fact that the floods are at least in part as bad as they are because of public sector cutbacks - I mean who in their right mind would have thought that 500 fulltime lock-keepers could possibly be missed?

Just keep to Tory traditions of fiddling unemployment figures, after all didn't Thatcher make 27 changes to the manner of c calculation and still racked up record figures. Of course she was too stupid to think of zero hours contracts.

[Shan]

Some fool from Unst in The Economist this week blethering about how awful an independent Scotland would be for his business because they'd raise alcohol and consumption taxes or some other nonsense. Turns out he's a brewer and exports most of his produce to Norway where alcohol duty on his products is four times higher than in the UK and consumption tax is 25% higher...

Hi Neil- Yes one must always be careful of the vested interests getting involved in these discussions. The problem is that these vested interest groups or individuals tend to have a line directly into the opinion forming / changing apparatus. The scare tactics will be ramping up. Of that I have no doubt. There's too many people with fingers in the pie for lots of reasons.....though all those reasons can be placed in two categories, money and power.

[shamalicious]

You've been watching House of Cards haven't you Shan? ;-)

[Shan]

Call me Dave today yammering on about how the medical profession and charity sector are just stummers, don't they see the unemployment figures as his sort of "proof" that everything is rosy. Sure malnutrition figures are rising, numbers using food banks are soaring but so what, the economy is racing forward based on part-time and zero hours contracts that approximate to here today gone tomorrow jobs so all must be well .

Yeah Dave, forget that only 1 in ten graduating teachers can find a job, ignore the fact that the floods are at least in part as bad as they are because of public sector cutbacks - I mean who in their right mind would have thought that 500 fulltime lock-keepers could possibly be missed?

Just keep to Tory traditions of fiddling unemployment figures, after all didn't Thatcher make 27 changes to the manner of c calculation and still racked up record figures. Of course she was too stupid to think of zero hours contracts.

Gwan ya big legend Baggy. SuperDave: The man who once said to Ed Milliband that he'd rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown.

You ready for the revolution old chap?

[Shan]

You've been watching House of Cards haven't you Shan? ;-)

I had to look that up Sham as I had not heard of it. Hmmm sounds like I might like that show. I must check it out. Thank you for the unintended prompt.