Scottish Independence

[Mr Scruff]

Why do you keep asking for proof of what will happen in the future? That's simply impossible in this case! Did the Tories prove categorically that their economic plan would be a success before you voted for them? If you're going to set the bar so high that it's impossible to clear then there is no point in debating with you.

 

All anyone can do is look at the arguments for and against and make a judgement. For what it's worth, I consider myself pro-independence but accept that there are some questions that remain unanswered about our currency, place in the EU, division of UK infrastructure, armed forces, etc. But I don't expect anyone to prove to me that we would be better in the UK, because they can't.

Absolutely right. The thing that's missing is any detail about Indpendence upon which to make a judgement. And I mean any detail.

 

And spot on, you can't prove what's going to happen tomorrow. But given enough facts you can demonstrate what things are likely to happen. We can't do that at the moment. All we're left with are pleas to the emotion.

 

But this is another concern of mine. The SNP are about the only party in Scotland to have retained any national political power. I personally like Salmond (though he does have a tendancy to smugness at times just like many other career politicians). But that doesn't in itself demonstrate that Indpendence would be better than a development of the status quo. All too often political discourse is becoming sound bite driven and more of a beauty parade, leaving us with no clear, testable, basis on which to make a decision.

 

Clearly there will be a referendum proposing a change. It is incumbent on those bringing forward that proposal to detail what is proposed and to demonstrate the risks and opportunities. Using political presence for an emotional appeal is not enough.

[Jaggernaut]

Most definetly not, why do you think i and thousands of scots every year leave the country, but lose our military bases and see the knock on effect for the wider community, not to mention the like of rolls-royce who's scottish legs wouldnt be able to work on parts or engines that go into engkish airforce planes, thats more jobs that would move down south

 

This is scaremongering nonsense. Engineering contracts are almost always international these days, including British military contracts. You don't seem to be bothered by the fact that RAF planes and navy ships are made up of components that come from several different countries. Yet somehow you single out Scotland never to be able to produce parts for other customers? Almost unbelievable.

 

And the UK is in fact a bankrupt country, with debts that will never be paid off in any of our lifetimes?

 

Your correct, but scotland would be starting of in a horrendous position, who would give them decent credit? it would be like leaving school and going for your 1st car loan with a million quid debt already against you,

 

We'd take on roughly 1/10th of the UK debt. A lot of money, but then we would also be able to come up with our own plans to deal with it, just as every other sovereign nation is doing. Your example reminds me of young folk these days starting out in life with £50K or £60K of debt after their studies, debt that most of them will never pay off in their lifetime, as the jobs aren't there. Great unionist policies again.

 

What is this "no infrastructure" idea? Are roads and railways and airports somehow going to disappear with independence? Same with schools and hospitals?

 

Alot of schools and hospitals have been partly funded by westminster, would we pay it back? The train tracks are owned by network rail (british company), the airports are run by BAA (british company) and governed by the CAA (british company), how do we split this up would we have to pay for some ar all of it?

Others have refuted your point on this, but I'd just remind you that any Westminster infrastructure in Scotland is largely paid for by Scottish taxes. You seem to be suggesting that we live entirely on handouts from London, which is what London has tried to make Scots (and other British) believe for decades. It's only recently that the lie has become clearer to most people.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[Mr Scruff]

Most definetly not, why do you think i and thousands of scots every year leave the country, but lose our military bases and see the knock on effect for the wider community, not to mention the like of rolls-royce who's scottish legs wouldnt be able to work on parts or engines that go into engkish airforce planes, thats more jobs that would move down south

 

This is scaremongering nonsense. Engineering contracts are almost always international these days, including British military contracts. You don't seem to be bothered by the fact that RAF planes and navy ships are made up of components that come from several different countries. Yet somehow you single out Scotland never to be able to produce parts for other customers? Almost unbelievable.

 

And the UK is in fact a bankrupt country, with debts that will never be paid off in any of our lifetimes?

 

Your correct, but scotland would be starting of in a horrendous position, who would give them decent credit? it would be like leaving school and going for your 1st car loan with a million quid debt already against you,

 

We'd take on roughly 1/10th of the UK debt. A lot of money, but then we would also be able to come up with our own plans to deal with it, just as every other sovereign nation is doing. Your example reminds me of young folk these days starting out in life with £50K or £60K of debt after their studies, debt that most of them will never pay off in their lifetime, as the jobs aren't there. Great unionist policies again.

 

What is this "no infrastructure" idea? Are roads and railways and airports somehow going to disappear with independence? Same with schools and hospitals?

 

Alot of schools and hospitals have been partly funded by westminster, would we pay it back? The train tracks are owned by network rail (british company), the airports are run by BAA (british company) and governed by the CAA (british company), how do we split this up would we have to pay for some ar all of it?

Others have refuted your point on this, but I'd just remind you that any Westminster infrastructure in Scotland is largely paid for by Scottish taxes. You seem to be suggesting that we live entirely on handouts from London, which is what London has tried to make Scots (and other British) believe for decades. It's only recently that the lie has become clearer to most people.

Don't particularly want to get bogged down in arguing points taken out of context (and there are some things I do agree with in your post), but:

 

UK is NOT bankrupt. Our debt is increasing. We can debate (separately) why that is the case but it is happening. The UK is able to fund that debt very cheaply at the moment because it does have international credibility (believe it or not) as one of the biggest trading nations on the planet with an exceptionally open economy. That may well change, but thems the current facts. The Scottish Exchequor would take on 10% of that debt, denominated in what? What currency would the Scottish Central Bank be issuing bonds in to support the debt and over what terms? What rate will we pay for it, and how would its exchange relate to GBP, USD and Euro etc? How do we build quickly the same credibility as UK gilts? How would existing personal debts, which have a relationship with this, be denominated? Still GBP? The new Scottish Pound? Or Swiss Francs as happened in many smaller Eastern European countries? What protections would we put in place to stop capital flowing out - you can bet that the UK would put its own protections in to stop the reverse happening? These questions I ask ONLY in relation to the debt, but even on that simple matter the complexity demands proper proposals and solutions.

 

Clearly the Scottish economy will still produce infrastructure. In a highly interconnected world we will need more transnational infrastructure, though. A future high speed link with the rest of the UK would be an important part of that. As an independent country it will be more in our interest than the rest of the UK. The UK will likely be our biggest trading partner, but we won't be theirs. OK the borders and trade won't be closed, but definitely a harder deal to pull off. (well unless we do go for complete state control of the economy as proposed by some, then borders/ trade would indeed be closed off and we'd have no need for this investment)

 

You're absolutely right that we don't live on handouts from Westminster any more than any other part of the UK. I don't believe in 'scaremongering' in either direction

Edited October 6, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Jaggernaut]

Don't particularly want to get bogged down in arguing points taken out of context (and there are some things I do agree with in your post), but:

 

UK is NOT bankrupt. Our debt is increasing. We can debate (separately) why that is the case but it is happening. The UK is able to fund that debt very cheaply at the moment because it does have international credibility (believe it or not) as one of the biggest trading nations on the planet with an exceptionally open economy. That may well change, but thems the current facts. The Scottish Exchequor would take on 10% of that debt, denominated in what? What currency would the Scottish Central Bank be issuing bonds in to support the debt and over what terms? What rate will we pay for it, and how would its exchange relate to GBP, USD and Euro etc? How do we build quickly the same credibility as UK gilts? How would existing personal debts, which have a relationship with this, be denominated? Still GBP? The new Scottish Pound? Or Swiss Francs as happened in many smaller Eastern European countries? What protections would we put in place to stop capital flowing out - you can bet that the UK would put its own protections in to stop the reverse happening? These questions I ask ONLY in relation to the debt, but even on that simple matter the complexity demands proper proposals and solutions.

 

Clearly the Scottish economy will still produce infrastructure. In a highly interconnected world we will need more transnational infrastructure, though. A future high speed link with the rest of the UK would be an important part of that. As an independent country it will be more in our interest than the rest of the UK. The UK will likely be our biggest trading partner, but we won't be theirs. OK the borders and trade won't be closed, but definitely a harder deal to pull off. (well unless we do go for complete state control of the economy as proposed by some, then borders/ trade would indeed be closed off and we'd have no need for this investment)

 

You're absolutely right that we don't live on handouts from Westminster any more than any other part of the UK. I don't believe in 'scaremongering' in either direction

Good post, with some good points. On your point that I've put in bold, you might find this (one of many such sites) interesting:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/08/the-uk-is-broke/

[Mr Scruff]

Good post, with some good points. On your point that I've put in bold, you might find this (one of many such sites) interesting:

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/08/the-uk-is-broke/

Absolutely. Hhadn't seen that one. If you're argument is that we need to get our debt sorted out to avoid mortgaging future generations for current spending then you're pushing against an open door (© T Wogan). And that's not taking into account unfunded pension obligations and PFI commitments which apparently combined would almost treble our debt ratio. I'm sure we could debate separately the reasons and solutions for this.

 

But...

 

The UK isn't broke or bankrupt for as long as it can meet its debt obligations, and we are getting a (remarkably) good rate on our gilts just now. You may say "thanks to the ConDem's debt reduction strategy having credibility in the markets". I may say that "we're seen as a least worst option by markets spooked by the Euro Crisis". Or vice versa. But we're not broke. It would be an interesting experiment to see what the yield would be on Scottish Pound bonds.

[Jaggernaut]

Absolutely. Hhadn't seen that one. If you're argument is that we need to get our debt sorted out to avoid mortgaging future generations for current spending then you're pushing against an open door (© T Wogan). And that's not taking into account unfunded pension obligations and PFI commitments which apparently combined would almost treble our debt ratio. I'm sure we could debate separately the reasons and solutions for this.

 

But...

 

The UK isn't broke or bankrupt for as long as it can meet its debt obligations, and we are getting a (remarkably) good rate on our gilts just now. You may say "thanks to the ConDem's debt reduction strategy having credibility in the markets". I may say that "we're seen as a least worst option by markets spooked by the Euro Crisis". Or vice versa. But we're not broke. It would be an interesting experiment to see what the yield would be on Scottish Pound bonds.

Agreed! With the Scottish pound independent of the Bank of England.

[Meister Jag]

Don't particularly want to get bogged down in arguing points taken out of context (and there are some things I do agree with in your post), but:

 

UK is NOT bankrupt. Our debt is increasing. We can debate (separately) why that is the case but it is happening. The UK is able to fund that debt very cheaply at the moment because it does have international credibility (believe it or not) as one of the biggest trading nations on the planet with an exceptionally open economy. That may well change, but thems the current facts. The Scottish Exchequor would take on 10% of that debt, denominated in what? What currency would the Scottish Central Bank be issuing bonds in to support the debt and over what terms? What rate will we pay for it, and how would its exchange relate to GBP, USD and Euro etc? How do we build quickly the same credibility as UK gilts? How would existing personal debts, which have a relationship with this, be denominated? Still GBP? The new Scottish Pound? Or Swiss Francs as happened in many smaller Eastern European countries? What protections would we put in place to stop capital flowing out - you can bet that the UK would put its own protections in to stop the reverse happening? These questions I ask ONLY in relation to the debt, but even on that simple matter the complexity demands proper proposals and solutions.

 

Clearly the Scottish economy will still produce infrastructure. In a highly interconnected world we will need more transnational infrastructure, though. A future high speed link with the rest of the UK would be an important part of that. As an independent country it will be more in our interest than the rest of the UK. The UK will likely be our biggest trading partner, but we won't be theirs. OK the borders and trade won't be closed, but definitely a harder deal to pull off. (well unless we do go for complete state control of the economy as proposed by some, then borders/ trade would indeed be closed off and we'd have no need for this investment)

 

You're absolutely right that we don't live on handouts from Westminster any more than any other part of the UK. I don't believe in 'scaremongering' in either direction

 

Mr Scruff, Jaggy and others...

 

This has been one of the better debates on this DG but I feel that if we are to work within the current system then nothing will be achieved. I've made the point throughout this discussion that I fail to see what will be better for the average person in the street. Until we are willing to take bold steps and change the system - basically rip it up and start again - then I fear we are going nowhere. But maybe that's just my cynical outlook on the whole 'does it really matter' issue of Scottish independence.

 

But is Scotland ready to take the types of steps that could result in a radical transformation of society? Let's consider what's been happening during the recession...

 

To my mind it is clear that the worldwide crisis of capitalism will put the issue of socialism back on the agenda. For example, in Latin America a number of radical populist or left-leaning leaders have been elected to power. While some welcome reforms have been gained by the working masses and the poor in some countries (e.g. Bolivia and Venezuela) fundamental social change will not come simply through charismatic leaders being elected but from mass action from below. To successfully overthrow capitalism and landlordism, and establish genuine workers’ and peasants’ democracy, mass parties of the working class, armed with bold socialist policies, are needed. This also remains the case in Scotland; although the time is perhaps not right to move radically to the left and the conditions required for revolution remain a long way away IMO.

 

The world crisis of capitalism and the resulting deep sense of volatility and uncertainty have already led to a big increase in young people and workers turning to the works of Marx and Engels. Many young people are turning away from traditional political parties and are looking for a fresh voice. I understand that the Communist Party has seen a real resurgence in interest as have other far-left socialist parties. As the crisis deepens and prolongs, and as working people look for an alternative to the bankrupt system and its bankrupt ideology, genuine socialism and Marxism will find a greater voice.

 

It is perhaps inevitable that from Marx and Engels, youth will look to the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky and other great Marxist thinkers and leaders. Over the next period of global events, I believe these ideas can become the property of the person in the street. When that happens capitalism, on a global scale, can at last be replaced with a genuine socialist society, where the world’s enormous wealth and resources are used for the benefit of humanity.

 

But maybe I'm just a dreamer...

Edited October 6, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

Mr Scruff, Jaggy and others...

 

 

But maybe I'm just a dreamer...

 

[Meister Jag]

 

Cheers mate, glad you agree

[Blackpool Jags]

sorry BJ but this deluded paranoia is difficult to watch, you need to go into a darkened room and have a rest.

 

Of course I do, JB. Now kindly listen here. I know that your factophobia tends to lead you up all kinds of blind alleys when you get caught up in the helter skelter of replies to stuff on here, but despair not; there are (still) some excellent therapy services available to the public, for the time being anyway. Your irrational fear of facts can be overcome - all that is required is a will to accept the truth. Otherwise it's a lifetime of delusional acceptance of all things right wing and empire royal for you my dear friend.

[Blackpool Jags]

ok proof might be the wrong word how about giving us a clue what they would do then, the tories had to do that, they had to show what there plan was for us if they were voted in.

 

 

Strictly between me and you they kept their plans for dismantling the NHS a wee secret. It was quite clever really, they knew that if they put a summary of the universally reviled 'Health & Social Care' bill in their manifesto thingmy then nobody except the most hardened Tory-loyal bams would vote for them. It's quite cool that when you think about it; why risk facing a fourth term on the sidelines by letting on what you're going to do on big ticket items like Health when you know what a vote loser it'll be?

 

Hats off to cool Dave, Dracula Lansley and the intellectually impaired who don't have a problem with this innovative method of electioneering.

[Norgethistle]

I would love to see the sort of debate we are having on here be had by the political partys from both sides, some really good posts on here from both sides of the divide and those not quite convinced like myself, this could make for a cracking debate over a few beers some time

[Mr Scruff]

Mr Scruff, Jaggy and others...

 

This has been one of the better debates on this DG but I feel that if we are to work within the current system then nothing will be achieved. I've made the point throughout this discussion that I fail to see what will be better for the average person in the street. Until we are willing to take bold steps and change the system - basically rip it up and start again - then I fear we are going nowhere. But maybe that's just my cynical outlook on the whole 'does it really matter' issue of Scottish independence.

 

But is Scotland ready to take the types of steps that could result in a radical transformation of society? Let's consider what's been happening during the recession...

 

To my mind it is clear that the worldwide crisis of capitalism will put the issue of socialism back on the agenda. For example, in Latin America a number of radical populist or left-leaning leaders have been elected to power. While some welcome reforms have been gained by the working masses and the poor in some countries (e.g. Bolivia and Venezuela) fundamental social change will not come simply through charismatic leaders being elected but from mass action from below. To successfully overthrow capitalism and landlordism, and establish genuine workers’ and peasants’ democracy, mass parties of the working class, armed with bold socialist policies, are needed. This also remains the case in Scotland; although the time is perhaps not right to move radically to the left and the conditions required for revolution remain a long way away IMO.

 

The world crisis of capitalism and the resulting deep sense of volatility and uncertainty have already led to a big increase in young people and workers turning to the works of Marx and Engels. Many young people are turning away from traditional political parties and are looking for a fresh voice. I understand that the Communist Party has seen a real resurgence in interest as have other far-left socialist parties. As the crisis deepens and prolongs, and as working people look for an alternative to the bankrupt system and its bankrupt ideology, genuine socialism and Marxism will find a greater voice.

 

It is perhaps inevitable that from Marx and Engels, youth will look to the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky and other great Marxist thinkers and leaders. Over the next period of global events, I believe these ideas can become the property of the person in the street. When that happens capitalism, on a global scale, can at last be replaced with a genuine socialist society, where the world’s enormous wealth and resources are used for the benefit of humanity.

 

But maybe I'm just a dreamer...

MJ, sorry, haven't had a chance to respond, and am aware of the danger of much of this (useful and interesting) debate straying well off topic. But I feel your post does merit a response.

 

On the relationship between independence and the politico-economic points you raise, I think we'd be in agreement that in many ways it is irrelevant to the wider points. But it is on the agenda politically in this country, as it is in the rest of the UK both internally and with relation to our ties to the EU, so the question needs to be addressed. I have, as have you and others, looked at the issue of independence in terms of its ability to deliver or hinder the creation of a 'better society', which boils down to measuring it against your political and economic philosophy. Others still view it (or union) as an end in itself - I don't see the world that way.

 

What will be no surprise to you is that I don't share the vision for a state controlled economy with no private property. I find the state, or any mammoth artificial structure (yes including giant multi-nationals) as ultimately structurally self serving and inefficient. I was interested in your characterisation that the test is what's better for the average person in the street. This is where we diverge. I believe, with my limited knowledge of history, that a regulated market economy provides the best possible outcome for the average person in the street. We can both project a reductio ad absurdum argument of state versus private ownership. I believe in a balanced approach, with the state providing a universal welfare infrastructure, and constraining but empowering individuals in their economic relationships. Your view is contrary to that, presumably, in that the State should own and control everything.

 

The world has changed in the last 163 years. In the 'developed' world we have a definition of poverty which is relative and is based on 60% of median income. That's because a definition based on absolute poverty would be immeasurable. We have healthcare, education and social services based on need and not ability to pay (yes, even tertiary education). The question then becomes where you strike the balance in the relationship between individual and state. I fear, literally, the potential of extremist solutions to be carried out as a solution to current problems, but share your view that this becomes more likely. This is one of the dangers of independence. I noted a report last month indicating that the UK would likely see a reduction of GDP of 25% if the EU single currency failed. A very scary thought. But it doesn't stop some campaigning for such an eventuality. For Scottish independence we lack the basic data to even make an assessment.

[Meister Jag]

Mr Scruff

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't think we'll ever agree fully on this one but still remain of the opinion that until society is radically overhauled nothing will change. But maybe as good an excuse or reason for an extra day off work as any!

 

But in terms of fiscal detail, whatever facts and figures that may be out there at present would be re-worked and squeezed through the political mincer before being fed to the people. Plus the SNP will wait until the time is right before making any move towards a referendum; and perhaps just now isn't that time. But find a few more oil fields... then who knows!

 

Cheers

 

 

MJ

[Jaggernaut]

A question in response to Cameron's bluff of demanding that the independence referendum be called now rather than later in the Scottish Government's term, which was explicitly stated by the SNP before the votes were counted:

 

If Cameron thinks that he and the Con Dems are doing the right thing for the British state, why don't they hold a General Election right now, rather than wait for another 3/4 years?

 

What do you think the outcome would be?

[twinny]

A question in response to Cameron's bluff of demanding that the independence referendum be called now rather than later in the Scottish Government's term, which was explicitly stated by the SNP before the votes were counted:

 

If Cameron thinks that he and the Con Dems are doing the right thing for the British state, why don't they hold a General Election right now, rather than wait for another 3/4 years?

 

What do you think the outcome would be?

 

I don't see what would be different in a General Election held now as opposed to last year. Public perception is that the Lib Dems sold out and people are blaming the Conservatives for the cuts and continuing 'credit crunch'. Labour are still picking up the pieces from their last campaign. The Scottish public tend not to vote for the SNP for Westminster elections, though with the large swing in the Holyrood elections I'd expect a small increase in their turnout.

 

Have the current government not set fixed terms meaning that the next election cannot happen until 2015 unless there is a breakdown in the coalition or two thirds of MPs vote for an early election?

 

Why do you ask, and what do you think would happen?

[Jaggernaut]

I don't see what would be different in a General Election held now as opposed to last year. Public perception is that the Lib Dems sold out and people are blaming the Conservatives for the cuts and continuing 'credit crunch'. Labour are still picking up the pieces from their last campaign. The Scottish public tend not to vote for the SNP for Westminster elections, though with the large swing in the Holyrood elections I'd expect a small increase in their turnout.

 

Have the current government not set fixed terms meaning that the next election cannot happen until 2015 unless there is a breakdown in the coalition or two thirds of MPs vote for an early election?

 

Why do you ask, and what do you think would happen?

I ask because the opposition (in Scotland, i.e., the British nationalists) are clutching at straws in the face of ever-growing support for Scotland regaining its rightful independence. They claim that waiting for the referendum is distracting the Government from its real task of governing the country. If the SNP called the referendum now, however, the unionists would cry out that this was deflecting people from the real task at hand, which should be working towards improving the economic and employment conditions etc etc. In other words, the unionists' reactions are simply knee-jerk, baseless conditioned responses against anything SNP-inspired. People are getting steadily wiser and less tolerant of Westminster-orchestrated anti-Scottish independence propoganda.

 

What do I think would happen? The Con-Dem conmen (and women) would get slaughtered in a UK General Election if it got held tomorrow.

[Steven H]

I don't see what would be different in a General Election held now as opposed to last year. Public perception is that the Lib Dems sold out and people are blaming the Conservatives for the cuts and continuing 'credit crunch'. Labour are still picking up the pieces from their last campaign. The Scottish public tend not to vote for the SNP for Westminster elections, though with the large swing in the Holyrood elections I'd expect a small increase in their turnout.

 

Have the current government not set fixed terms meaning that the next election cannot happen until 2015 unless there is a breakdown in the coalition or two thirds of MPs vote for an early election?

 

Why do you ask, and what do you think would happen?

 

I agree with what you say, but I think we'd see a difference. For one thing I suspect the Lib Dems would not form a coalition (with Labour or Conservatives), leaving a minority Government. It would, at the very least, be interesting to see either Cameron or Milliband bumbling through that one...at best it would see a more rounded Government where compromise needs to be reached, thus giving them more chance to actually get things right (as opposed to the Tories 'cutting too deep and too quickly' while Labours 'strategy' is seen as not enough to reduce the deficit significantly in the near future).

 

How many seats did the Conservatives win in Scotland last time out (UK election)? Yet we still have them Governing us...just one more reason why independence is closer than ever. Our political persuasions appear to be totally different to our English counterparts.

[jaggybunnet]

I ask because the opposition (in Scotland, i.e., the British nationalists) are clutching at straws in the face of ever-growing support for Scotland regaining its rightful independence. They claim that waiting for the referendum is distracting the Government from its real task of governing the country. If the SNP called the referendum now, however, the unionists would cry out that this was deflecting people from the real task at hand, which should be working towards improving the economic and employment conditions etc etc. In other words, the unionists' reactions are simply knee-jerk, baseless conditioned responses against anything SNP-inspired. People are getting steadily wiser and less tolerant of Westminster-orchestrated anti-Scottish independence propaganda.

What do I think would happen? The Con-Dem conmen (and women) would get slaughtered in a UK General Election if it got held tomorrow.

 

 

where is that shown?

 

as opposed to the snp propaganda

[Jaggernaut]

where is that shown?

 

as opposed to the snp propaganda

 

This may be hard for you to read, as it isn't your own type of propoganda. It's from the Herald, an anti-SNP newspaper:

 

 

""THE SNP Government is to renew calls for greater economic powers north of the Border after claiming there had been a historic shift in the public’s attitude towards the party.

 

The Nationalists were given a further boost after a poll showed a rise in support across the UK for independence.

 

With the first party conference since the Nationalists won a majority at Holyrood just days away, officials last night claimed the latest statistics strengthened the claim for Alex Salmond’s administration to get more economic teeth in the Scotland Bill.

 

And last night the UK Government was warned it was appearing out of touch with the wishes of the voters.

 

The latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey for 2010 showed 74% of people thought the Holyrood Government ought to have most influence over how Scot- land is run compared with 16% for Westminster.

 

Meanwhile, a ComRes poll found more voters across the UK support Scottish independence, 39%, up six percentage points since May, than are opposed to it, 38%, a fall of four percentage points."

Edited October 18, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[jaggybunnet]

This may be hard for you to read, as it isn't your own type of propoganda. It's from the Herald, an anti-SNP newspaper:

 

 

""THE SNP Government is to renew calls for greater economic powers north of the Border after claiming there had been a historic shift in the public’s attitude towards the party.

 

The Nationalists were given a further boost after a poll showed a rise in support across the UK for independence.

 

With the first party conference since the Nationalists won a majority at Holyrood just days away, officials last night claimed the latest statistics strengthened the claim for Alex Salmond’s administration to get more economic teeth in the Scotland Bill.

 

And last night the UK Government was warned it was appearing out of touch with the wishes of the voters.

 

The latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey for 2010 showed 74% of people thought the Holyrood Government ought to have most influence over how Scot- land is run compared with 16% for Westminster.

 

Meanwhile, a ComRes poll found more voters across the UK support Scottish independence, 39%, up six percentage points since May, than are opposed to it, 38%, a fall of four percentage points."

 

that's UK, why would the english and welsh not want us moaning gits to get independence and fall on our arse. don't let that worry you though, you just believe what ever make you happy

[JAGZ1876]

that's UK, why would the english and welsh not want us moaning gits to get independence and fall on our arse. don't let that worry you though, you just believe what ever make you happy

Just like your happy to believe the lies the Brit Nats tell you about how incompetent you an your fellow countrymen are. By the way how many times have you fallen on your arse today JB?

[jaggybunnet]

Just like your happy to believe the lies the Brit Nats tell you about how incompetent you an your fellow countrymen are. By the way how many times have you fallen on your arse today JB?

 

 

have never said that, i would just like to see some sort of SNP plan that gives us a clue what they would do if we were independent and what they would do ref all the debt we would have to take on.

 

as i have said on numerous occasions, i have seen nothing that would sway me to vote for independence yet and would not make life harder for us in the long and short term.

 

 

none at the moment but there still time

[Jaggernaut]

that's UK, why would the english and welsh not want us moaning gits to get independence and fall on our arse. don't let that worry you though, you just believe what ever make you happy

So, if more and more of them don't even want us in their "union"; does that mean that you would go begging them to keep you because you'd feel inadequate without their motherly control over us?

[jaggybunnet]

So, if more and more of them don't even want us in their "union"; does that mean that you would go begging them to keep you because you'd feel inadequate without their motherly control over us?

 

 

no, see my post above. i am happy with how it is now and have seen nothing to prove it would be better if we were independent.

 

i also don't have this massive chip on my shoulder that some have about being Scottish

 

i am Scottish, i am proud to be Scottish (with the exception of the old filth, FTOF )