Scottish Independence

[Jaggernaut]

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 )

But only as long as Scotland remains subservient to its Westminster masters? How will you feel about being Scottish, and Scotland, when independence comes. Will your pride diminish? If so, why?

 

Another question: Do you believe that the majority of English MPs at Westminster act with the best interests of Scotland at heart, on an equal footing with England?

[jaggybunnet]

But only as long as Scotland remains subservient to its Westminster masters? How will you feel about being Scottish, and Scotland, when independence comes. Will your pride diminish? If so, why?

 

Another question: Do you believe that the majority of English MPs at Westminster act with the best interests of Scotland at heart, on an equal footing with England?

 

 

bloody hell that chip must really weigh you down.

 

you mean a bit like the snp who voted on the grounds that it would piss the rest off rather than for the best and actually i think the majority do, there are exceptions but that is the same anywhere.

[JAGZ1876]

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.

 

 

JB, i'm not really following you here! do you mean what's going to happen after independence? Because if you do then there's a lot of information already out there, something's like the day to day running of the country won't change (although if you listen to the Brit Nats the country will be plunged into darkness, an ice age will descend upon us, plague's of boil's, etc) and do you mean our share of the UK debt, or new debt's taken out after we leave the union.

[Mr Scruff]

JB, i'm not really following you here! do you mean what's going to happen after independence? Because if you do then there's a lot of information already out there, something's like the day to day running of the country won't change (although if you listen to the Brit Nats the country will be plunged into darkness, an ice age will descend upon us, plague's of boil's, etc) and do you mean our share of the UK debt, or new debt's taken out after we leave the union.

Where? I've asked questions on this and have failed to find any real detail. Don't get me wrong, i've seen a lot of rhetoric but no detail (even in publications by academics supported by the SNP on a 'what if' basis). I believe that the SNP would have preferred to have had fiscal 'autonomy' within the Euro, but recent experience shows exactly why fiscal union without political union doesn't work. I've seen models proposed which talk about 'fiscal independence' but still us being part of sterling - worst of both worlds unless we go for a federal model, but that's not independence and thus not part of this debate.

 

I am in favour (at the moment) of staying in the Union. I see because of this I am now characterised amongst others as a "British Nat" who is calling us incompetent, believes "we will fall on our arse" and am "unpatriotic". That's not the argument and is mightily offensive. If I am patriotic Scottish does that mean I believe we shouldn't be in the EU? Part of NATO? Part of the UK? That's the nature of Union. Having said that, when the debate becomes one of patriotism I feel that we're down to lowest common denominator.

[JAGZ1876]

Mr Scruff, What specific questions have you asked that you haven't had a reply in any detail to? I may not be able to answer them all, but maybe the rest of the independence supporters on this site will. Things like fiscal issue's are still open to discussion, nothing has been decided, so ignore any scare story's about joining the Euro, as you said in your post you've seen models proposed, but that's all they are, proposals. As you said, you are in favour of staying in the union, that is your democratic right. So would you mind answering one of my questions? In your opinion what benefit does Scotland have within the union that it wouldn't have being independent? I can't agree with your view on patriotism, i am a scottish patriot and proud of it, name me one county in the civilised world whose people are not patriotic. One thing that i admire about the English is their patriotism, It hack's me of when they get England And Britain Mixed Up, but never the less they are patriotic.

[Mr Scruff]

Mr Scruff, What specific questions have you asked that you haven't had a reply in any detail to? I may not be able to answer them all, but maybe the rest of the independence supporters on this site will. Things like fiscal issue's are still open to discussion, nothing has been decided, so ignore any scare story's about joining the Euro, as you said in your post you've seen models proposed, but that's all they are, proposals. As you said, you are in favour of staying in the union, that is your democratic right. So would you mind answering one of my questions? In your opinion what benefit does Scotland have within the union that it wouldn't have being independent? I can't agree with your view on patriotism, i am a scottish patriot and proud of it, name me one county in the civilised world whose people are not patriotic. One thing that i admire about the English is their patriotism, It hack's me of when they get England And Britain Mixed Up, but never the less they are patriotic.

jagz1876.

I realise this is a long thread, but I've previously (several times if memory serves) posted several questions on the detail of fiscal independence, haven't seen any answers. They're not meant to be 'trick' questions, literally off the top of my head, but crucial to why someone might support independence (I believe).

 

I am favour of staying in the UK and EU. As I've said before I could be persuaded to support independence, but haven't seen the persuasive argument yet (aside from calls to patriotism or suggestions that people who haven't been persuaded to support independence somehow look down on Scotland and Scottish people's abilities).

 

My point about patriotism was that being patriotic doesn't preclude being part of a Union, or several Unions. But it's being portrayed that way. My lowest common denominator point wasn't directed at or against patriotism. It was directed at using that as a reason for independence (ie those in favour of being in the UK or EU are obviously somehow unpatriotic). I see that as a pointless argument.

[Jaggernaut]

bloody hell that chip must really weigh you down.

 

you mean a bit like the snp who voted on the grounds that it would piss the rest off rather than for the best and actually i think the majority do, there are exceptions but that is the same anywhere.

No chip.

 

You didn't answer my questions, but feel free not to bother.

[Meister Jag]

bloody hell that chip must really weigh you down.

 

you mean a bit like the snp who voted on the grounds that it would piss the rest off rather than for the best and actually i think the majority do, there are exceptions but that is the same anywhere.

 

FFS Jaggy you must be getting really worried. Worried that your beloved butcher's apron will be lowered for the last time and replaced by the saltire of a supposedly independent Scotland. But should that day ever happen, fear not; your land owning mates and those who own the means of production would still rule supreme. All that would happen would be that the new (SNP) administration would get to tinker round the edges and maybe do a bit of tax raising here and there - hopefully hammering the rich to give us less of the 7:84 nonsense - and then the hamster wheel would start to turn once again.

 

Meanwhile, and I guess this is where you should be looking at retreating to Hampshire with your hounds, the first seed of socialism would have been sown. This would be the beginning of the journey to reclaim Scotland for the Scottish people; and establishing who the Scottish people are and what they want is the key to this question. Thereafter, the transformation of our society might begin.

 

JB, i'm not really following you here! do you mean what's going to happen after independence? Because if you do then there's a lot of information already out there, something's like the day to day running of the country won't change (although if you listen to the Brit Nats the country will be plunged into darkness, an ice age will descend upon us, plague's of boil's, etc) and do you mean our share of the UK debt, or new debt's taken out after we leave the union.

 

I agree with you in full, Scotland would not be plunged into darkness; but other than the short-term feelgood factor created by independence - and I'm cringing at the street party scenes of public drunkenness already (cue mass production of tartan army outfits) - I fear that once the dust settles and the cans are swept from our town squares then it will be reality check time. Natural resources will / could be the key and I hope the new government is strong enough to call the shots. I mean, would we have an army or navy to defend our interest; or is it independence in name only? Details like this would need to be established.

 

So presuming that the future of Scotland lies in the hands of the new political ruling class - SNP initially and then whatever morphs out of their ranks should they split (thinking broad left / right split and Salmond can't go on for ever) - what of the future?

 

It would probably be correct to describe the main parties who would be active in Scotland as being primarily capitalist parties. The conclusion must be that the social democratic parties and to a very large extent the so-called far-left or Communist parties (in their many variant forms) are finished as vehicles for working class aspirations. But granted there are still some socialists in them. Equally there are also socialists in the SNP and in the Greens; but they are not about to transform those parties into vehicles for socialist change. And what is absolutely striking is that even when faced with the bourgeois notion of the transformation of social democracy, is that there has not been one serious left split or uprising anywhere in Europe; and that includes Greece where economic troubles have been well reported.

 

The task before the left IMO is precisely to build new socialist parties with the aim of 'occupying the whole political territory'. How? Along what lines of demarcation between reform and revolution? Are we really confronted with a situation today where the dividing line in the working class movement is between those who want to carry through a socialist transformation using the institutions of the capitalist state, and those who want to do so by revolutionary means? What we are actually confronted with is a division between those who, while perhaps opposing neo-liberalism, accept the framework of capitalism and at the most seek to 'humanise' it, and those who defend an anti-capitalist, socialist perspective. That leads to the new mass movement trying to occupy the space left open by the evolution of the traditional workers' parties by building parties that start from the struggles of today and defend the perspective of socialism. This, to my mind, is how Scotland could be transformed.

 

The struggles of today can mean fighting the closure of hospitals and community centres, opposing PFI, supporting the public sector, defending education at all levels and opposing the Con-Dems budget reduction plans. For most of this decade socialists faced an uphill task, first of all to convince people that it was possible to fight and win, and secondly to rehabilitate socialism as the alternative to capitalism. Now with the possibility of independence and a new rise in working class struggles, the task is easier and all down to the capitalists and their greed.

 

In conclusion, independence just might be what this country need to begin the journey towards being a socialist republican state. But utter those words and even some on the left step back; therein friends lies the conundrum of socialism in Scotland. Is all of this a step too far... and was Jim Sillars correct with his 90-minute analogy!

 

As John Cleese's perpetually frustrated headmaster says in Clockwise, the epic comedy of dashed hopes, "it's not the despair, the despair I can live with. It's the hope".

Edited October 19, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Allan Heron]

I've seen models proposed which talk about 'fiscal independence' but still us being part of sterling - worst of both worlds unless we go for a federal model, but that's not independence and thus not part of this debate.

 

It should be, and I'll also suggest that this is precisely where we'll end up.

 

Presently, I'm much less concerned about the Scottish government's (lack of) plans for independance and much more concerned by their centralisation which is going to emasculate local accountability and the ability of services to be tailored to local needs. If you're in the Highlands and Islands then a government running things from Edinburgh is no better than one from London.

 

And there's a word for a movement that places the needs of the nation ahead of the needs of its' people.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Allan Heron

[Jaggernaut]

It should be, and I'll also suggest that this is precisely where we'll end up.

 

Presently, I'm much less concerned about the Scottish government's (lack of) plans for independance and much more concerned by their centralisation which is going to emasculate local accountability and the ability of services to be tailored to local needs. If you're in the Highlands and Islands then a government running things from Edinburgh is no better than one from London.

 

And there's a word for a movement that places the needs of the nation ahead of the needs of its' people.

What would that be, then. And how many examples can you think of in the British Isles, for example?

[alx]

If you're in the Highlands and Islands then a government running things from Edinburgh is no better than one from London.

 

Au contraire there's an absolutely massive, night and day, difference. Holyrood is much more focused on Scottish issues, and the SNP come from most parts of Scotland anyway. There's a genuine desire within the SNP to be a national party. The acid test isn't toon v rural its Glasgow v Edinburgh! Anyway Westminster is full of complete wahoos. They never cease to amaze with their latest wahoo carryons, the wahooness just keeps on coming.

[Allan Heron]

What would that be, then. And how many examples can you think of in the British Isles, for example?

 

The word would be fascist. If nationalists can't answer the reasonable questions that jaggybunnet is asking (which amounts to no more than "why will an independent Scotland be better for me and those around me?") or, more commonly, regard the asking of the question as a platform for what often amounts to abuse then that's a conclusion that's difficult to avoid. Having an independent Scotland is absolutely not and never will be more important than the basis on which it is formed.

 

At the end of the day, if there's a good economic argument to be made for independence then it is likely to garner support. But that argument has not been made to date with any credibility.

 

For what its' worth, I don't think the current government is remotely fascist (which is partly why I referred to a movement), but they are autocratic and centralising neither of which are good features in their own right. And I'm certainly not attracted by the prospect of a government which is a heavily centralised in Edinburgh as the Westminster government is in London. (And I don't think any of the mainstream parties are fascist either, although they will have members who I'd probably describe as such)

 

There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether we should be independent. That will depend utterly on the detail. And that detail can't be swept aside on the basis of "we'll sort that out later". If that's the basis that the SNP do approach the referendum (and I can't believe that they will anyway) then it's going to be easily defeated.

 

As things stand, the status quo is inevitably untenable but that's as much to do with England not being willing to date to make adjustments to the way they are governed. As additional powers are granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then there needs to be some movement within England to act at the very least as a counter-balance. Otherwise, the existing arrangements will collapse under a heap of contradictions.

 

A federal solution does offer a way out of this, and I also happen to think that this is precisely where Salmond is leading his party. If "fiscal federalism" can become a reality then independence becomes a bit irrelevant - if you have control over the raising and spending of revenue then anything else beyond this will start to amount to tinkering on the margins.

[Mr Scruff]

The word would be fascist. If nationalists can't answer the reasonable questions that jaggybunnet is asking (which amounts to no more than "why will an independent Scotland be better for me and those around me?") or, more commonly, regard the asking of the question as a platform for what often amounts to abuse then that's a conclusion that's difficult to avoid. Having an independent Scotland is absolutely not and never will be more important than the basis on which it is formed.

 

At the end of the day, if there's a good economic argument to be made for independence then it is likely to garner support. But that argument has not been made to date with any credibility.

 

For what its' worth, I don't think the current government is remotely fascist (which is partly why I referred to a movement), but they are autocratic and centralising neither of which are good features in their own right. And I'm certainly not attracted by the prospect of a government which is a heavily centralised in Edinburgh as the Westminster government is in London. (And I don't think any of the mainstream parties are fascist either, although they will have members who I'd probably describe as such)

 

There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether we should be independent. That will depend utterly on the detail. And that detail can't be swept aside on the basis of "we'll sort that out later". If that's the basis that the SNP do approach the referendum (and I can't believe that they will anyway) then it's going to be easily defeated.

 

As things stand, the status quo is inevitably untenable but that's as much to do with England not being willing to date to make adjustments to the way they are governed. As additional powers are granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then there needs to be some movement within England to act at the very least as a counter-balance. Otherwise, the existing arrangements will collapse under a heap of contradictions.

 

A federal solution does offer a way out of this, and I also happen to think that this is precisely where Salmond is leading his party. If "fiscal federalism" can become a reality then independence becomes a bit irrelevant - if you have control over the raising and spending of revenue then anything else beyond this will start to amount to tinkering on the margins.

Agree wholeheartedly with this...

 

On two points (highlighted).

 

Unless there's a two stage referendum process, or meaningful negotiation starting now, I can't see how they can provide the detail. Otherwise it will have to be based on assumptions and supposition. But yes, no detail = can't support independence = "unpatriotic" seems to be the suggestion.

 

I have supported the notion in the past of a federal structure. I believe that this might work to the benefit of everyone on this island. Effectively this will be what is now referred to as "devolution max" or somesuch phrase. But I wonder if this is possible. The current mindset is to blame everything bad on 'Westminster' and the Union, and praise everything that's good on 'Edinburgh'. Will that go away when we have our own tax raising powers, but monetary policy is still determined by the Bank of England? I suspect that our political system isn't flexible or mature enough for that. And I do mean the UK at that - see the difficulty people have getting their heads around responsibility in a coalition government at a time of national crisis...

[jaggybunnet]

JB, i'm not really following you here! do you mean what's going to happen after independence? Because if you do then there's a lot of information already out there, something's like the day to day running of the country won't change (although if you listen to the Brit Nats the country will be plunged into darkness, an ice age will descend upon us, plague's of boil's, etc) and do you mean our share of the UK debt, or new debt's taken out after we leave the union.

 

my apologies i was at my job working, something that would prob go if you get your way.

 

yes to all of them.

 

i have read some of the snp bumf on there site and was none the wiser as it doesn't really tell you what would happen to things like the pound the nhs the forces ( apart from an older one which they say they would bring back the old regiments therefore enlarging the army)in fact anything, it is vague to say the least

[honved]

Yes we would do fine - 100 pages

 

Only 19 pages. Lightweights.

 

If I was running the Yes campaign right now, all I'd be doing is pointing out the historical differences between the two nations and explaining, ever so gently, that The Great Leap Forward is not a gigantic undertaking.

 

As a hedge, I'd start learning how to make an iron smelter in my back garden and save up some rice for planting in the dry season.

Edited October 19, 2011 by honved

[jaggybunnet]

Only 19 pages. Lightweights.

 

If I was running the Yes campaign right now, all I'd be doing is pointing out the historical differences between the two nations and explaining, ever so gently, that The Great Leap Forward is not a gigantic undertaking.

 

As a hedge, I'd start learning how to make an iron smelter in my back garden and save up some rice for planting in the dry season.

 

 

you are just a trouble maker

[Jaggernaut]

The word would be fascist. If nationalists can't answer the reasonable questions that jaggybunnet is asking (which amounts to no more than "why will an independent Scotland be better for me and those around me?") or, more commonly, regard the asking of the question as a platform for what often amounts to abuse then that's a conclusion that's difficult to avoid. Having an independent Scotland is absolutely not and never will be more important than the basis on which it is formed.

 

--How about the British fascists nationalists spending more money on Trident, on bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, than dealing with poverty and underequipped and understaffed hospitals and schools in Britain?

 

--Why will even more of living from handouts from Westminster be better for us all? They've clearly ballsed it up big style.

 

--You're the one who's throwing around accusations of fascism, nobody else here.

 

 

At the end of the day, if there's a good economic argument to be made for independence then it is likely to garner support. But that argument has not been made to date with any credibility.

 

 

--There is no credible argument that tells us that remaining dependent on handouts from Westminster is a good reason for remaining in the union.

 

For what its' worth, I don't think the current government is remotely fascist (which is partly why I referred to a movement), but they are autocratic and centralising neither of which are good features in their own right. And I'm certainly not attracted by the prospect of a government which is a heavily centralised in Edinburgh as the Westminster government is in London. (And I don't think any of the mainstream parties are fascist either, although they will have members who I'd probably describe as such)

 

--What do you want? Mini, autonomous governments for every little region, as long as Scotland is treated just as a region of England, and nothing more?

 

There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether we should be independent. That will depend utterly on the detail. And that detail can't be swept aside on the basis of "we'll sort that out later". If that's the basis that the SNP do approach the referendum (and I can't believe that they will anyway) then it's going to be easily defeated.

 

--What does your preferred party do? Unionists claimed that the SNP would be easily defeated in the last Scottish election. What credibility do you and your ilk have?

 

As things stand, the status quo is inevitably untenable but that's as much to do with England not being willing to date to make adjustments to the way they are governed. As additional powers are granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then there needs to be some movement within England to act at the very least as a counter-balance. Otherwise, the existing arrangements will collapse under a heap of contradictions.

 

A federal solution does offer a way out of this, and I also happen to think that this is precisely where Salmond is leading his party. If "fiscal federalism" can become a reality then independence becomes a bit irrelevant - if you have control over the raising and spending of revenue then anything else beyond this will start to amount to tinkering on the margins.

 

--Yes, believe that if you will, just like when you were told (and probably agreed to) that devolution "would kill the SNP stone dead".

 

In the words of Bob Dylan:

 

 

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

 

Err, messed up the organization of this post big style; apologies.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[honved]

Just so I'm clear on this "detail" stuff (and I'm not looking to wind anyone up) is there a definitive list of things that are not yet clear?

 

In my mind, I've got a good few big ticket issues already in the "no substantial change" pile.

 

Education

Health

Law & order

Legal regulation, eg company law, weights & measures etc

Tax system (not policy)

Europe

Energy and renewables

 

I'm sure there's more...

 

And in the Michael Moore and George Foulkes are having hysterics category...

 

Defence

Foreign Policy

Currency and foreign exchange

 

What have I missed?

[Mr Scruff]

Just so I'm clear on this "detail" stuff (and I'm not looking to wind anyone up) is there a definitive list of things that are not yet clear?

 

In my mind, I've got a good few big ticket issues already in the "no substantial change" pile.

 

Education

Health

Law & order

Legal regulation, eg company law, weights & measures etc

Tax system (not policy)

Europe

Energy and renewables

 

I'm sure there's more...

 

And in the Michael Moore and George Foulkes are having hysterics category...

 

Defence

Foreign Policy

Currency and foreign exchange

 

What have I missed?

So now I am confused. You don't think there will be much change? I thought you supported independence because of the change it would bring? So what change?

 

My main questions are on the fiscal side of things (more than simply 'currency and foreign exchange') and how they will relate to the economy and our economic growth/ prosperity. I do realise that this is simply unimportant to some but is very important to me - that's what pays for Education, Health etc etc.

 

At the moment we are not completely separate despite the fact that we do have a somewhat separate education and legal system. So how is this all to be done, and how do we untangle all the threads that do exist throughout the UK?

 

Anyway I refer you to my previous posts with very brief questions about fiscal autonomy. And then I'd like to understand how we maintain and grow our economy through our biggest trading partner - the UK. On the company law side I'd like to know that our registration at companies house will still enable us to operate throughout the UK (better make sure that negotiation with the EU happens sharpish). And I need to know what currency we're dealing with, what employment law we operate under, Companies Act etc etc. We rely on British Standards - will we be replacing those with Scottish Standards. We use Ordnance Survey - will we have a replacement for that? These are very narrow questions I realise, but where is the detail?

 

You know it's funny. We have a proposal (?) for a significant change, the most significant change in centuries. It sits there with one word. And then we're asked "well, what do you want to know?" Does that not seem odd? Surely it is incumbent on those proposing this massive change to demonstrate the width and depth of what they are proposing and illustrate why it would work and to what extent. Maybe even admit where it will be difficult. But no we get "you're not patriotic" and "You must believe we are too stupid" as the argument.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[honved]

So now I am confused. You don't think there will be much change? I thought you supported independence because of the change it would bring? So what change?

 

 

 

I think there's a lot of misinformation flying around at present that implies that entire edifices of public life will need to be dismantled at huge cost and inconvenience, which simply won't be the case. My earlier nod to China's Great Leap Forward was not entirely for comedy value. I believe the non-separatists are deliberately insinuating that something just like that will happen, when in fact, there's relatively little that will change for consumers of those public services. Kids will still go to schools under the same comprehensive system that we have, folk will still be given healthcare free of charge at the point of need, criminals will still be jailed and taxes will still be collected and so on.

 

If I can suggest another analogy, maybe we're deciding whether to change our car and not our status as a nation in 2014? The new car will still have a roof to keep rain out, seats, wheels, an engine, a steering wheel, space for luggage, brakes etc, etc. The detail is what colour, what type of fuel, automatic or manual, whether to stick with the AA or join Green Flag, or to insure with Aleksandr the Meerkat or Churchill the dog and so on. For most folk that use that car, that's all detail that is a bit irrelevant since all they want is a conveyance to and from where they're going. It would be an entirely different discussion if we were thinking of ditching the car and splashing out on a four seater wind powered sand yacht, but we're not.

[Allan Heron]

Au contraire there's an absolutely massive, night and day, difference. Holyrood is much more focused on Scottish issues, and the SNP come from most parts of Scotland anyway. There's a genuine desire within the SNP to be a national party. The acid test isn't toon v rural its Glasgow v Edinburgh! Anyway Westminster is full of complete wahoos. They never cease to amaze with their latest wahoo carryons, the wahooness just keeps on coming.

 

Holyrood does mean that there's more time to spend on issues, but it doesn't stop bad decision making.

 

I don't think any centralised government will work effectively or efficiently regardless of who is pulling the strings

[Allan Heron]

--Yes, believe that if you will, just like when you were told (and probably agreed to) that devolution "would kill the SNP stone dead".

 

Quite the opposite actually, I recognised that it would give the SNP an opportunity to actually get their hands dirty and to have to deal with some real issues.

 

But I find it intriguing that instead of debating what's best for Scotland and it's people that the discussion is brought back round to whatever my views might be about the SNP.

[Allan Heron]

If I was running the Yes campaign right now, all I'd be doing is pointing out the historical differences between the two nations and explaining, ever so gently, that The Great Leap Forward is not a gigantic undertaking.

 

But isn't the counter to that to suggest if it's not so significant then why make the effort?

 

I'd support either an independent Scotland or a Scotland within a federal United Kingdom provided that the constitution was written and underpinned with a properly decentralised structure i.e. with local government being given real teeth and authority and being equally able to raise and spend the majority of their revenues.

 

The irony of the current government is that they are seeking to do to local government what they complain that Westminster does to them.

[honved]

But isn't the counter to that to suggest if it's not so significant then why make the effort?

 

I'd support either an independent Scotland or a Scotland within a federal United Kingdom provided that the constitution was written and underpinned with a properly decentralised structure i.e. with local government being given real teeth and authority and being equally able to raise and spend the majority of their revenues.

 

The irony of the current government is that they are seeking to do to local government what they complain that Westminster does to them.

 

It's the "right now" bit that's relevant to my earlier post. It's still two years until 2014, but the anti-separatists have started the campaign by implying that the difficulties of separation are well nigh insurmountable.

 

On your second point, does the SNP have a centralist agenda? Probably not, but the current policy seems to have as much to do with restraining Labour, as the economic situation. That will change after next year's elections when we have SNP/LibDem joint administrations the length of the country.

[Allan Heron]

It's the "right now" bit that's relevant to my earlier post. It's still two years until 2014, but the anti-separatists have started the campaign by implying that the difficulties of separation are well nigh insurmountable.

 

I'll set Derek McKay on you - he was chastising some Labour hack on Sunday for using the term seperation. He wanted a mature debate on the country's future apparently