Just Say Yes

[Norgethistle]

 

Do you honestly believe that the EU are going to turn away a country with Scotland's natural resources?

 

They let places like Cyprus and Slovenia in!

 

At one time they let anyone in!!!!! Slovenia has a very educated and cheap workforce, plus the Balkans are strategically important

 

Why do you think they have been drooling over your adopted country like a plooky teenage boy who has just acquired his first jazz mag?

 

To tax the oil, take a big chunk and give hee haw back bar crap bank notes that are easy to forge and straighter bananas

 

And do you think the governments of the EU member state are going to leave tens of thousands of their own citizens effectively stranded for no good reason?

 

How would that happen???? Apply for a work permit (Like I did in Norway or the US when I worked there) with your employers blessing, then again it may clear the unemployment crisis but thats more UKIP (Glasgow branch)

 

If we don't get into NATO, well, good. I don't want Scotland to be in NATO. It does make me wonder where that leaves Trident though. Personally, I would have thought a 'rogue state' equipped with nuclear missiles and submarines might make the members of NATO feel a teensy bit anxious. Surely it would be better to have them onside?

 

Love it or hate it NATO brings jobs, money and security to an extent, all of what a new Nation needs

 

The UK most definitely would miss Scotland. The other month Dennis Healey all but admitted that the true value of Scotland's oil and gas reserves were kept under wraps back in the 1970s to thwart the 'threat' of Scottish independence, because the government could not afford to lose the revenues. http://www.holyrood....ising-eyebrows/

 

Yes that'll be the 70's when the trade unions were bankrupting the country with 3 day weeks and strikes, of course they needed the money, but it only equates to 5% of the UK income, compared to 90% of the Norwegian one, and Norway employs more in the oil & Gas market (On shore - off shore & support and supply) than the whole of the UK

 

And guess what? Their predecssors don't feel they can either. Why else do you think David Cameron, whose party is a near irrelevance in Scotland, is campaigning so feverishly for a no vote? Why, when he could say 'toodle pip' to 59 constituencies mainly represented by Labour MPs, thus increasing the prospect of extended Tory rule even more? And why do you think former Chancellor and establishment man Alistair Darling would put his already tattered credibility on the line by appearing at the Scottish Tory conference to big up Better Together?

 

2 Muppets you would encourage even me to vote YES

 

They didn't all have their own currency or army when they became independent. Latvia, for instance, did not have its own army, as it had been part of the Soviet Union.

 

Latvia was only without its own currency for 50 years, its armed force was supported by NATO due to its borders and its own Soviet trained army was already there the LSSR , its population has dropped by 30% since independence and is still dropping, and 2 year ago had 22.5% unemployment, they also had there own passport Latvian SSR which was phased out on renewal

 

 

Slovakia did not have its own currency when they and they Czechs parted ways. I imagine they had to issue their own passports too. (How must they have managed?!)

 

Slovakian banks took the Czech Koruna and stamped them with the Slovak coat of arms in an agreement with the Czech republic, Slovakia is doing well but the average wage is 1/3rd of Scotland so companies (Like mine) will outsource there.

 

Where Scotland differs from any accession country it that its citizens already are citizens of the EU and have been for decades.

 

 

Scottish citizens are only EU citizens as long as Scotland is part the UK which stays part of the EU, if Scotland breaks away from the UK or the UK pulls out the EU then they are no longer members...... The Uk is a member, Scotland is not part of the UK so its citizens will have to wait for Scotland to apply

 

 

Plus there are tens of thousands (maybe more) of other EU citizens currently living in Scotland

 

There's 10,000 Scots in Stavanger at any one time doesn't make Stavanger part of Scotland or part of Europe

 

I doubt 'Uncle Alex' expects us to be there the next day, since it is widely accepted that we would have to apply afresh. But it wouldn't make any practical sense for the EU to impede Scotland's application,

 

No but it would be in the EU's interest to take part of our oil booty as a payment to allow us to use their currency, trade borders etc

 

if it were to come, let alone reject it altogether.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Norgethistle

[Guy Incognito]

 

Scotland has a well educated workforce. It has universities that are well regarded throughout the world, so much so that students from overseas are keen to study here because a degree from a Scottish university carries some weight. It could also be said that Scotland's geographic position towards the north of the North Sea puts lends it some strategic importance.

 

That is quite a slanted view of the EU, but I think you have proved my point: that the EU want Norway on board because it is rich in natural resources. Ditto Scotland. So for that reason I cannot understand why we would be turned away. The only country the EU is reluctant to admit is Turkey, and that is largely due to their appalling human rights record.

 

If Scotland was to be refused admission to the EY then that could result in many thousands of EU citizens effectively becoming illegal aliens. Aye, the Scottish government could just issue them with visas, but the EU and its member states would have no guarantee of that. Thus, Poland, for instance, could be faced with an influx of tens of thousands of its own citizens. Or it could work the other way. There are thousands of Scots living and working in France and Spain, and close to a million doing likewise in England. They would then be subject to immigration control. Now, I suppose those governments could also issue those Scots with visas but the administration behind that would be time-consuming, costly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

 

You may be right about NATO membership bringing jobs and security. That is most probably the reason behind the SNP's shift in policy. But why would they knock back Scotland's application for membership, especially when it is located directly to the north of one of its founder members?

 

According to the most recent GERS figures, Scotland generated just shy of 10% of the UK's total tax take - a slight increase on previous years - despite making up less than 8.5% of the total UK population. Yet, a couple of weeks ago George Osborne announced that the Scottish government's block grant would be cut further. So in spite of contributing more we are actually set to receive less back! That, for me, is not an acceptable situation.

 

I don't doubt that England is big and ugly enough to look after itself, but Scotland leaving the UK would still represent the loss of a sizable chunk of revenue. The UK is broke, and outwith things like oil and whisky it doesn't actually produce very much (unlike in the big bad 1970s). I believe that exploration is taking place off the west coast too, which suggests that Scotland is still viewed as a prized asset by the powers that be, albeit on the quiet.

 

Whether a currency is out of circulation for 50 years or 500, surely it still has to be re-activated? And it sounds like Latvia had its own armed forces and passports in much the same as Scotland currently has, i.e. we have a British-trained army and Scots carry a British passport. Unless I am overlooking something obvious I do not foresee the issuing of our own passports as being a major problem. Like I said earlier in the thread, there is already an office in Glasgow that processes passport applications for the whole of Scotland (or there used to be anyway). They would still be performing the same functions except the end product would have a different emblem on the front.

 

The armed forces thing could be more problematic (although IMO, the UK's foreign policy is more damaging to Scotland's security than any lack of an armed forces). If a yes vote was returned, however, then there would, as I understand it, be a period of around 18 months to 2 years before we would actually be flying solo. I am loathe to keep citing small Baltic nations as examples, but Estonia did not have an armed forces in place on day one following their voting for independence.

 

Slovakia used Czechoslovak bank notes stamped with the Slovakian emblem for a time, but only as a temporary measure. The two countries had attempted a currency union but made it clear - too clear - from day one that it was only temporary. Thus, people moved savings from Slovakia to the Czech Republic to avoid depreciation once the new Slovak currency was launched. Such a situation would not occur if Scotland retained the sterling, as I understand it, because the union would effectively be a continuation of the existing arrangement, and not a temporary one. It isn't my preferred option, but it is probably the safest one.

[Norgethistle]

Scotland has a well educated workforce. It has universities that are well regarded throughout the world, so much so that students from overseas are keen to study here because a degree from a Scottish university carries some weight. It could also be said that Scotland's geographic position towards the north of the North Sea puts lends it some strategic importance.

 

Scotland no longer has trades, yes it has fantastic Universities and one of the big appeals for foreign students is that a university degree costs less here than in England and most of Europe (Barring the old eastern-block countries)

 

That is quite a slanted view of the EU, but I think you have proved my point: that the EU want Norway on board because it is rich in natural resources. Ditto Scotland. So for that reason I cannot understand why we would be turned away. The only country the EU is reluctant to admit is Turkey, and that is largely due to their appalling human rights record.

 

The EU most definetly wants Norway, but the strings attached at the time would have allowed for Brussels to take a huge portion of the oil revenue (Thats all Norway really has) and allow them to force tax cuts through the common trade agreements all in all would have put Norway from being very wealthy (on Paper) to being mediocre with Brussels getting rich. Scotland would have the same strings and the legendery oil fund would be dramatically cut.

 

If Scotland was to be refused admission to the EY then that could result in many thousands of EU citizens effectively becoming illegal aliens. Aye, the Scottish government could just issue them with visas, but the EU and its member states would have no guarantee of that. Thus, Poland, for instance, could be faced with an influx of tens of thousands of its own citizens. Or it could work the other way. There are thousands of Scots living and working in France and Spain, and close to a million doing likewise in England. They would then be subject to immigration control. Now, I suppose those governments could also issue those Scots with visas but the administration behind that would be time-consuming, costly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

 

Employers would force for their workers (if skilled or needed) to be given visas, same as Norway, it would perhaps stop the migrant beggars (Roma gypsies etc) although Norway is struggling to deport and keep them out.

 

You may be right about NATO membership bringing jobs and security. That is most probably the reason behind the SNP's shift in policy. But why would they knock back Scotland's application for membership, especially when it is located directly to the north of one of its founder members?

 

Refusal to allow trident etc on our soil

 

According to the most recent GERS figures, Scotland generated just shy of 10% of the UK's total tax take - a slight increase on previous years - despite making up less than 8.5% of the total UK population. Yet, a couple of weeks ago George Osborne announced that the Scottish government's block grant would be cut further. So in spite of contributing more we are actually set to receive less back! That, for me, is not an acceptable situation.

 

Yes Scotland made more tax per percentile than population breakdown, but down to the export market, Whisky. This is a gold mine for Scotland but unfortunatly doesn't employ too many people

 

I don't doubt that England is big and ugly enough to look after itself, but Scotland leaving the UK would still represent the loss of a sizable chunk of revenue. The UK is broke, and outwith things like oil and whisky it doesn't actually produce very much (unlike in the big bad 1970s). I believe that exploration is taking place off the west coast too, which suggests that Scotland is still viewed as a prized asset by the powers that be, albeit on the quiet.

 

There is exploration going on everywhere at the moment and none of it is on the quiet due to drilling permits, especially of the coast of Ireland (North & South) plus the biggy in the Falklands, I'm just scared we are putting all the eggs in the oil basket, as even in the Norwegian papers they are predicting difficult times ahead as the oil gets more costly to extract and even more so when the Alaskan oil fields open as this will remove America from the market, reducing demand and dropping the price, we are even hearing (In one very right wing newspaper) of 25% pay cuts wihin 10 years and mass unemployment (Queue the keep Norwegian jobs for Norwegians debate)

 

Whether a currency is out of circulation for 50 years or 500, surely it still has to be re-activated? And it sounds like Latvia had its own armed forces and passports in much the same as Scotland currently has, i.e. we have a British-trained army and Scots carry a British passport. Unless I am overlooking something obvious I do not foresee the issuing of our own passports as being a major problem. Like I said earlier in the thread, there is already an office in Glasgow that processes passport applications for the whole of Scotland (or there used to be anyway). They would still be performing the same functions except the end product would have a different emblem on the front.

 

Latvia etc were part of the soviet block, the same way (to an extent) the UK is part of the EU, but instead of Brussels attempting to run things, Moscow was definetly running things.

 

The armed forces thing could be more problematic (although IMO, the UK's foreign policy is more damaging to Scotland's security than any lack of an armed forces). If a yes vote was returned, however, then there would, as I understand it, be a period of around 18 months to 2 years before we would actually be flying solo. I am loathe to keep citing small Baltic nations as examples, but Estonia did not have an armed forces in place on day one following their voting for independence.

 

NATO got stationed there whilst they were setting up, I know I went down route supporting the RAF in 95 a year after the Russian troops left

 

Slovakia used Czechoslovak bank notes stamped with the Slovakian emblem for a time, but only as a temporary measure. The two countries had attempted a currency union but made it clear - too clear - from day one that it was only temporary. Thus, people moved savings from Slovakia to the Czech Republic to avoid depreciation once the new Slovak currency was launched. Such a situation would not occur if Scotland retained the sterling, as I understand it, because the union would effectively be a continuation of the existing arrangement, and not a temporary one. It isn't my preferred option, but it is probably the safest one.

 

Again only if the rest of the UK agrees to this

[Jaggernaut]

 

Nothing in Norgethistle's responses in the above post should put anybody off voting Yes for an independent Scotland. The tired old "oil dependency" scare line and the nasty Europeans wanting to take it all off us and make us poorer.

 

It really is negative stuff.

[jaggybunnet]

Nothing in Norgethistle's responses in the above post should put anybody off voting Yes for an independent Scotland. The tired old "oil dependency" scare line and the nasty Europeans wanting to take it all off us and make us poorer.

 

It really is negative stuff.

 

no its reality, you just choose to ignore it

[Jaggernaut]

no its reality, you just choose to ignore it

[Norgethistle]

Nothing in Norgethistle's responses in the above post should put anybody off voting Yes for an independent Scotland. The tired old "oil dependency" scare line and the nasty Europeans wanting to take it all off us and make us poorer.

 

It really is negative stuff.

 

So show me how Scotland would be better off Independant,

I have stated that from an oil point of view yes there is money..... but not as much as the Norwegian fields or the same amount of jobs related to it.

I have stated that Yes Scotland has paid a higher level of revenue mostly down to it Whisky export and oil, but Whisky does not make many jobs

I have stated that yes EU membership could be atained but there would be financial strings attached

 

 

At least I can level a bit of debate to it instead of flag waving and nationalistic blindness, having lived in Scotland and Norway I can see it from both sides of the fence and nothing yet has proven to me that we will be better alone, if the vote had went through in the 70's when the oil revenue was starting then I believe it would have worked, but Scotland has an unemployment rate of nearly 8% (Youth unemployment of just over 15%) with next to no pension fund so people are working on as they can't afford to retire leaving no jobs for the youths, compare that to Norway's which is 3% (with 23,000 jobs un-filled!!! work that one out) its pension fund is massive due to it being flooded with the oil fund for the last 30 years (£480 Billion as of March 2013), this is the legacy of all the parties that have been in charge.

Salmond and Sturgeon talk about lower taxes, and higher social benefits.... how?? There is a black hole to fill. Think nearly 200000 people out of work on the minimum of £72 a week thats £14.5M a week but its probably 5 times that when the rest of the entitlements are added in, add to that pensions and child credits etc.

Scotland and the rest of the UK is loosing money already yes Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK on some things but the UK also subsidises Scotland on others, in a business with 3 other partners under 1 parent company umbrella that can be done, stand alone that is very tricky.

 

Remember our export value on whisky that the treasury takes a high percentatge is due to the fact as a strong UK we were able to opt out of parts of the treaty, smaller countries haven't been able to.

 

So explain to us that aren't convinced why would we be better of independant??

 

The floor is all your jaggernaught

[twinny]

Nothing in Norgethistle's responses in the above post should put anybody off voting Yes for an independent Scotland. The tired old "oil dependency" scare line and the nasty Europeans wanting to take it all off us and make us poorer.

 

It really is negative stuff.

 

Whilst he repeatedly points out that there are very few jobs in the Whisky industry (it supports 35,000 jobs, 10,000 of which are directly in Whisky), average wage in the industry is £45k and the taxation on the 3.9 billion will allow many jobs to be created in the public sector.

 

Now that you're talking about unemployment rates, whilst Scotland is worse off than Norway, the comparison here should be with the rest of the UK. Scotland's unemployment rate is 7.1%, compared with the 7.8% average for the whole of the UK. Similarly, youth unemployment in Scotland is at 15.2% compared with 19.5% for the whole of the UK. In the most recent figures, Scotland's unemployment fell by 6,000, N. Ireland by 5,000, yet in the UK as a whole it was down just 5,000, meaning that in England and Wales unemployment increased by 6,000 (there was no change in Wales by the way). Why are jobs being created in Scotland and lost in England just now?

[ian_mac]

Thats like JFK stating "We choose to go to the moon, but we'll work out how to land and get back if we get there"

Norge your analogies in this thread are absolutely atrocious.

[Jaggernaut]

So show me how Scotland would be better off Independant,

 

 

--Show me how continued dependence on Westminster makes us "better" in the future; especially in the future.

 

I have stated that from an oil point of view yes there is money..... but not as much as the Norwegian fields or the same amount of jobs related to it.

I have stated that Yes Scotland has paid a higher level of revenue mostly down to it Whisky export and oil, but Whisky does not make many jobs

I have stated that yes EU membership could be atained but there would be financial strings attached

 

 

 

 

--See Twinny's response above.

 

At least I can level a bit of debate to it instead of flag waving and nationalistic blindness,

 

--But you don't worry about British nationalistic blindness??

 

having lived in Scotland and Norway I can see it from both sides of the fence

 

--Having lived in Scotland, France, Japan, I can see where Scotland is and where I believe it should be from several perspectives.

 

and nothing yet has proven to me that we will be better alone,

 

--What is this "alone" business? Is Norway "alone"? Is any independent country "alone" in the modern world?

 

if the vote had went through in the 70's when the oil revenue was starting then I believe it would have worked, but Scotland has an unemployment rate of nearly 8% (Youth unemployment of just over 15%) with next to no pension fund so people are working on as they can't afford to retire leaving no jobs for the youths, compare that to Norway's which is 3% (with 23,000 jobs un-filled!!! work that one out) its pension fund is massive due to it being flooded with the oil fund for the last 30 years (£480 Billion as of March 2013), this is the legacy of all the parties that have been in charge.

Salmond and Sturgeon talk about lower taxes, and higher social benefits.... how?? There is a black hole to fill. Think nearly 200000 people out of work on the minimum of £72 a week thats £14.5M a week but its probably 5 times that when the rest of the entitlements are added in, add to that pensions and child credits etc.

Scotland and the rest of the UK is loosing money already yes Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK on some things but the UK also subsidises Scotland on others, in a business with 3 other partners under 1 parent company umbrella that can be done, stand alone that is very tricky.

 

 

 

--See Twinny's post above. Somehow the gruesome employment (or unemployment) figures you allude to are supposed to be an argument in favour of Scotland's economy and industry being dictated by Westminster???

 

Remember our export value on whisky that the treasury takes a high percentatge is due to the fact as a strong UK we were able to opt out of parts of the treaty, smaller countries haven't been able to.

 

So explain to us that aren't convinced why would we be better of independant??

 

 

 

--I suspect that you would never be convinced, even if Scotland votes Yes and makes a resounding success of her newly regained status as an independent country. Just like I would never be convinced by any union that the Scottish people were never allowed to vote for. It's not the entrenched punters like us who need to be convinced; it's the large number of as-yet undecided voters who need to be convinced.

 

 

The floor is all your jaggernaught

 

 

 

--Merci bien.

 

Edited July 10, 2013 by Jaggernaut

[Norgethistle]

 

--Show me how continued dependence on Westminster makes us "better" in the future; especially in the future.

--Show me how continued dependence on Westminster makes us "better" in the future; especially in the future.

Show me why it will be any worse, Independance can't show me it will be better

 

--But you don't worry about British nationalistic blindness??

Hardly I'm trying to be objective and have the idea sold to me instead of "Everythings Westminsters fault"

 

--See Twinny's post above. Somehow the gruesome employment (or unemployment) figures you allude to are supposed to be an argument in favour of Scotland's economy and industry being dictated by Westminster???

No what I am stating is the time is wrong for Independance, it should have been 40 years ago

 

--I suspect that you would never be convinced, even if Scotland votes Yes and makes a resounding success of her newly regained status as an independent country. Just like I would never be convinced by any union

What I have always stated is show me the facts, alot of what the SNP has stated over the last few years has been proved wrong by themselves, and a lot of the NO campaign scare mongering is embarrassing to say the least, If I am convinced it is the best for my family, my friends myself and my country then yes I will vote for it, but going with the latest poll with only 39% in favour I don't believe I am the only one in doubt

 

[yoda-jag]

going with the latest poll with only 39% in favour I don't believe I am the only one in doubt

 

 

What poll you looking at?

 

 

The latest poll returns:

 

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

1. Yes 68.97%
   
2. No 31.03%
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always said majority of Thistle supporters are a decent and right thinking bunch, i have

[Guy Incognito]

 

If Scotland does not have trades anymore then it is highly unlikely to acquire them under the present set up. I agree that we should not put all our eggs in the oil basket. We need to look at re-igniting our manufacturing economy again; to actually start producing things once more (as well as whisky). Unfortunately, I cannot foresee this happening if we remain in the UK. None of the unionist parties seem remotely interested in doing anything other than ploughing the same neo-liberal furrow; there are only so many frappuccinos we can sell to one another.

 

Many migrant workers in Scotland are not skilled - or the jobs they are doing here aren't anyway - so it is doubtful that wee Magda the chambermaid's employers will crawl over broken glass to retain her services, not when wee Moira could probably do the job just as well instead.

 

However, I am fairly confident that Magda would be able to continue to leave mints on pillows for a while yet, as evidence is mounting that Scotland's entry into the EU would be fairly straightforward: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/danish-interviews-contradict-better-togethers-eu-claims.21566795?_=404c735f21d00fee39a13210d54844f3cec069c7

This is in addition to the Irish PM, the Luxembourg government and the Dutch government all making noises along the same lines.

 

That is maybe a fair point about NATO and the possible retention of Trident is one of the main reasons I am against the idea of joining. However, it is possible to be a member of NATO and not possess nuclear weapons. See your next door neighbours, for example.

 

 

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

So show me how Scotland would be better off Independant,

I have stated that from an oil point of view yes there is money..... but not as much as the Norwegian fields or the same amount of jobs related to it.

I have stated that Yes Scotland has paid a higher level of revenue mostly down to it Whisky export and oil, but Whisky does not make many jobs

I have stated that yes EU membership could be atained but there would be financial strings attached

 

 

At least I can level a bit of debate to it instead of flag waving and nationalistic blindness, having lived in Scotland and Norway I can see it from both sides of the fence and nothing yet has proven to me that we will be better alone, if the vote had went through in the 70's when the oil revenue was starting then I believe it would have worked, but Scotland has an unemployment rate of nearly 8% (Youth unemployment of just over 15%) with next to no pension fund so people are working on as they can't afford to retire leaving no jobs for the youths, compare that to Norway's which is 3% (with 23,000 jobs un-filled!!! work that one out) its pension fund is massive due to it being flooded with the oil fund for the last 30 years (£480 Billion as of March 2013), this is the legacy of all the parties that have been in charge.

Salmond and Sturgeon talk about lower taxes, and higher social benefits.... how?? There is a black hole to fill. Think nearly 200000 people out of work on the minimum of £72 a week thats £14.5M a week but its probably 5 times that when the rest of the entitlements are added in, add to that pensions and child credits etc.

Scotland and the rest of the UK is loosing money already yes Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK on some things but the UK also subsidises Scotland on others, in a business with 3 other partners under 1 parent company umbrella that can be done, stand alone that is very tricky.

 

Remember our export value on whisky that the treasury takes a high percentatge is due to the fact as a strong UK we were able to opt out of parts of the treaty, smaller countries haven't been able to.

 

So explain to us that aren't convinced why would we be better of independant??

 

The floor is all your jaggernaught

 

I was tempted to 'like' this post because you have inadvertently made a good case for voting Yes. Although Twinny has quite rightly pointed out that unemployment in Scotland is lower than the UK average it is still a poor figure compared to Norway. So what young person in his or her right mind would want to remain in a country that presented such limited employment prospects? Why not strive to create something better?

 

I have no doubt that things would be rosier in Scotland today had we broken away from the UK in the 1970s, but we did not have the opportunity to do so. All that was on the table then was an assembly which would have amounted to little other than a talking shop. Labour pulled the rug from under Scotland's feet in that debacle, and the Tories spent the better part of two decades kicking it up the arse. In fairness, the SNP hardly covered themselves in glory in that whole affair either, but I am digressing a bit here.

 

We could reach a point where it would not be worth our while to go it alone but we are not there yet. The fact that Scotland was stymied in the not too distant by people who did not have its best interests at heart leads me to believe, more than ever, that the right thing to do is to take control of our own affairs.

 

 

[Norgethistle]

Having been back in Scotland for 2 week now I must admit that the friends are split down the middle on this, but the overall feeling I am getting from them is that the BS coming from both camps is alarming, its quite amusing to read through 4 or 5 daily papers and see the different propoganda being pushed.

The country seems split down the middle but most of the Glaswegians I know are stating NO where as those with a more Northwesterly back ground are staing YES, I am just wondering how Scotland is going to react to the outcome of the vote whether YES or NO as their will be a lot of upset people and gloating on either side

[Granville Island]

Thought I'd get the debate going again - apologies for the referendum weary!! Are there any actual positive messages to be given by the NO campaign? As far as I can see it:

• We should be proud of people like Dave Cameron being the representative of us 'Jocks' on the international stage.
  
• In spite of being a resource rich nation, democratic and potentially very wealthy we would be thrown out of (i) NATO (ii) the Commonwealth (iii) Europe (iv) sterling - even though we could throw the rest of the UK out of sterling - it is OUR currency.
  
• Our pensions would be destroyed - eh I am currently suffering BIG time from Better Together ripping off of my pension to fund tax cuts to the super rich.
  

The people who annoy me are those who go abroad and describe themselves as 'Scottish' whilst being totally committed to being a Brit when it comes to the vote. If we vote NO I will always describe 'Scotland' as 'North Britain' (we will have voted for it) when I am abroad - whilst seeing if I can change my passport to a country that can stand up for itself (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland.....etc).

 

Can any New Labour supporter really tell me how being ruled by the Tories from Westminster is Better Together?

[jaggybunnet]

Thought I'd get the debate going again - apologies for the referendum weary!! Are there any actual positive messages to be given by the NO campaign? As far as I can see it:

• We should be proud of people like Dave Cameron being the representative of us 'Jocks' on the international stage.
  
• In spite of being a resource rich nation, democratic and potentially very wealthy we would be thrown out of (i) NATO (ii) the Commonwealth (iii) Europe (iv) sterling - even though we could throw the rest of the UK out of sterling - it is OUR currency.
  
• 
  
• what resources? we wouldnt be thrown out, we would have left the uk therefore all those that you mentioned(apart from the commonwealth) its UK currency. we would have to apply to them which would mean scotland having give up stuff to join.
  
• Our pensions would be destroyed - eh I am currently suffering BIG time from Better Together ripping off of my pension to fund tax cuts to the super rich.
  
• 
  
• how are they ripping off your pension? even swinny has admitted we couldn't afford to pay the pensions
  

The people who annoy me are those who go abroad and describe themselves as 'Scottish' whilst being totally committed to being a Brit when it comes to the vote. If we vote NO I will always describe 'Scotland' as 'North Britain' (we will have voted for it) when I am abroad - whilst seeing if I can change my passport to a country that can stand up for itself (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland.....etc).

 

your choice if that chip on your shoulder is that heavy

 

Can any New Labour supporter really tell me how being ruled by the Tories from Westminster is Better Together?

 

i am a tory so couldn't tell you

 

[Norgethistle]

Thought I'd get the debate going again - apologies for the referendum weary!! Are there any actual positive messages to be given by the NO campaign? As far as I can see it:

• We should be proud of people like Dave Cameron being the representative of us 'Jocks' on the international stage.
  
• In spite of being a resource rich nation, democratic and potentially very wealthy we would be thrown out of (i) NATO (ii) the Commonwealth (iii) Europe (iv) sterling - even though we could throw the rest of the UK out of sterling - it is OUR currency.
  

Oil production in the UK sector of the North Sea (& Europe in general) has been down year on year for the last 5 years (Source BP http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013/review-by-energy-type/oil/oil-production.html?gclid=CIuv3q2um7kCFeJ4cAodmCUA8A )

Output will drop in the UK sector this year by 22% (Some due to maintenance) last year by 15% and previous year by 19%, production will come up but only due to increased investment as getting it out the ground is becoming more and more difficult especially in the deeper waters (Costing the oil companies approx £2 BILLION more per year in investment) Source Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/north-sea-output-may-slide-22-this-year-because-of-maintenance.html

• Our pensions would be destroyed - eh I am currently suffering BIG time from Better Together ripping off of my pension to fund tax cuts to the super rich.
  

How would they be destroyed by staying together, more chance if we split especially in English based companies who may class the old deal null and void based on being in a NEW country, and as for the state pension everyone seems to think the oil money will pay for everything...... IT WONT COME NEAR

 

The people who annoy me are those who go abroad and describe themselves as 'Scottish' whilst being totally committed to being a Brit when it comes to the vote. If we vote NO I will always describe 'Scotland' as 'North Britain' (we will have voted for it) when I am abroad - whilst seeing if I can change my passport to a country that can stand up for itself (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland.....etc).

 

I live abroad, class myself as Scottish and British, as Scotland is part of Britain and will stay

 

Can any New Labour supporter really tell me how being ruled by the Tories from Westminster is Better Together?

 

How is us being ruled from Westminister any different than Geordies being ruled from there or folk from Birmingham, think its better than Glasgow being ruled by the political wing of the wee free

[Guy Incognito]

Having been back in Scotland for 2 week now I must admit that the friends are split down the middle on this, but the overall feeling I am getting from them is that the BS coming from both camps is alarming, its quite amusing to read through 4 or 5 daily papers and see the different propoganda being pushed.

The country seems split down the middle but most of the Glaswegians I know are stating NO where as those with a more Northwesterly back ground are staing YES, I am just wondering how Scotland is going to react to the outcome of the vote whether YES or NO as their will be a lot of upset people and gloating on either side

 

Whatever the result, I cannot see things in Scotland being quite the same ever again. Like you say, it is almost inevitable that there will be a lot of disappointed people. In a way that is quite healthy. It is just disappointing that the overall standard of debate, so far, has been poor. But what both sides have to remember is that we will still have to live with each other. Or perhaps not, if there is any truth in this little gem: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/424489/Scots-to-flock-south-if-granted-independence

 

i am a tory so couldn't tell you

 

As Pete Doherty once sang, possibly in the midst of some junkie moment of clarity, 'one and the same, one and the same'.

 

Balls later dismissed Tory claims that he is addicted to irresponsible spending. He reinforced his recent announcement that Labour would use the coalition's spending plans for 2015-16 as the basis of his own programme by accepting some of the chancellor's initiatives

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/26/ed-balls-tories-accepts-cuts-labour

 

It is a perfect storm for Labour. They will be hoping that a sufficient number of people will be pissed off enough with the Tories to vote Labour back into power in 2015, at which point they will implement their foes' spending plans, all the while saying to critics 'we can't help it, they left us with no choice'. In short, the Tories have done their dirty work for them.

 

Oil production in the UK sector of the North Sea (& Europe in general) has been down year on year for the last 5 years (Source BP http://www.bp.com/en...CFeJ4cAodmCUA8A )

Output will drop in the UK sector this year by 22% (Some due to maintenance) last year by 15% and previous year by 19%, production will come up but only due to increased investment as getting it out the ground is becoming more and more difficult especially in the deeper waters (Costing the oil companies approx £2 BILLION more per year in investment) Source Bloomberghttp://www.bloomberg...aintenance.html

 

Surely oil companies, whose ultimate goal is to make as much money as they can, wouldn't invest money if they didn't feel it was worth their while. It might be that oil is increasingly harder to get at, but it is still there. According to Vince Cable it is an 'expanding industry'.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oil-and-gas-strategy-will-promote-billions-worth-of-new-investment

 

Incidentally, I don't think any sensible person believe that oil money will pay for everything. It certainly came in handy in the 1980s, when the Tories used it to pay UB to people whose industries had shut down, but I don't know of anyone in Scotland today who says it could pay for everything. However, it is a valuable resource which is currently worth tens of billions of pounds.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

^ Dear oh dear, more Tabloid twaddle "exclusively created" by the London Express. You'd be better off reading one of the publication's related articles: "Five million Krispy Kremes sold as Scots go nuts for doughnuts".

 

Mind you, the prospect of 600,000 pi**ed off Scottish unionists emigrating to England leaving a ghostly Ibrox is not completely lacking in appeal...

[Guy Incognito]

^ Dear oh dear, more Tabloid twaddle "exclusively created" by the London Express. You'd be better off reading one of the publication's related articles: "Five million Krispy Kremes sold as Scots go nuts for doughnuts".

 

Mind you, the prospect of 600,000 pi**ed off Scottish unionists emigrating to England leaving a ghostly Ibrox is not completely lacking in appeal...

 

It is actually laughable. It reminded me a bit of the time someone from UKIP said that the UK risked being 'flooded' with 4 million Bulgarian migrants following their accession to the EU (which kind of ignores the fact that there are only about 7 million people in Bulgaria).

 

At a push I can see maybe a tenth of that figure leaving in the even of a Yes vote, but that is roughly equivalent to the number who leave Scotland every year anyway.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Just a wee bump to say that there is a march and rally for Scottish independence on 21st September in Edinburgh, for anyone who might be interested.

 

http://www.independencerally.com/main/

[The Sunnylaw Jag]

What and miss the Kilmarnock home game? You're kidding me right?

[jaggybunnet]

Just a wee bump to say that there is a march and rally for Scottish independence on 21st September in Edinburgh, for anyone who might be interested.

 

http://www.independencerally.com/main/

 

not as long as i have a hole in my arse .....but thanks for the offer

[uberteeb]

Even the Better Together campaign now don't rely on the "too wee too poor" line, its pretty tragic some people on here still do. We can afford to do it.

 

Now I'd prefer to be in a country where we have an accountable parliament and a parliament with a number 1 priority of looking out for the people of Scotland.

 

I can't think of one good reason to remain in the UK, not one. I don't see any on this thread either. What is it the unionists like, is it the ridiculous gap between rich and poor, is it the posturing on the world stage, is it invading other countries, is it having nuclear weapons, is it running the country for the benefit of corporations rather than workes, is it the constant flow to the right of the political spectrum, is it a false economy built on house prices, is it the huge levels of debt everyone in the country is saddled with, is it food banks, is it children in poverty, is it the dismantling of the NHS, is it the rise in education costs, is it the inability to collect tax from the wealthy, is it the demonisation of the disabled and immigrants, is it the calculated attack on the already poverty stricken poor people. Which is it?

 

Holyrood has beebn able to mitigate some of these horrible things but only some, why not have a parliament that works for the betterment of an independent country rather than a parliament spending its time trying to make the impact of Westminster policies less severe?

 

We get nothing positive out of being in the union. If I wanted to give you an answer I couldn't.