Just Say Yes

[Guy Incognito]

Salmond has been in the press over here on lots of occassions, on the Norway model for economy and drink prices (I posted this once before here, where he basically said Scots were drunk and the price hike would stop it, it doesn't people drink at home on illicit or smuggled booze and turn up in town smashed at 11)

 

Norways Crime record has started to increase dramatically in the last 5 years as has the unemployment (From 0.2% in Stavanger to 3.2% in 5 years).

 

Yes its a nice place to live and safer, cleaner and easier to get a job than Glasgow, but the Norway Model won't work in Scotland our cultures are way too different. Norway had nothing before the oil (80% unemployment in Stavanger), so when the wages started but were getting taxed no one noticed as it was way better than what they had.

 

Norwegians may complain but they will never demo or riot, so when the electricity price doubled 8 years ago (Yes Doubled due to them seeling too much and having to buy it back), people maned over a coffee or made a comment in the paper but nothing happened.

The same went with the road tolls (On all roads going to and from the city & tunnels & motorways) 5 years ago you paid 6NOK in peak times, at other times it was free, Now we are paying 30 NOK all the time and there are more tolls than ever, and if you haven't paid up front via a brick, you have 12 hours to pay it at the local esso station or its 2030NOK (Over £200). People moan at work but no one demo's. Its the culture they are very placid they moan but accept things.

 

The spend spend spend culture was worldwide, not just Scotland and is still going on (We have the oil fund, the state will protect etc etc)

 

Norway has effectively been Independent for over 100 years, when it effectively meant putting a new king on the throne and changing your flag, Scotland will have so much more to do with so much more cost.

 

Armed forces and equipment, wheres the money coming from?? Or we going to put the Waverly to sea?? Thats Billions that are needed.

Currency we won't get in the Euro to start (although i would advise against ever entering it) so we need to print our own currency Millions of pounds in expenditure

Passports 3 million people will need a new passport

Stamps

Government stationery...... Millions

 

These are costs that are absorbed over time on a country that is running, but this will need to come in towards the first few years.

 

I've said before I'm not anti independence but I have still to see the REAL facts that prove Scotland will be better, and the relying on oil is very narrow thinking, there isn't enough jobs in oil in Scotland to provide for all, we have massive unemployment and believing the oil (Plus the already failed oil tax) will be a magic cure is pie in the sky

 

 

Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I found what you had to say about Norway very interesting, and I am glad to learn that you are not intrinsically anti-independence.

 

I don't think the plan with minimum pricing is to stop people getting drunk, and anyone who believes that that is a serious prospect in Scotland should probably be sectioned! The plan with minimum pricing, as I understand it, is to reduce the number of alcohol related fatalities which stem from chronic alcohol abuse. Scotland has one of the worst records in Europe for alcohol related illnesses and premature deaths, and although I am also skeptical about the effectiveness of minimum pricing I am willing to try any measure that might improve our appalling record. Minimim pricing has been shown to work elsewhere, like Canada, and there are signs that even the partial ban on alcohol promotions in supermarkets has had a positive impact.

 

I am still unaware of any Scottish politician saying 'let's be like Norway', and if they have then they were wrong to say so. Norway sounds like a fine place - not perfect, but nowhere is - but Scotland should just be Scotland, only better. There is nothing wrong, though, with looking at best practices that have worked in places like Norway and trying to tailor them to suit our needs. I don't even think culture need be a major stumbling block either. For instance, it used to be our culture to smoke in pubs and on public transport. Now, however, it is not, and in spite of some initial gurning the vast majority of people accept it.

 

I think it is laudable that in Norway trade unions have a real voice, and that things like overtime are tightly regulated. People should be spending their spare time with their families and out living their lives, not toiling constantly. This quasi-American approach to work, life and the economy which prevails in the UK - and Scotland too, being unavoiably dragged along - isn't healthy, either for the individual or for society.

 

I came across this recently and found it fascinating: http://scottishcommonweal.org/what-is-common-weal/. Their suggestions are based on existing practices in Scandanavia, but with a Scottish slant. It is probably too radical for most mainstream political parties around at the moment - not to mention some posters on here - but if there was a party brave enough to adopt its suggestions post-independence then they would get my vote. One thing is for certain: it is highly unlikely we will see any of those ideas implemented in the UK any time soon.

 

As far as defence is concerned, Scotland has received £7.4bn less than its population share of defence spending over the past ten years. That indicates that Scotland could easily afford to defend itself (and that is before we even consider how much we could save by getting rid of the costly and morally repugnant Trident).

 

Scotland is currently part of the sterling mechanism, and the SNP's policy is that it should remain so. Personally, I would rather we adopted our own currency, but for the time being it would benefit both parties to retain the sterling, particularly as Scotland's oil revenues have kept the currency afloat for so long. As far as printing banknotes goes, well, we already do that!

 

Scotland has (had?) a large passport office in Glasgow, so I don't see why issuing our own passports should be a major obstacle. Ditto stamps (how often are they used these days anyway?).

 

Replacing government stationary should cost no more than it does when Westminster decides it wants to merge or rebrand one of its departments, or indeed when the Scottish executive was formed. On the subject of governance, Scotland already has the infrastructure in place to deliver benefits and pensions, as large benefit and tax processing centres are currently located here.

 

Granted, such changes would not be insignificant and are likely to present a challenge. But that challenge is not in itself a reason to vote against independence. To do so would be like a man deciding to stay in bed all day because the thought of lifting up the duvet and swinging his legs over the side of the bed seemed like too much hassle.

 

Oil revenues make up a smaller portion of Scotland's GDP than they do Norway's. We export a unique product, whisky, which alone is worth billions. Have a look at a recent set of figures: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf. Maths never was my strongest subject but those figures seem to suggest that we could easily sustain ourselves as an independent country.

[Norgethistle]

 

 

Thanks for the reply, couple of points

 

The alcohol price, was brought in due to the amount of drunks during the dark winters, but a fact for you, Stavanger has the highest rate of binge drinking of females between the ages of 18 and 30 of any city in Europe (Including Glasgow)

 

Trade Unions, control everything here (Last Communist Country in Europe!!!), I was asked or told to go on strike to support another company in the region that was on strike as the 8% rise they were offered they rejected, the company I worked for could do nothing about it, and were told to pay our wages for the hours we were out. The unions are a hark back to the start of Thatchers reign they are that powerful, strikes are common and they force the government to push through ridiculous pay rises for workers, so much so that financial analysts are predicting super inflation and a massive crash in the not to distant future.

 

Defense, Norway doesn't have an army as such but a defense force, every male has to do 1 years national service (This also lowers the unemployment rate as you remove 1 year from the available workforce), the guys are paid a minimum (Not what they are earning at the time) and many I know that owned their own flats have had to take mortgage deferrals to cope, with the charges incurred, which will make the banks (Which are owned by the government and Trade unions) richer, pushing the level of personnel debt up.

 

I totally agree with you on the market value of Whisky unfortunately it doesn't employ that many people in terms of its net worth, so doesn't fix any job crisis (and Scotland and UK still have a job crisis)

 

On the currency a lot of talk from down south that if independence comes through they will push to have sterling removed from Scotland, and with Scotland not able to join the Euro for a few years that will cause problems as new currency historically crashes in the first year, which would be fantastic for tourists and folk buying from the country but poor for Scotland.

 

I personally think it is at the wrong time, hasn't been thought out or communicated clearly as to what it will benefit and what it will cost, and the "YES" campaign keeps changing the message coming out. Tell everyone the real pro's the real con's and the ones we're not too sure about then let people vote, IMO this is getting branded as a patriotic vote over everything else, if your proud to be Scottish vote "YES", lets remember the act of the union was drawn up by a Scottish King, and being a union stopped the Nazi jack boot from conquering europe

Edited June 22, 2013 by Norgethistle

[Guy Incognito]

Studied politics a long time ago at Uni and am now terminally bored by the subject. Having said that, it is interesting to look back at the road to referendum - some might say it started with the Hamilton by-election, others perhaps Margo MacDonald at Govan whilst others will point to 11 turkeys voting for Xmas and the consequences thereof..

 

Each to their own and each viewpoint will sadly become more and more entrenched in the next 15 months. Whilst I am ambivalent about the whole debate - and the level of debate is sadly pitiful (hypocrisy alert!! as I am adding to it! ) there are perhaps some concerning developments developing as the day of reckoning approaches.

 

The "Yes" campaign seems to have a "pick-and-mix" approach to Independence - keep the pound and no to the Euro, yet remain in the European Union as of right with no need to re-apply, get rid of nuclear bases but remain in NATO and be subject to NATO policy on the matter presumably - keep the Royal Family ........................... the list of muddled semi-autonomy goes on and on - some of it obviously aimed at the populist wing of general opinion as is the right of any political movement.

 

However the sum total of the "No" campaign seems to be precisely that.........."No" - nothing else just "No"- which is no argument at all. Better Together? has become a mantra and a meaningless slogan - not helped by the appearance of goons like Cameron and the gruesome sight of Darling being lauded by the blue rinse zombies at their recent conference - very unconvincing.

 

Thank the Lord we have the real world of football to keep us sane over the next year or so as the virtual reality that is Scottish Politics is about to become very over-heated indeed.

 

It is the SNP's policy to retain the pound and the monarchy and to be in NATO, rather than the Yes campaign's. (Cue the unionists: 'it's the same thing!' No, it isn't.) As a short to medium term measure retaining the pound makes sense, and it is doubtless a policy designed to allay anxieties over independence. However, some senior figures in the Yes campaign, such as Dennis Canavan and Patrick Harive, have spoken in favour of a seperate Scottish currency and against NATO membership, and personally I agree with them. I also favour a republic, but places like Australia and Canada have retained Lizzy as head of state, so it is feasible.

 

I agree that to the casual observer the Yes campaign's stance may seem a bit muddled, while the SNP's a bit too 'business is usual' (if things are going to basically be the same then why bother?). However, the case for independence, at its most basic level, should be a conceptual one. Can we do it? Should we do it? Once people are convinced that we can and we should, we can then look at putting the nuts and bolts on.

 

The No campaign is the mirror opposite: no we cannae and no we shouldnae. Theirs has been an inevitably negative campaign so far, albeit a slicker one than their counterparts, aided in part by a largely obedient mainstream media. The main tactic of the No campaign has been to try and worry people into voting against independence, rather than highlighting the virtues of the good old UK (I wonder why). Should the vote go their way on that basis then that truly would be a depressing state of affairs; what kind of marriage is one held together by fear?

 

All in all the debate so far has been poor, which is a pity, and I just hope that things liven up later on. The encouraging thing, in spite of the listless debate, is that threads like this exist. That suggests, to me, that people are passionate about the issue, whatever side of the fence they are on.

 

I don't know if anyone else saw the STV documentary 'Road to Referendum', but regardless of your opinion on the subject I would highly recommend it. It should still be available on the STV website.

[GrantB]

Thanks for the reply, couple of points

 

The alcohol price, was brought in due to the amount of drunks during the dark winters, but a fact for you, Stavanger has the highest rate of binge drinking of females between the ages of 18 and 30 of any city in Europe (Including Glasgow)

 

Trade Unions, control everything here (Last Communist Country in Europe!!!), I was asked or told to go on strike to support another company in the region that was on strike as the 8% rise they were offered they rejected, the company I worked for could do nothing about it, and were told to pay our wages for the hours we were out. The unions are a hark back to the start of Thatchers reign they are that powerful, strikes are common and they force the government to push through ridiculous pay rises for workers, so much so that financial analysts are predicting super inflation and a massive crash in the not to distant future.

 

Defense, Norway doesn't have an army as such but a defense force, every male has to do 1 years national service (This also lowers the unemployment rate as you remove 1 year from the available workforce), the guys are paid a minimum (Not what they are earning at the time) and many I know that owned their own flats have had to take mortgage deferrals to cope, with the charges incurred, which will make the banks (Which are owned by the government and Trade unions) richer, pushing the level of personnel debt up.

 

I totally agree with you on the market value of Whisky unfortunately it doesn't employ that many people in terms of its net worth, so doesn't fix any job crisis (and Scotland and UK still have a job crisis)

 

On the currency a lot of talk from down south that if independence comes through they will push to have sterling removed from Scotland, and with Scotland not able to join the Euro for a few years that will cause problems as new currency historically crashes in the first year, which would be fantastic for tourists and folk buying from the country but poor for Scotland.

 

I personally think it is at the wrong time, hasn't been thought out or communicated clearly as to what it will benefit and what it will cost, and the "YES" campaign keeps changing the message coming out. Tell everyone the real pro's the real con's and the ones we're not too sure about then let people vote, IMO this is getting branded as a patriotic vote over everything else, if your proud to be Scottish vote "YES", lets remember the act of the union was drawn up by a Scottish King, and being a union stopped the Nazi jack boot from conquering europe

 

Am enjoying reading your posts, it's quite refreshing to have someone in the 'no' camp being able to make valid points.

 

I hope that by this time next year, when we will be just a few months away from the historic vote, a lot more information will be out there so that people can make an informed choice. Hopefully we can win you and others round to the yes camp.

[jaggybunnet]

Am enjoying reading your posts, it's quite refreshing to have someone in the 'no' any camp being able to make valid points.

 

I hope that by this time next year, when we will be just a few months away from the historic vote, a lot more information will be out there so that people can make an informed choice. Hopefully we can win you and others round to the yes camp.

 

fixed that for you

[Guy Incognito]

Thanks for the reply, couple of points

 

The alcohol price, was brought in due to the amount of drunks during the dark winters, but a fact for you, Stavanger has the highest rate of binge drinking of females between the ages of 18 and 30 of any city in Europe (Including Glasgow)

 

Trade Unions, control everything here (Last Communist Country in Europe!!!), I was asked or told to go on strike to support another company in the region that was on strike as the 8% rise they were offered they rejected, the company I worked for could do nothing about it, and were told to pay our wages for the hours we were out. The unions are a hark back to the start of Thatchers reign they are that powerful, strikes are common and they force the government to push through ridiculous pay rises for workers, so much so that financial analysts are predicting super inflation and a massive crash in the not to distant future.

 

Defense, Norway doesn't have an army as such but a defense force, every male has to do 1 years national service (This also lowers the unemployment rate as you remove 1 year from the available workforce), the guys are paid a minimum (Not what they are earning at the time) and many I know that owned their own flats have had to take mortgage deferrals to cope, with the charges incurred, which will make the banks (Which are owned by the government and Trade unions) richer, pushing the level of personnel debt up.

 

I totally agree with you on the market value of Whisky unfortunately it doesn't employ that many people in terms of its net worth, so doesn't fix any job crisis (and Scotland and UK still have a job crisis)

 

On the currency a lot of talk from down south that if independence comes through they will push to have sterling removed from Scotland, and with Scotland not able to join the Euro for a few years that will cause problems as new currency historically crashes in the first year, which would be fantastic for tourists and folk buying from the country but poor for Scotland.

 

I personally think it is at the wrong time, hasn't been thought out or communicated clearly as to what it will benefit and what it will cost, and the "YES" campaign keeps changing the message coming out. Tell everyone the real pro's the real con's and the ones we're not too sure about then let people vote, IMO this is getting branded as a patriotic vote over everything else, if your proud to be Scottish vote "YES", lets remember the act of the union was drawn up by a Scottish King, and being a union stopped the Nazi jack boot from conquering europe

 

That's an interesting statistic. I would honestly never have guessed that. Even so, the average Norwegian woman can expect to live for around four years longer than her Scottish counterpart. Increasing the price of alcohol is merely scratching the surface and doesn't fully address the reasons behind long term alcohol abuse. As I said before, I am skeptical that it will work. But given that the number of alcohol related deaths in Scotland has double in the past thirty years the government has to do something.

 

I agree that there should be limits to a TU's power, but not to the point of complete emasculation (which is what the Tories have up their sleeves, amongst other things). I don't know if you looked at the link to the Common Wheal website that I posted, but one of the many things I liked was their suggestion that a workers representative sit on the board of every organisation. There comes a point in industrial realtions were both parties have to be reasonable, and sometimes the management and the TUs are as bad as each other in forgetting to do this. Maybe the approach suggested by the Common Wheal might help to reduce such tensions.

 

I didn't know that they had national service in Norway - another eye-opener - but I am unaware of such a measure being suggested in an independent Scotland. Some might argue that it could reduce ned culture, but that thought was thought before - and it didn't. I have to say, I quite like the idea of state owned banks(providing the bosses don't reward themselves with ridiculously inflated bonuses like those in charge of private sector banks over here do).

 

Aye, the UK and, by extenstion, Scotland has a job crisis (Scotland's unemployment rate is slightly lower than the rest of the UK's, although it is still nothing to write home about). But then why hang around in a union that has created such a situation? Unemployment in the UK hasn't dropped below one million in the last thirty years, and that includes the 'boom years'. The economic policies of Tory governments in the 1980s and early 1990s decimated much of Scotland's industry, in spite of the Scots consistently rejecting that party in the polls. Granted, many of those industries were inefficent, but there were alternatives to letting them crash and burn. (There was a thread on here around the time of Thatcher snuffing it that discusses this in greater detail.) On the plus side, foreign investment in Scotland is the highest it has been in fifteen years, which kind of blows George Osborne's scare story about the 'threat' of independence dettering foreign investors out of the water.

 

If Scotland was to be removed from the Sterling zone in the event of a yes vote for independence then more fool them, because without the revenues Scotland is capable of generating the currency's coat will be on a very shoogly peg. Ask yourself this: why are they so desperate to hang on to us? Luckily the people who run the Bank of England - which is autonomous from the British state anyway - are a bit shrewder than to tell us to f*ck off. And even if they aren't, then why should we want to be in a union with such spiteful people anyway?

 

The Act of Union was not drawn up by a Scottish king. The Union of the Crowns may have been instigated by a Scottish king, but the Act of Union was foisted upon the people of England and Scotland by a political elite; or 'bought and sold by English gold', as Burns put it. Arguably the involvement of the US, having ceded from British rule some 150 years earlier, played a greater roll in stopping the Nazis in WW2 than England and Scotland being in a union together. Either way, Hitler and co are long gone now, yet young people from both sides of the border are being returned home in boxes as a result of the British government attempting to police the world with its buddies from across the pond. Maybe - and this is a big maybe - Scotland becoming independent could help the remainder of the UK re-evaluate its position in the world, thus making our planet just that wee bit safer to inhabit.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Guy Incognito

[G Jag]

Yes!

[alx]

There's not a lot of fuss about the dismantling of the NHS in England. Here's some fairly solid factual points:

- the NHS is inexpensive and efficient by international standards (in terms of direct spending by governments, never mind the patients and business health plans)

- the US system is so expensive the midde classes often need a second job to pay for health care

- the US system costs the US government more in direct spending than ours does

- the conservative front bench have many directorships and equity stakes in private health care contract companies (I think some Labour politicians as well, but I would need to double check)

 

My opinion is that the conservatives don't want to make the system more efficient, they want to steal the money.

They do this by taking expenditure off the books, paying staff the minimum wage, and pocketing the difference.

 

Aha you say, but the Scottish NHS is already independent of the English one so what's the problem? Well firstly this shows the benefits of indpendence and secondly this fiddling of expenditure books means that through the Barnett formula the Tories will be able to savage our own NHS in a couple of years. The thought of being in this union in a couple of years time is frightening.

[GrantB]

There's not a lot of fuss about the dismantling of the NHS in England. Here's some fairly solid factual points:

- the NHS is inexpensive and efficient by international standards (in terms of direct spending by governments, never mind the patients and business health plans)

- the US system is so expensive the midde classes often need a second job to pay for health care

- the US system costs the US government more in direct spending than ours does

- the conservative front bench have many directorships and equity stakes in private health care contract companies (I think some Labour politicians as well, but I would need to double check)

 

My opinion is that the conservatives don't want to make the system more efficient, they want to steal the money.

They do this by taking expenditure off the books, paying staff the minimum wage, and pocketing the difference.

 

Aha you say, but the Scottish NHS is already independent of the English one so what's the problem? Well firstly this shows the benefits of indpendence and secondly this fiddling of expenditure books means that through the Barnett formula the Tories will be able to savage our own NHS in a couple of years. The thought of being in this union in a couple of years time is frightening.

 

This, this and this again.

 

What do the No people have to say then....

[Norgethistle]

I didn't know that they had national service in Norway - another eye-opener - but I am unaware of such a measure being suggested in an independent Scotland. Some might argue that it could reduce ned culture, but that thought was thought before - and it didn't. I have to say, I quite like the idea of state owned banks(providing the bosses don't reward themselves with ridiculously inflated bonuses like those in charge of private sector banks over here do).

 

From the SNP referendum website " It would be for future Scottish Governments to shape a defence policy best suited to the country’s needs. Our defence profile could be similar to neighbouring nations such as Denmark, Sweden, Finland or Norway. "

 

 

 

The beauty with a national service defence force is that

A) The cost is cheaper than a full time soldier

B ) You remove 1 or 2 years of the male population from the job market, effectively reducing unemployment

 

The down falls

A) You have guys being forced into something they have no interest in and will show it the same level of disdain as being forced to wash the toilet floor in McDonald for minimum wage

B ) If the unthinkable happen and per say Russia decides it wants the Scottish oil fields we have no way of defending it. (Not so far fetched as the Russian fleet has already been through the Norwegian oil field shutting production and helicopter flights as a show of strength, and are currently over flying Norway regularly with nuclear bombers, escorted away by the RAF and USAF and the Norwegian airforce)

 

When I was on the STUC my union AEEU with Danny Carrigan at the time were actually pushing for National service (But as a land army, fixing roads etc) to be looked at to lower unemployment and encourage kids to get up in the morning and learn how to work, the Labour government wouldn't entertain the idea.

 

Just to add the countries mentioned

Denmark ; National service

Sweden: NO National service

Finland: National service

Norway: National Service

Edited June 26, 2013 by Norgethistle

[Norgethistle]

Currently I will be voting NO, the reason I have still to see any real information that has been substantiated to say that Scotland will be better on its own, so better the devil you know for me. Its quite sad the fact there has been more level debate on here than in the media from both camps

[Guy Incognito]

The beauty with a national service defence force is that

A) The cost is cheaper than a full time soldier

B ) You remove 1 or 2 years of the male population from the job market, effectively reducing unemployment

 

The down falls

A) You have guys being forced into something they have no interest in and will show it the same level of disdain as being forced to wash the toilet floor in McDonald for minimum wage

B ) If the unthinkable happen and per say Russia decides it wants the Scottish oil fields we have no way of defending it. (Not so far fetched as the Russian fleet has already been through the Norwegian oil field shutting production and helicopter flights as a show of strength, and are currently over flying Norway regularly with nuclear bombers, escorted away by the RAF and USAF and the Norwegian airforce)

 

When I was on the STUC my union AEEU with Danny Carrigan at the time were actually pushing for National service (But as a land army, fixing roads etc) to be looked at to lower unemployment and encourage kids to get up in the morning and learn how to work, the Labour government wouldn't entertain the idea.

 

Just to add the countries mentioned

Denmark ; National service

Sweden: NO National service

Finland: National service

Norway: National Service

 

There is nothing I can see in that statement from the SNP which implies that they favour national service. I think the key line is the first: 'it would be for future Scottish Governments to shape a defence policy best suited to the country’s needs'. If anything it is the kind of non-committal, wishy-washy statement that is the SNP's achilles heel.

 

The second part seems to suggest that they favour an armed forces which operates in a similar fashion to those countries mentioned, i.e. one which is geared towards defending the country rather than invading others. Nowhere in that line of text does it imply that we would not have an armed forces of some description. Don't forget, we already have armed forces personnel - currently chasing their tails in the middle east, amongst other things - who, I surmise, would transfer from the British army and become our defence force following negotiations with the UK government in the event of a yes vote. As I said before, over the past ten years there has been a per capita underspend on defence in Scotland, so the funds clearly are there and there is even scope for an increase in defence spending (not that I think it is necessary, personally).

 

I'll take your statement about Russian nuclear bombers flying over Norway at face value. (I did initially wonder if you had been at the Stavanger moonshine though. ) I don't know what Russia's beef is with Norway - other than Putin is a nutcase - but I cannot see them trying to pinch their oil, let alone Scotland's, not when they have shitloads of their own. Invading some wee country just to prove a point would also make them look like complete ar*eholes in the eyes of the world, and would likely incur the wrath of a certain superpower who already seem quite irked by them. And let's face it, if they put their minds to it they could probably invade our oilfields now if they wanted to, what with a significant portion of the UK's armed forces occupied elsewhere.

[alx]

Currently I will be voting NO, the reason I have still to see any real information that has been substantiated to say that Scotland will be better on its own, so better the devil you know for me. Its quite sad the fact there has been more level debate on here than in the media from both camps

 

Not to worry Norge, the Yes campaign aim to win his thing. The No campaign are doing a scattergun 'Project Fear' approach with no regard for facts and are being blatantly dishonest using an 'ends justify the means' evil way of trying to win. It's important that Yes don't stoop to this level of blatant lies. There's a lot to be said for doing a 'rope-a-dope' until the white paper comes out in November. We won't really start to do the heavy hitting until next spring. But there's lots of info to be had on Newsnet Scotland:

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

 

Also, the Wings Over Scotland website is updated daily.

[twinny]

I'm actually all for national service. I do however hate the idea of forcing guys (or women) to join the forces, so I would propose that, like in Germany there is a choice between the army or community service. In Germany you get paid more for the army than you do for community service, in my ideal world I would close this gap a little, although I can understand that this is necessary due to increased risk and to make sure at least some people choose the army over community service.

[German Jag]

I'm actually all for national service. I do however hate the idea of forcing guys (or women) to join the forces, so I would propose that, like in Germany there is a choice between the army or community service. In Germany you get paid more for the army than you do for community service, in my ideal world I would close this gap a little, although I can understand that this is necessary due to increased risk and to make sure at least some people choose the army over community service.

 

It has now (2011) been discontinued in Germany.

[jaggybunnet]

There is nothing I can see in that statement from the SNP which implies that they favour national service. I think the key line is the first: 'it would be for future Scottish Governments to shape a defence policy best suited to the country’s needs'. If anything it is the kind of non-committal, wishy-washy statement that is the SNP's achilles heel.

 

The second part seems to suggest that they favour an armed forces which operates in a similar fashion to those countries mentioned, i.e. one which is geared towards defending the country rather than invading others. Nowhere in that line of text does it imply that we would not have an armed forces of some description. Don't forget, we already have armed forces personnel - currently chasing their tails in the middle east, amongst other things - who, I surmise, would transfer from the British army and become our defence force following negotiations with the UK government in the event of a yes vote. As I said before, over the past ten years there has been a per capita underspend on defence in Scotland, so the funds clearly are there and there is even scope for an increase in defence spending (not that I think it is necessary, personally).

 

I'll take your statement about Russian nuclear bombers flying over Norway at face value. (I did initially wonder if you had been at the Stavanger moonshine though. ) I don't know what Russia's beef is with Norway - other than Putin is a nutcase - but I cannot see them trying to pinch their oil, let alone Scotland's, not when they have shitloads of their own. Invading some wee country just to prove a point would also make them look like complete ar*eholes in the eyes of the world, and would likely incur the wrath of a certain superpower who already seem quite irked by them. And let's face it, if they put their minds to it they could probably invade our oilfields now if they wanted to, what with a significant portion of the UK's armed forces occupied elsewhere.

 

no it doesn't, the army swears allegiance to the queen so belongs to the UK also there is no gaurentee they would transfer to the Scottish army, in fact the scots guards did a poll on this and it was a 100% no to independence and transferring to a Scottish army.

 

An independent Scotland would have to barter for any army and even then it might only be in name if no one wants to transfer to it.

 

as a side point, very few soldiers would want to stay in an army that doesn't go anywhere with no real promotion prospects, soldiers on the whole hate staying in camp, exercises with no chance of using those skills would turn them off massively.

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[Guy Incognito]

no it doesn't, the army swears allegiance to the queen so belongs to the UK also there is no gaurentee they would transfer to the Scottish army, in fact the scots guards did a poll on this and it was a 100% no to independence and transferring to a Scottish army.

 

Aye, that's because Scotland 'belongs' to the UK, currently. Plus, the current plans are to retain the Queen as head of state, so they would still be swearing allegiance to the same person.

 

An independent Scotland would have to barter for any army and even then it might only be in name if no one wants to transfer to it.

 

I know it would. That was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned negotiations with the UK government.

 

as a side point, very few soldiers would want to stay in an army that doesn't go anywhere with no real promotion prospects, soldiers on the whole hate staying in camp, exercises with no chance of using those skills would turn them off massively.

 

Perhaps, but you are speculating a lot there. I am sure a defence force would still atract recruits, as it would at least present a steady career that provides people with transferable skills. All those armies that Norgethistle quoted must be able to atract recruits from somewhere.

 

Sorry, but young men having the opportunity to die pointlessly before they reach their twenties isn't enough to make me vote against independence.

[jaggybunnet]

Aye, that's because Scotland 'belongs' to the UK, currently. Plus, the current plans are to retain the Queen as head of state, so they would still be swearing allegiance to the same person.

 

no it isnt, it is part of the UK and no its not the same at all.

 

I know it would. That was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned negotiations with the UK government.

 

which you have no idea

 

Perhaps, but you are speculating a lot there. I am sure a defence force would still atract recruits, as it would at least present a steady career that provides people with transferable skills. All those armies that Norgethistle quoted must be able to atract recruits from somewhere.

 

not really i have been in 27 years and most of the chat with the younger troops is exactly that and where most of our dramas com from, they hate being in camp, get board and end up causing all sorts of trouble.

 

Sorry, but young men having the opportunity to die pointlessly before they reach their twenties isn't enough to make me vote against independence.

 

that's your view and not the view of the majority of the armed forces and those countries, Norway to name one have soldiers in afgan something that eck says he would not do.

 

 

an army that doesn't deploy its solders is not an army, its just a badly trained toy for the likes of eck to parade sometimes.

Edited June 27, 2013 by jaggybunnet

[The Jukebox Rebel]

If we were to believe the Westminster parties, after independence the Scottish defence capability would consist of a freefone number and a recorded message saying "We surrender" in six languages. We'd be defenceless against the Faroese hordes invading Muckle Flugga.

 

There's a chasm between an independent Scotland's approach to defence and Westminster's approach. It's a conceptual difference Westminster is unable to grasp, and it explains Michael Moore's recent plaintive whine that an independent Scotland would not be able to go off on its own bat and invade some Middle Eastern country, like that would be a bad thing. An independent Scotland only requires a defence capacity, Westminster requires an attack capacity.

 

Scotland's notional share of Westminster's Department of Offence spending amounts to around £3.5 billion annually. Less than £2 billion of that is actually spent in Scotland. Even if we were to maintain defence spending exactly as it is now, we'd still have an extra £1.5 billion to play with. The savings we'd make by no longer coughing up for Westminster's pretensions to Great Power status would alone pay for investment in Scottish jobs and industry which would more than compensate for any loss of defence sector jobs.

 

~ newsnetscotland.com

[The Jukebox Rebel]

jaggybunnet,

 

As the impartial sceptic JeanieD previously noted, we two are atypical of those who shall remain deeply entrenched in our long established positions.

 

To revert back to our conversation, you came to the only logical conclusion that you possibly can - that you do think it's fair that Scotland's destiny is controlled by a government 500 miles away in London, even if, as they did in 2010, only 16.7% of the turnout voted for them. You say that's quite right since Scotland is merely a region of the UK.

 

Well, to me that's an absurd position. Theoretically, all of Scotland's 4 million voters could vote for Labour / Liberal / SNP with 0% Conservative and STILL be controlled by Tory policy.

 

Policies which, thanks to the rise and rise of UKIP, and Cameron’s fear of losing vote share, are moving ever further away from the economic and social interests of the people of Scotland.

 

Writing in yesterday’s Wings Over Scotland, Rev. Stuart Campbell had some great stuff to say on this:

 

“By common consensus the economic crisis has given the Tories the cover they need to do something they always ideologically want to do anyway – slash government spending and cut taxes in order to enrich the wealthy, who in turn fund them.

 

But if austerity worked, would Ed Miliband be any more pleased? If the cuts saved the economy, everyone would gratefully vote Tory again. Labour needs poverty, because without poverty its ostensible reason for existing is gone. The party, in fact, thrives on inequality – if that inequality vanished, so would its core vote.

 

The fundamental change wrought by New Labour was that without admitting it, the party politically abandoned the poor and vulnerable (safe in the knowledge that they had nowhere else to go) and instead aligned itself with the “aspirational” middle classes – exactly the same people targeted by the Tories. And the middle class, more or less by definition, identifies itself not in absolute terms, but relative ones.

 

The British middle class – as we’ve seen by the remarkably muted response to austerity, compared to the riots in other countries – can tolerate its circumstances worsening considerably, as long as it can still see the gap between itself and the wretched poor. Having to work longer hours or cut back on holidays and new cars is bearable as long as you can say “Hey, at least I’m not being forced to work in Poundland for nothing, or socially cleansed out of this nice area where I live”.”

 

In 15 months time the people of Scotland can decide the next move for Scotland:

 

a) YES. To step forward as an independent nation, a nation with no pandering to class systems, a nation rooted in social justice, with a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth, and a nation which is a respected trading partner in Europe.

NO. If they wish to continue as a mere region of the UK and be subjected to a non stop line of undesirable policies from a government which they never voted for, policies which are inevitably rooted in their pandering to middle England’s ever demanding selfishness.

 

No one cares more about Scotland's success than the people who live in Scotland.

 

Yes to Scotland as a strong, independent country.

No to Scotland as a poor region of the UK.

[twinny]

It has now (2011) been discontinued in Germany.

 

Ah, I had no idea. A friend of mine had done it in maybe 2009 or 2010.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

LOL. I'll need to try and remember to stop doing that b right bracket thing

[twinny]

LOL. I'll need to try and remember to stop doing that b right bracket thing

 

If you go into the full editor (follow the 'More Reply Options' button at the bottom of the reply box, uncheck the 'enable emoticons' option to the right of the page, this will only affect the post that you are writing at the time.

 

[The Jukebox Rebel]

I actually think that those who are Conservatively minded by nature would do well to simply sit back and let Scottish independence take it's natural, logical and just course.

 

I seriously think you'd be much better off standing as the Scottish Conservatives, solely on Scottish issues, in an independent Scotland.

 

Your 16.7% could nudge back towards 25-30% in 20 years time and you'd be proportionately well represented in a country that's looking after you and your neighbours.

 

And I'm quite sure her majesty would still give you a cheery wee wave from the Royal Mile from time to time.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Cheers Twinny. Noted. Of course, that'd require me to actually think first

 

Which is about 50-50