Scottish Politics Thread

[Graham]

Salmond condemned Cameron’s suggestion that declining independence would provide Scotland with greater power and prosperity.

"This idea of saying 'well, vote No and we'll give you something later' I don't think is going to convince anyone in Scotland and I think the prime minister, as a new tactic just adopted this morning, is on very shaky ground if he believes people in Scotland will be fooled again,"
SAB/JR/HE
Correct, Cameron says we'll get more devolution if we say NO.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

Well she did intorduce the poll tax on us a year early as a test. So we had that devolved for a year :rolleyes:.

http://i43.tinypic.com/23012t.jpg

[Albion]

Cameron used his Scotland speech to warn that the split would damage UK’s status in Europe, within NATO

Not really. England basically is the UK, the Celts just hang on the periphery.


and risk the Britain’s permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council.

Maybe. Russia would exploit it to try and kick us off the permanent seat, but legally the UK without Scotland would be its legal successor and so would retain the seat by default. Of course there'd be some questions raised as to why the UK would retain the seat.


"We have 25 percent of Europe's tidal power potential, 25 percent of its offshore wind potential and 10 percent of its wave power potential -- not bad for a nation with less than 1 percent of Europe's population," Salmond said.

Wow, a lot of electricity there but only one real market for it and that is England. If England meanwhile updates its nuclear power stations as it is planning to do then Scotland will have no one to export this to.


"We're stronger, because together we count for more in the world,” he claimed.

Whilst I wish for this country to retain a decent place in world affairs, I do think too much is devoted to retaining great power status. All this brings is burden and responsibility, we have to get involved in foreign wars and get entangled in world affairs.
We may as well let the emerging powers have their day and look out for our own interests whilst working to retain a decent place in the world. A more neutral outlook would be better, we need to get a decent relationship with the BRICs and Europe and stop getting involved outside of Europe. Germany is a good model.

[Lumi]

Meh. The reason why Salmond wants to wait is to we can sort everything out first before we vote.
Cameron can feck off. He just doesn't want to see us go because if we leave the UK, England can kiss goodbye access to one of the most advanced leaders in the fight against cancer.

[Graham]

Meh. The reason why Salmond wants to wait is to we can sort everything out first before we vote.
Cameron can feck off.
Cameron's a wee, Eton, posh, scrote, who can feck off to the inner fucking core! just to go one better. :D

Yes, everything needs to be sorted. Want to see what the full plans are for Scottish citizenship, taxation, currency etc.. It's the most important vote we'll have in our entire lives. Think that a lot of Scots are on NO/Status Quo until they know the facts.

If anyone is interested. Has a small clue in how the demographics go with the referendum.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21743&stc=1&d=1331053776

[The Lawspeaker]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21743&stc=1&d=1331053776

Well.. it's The Times which is pretty much a pro-Union newspaper so I don't think that those figures are very representative.

[Graham]

Well.. it's The Times which is pretty much a pro-Union newspaper so I don't think that those figures are very representative.

It's a Rupert Murdoch owned paper, he supports independence. Murdoch is over half Scottish and is good friends with Salmond. News Corp has come out now in support of Independence.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58617000/jpg/_58617574_rupert_murdoch_tweets.jpg
Last weeks paper
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58724000/jpg/_58724109_sunonsunday.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Do you think that the Scots will vote for independence ?

[Graham]

Do you think that the Scots will vote for independence ?

It'll be Quebec referendum, 1995 close. Would be a fool to say 'yes' or 'no'.

The votes to be won by both the Yes and No vote. Will be the Scots who vote for their families future, job and own well being. Scots don't like 'Risk' though.

[Lumi]

Yes.
I know a tonne of people who will vote for Independence. There was a poll on Facebook, and the majority of people aged 13-25 said yes.

[The Lawspeaker]

It'll be Quebec referendum, 1995 close. Would be a fool to say 'yes' or 'no'.

The votes to be won by both the Yes and No vote. Will be the Scots who vote for their families future, job and own well being. Scots don't like 'Risk' though.
I just hope the balance will be tipped in favour of the "Aye" vote. Maybe then the Scots can start building up a future for themselves and move away from a system of government that hasn't always had the best of intentions with them. You say that Scots don't like taking risks - they are a bit like us then but they would have to conquer the fear of cold water (as we could call it here - the fear of taking risks).

[Graham]

Yes.
I know a tonne of people who will vote for Independence. There was a poll on Facebook, and the majority of people aged 13-25 said yes.

In that age group we would. But it's the old folk who think back to ww2 etc.. who vote NO

Maybe it time to raise heating costs during winter time. :evil

[Graham]

I just hope the balance will be tipped in favour of the "Aye" vote. Maybe then the Scots can start building up a future for themselves and move away from a system of government that hasn't always had the best of intentions with them. You say that Scots don't like taking risks - they are a bit like us then but they would have to conquer the fear of cold water (as we could call it here - the fear of taking risks).

We already have an independent health service, education, policing, Law system and various others things.

We don't have full responsibility, no responsibility in raising our own income. The revenue we make, goes down to London, then London sends a lump sum back to Edinburgh.

What the Scots want most is Full Fiscal Autonomy. Which mean independence but without the foreign policy, defence and border control. It always comes out as 'YES' on polls by far. A little bit less Risk.

[The Lawspeaker]

What the Scots want most is Full Fiscal Autonomy. Which mean independence but without the foreign policy, defence and border control. It always comes out as 'YES' on polls by far. A little bit less Risk.
That might work too for the foreseeable future but full-blown independence is always the best option but there is a less risk involved so it might work.

[Albion]

Meh. The reason why Salmond wants to wait is to we can sort everything out first before we vote.
Cameron can feck off. He just doesn't want to see us go because if we leave the UK, England can kiss goodbye access to one of the most advanced leaders in the fight against cancer.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before. England won't miss you, stop kidding yourself. All this Scot-Nat self-flattery gets old after a while, please just bugger off and leave us to it, the English grow tired of the Celtic millstone around our neck.

No one ever asks us what we think, if we had a referendum in England - "Do you want Scotland to leave the union?" then you'd have a much better chance of becoming independent. "Yes" would come the resounding call.

As for cancer, well I'll take your word on that, but most of the drugs companies are south of the border so work it out for yourself. Besides, petty nationalism doesn't usually get in the way of corporate greed, everything has a price in this world. :rolleyes2:

[Trog]

Not really. England basically is the UK, the Celts just hang on the periphery.



:facepalm: And you call me dumb?

[Trog]

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before. England won't miss you, stop kidding yourself. All this Scot-Nat self-flattery gets old after a while, please just bugger off and leave us to it, the English grow tired of the Celtic millstone around our neck.

No one ever asks us what we think, if we had a referendum in England - "Do you want Scotland to leave the union?" then you'd have a much better chance of becoming independent. "Yes" would come the resounding call.


Aye? So why then is Cameron not supporting Salmond? Maybe he sees that good ole Celtic blood will be needed to sanitize all the brown, black, yellow blood currently running through the core of England right now. You best put your house in order, for whilst yer all too busy thinking of us Scots as upstarts for wanting our seperate identity, your own country's identity is being drowned in a deluge of multiculturalism.

[Trog]

I just hope the balance will be tipped in favour of the "Aye" vote. Maybe then the Scots can start building up a future for themselves and move away from a system of government that hasn't always had the best of intentions with them. You say that Scots don't like taking risks - they are a bit like us then but they would have to conquer the fear of cold water (as we could call it here - the fear of taking risks).

Salmond is just a great leader. Take him out and there's no one to replace him. If his quest for independence is to be realised, he needs to lose weight as I fear he is going to die of a massive heart attack. Independence will die with Alex Salmond.

[Nixon]

If there is a lot of people on welfare in Scotland those people will vote for who gives them the most money. This scenario plays out in the US and Canada and works everytime.

[Lumi]

There are people on welfare benefits because of the Tories cutting jobs and education.

[Graham]

Salmond is just a great leader. Take him out and there's no one to replace him. If his quest for independence is to be realised, he needs to lose weight as I fear he is going to die of a massive heart attack. Independence will die with Alex Salmond.

Wont happen! How do you stop a fatty, who gets offered free food.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dCmctezAGiI/T0OrmpEJh8I/AAAAAAAABM4/tn-6Jy3N85w/s1600/Salmond+tunnocks.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YTRErIXUbP4/Si66i8RG3tI/AAAAAAAABuo/V-Jbmiy2Hwk/s1600/eilidh+whiteford+and+alex+salmond+new+pitsligo+chi p+shop.jpg

[Pyramidologist]

Aye? So why then is Cameron not supporting Salmond? Maybe he sees that good ole Celtic blood will be needed to sanitize all the brown, black, yellow blood currently running through the core of England right now. You best put your house in order, for whilst yer all too busy thinking of us Scots as upstarts for wanting our seperate identity, your own country's identity is being drowned in a deluge of multiculturalism.

You do realise, although the SNP want to leave the British Union, they want to adopt greater links with the EU?

If Scotland gets its independence you will be swarmed with millions of immigrants via the EU's ''no borders policy''. Is that what you support?

Also, an independent Scotland would feel the full grasp of Europe in all other areas, for example, Scottish fishing will be fully destroyed by allowing Europe’s fishermen to fully wipe out Scottish stocks, most SNP also want to leave the pound and join the Euro, SNP also want the EU to fully dictate and determine their laws. So much for the SNP caring about Scottish culture and traditions, their is nothing nationalist about them, i don't know why they have it in their name. Don't also forget they are a multiracial, multiethnic party that thinks any old immigrant that gets off the boat and arrives in Scotland is as Scottish as the indigenous population. In the last general election the SNP stood about 10 immigrant Muslim candidates.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xOcdlFOsr4s/S-VRsaAjbRI/AAAAAAAACwM/pwLZurOBkVY/s1600/kin8a.jpg

More info about the fake nationalists SNP...

Muslims Receiving Vast and Disproportionate Amounts of Government Money under SNP Administration

Given their share of the Scottish population, which is less than 1%, Muslims are receiving an astonishingly high proportion (around 60%) of Scottish government equality grants, the Christian Institute reports.

Almost 60 per cent of all grants given out by the Equality Unit has gone to just five Muslim groups.

The groups were awarded £1.5 million of public money, dwarfing the £137,500 given to Christian charities and the £110,000 given to Jewish organisations."

[Graham]

...sigh.:rolleyes2: Annoying

[The Lawspeaker]

As if under the UK government immigrants are not being shipped in by the shipload.

[Graham]

You do realise, although the SNP want to leave the British Union, they want to adopt greater links with the EU?

Not any differen't to what it's like now.We're in a United Kingdom in a United States of Europe.

EU Laws,being pushed through by the High courts in London.


If Scotland gets its independence you will be swarmed with millions of immigrants via the EU's ''no borders policy''. Is that what you support?

How did you figure that out? The SNP haven't brought out policies on immigration/Citezenships yet.

Can't be worse than London control.


Also, an independent Scotland would feel the full grasp of Europe in all other areas, for example, Scottish fishing will be fully destroyed by allowing Europe’s fishermen to fully wipe out Scottish stocks,
London disallowed the Scottish government on EU talks to do with the North Sea fishing embargo.
It's SNP who are fighting for fishermen and the unfair advantages Iceland and Faroe Island have.


most SNP also want to leave the pound and join the Euro, SNP also want the EU to fully dictate and determine their laws. So much for the SNP caring about Scottish culture and traditions,
No they haven't Fucking watch the news for fuck sake. You're either dense, lazy, Ignorant, Liar or don't really know. Choose?


The groups were awarded £1.5 million of public money, dwarfing the £137,500 given to Christian charities and the £110,000 given to Jewish organisations."
Source Lord George Foulkesof Cumnock (Lab). Unreliable source. Known as a joke up here. Would like to see the facts and proper figures. Probably been twisted

"A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond pointed out that the figures do not include funding from other areas which contribute to charities such as faith schools and aid organisations."

[Graham]

As if under the UK government immigrants are not being shipped in by the shipload.

I tell them this.

But guessing and Predicting what will happen in the Future beats Facts based on what is happening now.

[Troll's Puzzle]

As if under the UK government immigrants are not being shipped in by the shipload.

almost all of them go to England though.

an independant, S 'N' P scotland could start importing that sweet, vibrant Diversity™ direct to the (boring, monocultural, hideously white) glens and lochs, that has been cruelly denied to them by the evil union. :thumbs up

though, I would vote for independence if I was scottish. It's easier to kill the beast if it's chopped up first :thumbs up

I think the scots would miss us though, they wouldn't be able to blame us for all their ills anymore :wink

[Troll's Puzzle]

We do get Immigrants from outside of Europe lol. Worked next to a lad from Brazil, he got sick of the weather so moved to England. There was another Black guy who also moved down to England. all the Rest were White.

Look through Google images on where I am. You'll notice we do get some Immigrants.
Home (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dedridge&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvnsfd&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=4KhfT-qqH8XS8gOMmfStBw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=936)

yes, I know.

that's why I said 'most....'

otherwise I would have said 'all immigrants go to england', but then I would have been being dishonest.

just like it's dishonest to pretend that immigration to the UK is 'shared around', and that things wouldn't be much changed in that regard if scotland was independent, and with the pretend nationalists in charge...

[Arsen_]

Scottish guy who traveled and lived a while in Armenia wrote in his blog (http://stuartinthecaucasus.blogspot.com/2011/05/ziggy-stardust-eat-your-heart-out.html):

"...I’ll finish on a slightly more serious note this week. I cannot understand why Scots are so unbelievably stupid to vote for the Scottish Nationalist Party as a protest vote. Voting for nationalists has never had good historical precedent and, were Scotland to be become independent as these idiots want, with the large social problems already rooted in the country and the revenue the country would lose after splitting with London, the country would be doomed! Hope it doesn’t come to that. I was interviewed on Armenian television last week where I espoused my views as people here believe Scottish independence would be a good precedent for the autonomous region of Mountainous Karabagh. In a short answer, absolutely not!"

[Graham]

From 2010 to 2011. Recorded migration to Scotland (non Uk resident's), per capita was higher than England. Overall much higher in England of course. But it is changing slightly. Up up 122,000 in England, Up 20,000 in Scotland.

[Graham]

Scottish guy who traveled and lived a while in Armenia wrote in his blog (http://stuartinthecaucasus.blogspot.com/2011/05/ziggy-stardust-eat-your-heart-out.html):

"...I’ll finish on a slightly more serious note this week. I cannot understand why Scots are so unbelievably stupid to vote for the Scottish Nationalist Party as a protest vote. Voting for nationalists has never had good historical precedent and, were Scotland to be become independent as these idiots want, with the large social problems already rooted in the country and the revenue the country would lose after splitting with London, the country would be doomed! Hope it doesn’t come to that. I was interviewed on Armenian television last week where I espoused my views as people here believe Scottish independence would be a good precedent for the autonomous region of Mountainous Karabagh. In a short answer, absolutely not!"

What revenue would we lose?

The 'Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland' and also the 'Centre for Economics and Business Research' based in London. Show that the UK and Scotland run a deficit. But Scotland has an even or slightly lower deficit to the UK.

As for country's splitting from the UK. Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Ask them if separating was a good or bad thing? Independence bad for our Neighbours Norway? or do they want to go backwards?

[Graham]

I’ll finish on a slightly more serious note this week. I cannot understand why Scots are so unbelievably stupid to vote for the Scottish Nationalist Party as a protest vote.

So winning two elections, Second by a Majority is a protest vote. How naive to think this.
How the SNP has dealt with the NHS, low Crime, Council Tax and Tuition fees has nothing to do with it?
Some pro Unionist's vote the SNP on the policies. But would vote no to separation.
The guy doesn't live here, defected. Doesn't keep up to date and should wheest his gob.

[Pyramidologist]

Not any differen't to what it's like now.We're in a United Kingdom in a United States of Europe.

EU Laws,being pushed through by the High courts in London.

Yes precisely. SNP don't want change from the current goverment, they want Scotland to remain in the EU, but push for even more Europhilia.


How did you figure that out? The SNP haven't brought out policies on immigration/Citezenships yet.

Read their policy and manifesto online, summary -

''The SNP promises to pursue an immigration policy that welcomes new Scots''

With the cranky Greens and Respect Party, the SNP are one of the only parties who want a completely open door immigration policy, unlimited immigration. MigrationWatch on party immigration policies:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/143

SNP are listed with the cranky ''open door'' Greens and Respect Party. Lib-Lab-Con are close-by in their potty open door immigration policies. Again, do you see how SNP are not at all different to the current goverment? Is this what you vote for?


It's SNP who are fighting for fishermen and the unfair advantages Iceland and Faroe Island have.

SNP want the EU to have greater control over Scotland, so that would allow Europe’s fishermen to fully wipe out Scottish stocks.


No they haven't Fucking watch the news for fuck sake. You're either dense, lazy, Ignorant, Liar or don't really know. Choose?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2084578/Scots-warned-join-ailing-euro-want-independence.html


Source Lord George Foulkesof Cumnock (Lab). Unreliable source. Known as a joke up here. Would like to see the facts and proper figures. Probably been twisted

"A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond pointed out that the figures do not include funding from other areas which contribute to charities such as faith schools and aid organisations."

The source is the Christian Institute, nothing to do with Labour.

Muslims cash in on Scots equality fundhttp://www.christian.org.uk/news/muslims-cash-in-on-scots-equality-fund/

SNP were also taken to court or questioned by authorities over vote rigging. They were importing thousands of Muslims into certain regions to get extra votes. Labour did the exact same thing in Barking, which is why Nick Griffin was never elected, despite winning the majority of the white vote.

When ever there is a general election, ten's of thousands of Asian names appear on the election register. SNP and Labour put them there, and after the election they bugger back home.

[Arsen_]

What revenue would we lose?

The 'Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland' and also the 'Centre for Economics and Business Research' based in London. Show that the UK and Scotland run a deficit. But Scotland has an even or slightly lower deficit to the UK.

As for country's splitting from the UK. Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Ask them if separating was a good or bad thing? Independence bad for our Neighbours Norway? or do they wont to go backwards?

I'd like to make it clear, it's not my opinion. :)
Personally for me Independence of my Nation is the most dear and valuable thing for which not only any revenues but even my blood I am ready to shed.

[Trog]

I have to say I'm more comfortable under the current government and feel they would deal more with issues that are more relevant to my own values, even though I am romantically inclined towards an independent Scotland.

[Graham]

^^^ Best approach is to be open minded to the UK or Independence. To vote based on the arguments and facts before the vote.

I'm in the Idiot group who would vote otherwise. But those on status quo/haven't made mind up, are the sensible ones atm.

Need to pace these thread's lol, still two years away. It'll get boring. :D

[Pyramidologist]

..

[Albion]

:facepalm: And you call me dumb?

Indeed, I do. I'm hardly the most intelligent of people myself, but some of what you write is something I'd expect from a kid.

Um, the Celtic nations in the periphery? Have you ever looked at a map or wondered why 70% of Scotland is barren Moorland?


Remember this?:

"the barbarians drive us to the sea and the sea drives us back to the barbarians "

No, of course not. :rolleyes2:


Aye? So why then is Cameron not supporting Salmond? Maybe he sees that good ole Celtic blood will be needed to sanitize all the brown, black, yellow blood currently running through the core of England right now.

Because Cameron is a politician and naturally wants to control as much of the world as possible.
Without Scotland his country will have just gotten a little bit smaller.

As for the immigrants, they're ~10% in England, ~5 to ~8% in Scotland but as soon as you get independence that'll be the signal for more to head your way.
Look at your Nordic role models and tell me how they've fared with all the Somalis and Iraqis. And remember Salmond's quote that anyone can be Scottish regardless of their race.

Good luck, without England a lot of immigrants will head directly to Scotland instead of England.


You best put your house in order, for whilst yer all too busy thinking of us Scots as upstarts for wanting our seperate identity, your own country's identity is being drowned in a deluge of multiculturalism.

The problem is that the English identity is so prevalent in Britain that it's basically invisible, our habits and traits are those deemed "British". Sadly, as in other countries a lot of immigrants are latching onto the nationality label "British".

Scotland is more open about its identity because it needs to be, for the Scottish identity is basically a 19th century invention. A bastard offspring of Highland culture adopted by a mixed country of Highlanders and Lowlanders in order to differ themsleves from the English.

Much of what is "Scottish" in the Lowlands today is an artificial imposition of Highland culture onto a Lowland population. And why is it so? Because the Lowlanders and Scots in general feared their similarities to the English to the South and so picked the most unque aspects of Highland culture to blend into this new Scottish identity.

The irony is of course that most of Scotland's national hereos were from the Lowlands and are often portrayed as some rebellious Highlanders in the present day. Many of Scotland's greatest sons were basically within sight of the English border and spoke Scots, a dialect of English.
To further destroy any traces of a Anglo-Saxon / English presence in Scotland; Scots has been treated in rather a lacklustre way when compared to Scottish Gaelic.

So here we have it, the Scottish for a large part are deliberately destroying a large part of their culture, the Anglian parts in order to portray themselves as some Norse-influenced Celtic nation far removed from the English.

Now launch some scathing attack against this if you wish, but in doing so you are furthering the denial about this and it is an issue that must be addressed.
Having Anglo-Saxon elements in the national identity doesn't make the Scottish English by any means, the same as having Gaelic elements doesn't make you Irish.

[Albion]

There are people on welfare benefits because of the Tories cutting jobs and education.

That is a factor, but Sxotland has always had a large part of the population on welfare whilst a bloated public sector supported much of the rest. And now the bloated public sector is being cut back, making the welfare problem even worse.

You have to ask yourself - "why hasn't Scotland got enough private employers?"

[Albion]

As if under the UK government immigrants are not being shipped in by the shipload.

What will change with Scotland?

[Graham]

That is a factor, but Sxotland has always had a large part of the population on welfare whilst a bloated public sector supported much of the rest. And now the bloated public sector is being cut back, making the welfare problem even worse.

You have to ask yourself - "why hasn't Scotland got enough private employers?"

Outwith the banks. Scotland's public sector employment is at 22.5%. It get's exaggerated.

[The Lawspeaker]

What will change with Scotland?
Then they are least responsible for their own immigration policies. So if they are flooded with Paki's, Africans etc. then they will only have themselves to blame.

Now the blame rests on London and Brussels.

[Pyramidologist]

Then they are least responsible for their own immigration policies. So if they are flooded with Paki's, Africans etc. then they will only have themselves to blame.

Now the blame rests on London and Brussels.

SNP without their independence:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xOcdlFOsr4s/S-VRsaAjbRI/AAAAAAAACwM/pwLZurOBkVY/s1600/kin8a.jpg

http://www.glasgowfootballacademy.co.uk/img/uploaded_images/g/f/gfa3-thumb-1369410.jpg

SNP love Muslims and other immigrants, even going as far as standing up to 10 non-ethnic Scottish candidates in the last general election, but they are militant Anglophobic. They prefer immigrants over the native english, their neighbours. I see the exact same sort of mentality with English nationalists in England. The English Democrat party for example hate Scottish people. I was on a forum a while back where so called ''English nationalists'' were laughing at Scottish people with ginger hair, while they have no problem with Black or Asian people flooding our country. No, instead they will laugh and harass native Scottish people. These people are scum, as are the SNP.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IsIVb_6uIco/SNpEeT9eOnI/AAAAAAAAAAc/s7YFqF19Ikk/S220/Youth.jpg

united we stand divided we fall.

EcEh7vX9cdU

[Graham]

Michael Russell, Education Secretary - born Bromley, Kent

Angus Robertson, Campaign leader for Scottish Independence, SNP Leader Westminster- born Wimbledon, London

Shona Robison, Minister for Public Health and Sport- born Redcar

Ian McKee MSP "I am an Englishman" Born in South Shields, England

Christine Grahame MSP - Born Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire

There's plenty of English born SNP activists and Supporters. There's hundred's of thousand's of English who live here and get no abuse.

The ''SNP's anti-English!'', made up by those who can't argue any other point. Those who only know slander(Pyramidologist).

Your average SNP member is anti-London rule, is anti-British and is selfish towards Scotland. That doesn't make them Anti-English. Guessing the English Democrats would be like wise.

[Pyramidologist]

Guessing the English Democrats would be like wise.

English Democrats Back Sinn Fein and Make Sick Video that Mocks Scots and Insults the Real English

''Although they’re soft on Muslims, the English Democrats contain a wide streak of vicious hostility to the pro-British majority in Northern Ireland, as well as to the Scots and the Welsh.

This is because the English Democrats are being used by the sinister forces running the EU/Common Purpose plan to divide the British Family of Nations in order to help remove the British stumbling block on the road to the federal European super State.

Whether they are going along with this consciously or not, the fact is that the English Democrats have got more time for an ‘English’ Muslim than they have for the Scots, Welsh and people of Northern Ireland. Take a look at their slick, official video ‘Punished for being an English Student in the UK?’''

Did we say slick? On second thoughts, shouldn’t that be sick? Yes, we agree that England should have her own Parliament, but to pay an Asian actor to mock the Scots and stir up hatred between the native peoples of the British Isles is truly vile.

English Democrats Want United Ireland and Back Sinn Fein

Shockingly, the attitude of the English Democrats to the loyal British population of Northern Ireland (which includes many Catholics as well as the Protestant majority) is even worse. On 13th May 2009, the English Democrats National Membership Secretary, Steve Uncles, wrote to Sinn Fein/IRA.

Muslim Candidates and Vote-Splitters

, the English Democrats frequently try to highlight their standing of ‘ethnic’ candidates in order to show how PC and ‘anti-racist’ they are.

In a number of northern mill-towns, the English Democrats even stand Muslim candidates. English Democrat Shakir Saghir, who stood in the Park ward in Halifax.

Even when they don’t stand Muslim candidates from extended families of vote-riggers, the English Democrats boast of splitting the Patriotic vote and costing the British National Party seats. For example, in the East Wickham by-election in 2009 where the British National Party was a mere 8 votes behind the Conservative victor.

With the English Democrats no-hoper having done everything possible to steal anti-immigration votes, they did indeed cost us the seat – but is helping the Tories beat the BNP really something to boast about? What kind of ‘nationalist’ could ever forgive such treachery? Here are the figures in full:''

Con – 798

British National Party – 790

Lab – 700

LibDem – 564

English Democrat – 128

[Graham]

From the Sunday Times:

Salmond demands £69bn share of Britain’s assets

ALEX SALMOND is to demand a financial share of Britain’s £821 billion of assets, ranging from Caribbean embassies to a £5.3m official residence in Buenos Aires, as part of the spoils of an independence settlement for Scotland.

The first minister believes a separate Scotland would be entitled to 8.4% of the value of all the assets, based on its population share.

According to the most recent national asset register, the British government owns about £759 billion of fixed assets, ranging from Buckingham Palace to Edinburgh Castle. The SNP says that following an international precedent set by the division of Czechoslovakia in 1993 Scotland would receive £7.8 billion of Britain’s defence assets.

The party wants to try to return the ancient Lewis Chessmen as part of Scotland’s share of the British Museum’s £435m assets and create a booming broadcasting sector in Scotland with a share of the BBC’s £880m assets.

The Foreign Office’s estate, worth £1.5 billion, has attracted particular interest from SNP strategists going through the UK government books. Its embassy assets include a £2m base in the Bahamas, and a £5.3m official residence and £1.5m office in Buenos Aires. There are also Paris office buildings worth £80m and residences described by the SNP as being “fit for a king”, finished with more than £3m worth of antiques, silver and rugs.

In practice, an independent Scotland would be expected to share some British diplomatic and consular facilities, given its claim to have a stake in existing overseas properties. In other cases, a Scottish foreign office would make use of existing Scottish Development International offices around the world in countries including China.

The SNP hopes the figures will help demonstrate that Scotland could flourish as an independent nation, despite recent claims it would be saddled with a £100 billion share of UK debt.

A senior Scottish government source said: “The reality is an independent Scotland will be extremely asset-rich. If you look at precedents such as the Czechs and Slovaks in 1992, state assets were shared on the basis of population.

“On exactly the same basis, Scotland would be entitled to some £69 billion of the UK’s £821 billion total assets. You could argue Scotland is entitled to more than this, given that we have made a disproportionate contribution to the building up of UK assets over the past 35 years because of our stronger financial position from North Sea revenues.”

The source added: “If you look at Scotland’s commercial asset base, the wholesale value of the 24 billion barrels left in the North Sea is £1.5 trillion, and tax revenues remaining are up to £400 billion in real terms, compared with the £300 billion generated to date.

“There is no question whether Scotland would enter independence negotiations on the back of a Yes referendum mandate in a position of very considerable economic and political strength.”

Labour accused the SNP of “living in cloud-cuckoo-land”. Patricia Ferguson, the Labour MSP, said: “Most people will see it as fantasy. They [the SNP] will need to try harder to make a serious economic case for separation. Entering negotiations over the contents of the British Museum’s display cabinets is not a persuasive argument as to why we should turn our closest neighbour into our biggest competitor.

“For years the SNP have claimed North Sea oil alone would fund the costs of separation. Now they seem to be relying on a fantasy property portfolio in exotic locations.

“To argue that there is an equivalence between the circumstances surrounding the break-up of Czechoslovakia and the proposed break-up of one of the world’s largest economies, of which we are part, is quite frankly absurd.”

Wondered when the talk of assets would come to heed. Fair share of the UK debt would be close to £100bn. Assets £69bn. You can't have one without the other.

So it's debts +assets. Or neither.

[Albion]

Wondered when the talk of assets would come to heed. Fair share of the UK debt would be close to £100bn. Assets £69bn. You can't have one without the other.

So it's debts +assets. Or neither.

Don't forget RBS, you should take it all really but it's more likely to be divided as Dexia's debt was. Great. :rolleyes2:

[Graham]

Don't forget RBS, you should take it all really but it's more likely to be divided as Dexia's debt was. Great. :rolleyes2:

That would be very complicated. Was thinking about that. I mean what about Natwest(largest retail and commercial bank in the United Kingdom) then Lloyds and halifax?

I mean the UK was happy to take it's corporation tax, as in billions not all listed as Scottish.

The bank's faulted under a deregulted banking system installed by the Thatcher government then kept with Blair etc... and under London(BoE) surveillance.

[Albion]

That would be very complicated. Was thinking about that. I mean what about Natwest(largest retail and commercial bank in the United Kingdom) then Lloyds and halifax?

I mean the UK was happy to take it's corporation tax, as in billions not all listed as Scottish.

HBOS and Lloyds is our problem. RBS would have to be split, there's no way Scotland could take on the liabilities.

The debate about taxes is useless, Scotland was part of the UK the same as England and subsequently both English and Scottish companies by taxes to the UK whilst the union lasts.
In international law it is about where organisations have their HQ, not necessarily who they pay their taxes to or where they make their money which counts.

Take AIG - it made most of its losses in London but the Americans had to bail it out because the London branch was a subsidiary which should have been kept in line by the parent company back in the states.

RBS has its HQ in Scotland. Despite the massive loss of Scottish jobs, Salmond has tried to push it south so that Scotland doesn't have to pay its share upon independence. However RBS sees itself as a Scottish company and so far has said it's sticking to Scotland.
Personally I hope it does stay in Scotland, if Salmond starts forcing it to go south he should be charged with corruption.

The English shouldn't have to foot the entire bill, Scotland has responsibilities as well.
65% of Scottish trade is with the rest of the UK (AKA England), if Scotland refuses then it wouldn't be too hard to ruin the economy.

[Graham]

I wonder when we start to see the naesayers and doom mongers come out.
We got in 1979
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6125/5957302999_13242b5434_b.jpg

So we begin. Good to know how we're known down South :)
http://p.twimg.com/AqSSfKJCEAIbtOw.jpg

[Graham]

http://politicalbetting.s3.amazonaws.com/2011+Jan/Scottish+Sun+election+day+2007.jpg

Think I'll use this thread in the future, for any press mudslinging. :)

[Vasconcelos]

That's not going to help them (the NO voters), I think..

[Graham]

That's not going to help them (the NO voters), I think..

That's why I'm posting, good to show people. xD It's good to play their game.

There's no coherent answer on why we should stay. Rather it's why we shouldn't be independent.

Could post Daily Mail/Telegraph headlines soon. :D

[Vasconcelos]

There's no coherent answer on why we should stay. Rather it's why we shouldn't be independent.

That's a terrible line of thought, if that's how they plan to make their campaign I'm betting money the YES will win.


It's none of my buisness, but I'm very curious and looking foward to see what path will Scotland choose after "your side" wins. ;)
Indirectly, I wonder how that will affect other countries in Europe, notably Spain.

[Riki]

http://politicalbetting.s3.amazonaws.com/2011+Jan/Scottish+Sun+election+day+2007.jpg

Think I'll use this thread in the future, for any press mudslinging. :)

Is there in Scotland a different edition of the Sun or is the same one we get in England?

[Graham]

Question Time BBC 23/04/2009 Dr David Starkey's views on Scotland and Wales
SXd5KiKWtVA

[Graham]

Is there in Scotland a different edition of the Sun or is the same one we get in England?

Different but run from London, they now support independence because Rupert Murdoch(Australian-Scot) stept in.

[Óttar]

I'm thinking some wealthy Royals or Royalists will just use bribery and deceit to keep Scotland in the Union.

Just look at how Quebec lost becoming independent of Canada by the tiniest margin. Clearly there was something fishy going on.

[Graham]

Scotland a country that can only produce debt, but never assets. Subsidy Junkies, a third world leach.

The Unionist argument, we're to poor. Their answer, let's continue that same path, never to prove wrong.

[Riki]

Different but run from London, they now support independence because Rupert Murdoch(Australian-Scot) stept in.
Beware of propaganda.
Don't they claim Gibraltar remains English because the People choose so?
Well the same should apply then,without so much fuzz.

[Graham]

Alex Salmond Dictator-Comparison Bingo! :)
Who's playing?
1. Slobodan Milosevic? YES. (Denis MacShane, Labour MP)
2. Benito Mussolini? YES. (Lord Foulkes, Labour peer)
3. Adolf Hitler? YES. (Tom Harris, Labour MP)
4. Adolf Hitler (again)? YES. (Ann Moffat, Labour MP)
5. Joseph Stalin? YES. (Alan Cochrane, the Telegraph)
6. Robert Mugabe? YES. (Lord Cormack, Conservative peer)
7. Robert Mugabe (again)? YES. (Jeremy Paxman, BBC)
8. Kim Jong-Il? YES. (Lord Forsyth, Conservative peer)
9. Caligula? YES. (John Macleod, the Times)
10. Nicolae Ceausescu? YES. (Neil Collins, the Financial Times)
11. Genghis Khan? YES. (Kevin McKenna, the Observer)
12. Nero? YES. (Annabel Goldie, Conservative MSP)
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/salmondbingo1.jpg

[Albannach]

The thing that worries me is that the only mainstream exposure of the independence debate is negative, I can't say I have seen anything positive reported about independence at all.

It seems that all we are going to get is a dripfeed of negativity, scaremongering and outright lies for the next two and a bit years. The Unionists know the only way they can get the Scottish people to vote no in the referendum is to undermine our confidence and the "Scottish" media is totally complicit in it.

Its time for the pro-Independence camp to step it up a gear.

[The Ripper]

Scottish nationalists need to organize open air screenings of The Stone of Destiny.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Stone_of_destiny.jpg

:D

[Albion]

Is there in Scotland a different edition of the Sun or is the same one we get in England?

Not sure, but the Record is bad enough. Really, there's then Sun in England, Record in Scotland and Bild in Germany and they're all in the same league, they're all utter crap.


Different but run from London, they now support independence because Rupert Murdoch(Australian-Scot) stept in.

Funny that, how he's suddenly supporting independence since the hacking enquiry. :coffee:
It's not about nations, it's about business with him I think.


Scotland hasn't anything to lose from independence. Besides, everything shouldn't be based around money.

[Graham]

Not sure, but the Record is bad enough. Really, there's then Sun in England, Record in Scotland and Bild in Germany and they're all in the same league, they're all utter crap.



Funny that, how he's suddenly supporting independence since the hacking enquiry. :coffee:
It's not about nations, it's about business with him I think.


Scotland hasn't anything to lose from independence. Besides, everything shouldn't be based around money.
The Record is the Daily Mirror, same company owned by Trinity Mirror. Basically a mouthpiece for Labour.

Murdoch did say privately according to tweets that he will move the whole Sky Buisness to Scotland out of England. Maybe to do with different laws.

[Graham]

Duke of Argyll joins Jacobite rebels to petition Queen for clemency



By TOM PETERKIN
Published on Sunday 13 May 2012 00:00

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/duke-of-argyll-joins-jacobite-rebels-to-petition-queen-for-clemency-1-2291439?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

THE Queen is to be presented with a petition aimed at ending laws imposed by the British government on the vanquished Jacobite clans after the 1715 and 1745 risings.

After the failed insurrection to restore the House of Stuart to the British throne, Acts of Parliament – known as Acts of Attainders – deemed the blood of many rebels “corrupt,” confiscated their property, removed their family inheritances and exiled them to North America as indentured servants.

Now the descendants of those whose family names were tainted by the Acts of Attainder are to petition the monarch in the hope that the old legislation will be overturned as a gesture of goodwill during the Diamond Jubilee year.

And in a sign that centuries of animosity are being forgotten in today’s Scotland, the Duke of Argyll has joined with Jacobite descendants to sign the petition, which will be sent to the Queen’s private secretary and presented to UK and Scottish ministers on Thursday.

As the Chief of the Clan Campbell, Argyll is the head of a family which fought against Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Jacobite army at Culloden. One of his antecedents, the 2nd Duke of Argyll, led the government army at the Battle of Sheriffmuir, which defeated the Jacobites led by the Earl of Mar in 1715.

Yesterday Argyll, whose ancestral home Inveraray Castle is the seat of Clan Campbell, said: “2015 will be the 300th Anniversary of the rebellion and as time is a great healer I personally do not believe that the families should still be disadvantaged by the attainders, especially their descendants.

“Scotland is open for business and we welcome visitors from all over the world so if Her Majesty The Queen was able to grant clemency to the descendants I believe that this would be an honourable thing to do.”

The inclusion of Argyll’s signature on the petition has been welcomed by the descendants of those who his ancestors fought against.

“The Duke of Argyll has signed the petition and were they not outstanding of the Hanoverians – so today the attitude is that these old quarrels should be forgiven,” said Peter Drummond-Murray, whose Jacobite ancestor, James Drummond, was the victim of an Act of Attainder in 1696.

“All this is about is what might be called reconciliation. There were tens of thousands of ordinary people who were forfeited and we would regard this as a general act of reconciliation.”

The list of those “attainted” by the Acts included all ranks from peers and lairds, who were stripped of their titles, properties and their inheritances, to clerks and commoners.

The Acts of Attainders were first passed after after 1688, when James VII of Scotland and II of England was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her husband, William of Orange. Many who refused to swear allegiance to William and Mary were tried for treason and “attainted.” Some were executed, some sent into exile and were punished by Acts of Attainder.

A motion tabled in the Scottish Parliament by the Conservative MSP Jamie McGrigor calling for the Acts of Attainder to be reversed has gathered support from Labour and SNP MSPs.

Yesterday, McGrigor said: “There are apologies being offered all over the world for various misdemeanors and perhaps we should start in our own country.

“The savaging of the clans after the ’45 is a pretty horrific chapter in our history. I don’t think my family got an attainder, but it is time to forgive and forget. This is for a general attainder. In her Jubilee year, it may be that Her Majesty might wish to do it.”

Buckingham Palace refused to comment.

[Supreme American]

I may have had a Jacobite 8 generations back, surname Donaldson. I can't trace the guy at all and I only get this info from a distant relative.

[Albion]

Yay, more totally irrelevant BS being proposed by morons with too much time on their hands. :rolleyes:

[Graham]

Three-quarters of Scots back SNP U-turn on Nato membership

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-three-quarters-of-scots-back-snp-u-turn-on-nato-membership-1-2426039
http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2426037.1342909176!image/3837597055.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3837597055.jpg
Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson face opposition on Nato U-turn from SNP members. Picture: Robert Perry

By TOM PETERKIN
Published on Sunday 22 July 2012 00:00

THREE-QUARTERS of Scots believe that an independent Scotland should stay in Nato, according to a new poll published as the SNP considers ending its long-standing opposition to the nuclear defence alliance.

The overwhelming popular support for Scotland remaining within the Nato fold after any break-up of the UK will boost Alex Salmond’s bid to persuade SNP activists to set aside their hostility to the organisation, which has a defence strategy based on a nuclear deterrent.

Salmond and his defence spokesman Angus Robertson face opposition from SNP members, many of whom believe that joining a nuclear alliance is incompatible with party policy to remove Trident submarines and missiles from Scottish waters.

The YouGov survey of 1,008 Scottish adults showed that 75 per cent of them believed an independent Scotland should remain in Nato. Only 11 per cent of those surveyed thought Scotland should leave following a “Yes” vote in the expected 2014 referendum.

And despite opposition to Nato being a commonly held view amongst the SNP’s 20,000 members, the poll showed that 70 per cent of SNP voters thought an independent Scotland should be part of the defence treaty.

The percentage supporting Nato increased when those supporting the pro-Union parties were asked. Seventy-eight per cent of Labour voters believed in staying in Nato compared with 89 per cent of Conservatives and 82 per cent of Lib Dems.

The poll also found that 62 per cent of those surveyed thought that the Scottish Government should have the final say over whether nuclear weapons should be based in Scotland. Thirty-one per cent believed the UK Government should have the final say.

The survey was carried out as part of Robertson’s defence review, which was published last week and heralded the party leadership’s attempt to change a policy that has been an SNP article of faith for more than three decades.

The SNP leadership has maintained that a nuclear weapon-free Scotland would be entitled to be a member of Nato, although doubts have been raised by the pro-Union parties.

The SNP points to Norway and Denmark as examples of small countries, who are members of Nato despite not having a nuclear arsenal.

Yesterday Robertson said: “This survey evidence underlines the overwhelming public support for key proposals in the updated SNP defence policy. Not only is there massive support by SNP voters, but by supporters of other parties as well. It is right for us to consider remaining within Nato and focus our efforts on appropriate conventional defence for Scotland.

“At the heart of the proposals to update SNP defence policy is that defence, security and international relations should be decided by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. We already know that there is overwhelming public support for getting rid of Trident from Scotland. This polls shows that there is strong agreement with the SNP that the final say over nuclear weapons should rest with the Scottish Government.”

Robertson added: “It is good to know that there is wide support for key elements of the proposed update to SNP defence policy and hopefully this will inform debate in the run-up to the SNP annual conference in October.”

The resolution to be presented to conference, which will be supported by Salmond, states that on achieving independence “Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with Nato. An SNP government will maintain Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and Nato continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN-sanctioned operations.”

The change of position has led to accusations that the SNP leadership is prepared to sacrifice principles to broaden its popular appeal.

Last night, Scottish Labour’s constitutional spokeswoman, Patricia Ferguson MSP, said: “If the SNP leadership take polls seriously, they will change their position on separation too as the majority of Scots want to remain in the Union.

“The problem for the SNP is that an independent Scotland is not guaranteed membership of Nato. The best way to ensure continued membership is to remain in the Union.”

The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, said: “The fact the SNP have commissioned a poll on this shows they are willing to betray their own policies in exchange for votes in a referendum.

“They have been against joining the most successful military alliance in the world for the past three decades. This U-turn is more to do with the referendum than any respect for our servicemen and women.”

[Graham]

Don't support the UN & doubt Alex Salmond does either. It's about pulling every turn in the referendum.

Remember this...


Scottish National Party leader criticises NATO bombing of Serbia

By Julie Hyland
1 April 1999

Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party has become the first party leader in Britain to attack the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia. In a five-minute television broadcast Monday evening on the BBC, shown only in Scotland, Salmond described the military campaign as "an act of dubious legality" and "unpardonable folly".


The BBC had offered Salmond the opportunity to respond to the previous week's broadcast in defence of the NATO action by Prime Minister Blair. Comparing the aerial bombardment to the Luftwaffe's blitz of London and Glasgow during the Second World War, Salmond said that NATO's actions "may make matters even worse for the very people it is meant to be helping". It would "steel the resolve of the civilian population". He went on to complain that politicians should not pursue a "misguided" policy, and then ask servicemen to implement it.

"If we are to sanction intervention in Serbia then the policy must be capable ... of weakening Milosevic and helping Kosovo. A bombing campaign will do neither, indeed the chances are it will make both worse," Salmond insisted.


Subsequently, in an op-ed piece in the March 31 Guardian, Salmond wrote, "The intervention of land troops is the only conceivable military policy that could make any difference", but maintained that this option "has been ruled out--for understandable political reasons". Hence his call to consider other alternatives. Another factor shaping the SNP's views is its strong political orientation towards Europe.

The SNP previously raised objections to British participation in the US air attack on Iraq last December. Then, Salmond attacked Blair for failing to build an international consensus on Iraq and his willingness to jump to US demands. This, he said, would give "fresh cause for Europe to doubt the willingness of Britain to work in partnership on our continent ... we oppose military strikes against Iraq in the absence of a clear strategy and international agreement, specifically co-operation with our European partners."

Salmond is articulating the concerns of a section of the ruling class that Blair is too servile to US foreign policy and lacks any coherent strategy. He has taken pains to point out that his concerns have all been voiced from other quarters--including General Sir Michael Rose. Salmond is also aware that popular support for the NATO bombing is extremely tenuous. He rules out the use of ground troops because opinion polls show that the current slim majority in favour of the NATO action could immediately crumble.

The Scottish Herald newspaper welcomed Salmond's remarks, saying, "His comments will have a resonance far beyond the borders of Scotland for it is clear that anxieties about the final resolution of this crisis exist across Britain, indeed throughout Europe."

The Blair government is as aware as the SNP of the lack of any firm popular support for NATO's bombing of Serbia. It has insisted that there is no alternative to the present action, whilst seeking to prevent a serious discussion over the causes of the Balkan crisis. Parliament was not allowed a vote in its debate on the war last Thursday. Blair even declined to be interviewed by the BBC, as Labour spokesmen complained of its "negative" coverage.

Labour's response to Salmond's broadcast was hysterical. Blair described it as "totally unprincipled", while Defence Secretary George Robertson said it had "turned his stomach". Foreign Secretary Robin Cook went further, effectively denouncing the SNP leader as a stooge of the Serbian regime. "Alex Salmond will be the toast of Belgrade tonight," Cook said. "To stand aside from NATO and put himself as the only European leader to stand side by side with Milosevic shows he is simply unfit to lead."

The government's concern is that any expression of dissent by a leading political figure could generate active opposition to the war amongst broader layers of working people.

[CelticViking]

The First Minister confirmed he will vote in favour of a motion at the SNP’s autumn conference reversing the party’s long-held opposition to joining the defence alliance.

But he dismissed warnings from Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Nato’s former secretary general, this would mean agreeing to keep Britain’s Trident submarine fleet based in Scottish waters.
Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, said the alliance’s members had to accept it Strategic Concept, which states that the “supreme guarantee” of their security are the nuclear deterrents of the UK, US and France.

Mr Salmond also faced accusations of political cynicism after years of opposing Nato operations. He infamously described the alliance’s bombing to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo as an “unpardonable folly”.
But he has thought for some time a separate Scotland must join Nato if he is to convince the public of his defence credentials before the independence referendum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9412538/Alex-Salmond-reverses-opposition-to-Nato.html

[Graham]

SNP SIGNALS AMBITION TO RENATIONALISE RAILWAYS
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/350164/SNP-signals-ambition-to-renationalise-railways/
Friday October 5,2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTLAND’S railways could be re-nationalised if the SNP succeeds in breaking up Britain, ministers signalled yesterday.


Transport Minister Keith Brown told MSPs that “public sector” models of delivering services would be looked at in an independent country.

But he also suggested that if more UK Government powers over the railway were handed to Holyrood they could be brought back under full public control.

The comments came as he made a statement on the West Coast main line rail franchise competition chaos.

UK ministers announced the cancellation of franchise contest for the Glasgow to London route earlier this week in a move which could cost taxpayers’ £40million in compensation to bidding firms.

Aberdeen-based FirstGroup, which operates the ScotRail franchise among four other UK routes, had won the deal, but this was challenged by incumbent Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains.

Mr Brown told MSPs said: “Our powers to give Scotland the rail services it needs are limited by UK legislation.

“Giving this Parliament competence to have full legislative control for rail would be the simplest and most effective way of ensuring Scottish Ministers have the flexibility to consider the full range of options to deliver rail services in Scotland, including public sector models.

“This is further evidence of why Scotland needs full responsibility for its own rail services with the powers of an independent parliament.”

A Scottish Government spokesman later confirmed that re-nationalisation was among “the range of options” that would be considered if all rail powers were devolved to Scotland or if the country was independent.

Nine years ago, in opposition, the SNP’s transport spokesman – now Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill had pledged to re-nationalise the rail system by setting up a not-for-profit public railways authority. The Scottish
Parliament does not have the power to re-nationalise railways.

However, it can change the ScotRail franchise agreement to make it a not-for-profit contract.

Labour’s transport spokeswoman Elaine Murray said: “We believe this is a proposal they should be actively exploring.”

Alex Johnstone for the Tories said: “Any attempt to re-nationalise the system in Scotland would set it at odds with the rest of the UK and could have appalling consequences for passengers and business commuters.”

Earlier Mr Brown said infrastructure secretary and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was seeking an urgent meeting with UK Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin over the West Coast debacle.

Three Department for Transport civil servants were suspended on Wednesday.

Mr Brown said more time had been allocated for re-franchising ScotRail from October 2014 than in the West Coast contest, with the process being launched at the turn of the year.

He said: “While lessons will be learnt, our franchise procurement process is led by an expert team within Transport Scotland.

“They are freely able to draw on external expertise as and when required.

“No corners are being cut. No false economies made.”

[Albion]

Oh dear. Time and time again the public sector has shown itself in the UK to be terrible at running anything. The whole reason why services were privatised in the first place was so that the private sector would drive up efficiency, cut waste and pour in investment.
I like public-private partnerships though. They give a government guarantee and funds with further funding and efficiency from the private sector. They also lead (in theory) lead to less taxpayer money being spent.

I wouldn't like to see Scotland's railways nationalised. Maybe if it becomes independent it could take strategic stakes in companies as France does, but full government ownership is a terrible idea.
I know the SNP and left in general are all for nationalisation and big government, but why have they decided this is an issue? Really, isn't the main issue here in getting better north to south links in Scotland with a fast link to England? Shouldn't the SNP be in London lobbying for a high speed three? Shouldn't the SNP be proposing how it can fix up Scotland's railway network?
They always seem to miss the boat on just about everything. The SNP are just populists tugging at the heartstrings of Scottish nationalism, not much more than that.

[Graham]

High Speed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16040800

The Scots Government have done ok with Rail. They connected another line from Glasgow to Edinburgh. Meaning we have two stops in my town, going to both Cities.

They're re-establishing an old route to the Borders. Reconnecting an isolated area to Edinburgh.

SNP have been good on Capital spending. :)

When it comes to Public vs Private. I ask is it competitive enough, in the private sector to stay?

[Albion]

When it comes to Public vs Private. I ask is it competitive enough, in the private sector to stay?

That really depends on how many people use the trains in Scotland, which is influenced by ticket prices. This is why I'm in favour of government subsidisation of train travel - to make it much cheaper to catch a train than to drive long distances (the government would get some money back from tax).


"Now, we are willing to look at that if we get a guarantee, in particular that the gap in England between Birmingham and the north of England, is going to be closed."

It is estimated that completing the high speed link from the north west of England to Scotland would cost about £15bn.

The Scottish government said it would expect to contribute £8bn-£9n to the project although the final decisions on timing and route would rest with the Westminster government.

The problem is the big gap from the Central Belt all the way down to Bradford and Leeds (Newcastle being an outpost). But Scotland's proposed contribution is more than fair - it would be paying for most of the English section from Manchester northwards. But then again it would disproportionately benefit Scotland. For England, linking up a few small towns and cities just wouldn't otherwise be worth it.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5270/hs2r.jpg

But yet again, Salmond has to go against the rest of the UK in his petty quest to amplify Scottish differences:


First Minister Alex Salmond, who is on a trade visit to China, said that if Scotland did develop high speed rail, it would "undoubtedly" use Chinese technology.

The SNP leader was asked about it by a Chinese railway official during a question and answer session in Beijing.

I'd personally be in favour of the UK producing its own trains, or at least buying something from the Germans, French or Italians (if we can't support our own industry then at least that of fellow European).
I think we're going with Japanese Hitachi trains if I remember right though. Better than Chinese knock off's anyway.

[Graham]

Scotland has a strong tourism based economy. So high Speed would be good.

Think Salmonds talking shite to China. He'd make a good car salesman.

[Graham]

Alex Salmond and David Cameron on verge of shaking hands on 'Edinburgh Agreement' for independence
14 Oct 2012
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-and-david-cameron-on-verge-1378601

THE deal will mean one yes-or-no question on independence, and 16-year-olds will be able to vote.
http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1253938.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Prime+Minister+David+Cameron+and+Scottish++First+M inister+Alex+Salmond

BIG hitters in the debate on independence came out fighting yesterday as Alex Salmond and David Cameron prepared to seal a deal on the referendum tomorrow.

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald said Yes campaigners now had to move
on to the issues after the Holyrood and Wesminster leaders sign the so-called “Edinburgh Agreement”.

The deal will mean a single yes-or-no question on whether Scotland should
leave the UK in a poll staged in 2014 – with 16-year-olds getting the vote for
the first time.

MacDonald said: “I hope people will stop talking about the process and that the Yes side will start to lay out their information, which I trust they’ve got.

“People are not asking questions about whether the referendum will have a sunset clause or whether it will be enacted by Westminster.

“People are worried and are angry in some cases. The Hall’s of Broxburn workers are angry that they should be in the position they’re in.

“The Yes campaign have to start laying out their stall on pensions and benefits.

“People have to be assured that they are not swapping one inadequate government for another.”

Labour constitutional spokeswoman Patricia Ferguson said: “Now that most of the procedural issues have been dealt with, we need answers from the SNP about the real issues that matter to most Scots.

“Would a separate Scotland be part of the EU or remain a member of NATO? How would we look after our most vulnerable citizens and how would a separate Scotland ensure economic stability?

“The SNP can no longer hide behind process and they need to start answering the questions that Scots are asking.”

The SNP yesterday said a YouGov poll of 1000 Scots showed 64 per cent thought the Scottish Government are better at making decisions for the country than the UK Government.

And Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “Tomorrow’s agreement will ensure that the decision taken by the people of Scotland will be fully respected by both governments. The referendum is the biggest opportunity the people have had for 300 years to determine the kind
of nation we all wish to live in.

“There is no doubt that a majority of people in Scotland want the fairer and wealthier society that independence can deliver. Once the agreement has been signed,it is time for all of us on all sides to set out our arguments and campaign for the future we believe Scotland can have.”

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said: “The advantages of being part of the UK are quietly accepted by most Scots.

“Often those advantages are left unearthed or go unreported just because they are the status quo.

“This campaign will be an opportunity to change that. We can put up in lights the benefits to Scotland of being part of our United Kingdom.”


Campaign group Yes Scotland said a group of Scottish business figures who previously supported more devolution now backed independence.

The group include multi-millionaire businessman Jim McColl and lawyer
James Aitken, who was part of the Devo Plus campaign.

Aitken said: “The fact that all of the main UK political parties are united in
their opposition to even devolving minor fiscal powers such as control of
the Crown Estate or air passenger duty means that independence is now the
only viable option for Scotland.”

[Graham]

Agreement signed. The Scottish referendum is now in the hands of the Scottish Government.

The countdown is now until 2014.

Leader of the' No' vote campaign, is Labours' Alistair Darling.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5P9i7-CcAATVdN.jpg:large

[Anusiya]

Best of luck Graham! :)

[el22]

http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1253938.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Prime+Minister+David+Cameron+and+Scottish++First+M inister+Alex+Salmond


Kudos to the photographer. Cameron is adjusting his hair, but is made to look like a face palm. :)

[Comte Arnau]

That is a democracy. So much left for Spaniards to learn...

Best of lucks, Graham. My support for all the Scottish who want to be free.

[Graham]

^^^ Londons Government has been much more Statesman like & respectful than Madrid.

[Jedthehumanoid]

That is a democracy. So much left for Spaniards to learn...

Best of lucks, Graham. My support for all the Scottish who want to be free.

Unfortunately I suspect there won't be enough of them.

[Jedthehumanoid]

That is a democracy. So much left for Spaniards to learn...

Best of lucks, Graham. My support for all the Scottish who want to be free.

Yes Count but Catalunya is worth holding on to;)

[Graham]

We are a prized asset, I'll let you know!:mad::D

[Jedthehumanoid]

We are a prized asset, I'll let you know!:mad::D

It would be lovely if Scotland got it's independence but if it doesn't then there's only going to be the Scots to blame. Can't be an easy decision though can it? I suspect Cameron is saying that he wants to keep the Union while crossing his fingers behind his back. What an absolute bonus Scottish independence would be to the Conservative party.

[Graham]

^^^ Aye, As was put on BBC News from a clever chap.

Some Scots may look at the UK Election 2015, to see how things stand, before they make a choice. Preferably Ed Miliband will be winning.

The way recent polls are shown. Is that the SNP are nullifying Labour in Scotland. Labour are doing better in the North England, Midlands & Wales.

[evon]

*Hoping for a independent Scotland* :D

[Graham]

First of tomorrows front newspaper page out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5Rp8VOCUAAiKiT.jpg:large

[PetiteParisienne]

Go, Scotland, go!

[Fortis in Arduis]

A historic event or an historic event?

People often believe that they should use the indefinite article an in front of words like historic, horrific, or hotel. Are they right or wrong? Should you say ‘an historic event’ or ‘a historic event’?

An is the form of the indefinite article that is used before a spoken vowel sound: it doesn’t matter how the written word in question is actually spelled. So, we say ‘an honour’, ‘an hour’, or ‘an heir’, for example, because the initial letter ‘h’ in all three words is not actually pronounced. By contrast we say ‘a hair’ or ‘a horse’ because, in these cases, the ‘h’ is pronounced.

Let’s go back to those three words that tend to cause problems: historic, horrific, and hotel. If hotel was pronounced without its initial letter ‘h’ (i.e. as if it were spelled ‘otel’), then it would be correct to use an in front of it. The same is true of historic and horrific. If horrific was pronounced ‘orrific’ and historic was pronounced ‘istoric’ then it would be appropriate to refer to ‘an istoric occasion’ or ‘an orrific accident’. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people often did pronounce these words in this way.

Today, though, these three words are generally pronounced with a spoken ‘h’ at the beginning and so it’s now more logical to refer to ‘a hotel’, ‘a historic event’, or ‘a horrific accident’.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event

[Graham]

Will post all the Indy news in this Thread.

It would be good to here some good points to voting 'No', as I'm open minded. Both sides need to make good points. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------



Scottish Independence: 'Lower defence bill' after independence
15 October 2012 Last updated at 21:32
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19955309#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58189000/jpg/_58189941_009892772-1.jpg

Scottish taxpayers could pay about £1.5bn a year less for defending an independent Scotland than they currently pay towards UK defence spending, according to a report.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) study claimed annual costs could be cut from £3.3bn to about £1.8bn.

The report outlined the idea of a "relatively modest" independent Scottish defence structure.

It would be comparable in strength and size with other small European states.

The report - co-written by economist Richard Marsh and Stuart Crawford, a former SNP defence advisor and British Army Lieutenant Colonel - examined what the armed services of an independent Scotland would be for.

It also outlined a model for how they might be organised and deployed.

It estimated Scottish defence expenditure was £3.3bn in 2010-2011, and that over the last five years about 2.2% of Scotland's economy on average had been spent on contributions to UK defence spending.

The authors suggested those figures could be "markedly lower" were Scotland to be independent.

The report assumed the creation of Scottish Defence Forces (SDF) with a separate navy, air force and army - with no place for nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland.

'Regional focus'

It envisaged that the SDF "would probably have a regional, rather than global, focus".

The paper outlined a Scottish Navy with a surface fleet of between 20 and 25 ships, including Type 23-class frigates but not submarines, claiming that would cost £650m a year to run.

A Scottish Air Force would include about 60 aircraft including BAE Hawk, C-130 Hercules, Chinook and Sea King helicopters but no Typhoons or Tornados. It estimated the cost of that service at £370m a year.

The report also suggested a Scottish Army could have 10,000-12,500 personnel, and include a brigade-sized force, three combat battalions plus supporting arms, allowing it to deploy and sustain itself in a combat zone. The report estimated those costs at £820m a year.

'Potential issues'

The paper acknowledged "potential issues" for an independent Scotland, such as the need for an arrangement with the rest of the UK to supply intelligence-gathering, cyber-warfare and cyber-defence expertise at GCHQ.

The authors also warned that the future cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment of its forces may be higher due to smaller orders, while recruitment and training of personnel "'may prove problematic" in the early years.

The report argued: "Should the government of an independent Scotland, of any political hue, have the political will to establish an SDF along the lines described herein, then it can certainly be done.

"An SDF would be necessary, feasible and affordable.

"Scotland can have its SDF if it chooses to do so, although the embryonic Scottish military establishment would no doubt have to fight its corner energetically for a proper share of government funding against all the other demands of national administration."

[Graham]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event

:picard2:

[Jedthehumanoid]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event

You're splitting airs methinks;)

[Graham]

Scottish independence: Referendum campaigners put their arguments
16 October 2012 Last updated at 10:29
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19959597
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63513000/jpg/_63513593_darlingjenkins464.jpg

The leaders of the no and yes referendum campaigns on Scottish independence have been putting their cases ahead of the historic vote.

Alistair Darling of the Better Together unionist group said independence was "not freedom but more like serfdom".

Blair Jenkins, who heads up the Yes lobby, said he was "enormously excited" about the referendum in autumn 2014.

The comments came the day after a deal on the process of the vote was signed by the UK and Scottish governments.

Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond met at St Andrew's House in Edinburgh to agree to the memorandum of understanding laying out the ground rules.

The vote in two years time will consist of;


a single Yes/No question on Scotland leaving the UK
it will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the ballot
and it must be held before the end of 2014


Former BBC Scotland news chief Mr Jenkins said: "How fantastic is it that we are the first generation of Scots - the only generation of Scots - to get a chance to vote on this issue and we could leave a better bequest to our children, grandchildren and future generations to come then being an independent Scotland."


He Told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that there was a big challenge ahead for the Yes campaign given that current polling suggests people in Scotland would vote against independence.

Mr Jenkins explained: "There is already a group in the population who is firmly intending to vote yes and a group firmly intending to vote no and there is a very sizeable group, I think the largest of the three groups, who are saying we have not made up our minds, we are interested in this idea, we want to hear more, we need to be convinced.

"Now our job is very clear, we've got the evidence, we've got the arguments."

He admitted that people were not fully in tune with the debate, but conversations were beginning right across Scotland.

'Uncertain future'

Mr Jenkins said it was possible to see everyone in Scotland as "converts to independence".

But former Labour chancellor and pro-unionist Mr Darling said the arguments were stacked against Scotland becoming independent.

He told Good Morning Scotland that there were three strong elements as to why the UK should remain together - the economy, emotional and cultural ties and the influence the UK has in the world.

Mr Darling added: "If Scotland became independent it has got to have its own financial services regulatory regime. What you have now is a genuinely open, single market. You have to ask yourself why are you doing this, what is the purpose for it all?

"I think to enter into an economic union where we are giving up the influence we have got just now, when you have to enter into a fiscal pact which means that Scotland's tax and spending would have to be approved by and agreed to by the UK - that isn't freedom, that is more like serfdom."

He questioned why people in Scotland were being asked to "choose between being Scottish or British".

Mr Darling asked what was the point of Scotland "giving up" union and entering into an "uncertain future"?

[Graham]

Liberal Democrats Home Rule Commission calls for federal union and end to council tax freeze
By SCOTT MACNAB Published on Wednesday 17 October 2012 14:21
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/liberal-democrats-home-rule-commission-calls-for-federal-union-and-end-to-council-tax-freeze-1-2584276?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2584275.1350480058!image/3453394523.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3453394523.jpg

THE Scottish Government should be stripped of its power to effectively impose the council tax freeze across the country, under a blueprint for a federal UK unveiled today by former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell.

• Lessening of Scottish Government control over council tax key to Lib Dem findings
• Call for councils to be able to set own council tax rates and end to freeze
• Liberals want to see Home Rule Commission findings implemented in case of ‘No’ vote in 2014 independence referendum
• Commission recommends scrapping of Act of Union 1707 and replaced by a federal union
• Scottish Parliament should raise two thirds of the money it spends, according to Commission

The SNP has held councils to the freeze since coming to power in 2007 by threatening to withhold a £70 million funding pot if authorities didn’t hold their rates.

The Lib Dems released the findings of their Home Rule Commission today which the party wants to see adopted if Scots reject independence in 2014.

And it says that councils should be free set their own local tax rates – with new laws passed preventing the Government in Edinburgh from linking this with any funding they give local authorities.

“Councillors should have responsibility for the decisions that affect their communities,” the report states.

The current funding set-up often “confuses questions of local accountability”, it adds.

The commission report today also proposes that the historic Act of Union between Scotland and England should be scrapped and replaced by a declaration of federal union.

Scotland would also raise about two-thirds of the money it spends under the plans.

Defence, foreign affairs and welfare would remain with a federal UK Government at Westminster.

“I don’t believe the present settlement is sustainable (with) greater powers in Wales, greater powers in Northern Ireland and England beginning, rather slowly but eventually, to take the view that some greater control over English affairs is appropriate as well.

“We need a settlement which will deal with all of these aspirations.

“There’s no doubt that the present arrangements are not sustainable. Federalism is the answer to many of the anxieties which people have, in particular the anxiety people have about independence.”

Asked why he did not favour allowing the Scottish Parliament to raise all of the money it spends, whilst remaining in the UK, Sir Menzies said: “That’s fiscal autonomy rather than fiscal federalism. Fiscal federalism is what we believe is in the best interests of Scotland because - putting it bluntly - it allows Scotland to get the best of two worlds.

[Jerreiche]

That is a democracy. So much left for Spaniards to learn...

Best of lucks, Graham. My support for all the Scottish who want to be free.

I don't think we're talking about the same issue here. For Catalans to be able to vote for independence, first we need to update-reform the constitution. There is no clause that allows secession of territories ATM and hence, a referendum would be illegal. Let's not forget that the constitution was signed by all of the political parties of the time.

Not that I personally care whether Catalans become independent or not, but Mas' move is nothing that a (rather successful) attempt to hide his mismanagement of Catalonia, and the failures of his government under the wave of discontent that populates the region.

Catalan media is as "cavernatica" and manipulative (if not more) than Madrid's own. People are being led to believe that Spain is the cause of Catalonia's pains, when, in truth, Catalans and the Catalonians elites and government have behaved in pretty much the same way as the rest of Spaniards and the illnesses of Catalonia are attributable to a people that is Spanish in its very core. Corruption, unemployment and debt in Catalonia is rampant. Blaming madrid is nothing short of lolesque.

Independence admitedly will mean a blow for the Spanish economy, but the newly created state will be in an even more delicate position, having to join Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo and the sort in the queue to join the EU and the Shengen protocol, having to set up their own army, currency, their own political representation across the globe and facing (yes, facing) a good deal of its companies leaving (even if the majority decide to stay, in an already ill economic situation. By all means, Catalans will be as screwed ,if not more, than the rest of the Spaniards), and left alone to deal with internal breakage ans social unrest. No longer being able to blame Madrid for everything bad happening.

Most spaniards couldn't care less if Catalonia decides to leave, but the moment when CiU is planning to make their move does feel to many as a stab in the back.

Now obviously, Madrid is no Westminster, but let's cut all the bullshit here: Barcelona is no Edinburgh. At the moment Spain has much more pressing concerns that should be dealt with. But even in the scenario where Catalan government decides to jump off the boat and "salvese quien pueda", they will still need to co-operate with the rest of Spaniards in the reform of the constitution. A reform that makes everyone equal to vote, where the vote of a IU voter counts the same as the ERC voter (or PP-PSOE for all we care).

And yes, a reform that allows Spanish territories to make referendums on independence.

[Frigga]

May what is truly best for Scotland be decided in the polls!

[Loki]

Yay! The Scots deserve a chance to ride out on their own :)

And Fortis is right it should be "a historic event", not "an". It annoys the hell out of me whenever I see this mistake :picard2:

[Anusiya]

What is all this mumbling about Catalonia organizing its own army. That's bullshit, who are they going to be invaded by, the Sea People? :P

[Germanicus]

Go, Scotland, go!

My sentiments exactly.......GO Scotland.........GO!

[Graham]

My sentiments exactly.......GO Scotland.........GO!

:D

[Graham]

Prospect of Tory government would see most Scots back independence
STV 21 October 2012 11:48 BST
http://news.stv.tv/politics/195856-prospect-of-tory-government-would-see-most-scots-back-independence/
http://nfs.stvfiles.com/imagebase/113/623x349/113633-referendum-westminster-to-give-more-power-to-scottish-parliament.jpg

More than half of Scots would be likely to vote for independence if they believed the Tories would be returned to power in Westminster at the next general election, a new poll has found.

The Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland found 37% of Scots agreed the country should be independent, with 45% opposed.

When it asked voters what they would do if they felt the 2015 UK general election would result in either a majority Conservative government at Westminster or another Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition, 52% said this would make them likely to vote in favour of Scotland leaving the UK.

Under the same circumstances, 40% of those questioned said they would be unlikely to vote for independence, while 8% said they did not know how they would cast their ballot.

A total of 972 voters north of the border were questioned for the survey, which comes less than a week after Prime Minister David Cameron signed a deal on the independence referendum with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.

Mr Salmond launched a fierce attack on Westminster on Saturday as he addressed the Scottish National Party's annual conference in Perth.

He branded the UK Government an "incompetent bunch of Lord Snooties" as he declared: "Now is the time for Scotland to choose, to seize a different future."

Scots are due to vote on independence in the autumn of 2014, just months before the 2015 general election.

Ivor Knox, managing director of Panelbase, said: "The UK political landscape in 2014 could be a factor, with a Westminster election due only months after the independence vote.

"Among people who are undecided about independence, over 60% say that the prospect of another Tory-led government would make them likely to vote in favour, with only 13% saying they would be unlikely."

The cross-party group Yes Scotland has been set up to try to persuade voters to back independence in the referendum.

A Yes Scotland spokesman said: "This poll is significant because it backs our view that as people in Scotland start to focus on the choices facing them, support for a Yes vote in the referendum will inevitably increase.

"As we continue to provide high-quality information about the benefits of independence, we are confident that more and more people will realise that a Yes vote is the right choice to deliver a better, more compassionate and caring Scotland — one that matches our values, priorities and aspirations."

But a spokesman for Better Together, which brings together the pro-union parties in a bid to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, insisted: "The overwhelming majority of polls tell us that Scots do not want to break up Britain."

He said that a separate poll, commissioned by Better Together, found "16% of people are strongly in favour of separation".

The spokesman added: "The referendum is about the future of our country, not a future government. This is a message we will be taking to the country over the next two years.

"We are better together when we stand together with our friends, family and colleagues from across the United Kingdom. No amount of empty rhetoric from the Nationalists can change this."

SNP business convener Derek Mackay MSP said it was "an extremely positive poll, which indicates strong and rising support for Yes across the political spectrum".

He said: "As the polls show that the referendum is game on, what is consistent is that a clear majority of people believe that the Scottish Government is better at making decisions for Scotland than the UK Government — and most people will vote for independence if they believe that they and their families will be better off.

"There is an important job of work to do to persuade more people in Scotland to support the case for independence — we are confident we can and will do that, and if we win the argument we will win the referendum in autumn 2014."

[Graham]

Tough for Cameron,

Either he loses & Miliband becomes PM with Scotland staying perhaps?

..or the Conservatives win & David Cameron will be the Prime Minister who breaks Great Britain.

For any Centre right Scottish voters, who support the Union. It's either Independence or Miliband.

[Germanicus]

No matter how you dress it up mate the majority of Scots who will be voting against independence are the ones with the most to lose. (The have nots)
The have nots are the 90% of Scots who pay less tax (if any) than they receive in benefits from the British goverment.

If it was a free vote in England if we want Scotland in the Union, I would bet my house on the majority of people expressing their vote to purge Scotland, because in fairness we cannot afford the handouts!

[Albion]

Kudos to the photographer. Cameron is adjusting his hair, but is made to look like a face palm. :)

And Salmond looks like he's about to cry with joy. :D

Anyway, my assessment of it:


The deal will mean a single yes-or-no question on whether Scotland should
leave the UK in a poll staged in 2014 – with 16-year-olds getting the vote for
the first time.

Westminster has shot itself in the foot by allowing this. 16 year olds are too young to vote, they have no life experience and can easily be influenced by pro or anti-independence educators. I don't see why voting laws have been changed for a referendum, it is basically cheating the system to swing it more towards a yes vote.

Peter Hitchens sums up students very well:


"Idealism and dogma are easier to sustain in a modern university campus than anywhere else of earth. There, you are free from the influences of home, subsidised into a fake independence which you think you have earned, spared the need to earn your bread, spared contact with the true drama of provincial life, and surrounded by arrogant and self-righteous people in their teens, much like yourself - who think that they have discovered idealism for the first time in history of the human race."


The SNP have also said that they won't host Trident but instead will seek to be like some nuclear-free martyr like New Zealand. Whether they'd host it temporarily hasn't been made clear, although some have suggested the UK could store Trident in France or America until it developed a base, or give it up!
The SNP may seek to keep Scotland in NATO (although a lot of them are against that), but they'd definitely seek to stay in the EU. The breakup of the union would involve a lot of disputes (including Trident), but England and Co would be the likely successor state to the UK and so would take the seats at NATO, the EU and the UN security council. This would mean it could potentially veto Scotland's entry into most international organisations, including SNP's favourite - the EU (technically we'd be doing them a favour, the SNP wouldn't see it that way though).

[Albion]

Tough for Cameron,

Either he loses & Miliband becomes PM with Scotland staying perhaps?

..or the Conservatives win & David Cameron will be the Prime Minister who breaks Great Britain.

For any Centre right Scottish voters, who support the Union. It's either Independence or Miliband.

I have become rather disillusioned with the Conservatives, I voted for them as the "least bad" option to keep Labour from having yet another go of it. I was thinking of voting UKIP (although they're a bit too Libertarian leaning for me to agree with them completely), but now I may vote differently... ;)
Lib Dems are likely crumble at the next election, UKIP will perhaps replace them as the third party. I don't think it's too hard to imagine UKIP and the Conservatives forming a coalition (most of UKIP are Tory defectors anyway). Labour are likely to be strong at the next election though, I think we're going to be ruled by Labour again. :(

[Graham]

The EU thing. Was at the independence march last month. Was listening to most speaches. some good, some crap.
One of them, an independent, ex SNP msp, Margo MacDonald. Made a good case to stay out the EU & into the European Free Trade Association, got a fairly decent reception.(Including me)


I live in hope. :(

[Graham]

I have become rather disillusioned with the Conservatives, I voted for them as the "least bad" option to keep Labour from having yet another go of it. I was thinking of voting UKIP (although they're a bit too Libertarian leaning for me to agree with them completely), but now I may vote differently... ;)
Lib Dems are likely crumble at the next election, UKIP will perhaps replace them as the third party. I don't think it's too hard to imagine UKIP and the Conservatives forming a coalition (most of UKIP are Tory defectors anyway). Labour are likely to be strong at the next election though, I think we're going to be ruled by Labour again. :(

UKIP are now the UKs third party, over taking the Lib Dems going by polls. Can see them growing rapidly. But you must remember, it's a condem government & not a proper Tory one.

[Albion]

UKIP are now the UKs third party, over taking the Lib Dems going by polls. Can see them growing rapidly. But you must remember, it's a condem government & not a proper Tory one.

Lid Dems don't have much of a say, their numbers aren't high enough to impact the coalition much. The only way they can have much of a say is by threatening to withdraw from government.

[Graham]

My Great Grandparents, voted the Lib Dems & were pro Home Rule. Must be spinning in their graves, over what has happened.

[Balmung]

We shall have freedom, liberty & justice for all, and you will no longer stand in our way England...We reject your taxes, tea, crumpets, & imperialism.

apoligies.....flashbacks

[Graham]

Crumpets are nice. Your loss. :)

[Germanicus]

Crumpets are nice. Your loss. :)

I grill cheese on mine! :)

[Albion]

I'm not sure what my opinion is of Scottish independence. It will throw up issues, but I've long been a fan of self-determination.
The UK can only continue to work if it were to become a proper federal nation. This is unlikely, and England will continually play second fiddle to the other nations within the UK when it comes to self-governance. Independence shouldn't necessarily drive too much of a wedge between the nations of the UK, our relations with Ireland are just as good as with the Scottish despite all the trouble and being two separate nations.

The union was good for the purposes of securing the British Isles and building up an empire, but after that it has lost its purpose.
England and Scotland should both be better off without the union, although England will be left propping up NI and Wales still.

[Graham]

I grill cheese on mine! :)

In the toaster & with some honey. :)

btw, I can't use the thanks option. Doesn't work.

[Germanicus]

In the toaster & with some honey. :)

btw, I can't use the thanks option. Doesn't work.

By the by....my wife is half Scottish as you know.. I actually like haggis.:(

[Graham]

Haggis is nice, to the open minded.

Pledge to help English police after independence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20022531

A pledge has been made that Scotland's police would continue to support English forces during riots or major events if independence happened.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told the SNP conference in Perth that crime should be tackled "wherever it may be".

He was speaking ahead of giving the opening address to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) of England and Wales next week.

The SNP is working towards winning a referendum on independence in 2014.

An agreement between the Scottish and UK governments was signed earlier this week paving the way for a historic vote in two years' time.

Ahead of the Acpo meeting, Mr MacAskill told SNP delegates in Perth: "I'll assure them that in an independent Scotland we'll continue to remember those who have given their lives and co-operate across the border in tackling crime wherever it may be.

"Mutual aid will continue to be given by Scottish police as with supporting the Olympic Games or tackling rioting in English cities.

"Mutual aid will continue to be reciprocated here by English and Welsh officers as for the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

"Mutual aid will continue whenever it is felt necessary and appropriate by our chief constable."

He added that an independent Scotland could show how policing could "really be done".

From next April, Scotland's eight police forces will be merged into a single, national force in a bid to save cash without hitting frontline operations.

[Xenomorph]

If this goes through, I wonder if Welsh independence could be a reality as well.

[Graham]

If this goes through, I wonder if Welsh independence could be a reality as well.

Plaid Cymru have been going backwards. Independence isn't as popular.

The effect has been more on Catalonia/Spain.

[Albion]

Haggis is nice, to the open minded.

Pledge to help English police after independence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20022531

A pledge has been made that Scotland's police would continue to support English forces during riots or major events if independence happened.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told the SNP conference in Perth that crime should be tackled "wherever it may be".

He was speaking ahead of giving the opening address to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) of England and Wales next week.

The SNP is working towards winning a referendum on independence in 2014.

An agreement between the Scottish and UK governments was signed earlier this week paving the way for a historic vote in two years' time.

Ahead of the Acpo meeting, Mr MacAskill told SNP delegates in Perth: "I'll assure them that in an independent Scotland we'll continue to remember those who have given their lives and co-operate across the border in tackling crime wherever it may be.

"Mutual aid will continue to be given by Scottish police as with supporting the Olympic Games or tackling rioting in English cities.

"Mutual aid will continue to be reciprocated here by English and Welsh officers as for the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

"Mutual aid will continue whenever it is felt necessary and appropriate by our chief constable."

He added that an independent Scotland could show how policing could "really be done".

From next April, Scotland's eight police forces will be merged into a single, national force in a bid to save cash without hitting frontline operations.

I'm confused... I thought the paternalistic propaganda was supposed to be directed from England to Scotland, not the other way round.
I don't know why we'd need Scottish help though, it's not like the miners are going to strike again. There's probably more police in London than the whole of Scotland, I don't think we need such support.


If this goes through, I wonder if Welsh independence could be a reality as well.

Nope. Plaid Cymru is all bark and no bite. Welsh nationalists are too few in number to matter. English-bashing is a Welsh pastime (same in Scotland), but they know which way their bread is buttered (and they're not sitting on oil like Scotland, just unprofitable coal).

[Jedthehumanoid]

I did suggest a while back that the only way to guarantee Scottish independence was to let the English vote on it, here's someone's resume from Ingerrland Graham on the current situation;)

"I liken it to the eighteen year old who thinks he needs his own freedom so gets a flat, but he's home most nights for his food, raiding your fridge, bringing his washing and tapping you for money because he didnt realise he needs to pay council tax, bills, needs a tv licence etc etc. and actually bar taking the odd girl back his life has not improved much but he can say to his mates, i have got my own flat but doesnt tell them he's totally skint and misses living at home "

[Graham]

MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart quit SNP over Nato policy
23 October 2012
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63653000/jpg/_63653750_msps.jpg

Highland MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart have resigned from the SNP over the party's decision to end its long-standing opposition to Nato.

The pair described the decision as "heart-wrenching" and said they would continue to sit as independent MSPs with no official party affiliation.

Their move followed a decision taken at the party's conference on Friday.

The SNP supported a resolution saying an independent Scotland should become a member of Nato by 426 votes to 332.

The change was opposed by several MSPs and rank and file members, including Mr Finnie and Ms Urquhart.

The SNP's policy for the last 30 years has been to oppose Nato, the defence alliance involving the US, UK and other countries.

However, Angus Robertson MP put forward a resolution saying an independent Scotland should become a member of the pro-nuclear weapons organisation.

He told the conference that the fresh approach was dependent on Trident nuclear weapons - which are currently based at Faslane Naval base on the Clyde - being removed from Scotland and on Scotland's refusal to host nuclear weapons in the future.

Mr Finnie and Ms Urquhart, both former Highland councillors, opposed the change of policy.

A member of the SNP since he was 16, Mr Finnie said: "I cannot continue to belong to a party that quite rightly does not wish to hold nuclear weapons on its soil, but wants to join a first strike nuclear alliance.

"Although I envisage that I will continue to share common ground with the SNP on many issues, I cannot in good conscience continue to take the party whip."

Ms Urquhart, who has been a supporter of independence for 25 years and a member of anti-nuclear weapons movement CND for 35 years, added: "The issue of nuclear disarmament and removing Trident from Scotland's waters is a red line issue for me, and I could not remain committed to a party that has committed itself to retaining membership of Nato.

"We are both steadfast in our belief that Scotland should be an independent country, and will actively and positively campaign for a Yes vote in 2014.

"We believe in an independent Scotland, not a Nato-dependent Scotland."

Dave Thompson, SNP MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, also opposed the change of policy - but said he was disappointed by his colleagues' resignations.

He said: "I've got huge respect for both John and Jean, who are committed Nationalists.

"I'm disappointed they've chosen to resign from the SNP over this issue. It is an issue people hold very strong views about.

"Personally I was against the change in our policy and campaigned very strongly against it, but I've got no intention personally of leaving the SNP. I'm going to stick in there and try to secure and build on the guarantees we were given during the debate."

The resignations leave the SNP with 65 MSPs, which still gives the party a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

A total of 69 SNP MSPs were elected in May 2011, but the choice of Tricia Marwick as presiding officer meant reduced the number to 68.

Dunfermline MSP Bill Walker was suspended from the party in March following allegations of domestic abuse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20041667

[Graham]

^^^

The Conservative MPs, who are against the EU, had the same principles. They'd resign also.

Good on them!

[MagnaLaurentia]

I'm gonna cry...

[Jedthehumanoid]

I'm gonna cry...

But you live in the most fortunate country in the world.....influenced by Europe's two finest nations;)

[Albion]

^^^

The Conservative MPs, who are against the EU, had the same principles. They'd resign also.

Good on them!

I don't see what the problem with NATO is if Scotland doesn't have to host nuclear weapons.
Basically these are the sort of people that would have had Scotland join the Warsaw Pact if it still existed, the anti-Atlanticist left of Europe.

[Albion]

I'm gonna cry...

How does it compare to Quebec?

[Graham]

How does it compare to Quebec?

Canada has a strong affinity with Scotland. The Scots practically made the place, what it is today. So it'll confuse the loyalists, like the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland. :D

If the vote ends up like the Quebec referendum, 1995.

Bye, bye cruel world...:D

[Graham]

'Join the queue' for EU membership, Spain tells Alex Salmond
Giles Tremlett in Madrid and Severin Carrell, Scotland
24 October 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/24/scotland-eu-membership-spain?newsfeed=true
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/13/1284380707936/European-Union-flag-006.jpg
Alex Salmond's chaotic attempts to persuade voters he could take an independent Scotland smoothly into the European Union have suffered another setback, after Spain said Scotland would need to "join the queue" and negotiate as a new member state.

Foreign minister José Manuel García-Margallo told the Spanish senate on Tuesday that an independent Scotland would have to go through a potentially long negotiating process and win the support of all 27 members, including Spain – directly contradicting Salmond's position on EU membership.

"In the hypothetical case of independence, Scotland would have to join the queue and ask to be admitted, needing the unanimous approval of all member states to obtain the status of a candidate country … and to sign the final treaty [of accession]," García-Margallo said.

Intensifying the pressure on Salmond, the Spanish foreign minister said Scotland would also need member states to scrutinise its legislation before approving the 35 separate chapters that have to be negotiated before a new member is admitted.

In September, the European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, also suggested that an independent Scotland would be seen as a new state, and would need to apply to join.

García-Margallo did not say whether Spain might block Scottish EU membership, but his rightwing People's party government is currently fighting a battle to prevent Catalonia, a wealthy region with significant levels of autonomy, from calling its own independence referendum. Last weekend, Basque nationalist and separatist parties won two-thirds of the seats in its regional assembly, intensifying pressure on Madrid to cede more powers. It now appears the Spanish government's dispute with its own independence movements has led to a hardening stance on Scotland.

García-Margallo's intervention is another significant setback to Salmond, who has endured bruising allegations from opponents and the Scottish press over whether he had lied about receiving formal legal advice from government law officers on EU membership.

Until now, Salmond and his ministers have regarded García-Margallo as a significant ally in their efforts to show that an independent Scotland would be able to freely and smoothly inherit EU membership. They have frequently cited his remarks in January this year, when García-Margallo indicated Spain was neutral about Scotland's future membership.

At the time, García-Margallo said it was "an internal subject which will be resolved within the British constitutional framework, which has nothing to do with the Spanish constitutional framework … they are completely different processes".

Salmond's difficulties escalated dramatically on Tuesday when it emerged his government had never asked for or received any advice from its law officers on whether an independent Scotland would automatically join the EU, after months of hints and apparent confirmation that such advice had been given.

His deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, shocked opposition parties by disclosing the advice had only just been requested, after the Edinburgh agreement setting up the independence referendum was signed by Salmond and David Cameron last week.

The Scottish government has also gone to Scotland's highest civil court seeking to overturn an order from the Scottish information commissioner, Rosemary Agnew, that it should disclose that advice. That legal challenge – due to be heard in December – has now been dropped.

Salmond angrily denied on Tuesday that he had lied in an interview with Andrew Neil on BBC1 earlier this year, when he appeared to confirm his law officers had supported his case that an independent Scotland would join the EU automatically, would not need to join the euro and would inherit the UK's opt-outs on border security, immigration and financial treaty requirements. Salmond insisted he had been speaking in general terms in his BBC interview.

After headlines and leader columns accused Salmond bluntly of "lying", the pressure intensified on Wednesday when the Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, asked for Scotland's chief law officer – the lord advocate, Frank Mulholland – to appear before the Scottish parliament.

During prime minister's questions in the Commons on Wednesday, Cameron said the situation was "truly baffling" and raised substantial questions about Salmond's assurances on the impact of independence.

"It turns out now they didn't have any legal advice at all and I think what this shows is when you shine the spotlight on the case for separation the SNP put, it completely falls apart," Cameron said.

A Scottish government spokeswoman said García-Margallo's latest remarks had been "overtaken by events" because there was now a deal between the governments to set up the independence referendum. That document, however, makes no mention of EU membership. "As Mr García-Margallo himself said earlier this year, this is an internal matter to be resolved within the UK – and we now have that clear agreement on the process," she said.

She implied the Spanish foreign minister's latest remarks were wrong: "Scotland will inherit exactly the same international treaty rights and obligations as the rest of the UK, as equal successor states.

"Scotland has been an integral part of the European Union for almost four decades, so an independent Scotland will continue in EU membership – and by definition Scotland already meets the criteria for EU membership, as acknowledged recently by an expert report."

[Graham]

UK Government accused of 'hypocrisy' for refusing to release legal advice on independence and the EU
The UK Government has blocked access to legal advice on whether Scotland could stay in the European Union after independence
Published online : 24.11.11
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/19176/uk-government-accused-of-hypocrisy-for-refusing-to-release-legal-advice-on-independence-and-the-eu.html#.UIe-SGW8za0.facebook

The ban comes just weeks after Holyrood MSPs hit out at the SNP for imposing its own block on legal advice about Europe (link). And it means governments on both sides of the border are refusing to tell the voters the full story about Scotland's place in the EU.

Earlier this month Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said the idea that Scotland would gain automatic entry to Europe was ''fanciful''. Backing a House of Commons call for the SNP to publish legal advice it has received, he said: ''We need to get these issues sorted out. The uncertainty needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.''

And Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said: ''If the Scottish people are to make any kind of informed decision, we need clarity on the advice the SNP has received.''

But the UK Government has blocked a freedom of information request for its advice on Scotland in Europe.

It said: ''Whilst there is a strong public interest in seeing what legal advice has been provided to the UK Government on the implications of EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by a strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice.''

Meanwhile, in a written answer at Westminster, Scotland Office Minister David Mundell admitted: ''I have not received formal representations on the possible status of an independent Scotland within the EU.''

A spokesman for the First Minister said the answers proved there was no basis for attacks on Scotland's place in Europe.

He said: ''The hypocrisy of the Tories and Liberal Democrats in refusing to publish their legal advice is revealed for all to see. And David Mundell has let the cat out the bag — Tory scaremongering about Scottish independence is exposed as being based on nothing.

''The reality is that Scotland is already part of the European Union and Scots are already EU citizens. Our membership will continue after independence, just as we will continue to use sterling. The onus is on those who argue the opposite to prove it, and in 20 years of trying they have entirely failed to do so.''

[Albion]

I don't know why the EU doesn't just issue a statement addressing the matter. But I think it really comes down to which country is the successor state of the UK.
Sometimes it is the largest state by default (such as Russia to the Soviet Union), then other times it is more than one country (such as Czechia and Slovakia to Czechoslovakia).

Since the UK was a union of England and Scotland, it should mean that both countries are legal successors and so both would be represented equally. However this would create a few problems such as with the UN security council (Scotland as a permanent member? :eek:). Although it is a union, in reality England is disproportionate to Scotland and the UK has seats in some important organisations which cannot be split between two countries.
The process would be a lot simpler with Wales and England I'd imagine. England and Wales had an act of union as well, although Wales didn't agree to it I don't think so Wales wouldn't be a legal successor. I'm not sure where the earlier act of union stands now in regards to the defining of Wales in ~1949 (ish) and the devolved Welsh assembly. I think it is still part of the English realm as say the Cook Islands are to New Zealand. If the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it though, and I don't think many in England would oppose it.

[Graham]

The formula for Scottishness
By Jon Kelly
BBC News Magazine
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63678000/jpg/_63678946_scot-composite.jpg

There are five million people in Scotland. Those of voting age can have their say in the independence referendum. The 800,000 Scots in the rest of the UK cannot vote in it. But what is the essence of being Scottish?

Read more.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20048521
--------------------------------------------------
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63726000/gif/_63726828_scottish_population5_464.gif

[Graham]

Comments BBC from the above link.


This is an intriguing question, and one I've struggled to answer most of my life. Born in Africa to a Scottish father and a Norwegian mother (who was born in Scotland during WWII), raised mostly in the Scottish Lowlands, not far from Jon Kelly, but having lived more than half of my life in England, what nationality am I? Talk to me and I'm undeniably Scottish. Ask me to fill in documentation and I'm stubbornly Scottish. But am I entitled to claim that nationality?
Steve, Bicester, England


I would argue that the referendum is about who governs Scotland: Westminster or Holyrood. It would therefore be folly to allow Scots down south to vote to decide who runs another region. This is not about nationalism, it's about better structures of governance for Scotland. It's not saying we're better just that our circumstances are different from our southern neighbours.
Euan Stewart, Glasgow


American expats are getting a postal vote in the upcoming presidential election but I'm not getting a vote in the referendum because I live in Englandshire. Is this a matter of logistics (that there are proportionately few American expats)? Or is it that Alec Salmond thinks expats are less likely to vote SNP and the civil servants didn't care enough or weren't smart enough to block this point when negotiating the referendum? I want my vote. And it should be based on being born there, not any of the other sentimental trollery the reporter suggests.
Nicola Rankin, London, UK


I am English and have lived in Scotland for 16 years. I will not be voting on the question of independence for Scotland, because I feel, being English it is not my place to decide for the Scottish people if they want independence or not.
Richard B, Roslin, Midlothian


This is a vote on the make up of the UK, therefore the simple answer is to make it a vote open to anyone in the UK.
Al, Windsor


Surely the vote is about those who actually live in Scotland as it will affect their daily lives? Those who were born Scottish but live elsewhere will not be affected in that way, so why should they be able to vote? I would not expect to to vote in any other election in a place that I no longer lived in, so why any difference here?
Stu, England


I'm English, but have lived and worked in Scotland for 14 years, and intend to stay, whatever the referendum outcome (I'm undecided which way to vote). Of course residence is the right criterion - it is those living in Scotland who will be affected, far more than anyone else. On the symbols of Scottishness, what about the Scottish Enlightenment - David Hume, Adam Smith, James Hutton etc, and later Scottish scientists and engineers such as James Clerk Maxwell, James Watt, Thomas Telford and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)? How many countries of Scotland's size have such a roster of intellectual excellence? It's sad that the most commonly recognised symbol of Scotland, even by Scots, is a man in a pleated skirt apparently torturing an octopus!
Nick Gotts, Aberdeen, Scotland


Scots have had a very positive influence on the world in terms of their rich magnificent culture and tecnological inventions. They are well capable of ruling themselves, and should aspire to do so.
Pat Fitz Gerald, Limerick, Ireland


Coming from an Italian-Scot, for me being Scottish is not about your background or ethnic make-up. It is simply about identifying and feeling Scottish. There is nothing more to it than that.
Luigi Pedreschi , Edinburgh, Midlothian


I consider myself to be completely Scottish, although i have never lived in Scotland. My parents are both born and raised in Scotland, as were their parents and their parents and their parents and so on. My father was in the Navy and was drafted down to Portsmouth where my brother and I were born. Does this make me English? I dont think so. If I had been born in a stable it wouldnt make me a horse. I am fiercely proud of my scottish heritage of Clan MacLeod and Clan Campbell mix. If my location makes me ineligible to vote then so be it, but i do hope that those elligible to vote will use their vote wisely.
Mairi MacLeod, Cramlington, Northumberland


I am intensely proud of my Scottish heritage. However, I have been very happy living in England for 50 years, having arrived at the age of twenty. If I ever had to make a choice of my nationality, I would opt to be English, out of gratitude and my sense of civic responsibility to England. I still have my west of Scotland accent.
Graham Ward, Leicester, Leicestershire


Interesting how the writer, Billy Connolly and Sean Connery all have Irish heritage - just shows that identity is such a fluid concept. I'm Irish with a Scottish grandmother, and I've always felt a bit Scottish... so good luck Scotland, whether you vote yes or no.
Robert Myles, Dublin, Ireland

[Graham]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8128425637_5442295558_b.jpg

[Graham]

SNP stalwarts call for EU referendum following Yes vote
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-stalwarts-gordon-wilson-and-jim-sillars-call-for-eu-referendum-following-yes-vote-1-2616262
http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2616261.1352198411!image/2604930390.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/2604930390.jpg
Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillars have called for an EU referendum following a Yes vote

By SCOTT MACNAB
Published on Tuesday 6 November 2012 10:43

THE row over an independent Scotland’s place in Europe is damaging the prospect of a Yes vote in the 2014 referendum, a former leader and Deputy leader of the SNP warned today.

• Scotland should call a referendum on Europe if the country votes yes to independence say pair

• EU membership now key issue in run up to independence referendum after furore over legal advice

Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillars issued a statement today warning against EU membership as a “transfer of sovereignty” to Brussels. Mr Wilson, who led the party in the 1980s, and Mr Sillars instead highlight the “attractions” of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) allowing access the EU markets, without the danger of signing up to a “United States of Europe.”

And only a second referendum on EU membership – if Scots vote to go it alone in 2014 – can resolve the issue, according to the pair.

“It will be damaging to the prospects of a Yes majority in the referendum if a serious question mark is allowed to remain over an independent Scotland’s access to the European Economic Area,” they said in a statement.

The issue must be “must be resolved quickly given its importance to Scottish business and the people who work for it.“

They say that the 18-24 month period between a Yes vote in a referendum and Scotland becoming fully independent in 2016 should allow the SNP leadership an opportunity to “clarify the position” with regards to both the EU and EFTA.

“Before the date set for independence, the Scottish Government should then ask, by referendum, which organisation the Scottish people wish to join,” they state.

Legal advice

The European issue has been a central battleground in the constitution debate in recent weeks, after it emerged that the SNP Government has not sought legal advice to back up its claims that Scotland would automatically remain in the EU after splitting from the UK. It is now doing so. Opposition leaders say Scotland would be forced to reapply which could mean signing up to the troubled euro currency and the Schengen agreement on “open borders” which the UK is currently exempt from.

A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said today: “The white paper due to be published next year will set out the Government’s prospectus for an independent Scotland.”

An SNP Spokesman said: “Scotland has been part of the European Union for 40 years and an independent Scotland will continue in EU membership as a range of eminent experts have testified.

“Instead of being a subsidiary part of the EU - represented by London and with no direct voice - Scotland needs the powers of independence so that we are a member state in our own right, and therefore able to protect and promote our vital national interests.”

[Albion]

Scotland won't vote for independence I don't think. It'll just get more powers within the UK whilst England is continually ignored and Wales denied similar privileges. It seems that devolution was created to keep the Scots happy more than anything, I suppose we can thank the influential Scottish lobby in practically all affairs of the UK for that.

[Graham]

Scotland won't vote for independence I don't think. It'll just get more powers within the UK whilst England is continually ignored and Wales denied similar privileges. It seems that devolution was created to keep the Scots happy more than anything, I suppose we can thank the influential Scottish lobby in practically all affairs of the UK for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004

[Albion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004

Why should England be broken up in order to get self-government? The North opposed the artificial drawing of borders. Furthermore, all that was on offer was powerless assemblies like that of Wales. Why is it that Scotland is entitled to a parliament but England only to assemblies (and then only that if it basically votes to break up)?

Sorry, but England without its own parliament is unacceptable.

[Graham]

Do something about it then. Scots aren't going to do it.

[007]

The European issue has been a central battleground in the constitution debate in recent weeks, after it emerged that the SNP Government has not sought legal advice to back up its claims that Scotland would automatically remain in the EU after splitting from the UK. It is now doing so. Opposition leaders say Scotland would be forced to reapply which could mean signing up to the troubled euro currency and the Schengen agreement on “open borders” which the UK is currently exempt from.


Here is the problem, it may become necessary to install border controls between Scotland and England to prevent an independent Scotland from being an avenue for illegals . I wonder how many independence-minded Scots would like to have to present a passport to get into England?

[Graham]

A good deal of Scots have family in England & vice versa. So wouldn't be popular.

[Albion]

Do something about it then. Scots aren't going to do it.

No one is asking you to. But England just gets ignored, Westminster comes running every time Holyrood click their fingers whilst the rest of the UK is ignored.
Wales and NI at least have some sort of self-government, but all England gets are broken promises and indifference.

McKay commission to the House of Lords:


Introduction: the problems and their solution

This paper argues that the only durable and democratic answer to the West Lothian Question (narrowly re-phrased in the Commission’s terms of reference) is ultimately a full federation of the four UK nations — England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and that it is impossible to propose a solution to the narrow problem posed in the McKay Commission’s terms of reference (“To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales“) without placing it in the context of the constitutional future of the United Kingdom as a whole. This inevitably also means considering the future of Scotland, within or outside the United Kingdom, and its implications for the rest of the UK . Study of the implications for the House of Commons must also include consideration of the future of the House of Lords or whatever would replace it in a federal United Kingdom.

At the heart of the West Lothian Question and the Commission’s terms of reference is the unsustainable anomaly whereby since devolution the House of Commons has had to try to play two distinct and ultimately incompatible roles: first, as a quasi-federal legislative body for the whole of the United Kingdom, dealing with all subjects not devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (such as foreign affairs, defence, and other all-UK matters); and secondly, with the House of Lords, as a parliament for England dealing with all English internal matters, including subjects such as education and crime that have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not to England. Since the members of the House of Commons are elected from all the four UK nations, and not just from England, it follows that its membership alone makes it quite unsuitable as a parliament for England.

Another aspect of the anomaly is that whereas the House of Commons can more or less function as a substitute for an English parliament, despite the unsuitability of its membership for that role, the only available substitute for an English government is the government of the whole of the United Kingdom, whose composition is even more unsuitable for governing England than that of the House of Commons — for example when the United Kingdom has had a Scottish or Welsh prime minister and other non-English ministers responsible for English domestic matters. Elaborate schemes for establishing an English Grand Committee of English MPs to act as an English parliament to deal with legislation affecting only England all fall down on this fundamental problem: under the Westminster system, a legislature can’t function without an executive drawn from it and answerable to it. There are many other fatal objections to the English Grand Committee idea and its more or less ingenious variants, but the absence of anything corresponding to an English government alone makes it impracticable.

The West Lothian Question and a federal United Kingdom

The anomaly reflected in the West Lothian Question can be resolved only by separating the two contradictory roles currently played by the House of Commons. Its primary role, as a semi-federal legislature for the whole of the UK for subjects not devolved, is appropriate to its all-UK composition, matched by a semi-federal UK government, and appropriate for the federal United Kingdom of the future. Its secondary role, as an English parliament, for which its composition is inappropriate and which is unmatched by any English executive body, manifestly requires the creation of a new legislative body for England, in parallel with the Scottish parliament and the corresponding legislatures in Wales and Northern Ireland. Logic and basic constitutional doctrine would also then require the creation of an English government, in parallel with the executives or governments of the other three UK nations. When England at last possesses its own parliament and government, the federal character of the United Kingdom created by devolution will become too obvious for even the most dedicated conservative to miss.

Implications of federalism

As Professor Bogdanor has recognised, devolution has already made the UK a “quasi-federal” state, with many of the features of a full federation already in place: an upper or federal tier for the whole of the United Kingdom (the House of Commons, House of Lords and the United Kingdom government), with a lower, second tier comprising the four UK nations, of which three already possess their own legislatures and governments with powers for many of the purely internal, domestic affairs of each but no powers at the level of the United Kingdom as a whole. We now also have a Supreme Court whose powers include, inter alia, interpreting (i) the Human Rights Act (which would need to be incorporated in a written federal constitution and entrenched) and (ii) the legislation that has created devolution and defined the competences of the second-tier organs, although the Supreme Court at present lacks the power to disallow or nullify primary legislation of the United Kingdom parliament in the way that the Supreme Court of a fully-fledged federation would have to be empowered to do.

Much the biggest, most widely gaping hole in our present quasi-federal constitution, that will need to be filled in before we can progress to fully federal status, is the absence of a dedicated parliament and government for England, by far the biggest and wealthiest of the four second-tier nations. Developing a national consensus — especially but not only in England — in favour of a new, separate parliament and government for England will be a difficult challenge facing those with the vision to work towards eventual full federation for the whole UK.

Other challenges will be to develop general agreement across the UK and the main political parties on: the definition of the powers of the first and second tiers of government respectively, including which powers are to be shared, and which tier is to prevail in the event of disagreement; on the mechanism for revenue allocation as between the five spheres of government; on the terms of a written federal constitution setting out, among other things, the respective competences of the two tiers; on the mechanisms for drawing up a written constitution for each of the four UK nations, each of which will almost certainly differ from all the others, and for legitimising each by local referendum or otherwise; on mechanisms for consultation between each of the five governments on matters of common interest to all of them, and for resolving disagreements between them where necessary; and on empowering the federal Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the new written federal constitution, including the power to strike down legislation by any of the five legislatures that it deems inconsistent with the constitution; and on procedures for amending the federal constitution after it has come into force, including special procedures for amending the most important of its provisions, which will be ‘entrenched’, requiring especially demanding procedures for amending them.

Before any progress can be made on any of these reforms, it will be essential to forge a widespread national consensus in favour of the federal idea and its broad implications (although the details will need to be worked out by stages as each phase nears completion and comes up for popular approval by whichever mechanisms are decided at the time). Clearly all this, including especially the establishment of a parliament and government for England, will take years to work its way through the system. The essential preliminary is to secure broad national agreement on the ultimate objective, filling in the details step by step as we go along. The whole process is unlikely to take less than two decades from the time when a major UK political party commits itself to eventual federalism and embarks on the enormous task of persuading a broad swath of public opinion to agree to it and to work towards it.

Objections to federation

The commonest objection to a federal UK is that the disproportionate size and wealth of England relative to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would make a federal system unworkable. The answer to this is surely that it is precisely the disproportionate size and wealth of England that make federalism necessary. The size of England relative to the rest of the UK is a given; it can’t be changed by any conceivable constitutional device. Before devolution there were effectively no safeguards for the rest of the UK against domination by an England whose population is far bigger than that of the other three nations put together. A UK government and parliament with a huge majority of MPs and ministers from England were free to impose virtually any policies on the rest of the UK, regardless of local interests or wishes. Devolution has provided limited protection for the rest of the UK against interference by the England-dominated UK government by preventing Westminster from exercising powers on the devolved subjects. Full federation would greatly increase that protection in various ways: each of the four UK nations would enjoy full internal self-government, with the federal government at Westminster prohibited by the constitution from legislating for the domestic affairs of any of the four UK nations; the constitution of each of the four UK nations would only be amendable by that nation’s people and parliament, not by any first-tier federal government or parliamentary organ; and the interests and wishes of the rest of the UK would be further protected by the composition and powers of the federal second chamber or Senate (replacing the House of Lords) in which it would be impossible for members elected in England to outvote those elected in the other three smaller nations. Only a federal system will provide such extensive safeguards against domination and interference by England in the affairs of the other three nations. The disproportionate size of England is a strong argument for federation, not an obstacle to it.

Another frequent objection to federalism, and to the creation of a parliament and government for England, is that there is no popular demand for them. But this has always been cited as an obstacle to progressive reform. Popular demand and support are created by the vision and leadership of our best politicians, their capacity for describing persuasively what is wrong with things as they are and how they could be done better. When Britons begin to experience the enormous benefits of federalism, they will wonder why they took so long to want them.

And the third most common objection is that federation will create a new and unnecessary tier of government in addition to those we already have, and put hundreds more politicians on the payroll. But we already have two tiers of government in our quasi-federal system, on top of local government, district councils, parishes and the rest; adding English government organs to the existing second tier won’t create a new tier. As to the number of politicians, the new federal Senate, if each of the four UK nations were to elect (say) ten or even 20 members to it, would still comprise at most 80 members — less than a tenth of the present membership of the House of Lords (812 at the latest count!), and still comparable in size with the Senate of the United States to which each of the 50 States elects just two members, for a country whose population is around five times that of the UK. With the significant reduction in the responsibilities of the federal parliament at Westminster (because it will lose any jurisdiction in England’s domestic affairs once an English parliament has been established, and because all remaining powers in respect of the internal affairs of the four UK nations not yet devolved will be transferred to them), there could be a significant reduction in the size of the House of Commons to well under the currently proposed 600: and most of its MPs’ current constituency duties would fall to the members of the parliaments of the four UK nations which would have full and exclusive competence in all their domestic affairs. Only the new English parliament, whether comprising one or two chambers, would involve additional politicians, and it too could be strictly limited in size. Thus, far more savings in the number of current politicians could be achieved than the additional politicians needed for England, resulting in an overall reduction in the number of UK politicians, not an increase.

Implications for the House of Commons and for House of Lords reform

As suggested earlier, the second chamber or Senate of the federal parliament at Westminster in a fully federal system would ordinarily be a “states’ house”, designed to provide each of the second tier nations with an additional input into such federal subjects as foreign affairs and defence, as well as affording the three smaller nations protection against being steam-rollered by much larger England in federal subjects. It would in addition continue its roles as a scrutineer of draft legislation coming to it from the other House, and holding the UK government to account. Protection for the smaller nations against being steam-rollered by England in the federal spheres would be achieved by the principle that each of the four nations would elect an equal number of representatives to the second chamber — as is the case in the Senates of the United States and Australia, the two democratic federations which perhaps offer the most useful lessons to a federal United Kingdom. The principle of representation roughly proportionate to population would be preserved in the federal House of Commons, which would continue to be the source and home of the federal UK government. This would be the case regardless of whether in the course of the constitutional reforms it were to be decided to retain First Past the Post or some form of proportional representation for elections to the Commons.

There seems no reason why the arrival of full federalism should involve much, if any, change in the powers and functions of the federal second chamber (or Senate) from those of the present House of Lords — nor indeed why there would need to be changes in the functions and powers of the federal House of Commons, apart from the Commons ceasing to function as a parliament for England once a separate English parliament had been set up as part of the federalisation process.

The relationship between the House of Commons and the new federal Senate would also probably be unaffected. The obsession with preserving the primacy of the House of Commons, and avoiding conflict or deadlock between the Commons and an elected second chamber, is in any case misconceived. The Commons’ primacy is already guaranteed by its function as the creator and home of governments – the prime minister and all senior ministers must nowadays be MPs, not peers, and the government derives its legitimacy from having the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. (It would be wise to provide that after any reform of the second chamber all ministers must be House of Commons MPs, not members of the second chamber. There could be provision for ministers to appear in the second chamber to answer questions, or even to take part in its debates, but without the right to vote there.)

We don’t need to invent the wheel. The vast majority of western democracies have two wholly elected legislative chambers without suffering the kind of constant conflict or paralysis that our present rulers seem to fear (the coup d’état mounted by the Governor-General of Australia and the then leader of the federal opposition against the Labor prime minister, Gough Whitlam, in November 1975 following a deadlock between the two Houses was a function of a bizarre anachronism in the Australian constitution). Moreover a degree of constructive conflict between the two chambers can be good for accountability and transparency, especially if both have a plausible claim to democratic legitimacy through having been elected. The fear of an elected second chamber sometimes challenging the House of Commons reflects the control freakery and over-centralism that are the bane of our politics. The House of Commons will always have the ultimate power and the last word in subjects reserved to the competence of the federal tier.

I assume that a federal Senate will be wholly elected. The alleged benefits of the expertise contributed by appointed members of the House of Lords, cited as justification for retaining an unelected, appointed element in a reformed second chamber, are wildly exaggerated. A distinguished former gynaecologist has no more credentials for contributing to a debate on Trident than an equally distinguished retired admiral has for speaking on abortions (and the bishops have no obvious expertise on anything relevant to law-making). An elected second chamber could call on expertise ad hoc, even allowing experts to participate in debates, as required: but unelected experts should have no claim on seats in our legislature just because they are experts, and any appointments system may be relied on to degenerate into party patronage and effectively a kind of corruption. In any case, the wisdom and profundity of House of Lords debates are more often admired than experienced: as our sharpest constitutional commentator, Walter Bagehot, sagely remarked, “A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institutions said that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it,” an observation as accurate now as when it was written (in 1867!).

Implications of and for the Scottish independence referendum

Britain has traditionally been governed not only as a unitary state but also under a grossly over-centralised system. Scottish resentment of an overwhelmingly English government and Parliament constantly meddling in Scotland’s internal affairs has led to the rise of a popular independence movement to which partial devolution was the imaginative and constructive response of Scottish leaders of all political colours and of the then Labour government at Westminster. Partial devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has become increasingly popular in those three nations, leading to widespread demand for the grant of further devolved powers. In Scotland, this demand takes the form of a campaign for ‘devo max’, or full internal self-government within the United Kingdom, as a constructive alternative to full independence. It currently enjoys greater support than independence in the opinion polls. Full internal self-government for Scotland, if chosen by the Scottish people in the referendum scheduled for the autumn of 2014, will inevitably prompt demands for the same status in Wales and Northern Ireland, and (more controversially) for devolution and full internal self-government, with its own parliament and government, for England. As already noted, the UK has already become a quasi-federation since devolution; that process has been temporarily interrupted, leaving a host of anomalies crying out for resolution, including most potently that encapsulated in the West Lothian Question; its logical destination can only be full federation for the whole of the UK.

It is impossible at present to predict precisely what kind of federal system we shall want or need in the medium to long term, in advance of the Scottish referendum in 2014. If Scotland votes for full independence, the rest of the UK will need a different kind of constitution from the four-nation federation that will be appropriate if Scotland becomes fully self-governing within the UK. It follows that now cannot be the right time either to introduce important changes to the way we appoint or elect members of the House of Lords, or to attempt a precise description of the kind of federation that will be appropriate for a three- or four-nation United Kingdom. But it’s vital to register that the result of the referendum in Scotland in 2014 could be powerfully affected by what seems to be in store for a United Kingdom that still includes Scotland in the years following 2014. If there were to be a good prospect of an eventual full federation of the four UK nations, including Scotland, each enjoying full internal self-government and more effective protection against meddling by Big England or by the federal centre at Westminster, that might well tip the scales decisively against a referendum vote for Scottish independence and secession from the United Kingdom.

But there is not much time left for convincing undecided Scots that such a prospect is a realistic one. Neither of the two main UK parties has yet been brave enough to pick up the federal ball and run with it, although the LibDems have been increasingly toying with the idea.

Conclusions

The problem of how to legislate for England on matters which have been devolved to the other three UK nations, encapsulated in the West Lothian Question, is logically and constitutionally incapable of being solved by creating a sort of English parliament within the present House of Commons. Such an ur-parliament could not function without a separate English government. Under our present semi-unitary, semi-federal constitutional arrangements, almost all Westminster legislation affecting England has consequences, often including financial implications, for the other three nations, who can’t properly be denied a say in it. It’s inescapable that a solution must tackle the problem at its root: namely, the fact that the House of Commons has to try to play two fundamentally incompatible roles, that of a first-tier federal parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom in subjects not devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and simultaneously as a second-tier English parliament for which its composition disqualifies it, as well as the absence of a corresponding English government and the lack of any role in legislating for England for the House of Lords. The only durable and logical solution to this is to separate out the two roles by establishing a separate second-tier parliament and government for England. And this means a further and decisive step towards a full federation of the four UK nations, with wide and almost entirely beneficial implications for the whole country.

A large part of the problem of securing a sensible, durable and democratic federal system for the UK arises from the widespread ignorance in Britain of basic federal principles, aggravated by an apparent inability to recognise that we are already more than halfway into a federal constitution. It can’t be said too often that we already have a quasi-federal system, and that eventually a full federal system for the UK is almost inevitable – as well as highly desirable. If our political leaders, parliamentarians, political commentators, editors, academics and other opinion-formers continue in ignorance of what federalism needs and demands, we shall continue to commit damaging blunders in seeking to reform or even just improve our constitutional system. Instead of ramming through an ill considered and flawed reform of the arrangements for legislating on purely English matters by a selection of House of Commons MPs who have been elected to a quite different kind of body, or for “reforming” the House of Lords as proposed in the government’s current Bill, we should spend the time between now and the Scottish referendum on a campaign of public education in federalism as the best and only way to resolve the many anomalies created by our failure to complete the half-finished process of devolution, namely by moving purposefully towards a full federal constitution for the United Kingdom. A good start might be the appointment of a Royal Commission or other formal body charged with making and publishing a detailed analysis of the constitutions of other democratic federations, spelling out the lessons to be learned from them in the circumstances of the United Kingdom following the Scottish independence referendum in late 2014, whatever its outcome turns out to be. Already we are running out of time for that badly needed exercise in public education.

Brian Barder
London
25 July 2012

I haven't seen any interest in Westminster in this yet. The whole commission seems to have been merely a gesture by the coalition, they're unlikely to even take in any of what it reports.
Another reason would be because it threatens the positions of career politicians.

[Albion]

Here is the problem, it may become necessary to install border controls between Scotland and England to prevent an independent Scotland from being an avenue for illegals . I wonder how many independence-minded Scots would like to have to present a passport to get into England?

I don't think we'd go that far. At the most I think people crossing the border would have to carry ID. Sometimes crossing the border between Ireland and NI requires ID such as a driving license. I don't think we should worry too much about passports.
I'd just be worried about the SNP inviting much of the third world to Scotland and how many of them could walk across the land border. I doubt that anyone would be watching the Cheviot hills or North Pennines for illegals, but that could be an easy gateway to England courtesy of SNP civic "nationalism". :rolleyes2:

[007]

A good deal of Scots have family in England & vice versa. So wouldn't be popular.

Exactly, I don't think the fans of Scottish independence really want to be considered foreign in England. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.



I don't think we'd go that far. At the most I think people crossing the border would have to carry ID. Sometimes crossing the border between Ireland and NI requires ID such as a driving license. I don't think we should worry too much about passports.

If they vote for independence, they should get independence. Of course, if both parties remain in the EU, that would be difficult to do

[Albion]

I know - lets resettle people from the overcrowded South in Scotland.... then when the independence vote arrives they'll vote 'no'. :lightbul:

[Graham]

That actually does happen In Edinburgh, during August. London travels to Edinburgh for the fringe.

[Graham]

Does Scotland manage to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic?
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/does-scotland-manage-to-be-anti-israel-without-being-anti-semitic.premium-1.473977

'If someone writes Hezbollah on a bus shelter, that's anti-Israel. If someone writes it on a synagogue, that's anti-Semitic," Anshel Pfeffer is told. The third in a series on Scottish Jews.
By Anshel Pfeffer | Nov.02, 2012
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.473999.1351850060!/image/1906057921.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1906057921.jpg

GLASGOW - Scottish Jews will proudly tell you that theirs is the only country in Europe where a Jew has never been murdered for being a Jew. However, a few will cynically add that although this may be accurate historically, the local community is small and relatively young, going back only two centuries. Also, as part of the British Isles, Scotland was one of the few parts of Europe not occupied by Nazi Germany.

How prevalent is anti-Semitism in Scotland? In a country where the official census records only 6,580 Jews - though the real number is probably somewhere around 10,000 - it is hard to gauge the scale of racism against the community, especially since no one I spoke to there seems to have ever personally experienced anti-Jewish bias. The numbers are not very enlightening. Twenty anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in Scotland in 2011, an increase of 66 percent from 2010, when there were 12.

But almost all these cases were of verbal abuse and minor vandalism, and in only one case was there any physical assault. This was still lower than the highest number recorded, 30 in 2009 - almost all of them verbal abuse. These numbers would seem to represent a rather low level of anti-Semitism: In all of Britain, there were 586 incidents in 2011.

Certainly the Jewish community is not the main focus of religious hatred in Scotland, where old sectarian tensions between Protestants and Catholics still remain. In 2010-2011, charges were brought in 400 cases of hate crimes committed against Catholics and 253 cases of hate crimes against Protestants. In the same period, there were charges in only 16 hate crimes against Jews, but since the Jewish community is so much smaller, this still means that a Jew or a Jewish institution is much likelier to become a target.

Increasingly, also, anti-Semitism - which is rarely felt by the communities within cities - is occurring on university campuses. "Families living within their community and neighborhood may not feel it," says one source, "but it's very different for a young student far away from home."

Indeed, a recent study by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research reported that 52 percent of Jewish students studying in Scotland had witnessed or been subjected to anti-Semitism, compared to 33 percent in London. "Anti-semitism is very low in Scotland," says Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC ). However, he adds that "Jews are more likely to experience hate crimes than members of other religious minorities."

He divides the anti-Semitic incidents into two kinds: verbal anti-Semitism stemming from ignorance, which usually occurs in rural areas, far from the established communities - like the case of a mother who was told by her child's teacher that Jews killed Jesus; and the other, more prominent, kind that Borowski says "is usually Israel-related. You can see that we had a peak in 2009 following Operation Cast Lead in Gaza."

There is a proud radical left-wing tradition in Scottish politics and public life, and Glasgow is often referred to as the most leftist city in Britain. Beyond a belief in trade unionism and the welfare state, this has also been translated into support of foreign causes favored by the left. This previously included the anti-apartheid struggle and, in more recent years, the Palestinian issue. Of course, this does not necessarily lead to anti-Semitism, as many within the Jewish community agree, but they are worried about the crossover. One Jewish lawyer in Glasgow says, "There is some knee-jerk reaction against Israel. I don't believe it is mainly anti-Semitic, but it can be a gateway drug."

Whether a gateway or a disguise, Jews in Scotland, just like other communities around the world, have seen how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism can become combined. In 2006, at the height of the Second Lebanon War, anonymous hands painted the word "Hizbollah [sic]" in large white letters on the sidewalk outside the main gate of Glasgow's Garnethill Synagogue. This was the first time in its history that the synagogue, opened in 1879, had been the target of any kind of attack.

'Worse in Scotland'

"We know that not every criticism of Israel, even fierce criticism, is also anti-Semitic," says Borowski. "If someone writes Hezbollah on a bus shelter, that's anti-Israel. If someone writes it on a synagogue, that's anti-Semitic."

But even when it's not directed against Jews, it seems that feeling among locals regarding Israel is much more negative than south of the border in England. The BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions ) movement calling for a ban on anything Israel-related is particularly prevalent in Glasgow. In the city center there are weekly demonstrations outside branches of the Waitrose and Marks & Spencer chains, calling upon shoppers to boycott them until they stop selling Israeli products.

In Edinburgh, pro-Palestinian campaigners have lobbied the city council not to hire French utility company Veolia, due to its work on the Jerusalem light rail system. And while similar boycott efforts also occur in England, there is a consensus that "it's worse in Scotland."

As one Israeli diplomat says, "Every appearance by an official Israeli representative in Scotland is like a visit to enemy territory." The diplomat may have been exaggerating, but not by much. Every scheduled event in Scotland involving an official or even semi-official Israeli figure will be disrupted by demonstrators.

This was demonstrated very clearly in February 2011, when Israeli diplomat Ishmael Khaldi was invited to speak by the University of Edinburgh's Jewish society. As he began to speak, dozens of activists from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC ) stormed in, pulled down the podium and prevented him from uttering a word. Khaldi, a Bedouin, was called a Nazi by the protesters and, for over an hour, was not allowed to continue and eventually left without speaking.

While Khaldi, as a diplomat, should expect to have to stand up for the policies of the government he represents wherever he goes, often in the face of severe criticism - what about the case of a lone Jewish student attacked on campus for his affinity to Israel? The most traumatic example of this was at the venerable University of St Andrews. Late one night in March 2011, Chanan Reitblat, an exchange student from Yeshiva University, was visited in his room by two fellow students, who were checking on a friend who roomed with Reitblat and had passed out drunk. They noticed a large Israel flag that Reitblat had on his wall; one of them opened his trousers, rubbed his hands over his genitals and then rubbed them over the flag. Reitblat claimed that they had called him a terrorist and that one student urinated in the sink.

ive months later, a local court convicted one of the students, Paul Donnachie, of a breach of the peace - and, more significantly, that this had been racially motivated. Donnachie was sentenced to a 300-pound fine and 150 hours' community service and was expelled from St Andrews.

Donnachie and his SPSC supporters refused to accept that any action directed against Israel could be categorized as "racist" and appealed the verdict, but lost again in the Scottish High Court this April. While the ruling was hailed by Jewish organizations in Scotland, the head of SPSC, Mick Napier, said: "All the hostilities by Donnachie were against an Israeli state symbol. We have a record of not tolerating any species of racism and anti-Semitism. We work very hard to distinguish between them and it is our opponents who seek to conflate the two issues. A national flag is a political symbol and an Israeli flag is provocation to people who see it as a symbol of a terrorist state."

The rulings in the Reitblat case demonstrated that, despite the political and public atmosphere in Scotland, there was very little tolerance on the part of the courts and law enforcement for anything that seems like racism. In May, over 50 police officers took part in the arrests of five men and a teenager in Glasgow following a six-month investigation. Their alleged crime was posting racist comments on a Facebook page entitled "Welcome to Israel, only kidding you're in Giffnock" (a suburb of southeast Glasgow where many Jewish families live ).

Facebook had removed the page in 2011, almost as soon as it received complaints of its anti-Semitic nature, though only after the page had already attracted over 1,000 followers. There are, of course, many thousands of cases of racism of all varieties on the Web. Most go unchallenged, at best they are removed, but a full-scale police investigation is almost unheard of in any country.

The sensitivity toward hate crimes is partly because of the Scottish government's commitment toward minorities, but to a larger degree due to what is often regarded as "Scotland's shame" - the sectarianism between Protestants and Catholics. While not as deep as in the past, the divide between Scotland's two largest communities still exists. Many Catholic children study in separate "faith schools" and while illegal, there are still cases of discrimination on religious grounds, particularly in employment at private businesses.

But the worst sectarianism is still centered around Scottish soccer, especially the ancient rivalry between the two great clubs of Glasgow, Celtic (Catholic ) and Rangers (Protestant ). Years of anti-racism campaigns were unsuccessful in reducing the sectarian tension, and hate-filled songs would probably still be sung at "Old Firm" matches between the two if Rangers hadn't gone bankrupt earlier this year and been exiled to the distant Third Division. This didn't stop Celtic fans from posting hateful pictures of Rangers players as dead bodies or zombies.

Crossing the line

Some observers believe that the Protestant-Catholic hatred has been so strong in Scotland that other ethnic hatreds, such as anti-Semitism, had no space to evolve. Neither club has large numbers of Jewish supporters, but there is still a bizarre connection to the Middle East conflict: Celtic supporters identify with the Republican struggle to end British rule of Northern Ireland and, by extension, also support the Palestinian cause. Occasionally, they fly the Palestinian national flag, with Rangers fans responding with Israeli flags.

Jim Murphy, a senior Labour Party MP representing East Renfrewshire - the suburban area of Glasgow where most of the Jewish community resides - and, until two years ago, secretary of state for Scotland, believes that sectarianism overshadows antipathy toward Jews.

Sectarianism is a deep dark divide, which is beginning to improve," Murphy says. "Anti-Semitism exists, but it is arguably less than in the rest of the UK, though of course we shouldn't be complacent." He sees very little hatred on the streets and is mainly worried about online racism. "You can't control crazies on the Internet. When I was chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, I was getting the most abuse from the Internet and it wasn't anti-Israel or anti-Zionism - it was sheer anti-Semitism."

Whether or not it's a gateway to anti-Semitism, Scots with a political conscience are usually pro-Palestinian. Dundee's council voted to twin itself with Nablus as far back as 1980, and some members of the community remember anti-Israeli graffiti on the local synagogue around that time. In 2007 Glasgow was paired up with Bethlehem, but there are no similar relations with Israeli cities.

Anti-Israel motions and initiatives will usually be sponsored by a member of the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish National Party. Unlike other major British parties, the SNP does not have a "Friends of Israel" association. "It's the left-wing tradition but also the fact that the Muslim community here is much larger than the Jewish one, and SNP politicians are pandering for votes," says one Jewish activist.

On the other hand, there is a general consensus within the community that the SNP has been very careful to differentiate between its policies toward Israel, and its warm relations with the Jews of Scotland. Few encounter animus in their daily lives. Ziv Dotan, an Israeli computer programmer living in Glasgow, says that "the average Scot isn't interested in the Middle East. There is a small minority which is very interested and has taken it upon themselves to lead the anti-Israel line, but their voice is disproportional to their actual size." Another community member says, "When I get back from my holidays and say at work that I was in Israel, people are mildly interested but no one is hostile."

Occasionally, there are times when the Scottish media crosses the line, such as when popular columnist Tom Shields wrote a piece in the Glasgow Herald attacking Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Titled "If Giffnock was Gaza," Shields wrote that residents of that neighborhood and Newton Mearns - two areas with large numbers of Jewish residents - would find it hard to get to upscale supermarkets and private schools if they had to suffer travel restrictions such as those imposed by Israel on the Palestinians.

Many Jewish readers were incensed at Shields for dragging the local community into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and for ascribing to the stereotype of "rich Jews." Shields was unrepentant, saying he had merely chosen two suburbs with a high proportion of supporters of Israel. The daily's editor eventually apologized, saying there were no anti-Semitic intentions in the column.

The SPSC is considered provocative even by its English counterparts. Among the group's stunts is the annual event it holds to commemorate the Holocaust with Hamas supporters speaking of Palestinian suffering. But SPSC head Napier insists: "We keep anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism strictly apart. Scots have always been very friendly to Jews."

As in other countries, the distinction between harsh criticism of Israel and "judeophobia" is further blurred by the presence of Jews in the anti-Israel camp. In August, the Israeli dance company Batsheva performed at the Edinburgh International Festival, despite a petition by prominent Scottish writers and poets to boycott the show and attempts by SPSC members to disrupt the dancers mid-performance. . Meanwhile, members of Sukkat Shalom - the "Edinburgh Liberal Jewish Community" - greeted each other from either side of the battle lines.Some arrived at the festival hall as concertgoers, along with Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat and ambassador to Britain Daniel Taub; others, also members of the tiny Scottish Jews for a Just Peace group, were part of the demonstration favoring a boycott.

Life isn't simple for Scottish Zionists, either. "We were always very strong Zionist left-wingers here," says Mervyn Lovat, a lecturer at Glasgow Business School, "but it's getting more and more difficult to be supportive of Israel, especially since two of my sons moved there. I just can't understand why they [Israel] do those things."

Despite those feelings, one community member who regularly fund-raises for Israeli and Jewish causes says, "It's extremely rare that someone tells me they are not prepared to give any money for Israel, though it has happened." Most apparently prefer to hide their criticism.

Says Nick Black, a member of the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council: "You have to support Israel, whatever it does, because if you criticize here in Scotland, there will be those who exploit what you say."

[Anglojew]

Interesting article.

[Graham]

New rights for the homeless come into force
30 December 2012 Last updated at 23:50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20870160
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/24/1327402627381/Edinburgh-rough-sleeper-007.jpg

Legislation which aims to effectively end homelessness in Scotland has come into force.

The change entitles anyone finding themselves homeless through no fault of their own to settled accommodation.

Previously, only those classed as being in priority need - often families with children - had that right.

It meets Scotland's historic 2012 homelessness commitment, first set 10 years ago by the Labour/Lib Dem government.

The change, passed unanimously last month under the Homelessness (Abolition of Priority Need Test) (Scotland) Order 2012, will give an estimated 3,000 more people a year the right to settled accommodation.

As the changes came into force, the deputy first minister also announced £300,000 would be spent over the next two years to help councils with their efforts to prevent homelessness.

'Heartache and trauma'

Nicola Sturgeon said: "This is a landmark day in the fight against homelessness.

"I know the heartache and trauma of homelessness from working closely with households faced with the prospect of losing the roof over their head.

"Meeting our 2012 commitment guarantees that those who lose their home from no fault of their own will be guaranteed settled accommodation.

"It is absolutely right to offer this guarantee in a time of crisis for people. It sends the signal that we are there to help, there is hope and that the state will do what it can."

Official figures from February 2012 suggested the number of homeless people in Scotland is at its lowest for a decade.

Graeme Brown, director of the housing and homelessness charity Shelter Scotland, said: "Scotland can be very proud that it is making history by meeting the 2012 commitment - which is internationally regarded as the cutting edge of progressive homelessness reform.

"I congratulate all the local authorities who have made widespread changes in order to meet their new responsibilities to homeless people."

[Graham]

Spies could already be operating in Scotland - claim
Published on Friday 8 February 2013 13:34
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/spies-could-already-be-operating-in-scotland-claim-1-2781455
http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2781483.1360330469!image/1117210748.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/1117210748.jpg

WHITEHALL “spies” may already be embedded in the civil service in Scotland ready to leak intelligence in the event of independence, a former British civil servant has suggested.

• “Sleepers” could already be embedded in Scottish Government departments

James Aitken, formerly involved in overseas development, said “sleepers” may have been placed “ready to be activated as required”.

Scotland would be at a “considerable disadvantage” in the negotiations that would follow a Yes vote, Mr Aitken wrote in The Scottish Review.

Scottish negotiators with little international experience other than fish talks and a few trade missions would face a “formidable” team ready to secure the best deal for the remainder of the UK, he said.

The UK may also get help from US intelligence agents keen to safeguard the UK nuclear deterrent, he said, while the best Scottish negotiators could hope for is a few “spilled beans” from Whitehall.

Mr Aitken managed British aid programmes to a number of developing countries including Kenya, Uganda and India during his time at Whitehall.

He said: “It’s a fair bet that any paper produced on independence by St Andrew’s House will be circulating in Whitehall’s red boxes within 24 hours, along with reports on discussions in private office and ministerial exchanges.

“Sigint (signal intelligence) can provide access to the computer system while Humint (human intelligence) will fill in the gaps.

“It would be surprising if ‘sleepers’ have not been embedded in St Andrew’s House and Victoria Quay, ready to be activated as required.”

Nuclear deterrent

He added: “The US has made it plain in the past that a nuclear-armed UK is in US interests.

“It follows that any threat to the UK deterrent is a threat to the US and our security services can look to support from US agencies even in activities which might be considered dubious under UK law.”

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has said Scotland would enter post-independence negotiations from “a position of weakness”, in contrast to the diminished but still “comparatively large, wealthy and powerful” UK.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has predicted everyone will rally round in the event of independence to secure the best deal for “Team Scotland”, regardless of their current political position.

Mr Aitken said: “Whitehall has a significant pool of civil servants who have experience of international negotiation both with governments and in international organisations like the UN and the EU.

“This includes both staff in the Foreign Office and Whitehall home departments where the latter’s experience of EU committees will give them a particular advantage.

“The sheer number of staff with relevant experience means that Whitehall will be able to staff and service a large number of committees with people who have already honed their skills in the international arena.”

He added: “Coupled with the institutional memory of the home departments, this provides a formidable negotiating structure, with the capacity to cover a large-scale negotiation in depth.

“By comparison, because of the nature of its current remit, the Scottish Government is unlikely to have many staff with direct experience of international negotiations.

“Some will have participated in EU fisheries negotiations, others may have some experience through trade organisations or Scotland’s overseas aid programme but there does not appear to be a similar breath of experience to that held by Whitehall.”

He said the Scottish Government “may not have sufficient suitably experienced staff to service the negotiations, let alone reach a settlement which is in Scotland’s interests”.

He added: “The best the Scottish Government can hope for is probably a few spilled beans from Whitehall, or possibly some hints from well-placed people who feel Scotland is getting a bad deal.”

[Graham]

^^^
A silly story from our funny press. They'll do anything to put off people from voting yes. :D

[Garbo]

I am at the moment in that city of the photo. Love it to bits. I liked York a lot, so when the course finished and I came over here to do an internship I was kind of sad to leave Yorkshire...

Not anymore, I can confidently say I like this place every bit as much, even though this is jammed with Spaniards. Tourists, students, au pairs,...many of them in hospitality too...even pensioners!! It feels like some kind of revenge for Fuengirola or Benidorm xD

[Graham]

It is a nice City, once they get the tram works done. :D York & Edinburgh. You have good taste. :) I like the tourists.

[Garbo]

It is a nice City, once they get the tram works done. :D York & Edinburgh. You have good taste. :) I like the tourists.

I have been lucky so far. I am from Tarragona, went to uni in Valencia, spent Erasmus in Berlin, Seneca in Granada and Leonardo in Florence. Guess the EU had a couple advantages after all :D

The British Isles tour is on me though. I am doing an internship here until August. Then I may head to Dublin to keep learning English or I may go down to London for a masters degree .The hard part is I need further 5 grand, my family is in austerity mode, and the internship barely pays for the cost of living in Morningside. I have tried to find cheaper rents elsewhere, but we would only be saving like 50 quid and for 450 all I see is ratholes....

Anyway, love this place. Great Salmon, great beef,MacEwans pale ale and Jura single malt ftw

Irn Bru and fried mars bars aren't bad either :D

Jazz Bar and Bongo Club: great spots. Pentlands? I can literally head there walking. Morning Side: a bit too many hipsters, but this in turn provides with lots of cafes, cultural scene and second hand shops

[Žołnir]

I always tought James Bond is actually Scottish. :D

[Graham]

I have been lucky so far. I am from Tarragona, went to uni in Valencia, spent Erasmus in Berlin, Seneca in Granada and Leonardo in Florence. Guess the EU had a couple advantages after all :D

The British Isles tour is on me though. I am doing an internship here until August. Then I may head to Dublin to keep learning English or I may go down to London for a masters degree .The hard part is I need further 5 grand, my family is in austerity mode, and the internship barely pays for the cost of living in Morningside. I have tried to find cheaper rents elsewhere, but we would only be saving like 50 quid and for 450 all I see is ratholes....

Anyway, love this place. Great Salmon, great beef,MacEwans pale ale and Jura single malt ftw

Irn Bru and fried mars bars aren't bad either :D

Try Barrs Red Kola if you see it. Same company as Irn Bru. Also Tablet, coconut Macaroon & caramel Shortbread.

Morningside, is posh. It has a national reputation for being refined. Nice though.

My friends stay in Stockbridge in a tiny flat, very expensive.

[Albannach]

Seriously the anti-independence Scare stories in the "Scottish" press get more ridiculous by the day.

Free press doesn't exist in Scotland. The Scottish media serves no other purpose than to spread pro-union propaganda. Most of the rags would put Pravda to shame.

[Graham]

They're too plugged into Labour & the Tories.

The Telegraph, Express & Daily Mail have gone full steam Unionists, most of it's 'bullshite' & Lies. Daily Record & Scotsman do what Labour do.

The Herald & Guardian don't seem to be as bad. Noticed the Daily Record & Sun have become a bit more neutral as of late.
It's an upwards battle.

[Graham]

For Example.. all the Telegraph Scotland stories in the last couple of weeks.

Don't tell me this is fair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/

http://imageshack.us/a/img267/521/62325828.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img850/7742/33266886.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img593/4149/85758142.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img62/7280/31315064.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img442/1650/14365931.jpg

[Germanicus]

Unfortunately the Scottish voter will not be voting for independance, the unemployment figures show that Employment is 71.9% of working age adults, this figure means Scotland will be a burden to us English for many years to come.

[Garbo]

Unfortunately the Scottish voter will not be voting for independance, the unemployment figures show that Employment is 71.9% of working age adults, this figure means Scotland will be a burden to us English for many years to come.

that makes around 29% of unemployed people in working age. not too far from
the worst of the Spanish autonomous regions: Andalusia and the Canary Islands pushing 30%


Mmmm... it doesn't feel that way over here. Can you add any sources?

[Germanicus]

that makes around 29% of unemployed people in working age. not too far from
the worst of the Spanish autonomous regions: Andalusia and the Canary Islands pushing 30%


Mmmm... it doesn't feel that way over here. Can you add any sources?

It was stated that the population of Scotland is 5 million, but out of this 5 million, only 164,000 are in employment and actually paying income tax.
However, within these figures one has to consider the number of people employed by HMG. Are these people really paying income tax, or is HMG giving with one hand and taking with the other? HMG makes no net tax gain by employing government employees, so including them in these figures is misleading statistically.

I'm afraid I cannot give you the figures excluding government sponsored employment, as the government chooses not to disclose such figures.

[Germanicus]

Bump

[Graham]

keyman either lies, or has read incorrect or read a lie. lol

Does anyone believe that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21160662

[Graham]

OK I see what the problem is. Employment & unemployment are two different things. Not sure how Employment is calculated, it may well omit the self-employed perhaps?

Here's the Stats up until November 2012

http://imageshack.us/a/img547/3899/scoq.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/6170/employ.jpg

In 2010, Scotland’s dependency ratio was estimated to have been lower than in the UK. Dependency ratios show the number of dependants (children aged under 16 and people of Pensionable age) per 1,000 working age population.

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/889/depend.jpg

[Graham]

Massive sample of 1003 Scots. Which would make this the most accurate Scottish opinion on EU membership.



Do You Think There Should Be A Referendum on EU Membership?

http://imageshack.us/a/img18/8594/refib.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img715/5938/ref1s.jpg

Voting Intentions
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/1419/ref2q.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img708/7871/ref3lm.jpg

EU Membership In an Independent Scotland
http://imageshack.us/a/img534/548/ref4z.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/231/ref5.jpg

[Jackson]

Massive sample of 1003 Scots. Which would make this the most accurate Scottish opinion on EU membership.



Do You Think There Should Be A Referendum on EU Membership?

http://imageshack.us/a/img18/8594/refib.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img715/5938/ref1s.jpg

Voting Intentions
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/1419/ref2q.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img708/7871/ref3lm.jpg

EU Membership In an Independent Scotland
http://imageshack.us/a/img534/548/ref4z.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/231/ref5.jpg

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Looks like Scotland and the UK have an interesting time ahead. Potentially UK sans Scotland leaving the EU, and Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU. Should be interesting lol.

At least people are more pro-referendum now. At least it should settle matters hopefully, no matter what the outcome. Provided that it is fair and the government don't throw millions into a yes campaign (which is what will happen).

[Graham]

The voting intention almost mirrors the Scottish referendum. The poll could show, that Scots may help the pro EU camp, if it stays in the UK.

Am in the smaller pro Scottish independence from the EU & UK. lol

[Jackson]

The voting intention almost mirrors the Scottish referendum. The poll could show, that Scots may help the pro EU camp, if it stays in the UK.

Am in the smaller pro Scottish independence from the EU & UK. lol

Yeah it's quite incredible really. I guess it's the SNP focusing on an anti-UK pro-EU stance, and the Scottish MPs being generally pro-EU that partially creates this?

Need more voting like yourself i think. Going into the EU from the UK is just a trade-off rather than a benefit most likely.

[Graham]

Yeah it's quite incredible really. I guess it's the SNP focusing on an anti-UK pro-EU stance, and the Scottish MPs being generally pro-EU that partially creates this?

Need more voting like yourself i think. Going into the EU from the UK is just a trade-off rather than a benefit most likely.

It mainly comes from Labour voters, rather than the SNP. The last poll I posted(smaller sample). Showed the same as this.

[Graham]

18 February 2013

Scots are no Euro-enthusiasts
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/1323/Scots-are-no-Euroenthusiasts.aspx

Next year’s vote on Scotland’s constitutional future will not be the only in/out referendum being held in the next few years. Since the Prime Minister announced his intention to hold a vote on Britain’s membership of the EU if the Conservatives win the next election outright, measuring public support on this issue has become ever more important.

Of course, if the 2014 independence results in a ‘Yes’ vote, Scotland may not still be part of the UK at the time of the EU referendum and so Scots will not get the chance to vote. But what is clear from our latest poll is that, while Scots could hardly be characterised as unbridled Euro-enthusiasts, there is a more favourable view of the EU than exists south of the border.

A little over half of Scots (53%) would vote for Britain to stay in the EU if the referendum were held now, compared to a third (34%) who would prefer Britain to leave. Our November 2012 poll revealed a different story among English voters, half of whom would prefer Britain to get out of the EU with around four in ten (42%) wanting to retain membership.

A more detailed look at the numbers reveals a level of consensus across political lines on the issue in Scotland that is not evident in England, with support for staying in the EU outweighing opposition among supporters of all political parties in Scotland.

This extends to Conservative voters, traditionally seen as the most Euro-sceptic, but where 46% are content to remain in the EU while 37% wish to leave. This is in stark contrast to Conservative supporters across Britain as a whole where only 37% want Britain to remain members and 58% would back Britain leaving. Support for the EU is also higher among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters in Scotland than their counterparts in England, suggesting a wider pro-EU consensus north of the border. This points to the view that the issue of EU membership is not the same politically explosive issue in Scotland as it is in England.

It appears that, regardless of whether Scotland becomes independent or not, the public in Scotland is broadly supportive of maintaining close ties with the rest of the EU.

This article was originally published in The Times

[Jackson]

This is interesting, because if Scotland leaves before referendum on EU it could be better for those in the rest of the UK who want to leave - given that Scots are more pro-EU than English. I don't know about the Welsh and Northern Irish. I guess it leaves you in a tricky situation though?

[Graham]

We only make 8.4% of the UK population. So our vote only matters, if a small swing vote is needed. What England votes, is what England gets most of the time.

English farmers don't receive as much EU help per capita, as Scots, Welsh & Irish farmers get per year.

England -- €23,659,375,051
Scotland -- €5,080,191,286
Northern Ireland -- €3,351,388,898
Wales -- €2,296,181,377

[Jackson]

We only make 8.4% of the UK population. So our vote only matters, if a small swing vote is needed. What England votes, is what England gets most of the time.

English farmers don't receive as much EU help per capita, as Scots, Welsh & Irish farmers get per year.

England -- €23,659,375,051
Scotland -- €5,080,191,286
Northern Ireland -- €3,351,388,898
Wales -- €2,296,181,377

True, but every little counts i suppose. And yeah it's actually quite visible the amount of funds Scotland receives from the EU - I remember going through one part of Scotland (I can't remember where) and there was this EU funded road. Admittedly it was a nice road, but they clearly were putting their mark down, EU signs all over the place. :P

[Graham]

That would probably be the highlands. The EU is much better for rural areas & European minority cultures than, the UK is. The UK has been a disaster for the highlands.

The fishermen on the East Coast, would be delighted to break out the EU & those involved with Scots Law. :P

[Graham]

Once you take out the don't knows. Prefer to look at it, this way.

Vote to Leave

40.5% Overall

41.5% Men
38.5% women

45% 55+
40% 35-54
36% 25-34
29% 18-24

45.5% Conservatives
44.0% Scottish National Party
34.0% Labour
25.0% Liberal Democrats

[Heart of Oak]

Yes I think the scots should be able to govern themselves, however this is something I believe them to be unable to do; at this time; I would think it a great achivement if they were able to support themselves::::

[Graham]

EU strikes, on the day I talk about EU subsidies. lol!

http://imageshack.us/a/img708/7760/eurofw.jpg

[Graham]

Just a wee insight into minds. :cool:

-------------------------------------------

40 musicians answer the Scottish independence question

6 May
http://thepopcop.co.uk/2013/05/40-musicians-answer-the-scottish-independence-question/
With just 500 days until Scotland’s independence referendum takes place on September 18, 2014, The Pop Cop asked 40 musicians from the Scottish music scene the same question that will be on the ballot – “Should Scotland be an independent country?” – giving each of them the choice of ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Undecided’ and inviting them to explain their answer.
From the 40 surveyed, the results were: 13 Yes, 7 No, 20 Undecided.


Jamie Sutherland – Broken Records (09/04/13)
No
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jamie-Sutherland-Broken-Records-150x150.jpg
A bit of a head and heart thing here. The heart says ‘Yes’, absolutely, as to have the chance to have a completely independent national dialogue with no outside influence is in many ways the dream. However, the head says that I have never seen a set of figures or old-fashioned business plan that has convinced me we have what it takes to truly be a success as an independent country, and indeed I can’t see the brain drain of Scottish ingenuity stopping if we were to become independent. We would still lose our best people to London and other big financial/cultural centres of the world, yet now receive no benefit for it. Also, the tone of the independence campaign, and specifically the SNP, has left me cold in the purity of its ideals. To paraphrase that renowned philosopher Slaven Bilic (Croatian football coach) when referencing his own country’s problems with its neighbours, you should define being Scottish by what you are for, not what you are against. To simply want to throw two fingers up to those down south seems like the ultimate form of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Dan Willson – Withered Hand (09/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dan-Willson-Withered-Hand-150x150.jpg
It’s a rare thing for nations to be joined in a Union of peace and relative prosperity to be neighbours for such a long time and if we ever lose that, it’s likely to be gone for good. I have yet to be convinced that independence will automatically be a good thing for Scotland. I often think it’s more helpful to think in terms of what we have in common with our neighbours in England than what we have apart. I will admit, however, that the current truly pitiful state of the coalition UK government and the lack of serious leftist political opposition in Westminster has recently led me to reconsider my stance on independence on those grounds alone. Therefore I am currently undecided.

Kenny Anderson – King Creosote (10/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Kenny-Anderson-King-Creosote-150x150.jpg
For lack of a compelling argument.

Katie Sutherland (11/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Katie-Sutherland-150x150.jpg
It makes sense to me. It’s wise to take this opportunity and place this country in our own hands. Scotland elected one Tory MP in the last general election yet still there is a Tory government in power. We need a fairer future. Surely we want to build the type of country we want our children and further generations to live in?

Craig B – The Unwinding Hours (11/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Craig-B-The-Unwinding-Hours-150x150.jpg
It seems quite clear that we need an alternative to what is on offer right now. My faith in the potential for public engagement was completely trampled by Tony Blair and the Labour government’s decision to enter into a completely unjustified war in spite of widespread protest. I will never forget the lies and flimsy reasoning used to connect this country with the invasion of another. The Conservatives have just continued in their predictably distasteful pursuit of personal gain, looking after the financial sector over and above the concerns of the greater public, with so little concern for the vulnerable or how most families live on a day-to-day basis. I see independence for Scotland as a possible alternative but I’m basing that on the failure of other parties. I don’t want to swap one government for another that disregards the needs of the people in an attempt to cosy up to the requirements of powerful businesses or financial institutions. I want a clear commitment from Scottish independent candidates that there will be a different approach. If an independent Scotland is to become a reality then it must be with open, transparent intentions and clearly defined economic strategies. I’m happy to remain undecided so that those wanting power have to convince me this is the right way forward for everyone and not only the elite few.

Rab Allan – Glasvegas (11/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rab-Allan-Glasvegas-150x150.jpg
At the moment, Scotland is run by a government that the majority of us did not vote for. Until we have independence we will never live in a fair, democratic society. Every country should have the right to make its own decisions based on its own values. It has been made apparent time and again that our priorities, our needs and our values are not always the same as people living in the rest of the UK. Yes, we are a small country but we have always been a country of pioneers who have led the way in science, engineering and so many other fields, not least music and the arts. We are an intelligent country full of character and determination with wealthy natural resources and are more than capable of shaping our own future. The future that we want, not the future someone else decides we deserve.

Sanjeev Kohli – The Grand Gestures (15/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Sanjeev-Kohli-The-Grand-Gestures-150x150.jpg
Reasons? Politically and fiscally, there are too many undecided variables – will Scotland get ALL the Caramel Wafer revenue? Will it be backdated? Culturally, I like to flip between Scottish and British; when I hear Belle & Sebastian or Chic Murray or Ivor Cutler I’m proud to be a Scot; when I hear Portishead or Jarvis Cocker or the work of Chris Morris I’m proud to be a Brit; and whenever I see Piers Morgan’s face I’m proud to be a Lithuanian. I do feel, though, that Scotland projects enough of a sense of Scottishness without independence.


More to post..

[Driven Mind]

Although it will be tough if Scotland breaks the "chains" from The U.K. I think it's already time to do so.With the petrol in Scotish North Sea the rest of The U.K. will struggle in deep recession.

[Graham]

Dave Hook – Stanley Odd (15/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dave-Hook-Stanley-Odd-150x150.jpg
I take exception to decisions regarding Scotland being decided by a parliament in Westminster and I have concerns about issues such as taxation and revenue generation being centrally controlled and handed out to the Scottish government, but I am not sure whether complete independence is the answer or whether further devolved powers within the UK would be sufficient. The stability and success of other small European countries such as Norway and Sweden are encouraging and I find the equality of wages in Scandinavia to be very appealing in terms of quality of life for all of society. However, I also have concerns with regards to Scotland’s GDP. I am not clear on how the oil revenue would be distributed were Scotland to vote for independence and it is not apparent to me what our major exports would be. I feel I need to see more hard facts regarding what would happen with the country economically in order to make an informed decision. I am completely in favour of scrapping Trident and removing nuclear arms from Scotland, so that would certainly be another reason I would consider a ‘Yes’ vote.

Barrie-James O’Neill – Kassidy (15/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Barrie-James-O%E2%80%99Neill-Kassidy1-150x150.jpg
I’m not really convinced anyone would notice much of a difference if it did happen. I’m sure it would be beneficial to the ghosts behind the scenes. I see voting as like an illusion – an imaginary change, people feeling like they are involved in things going on in their country when really it’s always out of our hands. It’s a lot like writing a letter to Santa Claus. Better to have an imaginary friend.

Ross Leighton – Fatherson (16/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ross-Leighton-Fatherson-150x150.jpg
If people are looking for a stronger feeling of national identity then independence is probably for them. I just wouldn’t want to see us bite off more than we can chew. There’s always going to be a risk in this kind of situation but I really don’t know enough about the ins and outs to give an educated answer. But I do know that for bands touring the UK, getting caught up at customs going into England from Scotland would become a total nightmare!

Kerr Okan – The LaFontaines (17/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Kerr-Okan-The-LaFontaines-150x150.jpg
From what reliable information I can gather we would thrive as an independent country but it comes down to representation and the lack of voice we currently have in the UK. It’s demonstrated year after year how little say Scotland has in electing our Prime Minister. How can we expect to progress and better ourselves as a nation or have our views represented at an international level when we’re under the thumb of a party practically no one up here wanted or agrees with?

Susie Smillie – Olympic Swimmers (18/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Susie-Smillie-Olympic-Swimmers1.jpg
I haven’t decided yet, because I don’t need to – not for another year. When it comes to voting I want to feel confident I’ve made an informed decision, that I’ve read as much as I can (and I don’t mean other people’s Facebook updates), that I’ve tried to understand what both decisions would mean not just for Scotland but for the other countries of the UK because it’s important to consider the impact on them too. I’m uncomfortable with ‘us and them’. I’ve never felt British, I’ve only ever felt Scottish – but that’s not a good enough reason for me to vote ‘Yes’. I love Scotland, I love its beauty, its history, its culture, its community, I feel connected to it – but that’s also not a good enough reason for me to vote ‘Yes’. I’ve never given my vote to either of the parties that have governed the UK in my lifetime (I’m not even sure I know many people who have), I’ve never felt represented by them, I’ve never felt that their ideology was aligned with my beliefs, I’ve often been ashamed of them and the decisions they’ve made in my name – but that’s also not a good enough reason to make me vote ‘Yes’. Ultimately I want my decision to be based on what seems right for the future of Scotland and the UK, not based on the past. Ask me again in a year and I hope I can give you a more definitive answer.

James Yorkston (21/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/James-Yorkston1.jpg
I believe Scotland is a distinct country and should be governed by the people who inhabit Scotland and have the best interests of Scotland at heart.

Gerard Love – Teenage Fanclub/Lightships (22/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gerard-Love-Teenage-Fanclub-Lightships-150x150.jpg
I’m pro-independence but I’m also aware of the many benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. Maybe as things become clearer in the run-up to the referendum I might be able to form a real opinion but at the moment my mind isn’t made up and I’m still not sure how I’ll vote.

John Cummings – Mogwai (22/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/John-Cummings-Mogwai.jpg
Countries should be independent. Scotland is a country.




Emma Pollock (23/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Emma-Pollock-150x150.jpg
I’ve never really been one for politics. The whole thing reminds me of being back in the school playground trying to negotiate my way through endless shifting seas of loyalty, betrayal and the occasional fist fight when blood ran high. Everything about it seems utterly confused and diluted by ulterior motive, manipulation and underhand tactics. The Scottish independence debate has, however, grabbed my attention. The devolved Scottish parliament has achieved a lot of great things, and I like the fact it can represent a country that has a subtly different way of looking at things when compared to its Union neighbours. We are becoming more at ease with taking control over national issues and this control is now jealously guarded as we witness increased division between approaches in England & Wales and Scotland with regards to health care, education and elements of social reform. To be continually dictated to by a party we did not choose will be harder to bear as the years progress. I am, as I suspect many are, nervous of voting ‘Yes’ just because it’s a nice idea to rule your own roost and it is of course human nature to want to divide and then subdivide geographical areas of power into smaller and smaller areas to give more localised control. We still have no real understanding of the fiscal and economic impact and given the recent currency row I can only imagine what other complications will be thrown up by both sides between now and the referendum. No-one, therefore, can tell us exactly what we will be walking into but on balance it seems increasingly worth taking the chance on.

Rachel Sermanni (23/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rachel-Sermanni-150x150.jpg
The reason I think ‘Yes’ is curiosity. I’m curious to see what happens. I know enough of history to know that this would be a very pivotal event. I’m not very confident in our Scottish government. They would really need to work for things to work. But I’d be intrigued to see how strong the communities become with a stronger sense of self-reliance and identity. I’d like to see if becoming a smaller ‘company’ brings more focus and understanding, and makes the government’s grounding more human, personal and innovative. Curiosity. That’s it for me.

[Graham]

Although it will be tough if Scotland breaks the "chains" from The U.K. I think it's already time to do so.With the petrol in Scotish North Sea the rest of The U.K. will struggle in deep recession.

Only the other day, a report came out from the internationally neutral OECD & said there was up to £2.5 and £4 trillion in oil reserves left.

London will still do well.. It's not plugged into the UK, but into Financial Globalism. South East will be ok. It always is.

John Cummings gives the most flame-proof argument in the debate, you can't argue that.

[YeshAtid]

I feel if the people of Scotland want it they should be independent

[Graham]

Karine Polwart (24/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Karine-Polwart-150x150.jpg
I’m not sure if the question ought to be whether Scotland should be an independent country. I think an independent Scotland could be – and needs to be. Better than this supposedly ‘together’ UK that seems hell-bent on driving us apart from each other. But it’s up to the people who live here to make it that way. There’s no certainty, only a once-in-my-lifetime opportunity. Visceral alienation from Westminster – and from neoliberal policies that engender cruelty, indignity and inequality (the abandonment of the NHS, welfare reform propaganda) – is the heart of it for me. I observe a profound and permanent erosion of communitarian values amongst the political and economic elite at UK level. And I sense something different here: an opportunity, with extended powers to a parliamentary infrastructure that already manages a whack of our affairs, to reassert those values as the underpinning for a whole country. Of course, the taxes we need to support a caring, compassionate, creative and sustainable society depend upon a thriving economy. But it’s not all about whether each individual or family will be better or worse off. The American songwriter Si Kahn sums it up for me:
It’s not just what you’re born with
It’s what you choose to bear
It’s not how big your share is
But how much you can share
And it’s not the fights you dreamed of
But those you really fought
It’s not what you’ve been given
It’s what you do with what you’ve got

Justin Currie (24/04/13)
No
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Justin-Currie-150x150.jpg
I don’t like the Scots. I don’t like them at all. They’re close-lipped, tight-fisted, pass-remarkable and bad at football. They’re cold-hearted and hot-tempered, they’re mottle-fleshed and pig-headed. They’re drunkards, cowards and traitors. They’re lily-livered, if you like. They’re bad losers, ill-mannered, foul-breathed and mean-spirited. They’re past caring, they’re beyond reprieve, they’re the snot on England’s sleeve. They’ve ruined everything, left us wanting. They’ve taken all that’s good and made it tawdry, they’ve spoilt the country, closed their ears to the plight of many, they’re blinded by the smell of money. They’re pigs-in-shit, you’ll never hear the end of it. Fucking Flower Of Scotland, stupid tartan tea-cup morons. They’re everywhere, the little shits, trying to stir it up, get their little bit of something rotten. Do you want a country of your own with a queen and an army and a god maybe to treasure and inspire when it’s time to go to war? Are you ready to be told by some fool who talks like you but has the morals of a goat? Well, I’m not and I don’t and I won’t, I won’t, I won’t.

Gibran Farrah – There Will Be Fireworks (25/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gibran-FarrahThere-Will-Be-Fireworks-150x150.jpg
The reason I’m undecided on independence is pretty simple: I’m very indecisive. However, no-one has yet made a genuinely convincing argument for or against independence. The ‘No’ campaign is hopelessly negative. The essence of their campaign is that Scotland can’t survive independence. That we rely on being part of the UK, and that we ‘get more than we put in’. I haven’t seen it articulated quite as bluntly as that but it’s definitely implied, and I hate that. Not only do I think it’s not true but it plays to the cynical side in all of us. In saying that, I feel the ‘Yes’ campaign is a little too positive. I’d be more convinced by arguments which addressed some of the current problems our country faces and suggested why independence would make them easier to tackle. There is a reason I’m leaning towards a ‘Yes’, though. The one argument I do find appealing is that Scotland should be governed by its own people, and that this could mean more policies created from a Scottish outlook. As a nation, we’ve shown ourselves to be far more socially democratic than the rest of the UK so, as a bit of lefty liberal sort, I’d hope we could create a more liberal and socially aware society than we ever could as part of the UK.

Stuart Murdoch – Belle & Sebastian (26/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Stuart-Murdoch-Belle-Sebastian-150x150.jpg
Mmm, I don’t know. I used to know. I was for the Union. Back in the day when it felt like Scotland proudly kept the UK leaning left, I was for the Union. What would happen if we left and took our 40+ Labour seats with us? Our poor brothers and sisters in England would be left with a Conservative government for all time. That was my simple assessment. But as Scots, are we in fact as groovy and righteous as perhaps we think we are? And are we all that socialist? Could it partly be an easy anti-London/UK/establishment thing we have going on? Our bluff is about to be called. It’s ‘piss or get off the pot’ time. And please don’t let it be said that we wouldn’t somehow ‘make it’ as an independent democracy. We would. It’s really not that hard. We did it before and we’d do it again. And would we be better off? Frankly, I don’t care. I hate that question. You might be down or up a few quid at the end of the year, but is that worth getting passionate about? I feel like I’m ready to fall in with whatever the country wants to do… BUT… when a body of people votes overwhelmingly against the people who make the laws and spend the taxes, something’s got to give. We’ve got a vote, and we should keep debating. And it should go beyond flags and currencies, teams and armies. What sort of country do we want? Are we happy that the gap between poor and rich keeps getting bigger? Are we happy with the UK’s brand of unbridled capitalism? Could we come up with something better? We’re certainly no better than the English, or the Welsh or the Irish. We just might be a bit different.

Stewart Brock – Prides/Kitty The Lion (26/04/13)
No
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Stewart-Brock-Prides-150x150.jpg
I’m originally from Stoke-on-Trent but both my parents are Scottish and I’ve lived here for nearly 10 years. I don’t see a particular Scottish/English distinction with the people I know. I regard myself as British more than English. I don’t see how separating is going to solve anything. Scotland is a beautifully patriotic country but a lot of people take that a little too far. I know people who have said they’ll vote ‘Yes’ because “England were bastards to us a long time ago”, but it’s not really a good reason. They are going on a gut reaction about how they feel about England rather than how they feel about, say, economics. The problem is that most people don’t know enough about the issue. I’ve certainly not had the benefits explained to me. A lot of people see independence as some kind of solution to something, but they’re not really sure what.

Kobi Onyame (27/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Kobi-Onyame-150x150.png
I was born in Ghana, raised in London and have lived in Glasgow since 2004. My experiences are of a unified Scotland. I believe there will be advantages of an independent Scotland just as much as there are advantages of a unified one. At present I can only relate to those of a unified Scotland. It’s been great so far.

Steve Mason (28/04/13)
No
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Steve-Mason-150x150.jpg
I am a Scot. I live in Scotland. I have no idea what independence will really mean for Scotland. So, for that reason alone, if the people who want to run Scotland can’t even get a clear message out to me, how can they govern the country? This does not mean my mind is made up! The biggest problem from what I can see is currency. Three choices: Apply to the EU / Carry on using Sterling / Print our own. The only sensible, truly independent option is to print our own. But any country printing its own currency without establishment approval is in trouble from the start. Big trouble. The people of Scotland need a global outlook and to understand how this world we live in works. True independence could mean the start of the fight of our lives. Look to Iceland. What started with them telling the UK to shove their debt, jailing the bankers and beginning a beautiful new journey has quickly turned into many problems. Then there is the oil question. This is such a can of worms it’s hard to get into, but to imagine if we gained control of all Scotland’s natural resources we would suddenly be living in a Utopia is incredibly short-sighted. Ultimately, though, nationalism of any kind leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I am a citizen of the world. I live by my rules and no government I have yet lived under represents me and my views. Would an independent Scotland manage this? I’m not sure but my mind is open.

Bill Wells (29/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Bill-Wells1-135x150.jpg
As a general philosophy, it’s simply more efficient to work together rather than to be separate, so I’ve never been very keen on the idea of independence. That said, there are occasions when another party acts in such a way that you feel you’d be better off without them.

Scott Hutchison – Frightened Rabbit (30/04/13)
Undecided
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Scott-Hutchison-Frightened-Rabbit-150x150.jpg
I haven’t made up by mind yet. We have been asked to contribute our music and stuff to the campaign, but I don’t really have enough information yet. I’m totally interested in it and the initial reaction is, ‘Yeah, of course!’ but that wouldn’t really be based on facts. So I’m trying to gather them because it’s important not just to focus on a sense of national pride where this is coming from. Can we actually make it work? Economically, it’s potentially viable. There are a lot of great strings to Scotland’s bow where that’s concerned.

Emma Gillespie – Emma’s Imagination (30/04/13)
Yes
http://thepopcop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Emma-Gillespie-Emmas-Imagination-150x150.jpg
I would like to see Scotland become independent. Culturally we are very different from England and we are yet to fully explore that. I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs, but it would create a greater sense of community and we would have control and responsibility over our own future. It would be good news for Scottish music and film as we would have more control over our own broadcasting and be able to provide better platforms for bands, artists, producers and directors to create a more thriving scene up here. Hopefully we’d get better phone signals and internet speed too! We would keep the NHS and welfare state which is unfortunately becoming privatised in England and it would have a positive effect on our education systems. It’s time we went out respectfully on our own and were neighbours to England rather than “under the wing”. This bodes for a better relationship between the two countries in the future.

[Baluarte]

Support for Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom is the highest it has been for almost two years, according to a new poll.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/2013/5/1368091483-264.jpg

A new Ipsos MORI survey for The Times found that 59% of people who are certain to vote in next year's referendum are opposed to independence - up from 55% in February and the highest level the polling firm has found since August 2011.

A total of 31% of the 1,001 adults who were questioned said they would be voting Yes for independence, compared to 34% three months ago.

The results suggest that supporters of Scotland remaining in the UK outnumber those who favour independence by almost two to one.

Among those who are certain to vote, just 10% of those polled were undecided.

There are now fewer than 500 days to go until Scots decide the country's future in a historic ballot.

Those who took part in the survey were asked "Should Scotland be an independent country?" - the same question that will be put to people in the referendum, to be held on September 18 next year.

Among those who are certain to vote and who have definitely decided how they will cast their ballot, 67% said they would be voting No to independence, with 33% saying they would vote in favour of Scotland leaving the UK.

Ipsos MORI spokesman Christopher McLean said: "Following recent debates over the currency and pensions in an independent Scotland, our latest poll shows that support for Scotland remaining in the Union is growing.

"Although there are just under 500 days to go until the referendum, most Scots who plan to vote say that they have made up their minds, with a clear majority opting to remain part of the UK.

"This suggests that the Yes Scotland Campaign will have to convince the vast majority of the remaining, floating voters to support independence if it is to stand any chance of achieving independence in September 2014."

A spokesman for the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign said they would be "working hard over the next 16 months to earn the trust and support of a clear majority of Scots on the basis that Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands".

He added: "It is clear that when it comes to economic and social policy, the Westminster system is not working for Scottish families.

"There is a better way and our key message is that Scotland's got what it takes to be a fairer and more successful country with independence. We are confident that as people focus in on the choice they will be making in September 2014 - between a Yes future and a No future - that more and more Scots will join us in saying Yes."

Former chancellor Alistair Darling, the chair of the cross-party Better Together group which is campaigning to keep Scotland in the UK, described the poll as "very encouraging".

He said: "It shows that the majority of people believe that we are better and stronger as part of the United Kingdom. The events of the past few weeks have exposed the fact that, despite having 80 years to think about it, the Nationalists do not even know the answer to basic questions like what currency we would use if we go it alone.

"Even more worrying has been the fact that there seems to be absolutely no plan for making sure that our pensions are protected.

"However, we must not allow ourselves to be complacent. There is a long way to go. We have to do everything we can to continue to win the arguments, expose the Nationalist assertions and, ultimately, win the referendum next year."

The poll also found Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has overtaken Alex Salmond as the most popular political leader in Scotland.

A total of 49% of those polled said they were satisfied with Ms Sturgeon's performance, compared with 47% who were satisfied with Mr Salmond's performance.

With 35% dissatisfied with Ms Sturgeon's performance, the Deputy First Minister has a net satisfaction rating of +14, compared to +2 for the First Minister, as 45% of Scots were dissatisfied with his performance.

Mr Salmond's approval rating has been in decline since the end of 2011, when it reached a high of +35.

Mr Darling has a net satisfaction rating of -2. While 31% of people were satisfied with his performance, 33% were dissatisfied.

David Cameron was the least popular political leader according to the poll, with 66% of those questioned saying they were dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's performance, compared to 28% who were happy with the way he was doing his job, giving him a net satisfaction rating of -38.

When looking at Holyrood voting intentions, the survey found the SNP continues to be the most popular party.

When asked which party they would support if there were Scottish Parliament elections tomorrow, 39% of those who were certain to vote said they would give their first vote to the Nationalists.

That is down four percentage points from February, while support for Labour has increased by one percentage point over the same period to 36%.

Support for the Tories and Liberal Democrats has also increased, according to the poll, with 16% saying they would vote Tory, up from 13% in February, while the number of people who said they would vote Lib Dem has gone from 7% to 8%.

[Baluarte]

THE former PM was in Glasgow to issue a rallying call ahead of the independence referendum claiming the Nats are as big a danger to the future of hard-working families as the Conservatives.

GORDON Brown has warned Scots that voting for independence to get rid of the Tory Government would be a huge mistake.

The former Prime Minister says the issues at stake in the referendum debate will outlast David Cameron and the Con-Dems.

In an exclusive interview with the Record, he said that breaking up the United Kingdom because of anger at the Coalition would put 100 years of Labour and trade union achievements at risk.

The SNP have put protecting Scots from brutal Tory policies such as the bedroom tax at the top of their agenda. But Brown claimed the Nats are as big a danger to the future of hard-working families as the Conservatives.

He said: “The Labour case for the UK is about the long-term future of Scotland’s needs and aspirations, and the wishes of Scottish people.

“Decisions have to be made irrespective of whether there is a Conservative Government at Westminster.

“It has to be about the long-term future of pensions, the minimum wage, National Insurance to pay for the health service, and children’s and family benefits. It also has to be about the currency, interest rates and unemployment.

“All these things are important and will outlast any Conservative Government.”

Brown spoke as Labour launched their campaign to save the Union at the Emirates Arena in Glasgow.

The United with Labour campaign is separate to the cross-party Better Together movement that also includes Tories and Lib Dems.

Brown outlined what he called the “positive, principled, forward-looking case” for keeping Scotland in Britain.

He told how he drove from Fife to Glasgow yesterday and remembered famous Scottish Labour figures from the past – such as Keir Hardie, John Wheatley, Jimmy Maxton and Tom Johnston.

He said: “It’s important for people to remember what happened in Scotland – why we created a UK and not a Scottish welfare state, why we have a UK and not a Scottish minimum wage.

“That wasn’t a failure on the part of Labour and trade union leaders who pushed for this. It was because they believed it was the best way of achieving social justice for the people of Scotland.

“The more we remind ourselves that for a century we pushed for these changes at a UK level, the more we may remember that to walk away from them would be a huge mistake.”

He stressed the UK benefits from pooling resources and that breaking away could undermine the NHS, pensions and welfare benefits.

Brown added: “I could put the case for the Union by talking about how our defence needs are common, our security needs are mutual, our environmental concerns are shared and that we are part of one single island.

“But I want to make the most modern case for the Union, for the pooling and sharing of resources so that we tackle poverty, unemployment together.

“I want to make the case for a Union for social justice, dominated by our principle of fairness.”

Brown attacked the SNP’s bid to convince Scots that independence would be beneficial to left-wing politics in Scotland. He said: “Once you look at what the SNP are saying, you start to see that they are a danger – just like the Conservatives.”

-----------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts? I'd like also to hear how Scottish members see Brown and Labour.

[Aunt Hilda]

I'm more or less undecided, It depends on Britain's stance on the EU. If Britain wants out, I want to be out of Britain.

[Pretan]

SKORTLAND STRONG! :p:p:p

[Aunt Hilda]

SCOTLAND STRONG! :p:p:p

aha

[Graham]

SKORTLAND STRONG! :p:p:p
Skirtland.

[Aunt Hilda]

Skirtland.

just sayin'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKil9UcBbzU

[Graham]

Seen as more favourable than in England. Gordon Brown, isn't as disliked. He has more popularity than Ed Miliband in fact.

There are parts of Scotland, that would vote a lamppost, if it represented Labour in an election. By that I mean Glasgow.
--------------------------------
Bringing up the NHS & Minimum wage, is irrelevant from Brown. Considering we already have both separate from London.

We have kept our NHS closer to the original, full Public control. Rather than what is happening in England, with their privatisation.

Left wing Unionists can't win that argument.

[Graham]

Stamp duty replacement approved by parliament
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/stamp-duty-replacement-approved-by-parliament-1.106997
26 June 2013 8.17am.

MSPs have passed legislation to replace stamp duty for property sales in a landmark vote at Holyrood.

The Scottish Parliament unanimously backed the Land and Building Transactions Tax (Scotland) Bill, which is aimed at addressing inequalities created by the “slab” structure of stamp duty thresholds.

It will allow Holyrood to set and collect a proportion of its own revenue for the first time when the new charge comes into effect.

Finance secretary John Swinney said: “Land and Building Transactions Tax (LBTT) represents a significant improvement on the tax that it replaces, the UK’s Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT).

“We will do away with the nonsense of the slab structure of SDLT in which three times as much tax is paid when a house value nudges above the £250,000 threshold.

“This has caused market distortions and leads to the false recording of house prices in an effort to avoid paying tax at the higher rate.

“The LBTT will solve this in Scotland at a stroke, by substituting a progressive structure where only the amount above the threshold will incur tax at the higher rate.”

Under stamp duty, a difference in property selling price of just £1 can lead to thousands of pounds in additional tax for the buyer.

The new charge — which will apply to all property sales from April 2015 onwards — will include a zero rate and at least two other bands.

A key part of the new system is that only the proportion of the price above the tax thresholds will be liable for the higher rate of tax.

Mr Swinney has already said he will not announce the rates and tax bands for the new system until September 2014 at the earliest.

Labour’s Ken Macintosh said there were details which still needed to be set out, including the timescale for the publication of the new tax rates.

“I hope the Cabinet Secretary will bear in mind that business in particular is clamouring for greater certainty in this area,” he said.

http://imageshack.us/a/img515/5913/ddh.png

[Baluarte]

The UK government is to claim that Scottish independence would leave mobile phone users facing higher bills.

In its latest paper on the 2014 referendum, it raises the possibility of Scottish callers facing roaming fees when they visit England.

The paper also claims independence could threaten postal services and rural broadband provision.

The Scottish government has pointed out that EU rules mean roaming charges will be capped by next summer.

The paper drawn up in Westminster will claim that, after independence, Scottish mobile users travelling to the rest of the UK would be charged a premium for making calls "abroad".

It warns that people close to the border could inadvertently incur these charges if their mobile phone connected to a mast on the English side.

The paper also suggests the "world class services and economies of scale" of the post office could be put at risk and claims there might be less money to roll out high speed internet services for smaller communities.

'Less choice'

UK Consumer Minister Jo Swinson said: "The UK's integrated infrastructure connects people and communities, creates jobs and supports trade.

"The government is committed to maintaining world class postal and broadband services. This includes continuation of a six-day-a-week postal delivery service and the provision of broadband to rural areas."

She added: "If Scotland left the UK, posting a letter or making a call could cost more - and there could be less choice for customers."

The Scottish government dismissed the claims and said successive Westminster governments had "substantially weakened" Scotland's communications infrastructure.

A spokeswoman said: "Since 2002, more than 400 Scottish post offices have closed and plans for privatisation of Royal Mail threatens jobs and the operation of the universal service obligation whilst people across rural Scotland regularly struggle with the lack of mobile phone coverage as the current system fails to deliver for Scotland.

"Independence will provide an opportunity to properly support the postal network with access to our fair share of UK assets."

On mobile phone charges, she added: "The UK government should acknowledge that the EU is looking to remove roaming charges completely and they are widely expected to be abolished well before 2016."

[Fear Fiain]

God the brits will do or say anything to hold on to foreign soil now won't they? Scotland should remain Scottish, and right well they leave the union. They're a Gaelic-Germanic hybrid culture, unique and distinct from Saxon culture, and their people are more willing to oppose immigration from non-european countries.

[Germanicus]

God the brits will do or say anything to hold on to foreign soil now won't they? Scotland should remain Scottish, and right well they leave the union. They're a Gaelic-Germanic hybrid culture, unique and distinct from Saxon culture, and their people are more willing to oppose immigration from non-european countries.

As you are an American you think you know everything about everything, as an Englishman I understand what is going on in my back yard, the English would like nothing better than to ditch the Scots out of the union.
But, unfortunately this will not happen, for the Scots cannot pay their way in the real world.
There are only 5 million Scots in Scotland, around 250,000 pay top level taxation.
The average Scot knows what side their bread is buttered....they will ignore the vote for independence.

[Graham]

In an independent Scotland:- We will live in mud huts, praying to our sun god, in extreme famine.


Odd how the BBC can report this news as the headline Scottish section..

And at the very same time, report this in the Buisness section.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23116753
http://imageshack.us/a/img560/3964/6gu7.png

Goes to show the rubbish we face, daily.. Mostly to scare folk into voting 'no'.

[Fear Fiain]

As you are an American you think you know everything about everything, as an Englishman I understand what is going on in my back yard, the English would like nothing better than to ditch the Scots out of the union.
But, unfortunately this will not happen, for the Scots cannot pay their way in the real world.
There are only 5 million Scots in Scotland, around 250,000 pay top level taxation.
The average Scot knows what side their bread is buttered....they will ignore the vote for independence.

When you let go of ulster and the malvinas and apologize for Rhodesia, then I'll believe you when you say England supports the freedom of her former colonies. I'll have you know that I'm eligible for dual citizenship with the UK, piss me off enough and I'll take a furlough to go impregnate british girls with my amerindian-irish demon seed.

[Germanicus]

When you let go of ulster and the malvinas and apologize for Rhodesia, then I'll believe you when you say England supports the freedom of her former colonies. I'll have you know that I'm eligible for dual citizenship with the UK, piss me off enough and I'll take a furlough to go impregnate british girls with my amerindian-irish demon seed.

The Northern Irish voter is quite happy to stay in the union, the settlers on the Falkland Islands have voted overwhelmingly to stay under British rule.....and Rhodesia can go and get fucked..!!!
You and your demon seed can't be no worse than the Romanians shagging our women, bring it on.

[Peikko]

There are only 5 million Scots in Scotland, around 250,000 pay top level taxation.

I don't know what kind of taxation they have in Scotland, but those figures are probably quite comparable to Denmark or Finland.

[Germanicus]

I don't know what kind of taxation they have in Scotland, but those figures are probably quite comparable to Denmark or Finland.

Denmark is a much more socially ordered country, the complexity of the problems in Scotland are not the same, please do not make the mistake of comparing the two as separate states with equal job forecasts, and taxation.

[Graham]

I don't know what kind of taxation they have in Scotland, but those figures are probably quite comparable to Denmark or Finland.

It would be interesting to compare Public Spend to GDP. to other Europeans.. Scotland is below the UK, because of natural resources boosting GDP.

Don't like to compare with England, & rather to other EU nations of a similar size. :)

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/9667/8jr.png

Edit:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00423044.gif

[Peikko]

It would be interesting to compare Public Spend to GDP. to other Europeans.. Scotland is below the UK, because of natural resources boosting GDP.

Don't like to compare with England, & rather to other EU nations of a similar size. :)

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/9667/8jr.png

Edit:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00423044.gif

What about other economic factors, like unemployment compared to rest of UK?

[Graham]

Jun 12, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22869852

The Scottish unemployment rate is 7.1%, which is below the average of 7.8% for the whole of the UK.

Youth jobless rate of 15.2% is lower than the UK rate of 19.5%.

[Peikko]

Jun 12, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22869852

The Scottish unemployment rate is 7.1%, which is below the average of 7.8% for the whole of the UK.

Youth jobless rate of 15.2% is lower than the UK rate of 19.5%.

In Denmark (April 2013) unemployment 7.0%, and for the youth 12.20%.

[Graham]

Another day another claim.. :picard2: What will tomorrow bring?


Scottish independence: Scots face UK road levy

Published on 01/07/2013 00:00

SCOTTISH hauliers will be hit by a £1,000 a year levy to use the rest of the UK’s road network and ordinary drivers left facing extra costs should voters back independence, the coalition government has claimed.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-scots-face-uk-road-levy-1-2984130

Every mother fucking day, we have the press slam this fucking nonsense into us. :mad::picard2:

[Graham]

By a pro-Brit for other pro-Brits to read... :thumbs up;)

Prophecies of doom beginning to look like overkill
Unionist side can afford to calm down as big issues over independence have been won

By Alan Cochrane,
Scottish Editor
9:48PM BST 30 Jun 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10151723/Prophecies-of-doom-beginning-to-look-like-overkill.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID CAMERON got himself into all sorts of trouble when he told an excitable backbencher to “calm down, dear” but that’s precisely the instruction that he and Alistair Darling should be issuing to those who’re running the anti-separatist campaign.

Not to put too fine a point on it, they appear to have taken leave of their senses with their increasingly strident warnings of what will or will not happen if Alex Salmond succeeds in breaking up Britain.

The latest daft foretaste of doom came at the weekend with two statements, one proclaiming that Scots would have to pay through the nose if they try to use their mobile phones in England after independence and the other, issued yesterday, that said Scots would be charged a fortune for using England’s roads.

Now both of these may or may not be true, although over mobile phone charges I had imagined that EU rules were being amended to outlaw these sky-high “roaming” charges. But the real point at issue is why are ministers and those involved in the Better Together campaign bothering with such tripe?

The anti-Nat forces are streets ahead in the polls and probably the only thing that will save Alex Salmond’s bacon is a campaign of overkill by his opponents. The big issues over independence have been won by the Unionist side.

The Nats’ EU stance has been exposed for the fairy story it has always been, their total gobbledegook on joining Nato but refusing to accept that it is a nuclear alliance is a worldwide laughing stock and their plan for an “independent” economic policy, run by the Bank of England and the UK Treasury, is just too bonkers for words.
On pensions and welfare benefits they claim both will go up, although they haven’t a clue where the money’s coming from.

However, far from being content to let the Nats stew in the juice of their own making, too many on the Unionist side want to gild the lily to such an extent that they threaten to score so many own goals that they will put the Nats back in the game.

Possibly the principal problem is that everyone at Westminster wants to be seen to be lending a hand, thus we have Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and David Mundell, the Scotland Office minister, planning a press conference tomorrow to warn of changes in the transport regime.

Tomorrow also sees Adam Ingram, the former Labour defence minister, joining forces with a panel of experts to explain how silly is the SNP defence policy.

Frankly, it’s all too much. For one thing, there was a similar statement on defence in Edinburgh last week. Don’t these people talk to one another? Is no one coordinating?

What we need is quiet, calm, deliberation and an acceptance that the Unionist side is well ahead of the game.
Too many warnings, one on top of the other, simply cancel each other out. Tomorrow’s press conference could easily have waited until September but, I suppose, ministers just like to look busy.
If it’s not too late they should find an excuse to postpone.

Oh yes, and whoever dreamed up the phrase “Project Fear” for the Better Together campaign of combating the Nats should be taken out and shot.

[Aunt Hilda]

Another day another claim.. :picard2: What will tomorrow bring?



Every mother fucking day, we have the press slam this fucking nonsense into us. :mad::picard2:


it's like England is an obsessive ex-boyfriend :D

[Graham]

Another day another claim.. :picard2: What will tomorrow bring?


Tomorrow has come, BBC lead again. Another headline story.. Now what will tomorrow bring? :cool:

http://imageshack.us/a/img96/2254/5hew.png

[Graham]

Scots Daily Mail front page today. Basically a little Englander paper for Little Englanders..
-----------------------
Troops will march south to England if independence goes ahead because being in Scottish army will be too BORING

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/02/article-0-1A423078000005DC-531_634x370.jpg

Damning report reveals reluctance of soldiers to join Alex Salmond's army
Officers dismiss Scottish Defence Force as 'too dead-end and parochial'
Troops would rather stay in British forces so they can see action


By ALAN RODEN
PUBLISHED: 08:42, 2 July 2013 | UPDATED: 09:36, 2 July 2013

Scottish soldiers will desert Alex Salmond’s independent army to fight alongside their British comrades if the SNP wins next year’s referendum.

A devastating new study which quizzed servicemen has left the Nationalists’ defence blueprint in tatters, concluding that Mr Salmond’s proposals ‘do not withstand serious scrutiny’.

For the first time, serving soldiers were asked for their views and ‘a majority – perhaps even a large majority’ would prefer to remain with the British Armed Forces’ because they will see action instead of spending their time in Scotland 'thumb twiddling’.

Read more..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353394/Scottish-referendum-Troops-march-south-England-independence-goes-ahead-Scottish-army-BORING.html

[Aunt Hilda]

Scots Daily Mail front page today.
-----------------------
Troops will march south to England if independence goes ahead because being in Scottish army will be too BORING


:D:D:D

this is amazing. I have no words :rotfl

[Aunt Hilda]

Hehe reminds me of this old chestnut..

http://politicalbetting.s3.amazonaws.com/2011+Jan/Scottish+Sun+election+day+2007.jpg

I'm no big fan of the SNP but the paranoia is... well, paranoia.

[Raikaswinþs]

I have observed througout the years the scaremongering of the Scottish and English media against the independece of Scotland. I have witnessed also a certain level of debate between both the Yes and the No oprions. What I haven't seen in Scotland is enthusiasm about any of this. Most of the people I know (who will actually vote)will vote NO, except a couple of "Anybody but England types". SNP is campainging a lot to attract the immigrant/expat vote. I decided not to vote, since I ahve only lived here for 7 years and can't promise I will spend teh rest of my life here, hence I would consider it a bit cynical to take part in such an important decission making.

Most other EU expats don't really give a f* and I see few of them going to the polls. Non Europeans are an entirely different topic. Desi and African votes can really change the panorama . I think that not a lot of people will go to vote for the referendum (most scots I know consider it a waste of time). And I think that from those who go to vote, the result may be a bit tight...it would be a precedent that the future of a European nation was essentially decided by foreign aliens.

My question to my Scottish neighbours is if they really think changing Westminster for Brussels is really in their best interest...

[Graham]

My question to my Scottish neighbours is if they really think changing Westminster for Brussels is really in their best interest...

It isn't a swap. Because we currently are in both already. You go ahead and vote UKIP if you want. Have no problem. :)


It's hard for you to know being an immigrant. But the Scotland that had no powers before 1999 was worse than what it is now. The Parliament has helped Scotland gain some pride back. For the last few decades, it was a disaster, with many leaving the country.


Could also tell you many Scots have fuckall enthusiasm for London politics either, or politics in general. Politics isn't something people talk about. It's Etiquette to not discuss politics or religion in public. I don't talk about it in public either. Apart from online.

It's only to get my grumbles out.



Most of the people I know (who will actually vote)will vote NO, except a couple of "Anybody but England types".

I feel your opinion is completely conflicted, because of the Catalans. So I don't take this opinion seriously

[Graham]

Defence budget post-Yes to be £2.5bn
2 July 2013 Last updated at 15:17
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23149235
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68505000/jpg/_68505136_keithbrown464.jpg


Annual budget of £2.5bn
A new Scottish defence force comprising 15,000 personnel
Main headquarters based at Faslane
Faslane would continue to be served by "thousands" of personnel
Trident would be removed "early and safely"



Scottish minister Keith Brown tells a committee of MPs that the budget for defence in the event of a yes to independence would be £2.5bn per year.

The SNP politician revealed the figure in evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.

Electors in Scotland will vote in an independence referendum on 18 September, 2014.

They will be asked the simple yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The Veterans' Minister urged UK ministers to enter into discussions now on defence matter. However, he said that would not be the equivalent of pre-independence negotiations.


In a BBC Scotland news webcast this week, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said it might take up to two years before Scotland could be rid of the nuclear weapons.

She made clear in the interview that removing Trident from Scotland was a matter of principle for the SNP.

Mr Brown informed the committee that a newly-independent Scotland would want a proportionate slice of the £92bn in defence assets which the UK has.

He mentioned that some commentators had identified that Trident itself was an asset.

The Holyrood minister told the MPs that a new Scottish defence force would total about 15,000 personnel.

He added that an attractive offer could be made to new recruits resulting in the figure being achieved post-Yes.

Mr Brown was asked how close to the border a Scottish army would patrol.

In response, he said: "We will not be amassing an army on the border - that won't be necessary."

Mr Brown was grilled about detail by Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife.

When asked about specific figures, Mr Brown said the information he could give was currently limited ahead of a white paper on independence which would come before the Scottish Parliament "in the autumn".

He believed it was right that the people of Scotland should hear the details first.

[Graham]

Within average of small nations, to be expected. :) Defence is one of the weaker points for the Yes campaign. Having Nukes makes us a bigger target for others.

[Anglojew]

A banana republic in the making.

[Graham]

A banana republic in the making.

Still posting on the Stormfront forum?

[RussiaPrussia]

A banana republic in the making.

so that must make israel the uber banana republic with 5% defense spending every year

[Anglojew]

Still posting on the Stormfront forum?

I've never posted on stormfront. There was a guy using my username but claiming to be in Israel.

[Anglojew]

so that must make israel the uber banana republic with 5% defense spending every year

I'm not sure what you mean. The point is how little the Scots will spend. Good for them, they have no enemies.

[Graham]

Tomorrow has come, BBC lead again. Another headline story.. Now what will tomorrow bring? :cool:

BOOM!
------------------------------------------

Vince Cable: I'm not scaremongering, children's clothes will cost more in independent Scotland

3 Jul 2013 09:13
THE Con-Dem minister made his allegation as he launched the latest UK Government report on the implications of independence.
http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article2020868.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/kids_clothes-2020868.jpg
Read more..
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/childrens-clothes-cost-more-independent-2020912

[Albannach]

Seriously, project fear is becoming more and more ridiculous by the day. Hope they keep this up another year and people will start to see through the bullshit. It's becoming a bit of a joke, even newsnight was taking the piss out of the scare stories the other night.

[Raikaswinþs]

It isn't a swap. Because we currently are in both already. You go ahead and vote UKIP if you want. Have no problem. :)

First of all, I don't believe non citizens should be eligible to vote. Second, Scotland is not in the EU as a sobereign state. the UK is. The UK ios strong enough to mantain its independence from Brussels "to a certain extent". An independent Scotland would have much less say in Brussels than it has in the UK.



It's hard for you to know being an immigrant. But the Scotland that had no powers before 1999 was worse than what it is now. The Parliament has helped Scotland gain some pride back. For the last few decades, it was a disaster, with many leaving the country.

And the improvement of scotland surey is not linked to the general improvement in the UK? 80's and 90's were also pretty tough for all other Brittish working classes.



Could also tell you many Scots have fuckall enthusiasm for London politics either, or politics in general. Politics isn't something people talk about. It's Etiquette to not discuss politics or religion in public. I don't talk about it in public either. Apart from online.

It's only to get my grumbles out.




I feel your opinion is completely conflicted, because of the Catalans. So I don't take this opinion seriously

I can't wait for Catalonia to leave the Kingdom. Each day Spain exists in its current form is a wasted day. You disimise my account as false under the argument that I am an immigrant with an agenda...when I am really a neutral observer. Not sure how is it like in Livingston... I don't see the majority of Edinburghers voting yes. Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that the NO campaign is based in scaremongering and agit prop. Not that the YES campaigners are much better..specially the commies xD

[Graham]

Edinburgh is a strange one. The highest proportion of privately educated children in the UK with about a quarter. Pro-UK, has always been more popular amongst the middle class than working.

Once you go West, The Union flag is seen as a football symbol to do with the Northern Irish anti-catholic stuff. Like where I live.. But the West is more pro-yes in Labour areas ironically.

[Graham]

Support for monarchy vote
Published on the
29 July 2013 00:12
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-support-for-monarchy-vote-1-3019213
http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3019234.1375053158!/image/3033830675.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3033830675.jpg
Growing numbers of independence supporters are backing a call from the chairman of the Yes campaign for a referendum on the future of the monarchy after independence.

Prominent pro-independence figures have supported the anti-monarchist stance of former Labour MP Dennis Canavan, who said the hereditary principle was an “affront” to democracy.

SNP MSP John Wilson, independent Margo MacDonald and Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie have all said a national referendum should be held on who will be head of state in the event of a Yes vote.

The opposition to the monarchy is at odds with the SNP leadership’s position of keeping the Queen as head of state in an independent Scotland.

Senior pro-independence campaigners insisted that First Minister Alex Salmond would not be allowed to dictate the make-up of Scotland’s constitution, including the issue of the monarchy.

Robin McAlpine, director of the left-wing Jimmy Reid Foundation, and Jonathon Shafi, co-founder of the Radical Independence campaign, have backed Mr Canavan on the issue.

Mr Canavan, chairman of the Yes Scotland campaign’s advisory board, told The Scotsman’s sister newspaper Scotland on Sunday that Prince George should never be king of an independent Scotland in the wake of the birth of the royal baby.

Mr Wilson said that “clearly the issue is up for discussion” as he suggested an independent Scotland should replace the monarchy with an elected head of state. 
Mr Wilson added: “Dennis’s line is the correct one as it’s the right of Scottish people under independence to decide what type of Scotland they want.

“I have a similar position to Dennis, as in a democracy we should all be treated as equal citizens and there are issues about having a hereditary head of state. Clearly the issue is up for discussion and we could look at having an elected head of state.”

The SNP issued a statement claiming the Queen would remain as head of state if Scots vote for independence in the referendum on 18 September 2014.

An SNP spokesman said: “Dennis Canavan is perfectly entitled to believe in an elected head of state, and will be free to argue that case in an independent Scotland – just as Labour MPs who support an elected head of state in the UK argue for that position at present.”

However, Green MSP Mr Harvie, said the issue was not solely within the gift of the SNP as he backed a vote on the monarchy as part of moves towards a new constitution for an independent Scotland.

Mr Harvie said: “It seems bizarre that we are debating creating a new independent state without a discussion on how we appoint a head of state.

“It should be part of the process of drawing up a constitution in an independent Scotland not something that’s dictated by the current Scottish Government.”

Independent MSP Ms MacDonald said the monarchy was “undemocratic and a quirk in our range of beliefs” as she insisted that the issue of the head of state under independence had to be resolved.

She said: “Alex Salmond is at pains to say that there won’t be a burst of lightning after independence and that the strands of British life that people appreciate will continue. But people should decide and will decide on the monarchy and the head of state.”

Pro-independence campaigners Mr McAlpine and Mr Shafi both said a referendum on the monarchy should be held soon after a Yes vote.

Mr McAlpine said: “In the coverage of the monarchy in Scotland, it’s implied that it’s a decision for Alex Salmond to make on behalf of Scotland.

“But it’s for all of the people of Scotland to decide and if we went a year past a referendum, I’m not sure that people would vote to keep the Queen.”

Mr Shafi said: “If we win independence a whole range of questions have got to be addressed and the monarchy is one that would have to be dealt with fairly quickly.”

Support for Union on the increase

THE campaign to keep Scotland in the UK has a nine-point lead over its rival, according to a poll.

The Panelbase survey suggests support for the Union stands at 46 per cent, up two points from May, while support for independence increased by one point to 37 per cent.

But in a warning to the Better Together movement, the results show pro-independence supporters are more likely to take part in the ballot in September next year.

Panelbase managing director Ivor Knox said: “If we include everyone who has told us which way they plan to vote, irrespective of likelihood, the No side has a more substantial lead of 58 to 42.”

The poll of 1,001 adults in Scotland found that 94 per cent of independence supporters said they are very likely to take part, compared with 87 per cent of unionists.

Meanwhile, the SNP has seen its support increase by three points to 48 per cent.

[HillY35]

I wonder if the prince's name, "George," which is very English, is a reason Scots have to feel distant?

[Graham]

I wonder if the prince's name, "George," which is very English, is a reason Scots have to feel distant?

Think it is just a sign of times. Like the Protestant religion has completely collapsed. It was just something that wasn't up for debate. The unpopular 'God Save the queen' has already been ditched by Scots as the National Anthem. Whereas England retained it.

We have always had a divide within the top two Football teams in the West. Celtic fans against & Rangers for.

The name doesn't really matter much. Alexander is seen as a Scottish Royal name. That's his middle name.

[Graham]

Where does Scotland’s wealth go?
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp | 08/08/2013
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/
----------------------------------------------------------------

Where does Scotland’s wealth go (if it doesn’t stay here)?

Its a simple question but not one often asked, probably as most economics bloggers like myself get bogged down in numbers and over complicate the issue.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Big-Wealth-Gap.jpg

Data from the UK Government’s Office for National Statistics demonstrates in simple terms the distribution of personal wealth in the UK. It is clear to see that London and the South are by far the wealthiest parts of the UK. Not just the South East but the South West as well.

Clearly the further North you go, the lower the average household wealth, and the lower the average household income.

The map of income distribution shows a clear North/South wealth divide within England itself which many of us knew about, but many will be surprised at just how far south the divide sits. Wealth is centralised around London and the more northern areas of the UK have suffered years of de-industrialisation, high unemployment and lower investment that followed the emergence of London centric finance and service-led economic policy under consecutive Conservative and New Labour governments.

No surprises there then! However, when you compere the map of where the wealth ends up with a map of where the UK’s wealth is generated, they don’t tell the same story. The union drains wealth from Scotland.

The second map (Eurostat Regional GDP per capita) shows clearly that, in terms of wealth per head, the Scottish central belt generates as much wealth as much of London and the South. Also Scotland’s North East is (perhaps not surprisingly) one of the best performing economic areas in the UK.Now look again at the first map and ask yourself “Why doesn’t Scotland’s wealth stay in Scotland’?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Screen-Shot-2013-06-19-at-23.53.20.png

It becomes clear that we are only better together if you believe that London is entitled to the lions share of Scotland’s wealth.The Jimmy Reid Foundation, a new and increasingly well respected think-tank, published a report in June 2013 demonstrating this wealth drain and the resulting under-performance of Scotland’s economy. It highlighted that Scotland’s economy would be 25% larger than it is today in the absence of the historic and present union wealth drain.

A month earlier, I made the same point on this blog when I wrote about Scotland’s economy going south.

It is an accepted fact that every year for 30 years Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head for the UK treasury than the rest of the UK. The latest figures taken from the Government Expenditure and revenue report Scotland (GERS) state that Scotland generated 9.9% of the UK’s tax revenue but received only 9.3% of spending. This equated last year to an amount of £824.00 extra revenue per person from Scotland versus the rest of the UK, all of which goes to the UK treasury.

Put simply, when the UK runs a surplus Scotland contributes more to the surplus, and when the UK runs a deficit Scotland has to pay more of the debt back than it is responsible for. Its a “lose/lose” situation for Scottish tax payers and especially for those in need of support from the state.

Often attributed to Aristotle:


You can judge a nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

Instead of understanding and reacting to the root cause of the problem we now have a culture of scapegoating the poor, unemployed, disabled, infirm and especially immigrants rising to the top of a political agenda which is dominated by the London and South of England establishment.

So lets consider three key vulnerable groups that the Scottish Government could help if we did not give away so much of our budget every year around £4.1bn drained away on debt interest last year year alone?

1) The poor
Whilst according to the Times,1 in 29 Londoners are dollar millionaires, 29% of Scots live in fuel poverty according to the latest research.

2) Children
In some areas in Scotland more than1 in 3 children grow up in poverty (1 in 5 across the nation as a whole). The charity ‘Child Poverty in Scotland’ says that with Scotland’s undoubted wealth, this statistic is a scandal. There is no reason why our child poverty rates should be so much higher than in many other European countries. In Denmark and Norway less than 10% of children live in poverty.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg
3) Old people
According the UK Life Expectancy figures (see 3rd map), the impact of the unfair distribution of wealth under the Union combined with unemployment caused by deindustrialisation means that people who live in Scotland are dying earlier than those from the wealthiest parts of the UK.

For example, the male life expectancy Scotland is 75 versus 79 in the English South East. Possibly more worryingly healthy life expectancy in Scotland is only 59.5.

This causes two big problems. First, health care costs in Scotland become higher than the rest of the UK and secondly Scots who pay the same percentage of their wages towards pensions all their working lives will get up to six years less pension.

So as well as subsidising the rest of the UK during their working lives they do so again in death.

Because people are living far longer in the heavily populated South East, the state pension age is already due to increase to 67 by 2028 and future rises in the state pension age would remain linked to improvements in life expectancy. Asking your average Scottish man or woman to work seven years longer than his healthily life expectancy is asking a bit much.

Indeed, last year, the charity director of Age UK, Michelle Mitchell said:


“We would not support an automatic increase linked to average life expectancy as there are huge disparities in life expectancy across the country and between different groups.”

But it is happening anyway!

Note: There are only three small areas of the UK where the average person is expected to live over 82 years(dark green on the map), they are Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea.

Conclusion

David Cameron is fond of saying that we are STRONGER, SAFER, RICHER, and FAIRER…TOGETHER.

But clearly that’s only if you live outside Scotland and particularly if you are from the South of England! Scotland itself is clearly weaker, less safe, poorer, and less fair as part of the Union.

How does a political and economic system that drains billions in revenues from Scotland and leaves the poor unable to heat their homes make us better together? The current Westminster system leaves many Scots children in poverty and growing up in a culture of hopelessness. It leaves our nation’s families comparatively poorer despite the fact that we generate more tax revenue per head that the rest of the UK.

How can anyone justly claim that is worth fighting for? But then maybe that is why the No camp does not actually campaign on the economic and social record of the Westminster system but rather campaign against independence and, by extension, against the hopes and aspirations of those of us that see independence not as an end in itself but a means to an end whereby we build a stronger, safer, richer, fairer and all round better Scotland.

We can build a Scotland which gets the best of both worlds from remaining in partnership with our friends across the British Isles in areas where we share mutual interests, but most importantly being able to shape our own economic future and maximise our own resources to benefit more Scots today and in generations to come through self government.

[Albion]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Big-Wealth-Gap.jpg


The second map (Eurostat Regional GDP per capita) shows clearly that, in terms of wealth per head, the Scottish central belt generates as much wealth as much of London and the South. Also Scotland’s North East is (perhaps not surprisingly) one of the best performing economic areas in the UK.Now look again at the first map and ask yourself “Why doesn’t Scotland’s wealth stay in Scotland’?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Screen-Shot-2013-06-19-at-23.53.20.png

It becomes clear that we are only better together if you believe that London is entitled to the lions share of Scotland’s wealth.The Jimmy Reid Foundation, a new and increasingly well respected think-tank, published a report in June 2013 demonstrating this wealth drain and the resulting under-performance of Scotland’s economy. It highlighted that Scotland’s economy would be 25% larger than it is today in the absence of the historic and present union wealth drain. [/QUOTE]

How do we get that result from the maps? All that the first one suggests is that more people in the south are accumulating wealth, this could be bankers, footballers and business people affecting the result. All that the first map shows is that there are more wealthy people in the south, the two maps together don't show wealth heading south of the border.
All the first map shows is unequal wealth distribution in England and a lack of wealthy people in Scotland.


Instead of understanding and reacting to the root cause of the problem we now have a culture of scapegoating the poor, unemployed, disabled, infirm and especially immigrants rising to the top of a political agenda which is dominated by the London and South of England establishment.

Rubbish, this is a generous welfare state.


1) The poor
Whilst according to the Times,1 in 29 Londoners are dollar millionaires, 29% of Scots live in fuel poverty according to the latest research.

2) Children
In some areas in Scotland more than1 in 3 children grow up in poverty (1 in 5 across the nation as a whole). The charity ‘Child Poverty in Scotland’ says that with Scotland’s undoubted wealth, this statistic is a scandal. There is no reason why our child poverty rates should be so much higher than in many other European countries. In Denmark and Norway less than 10% of children live in poverty.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg
3) Old people
According the UK Life Expectancy figures (see 3rd map), the impact of the unfair distribution of wealth under the Union combined with unemployment caused by deindustrialisation means that people who live in Scotland are dying earlier than those from the wealthiest parts of the UK.

These figures are worthless without comparisons to England.

[Graham]

Funny American view from the right.. Was posted on the twittersphere :p

Modern Scotland is deep in socialism
BY MONA CHAREN August 19, 2013 5:36PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/22031823-452/modern-scotland-is-deep-in-socialism.html
In Duck Soup, one of the stuffy characters responds to Groucho’s raillery with the protest: “I didn’t come here to be insulted!” to which Groucho quips “Oh really? Where do you usually go?”
-----------------------------------------------------

I went to Scotland. Don’t misunderstand; the Scots were delightful hosts. The country is as beautiful as advertised, but a few days in Edinburgh during the “Fringe” festival is enough to bury images of thistles and bagpipes very deep.

Modern Scotland is deep-dyed in socialism. The Scottish parliament, revived in 1998 in the hope that a measure of self-rule would vitiate the independence movement, is dominated by parties of the left. The Scottish National Party, which favors (in addition to separation from England) “free” education through university, unilateral nuclear disarmament, steeply progressive taxation and the “eradication” of poverty, holds 65 of 129 seats. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and a couple of green parties hold 47 seats, while the conservatives claim just 15. Of the 51 members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies, exactly one is a conservative.

Now, about the “Fringe.” It’s a festival of performances, concerts, dance, circuses and street theater that dominates the city every August. Just based on the descriptions available in the local paper, The Scotsman, many of the offerings were repellent.

We could have seen a play titled “The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning,” which the Scotsman described as a “shocking indictment of the brutal and relentless homophobia of U.S. military life” and also a “more subtle critique . . . of western culture . . . that reacts to any breach of discipline or convention with a fierce, repressive violence and a demand that we all conform, or be silent.”

Alternatively, we could have dropped in on “Bin Laden: The One Man Show” that featured a “well-spoken Englishman politely offering tea and biscuits to his audience.” The play presents a “different truth, a version we never get to see, free from projection, indoctrination and cartoon villainy.” Cartoon villainy? Has anti-Americanism so distorted the moral reasoning of the playwright and the critic?

“Bonk!” provided audiences with “serious and rather stomach-churning anatomical detail,” as well as a faked female orgasm to “knock Meg Ryan into a cocked hat.” “Nick Helm: One Man Mega Myth” boasts an “amazing set involving 13 London buses [to scale]” and “giant penises (not his own).” Well, that’s presumably because they couldn’t book Anthony Weiner.

Why don’t you guess what the play “The Extremists” is about? The Taliban? The Shining Path? Al-Qaida? No, the audience meets “Norman Kreeger, author of Extremism in the 20th Century and Beyond.” He’s a guest on a TV chat show, where he expounds his “philosophy of free-market democracy and the necessity of the war on terror.” He “almost persuades you that there is an enemy out there . . . the only thing is, the more he and the TV anchor explain their beliefs, the more they become indistinguishable from the enemy they claim to share so little with.”

“Eastend Caberet: Dirty Talk” is described as “delightfully dirty as ever.” The female star kicks off her stiletto heels and crawls through the audience, dragging men on stage to “share their dance moves and sex noises.”

We’ve come a long way from the “bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomand.”

American writer David Sedaris is on hand to share his fiction. One story, “I Brake for Traditional Marriage,” features a character so outraged by a gay marriage bill that he “shoots his wife and daughter before stabbing his mother-in-law with an ice pick and driving into a pedestrian.” What was that about cartoon villainy?

This is not to single out the Scots. The leftist tripe and cultural waste they’re enjoying is available in every western capital, including our own. The difference, while there still is one, is that the relentless leftism goes almost entirely unrebutted there.

[Graham]

Darling says UK needed in crises
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23910983
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69580000/jpg/_69580618_bettertogether2.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Together chairman Alistair Darling has said an independent Scotland would struggle to have the same diplomatic clout in dealing with international crises like Syria.

Speaking at the launch of Better Together's Glasgow branch, Mr Darling said that the referendum campaign is entering a crucial phase.

He claimed the UK carried greater influence in the United Nations.

The SNP described the comments as "crass, insensitive and parochial".

Responding to question during the launch of the Better Together branch, Mr Darling said: "Ultimately, the long term solution is going to have to be diplomatic and the UK has got far more clout in the United Nations, in the G20 which is meeting in Russia next week, than a smaller country ever would.

"I've been to lots of these meetings throughout the time I was a minister and large countries, particularly one with a reputation like ours, have clout.

"I don't think there's anyone in this room who wouldn't want to see the clout of the UK, if possible, along with other countries, trying to bring an end to the bloodshed taking place in Syria."

Mr Darling's comments have been criticised by the SNP.

Glasgow Kelvin SNP MSP Sandra White said: "How incredibly sad that the first thing Alistair Darling seems to have thought of when he saw the dreadful humanitarian crisis unfolding in Syria was how to score political points from it.

"Most people would think that basing a political speech around such a serious situation - particularly one which is ongoing - is crass, insensitive and parochial.

"Regardless of people's position on the independence debate in Scotland I have no doubt we all want to see a solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria."

White Paper

Earlier Mr Darling warned supporters of the pro-union campaign not to become "complacent".

He said: "With a year to go and the long-awaited White Paper just weeks away we are entering a crucial phase of the referendum campaign.

"We cannot afford to be complacent for one moment, we have a big fight ahead of us."

Mr Darling accused nationalists of claiming that Scotland can leave the UK without any consequence, a policy he called "indy-lite".

He added: "Every day for the next year we will make our case that a successful Scottish Parliament backed-up by the strength of a bigger United Kingdom offers us the best of both worlds.

"Increasingly the independence debate is becoming a battle between those of us offering to continue the success of devolution versus those selling the dishonesty of indy-lite."

Party leaders

The Better Together Glasgow launch was supported by pro-union party leaders.

Conservative Ruth Davidson said: "Between now and next September, I will be joining with people right across the city from all political backgrounds to talk up the benefits of our place within the United Kingdom."

Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie added: "Some things are easier when you have your friends and family standing beside you. We are stronger when we work together."

Labour's Johann Lamont claimed that independence is a distraction from more important issues.

She said: "Scotland deserves better than what we have at the moment. We deserve better living standards, better schools and hospitals, secure jobs and a vision of what Scotland can be."

'Advantages'

A spokesman for the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign said: "We certainly agree with Johann Lamont that 'Scotland deserves better than we have at the moment'. But why would anybody believe that sticking with a failed Westminster system that is responsible for imposing policies such as the punitive bedroom tax is the way to achieve that?"

He added: "One of the key advantages of becoming independent is to foster new, healthy and equal relationships with other countries in these isles."

Yes Scotland said its Glasgow branch was launched nine months ago.

It claimed that its "highly-successful" launch event was attended by over 700 people.

[Germanicus]

Edited.

[Germanicus]

[QUOTE=Graham;1867963]"Scotland deserves better than what we have at the moment. We deserve better living standards, better schools and hospitals, secure jobs and a vision of what Scotland can be."[/QUOTE

Where are Scottish people going get all that from, they only have 250,000 top rate tax payers in Scotland?
It's madness to think otherwise, the majority of Scots would agree with me.

[Graham]

Considering Education & the NHS are already independent, it is moot for both sides to mention.

Infact in education and the NHS, we are going separate ways. Scotland's keeping it's health fully Public, England is going Private health.. Scotland's going for a more Liberal Finnish style Education system & England school league tables & lots of exams.

Even in the police, the courts & the fire brigade. Our system is going to be centralised & efficient. England more devolved.

[Graham]

Scotland is Different and not that Different: But what does it mean? (http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/scotland-is-different-and-not-that-different-but-what-does-it-mean/)
Gerry Hassan The Scotsman, September 7th 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scotland is different. Everybody who lives or works here or knows anything about Scotland recognises this.

Scotland has had a distinctive history, traditions, institutions and set of experiences. Unlike Wales, it never fully disappeared, even at the height of unionist Britain, and remained a legal and administrative entity and not part of ‘Greater England’. All of this meant that the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 was relatively simple and straightforward, building on the legacy of over a century of administrative devolution.

In recent years a counter-story to the distinctive thesis has arisen put forward most noticeably by Prof. John Curtice and the Scottish Social Attitudes (SSA) Survey. The Curticeland version of Scotland postulates that we are only marginally more left-wing than England. Two examples suffice from their data.

78% of Scots compared to 74% of English voters said the gap between high and low incomes was too large. When invited to agree with action to rectify this, only 43% of Scots said they supported government redistribution compared to 34% in England.

This has become the predominant academic account of present day Scotland, posing itself as the evidence based view in opposition to what it claims is a more emotional and instinctual feeling of distinctiveness.

Yet the argument that Scotland isn’t that different has to be qualified and has been guilty of over-reach. Examine Scots and English voting patterns at UK elections. Between the years 1945-74 there was little difference between the two nations, with an average gap (measured by Labour versus Tory lead) of a mere 5.8%.

However, in 1979 this gap widened to 20.6% with the election of Thatcher, as more Scots voted Labour and more English for the Tories. Then in 1987, as Thatcher won a historic third term and Labour won 50 seats in Scotland, it expanded to what was then a record gap of 35.1%.

This then declined dramatically when Labour won big in 1997 across Britain, but it didn’t go away. In the 2010 Cameron near-victory it went off the graph again, as Scotland voted Labour and England more Tory. The 2010 picture is of a record gap of 36.8%, made up of a Labour Scottish lead of 25.3% and 11.5% Tory English lead.

The divergence between the Scots and English voting was a huge part of home rule politics in the 1980s, but seems less crucial at the moment – because of the Scottish Parliament, the referendum and the existence of a coalition (rather than Tory) government. But it is one of the tectonic plates of Scottish politics and could erupt at some point in the near-future, when we ever face the prospect of a majority Conservative government elected with few Scots votes.

The distinctiveness north and south of the border can also be found in attitudes to public services. A May 2013 Ipsos-MORI Scotland survey revealed that 58% of Scots believed that publically owned services were more professional and reliable compared to 19% who choose privately run public services. The comparable figures for England and Wales were 30% for the public sector and 29% for the private sector.

In another question, 50% of Scots believed that the public sector provides better value for money, whereas in England and Wales it was 25%. This illustrates in this area the contrasting dynamics of two political cultures. In England and Westminster, the discussion is of entire swathes of the public realm being privatised or outsourced, from the NHS, to Royal Mail, and defence contracting. In Scotland, the debate in the public and amongst policy makers is within the context of predominantly publically owned and run services.

Does this mean that the Scottish Social Attitudes (SSA) Surveys are wrong in finding that Scotland is only marginally more left-wing? Well, yes and no. What the SSA has to do is ask more detailed questions and address those areas where there are significant divergences. And at the same time stop over-selling or over-interpreting their data as John Curtice in his own unique way is occasionally prone to do.

All public opinion data should carry a health warning when thrown into a heated political battlefield. That was evident this week when YouGov’s 59:29 poll on independence which was found to be using leading information before asking voters. The same was true of the Panelbase survey commissioned by the SNP; however YouGov have regularly been doing this and from their findings it looks like this has affected the overall results.

There will always be controversies about polling methods, interpretations, and the role of academics, but what matters most is politics. The difference/divergence debate is used by all sides in Scotland’s political community.

Unionist opinion want to emphasise that Scotland is not that distinctive from the rest of the UK, and stress not just the 300 years of shared history, but what binds us together now. Championing common values makes it easier to argue that the UK works for most Scots.

Nationalists want to claim that Scotland is diverging from the path of the rest of British politics, by which they mean English politics, and that Scotland has to safeguard its own set of values through independence. Behind this is a belief that English politics are set on a rightward trajectory which even the election of a Labour Government would find impossible to correct.

The truth is a little more nuanced and subtle. Scotland is a distinctive country and political culture on many criteria. We don’t vote Tory in any numbers, have a different attitude to the public sector and abhor the marketisation and privatisation of successive Westminster administrations.

Yet there are also commonalities across the UK which cannot be completely ignored – of shared values, institutions and history. Most of these might be weakened in recent times, but they still exist and matter, witness the debate over ‘the social union’.

The battle around this terrain is critical in next year’s big vote. But it matters also in the struggle over what kind of Scotland people want to live in, and the values we want to see our public institutions be shaped by. Scotland and England are different worlds, and this feeling varies across each, from Orkney to Glasgow to the Borders in Scotland, and from the North East to Cornwall and London in England.

There is within these diverse nations a sense of divergence between them, but also common ground, some of it contentious, against centralisation, London rule and the economic status quo. Who in Scotland and the UK can speak for this divided politics and statehood is a challenge equally unionists, nationalists and democrats.

[Graham]

Landmark decision as United Nations state that Bedroom Tax does breach human rights (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/landmark-decision-united-nations-state-2265755)
By Nick Sommerlad, 10 Sep 2013 23:59
http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article2265717.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS25316461-2265717.jpg
United Nations envoy, Raquel Rolnik with the Daily Record dossier
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CAMERON'S hated bedroom tax breaches human rights and should be scrapped, a top UN official will demand today.

Special rapporteur Raquel Rolnik will call on the Con-Dems to scrap their decision to cut benefits to tenants with a spare room. She will say the policy breaches the basic right to housing as there are not enough smaller properties for tenants to move into.

Rolnik is ready to reveal her findings today after an unprecedented two-week tour of the UK meeting campaigners, bedroom tax victims and officials.

Ironically, it was the Tory-led Government who gave the Brazilian housing and architecture academic permission to carry out the study – and she is set to deliver a harsh critique of Britain’s housing crisis.

The Government claim cutting housing benefit for tenants who have a spare room will save £500million a year. Households with an extra bedroom will have to find an extra £14 a week or move into alternative accommodation.

But critics say the policy will create huge suffering for 660,000 victims and dispute whether it will save money.

Rolnik has visited London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester over the past fortnight.


http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article2254949.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Raquel-Rolnik-2254949.jpg

Former MSP Tommy Sheridan, now chairman of the Scottish Anti-Bedroom Tax Federation, said: “The UN ruling means there is no longer any argument – the bedroom tax must go now.

“As a matter of urgency, all Scottish local authorities now have to move to avoid any evictions resulting from the bedroom tax.

“The SNP Government also have a responsibility to do all they can to stop this tax destroying lives. That means passing a law that stops any bedroom tax evictions.”

A spokesman for the National Anti-Bedroom Tax Federation said: “We warmly welcome the findings and recommendations of the UN special rapporteur calling on the Government to scrap the bedroom tax.

“We said all along that the bedroom tax was a breach of human rights and now the UN have confirmed this.

“We are now calling on the Labour Party to echo or endorse Ms Rolnik’s call for the bedroom tax to be scrapped.”

Labour MP Nick Brown, a member of the Campaign to Defend Council Housing, said he would welcome the UN ruling. He added: “If the Government’s objective is to deal with under-occupancy of social housing, the bedroom tax is not the way to go about it.

“Better management of existing stock and more provision of social housing would be a better use of the money.”

Rolnik will present a final report on the visit to the UN’s human rights council in March next year.

[Oneeye]

LOL, bedroom tax? Really?

[Graham]

LOL, bedroom tax? Really?

It's not a real tax. It's a benefit cut for those in Social housing.. People with spare rooms, will have it cut. It mainly effects disabled people, who need the spare room for carers.

Daily Record is a pro-socialist newspaper, & is Scotlands most read. To give you an idea of the angle.

[Graham]

United Nations criticism of the so-called bedroom tax backed by the Scottish Government (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/united-nations-criticism-so-calledbedroomtax-backed-2266798)
By Lindsey Archibald, 11 Sep 2013 14:46
http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1925617.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Anti-bedroom-tax-protest-grab-1925617.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED Nations criticism of the so-called bedroom tax has been backed by the Scottish Government.

Scottish housing minister Margaret Burgess welcomed the findings of UN special rapporteur for housing Raquel Rolnik, who said the policy causes great stress and anxiety to vulnerable people.

Ms Burgess said: "The bedroom tax is unfair, ill-conceived and risks pushing people to the edge and we have made clear that following a vote for independence this policy will be scrapped.

"It is significant to see that the UN special rapporteur has come to the same conclusion as the Scottish Government on the UK Government's bedroom tax, describing it as a detrimental measure which has serious impacts on the most vulnerable of our society.

"The Scottish Government, like the UN Special Rapporteur, takes the view that an approach to housing challenges which puts the needs of individuals and communities, as well as the principles of equality and respect for human rights at the heart of public policy decisions, is the right way forward."

The comments were made as Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps called on Ms Rolnik to apologise for her criticism.

He said: "It is completely wrong and an abuse of the process for somebody to come over, to fail to meet with Government ministers, to fail to meet with the department responsible, to produce a press release two weeks after coming, even though the report is not due out until next spring, and even to fail to refer to the policy properly throughout the report."

But Ms Rolnik insists she was on an official visit at the invitation of the UK Government.

She said: "I would suggest that the so-called bedroom tax be suspended immediately and be fully re-evaluated in the light of the evidence of its impact on the right to adequate housing and general well-being of many vulnerable individuals."

Ms Rolnik visited tenants in cities across the UK, including Edinburgh and Glasgow.

She said some tenants were contemplating suicide due to the changes.

Her final report will be presented in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council in March.

Under the welfare reform, social tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they need have had their housing benefit reduced since April.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "It is surprising to see these conclusions being drawn from anecdotal evidence and conversations after a handful of meetings - instead of actual hard research and data.

"Britain has a very strong housing safety net and even after our necessary reforms we continue to pay over 80% of most claimants' rent if they are affected by the ending of the spare room subsidy.

"These changes will help us get to grips with the housing benefit bill which has grown to £24 billion this year, and make better use of our housing stock. We've given councils £190 million to support vulnerable residents who may need extra help."

[Loki]

Very good!! Down with Cameron's ridiculous attempt to kick the poor again and benefit the rich. He's a disgrace.

[Oneeye]

It's not a real tax. It's a benefit cut for those in Social housing.. People with spare rooms, will have it cut. It mainly effects disabled people, who need the spare room for carers.

Daily Record is a pro-socialist newspaper, & is Scotlands most read. To give you an idea of the angle.


Yeah, I caught that. It's not any different over here with subsidies dropped being called a tax increase to increase public outcry.

[Graham]

It doesn't effect me(not on benefit etc..), but I hear it's unpopular. Don't see the point so much, now that we have the benefit cap for couples and lone parents, lowered to £26,000 at a maximum. Could go down to £20K.

[Graham]

A third Scotland is emerging (http://www.scottishreview.net/GerryHassan114.shtml)
Gerry Hassan, 12 September 2013

----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Scottish establishments facing one another – one the old Labour Scotland which has administered and dominated public life for the last 50 years; the other the newcomer on the block: the bright, shiny SNP establishment full of vigour and promise. This is what lies behind the slugfest of the 'Yes/No' debate, its partisan adherents, and the simple, superficial presentation of this in large sections of the mainstream media.

Two weeks ago a piece I wrote for the Scottish Review which outlined the nature of this non-debate and the 'two establishments Scotland' idea. I subsequently began to think whether this was an accurate description of where we are, and whether the British establishment shouldn't be counted given they that have an interest and voice in the whole thing. Then I came to the realisation that at least within Scotland, there was another emerging force different from the two camps.

This is what I would call 'the third Scotland'. It is characterised by being mostly non-institutional, not part of 'official Scotland' and with a significant presence in social media. It also seems to represent a generational shift, with a whole swathe of politically literate 20-something Scotland being involved in it.

Whereas the SNP idea of independence seems to be predicated on the idea that nothing much should change in Scotland, and that the formal gaining of independence should be enough, 'third Scotland' takes a very different view. This diffuse group poses the idea of economic, social and cultural change at the forefront, and mostly but not exclusively that independence is the best vehicle for advancing this. It takes a very different approach in places, not supporting independence as nationalists, but as radical democrats, egalitarians, feminists, greens and numerous other variants impatient at the closed, complacent conversations of 'official Scotland'.

The forces of 'third Scotland' can be seen in the activities of the Radical Independence Conference (RIC), National Collective, the Jimmy Reid Foundation and its Common Weal Project, in the work of Andy Wightman on land reform and Lesley Riddoch on cultural change. It is a political community I feel an affinity with, and one of its many interesting aspects is that parts of it defy description. Are its protagonists and advocates, activists, campaigners, imagineers or policy and ideas entrepreneurs? It seems the English language hasn't yet caught up with the fuzzy, messy, non-partisan way that many people are now doing and living their politics.

There are limitations in elements of 'third Scotland' like any diverse gathering. In parts there is a capacity for what could be called an unreflective socialist nostalgia, which seems to have little understanding of modern Scotland, collective memories or the past. Scotland isn't and never has been a socialist country, but has had a powerful collectivist culture, which is something entirely different (for good and bad). The forces of socialism in Scotland, like everywhere in the West, are weak and in retreat, and there is an urgent need to break out of any heritage industry of the left, and find a progressive politics very different both from the conservatism of what passes for socialism with its yearning for a mythical, simpler past and the neo-conservatism of the free market determinists.

I was thinking about this when I read Jill Stephenson's piece (3 September). Apparently Jill lives in a Scotland where she has only met two people who are in favour of independence, and thinks that is telling us about modern Scotland rather than the unrepresentative nature of the company she keeps. She even compared the entire independence project to the Edinburgh trams, i.e. got up by a few fanatics – in the one, trainspotters and transport geeks, in the other, political trainspotters.

This does a disservice to the long revolution which Scottish society has undergone and which has contributed enormously to getting us where we are today: debating and considering the prospect of Scottish independence. In this, a major factor has been the slow weakening of the vice-like grip of 'high Scotland', which in 1945-75 expressed itself in progressive credentials in a unionist Britain that shared these characteristics. That vision of society was part of an older Scottish story: of a managed, ordered society of closed elites and professions who until recently faced very little public scrutiny or criticism.

As I posed in my two establishments perspective, a significant part of society is having trouble with this debate, and it is concentrated in institutional Scotland in parts of public bodies, the media, and formal politics. John Boothman, head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland, might like to think the Beeb is doing a good job in covering the referendum, but he has to say that doesn't he? Anyone who speaks to some of the passionate, committed journalists who work in BBC Scotland will know they are dismayed at the caution and lack of imagination of those running the organisation.

But this isn't just about the media or the BBC. These are easy targets. The wider problem is the nature of power in Scotland, its unequal distribution and the consequences which flow from this, the undynamic nature of large sections of what is called 'civic Scotland' and the legacy of elite power and patronage.

Yet despite the above, something significant is stirring which is being aided and facilitated by the independence debate. A spectrum of Scotland is feeling it has the confidence, opportunity and voice to contribute to a debate on Scotland's future. The old patterns of how things were run is being challenged, as we begin a conversation about democratising public life, and, for all the qualifications in the SNP's version of independence, the very idea of it is being normalised. These are huge, seismic shifts.

Within 'the third Scotland' there is a cultural shift underway which I think we are not even beginning to come to terms with, and which 'official Scotland' has little comprehension of. This is the changing nature of soft power and voice.
For as long as anyone can remember, Scotland has been defined by ideas of sensing that you needed to seek permission to do something; there was in the air a palpable feeling that you could be told off at any point which any homegrown Scot knew. This prescriptive, sometimes punitive authority in the ether was based on people's own experiences, of being educated, of how parents or relatives sometimes acted, or the folk histories of times when the Kirk ruled the land with an iron will. When a friend of mine years ago decided to publicly challenge some of the totems of Scots public life she said that she felt she was 'putting her bum out the window' and might be verbally shot at!

Now there is a growing movement of people saying 'I have authority', I have permission, licence and confidence to dare to stick my head above the parapet. That seems quite a change from the Scotland many of us grew up in, and which defined our parents and grandparents. There is a gender dimension to this 'third Scotland': more women are sensing that they can challenge the male-only spaces which have existed too long and still exist in too many places. There is a generational shift as we move from the society of the elders where a group held forth about how perfect things were before the evil Thatcher decided to steal our scones. And there is the emergence of a whole plethora of social media voices and platforms.

Let’s by all means challenge the narrow bandwidth of 'official Scotland'. Let's challenge what passes for party political debate and the idea that Scotland's future is about a binary, simplistic Yes and No. There are many different Yeses and Nos, as well as many Scotlands beyond that.

We shouldn't get carried away. The forces of institutional Scotland, while weaker and in decline, still have enormous reach and power. The forces of the 'third Scotland' are relatively much weaker. But change is in the air. The 1980s mantra of 'civic Scotland', of worthies and city fathers proclaiming that they speak for the people, is coming to an end. And with it the possibilities of a new culture of diffuseness and diversity is emerging: the age of the 'third Scotland'.


Dr Gerry Hassan is the author and editor of numerous books on Scotland, politics and ideas, including 'The Strange Death of Labour Scotland'

[Graham]

Did MoD block oil boom in the Firth of Clyde? (http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/did-mod-block-oil-boom-in-the-firth-of-clyde-1.138569)
BY ANDREW PICKEN, 6 OCTOBER 2013 10.30AM
A potential North Sea-style oil boom off the Ayrshire coast was blocked by worried defence chiefs, a former MP has claimed.

Retired Labour politician David Lambie has said oil exploration work in the Firth of Clyde was stopped during the 1980s because of fears it would interfere with a vital training and exercise area for nuclear submarines.

Seismic and geological studies were carried out by energy giant BP in a 92 square mile stretch of water south of Arran which is a vital gateway to the Faslane naval base. But both BP and the UK Government say they no longer have copies of the survey results,

The revelation has prompted concerns among nationalists that the information has been deliberately suppressed.

The Sunday Post has spoken to people around at the time of the explorations who claim they were told oil had been discovered, including one worker on a BP survey ship. And Mr Lambie, a Labour MP in Ayrshire between 1970 and 1992, said: “One of the Tory MPs I was friendly with at the time told me privately that there was oil there but any further exploration was being blocked by the MoD.

“Because it was a part of the sea they used for exercises and training, the Navy told them to walk away from the application. I was furious, if the people in my constituency had the choice between naval exercises and oil jobs I know which one they would choose.”

The 88-year-old added: “I am absolutely convinced there is oil down there.”

Official records show that in 1981 a Norwegian survey ship called the Geco Echo was assessing a 12 mile by seven mile area south of Arran for signs of oil. BP was then handed the formal licence to carry out exploration work in 1984.

The then Energy Secretary Peter Walker said he had to consult with MoD before granting the licence because of the “importance of the area for the passage of British and US submarines to and from their bases.”

At the time, two fleets of submarines armed with Polaris missiles were based on the Clyde — the US Navy at Holy Loch, near Dunoon, and the Royal Navy at Faslane, near Helensburgh.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change usually keeps all relevant survey information for the licences it issues but says it has no copies of the exploration work carried out in the Firth of Clyde. BP also has no records and said that after its survey work – carried out between 1984 and 1988 – it concluded there was no reason to continue exploration.

Chic Brodie, SNP MSP for the South of Scotland, said: “Given the revelation by former Chancellor Denis Healey that the UK Government underplayed the value of oil in the 1970s, we have to be deeply sceptical that the UK Government are telling us everything they know when it comes to oil in the Firth of Clyde.

“We know for a fact the MoD was consulted on the exploration and now we have the local MP at the time saying they got any further exploration halted. The people of Scotland deserve answers from the UK Government on what is exactly down there. It is odd to say the least that no records of the survey work exist any more.”

One worker who worked on the exploration project, who asked not to be named, said: “We were told there was oil and the exploration work lasted some time but I don’t know what happened beyond that.”

Ian Douglas, an SNP councillor from Ayr, said he spoke to the exploration crew in the mid-1980s when on a sailing course in Campbeltown. He said: “We were told they were mapping the sea bed [and] that the results were hush hush, but that Scotland would be a wealthy place sooner rather than later after the oil started to flow.”

But Aberdeen University’s Professor Alex Kemp, a world leading expert on oil and gas exploration, said: “I would be surprised if there is anything there. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the MoD objected as that has been quite common in the history of the North Sea.”

BP said that after carrying out its survey work it “concluded that there was no reason to continue exploration in the Firth of Clyde” and relinquished the licence in 1988. A request to the MoD for all information it holds relating to the Firth of Clyde oil explorations drew a blank.

The MoD said it was “unable to locate any information within the scope of the request” and added that “given the time that has now passed since the explorations, it is likely that such information (if held) has since been destroyed.”

A spokesman yesterday said they had nothing more to add when asked about the claims that exploration work was blocked.

[Celyn]

Hmmm, a bit incompetent of the Min. of Defence, the Dept. for Energy & Climate Change, and BP all to find that they don't have any records. Careless of them, really. I'd have they ought to be in microfiche or in external archives, but still existing. I mean, I hope the good old M.oD. would never lie to us. :)

[Graham]

Prestwick Airport to be taken into public ownership (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24446591)http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70355000/jpg/_70355839_70355834.jpg

The Scottish government has confirmed that it plans to take Glasgow Prestwick Airport into public ownership.

The step was confirmed in a statement by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.

The airport, which was put up for sale last March by New Zealand-based owners Infratil, has been running annual losses of £2m.

Ryanair, which operates 27 routes from Prestwick, has welcomed the government takeover.

Ministers will now enter detailed negotiations with Infratil on the terms of sale.

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs some private investors had expressed an interest in the airport but it had become clear none was able to commit to buying Prestwick on a timescale that was acceptable to Infratil.

She said the Infratil board had been considering its options, one of which was to seek commercial discussions with a view to public sector ownership and the other being to close the airport.

Airport jobs

Ms Sturgeon said ministers had "examined carefully" the implications and consequences of both options before making their decision.

She argued that the closure of Prestwick would be a "serious and unwelcome development" for the Ayrshire and the Scottish economies, with about 1,400 jobs linked directly or indirectly with the airport.

She said: "We believe Prestwick Airport can have a positive future.

"It will require investment and it will take time. However, we believe it can be returned to profitability.

"We also estimate that the cost of closure to the public purse would be very significant and this is an important factor in our decision."

'Familiar concept'

Ms Sturgeon described public ownership of airports as "a familiar concept", pointing out that the Scottish government already had responsibility for 11 airports through Highlands and Islands Airports Limited.

She also argued that some other major UK airports - including Manchester, Stansted, Newcastle and Cardiff - were owned wholly or substantially by the public sector.

She added: "I can therefore advise parliament that the Scottish government has advised the current owners of our intention to commence a process towards acquisition of Prestwick Airport.

"Following the agreement of its board earlier today in Shanghai, we are entering into negotiations with Infratil for the potential acquisition of Prestwick Aviation Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries.

"Conclusion of this process will, of course, be subject to the Scottish government carrying out confirmatory due diligence.

"The terms of sale will be on a commercial basis and in accordance with the market economy investment principle."

'Enormous effort'

She added that the government intended to complete due diligence and detailed negotiations with Infratil on the terms of sale over a six-week period.

Infratil has agreed to ensure the airport is kept fully open and operational while the process is ongoing.

The only scheduled passenger airline at Prestwick, Ryanair, said: "We welcome today's announcement, which gives certainty to the future development of Prestwick Airport.

"Ryanair remains committed to Prestwick, where we have a large route network and base maintenance presence."

The Scottish Conservatives urged the Scottish government to return the airport to private hands at the earliest possible opportunity.

Transport spokesman Alex Johnstone MSP said: "It is going to take an enormous effort to get the airport back in to profit and make it sustainable for the future.

"That will involve a significant level of restructuring and the Scottish government has to have the courage to do what's necessary, rather than simply pouring money into something without accruing any benefit.

"It's also important that, even if this airport is publicly owned, it is managed and run by people whose job it is to manage and run airports."

'Major money'

Welcoming the announcement, Labour MP for Central Ayrshire Brian Donohoe said: "Major money is required to develop the airport which is why I have always said it should be given for a penny to a developer willing to spend the cash.

"I hope the Scottish government did not pay much more than that."

Speaking to BBC Scotland, he said the airport had been "moribund" for about 10 years.

"The actual income against the expenditure hasn't matched," he said.

Mr Donohoe added that, as a result, the airport's owner had not made "the necessary investment".

[Graham]

Bathgate no more, Linwood no more (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24509655)
By Douglas Fraser
Business and economy editor, Scotland
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70454000/jpg/_70454749_irvine.jpg"Bathgate no more. Linwood no more. Methil no more. Irvine no more..."

The lyrics from The Proclaimers first hit song, quarter of a century ago, continue as an anthem to the 1980s.

As the duo brought a two-year touring schedule to a close at Glasgow's new Hydro arena on Saturday night, they still resonate as part of Scotland's story about its modern self.

They drew a parallel with the poetry and paintings of the 18th and 19th Highland Clearances. To the theme of "Lochaber no more", the Proclaimers added Skye, Sutherland and Lewis.

So I've been on a journey across central Scotland and through the past quarter century to find out what happened next for the towns that were supposed to be "...no more".

There are some who never recovered from the blight of unemployment in that decade. A generation was scarred by losing jobs, without skills to take on the new opportunities. There's evidence that the next generation who left school into the teeth of the Eighties recession continue to suffer some consequences still.

But the main theme I've found is what is quite a positive story about resilience and flexibility.

Scots are more skilled, and perhaps more resourceful. Having given up on supporting old industries, government has made a difference through building infrastructure for new ones. People have become much more mobile around the country.

Iron curtain

Whereas the Proclaimers were singing in 'Letter from America' about emigration and "all the blood that flowed away", the past 15 years have seen that flow reversed, with the arrival of immigrants, particularly from Poland and the Baltic states.

As I heard from the duo, Charlie and Craig Reid, the song didn't say it was bad or good, but that it happens. "It was unthinkable there would be an influx of eastern Europeans before the Iron Curtain came down. That has changed Scotland for the good".

The economy has continued to bring major plant closures, though on a lesser scale to the giant ones of the 1980s. Thirteen years ago, it included Motorola at Easter Inch, near Bathgate. More recently, it has been at the Hall's of Broxburn meat processing plant, ten miles from Bathgate.

It's notable that the impact on single communities has been less clear and less harsh for the communities around them than when coal mines and the previous generation of industries closed. Workers have been more dispersed, and a combination of improved transport options and more flexible skills have taken them to jobs in other places and in other sectors.

Charlie and Craig Reid, while giving up some rehearsal time ahead of their Glasgow gig, told me Letter from America now seems dated. They weren't to know that net emigration would be reversed, before the Iron Curtain came down.

They know it speaks to a particular generation, and that it plays best when they are performing in Britain, Ireland and Canada. But Charlie Reid also reflects that his children's generation are in a weaker bargaining position with employers, backed by multi-national clout, than used to be the case, as they're "ground down" on pay and conditions, and struggle to turn part-time opportunities into full-time employment.

The writers of the lyrics say the towns could as easily have been Kilmarnock, Cowdenbeath and Cumnock, but the ones they chose worked with the song. So that's where I went for my journey across Scotland, and across the past quarter century.

Bathgate no more?

The Leyland plant built trucks and tractors until work started to be moved elsewhere from 1982, and it finally closed in 1986. There was a work-in during that time, with a parallel dispute with the nearby Plessey workers, making telephone components.

Jim Swan was convener of Leyland's joint shop stewards, and recalls: "It was difficult times; the pit closing, Plessey and us closing at the same time. It was devastating and the unemployment rate went up to 25 per cent in some areas.

"I always remember Gavin McCone, the civil servant, saying to me at that time: 'Mr Swan, I can't save your workers, but what I can do is set up an infrastructure which will try to get more inward investment and work which will probably employ your sons and daughters.' And that's what happened, but it took about 15 years to balance the economy out again."

During that time, Silicon Glen brought thousands of electronics jobs to West Lothian, but many left again. This time, though, the big closures, such as Motorola at Easter Inch, had workforces which were dispersed, so the impact was not so severe on any one town.

West Lothian now has the fastest population growth of any council area in Scotland, which explains why the old Leyland plant has a housing estate on it, where many commute to work at some distance. It's become part of greater Edinburgh.

Harry Cartmill, representing Bathgate for Labour on the council, says the opening of the rail line to the capital in the same year that Leyland closed was the biggest single element of turning around the town. Only two years ago, the line west to Airdrie and on to Glasgow re-opened as well, making it more of a dormitory town for both cities.

Linwood no more?

Where once they built Hillman cars at the Renfrewshire site, they now sell them. A lot of them. John McGuire, managing director of Phoenix Car Company, says there are 18 dealerships alongside an Asda superstore, restaurants and leisure.

His father worked at Linwood, and when it closed, his first year of unemployment saw him age by more than 10 years "going from a relatively young man to a relatively old man"

"When I was wanting to start my own business, and we had an opportunity to buy land here, I wasn't sure if this was where I wanted to come, because of the damage done to the local community. But I'm very glad that I did."

He reckons that there are now nearly 4000 jobs in the area, which is getting close to the number of jobs lost when the car plant closed.

"I wanted to employ people, because I saw the dignity that gave to people and I wanted to have my own business so that I'd be in control of my destiny and also that I'd look after a team of people and make sure they didn't have to go through what we saw happening in the Eighties in this country."

The nearby village of Linwood hasn't fared so well. It won the unwanted Carbuncle Award for poor design, which provoked some in the community to treat it not as an insult but a challenge to improve. The Community Development Trust is keen to see change in the area done with people in the area, rather than to them.

Methil no more?

There's lots more to Methil, but it's been a rocky time. The Fife town's fabrication yard, under various ownership, was still building big oil platforms for the North Sea oil in the 1980s, but decline and closure was on the way. The fabrication was shut for seven years, until BiFab expanded from Burntisland, along the Fife coast.

The company now has 800 people on site, and 1,100 if you include Burntisland and Arnish near Stornoway. It's hiring apprentices, but for welding skills, it had to go to Poland.

It's working to capacity, much of that on a platform for Premier Oil's Solan field west of Shetland, scheduled for float-out next April. That will go in 140 metres of water, and while it will have 35 berths for offshore workers, the intention is to remove it after a year, and to operate it remotely.

The big prospect, though, is in renewable energy. Samsung is constructing a huge, 7 megawatt wind turbine, just off the Methil quayside, and Scottish Enterprise, which owns the land, has a site cleared for the Korean giant to build turbines there - so long as the market conditions become clearer.

BiFab's managing director John Robertson says the yard has built 42 jackets for offshore wind turbines. It has plans to invest in new production capacity up to 150 per year, if demand comes through.

And as he said, there's a lot of uncertainty in the wind, while the industry awaits the guaranteed minimum prices that will underpin it in the UK government's Electricity Market Reforms, and a decision on how long that regime will last.

He also said the uncertainty extended to the outcome of next year's independence referendum - a 'hurdle' that he wants to get over, so that the investment outlook becomes clearer.

Irvine no more?

There was no signature plant or plant closure that defined Irvine's. And it's less clear that the town has found a way back from the hard times of the 1980s. The Irvine Bay regeneration plan aims to improve the new town and others nearby in North Ayrshire.

The problem a quarter century ago was as much about young people leaving as businesses doing so. One of those to do so was Nicola Sturgeon, who grew up in Dreghorn, the village that became part of Irvine.

She recalls a social life built around the path-breaking Magnum Centre and a political awareness that took her, as a teenager, into the Scottish National Party.

She recalls the threat and reality of unemployment at that time feeling like it was "terminal" - there seemed no way back. And for her, there was only one thing she planned to do when she left school, which was studying law at Glasgow University.

There is now more flexibility about people returning to work after redundancy. And what of her nephew who is around the age of the Deputy First Minister when she first heard the Proclaimers' Letter from America, and he's soon to leave school in Irvine?

His interest in science may be well suited to the science opportunities in North Ayrshire's pharmaceutical industry.

And while she thinks young people should have the opportunity to spread their wings and leave, she believes the important thing is to ensure they can come back to those opportunities.

[Graham]

SNP Conference: Alex Salmond says an independent Scotland would renationalise Royal Mail and scrap bedroom tax (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snpconference-alex-salmond-says-an-independent-scotland-would-renationalise-royal-mail-and-scrap-bedroom-tax-8891485.html)
JAMES CUSICK Author Biography POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT SATURDAY 19 OCTOBER 2013
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70584000/jpg/_70584950_70584949.jpgAlex Salmond described the voters who will decide if Scotland leaves or remains part of the United Kingdom next year as the “independence generation” who had “tasted” devolution and now wanted the power to choose “a different path” from the governments in Westminster they had not voted for.

In a competent rather than barnstorming leader’s speech to the SNP’s conference in Perth, 337 days before the referendum date next year, the First Minister repeatedly emphasised Holyrood’s progressive credentials and said an independent Scotland would renationalise the Royal Mail, scrap the bedroom tax and set up a Fair Work Commission to ensure the minimum wage kept pace with inflation and the cost of living.

He also threw down a gauntlet to David Cameron to take part in televised debates with himself over the contents of a detailed White Paper on independence – which will be published on 28 November, the week of the St Andrew’s Day celebrations.

To loud applause, he told the delegates: “We’ll publish the White Paper, then you and I must debate … The choice is yours. Step up to the plate or step out of this debate.”

In a speech full of socialist policies and intentions that would have been a star turn at any pre-Tony Blair Labour conference, the SNP leader tried to differentiate his Holyrood administration from Westminster under both Labour and the Conservatives.

He said the Scottish government’s record on free personal care, protecting the NHS from privatisation, the continuing free access to university education and council tax freeze pointed to Scotland having progressive priorities. He said: “This is not a something- for-nothing country, but a something- for-something society.” He promised that his party would defend the “social progress” made by Holyrood.

He announced a new £60m investment fund, with £20m contributed by the European Union, that aimed to boost business start-ups which focused on employment opportunities for 3,000 mainly young people.

And in a side-swipe at Mr Cameron’s promised renegotiations with the EU, the First Minister said: “We will not allow action on youth unemployment to be restricted by the parochial insularity of Westminster.”

Given Ed Miliband’s recent boldness over energy price control by the state and his admission that Labour had not abandoned its socialist inheritance, Mr Salmond’s avoidance of the word “socialism” anywhere in his speech was at odds with the left-leaning independent Scotland that he was promising.

On the UK minimum wage, he said this had failed to rise in real terms for the 70,000 in Scotland who received it. “If this [policy] had been in play in the last five years – the lowest-paid Scots would today be a total of £675 better off.”

With a twist of the political line advocated by the Works and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, Mr Salmond said: “Work should pay – and we must ensure that work pays by raising the skills and rewards of Labour, not be reducing people to penury and despair.”

The November White Paper, he said, would offer a written constitution, a promise to keep key public services in public hands and to protect the public against monopoly power.

On nuclear disarmament – again emphasising how an independent Scotland would do things differently – Mr Salmond said: “We seek a country which judges its contribution on how useful it can be to the rest of humanity, not on how many warheads it can dance on a Trident submarine.”

Scotland’s oil wealth is central for Mr Salmond. He did not disappoint the Perth gathering. He said only two of the world’s oil-rich nations had failed to set up oil-related sovereign funds to benefit future generations – “the UK and the Republic of Iraq. Vast oil wealth is not a problem for Scotland. The problem for Scotland is that, for 40 years, Westminster has squandered that vast oil wealth.”

Mr Salmond’s job over the next year is to convince those still undecided about independence. An emotional appeal for nationhood is expected to be part of the Yes campaign’s push to close the gap on their Better Together opponents.

Mr Salmond started the process in Perth, saying “the independence generation” were “truly privileged because, in less than one year’s time, we can stop imagining and we can start building”. Scotland, he said, had been moving towards the referendum date for more than a century, but insisted: “Our time is now.”

[SKYNET]

I really hope Scotland will get an independence as soon as possible to prevent an immigrant flood from Pakistan and India.