ForumGarden

Australian prime minister warns against Scotland voting for independence and says separatists are 'not friends of justice or freedom' | Mail Online

You know the no campaigns ' approach consists of threats to make life a difficult as possible should we vote yes in the upcoming referendum, derision at the suggestion we could actually manage on our own now they add in the notion that a waeakened UK will laed to world catastrophe. The only reason any real break up and disruption will occur is of the westminster parliament decide to be petty and childish. If england and the rest of the UK will be in such pathetic dire straits without the scots I fear for the future of the rest of the Uk should we vote yes.

It's cameron that has made this a yes or no issue but tell me would you trust cameron or labour to go ahead with further devolution if we vote no? None of it was on the table until it dawnd on them a yes vote was a serious prospct. It's a safe bet as soon as a no vote is in it will be quietly fogotten. I was ambivalent but the prospect of a UK governed by a series of increasingly right wing half witted goernments has turned me in o a yes voter.

I know that if Scotland does vote for independency, then it is planned to be a gradual changeover, as opposed to slamming all the borders shut overnight & putting barbed wire along Hadrians Wall, but I can't help but wonder what if the go independent and then, after a couple of years or so discover that they made a dreadful mistake & that life is not the bunch of roses they were promised. Will there be another referendum for them to rejoin the Union, or should be have a referendum as to whether or not to let them back in?

I have to concede that Initially, I believed It was a bad Idea.

I'm slowly changing my mind as time goes on given the amount of pressure other countries seem to be piling on and sticking their nose In.

Oscar Namechange;1462181 wrote: I have to concede that Initially, I believed It was a bad Idea.

I'm slowly changing my mind as time goes on given the amount of pressure other countries seem to be piling on and sticking their nose In.


It's gone from scotland wouldn't survive as an independent nation to the UK will cease to be a meaningful force in the world without the scots. Maybe it's the realisation that the UK is more likely to leave the eu without the scots, that scottish oil has saved the UK from bankruptcy - we pay more to the exchequer than we get back so what is asbournes plan to mak up the shortfall, privatise the nhs probably - and if westminster is going to be bloody minded about us keeping the pound (salmond is right there it would just make things hard for no good reason apart from spite) then you can foget about us pying a share of a national debt.

Why should the economy of the UK be expected to support a country that has chosen to go independent. Of course you can keep the Pound - just not the Pound Sterling. Scotland already has the Scottish Pound (from 4 different mints iirc, and only one of those is legal tender - no wonder no-one in England wants to accept them).

The currency should have been one of the first things on the Independence Agenda, as it was made clear from the start that in the case of an Independent Scotland they would not be able to retain the Pound Sterling.

Currency is, in effect, a share of the country's assets. The assets increase & decrease according to the state of its economy, so why should another country be permitted to make use of our assets? If Scotland is so sure of its wealth, what would they want to be restricted to the worthless Pound Sterling for in the first place?

Scotland would be fully able to fiscally sustain Independance once they reclaim the Crown Estates.

Oscar Namechange;1462247 wrote: Scotland would be fully able to fiscally sustain Independance once they reclaim the Crown Estates.
'Reclaim' or 'Seize' private property? A rose by any other name...

FourPart;1462256 wrote: 'Reclaim' or 'Seize' private property? A rose by any other name...


Reclaim !!! Tony Blair stole 6,000 miles of Scottish sea oil beds IOn 1999 secretly.

Scotland's North Sea Oil Revenues - Scottish Oil & Gas - Scottish North Sea Oil discovery Rockall West Shetland

Regardless of who has a claim on the oil (also bearing in mind that a great proportion - if not a majority proportion - is actually owned by other countries - the countries who first invested in the explorations in the first place), it is estimated that this is likely to run out in about 30 - 40 years (BBC News - North Sea oil: Facts and figures). That is likely to be in many of our own lifetimes. So what happens to a country that demands independence based on the economy financed by a diminishing resource? What happens when the pot of gold runs dry? What then?

Furthermore, regarding the Crown Estates, surely Tony Blair (a Scot, btw), or any other Prime Minister, for that matter, could not possibly 'steal' a resource from the UK, as Scotland was, and still is, for now, part of the UK.

FourPart;1462114 wrote: .... what if the go independent and then ... discover that they made a dreadful mistake ..... Will there be another referendum for them to rejoin the Union .....?


The horror!

FourPart;1462256 wrote: 'Reclaim' or 'Seize' private property? A rose by any other name...


You are kidding right -how exactly did these estates come to be in the possesion of the crown in the first place? If we decide to steal it back we will do so. While we are at it we should also remove the property from all those landowners whose ancestors took it by force in the past

posted by fourpart

Regardless of who has a claim on the oil (also bearing in mind that a great proportion - if not a majority proportion - is actually owned by other countries - the countries who first invested in the explorations in the first place), it is estimated that this is likely to run out in about 30 - 40 years (BBC News - North Sea oil: Facts and figures). That is likely to be in many of our own lifetimes. So what happens to a country that demands independence based on the economy financed by a diminishing resource? What happens when the pot of gold runs dry? What then?

Furthermore, regarding the Crown Estates, surely Tony Blair (a Scot, btw), or any other Prime Minister, for that matter, could not possibly 'steal' a resource from the UK, as Scotland was, and still is, for now, part of the UK.




You may also ask how the UK will do without north sea oil as without it the UK would have been bankrupt as indeed it was in the seventies until the oil started to flow.

If you use that money and invest in in your industry and infrastructure and education then you plan for the uture. Your starter for ten what did thatcher et al do with the north sea oil revenue? give you a clue an economy based on service industry and financial services is not exactly stable.

If scotland is such a drain on the UK economy why are westminster terrified that we vote yes? You'd think they'd be glad to see us go.

Remember it was cameron that made this a yes or no vote not the SNP.

Really?

Ed Miliband reveals 'we'll put guards on Scottish border' if country backs independence | Mail Online

We'll put guards on Scottish border: Ed Miliband reveals incendiary plan as Yes camp leads for first time in shock new poll




Why does the daily mail think this kind of story helps the case for voting no. Niot that many readit in scotland

Independence referendum: George Osborne promises to unveil plans to give Scotland more powers in wake of shock new poll - Daily Record

Independence referendum: George Osborne promises to unveil plans to give Scotland more powers in wake of shock new poll




Too late sunshine, trust me I'm a tory doesn't work any more.

I've come to the concluscion that the westminster parties don't see a future without scotland as viable.

gmc;1463873 wrote: Really?

Ed Miliband reveals 'we'll put guards on Scottish border' if country backs independence | Mail Online



Why does the daily mail think this kind of story helps the case for voting no. Niot that many readit in scotland

Independence referendum: George Osborne promises to unveil plans to give Scotland more powers in wake of shock new poll - Daily Record



Too late sunshine, trust me I'm a tory doesn't work any more.

I've come to the concluscion that the westminster parties don't see a future without scotkland as viable.


Why are you linking the Daily Mail Auld Yin ? Did you find another one left on the number 42 bus ?

I laughed my tits off when I read Millepede saying he's going to put Guards on the Scottish border. What does he really think Is going to happen? An Illegal Immigrant camp akin to Calais on the border of Scotland trying to get Into England? Or perhaps to stop the rush of the English fleeing England for Scotland?

As for Osborne... rather Ironic don't you think? A Tory making decisions about Scotland when Tories In Scotland are rarer than rocking horse s.hit.

Regarding the polls... don't get too excited. I don't trust them fully.I remember the night I went to bed safe In the knowledge of the polls, only to wake and find John Major as Prime Minister. If the polls are relatively accurate, It accounts for the panic sweeping through Westminster right now... Still, at least all the flapping abput will divert the countroes attention away from ISIS beheading Christians In Syria.

Seems English leaders are talking the Scots into separation.

Supporters of Scottish independence take narrow poll lead for first time | Reuters

So, I was just looking at images of the Union Jack to see what it would look like after a Scottish secession.

It actually would be pretty simple to change.

Simply remove the blue panels. Then you have St George's Cross, superimposed on St Patrick's cross.

Of course, now all of the various ensigns and commonwealth member national flags must be changed, too.

It will be quite an undertaking. I would think the Brits would be working harder at finding a way to convince the Scots they would prefer to stay in the Union.

Sure there are more level heads working in that direction, even though the Checkstand rags all seem to report the opposite.

Oscar Namechange;1463881 wrote: Why are you linking the Daily Mail Auld Yin ? Did you find another one left on the number 42 bus ?

I laughed my tits off when I read Millepede saying he's going to put Guards on the Scottish border. What does he really think Is going to happen? An Illegal Immigrant camp akin to Calais on the border of Scotland trying to get Into England? Or perhaps to stop the rush of the English fleeing England for Scotland?

As for Osborne... rather Ironic don't you think? A Tory making decisions about Scotland when Tories In Scotland are rarer than rocking horse s.hit.

Regarding the polls... don't get too excited. I don't trust them fully.I remember the night I went to bed safe In the knowledge of the polls, only to wake and find John Major as Prime Minister. If the polls are relatively accurate, It accounts for the panic sweeping through Westminster right now... Still, at least all the flapping abput will divert the countroes attention away from ISIS beheading Christians In Syria.


The daily mail can usually be counted on for somethimng ridiculous to talk about. This is just plain silly wonder who it is aimed at. Quite frankly osbourne now talking about more powers is leaving it a bit late, if he was serious they wopuld have done it long ago all it does is swing people to vote yes since it is quite hard to find anyone that would trust the tories - or labour come to that. Bear in mind cameron was the one that insisted on a yes no vote the SNP would have had a third option of greater devolution. Part of his resoning was that a third option would be confusing for us simple scots people.



It's not about whether we want the SNP to actually run the place if we vote yes, more likely there would be a coalition. There was a televised debate where nicola sturgeon asked jim murphy several times what powers labour would give to scotland and he couldn't answer.

Methinks they have left it too late and their now talking about greater devolution smacks of desperation

posted by larsmac

Seems English leaders are talking the Scots into separation.




It's not as simple as the english leaders if you said westminster party leaders it would be more accurate. the scots labour party is siding with tne tories and the national labour party are wetting themselves in fear as without the scottish MP's they will not be forming a government any time soon.

The more they tell us we can't do something and make threats the more likely we are to vote yes.

gmc;1463907 wrote: ...

The more they tell us we can't do something and make threats the more likely we are to vote yes.


Yeah, that is kinda what I was getting at.

I really can't see secession being a benefit to either Scotland or Brittain, myself.

As David Nicholson put it, "it would feel like a regressive, small-minded, self-inflicted act of exile from the 21st century."

Could this 'Yes' vote rumour being in the lead be a tactic to get the No voters to the poll ?

Bruv;1463920 wrote: Could this 'Yes' vote rumour being in the lead be a tactic to get the No voters to the poll ? I don't think so... way too risky tactic this late In the day,

They have left It so late simply because earlier polls predicted a No vote and they thought they were home and dry. Latest polls show a swing to a Yes vote for the first time and that's why they are all flapping like headless chickens.

unlike when Australia declared independence....

So, I am curious.

Is there a well thought out plan to implement the separation immediately, should the vote go 'Yes'?

Or do they begin planning how to go about it once they know the outcome of the vote?

And is it a simple majority that will decide? OR does the vote require something more definitive?

If a simple majority carries it, then however it turns out, half the Scots may be unhappy.

LarsMac;1463925 wrote: So, I am curious.

Is there a well thought out plan to implement the separation immediately, should the vote go 'Yes'?

Or do they begin planning how to go about it once they know the outcome of the vote?

And is it a simple majority that will decide? OR does the vote require something more definitive?

If a simple majority carries it, then however it turns out, half the Scots may be unhappy.


The answer your question is quite simply no. Neither of the westminster parties have been willing to talk about what would happen if the vote is yes. There is actually no need for the animosity that is coming from the better together side.

It's also a simple majority. In the previous referendum an amendment introduved by a scots labour MP meant that over 50% of the scots electorate had to support independence since then as now there is never a large turnoput it essentially rendered the majority yes vote null and void. I voted no on that occasion. The sheer hypocrisy of it was unbelieveable since ouir governments are made up of the least unpopular parties at election time for each seat in effect we always end up with a government that typicaklly 2/3rds of the electorate have voted against. This time salmond was having none of it. It was Cameron who insisted on a simple yes or no vote and also insisted that the scots government could not hold a referendum without westmimnsters approval so he's made the rod for his own back.

I reckon we should have had a referendum as to whether we really wanted them in the first place.

FourPart;1463934 wrote: I reckon we should have had a referendum as to whether we really wanted them in the first place.


Back in those days what you (the People) wanted was of no concern to the guys in power. Now days, they at least pretend to care what the People want.

The question remains that even if the vote goes in favour of Independence whether or not Cameron will keep his promise for once & give it to them.

FourPart;1463963 wrote: The question remains that even if the vote goes in favour of Independence whether or not Cameron will keep his promise for once & give it to them.


What you mean such as In early 2009

Vote Conservative and we will give you the referendum on the EU that the people of Great Britain were denied under the Gordon Brown government '

Along those lines ?

The Independance given a Yes vote will not happen over night. Laws need changing, power granted to Holyrood etc Have you forgotten that we actually have a General Election In May ? It may not even be down to Cameron. There could be Labour In power, a hung Parliament, a Coalition, all sorts of malarky

'

Oscar Namechange;1463967 wrote: What you mean such as In early 2009

Vote Conservative and we will give you the referendum on the EU that the people of Great Britain were denied under the Gordon Brown government '

Along those lines ?

The Independance given a Yes vote will not happen over night. Laws need changing, power granted to Holyrood etc Have you forgotten that we actually have a General Election In May ? It may not even be down to Cameron. There could be Labour In power, a hung Parliament, a Coalition, all sorts of malarky

'
As it happens, I've just sent the following eMail to Rowenna Davis (she's the one who'll be standing in John Denham's place next year - remember - the one I got flamed for being Sexist about simply because I said that she was attractive).

Party Politics aside, the points are about how I feel about the EU and why I feel something has to be done, regardless of who gets into Government.

Hi Rowena,



When we met at the meeting about Immigration in Weston, I spoke to you then about my concerns about remaining in the EU. Now, I know that you are personally in favour of the EU (if I recall correctly, your words were “Better United”), but I think the overwhelming success of UKIP at the European Elections rather proves the point that this is not the view held by the majority of the electorate. Whether an M.P. agrees with them or not doesn’t come into it – they are there to represent their wishes.



At the moment Cameron is ‘promising’ an In / Out Referendum ‘IF’ he gets re-elected (an outright bribe if ever I heard one) and even then I have no doubt whatsoever that he will renege on this promise.



I believe that whatever your personal opinions are, or whatever the Party Policy is on the EU, the decision should be put to the Public. In my opinion, the question of Scottish Independence only affects a fraction of of those who are affected by the EU, yet they get a referendum & we don’t.



The Tory ‘promise’ of a referendum is bound to be a major campaigning point at next year’s elections & if the results are close it could well be enough to swing it in their favour.



In or Out of the EU should not even be a Party Political thing. It should be left to the electorate to decide. I, therefore ask that you do what you can to ensure a BINDING referendum (as opposed to a simple unreliable promissory bribe), regardless of who gets voted into Government, thus cancelling out any untrustworthy ‘promises’ of ‘IF’ they get re-elected, as there WILL be a Referendum whether they get in or not, whether they want one or not.



I emailed the same thing to John immediately after the EU Elections, but never received a reply, although no doubt he was probably inundated at the time.



I know that nobody’s likely to agree with all the policies of any Political Party, but at least please learn the lessons of how the public are swinging in support of UKIP & open your eyes as to why. I’m usually a staunch Labour supporter, but on this issue I’m one of those who voted for UKIP, and I’m certainly not alone in this.



Labour (and all the other main Parties, come to that) need to drastically rethink their policies on EU membership, otherwise a lot more ‘safe’ seats will be lost and, Heaven forbid, even giving the BNP a chance.



Please, please, please – consult your public on the matter.

Very good.

Perhaps I should post here my letter to the MP who's Ward I am contesting.

However, you do know that the chances are she won't see It ? Some lacky who Interceps and screens their mail may decide not to put It forward.

However, my letter went through the buggers letterbox at his home address..

This was a response to a handwritten (copied, of course) campaigning letter put through the door (personally addressed, in an envelope, I might add - not just one of the usual leaflets) with her business card.

Of course I'm aware that there is bound to be a secretary who has to vet everything - it would be foolish if there wasn't, in order to deal with all the other cranks, but judging from personal response I've had from John Denham on other matters, I imagine that relevant ones get through. Plus, of course, she isn't even our MP - yet, which must reduce the amount of eMail she gets coming in.

FourPart;1463974 wrote: This was a response to a handwritten (copied, of course) campaigning letter put through the door (personally addressed, in an envelope, I might add - not just one of the usual leaflets) with her business card.

Of course I'm aware that there is bound to be a secretary who has to vet everything - it would be foolish if there wasn't, in order to deal with all the other cranks, but judging from personal response I've had from John Denham on other matters, I imagine that relevant ones get through. Plus, of course, she isn't even our MP - yet, which must reduce the amount of eMail she gets coming in.


You do realise you have just totally contradicted yourself?

In the Rotherham thread, you claim that BNP numbers In Southampton are In single figures and here you are writing to a Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton claiming that unless the EU Issue Is put to bed, the BNP stand a chance.

Not very consistent are you ?

You don't seem to understand irony do you?

FourPart;1463983 wrote: You don't seem to understand irony do you?


So you're now claiming your posts on the BNP In the Rotherham thread were Irony ???

Nice try.

Nope, I know Irony when I see It and that was not Irony.

Still, I am pleased your recognise the threat the BNP poses for Southampton. We have a key figure lined up for the City In the General In May.... At least you now recognise the climate of the country and the dischord within It that may well turn votes to the Far Right.

I certainly was NOT referring to any threat in Southampton. That very idea is laughable. I was talking more along along the lines of marginal seats as a whole across the nation. This is the primary reason that UKIP made such a killing, because of the public being fed up with being ruled by Brussels & being the target of an overly generous Open Door policy. However, even the idea of BNP candidates getting into those seats is odious - although I very much doubt any of those will retain their seats once those that thought they were deliberately wasting their votes realise that in so doing they actually helped them in.

I don't care what ward it is, or whereabouts in the country, the BNP must be stopped at all costs. If it didn't conflict with my own belief in political free thinking I would be in favour of banning them altogether. It's ironic that I should even support the rights of a party that wants to take away free thinking & the basic rights of the individual.

You do realise both the BNP and UKIP (and come to that so are the tories) are an irrelevance in scotland. Naff off if you can't have a good mannered debate.

posted by four part

I don't care what ward it is, or whereabouts in the country, the BNP must be stopped at all costs. If it didn't conflict with my own belief in political free thinking I would be in favour of banning them altogether. It's ironic that I should even support the rights of a party that wants to take away free thinking & the basic rights of the individual.


Your starter for ten, which political party tried to extend the length of time someone could be held withoit charge and was only defeated thanks to the lords. Come to that which political party wants to repeal the human rights act so that if in futre they decide to imprison you and throw away the key you have no recourse.

The question remains that even if the vote goes in favour of Independence whether or not Cameron will keep his promise for once & give it to them.


Oh that would be fun.

Last minute 'bribe' to keep Scotland in union will be published 8 weeks after referendum | Mail Online

Too late sunshine.

Scottish independence: Ten days to save the United Kingdom as George Osborne promises further devolution after poll shows shock lead for Yes camp - Scottish independence - UK - The Independent

Trust me I'm a tory:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

If they were serious the time to bring this out would have at the start of the debate not when they are panicking about a yes vote.

'Shameless' Salmond accused of playing politics with Royal baby joy after congratulating 'Earl and Countess of Strathearn' | Mail Online

No one has really mentioned the monarchy but they're right about republican sentiment being there it's just dormant unless someone stirs it up.

gmc;1463990 wrote: . Naff off if you can't have a good mannered debate.





. I love It when you get a cob on.

I see His Lushousness Is chiming In now. He's talking about greater powers to Holyrood In the event of a No vote. Sounds quite sensible to me.



BBC News - Scottish independence: Brown sets out more powers timetable

As for the Monachy, Kenny MacAskill has suggested there will be a future referendum on whether Scotland keeps the Queen as Head of State,

How do you see that going Auld Yin ?

I heard it on the radio this morning that the Queen might be asked to make a public appeal for the continuance of the Union.

To be honest, I reckon the biggest case in favour of Independence, thusfar, has been Gordon Brown in his case against it.

I find it rather funny how Labour & Conservatives are constantly bickering over it (as with EU membership) when they're fundamentally of the same belief - pro Union, on both counts.

posted by oscar namechange

As for the Monachy, Kenny MacAskill has suggested there will be a future referendum on whether Scotland keeps the Queen as Head of State,

How do you see that going Auld Yin ?


Dunno, it's not a big issue but potentially it could be especially if people start realising what a rip off the crown estates are or someone starts to make it one.

We should have battle royal over Crown Estate wheeze | Herald Scotland

We had a republic in the 1640's. Ever read the Putney debates or the agreement of the people? Amazing how relevant it still seems.

We had one with Cromwell. It didn't work. They found they still needed the Monarchy, even if only as a figurehead. I suspect it'll be the same thing in Scotland. I understand there is a strong Royalist feeling in Scotland.

Admittedly, I don't know much about "Crown Estates", but they're probably more of a nominal thing (as in 'in name only'), where the actual ownership is with that of the Government. After all, even the Queen pays Income Tax & Rent (I wonder if she has to pay Bedroom Tax as well - I'd like to see Boris make her move into a Single Bedroomed flat).

FourPart;1464035 wrote: We had one with Cromwell. It didn't work. They found they still needed the Monarchy, even if only as a figurehead. I suspect it'll be the same thing in Scotland. I understand there is a strong Royalist feeling in Scotland.

Admittedly, I don't know much about "Crown Estates", but they're probably more of a nominal thing (as in 'in name only'), where the actual ownership is with that of the Government. After all, even the Queen pays Income Tax & Rent (I wonder if she has to pay Bedroom Tax as well - I'd like to see Boris make her move into a Single Bedroomed flat).


It didn't work because of religious fundamentalists. You can never have freedom and democracy where religion gets in the way, monotheism is inimical to equality however much lip service is paid to the notion.

It's a bit more than nominalThat's why I put link to that article. It's just a brief outline. You're right she only owns anything at the sufferance of government so why does she own so much and still get money from us?

Land ownership is another political hot potato in scotland. It should be in emgland as well, I find it hard to credit that anyone who knows the history of the enclosure acts doesn't get angry at the injustice of it.

In scotland the green party has more support that UKIP, theu have two MSP's and numerouus councillors ukip, thanks to proportional representation got one MEP yet who gets interviewed about the referendum? the sodding ukip MEP who is one of those fat fascists you want to punch as soon as they open their mouths.

What is at the back of this is a ground level discontent with the political system as it stands with a political class that is sio far up the backsides of big business and the banks that you can't see the join and they speak with one voice. What is terrifying them is that on the back of this you might see the stirrings of a similar backlash in england and wales. Over 90% of the eligible electorate have registerd to vote even many who have stopped voting or never voted in the past compare that with a les than 50% turnout in westminster elections.

Asda and john lewis have said prices might go up. WHY? tesco, aldi, lidl morrisons are saying no such thing yet what gets emphasised on the mainstream media is all the negtive side of things. The banks caused a global meltdoqwn should we really be listening to them when thety threaten to leave or jump up and down for joy. If they are not re-gistered here then we wouldn't have to worry about carrying enough reserves to bail them out in the future.

If we vote no then it's business as usual so maybe all you people down south should be hoping we vote yes. Just think of the benefits

I was just wondering if there any projected turnout figures. For that matter I don't recall ever having seen such projections at any elections.

I imagine the ones who are most likely to vote are those who feel most emotively towards the matter in hand, be it for or against, but I can't help wondering about the proportionate leanings held by those who won't be voting. Obviously, anyone who doesn't vote has no right to complain about the outcome, one way or the other. Just a curiosity.

I've always been in 2 minds as to the validity of compulsory participation in elections / referendums, even if there's an option for "None Of The Above", but I suppose it might be a way of getting more accurate results, one way or the other.

No but given the numbers registering to vote that have not done so previously it looks likely to be high. In the SNP manifesto they rpomised a three question referendum with devomax (greater devolution of powers within the UK) as a third option it's likely that would have been the most favoured option. Cameron was the one that insisted on a yes/no referendum and then embarked on a thoroughly negative patronising campaign. Have a look at this.

The woman who made up her mind - YouTube

interesting american take on it all

American take on the Scottish referendum with NO MEDIA BIAS. - YouTube

If Scotland votes 'yes', as pointed out before, it will be a gradual turnover of power after certain legalities are completed.. say 16-24 months.

However, the consequences of this would be far more sudden. The RBS would leave, trading would hit a major low, investment wouldn't be in any way influenced by Westminster, etc.. it would be very hard to stabilise.

There's military bases that would be stripped, outposts disbanded, nuclear arsenals moved, border controls to set up, and other important things.



I live in England and it's not hard to accept that the 'no' motion had heavy backing in Westminster. The economic cost of this could be huge and Scotland will be the only modern country in Europe to have no form of nuclear arsenal, or experience in terms of navy, air force and territorial.

I however believe that the UK government are making this more about them and your counterparts, than for the people. It is a vote for the people and by the people.

I firmly believe that Cameron is an idiot, I mean he couldn't even understand the difference between 2 counties in England, 1 where I live, that's been totally disregarded in his government. Out of the main parties, Labour is the only obvious choice for me, even if they do seem to have lost their way a bit. But, who hasn't? I know I have.

SilverCroc;1464287 wrote:

I firmly believe that Cameron is an idiot, I mean he couldn't even understand the difference between 2 counties in England, 1 where I live, that's been totally disregarded in his government. Out of the main parties, Labour is the only obvious choice for me, even if they do seem to have lost their way a bit. But, who hasn't? I know I have.
That much goes without saying, regardless of Scotland. If you've not got a couple of homes of your own, or weren't educated in one of the more expensive Public Schools, he doesn't consider you as even existing.

I just think it's a real pity Boris is Tory. He'd make a really good Labour Prime Minister.

FourPart;1464289 wrote: That much goes without saying, regardless of Scotland. If you've not got a couple of homes of your own, or weren't educated in one of the more expensive Public Schools, he doesn't consider you as even existing.

I just think it's a real pity Boris is Tory. He'd make a really good Labour Prime Minister.


Better than Miliband. Anyone can stand, though it's hard to do so, it definitely can be done. It is your right. I'll love to see a working class man/woman back as leader of the Labour Party, or a person with background of being working class. Not some person whose great grandfather used to be working class. For me, Ed is just too much like a Conservative.

I need to see some sort of resemblance to the people because right now, that divide looks forever growing.

The policies however, I agree with most of them. Since we're distancing ourselves with Russia it becomes more crucial we stay in the EU. Yes, this does allow free passage but what people are forgetting is the term 'vise versa'. What needs to be re adjusted is the law's on support allowances for people coming into this country, they should be considerably less, if any at all or in special cases only. My uncle said a long time ago that he met a guy who came to this country 4 months ago and had a house bought for him with furniture and everything, over £400,000 and he was getting £2,000 per month from the government i.e. our taxes. And this should not effect UK citizens. This is the only amendment I'd negotiate with Brussels, and negotiate we must.

SilverCroc;1464287 wrote: If Scotland votes 'yes', as pointed out before, it will be a gradual turnover of power after certain legalities are completed.. say 16-24 months.

However, the consequences of this would be far more sudden. The RBS would leave, trading would hit a major low, investment wouldn't be in any way influenced by Westminster, etc.. it would be very hard to stabilise.

There's military bases that would be stripped, outposts disbanded, nuclear arsenals moved, border controls to set up, and other important things.



I live in England and it's not hard to accept that the 'no' motion had heavy backing in Westminster. The economic cost of this could be huge and Scotland will be the only modern country in Europe to have no form of nuclear arsenal, or experience in terms of navy, air force and territorial.

I however believe that the UK government are making this more about them and your counterparts, than for the people. It is a vote for the people and by the people.

I firmly believe that Cameron is an idiot, I mean he couldn't even understand the difference between 2 counties in England, 1 where I live, that's been totally disregarded in his government. Out of the main parties, Labour is the only obvious choice for me, even if they do seem to have lost their way a bit. But, who hasn't? I know I have.


Several times I have seen members of the no campaign asked whether, in the event of a yes vote, they would work with the snp et al to make the transition as smooth as possible they all dodged the question. The only reason it will be acrimonious is if westminster decide they want it to be. We are uin europe where you can cross frontiers without needing tio stop at border contriols, do you really think they will go for all that expense and the english will pay for all of that? safe bet we won't be.

Most countries in europe don't have nuclear arsenals and to suggest we have no experience in terms of navy, air force and territorial is ludicrous in the extreme. We can always reinstate the regiments that the UK government disbanded though it's hard to see why we need a large standing army and as to the nuclear arsenal you can have it on your doorstep and will no doubt feel a lot safer as a consequence.

Labour are finished as a national party if we vote no. Take out the 65 scottish MP's and you are left with increasingly right wing tory governments and possibly ukip and the BNP comiong to the fore. Scotl;and used to be 50/50 tory/labour when it came to voting they lost ALL their MP's in 1997 and currently only have one

We would be OK but I am not so sure about the rest of the UK. You're right about labour having lost it's waymunder tony blair it ceased to be a party for the ordinary man theor membership has haemorrhaged in recent years.

McCrone report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The report came to light in 2005 when the SNP obtained several UK Government papers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The full provisions of the Act came into force on 1 January 2005.[4]

UK oil production peaked in 1999 and had declined 67% by 2012,[5] but petroleum still contributed £35bn to the UK balance of payments in 2011.[6] The UK government took an estimated £6,530m in direct petroleum taxes in 2012-13[7] plus £6bn in income tax, national insurance and corporation tax from supply companies in 2011-12.[6] As of 2012 around 45% of UK oil & gas employees are in Scotland.[6]

In his evidence to the Lords Committee on the Economic Implications of Scottish Independence in 2012, Professor McCrone stated that Scotland's GDP would increase by around 20% if North Sea oil were counted as part of it.[8]

In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on the 19th of May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism... I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it."






Realisticalliy without north sea oil the uk would have been finished financially what is really scaring the westminster parties is the realistic prospect of the scots telling them to fu k off and then the rest of the UK realising they can do the same. It's good fun.

I'd negotiate that we either go back to the Common Market, as it was originally intended, with full control over our borders & Governing Laws, or get out of the EU altogether.

The common claim about leaving the EU is that it would be disastrous for commerce. Not if the original principle of the Common Market was maintained. I imagine that's much like the 3rd Devomax option that GMC was talking about.

Sorry Auld Yin... couldn't resist.

Click on pic

Attached files

When is the vote already?!!!!

Saint_;1464311 wrote: When is the vote already?!!!!


Thursday 18th