An Independent Scotland?

As for your impression of Alex Salmond when interviewed, I'd love you to point me to a youtube video or something where you think he's behaving like that, in all the years I've been watching him on the news or elsewhere he's been nothing but civil, in fact he's known for being a very pleasant person to interview.
 
As we are 25 pages in and many members may not be keen to work their way through it all, perhaps we could create a summary of sorts here as a new staging point. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what you believe are all the main positive and negative aspects of Scotland going independent - maybe in bullet point format?
 
I know it's highly unlikely you will believe me but I watched Alex say it was the bbc who had aided the Ukip Scottish situation

I watched the EU coverage both live and later on Scottish catch up tv he certainly used the Star Trek analogy of beam me up Scotty fun yes but derogatory in the sense he said it.

My analogy if SciFi was the route would be Star Wars movies 1-3 the forming of an empire. (Alex's empire)

You must strongly feel that Ukip is a potent force that it blindly had Scottish voters following blindly along remember Alex and Nigel both mentioned Mr Putin had done very well maybe they have more in common than we think.

I still believe that Alex canned newsnight Scotland in an effort to suppress debate

As mentioned before it's your vote do whats right for you and Scottish future generations all I asked from you in the first place was consider if it's Westinster or the EU that cause some of the things you are fighting against

Perhaps you could enlighten me will Alex offer a referendum on joining the EU or will he decide on Scotland's behalf
 
Steep said:
As for your impression of Alex Salmond when interviewed, I'd love you to point me to a youtube video or something where you think he's behaving like that, in all the years I've been watching him on the news or elsewhere he's been nothing but civil, in fact he's known for being a very pleasant person to interview.
Click to expand...
Look through the archives of Alex on the Marr show it takes little too see he was using a threatening stance as he did not like to be questioned anyone suggesting he may be wrong about a point is a bully
 
border_all said:
I know it's highly unlikely you will believe me but I watched Alex say it was the bbc who had aided the Ukip Scottish situation
Click to expand...


I didn't say otherwise. I said the quote was a gross distortion of the truth i.e. he did not use those words and it's taken out of context.

Incidentally Alistair Darlings people are now saying Libby Brooks / The New Statesman has misquoted him...

Ref The Marr show, no, you go find the interview you think is bad and link to it, no reason why I should chase around trying to prove your points for you.

@gman, working on it.
 
gman said:
As we are 25 pages in and many members may not be keen to work their way through it all, perhaps we could create a summary of sorts here as a new staging point. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what you believe are all the main positive and negative aspects of Scotland going independent - maybe in bullet point format?
Click to expand...

My reasons for believing Scotland could and should be independent. My thoughts and not in any particular order.


  • Our politics are different to rUK, we are unerringly socialist in our voting, similar to Wales but very different to England (50% of the time). We want a government that we vote for all of the time, not just when others have had enough of the Tories for a while. At the moment Scottish MPs make up less than 10% of the total at Westminster, that means 90% of the MPs there make decisions for and about Scotland without us ever having a say in their election.
  • Our culture is different, our heritage, music, poetry, our humour, the way we see ourselves and the world is different. We have so little in common with that part of the South East that controls our lives that's it's already a foreign country to us. This cultural difference is something that isn't well understood in the South but it's an important part of our make up.
  • Our language is different (languages really). There's a saying “The USA and Britain are separated by a common language” this applies very much to Scotland and rUK as well. As a (silly) case in point, no Scottish person would ever have needed subtitles to understand the comedy series Rab C Nesbit, they spoke English, sort of.
  • No more nukes, I'll say that again 'No More Nukes!'
  • We won't be taken to war with people we don't even know by criminals out for profit.
  • Our belief that we can create a more equal society (Don't scoff at this, wait and see) We can do things as a nation of 5 million that we can't do as just another region hundreds of miles outside the M25 sphere of influence.
  • During the last farce of a referendum in 1979, were were promised “things will be better if you vote no** you'll get this, get that”, what we got was 18 years of conservative governments that we didn't vote for, used as Thatchers unpopular tax test bed and it took till the next Labour government to get Devolution 20 years after it was first promised.
  • The Unionist campaign / Westminster parties are now coming out with their 'promises' of Devo Max or whatever name they want to put to it, but even if they by some miracle do come up with a good deal and by some other miracle actually deliver it, it's just another step on the way to independence anyway. When we finally got a Scottish parliament in 1998 the one thing it did was to show us that we can mange to run our own affairs. Our voting system is fairer and those we have elected have done a stand up job so far.
  • Scotland is more than capable of looking after itself as an independent nation, financially, environmentally and socially. Hopefully come September 18th the majority of people who vote will think so too.

  • This list is by no means complete.

** we actually voted yes in 1979 But Westminster moved the goal posts at the last minute to say that a majority of the actual population had to vote yes so anyone who didn't vote was counted as a no (including some recently dead people!)

Even managed to find some bullet points.
 
Steep said:
** we actually voted yes in 1979 But Westminster moved the goal posts at the last minute to say that a majority of the actual population had to vote yes so anyone who didn't vote was counted as a no (including some recently dead people!)

.
Click to expand...

Ehh???

That is a pile of misinformation

There had to be a 40% majority of the eligible voting electorate and this formed a part of the Scotland Act 1979 which allowed for the vote to take place in the first place so hardly changing the goal posts at the last minute
 
Steep said:
At the moment Scottish MPs make up less than 10% of the total at Westminster, that means 90% of the MPs there make decisions for and about Scotland without us ever having a say in their election.
Click to expand...


Just to address this point - at the moment Scottish MPs only vote on devolved powers that would affect only Scotland, similarly Welsh MPs have the same but for fewer devolved powers.

All UK MPs vote on things that are UK wide including Scotland.

Scottish MPs (again and Welsh MPs) get to vote on 'UK wide' policies which only affect England because Scotland (and/or Wales) has devolved powers therefore votes again separately.


Tell me who is worse off? The Scottish and Welsh who get to decide certain things on their own, or England who gets to decide nothing?
 
Steep said:
My reasons for believing Scotland could and should be independent. My thoughts and not in any particular order.

...governments that we didn't vote for...
Click to expand...

I see this thrown around quite often. I never voted for the SNP and neither did 3/4 of the electorate at the last Scottish parliament elections. So explain how independence helps achieve this?
 
"At the moment Scottish MPs account for 10% at Westminster"

Well yeah, one in ten British people live in Scotland so the representation is about right.

Socialism etc is all well and good when there's other people's money to spend, but will that work for bonnie Scotland when the wealthy leave in fear of what will be a brutal tax regime for them. To achieve this more equal society taxes will go. The well off will leave and the government would be able to spend their money.

Not all of Scotland is against the nuclear weapons. Some might say don't bite the hand that feeds us.

Culturally yes, they like roast beef and ale, we eat haggis and drink malt but its all the same language same fashions etc. we're not so different to our brethren in rUK.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear !

My father mother and step mother all had an active part in WW2 I was lucky my dad came home after Nuclear made a contribution to stopping the war.

The Union never fired the bombs but I would have agreed to it as a means of stopping the war

Many people me included possibly you would not have been born had the war continued and I somehow doubt the freedoms you seek would be offered in a referendum

Nuclear now

I hate the weapon my personal reason for thinking it has a place is as a deterrent BUT I also think that it may some day assist the UK in avoiding debris from space impacting our Islands I hope maybe in time a better method of deflecting space rubbish from entering our world would be highly desirable

Nuclear is a clean energy better than say coal or oil and I think in time science will find a way to render the waste produced inert

It beats me why nuclear is part of an out referendum at all and the cost of defence for Scotland I think will be high not in currency but potential for lives that may be lost standing alone

I am probably from the baby boom years the young say we had everything great I would never usually say this on a forum but clap trap we never had bath rooms outside toilets were common etc etc and you mentioned you had a large labour vote who was it in the late 90's who robbed the pension pots

Saying you don't want nuclear fine! But maybe you also say you don't wish for defence either what about germ warfare are you exempt from that as well.
 
HuntingMartians said:
I see this thrown around quite often. I never voted for the SNP and neither did 3/4 of the electorate at the last Scottish parliament elections. So explain how independence helps achieve this?
Click to expand...

Utter tosh, you're doing a Westminster on us and counting those who didn't vote as no votes! In 2011 the SNP won over 45% of the votes cast.

It is very rare for a political party to win an outright majority using proportional representation which is what the SNP did and they did it after being the governing party for the previous 4 years. Regardless of who you voted for you got the representation you voted for, that's how proportional representation works.
 
Last edited:
Allan nucear weapons won the second world war because nobody else had them, if Hitler had had them we would not be having this conversation.

Scotland standing alone? against whom and against what?

Nuclear is only clean while it's working, then you have hundreds if not thousands of years worth of contaminated material to store very carefully.

Gordon Brown stripped the pension pot, the same man who was a pariah 4 years ago and who is now pushing himself forward as the leading light of the unionist campaign. You'd think the folk in the South would be glad to be rid of us uf it meant him going too.
 
Last edited:
Uneducated_Rick said:
Tell me who is worse off? The Scottish and Welsh who get o decide certain things on their own, or England who gets to decide nothing?
Click to expand...

With Scotland gone there will be no dastardly Scottish MPs to make their decisions for them.
 
Keith W said:
Ehh???

That is a pile of misinformation

There had to be a 40% majority of the eligible voting electorate and this formed a part of the Scotland Act 1979 which allowed for the vote to take place in the first place so hardly changing the goal posts at the last minute
Click to expand...

Keith the 40% rule was a late ammendment added to the 1978 Scotland Act by George Cunningham. The ammendment made it virtually impossible for a yes vote to succeed.

This from wikipedia..
"
In the wake of the referendum the disappointed supporters of the bill conducted a protest campaign under the slogan "Scotland said 'yes'", officially launched in a Glasgow hotel on 7 March 1979.[3]
They claimed that the 40% rule was undemocratic and that the referendum results justified the establishment of the assembly. It was pointed out that many people who have more than one address are registered to vote in more than one area, but are legally permitted only to vote once. Thus even if such a person supported devolution, they effectively voted no in the other constituency.
In particular, the SNP carried out a survey of the electoral register in the Edinburgh Central constituency. This appeared to show that the register was so out of date that even in an area where major support for a "yes" vote might be expected, achievement of 40% of the electorate was virtually unattainable. This was because the majority of electors lived in older tenements or newer Council blocks of flats where specific flat numbers were not specified. The work of electoral registration staff to obtain an accurate current register was almost impossible, and the same was true of most of Scotland's inner cities and larger towns. "
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
My reasons for believing Scotland could and should be independent. My thoughts and not in any particular order.


  • Our politics are different to rUK, we are unerringly socialist in our voting, similar to Wales but very different to England (50% of the time). We want a government that we vote for all of the time, not just when others have had enough of the Tories for a while. At the moment Scottish MPs make up less than 10% of the total at Westminster, that means 90% of the MPs there make decisions for and about Scotland without us ever having a say in their election.
Click to expand...

Scotland only makes up 9% of the population between England & Scotland, so why should they have more representation in Westminster?

Anyway, this isn't what I find worrying nor are any other points and whether or not I agree with them. What I find interesting and perhaps predicable is that as expected I knew you would only respond with your positive points and completely ignore any negative aspects of Scotland going independent. This is very much the impression I get from anyone who supports independence and it comes across as a little too rose-tinted and maybe even naïve. It's almost as if the head is stuck in the sand by pro independence people when the mere thought of the negative aspects are raised. This is where the reality starts to become fantasy.

I'm prepared to accept that there will be positive and negative elements to going independent and the important part is which carries more weight and consequences. I know I'm a pragmatic person but when it comes to business then this can often be the best form of methodology and essentially Scotland going independent is a business deal - but on a massive scale. Ultimately, the numbers have to add up for the deal to work and like any business deal the contracts have to be in place signed and sealed, otherwise it can make for a very risky deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You're right gman, sorry, I will list below the elements of independence that I think might be negative.
.
.
.
.
.
.nope, sorry, can't think of a thing.
 
Last edited:
I've asked a number of times for someone to put up a pro union argument, so far no one has done it, I don't see that it's my job to fight the unionist side for them.
 
Steep said:
I've asked a number of times for someone to put up a pro union argument, so far no one has done it, I don't see that it's my job to fight the unionist side for them.
Click to expand...
1. The status quo has served us well for ages
2. There will be a fiscal deficit and set up costs of establishing a new country
3. Currency destablisation, and what one would we use.
4. Trade barriers as not EU members (you are assuming we would get EU membership)
5. Major companies would leave as they don't want their depositors to have funds in a foreign countries/wish to face the trade costs of operating on a small foreign country
6. Tax would have to go up to plug the holes in point 2
7. We are alienating ourselves from the rUK
8. We'd have a much weaker defence and military outwith rUK
9. We'd have endless succession of socialist regimes

Do I need to go on??
 
I said this earlier in the thread it would be a shame to break up the UK and we are a stronger nation together, I can see why a lot of Scottish people don't want to be governed by Westminster though
 
ST4 said:
1. The status quo has served us well for ages Not to my mind
2. There will be a fiscal deficit and set up costs of establishing a new country That's not a certainty, those saying it are not taking into account the negotiations over shared assets, and the set up costsmthemselves will be far lower than Westminsters comedy figures.
3. Currency destablisation, and what one would we use. To begin with Stirling, there is no question of that.
4. Trade barriers as not EU members (you are assuming we would get EU membership) Again this depends who you believe, more and more EU personell are coming out and saying there would be no difficulty joining even if we actually had to.
5. Major companies would leave as they don't want their depositors to have funds in a foreign countries/wish to face the trade costs of operating on a small foreign country Unfounded supposition, not one company has said they would leave, many have said they would stay.
6. Tax would have to go up to plug the holes in point 2 Staying in the UK is certain to lead to big tax rises next year.
7. We are alienating ourselves from the rUK Only from Westminster, I have family and friends down south, not one has said 'stuff you if you go indy'
8. We'd have a much weaker defence and military outwith rUK Who would we nee to defend ourselves against? Westminster maybe coming to steal the oil?
9. We'd have endless succession of socialist regimes Yeah!

Do I need to go on??
Click to expand...

You do need to put up some arguments that haven't already been debunked. My answers in red above.
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
I said this earlier in the thread it would be a shame to break up the UK and we are a stronger nation together, I can see why a lot of Scottish people don't want to be governed by Westminster though
Click to expand...

Pete there's no reason why we can't work together as partners If Scotland does choose independence.
 
1. It has to me and many others.
2. Costs of setting up a new tax system are in the hundreds of millions, never mind a new dvla equivilent, nhs equivilent, passport office etc. We get the benefit of being apart of a major country where this sort of infrasctucture has a greater economy of scale.
3. There is every question of the sterling, why would rUK want a foreign country using their currency?
4. I am not a fan of the EU. But many are. Its not a given.
5. Not at all, many jobs would leave scotland, its been said, its a certaintity.
6. Going indy to fulfil this socialist eutopia thats lined up by the yes camp means tax rises, money don't grown on trees.
7. Border controls? We are one Island, it makes sense its all under one government
8. Invasion, we don't see a Ukraine Russia situation because we have a strong military, weak countries can be invaded. As it were, rUK doesn't have a strong enough army, airforce and navy. We should be spending more on military, less on benefits.
9. Not all of us wants socialism en mass.
10. Finally, some of us, see our selves as British, not Scottish. I don't want to be considered Scottish, but British. Thats would be travesty for many of us.
 
Sorry I didn't get past your second line before spluttering coffee all over my keyboard. Are you really not aware that the Scottish NHS is already a separate entity? As is NHS Wales and NI.
 
Ref your point 9, you might not but the vast majority of Scots do which is why 'we' have voted socialist in one form or another since Adam bit the snake in the garden of eden.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Utter tosh, you're doing a Westminster on us and counting those who didn't vote as no votes! In 2011 the SNP won over 45% of the votes cast.
Click to expand...
But yet I watched TV about the euro elections and there was the SNP brushing off the rise of UKIP in Scotland by stating that they got 10% of a 30% turnout which is only 3% of the electorate. So it is fine for the SNP to say this but not to say 3/4 did not vote for them. That just sums up the whole independence argument for me.
 
It's never fine to quote bad figures, or to quote info of any sort without checking it first.

The only vote that counts is the one that's cast, saying that 3/4 of the electorate didn't vote for one party is meaningless if 8/10 of them didn't vote for anyone at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
It is not bad figures. They are pretty accurate which are relevant. 3/4 of the electorate did not vote for the current Scottish "government". This is no different from your point on Westminster elections about Scotland not getting the government it wants blah blah
 
Steep said:
You're right gman, sorry, I will list below the elements of independence that I think might be negative.
.
.
.
.
.
.nope, sorry, can't think of a thing.
Click to expand...


It's a shame you've responded like this because I do listen to the things you say, as I do others, but now I feel that you've lost all credibility.

Either you don't want to believe that there are negative aspects which is just fantasy, or you genuinely believe that there are none which is naievity and borderline insanity!

Which is it? Lol
 
Steep said:
My reasons for believing Scotland could and should be independent. My thoughts and not in any particular order.


  • Our politics are different to rUK, we are unerringly socialist in our voting, similar to Wales but very different to England (50% of the time). We want a government that we vote for all of the time, not just when others have had enough of the Tories for a while. At the moment Scottish MPs make up less than 10% of the total at Westminster, that means 90% of the MPs there make decisions for and about Scotland without us ever having a say in their election.
Click to expand...
Untrue, only socialists are unerringly socialist in their voting.

Would you support PR in Scotland? Is there actually any mention of it in any of the manifestos?
 
gman said:
It's a shame you've responded like this because I do listen to the things you say, as I do others, but now I feel that you've lost all credibility.

Either you don't want to believe that there are negative aspects which is just fantasy, or you genuinely believe that there are none which is naievity and borderline insanity!

Which is it? Lol
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm not posting here to gain your respect or anyone elses. I truly do not see a downside to independence. Though I do not see everything as rosy immediately after a yes vote, even the challenges we face over the first years will make us better people.
One thing the referendum has done is to politicise people all over the country, everywhere you go folk are talking about it, discussing it, asking questions and getting involved. They are also to a large degree coming to realise the lies they are being told and are not taking everything that's dished out by Westminster as gospel any more. Memories are long especially in the older generation, they remember the same lies being told in 1979 but the big difference this time round is social networking, the lies are spotted and debunked very quickly.

Every day I get more hopeful of a yes vote in September, 100 days to go.
 
Steep said:
It's never fine to quote bad figures, or to quote info of any sort without checking it first.

The only vote that counts is the one that's cast, saying that 3/4 of the electorate didn't vote for one party is meaningless if 8/10 of them didn't vote for anyone at all.
Click to expand...

Yep but 2/10 that did vote and that's, even given the small population of scotland a representative sample. Which is why in the event of a Yes Vote, depsite being livid, I will accept as the will of the people even if 2/10 of the electorate vote, as its representative of electorate. i.e. enoug votes were gathered to give a concenscus.

Re the NHS, I didn't know, so thats safe as its probably ran up here and funded up here.

What about the rest, the tax infrascture, we don't have our own DVLA for instance, our education would continue, we teach a different curriculum up here (bonkers as we are one country).

It's just too much hassle for what, a gain in tax.
 
Last edited:
dod said:
Untrue, only socialists are unerringly socialist in their voting.

Would you support PR in Scotland? Is there actually any mention of it in any of the manifestos?
Click to expand...

The scottish parliamentary elections are PR dod, that won't change after September. The majority of Scotland has voted socialist of one sort or another beit Labour, SNP Green at al in every election. Labour lost so many votes in the last Scottish Parliamentary election partly because people think they have given up on socialism.
 
Steep said:
The scottish parliamentary elections are PR dod, that won't change after September. The majority of Scotland has voted socialist of one sort or another beit Labour, SNP Green at al in every election. Labour lost so many votes in the last Scottish Parliamentary election partly because people think they have given up on socialism.
Click to expand...

Tis true, they are not seen as left wing enough. SSP did ok, then solidaritory came along (the Sheridan Mob)

Green never got many votes, and some defected to Tory just for a change.

I guess you know how I am voting, and how you are voting.
 
ST4 seriously, do your own research. Westminster said last week that setting up the infrastructure would cost Scotland 2.7 billion...oops sorry no we meant 1.5 billion to set up 180 government departments. This is horse droppings. The first figure they completely made up claiming it was from research by Patrick Dunleavy at the LSE, he said it was misleading, ludicrous and exaggerated his costings by a factor of ten. So they changed their quoted source and dropped to the lower figure, this time it was a Doctor Robert Young from Canada except he said it was horlicks too. They had taken his costings for the setting up of an independent Quebec and manipulated them as well. The fact is they lie and lie and lie to cover up the lies.

Incidentally Professor Dunleavey costing was 200million, the Scottish government says 250million, small change.
 
Steep said:
The scottish parliamentary elections are PR dod, that won't change after September. The majority of Scotland has voted socialist of one sort or another beit Labour, SNP Green at al in every election. Labour lost so many votes in the last Scottish Parliamentary election partly because people think they have given up on socialism.
Click to expand...
That just helps to show how unrepresented I feel by the current administration. I haven't voted for years but I will be this time.
 
Politicians are all the same. If you think the ones you may eventually vote for, are going to be any different from the idiots we have in Westminster, then you are deluding yourself. The lies, the broken promises, the tax hikes will just be issued from Holyrood instead of Westminster.

As for currency, how will you feel handling money with a foreign monarchy plastered all over it? Surely Alex will want new notes with his own image on them :whistle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top