Should I hope for Scottish independence?

Post Reply New Topic

Thomas81 numerical count of immigrants is not the point. They are interested in immigrants on a points for skills basis. The point is they are not giving unrefusable citizenship by descent to Scottish people. It doesn't matter if they let in the whole rest of the world, if they don't give Scottish people their own country by family unrefusably that is a racist atrocity and against ECHR article 8 on family life. That is not a progressive beacon, it is a country purging itself in racist hatefulness.

A state without its own central bank or reserves, using someone else's currency (whether in the union or unauthorised formulas) is subject to having its spending and economy directed by the other country: their actions will determine what happens to our economy, the currency union proposal even includes Scotland voluntarily getting its fiscal plans agreed by the bank of England before going ahead with them - the last thing that is is "Full home control over the Scottish treasury"! !! It's not proper independence at all. It means our economic life dictated by another country's governments who we can no longer vote against, who for that reason are more likely to be Tory, and who will have no responsibility to us as part of their country. Indy means more Tory government, for both countries.

NHS is safe already. SNP government itself has been cutting it then blaming Britain, and choosing not to use the devolved tax power.

Wow. Think it must be very different where you live. If you came to Australia and tried to tell someone 1/4 aboriginal that they are just an assimilated this or that you would end up in court rather fast.

btw Sassenach means lowlander, not southerner. Specifically lowlander man as it's the male form of the word. The box set of Speaking our Language is one of the few resources we can get here. I know it's not the exact gaelic my ancestors spoke but it's as close as I can get.

Scotland needs a central bank, well that's just an act of parliament. You don't need money to start a reserve bank. If the existing banks want to leave, then the parliament can issue licenses for Scottish people to start new banks. None of that sort of stuff was put on earth by aliens, and the Scottish are just as capable as the English.

If the EU or NATO doesn't want Scotland, fine. The US will want ties, especially with Russia doing what it's doing as Scotland is strategic.

Our PM spoke against Scottish independence and immediately shut up as he didn't bother to check the size of the Scottish descended voter base here and how many of us care about Scotland's well being.

Independence would have Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc, businesses and investors, positively discriminating in Scotland's favor due to large populations identifying as Scottish. Not to mention all the business opportunities that would open up if, for example, all the banks leave that opens the market for other banks around the world to compete. Other services both private and public leaving opens new markets.

Scotland may have better free trade agreements than the EU making it a preferred trading partner.

I won't list everything that sovereignty could bring Scotland but it's a gold mine if used correctly.

It seems many people in Scotland and Britain seem to underestimate what Scottish people can achieve. 300 years of being told what to do can dint your confidence. If Scotland isn't doing so well attached to England, that seems like just more reason to try something new.

That's just how I see things and I'm not an expert. But let the attacks begin

The Celtic people do not exist in any meaningful sense. Every person of European descent (except perhaps the Basque) will have Celtic blood. This is a very different situation to Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Maori, and Pacific Islanders, who were largely genetically isolated until recently.

You also have Saxon blood, Viking blood, and Norman blood. You have ancestors who spoke Latin and Greek and Sanskrit.

If you wish to identify as Celtic then that is fine, but do not expect other people to recognise that - just as you'd laugh at David Cameron if he claimed to be African.

I don't think this is an accurate assessment, though it is closer to the truth than the claim that the government is clamping down on people who use "welfare as a lifestyle" (that was never a notable number of people).

The issue is that disability payments were essentially privatised. Naturally, ATOS pursued targets and profit rather than properly assessing the disabled.

Fortunately, ATOS have bowed to public pressure and won't be bidding for the contract again. Hopefully we'll see the system renationalised and a return to assessing people fairly. That seems quite unlikely however, as the rise of the far right has seen both the Tories and Labour "clamp down" on non-existent benefit fraud. We'll need the Lib Dems or the Greens to be a significant part of any coalition in order for it to stand a chance.

It is really hard to say what would happen to Scottish politics after independence. Scotland is generally to the left of Britain, but the economic reality might hit home.

I'd recommend pinning your hopes on another country, maybe Norway or Sweden.

Even if Commonwealth countries did show favour,I'm afraid they can't possibly compete with the market we have at the moment- Free trade with 27 EU countries all within a few days transit and including our biggest market of 60 million people just across an open border using the same currency.

With regards to the large numbers of people of Scottish descent around the world - we identify with you but those of us
who oppose the Yes campaign are appalled at the SNP's proposed citizenship policy - only British citizens living in Scotland will be
automatically entitled to Scottish citizenship. Even people with Scottish parents but who were born abroad will not be entitled to apply unless they are British citizens. The decision to give foreign students etc who happen to be here a vote in the referendum seems to me to be a ploy - they are not entitled to be Scottish but because of a misguided 'Braveheart' view of the situation foreigners are more likely to see it as some kind of freedom fight and vote Yes,despite the fact they won't have to live with the consequences.

Ok let's start... In all seriousness I do this in peace as we are all entitled to our opinions and I fully respect yours. Yours was a good post and I'm no expert either although I guess I've lived some of it...

No you don't need money to start a bank but someone has to underwrite it. Also for an extended period interest rates on borrowing would be massive, that's why even the SNP don't see it as an option. At best it would be option 4. The borrowing plans alone make it prohibitive. Joining the Euro or using the pound in non currency union would give less currency control and influence than Scotland currently has, Salmond won't admit this. Why? He knows formal union Won't happen but refuses to admit what the only realistic currency options are let alone the risks. The risks are real which is why many businesses are actively planning on moving if the yes campaign wins as they need economic certainty. By playing politics and not being open he makes the uncertainty worse.

I agree Scotland will end up in NATO for the reasons you say, but I bet he nuclear subs remain under don't ask don't tell. Apart from anything else it isn't actually possible to move them in the time frame the SNP are talking about.

It's also worth noting half of what is being promised by the SNP isn't theirs to promise. It's up for negotiation if and when separation talks begin. Also international business won't discriminate in Scotland's favour due to ancient ties, business doesn't work like that anymore. They go to where the money is, who can afford not to.

Scotland may aim to be a better trade partner cost wise but given the massive increase in spending they plan on having if they think they can cut corporation tax they'd better start admitting income tax will be going up. The tax has to come from somewhere and it won't be from the banks as they'll be moving South, which they actually have to do as that's where most of heir customers are.

England doesn't hold Scotland back. The likes of the SNP do by peddling the myth. I don't think the Scots are pathetic people that can't cope with being in a Union. They are a proud people that do achieve a huge amount. Their biggest problems as a country are long standing social issues that are far more complex than anything being addressed by independence. Geography, failure to embrace economic change, what I consider a horrific drink culture and a poor attitude to health are all contributing factors. Has Westminster contributed, of course it has but no more than for any issue affecting other parts of the Union. Scotland doesn't get picked on and in fact is normally over represented in government cabinets.

Yes the London area does better, but so does any Capitol City. It's also closer to mainland Europe so historic business models means business and jobs end up in the South despite incentives to go elsewhere. Also a huge number of Scots live in England and are a great success. Overwhelmingly, by the way, they are against independence which is why the SNP don't want us having a say.

My dad's from one of the worst bits of Glasgow and his parents had little. But they worked hard, grafted and taught my dad and his brothers the right way to go about their lives. They are all successes both socially and economically, despite no qualifications. They are not unique in any way, far from it, but the SNP don't want to talk about the likes of them as it destroys the myth, because England didn't come into for them either way. They stood or failed by their own actions not what happens down South.

Don't get me wrong I know Scotland can survive and eventually prosper on its own. However the risks are being swept under the carpet and false promises around what independence will fix are damaging and will lead to disappointment. Independence would also be heart breaking as it would all be for the wrong reasons. I would genuinely be devastated.

Damn, I just lost a long reply to this...

Just to clarify that when I talked about welfare lifestyle I meant the system as a whole and not the disabled. I should have been clearer. There is benefit fraud in the billions and most of it is people fit to work, claiming not to be. Bad backs being one of the biggest culprits, it's not about people with genuine disability. I've been through an ATOS assessment and had to go to appeal. I expected this as my condition is complex and the process is not geared up for it, but I got what I was due. ATOS do not handle the appeals and if you appeal you still get paid and the decision to appeal is yours alone, you don't have to meet any criteria. Whilst ATOS did not impress me I was ultimately treated and assessed fairly.

My condition also leaves me physically disabled and that part of the process was fine, as has been our experience with Autism.

ATOS are rubbish and they aren't bidding for new contracts as they've had to admit they can't do it properly. The assessment criteria won't change but hopefully the execution will improve.

However lets not pretend there isn't a sub culture of a minority that do abuse the system wherever they can. I've seen people claiming for being unfit to work getting in and out of their work van the next day, and working on building sites that type of thing. Not to mention clearly able bodied people abusing the blue badge parking, I mean who does that?. There is always someone trying it on, I guess.

I absolutely think things had to be tightened up as it had gotten too easy, but I'd agree that the government have not been sensitive enough in making the changes. They should have done more to calm he fears of genuine claimants although some groups did not help either with unfounded scaremongering. The disabled have not been targeted intentionally IMO, although there have been some areas where I think they got it wrong. They have also done quite a bit to help people with disability get back to work, as most of us would choose to. It is forgotten how important that is as I miss working badly, not to mention the salary that went with it.

Sassenach is Gaelic's rendering of Saxon, i.e. it means English.

What we can achieve we can achieve backed up by the union instead of in harder cirumstances of self-inflicted economic chaos. What we can achieve is less important than preventing all the bad stuff, esp on citizenship as described by Pluto. "Civic nationalsim" meaning a nationalism only for the home population selfishly and betraying the rest of the nation.

There are some people that commit benefit fraud, it is true, but they're a blip on the radar of government spending and even a small proportion of fraudsters. Tax fraud is a much bigger issue (and that's before we get onto tax avoidance), but you don't hear nearly the same vitriol directed at tax fraudsters. By exaggerating the pervasiveness of benefit fraud and those who "chose benefits as a lifestyle choice", the government can "clamp down" on genuine claimants, be they disabled or unemployed.

I don't think benefit fraud is exaggerated BUT I completely agree on tax evasion, especially at a corporate level. My biggest issue with this is actually the media. The benefit issue is smaller but it's a much better story and that what they have focused on. If they put the same effort on corporate matters the pressure would hit critical mass very quickly. Governments always follow public opinion , right or wrong, and right now public opinion is focused too much on individual benefits, partly due to immigration.

Just a correction as genetics shows there is not specific genetic connection between the central European celts and celts say in Scotland or Ireland. It is a cultural moment not a race.

http://www.sott.net/article/263587-DNA- ... ly-thought

Tommy Sheridan articulates a hundred times better than i can why a yes vote is desperately needed.


"If we're better together, why are we not better today?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vZZFQKuA8k[/youtube]

If we are sharing good arguments...

http://youtu.be/AB7XMxCkorI

I look forward to the rebuttals....

Salmond managed to coax out of Alistair Darling an admittance during the last debate that there was no way that London could stop Scotland using the pound. Even then, they would have too much to lose by blocking it since if England prohibits Scotland a share of the national assets then Scotland can refuse its share of the national liabilities (ie the national debts).
Another point that No supporters gloss over is that geological surveys state there are untapped oil reserves in the west of Scotland. The only reason this hasnt been exploited as yet is the presence of Trident.
Out of the constituent nations, Scotland is the one that pays in more than it gets back. Therein lies the independence dividend.

Salmond didn't coax out anything. It is obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of economics that Scotland could use sand dollars, or rubles or rupees, that is not the same thing as having fiscal union. You don't get thelender of last resort, you don't control of the the bank of England.

On the issue of fiscal union, as a citizen of the UK, where is my vote on this?

It was Salmond who used the word consensus in that debate relating to currency, how dare he use that word, whilst trying to force fiscal union, with UK, a union he is trying to leave.

I will not allow fiscal union, with a non-member of of the UK, in that same way that the US will not entertain fiscal union with Panama.

Salmond could have been clearer on currency, and the debate could have moved else ware.

His brand of independence is everything but independence. Independence but still benefitting from dependence.

Well articulated.