Be Excellent To Each Other

A Eurovision win.

I don't believe that an independant Scotland would be skint. We would have oil revenue, income from the whisky industry, and as a country we are well placed both geographically and technically to be pioneers in the green energy industry.
With independance, the government would be making decisions for the good of Scotland. I would expect to see business being encouraged to invest in Scotland and the manufacturing industry encouraged. Government policies would reflect the general populations feelings and social makeup and I don't think we'd ever have to be governed by Tories again.
When the SNP formed a coalition in Holyrood, I watched with interest to see how they performed. I have to say, there has been very little I have been unhappy with. Arguably, both my job and my girlfriends job exist as a direct or indirect result of SNP policies.
I just don't see it being the huge disaster it is being heralded as by the English media and as a sidenote, the comments and attitudes of some politicians over the last few weeks have been pretty irritating and unwise if they're trying to convince Scots to stay part of the union. The best way for both sides to proceed is to make reasoned arguments trying to detail how they see things progressing, not making daft jibes and insulting each other. Cameron quoting burns was cringeworthy.

Agreed. Every side wants to stack the mechanisms of the vote in their favour - this is the first one where I've disagreed with the SNP.



I don't have a vote, but given the SNP list of policies like free education, a decent NHS etc etc, I have only one question - if they do win and get independence, can the North come too?

Aye. I'd live on fried food and Tennants to sack Tory Boy off once and for all.

I find it amusing that people are going "But Scotland will have no money" while shouting that we have to cut back everything because... we have no money.

The media and Westminster appear to be the best campaigners for a "Yes" vote that the SNP could have wished for.

I must admit, I do find it so hard to be objective about the whole Scotland debate, due to issues.

Notwithstanding, I do honestly believe it would be a mistake for Scotland to break away from the UK, adopt the Euro and seek their future as a small European state. We've all seen only too well what happens to small countries within Europe of late, by and large, and I honestly can't see that changing any time soon. Let us also not forgot that a big, disproportionate chunk of the UK's banking woes hark from Scotland too; any "divorce deal" would surely have to include stumping up for the RBS, Bank of Scotland et al.

@ Pliss - I agree Cameron seems to be doing all he can to secure a 'yes' vote. Does he know something the rest of us don't I wonder? And what of Wales and NI in all of this; I can foresee a situation where the post independent Scotland English might well want a "divorce" with them too.

Can anyone else envisage a future 'United States of Britain' with a loose union of independent states and a small federal government responsible for defence and foreign policy? Is that even in the realms of possibility?

Although I agree with you, the second of those points is not under discussion until well after the vote.

Again, the RBS thing is a fair point, but I suspect any attempt to load most of that debt on Scotland will be met with a big bill for the oil and other energy use we have down here. Swings and roundabouts.

We're too small geographically to make it work well.

If Scots really do think the grass is greener and decide to vote that way, I want to see an absolutely clean break. No on-going subsidies, grants, tax-breaks or preferential terms from the UK government. If Scotland really does think it can go it alone, I want no half-measures.

And then if it doesn't work out and the country goes up the shitter, as I suspect it would, no backpedalling, assistance, or bailouts. Bear in mind the arguable oil revenue won't be around forever, and so to rely on that as a sustainable source of income would be stupid in the extreme. Better to ignore oil revenue altogether, which gives a deceptive indicator of the country's wealth per capita. Look at the actual industries, and the averages of what the 5 million residents earn (those actually employed), and I absolutely see no way it could be anywhere near as good in the long term, let alone better. There are basic economies of scale that a government of 62 milliion people can command which a government of a measily 5 million cannot.

I would rather not see the country go up the shitter because of a fat nationalist with a chip on his shoulder, so, a no vote all the way.

But do you know how much it costs to actually run a country? I don't, but I suspect it is massively more than the income from the oil and whisky industry. The majority of income into the UK comes from the financial industry does it not?

A quick google
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of ... ed_Kingdom

Oil revenue : 21 Billion.
Total GDP : 2.5 Trillion!

Service industry makes up 73% of GDP.

You do realise that lands England and Wales with a huge bill for stuff like submarines, energy (not just oil, I think there is nuclear up there, plus power stations feeding into the grid), water. Plus it would be on a lot more friendly terms with the EU than England under the Tories will be.

I suspect that Scotland would be much better off than people would like to think.

I've just come back from Singapore. They've built that place on a port, finance and tourism.

Hong Kong. Taiwan.

(Not that I'd advocate some of the aspects of those societies, though.)

Perhaps a better example is New Zealand.

Well, yes. But the world is a different place now, location is less important. Building a new financial centre from scratch would be virtually impossible I would suspect.

How do the Scottish pay for Submarines?

I am a bit ambivalent about this issue. I guess I'd like to imagine we could keep the UK together, and that we have more similarities with our neighbours than we do differences, but if the people of Scotland do want to split, I wish they'd get on with it.

I think trying to get 16-17 year olds involved in the vote is cynical, though. I know that I never had rounded, complete political views at the age of 16. I'd suggest that the political views of the average 16 year old are ideological at best. Obviously, that doesn't mean that *ping* you turn 18 and are a more considered, rounded person, but you do tend to find that a lot of mental maturity seems to develop in those intervening years, where ideology gives at least some of the way to a more grounded way of thought. People who have just do e their A-levels having the vote I can feel comfortable with. GCSE students, not so much.



Ah yes, that's what I came on here to say. The people I have found to be most vocal on this issue have been Scottish folk living in England. Obviously, many/most people here will be aware of 's feelings regarding this, but I know a lot of Scots living in England. My mother's partner and his family, my mother's ex and his family, my sister's partner and his family, my aunt's husband and his family... and that's just in my immediate family circle.

My mother's ex was an idiot and violent drunk anyway, but his favourite thing in the world was hating the English, wanting an independent Scotland. Mother's partner now... Well his mother just never shuts up. She hates England, English people, wants more than anything to have an independent Scotland. (By the way, why is this ok? If I went on about hating India and Indian people, or said I hated people from Jamaica or any other country of the world, that wouldn't be ok. If my little brother brought home his girlfriend from Pakistan and I spent the whole time going on about how I hated people from Pakistan... Gnghh... I can't stand that woman!)

Anyway... OT, sorry, but I really do find that many of the most vocal people on this subject are Scots living in England. I have the deepest regard and respect for the opinions of people like Gilly, but I find it harder to take seriously the shouty rhetoric of certain people screaming about glorious Scotland and wanting its independence when wild horses wouldn't drag them to live there.

What will happen if Scotland does gain independence, do you think? Will a load of English folk flock to Scotland, a load of Scottish people move to England, and what of all the Scottish people living in England? Will they stay or move back?

About 1/6th (maths probably out a bit, was very quickly calculated... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/u ... otland.stm ) of Scottish born people live in England. How many of them will get to vote in the debate? I know that my mother's MIL has sworn that she'll be voting for independence, so she must be entitled to vote (she's been living here for 40 years, so I'm not sure how that all works).

Lost my train of thought now.

Anyway, I hope the people of Scotland get whatever they want. I hope it doesn't lead to tensions, whatever the result. I'd like to see an end to all of the English-hating that a not too small number of people seem to revel in, but I doubt that will happen for a while whatever the result. You'll still be rubbish at football.

Oh man! I just typed out a long reply on a teeny touch screen and it took me about half an hour, then it disappeared!

Oh well. It was jumbled, anyway.

I saw it. But that is because I was watching you through your window.

Yeah that's all pretty on the money I'd say Mimi.

Plenty of English people despise the Tories, but to my view it doesn't rival the mouth-foaming angry angst of that particular group of Scots that blame England for everything bad that's ever happened. In my first couple of months living here, I had a couple of very ranty work colleagues that kept on going on about the 'fucking English landowners' in response to every political story on the BBC. Very tiresome. If you've ever watched FMQ's you'll know that rather than blame 'the last government' for everything, as is always the case at Westminster, Alex Salmond just continuously blames the 'English' parliament for all of Scotland's ills, and if he just had the power everything would be fine. You don't need to be much of an historical scholar to know how much bullshit that is.

I do think thats part of the problem with the whole debate - a large number of people who want an independant Scotland do not want to do that because they 'hate the English' , but there are a vocal minoraty that do.

The hate part of it colours the argument - and makes things a lot more contentious than it would for other places (e.g. if a majority in any other country as part of what was the British Empire wanted independance would they get the chance to vote on it ?)

Keeping the Queen as head of state is a shrewd move. She's too much of a good tourist attraction.

America did.

I phrased it poorly. We would have to base them down here and IIRC, we have nowhere to put them. TO build a suitable shed for them is going to cost us a... shedload.

Can't we like, keep them underwater?

They are built in Barrow, and they are in two places Clyde being one of them the other is England. Refits are also done in England.

I would not worry about them, more the air bases.

We'll get all the Scottish stuff back when we invade though, surely?

What do we do with all the Scotchlanders who are still here without passports after the split?

That's curious, because I've noticed the same. More often than not (in the sense of 'at least more than half'), Scots I know living in Scotland are against the break-up of the UK and also, to some extent, against the SNP. Admittedly, though, most Scots I know live in the big cities and are not prone to knee-jerk reactions against 'the evil English' or towards sentimental bullshit. Mind you, the English living in England appear pro-break-up, more so than the Scots if the polling's in any way accurate. My guess: whenever the vote happens, it's going to be knife-edge stuff—a 50/50 battle that will be stupidly close and cause arguments for decades. Either that or we'll get some kind of AV-style "what the fuck?" with one side being smashed into the ground.


And welcome to independent Scottish politics for at least three terms. Everything bad will be blamed on "what we inherited from the English". Imagine the situation in the Commons now, but worse. Mind you, another thing that will be interesting is how Scots deal with things they blame the Commons for, but are in reality happy to let be dealt with by the UK government. A good example is how dramatically abortion law might change in an independent Scotland. (Had a quick look, but can't find the article I read on this, from something in the Scottish press, arguing that Scotland would end up with laws closer to Ireland, and so while in the UK has been happy to offload that responsibility to the UK govt while publicly moaning about it. Might be a smidge of bullshit in there, but also an element of truth.)

Still, Scotland will be making $infinite from wind power, so everything will be fine, obv. And this'll mean it won't matter that it'll be kicking out loads of industries and govt jobs that lots of Scots currently rely on.

Depth charges.

Given that there is a small, yet extremely vocal minority of Tories (led by the awful Nadine Dorries) who want to ban it altogether, that may be a good thing.

(Ireland is moving towards the mainstream on the issue, but still a long way to go.)



This will be the interesting bit. Sky and First Direct, for instance, have their call centres north of the border.

How does this impact call centres for private companies?

On my Ipod so can't reply properly at the moment, but enjoying the comments.

Firstly, surely most of the benefits of independence are either acheivable under the existing settlement or can be brought about under the current Scotland bill or a later transfer of powers?

I don't think that Scotland would find EU membership much fun as in the Council of ministers it would have far fewer votes under QMV than the UK does, and would have to spend way more effort building fragile alliances amongst other small countries to have pursue its interests.

As for a federal UK with Home Rule all round: I'm sympathetic to the idea, but England would be even more dominant on such a system than Prussia was in Imperial Germany! Breaking it up into regions might work, but they feel very artificial and lack popular sentiment. Eg: the South West region contains the popular Westcountry resort of Swindon! Counties would be too small or numerous to be effective too.

Just some thoughts: will write more later.

Superb.

I'm in favour of London splitting off as an independent country. With Boris as supreme overlord.

Nah, yies have Devonport doon sooth. That's where my pal's boat lives when it's no busy sunbathing on a beach on Skye or at Faslane

Let's be a Federally Autonomous Quasi-National Entity!

I stand corrected.



Well, thanks to CallMeDave, we're doing a spectacular job on that right now.

A different debate, but in all seriousness, what else was he supposed to do? 'Towing the line' with France and Germany was never going to be an option, for obvious reasons. So basically, it then just boils down to the diplomacy/language? That doubtless could've been handled better - these things always can be of course (just as they can be handled a lot worse too; see Berlusconi's rather personal remarks about Ms Merkel on that score, shortly before his political demise and Italy's subsequent, unprecedented democratic deficit at the hands of the Germans, principally).

Personally, I thought DC made (more or less) the best of a bad situation, with a reasonable outcome. Certainly, I don't think it did him any harm.

In in that spirit, Scotland's welcome into the EU will be most likely dependent on their answer to "And how much of the cost of the Euro bailout will you be taking on yourselves, Scotland?"

Quite!

In England, banning abortion would be a vote-loser. Too risky, as proven by what actually happened in the Commons and the massive backlash throughout the press. The backlash would probably be less in Scotland, and the article I read suggested an effective ban would be possible (bar for medical reasons). I'm not saying this would happen, but it is interesting that some law-making hasn't been fought for in Scotland, because it's easier to 'blame' the UK for it; post-indepdence that excuse goes away forever.


Some stuff would probably stay, if the Scottish make it worthwhile for this to happen, but that then suggests either low minimum wages or tax breaks, neither of which will benefit a small country.


Craft a better strategy that would have resulted in a number of countries siding with the UK, rather than the UK being isolated. From what non-Brits have been telling me, it wouldn't have been that hard to get at least the Scandinavians onside (not least because the proposals will in some cases actually require constitutional changes), along with, possibly, some countries feeling extremely pissed off with the might of Germany and France (such as Portugal). In the event, he utterly failed in this regard.


I think he made neither the best nor worst of a bad situation that could have been bent far more to his and the UK's advantage, beyond making anti-EU people jump for joy, resulting in a short-lived jump in the polls. He could have had all that and brought along other countries for the ride. As it is, the UK's once again, as Izzard once quipped, avoiding being in the driving seat of Europe, and not even in the passenger seat—now it's not even in the car.

I disagree. For a start, "bringing along other countries for the ride", against the Germans and the French, would've been seen as greatly more divisive than what he did actually do, namely simply to exercise the UK's veto, for the UK. And anyway, you assume that, politically speaking, any member state of the Eurozone would've conceivably broken ranks and voted against Germany and France in this locked-down process, with the US, Chinese et al all breathing down their necks, which personally I regard as a bit silly. It was never going to happen then (although it'll surely happen later, after the fact, because the Euro is inherently a stupid, stupid, unworkable idea - but that won't necessarily be blamed on the UK. Cameron knows this).

Fascinating NYTimes post looking at the Welsh economy in light of Greece's woes and Scottish independence: http://nyti.ms/Alkg1o

So by being Welsh you're more of a drain on the economy than being disabled?

That is interesting, although it makes me wonder what happens if you ignore things like the fact that Wales is technically a nation and apply the same rules to other areas. What's the subsidy<->GDP of just North Wales, for example? Or Dorset? Barrow-in-Furness?

On the submarine thing, I was pointed to a link in the Telegraph that basically meant the subs have to stay in Scotland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ecide.html



As for the Cameron in Europe thing, I'm of the opinion that Cameron got the right result for the wrong reasons. If you look at the overall position/reputation of the UK within the EU, then we are pretty much isolated on every issue, get slapped down by the courts on a regular basis, the UK Government is largely aligned with the Far Right and our most high profile MEPs are Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage. I fully admit to being pro-EU (and, before anyone asks, neutral on the subject of the Euro) and to see the UKs behaviour and attitude towards our largest export market makes me want to put my head in my hands on a very regular basis. We always seem to either look West to the US and over the EU towards China. We just apply a huge Somebody Elses Problem Field to Europe.

We never wanted those subs anyway.

To see the Tory government deliberately antagonising the UK's natural allies, picking needless fights at a time of crisis is just... I have no words, really. Plus then there's the Tory party itself pissing off it's own natural allies in the EU structure by pulling out of the EPP (which even ol' Thatch rather liked) and siding with extremists, which just showed how Cameron was out of his depth the moment he became Tory leader. I hate to imagine what the negative long-term consequences will be, but then this government is more focused on inflaming parochialism and right-wing populism than acting with sense and sanity.

This would be the same EPP whose leader went on record saying that the UK should lose its rebate because the usage of the veto showed a lack of 'solidarity' in Europe. Fuck the EPP.

I'm not a fan of the EPP. However, that particular pan-European bloc is a much more sensible place for the Tories to situate themselves in, compared to the marginalised grouping of oddballs they've wandering off into the Eurowilderness with since 2009.