Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[7by7]

Theblether; do you think it is possible for you to respond to just one of my posts without the petty insults?

I wont hold my breath.

[phuketjock]

Theblether; do you think it is possible for you to respond to just one of my posts without the petty insults?

I wont hold my breath.

Actually 7by7 they are not " petty insults" they are valid comments on your rediculous stance/posts.

IMO of course.

[smokie36]

So....leading on from the many failures in '79 what will be different this time around?

[theblether]

Theblether; do you think it is possible for you to respond to just one of my posts without the petty insults?

I wont hold my breath.

Actually 7by7 they are not " petty insults" they are valid comments on your rediculous stance/posts.

IMO of course.

Naturally I agree with you.......I've tried to give factual explanations on my posts, and they can be time consuming to prepare, then I read language such as " on a whim "............it's patently not going to be on a whim!!!

The low level battle has started already and the real battle will start around Spring 2014, there will be a vicious debate and at the end of it a vote.

There's nothing whimsical about it.

[theblether]

So....leading on from the many failures in '79 what will be different this time around?

This time we have clarity........we have a straight referendum with a straight Yes / No option.

The entire electorate are welcome to vote, and those that choose not to vote, well.......that's Up To Them. If you choose not to exercise your democratic right to vote on this of all subjects, then that's a matter for you.

There will be a virtual 100% turnout this time of the Nationalist vote, and the Unionists know it. There problem this time is getting the pro-Unionists to show out, unlike in '79 when a no show = a No.

Naturally there will be fog and flannel on both sides, wild claims and counter claims, that's all part of the process HOWEVER!!!.............the burden falls on the Unionists, they will be nailed to a cross if they back track on promises after the Referendum.......and as Tam Dalyell said

" Devolution is a Motorway to Independence without exits "...........

We cannot lose this Referendum.......we will either win it outright...........or we will win clarity and promises. The clarity we will keep forever, and as I said, the promises will have to be kept or the Nationalists will charge back again.

...............and next time we will win.

7x7........seriously and I'm not ragging you when I say this.........as a Unionist, when you look further into it........you will be horrified that the Labour Party allowed Devolution to take place at all, and even more horrified that they changed the voting system.

The Labour Party built a Trojan Horse and gifted it to the SNP...........and for that, we say, thank you very much.

[StreetCowboy]

We're reaching for the hyperbole again......and for some reason people can't see the hypocrisy of language.

" I am a Democrat "..............I would hope so.

" On the whim "....................No, after a lengthy campaign that will be bitterly fought, the electorate may decide to vote Yes.

It would be better not to denigrate the democratic process and recognize that we are all aware that there are plenty of issues to be fought out.

I have stated clearly that I expect defeat this time........however this is just one more step on the road to Independence, defeat here is not the end of the road.

The problems for the Unionists include.......they will need to give compelling reasons to persuade the electorate to remain, and they need to outline the new deal for Scotland, and once they have done so, they will need to keep their promise.

On top of that, they have created a platform for the Nationalists, Holyrood will always haunt Westminster..........and the more unpopular the Westminster government is, then the more likely it will be that the Scots take advantage of the mid term election to show them we mean business.

Hmmm, I wonder who it was that enforced the mid term election strategy?

I think Alex Salmond is the best advert for the Union, though I am sure we will find worse after independence.

SC

[7by7]

Theblether; do you think it is possible for you to respond to just one of my posts without the petty insults?

I wont hold my breath.

Actually 7by7 they are not " petty insults" they are valid comments on your rediculous stance/posts.

IMO of course.

So being called a bigot and a hypocrite simply because I have a different viewpoint is valid?

Being called an 'instant Google expert' because I take the trouble to check my facts is valid?

Ridiculing me because when I don't know the answer to a direct question I am asked I say so instead of just ignoring it is valid?

If this is indicative of the SNP's debating skills; God help them when the real debate starts!

[7by7]

7x7........seriously and I'm not ragging you when I say this.........as a Unionist, when you look further into it........you will be horrified that the Labour Party allowed Devolution to take place at all

I was against devolution for the same reason I was against the proposals for English regional assemblies.

The last thing this country, the UK, needed then and needs now is yet another layer of government. More politicians drawing large salaries and large expenses. More bureaucrats doing the same.

However, if Scotland wanted to bring in another layer of government, that was and is their choice; provided the Scottish taxpayer footed the bill.

But that is not the case. I stand to be corrected, and no doubt will be if I'm wrong, but as I understand it at present the Scottish Parliament has just one revenue raising power; to vary the Scottish income tax rate by up to 3p. A power it has never used.

So the money comes from the UK treasury, and as previously shown Scotland receives more per head in money from the UK treasury than they pay per head in tax, the English less.

So it is English, not Scottish, taxpayers funding the salaries of MSPs. Is that fair?

Of course, should the SNP win then an independent Scottish government will have to raise it's own revenue, and the average Scottish taxpayer will be in for a big shock.

[7by7]

I have stated clearly that I expect defeat this time........however this is just one more step on the road to Independence, defeat here is not the end of the road.

The problems for the Unionists include.......they will need to give compelling reasons to persuade the electorate to remain, and they need to outline the new deal for Scotland, and once they have done so, they will need to keep their promise.

We cannot lose this Referendum.......we will either win it outright...........or we will win clarity and promises.

True, the Unionists will have to give the Scottish electorate reasons to vote 'No.'

Higher unemployment in an independent Scotland due to closure of UK bases and loss of UK government contracts.

Higher taxes due to loss of Westminster subsidy.

Cuts in services for the same reason.

Scotland, assuming it joins the EU, having to pay into the EU budget instead of being part of the UK's contribution; more tax increases.

There's four to be going on with.

If the Scottish people vote 'No,' especially if it's an overwhelming 'No.' why should the UK government make any promises? The majority of the Scottish people will have voted for the status quo (no, not Parfitt and Rossi!). Why should Westminster make any further concessions to a party that does not have the support of the majority of Scottish people?

Indeed, many commentators opine that a 'No' vote could spell the end of the SNP as a political force for many years.

Even Salmond admits that a 'No' means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation.

Having said all that; it is probable that discussions over devolving more power to the Scottish Parliament, especially revenue raising power, will continue once this referendum is over. Which is a good thing. As I said above; if the Scots want their own Parliament, let the Scots pay for it, and also pay for the services it provides and the laws it passes.

and the more unpopular the Westminster government is, then the more likely it will be that the Scots take advantage of the mid term election to show them we mean business.

Protest votes in local elections are very common; happens all the time. But, as the record shows, when it comes to general elections to the UK Parliament the Scottish people do not vote in any great number for the SNP. In fact, their share of the vote in Westminster elections is decreasing.

You keep quoting one thing Tam Dalyell once said, but in The Scotsman last May he was reported as saying that abolishing Holyrood should be an option in the referendum.

“It’s unlikely to happen, but I think there should be a way in which those who want the parliament brought to an end can express their opinion,” he said.

“I think that there are very few politicians who would want it, there are very few journalists who would want it, but I think there are a great many people up and down Scotland [who would]. I’m not saying it’s a majority.”

Edited to include link, which I missed first time; apols.

Edited November 11, 2012 by 7by7

[jpinx]

Election processes are invariably flawed. The Australians make it a crime to not vote which might not get them a better result, but it is certainly less contentious. Voting for anything with a mere third of the populace in favour is hardly "democratic" -- but that is the system the UK is based on, so we're all stuck with it - including for the 2014 independence vote. Maybe an independent scotlan will follow the Oz example? At least things aren't as bad as they are in Florida.......

[Rob8891]

@ 7x7

In your latest post (at time of writing!!), you list 4 reasons to vote 'no'. However, I see a major flaw in your fiourth one "Scotland, assuming it joins the EU, having to pay into the EU budget instead of being part of the UK's contribution; more tax increases"..... The EU directs a lot of funding into its peripheral areas and this is likely to continue. Scotland would most likely fall into that category and would qualify for considerable extra funding.

In fact, the first one is also quite weak, since the UK government has decimated its defence spending in Scotland over a considerable timespan. I realise that you are probably thinking about the Faslane/Coulport complex, but to be rid of the nuclear weapons here would be a bonus, The infrastructure would, in all probablility, be put to other uses, but that's outwith my area of experise, so I'll say no more on that.

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part. IMO, the main reason why the SNP representation at Westminster has declined is because we now have our own Parliament: Westminster is the UK parliament / government and therefore it is the place to which one elects a UK government. Since the SNP will never form such a government, I believe that many people will vote for one of the main UK political parties...(well, not for the Conservatives,...). but this may well change after the shameful betrayal of the electorate by the Lib Dems when they formed that unholy alliance with the Conservative party. Scotland was a firm base for them....where do you think their votes will go to? To the Tories? To Labour? I doubt it. So in my opinion, we could well see the SNP vote rise, and not fall as you may have expected. Scottish independence is not going away, even if there is, as we expect, a 'no' vote in the 2014 referendum.

[7by7]

So the whole SNP economic strategy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotland for one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

Edited for typos

Edited November 11, 2012 by 7by7

[Rob8891]

So the whole SNP econoimic stratergy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotlandfor one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

I think you have been reading selectively, 7x7 . I did not say that 'the whole SNP econoimic stratergy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels'. Read my post again (fully this time, please), and you will see that I was expressing MY opinion, and not SNP policy. If you require a policy statement, then you should address that to the SNP themselves. It really is quite disengenuous of you to attempt to put word in my mouth.

The answer to your second point has already been explained to you in detail in an earlier post, by theblether. Read back and look for the reference to 25 years. So in the short-term the debate might be muted, but the issue - the desire for independence will not go away. Be in no doubt that this is in no way a one-shot affair. All you have to do is read the extensive explanations that have been given to you in this forum. You may not like the facts presented to you, but that does not mean that they do not exist. The genie is out of the bottle, and it will not be put back.

[StreetCowboy]

So the whole SNP economic strategy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotland for one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

Edited for typos

I don't think the SNP are bothered where the plunder comes from; they will rape and pillage scotland no matter what, and if we can make good that deficit from London or Brussels, we may tolerate it for some years; or otherwise, we will be the sooner sorry thean we might have hoped. Anyone that trusts Salmond , when he has ony the Scottish electorate to answer to, is courageous beyond my stupidity could bear

SC

SC

[MAJIC]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

Unfortunately theblether,History is not written to suit individual viewpoints. But according to a Historians uncovering of what they believe to be the truth,according to the evidence,as perceived and collated at a given point in time.

Some will say too much was said,and some will say not enough,and yet others will say:..something didn't happen at all. I don't think the problem is with any particular search engine,which in general are only reporting the news,or a given subject,written by Reporters,Journalists,Historians etc

Some people advocate that Wikipeodia is the very worst of the bunch,as it can be altered by literally anyone,and is considered a means of disseminating Propaganda. Which I have never heard the same claim levelled at Google (which can't be altered by the user),and has a good reputation as a source of genuine information,and I am sure with their Slogan "Google it" would have been challenged by now,if the source,as a reference etc, was seriously in doubt.

To get back to your point,for an Electorate to have a low turnout at Election time,would indicate lack of interest rather than some other hidden motive.How many times at Elections have you heard "Im not voting for any of the lying bunch of .......... and neither am I wasting my time on this *^+%$= of..............what have they done for me?

[smokie36]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

Unfortunately theblether,History is not written to suit individual viewpoints. But according to a Historians uncovering of what they believe to be the truth,according to the evidence,as perceived and collated at a given point in time.

Some will say too much was said,and some will say not enough,and yet others will say:..something didn't happen at all. I don't think the problem is with any particular search engine,which in general are only reporting the news,or a given subject,written by Reporters,Journalists,Historians etc

Some people advocate that Wikipeodia is the very worst of the bunch,as it can be altered by literally anyone,and is considered a means of disseminating Propaganda. Which I have never heard the same claim levelled at Google (which can't be altered by the user),and has a good reputation as a source of genuine information,and I am sure with their Slogan "Google it" would have been challenged by now,if the source,as a reference etc, was seriously in doubt.

To get back to your point,for an Electorate to have a low turnout at Election time,would indicate lack of interest rather than some other hidden motive.How many times at Elections have you heard "Im not voting for any of the lying bunch of .......... and neither am I wasting my time on this *^+%$= of..............what have they done for me?

If the unionists were so confident in this then why did they insist upon a 40% rule?

Really your post is full of its own propaganda.

[smokie36]

So the whole SNP economic strategy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotland for one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

Edited for typos

The plan is to run our own country in the way in which we alone choose.

For better or worse.

[smokie36]

Really the derogatory remarks and snide approach of some of the posters here is enough to convince any Scot to vote for independence.

There are real issues here which are open to debate yet the non Scots have yet to show us how we will end up in a financial mire or that we will be cap in hand to Brussels or the IMF.

Please go on and explain this one to me...I'm all ears.

Athens of the north indeed! Explain the prophecy if you even understand what I refer to!

Edited November 11, 2012 by smokie36

[smokie36]

So the whole SNP economic strategy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotland for one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

Edited for typos

I don't think the SNP are bothered where the plunder comes from; they will rape and pillage scotland no matter what, and if we can make good that deficit from London or Brussels, we may tolerate it for some years; or otherwise, we will be the sooner sorry thean we might have hoped. Anyone that trusts Salmond , when he has ony the Scottish electorate to answer to, is courageous beyond my stupidity could bear

SC

SC

I'm not going to argue with you about the Scottish electorate....but have you visited the rest of the UK recently?

[Thaddeus]

Bleth.... for one brief moment, you had a really nice poppy avatar, you must remember what that stands for, you must, don't you?

A reminder of united force against tyrrany, and all that this once proud island stood for.

You have since changed it back to the non-descript shades of grey vaguely human form, that speaks volumes about how, not only is your loyalty temporary ( when it suits you) but also false.

Three out of my four grandparents were Scottish, but I was born in England, so I am English, but I am proud of my heritage, and therefore I'm British.

Alex Salmond is just a git with an agenda, an agenda that suits himself, wrapped up in a nice little package that is easily digestible.

[MAJIC]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

Unfortunately theblether,History is not written to suit individual viewpoints. But according to a Historians uncovering of what they believe to be the truth,according to the evidence,as perceived and collated at a given point in time.

Some will say too much was said,and some will say not enough,and yet others will say:..something didn't happen at all. I don't think the problem is with any particular search engine,which in general are only reporting the news,or a given subject,written by Reporters,Journalists,Historians etc

Some people advocate that Wikipeodia is the very worst of the bunch,as it can be altered by literally anyone,and is considered a means of disseminating Propaganda. Which I have never heard the same claim levelled at Google (which can't be altered by the user),and has a good reputation as a source of genuine information,and I am sure with their Slogan "Google it" would have been challenged by now,if the source,as a reference etc, was seriously in doubt.

To get back to your point,for an Electorate to have a low turnout at Election time,would indicate lack of interest rather than some other hidden motive.How many times at Elections have you heard "Im not voting for any of the lying bunch of .......... and neither am I wasting my time on this *^+%$= of..............what have they done for me?

If the unionists were so confident in this then why did they insist upon a 40% rule?

Really your post is full of its own propaganda.

Having reread my Post very carefully,I fail to see the remotest possibility of my viewpoint being interpreted as "Propaganda"

[smokie36]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

Unfortunately theblether,History is not written to suit individual viewpoints. But according to a Historians uncovering of what they believe to be the truth,according to the evidence,as perceived and collated at a given point in time.

Some will say too much was said,and some will say not enough,and yet others will say:..something didn't happen at all. I don't think the problem is with any particular search engine,which in general are only reporting the news,or a given subject,written by Reporters,Journalists,Historians etc

Some people advocate that Wikipeodia is the very worst of the bunch,as it can be altered by literally anyone,and is considered a means of disseminating Propaganda. Which I have never heard the same claim levelled at Google (which can't be altered by the user),and has a good reputation as a source of genuine information,and I am sure with their Slogan "Google it" would have been challenged by now,if the source,as a reference etc, was seriously in doubt.

To get back to your point,for an Electorate to have a low turnout at Election time,would indicate lack of interest rather than some other hidden motive.How many times at Elections have you heard "Im not voting for any of the lying bunch of .......... and neither am I wasting my time on this *^+%$= of..............what have they done for me?

If the unionists were so confident in this then why did they insist upon a 40% rule?

Really your post is full of its own propaganda.

Having reread my Post very carefully,I fail to see the remotest possibility of my viewpoint being interpreted as "Propaganda"

Yes a poor choice of wording by me. I was referring to your last sentence however....apathy was not the reason for people not voting last time around....it was a skewing of the voting process that kept people away, that and trade unionist propaganda.

Sorry for not making my point clearer there MAJIC.

Edited November 11, 2012 by smokie36

[MAJIC]

Bleth.... for one brief moment, you had a really nice poppy avatar, you must remember what that stands for, you must, don't you?

A reminder of united force against tyrrany, and all that this once proud island stood for.

You have since changed it back to the non-descript shades of grey vaguely human form, that speaks volumes about how, not only is your loyalty temporary ( when it suits you) but also false.

Three out of my four grandparents were Scottish, but I was born in England, so I am English, but I am proud of my heritage, and therefore I'm British.

Alex Salmond is just a git with an agenda, an agenda that suits himself, wrapped up in a nice little package that is easily digestible.

The Agenda has always been about Alex Salmond,but I have confidence that deep down the Scottish people already know that.

[Rob8891]

Bleth.... for one brief moment, you had a really nice poppy avatar, you must remember what that stands for, you must, don't you?

A reminder of united force against tyrrany, and all that this once proud island stood for.

You have since changed it back to the non-descript shades of grey vaguely human form, that speaks volumes about how, not only is your loyalty temporary ( when it suits you) but also false.

Three out of my four grandparents were Scottish, but I was born in England, so I am English, but I am proud of my heritage, and therefore I'm British.

Alex Salmond is just a git with an agenda, an agenda that suits himself, wrapped up in a nice little package that is easily digestible.

The Agenda has always been about Alex Salmond,but I have confidence that deep down the Scottish people already know that.

I'm sure the people know that, MAJIC. We are on the road to independence for the whole journey, which is a journey that may well last longer than Alex Salmond himself. He is the guide for this section of that journey: he is a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. (IMO, of course!)

[smokie36]

Bleth.... for one brief moment, you had a really nice poppy avatar, you must remember what that stands for, you must, don't you?

A reminder of united force against tyrrany, and all that this once proud island stood for.

You have since changed it back to the non-descript shades of grey vaguely human form, that speaks volumes about how, not only is your loyalty temporary ( when it suits you) but also false.

Three out of my four grandparents were Scottish, but I was born in England, so I am English, but I am proud of my heritage, and therefore I'm British.

Alex Salmond is just a git with an agenda, an agenda that suits himself, wrapped up in a nice little package that is easily digestible.

The Agenda has always been about Alex Salmond,but I have confidence that deep down the Scottish people already know that.

I'm sure the people know that, MAJIC. We are on the road to independence for the whole journey, which is a journey that may well last longer than Alex Salmond himself. He is the guide for this section of that journey: he is a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. (IMO, of course!)

Following independence there will be a vote on who will lead the country. There is no guarantee the electorate will choose Alex Salmond.

Really its a poor argument this by the unionists....surely they can do better?

[Rinrada]

As an independent country, we can speak with our own voice, choose our own direction and contribute in our own distinct way..

Time to cut the chains................YES.X

[Rob8891]

Bleth.... for one brief moment, you had a really nice poppy avatar, you must remember what that stands for, you must, don't you?

A reminder of united force against tyrrany, and all that this once proud island stood for.

You have since changed it back to the non-descript shades of grey vaguely human form, that speaks volumes about how, not only is your loyalty temporary ( when it suits you) but also false.

Three out of my four grandparents were Scottish, but I was born in England, so I am English, but I am proud of my heritage, and therefore I'm British.

Alex Salmond is just a git with an agenda, an agenda that suits himself, wrapped up in a nice little package that is easily digestible.

The Agenda has always been about Alex Salmond,but I have confidence that deep down the Scottish people already know that.

I'm sure the people know that, MAJIC. We are on the road to independence for the whole journey, which is a journey that may well last longer than Alex Salmond himself. He is the guide for this section of that journey: he is a means to an end, nothing more, nothing less. (IMO, of course!)

Following independence there will be a vote on who will lead the country. There is no guarantee the electorate will choose Alex Salmond.

Really its a poor argument this by the unionists....surely they can do better?

I don't think the can, Smokie. The unionists have had ample opportunity to put forward their arguments, but so far nothing has really held up. It becomes more and more apparent that they have scant understanding of the issue.

[7by7]

apathy was not the reason for people not voting last time around....it was a skewing of the voting process that kept people away, that and trade unionist propaganda.

If the majority wanted devolution, then why didn't they get off their <deleted> and vote for it?

Even theblether admits that those who didn't vote would probably have voted 'No' anyway, so the result would have been the same!

Propaganda: an argument with which one disagrees. That isn't the dictionary definition; but it's the definition which applies to the use of the word in many posts in this topic!

[7by7]

I don't think the can, Smokie. The unionists have had ample opportunity to put forward their arguments, but so far nothing has really held up. It becomes more and more apparent that they have scant understanding of the issue.

Ah yes, theblether method of debate; I have no answer to your points or questions, so I'm going to ignore what you've said.

At least, Rob, you haven't yet used the words 'bigot' and 'hypocrite' to describe those with whom you disagree and whose questions you can't answer..

[7by7]

So the whole SNP econoimic stratergy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?

Why would the EU direct funding into Scotland? What projects would the EU fund?

To say that a 'no' vote would spell the end of the SNP as a political party is wishful thinking on your part.

Then why, according to BBC Scotlandfor one, does Salmond admit that a 'No' vote means the end of the independence debate for at least a generation?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

I think you have been reading selectively, 7x7 . I did not say that 'the whole SNP econoimic stratergy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels'. Read my post again (fully this time, please)..........

Read my post again and you will see a question mark; "So the whole SNP economic stratergy is to replace subsidy from Westminster with subsidy from Brussels?"

I was asking a question, not putting words into your mouth!

A question that needs to be asked as Salmond and his mouthpiece here have yet to say where the money for an independent Scotland is coming from!