Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

smokie36 · October 24, 2012

@ Jim.....I read your words of woe.....heard all this before of course. Out of interest....what is your age group please?

Well perhaps if you have heard all the words of woe before there just might be something in it. As for my age group I must obviously be in an age group capable of clear, independent and objective thinking, an age group that is clearly problematic to the aspirations of Salmond, hence his desire to give the vote at the referendum to 16 and 17 year olds. After a few repeat showings of Braveheart and Rob Roy the youngsters will be ready to follow in Phuketjocks shoes, albeit they will actually be in Scotland, whilst he watches everything sink from afar.

As I thought then. Beyond the age where the future of an independent Scotland will matter, unlike the 16/17 year olds whom you have decreed will be easily swayed only in one direction.

This in the same post where you describe our wonderful education system as the best in the UK as well.

On this subject you are depressing to listen to Jim, as you offer no alternative but the cap in hand servitude to the English which you have known all of your life.

Others would prefer self governance and to genuinely decide their own future. Each to their own in this vote!

GentlemanJim · October 24, 2012

@ Jim.....I read your words of woe.....heard all this before of course. Out of interest....what is your age group please?

Well perhaps if you have heard all the words of woe before there just might be something in it. As for my age group I must obviously be in an age group capable of clear, independent and objective thinking, an age group that is clearly problematic to the aspirations of Salmond, hence his desire to give the vote at the referendum to 16 and 17 year olds. After a few repeat showings of Braveheart and Rob Roy the youngsters will be ready to follow in Phuketjocks shoes, albeit they will actually be in Scotland, whilst he watches everything sink from afar.

As I thought then. Beyond the age where the future of an independent Scotland will matter, unlike the 16/17 year olds whom you have decreed will be easily swayed only in one direction.

This in the same post where you describe our wonderful education system as the best in the UK as well.

On this subject you are depressing to listen to Jim, as you offer no alternative but the cap in hand servitude to the English which you have known all of your life.

Others would prefer self governance and to genuinely decide their own future. Each to their own in this vote!

It may be depressing but sadly the truth often hurts. Under the current system Scotland has autonomy, independent decision making processes and currently is not going cap in hand to the English as you suggest, but raping them of every pound that they can, and doing a good job of it. Just what exactly do you think will happen to the wonderful education system should full independence be achieved? What then for the future generations of 16 and 17 year olds. It's bizarre to observe how emotion fuddles the brains of otherwise straight thinking people. The blood in my veins is pure Scots and I have never lived in a system where I am going cap in hand to the English it is just nonsense.

Whilst we are at it why not lets have back the Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia and Kent. Let the Cornishmen have their lot back, Lets split Scotland up further, Alba, Dalriada, Pictland, Strathclyde, Caladonia. Where shall we stop? shall we kick the Scots back to Ireland where they came from and leave the highlands to those who can prove themselves Picts, and the Eastcoast to those who were Angles? Or, as it is such a historical mess and nowhere near as clear split as the Braveheart mob think, shall we just continue with the United Kingdom (s). Just sayin !

smokie36 · October 24, 2012

Its not the facts that I find depressing Jim, simply your writing off of the idea before listening to the proposals.

Most Scots having a decent education will mean that they will listen very carefully before making their decision one way or the other and I hope and trust they will make the best decision for the future of Scotland.

Either way, this vote will be a fair one, unlike in the 70's!

GentlemanJim · October 24, 2012

Its not the facts that I find depressing Jim, simply your writing off of the idea before listening to the proposals.

Most Scots having a decent education will mean that they will listen very carefully before making their decision one way or the other and I hope and trust they will make the best decision for the future of Scotland.

Either way, this vote will be a fair one, unlike in the 70's!

What proposal has so far been presented that is satisfactory? What proposal so far will ensure that the high standard of education in Scotland is maintained? What proposal so far can illustrate that Scotland will maintain the ability to generate enough income to provide welfare? Yes it is depressing, but sadly the time and opportunity for independence was robbed from us by the cowans and the butcher of Culloden in the 18 th Century.

There are many well educated people in Scotland I agree, so why give the vote to a 16 year old who is not considered old enough to make the decision to smoke or drink or to be licensed to drive a car? I take great pride in my heritage, but the future generations of young children in Scotland need decisions made on sound fiscal policy, even more so with globalization, not decisions that are blurred by a nationalistic sense of pride. Scots can still maintain their pride in their Nations heritage, but as my last post says, where does that end? How far back should we go? How far back do we go for you in splitting up Scotland in to its original kingdoms do we go before you say, stop it, thats a stupid idea? The kingdoms that made up our Island gravitated together for one reason or another and eventually so did their amalgamated forms of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and it was only by forming the United Kingdoms that we made such a small poxy island a world player. Without the financial power house of London right now the Scots would not have a pot to piss in, and the falsities stated by the likes of Phuketjjock stating the English are thieving from the Scots may have been the case 300 years ago, but boy are we making up for it now. We take a lot more than our fair share from the coffers of Westminster, and they allowed that solely to keep us United. If we take full independence there will be no free University for our children in the future, and just like the English kids, ours will start their working lives with a 25K debt around their necks. Far from kicking up all the fuss, we should stay quiet and enjoy it, lest the English find out exactly how much money Scotland costs them and that they call for a referendum for independence from us.

smokie36 · October 24, 2012

Its not the facts that I find depressing Jim, simply your writing off of the idea before listening to the proposals.

Most Scots having a decent education will mean that they will listen very carefully before making their decision one way or the other and I hope and trust they will make the best decision for the future of Scotland.

Either way, this vote will be a fair one, unlike in the 70's!

What proposal has so far been presented that is satisfactory? What proposal so far will ensure that the high standard of education in Scotland is maintained? What proposal so far can illustrate that Scotland will maintain the ability to generate enough income to provide welfare? Yes it is depressing, but sadly the time and opportunity for independence was robbed from us by the cowans and the butcher of Culloden in the 18 th Century.

There are many well educated people in Scotland I agree, so why give the vote to a 16 year old who is not considered old enough to make the decision to smoke or drink or to be licensed to drive a car? I take great pride in my heritage, but the future generations of young children in Scotland need decisions made on sound fiscal policy, even more so with globalization, not decisions that are blurred by a nationalistic sense of pride. Scots can still maintain their pride in their Nations heritage, but as my last post says, where does that end? How far back should we go? How far back do we go for you in splitting up Scotland in to its original kingdoms do we go before you say, stop it, thats a stupid idea? The kingdoms that made up our Island gravitated together for one reason or another and eventually so did their amalgamated forms of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and it was only by forming the United Kingdoms that we made such a small poxy island a world player. Without the financial power house of London right now the Scots would not have a pot to piss in, and the falsities stated by the likes of Phuketjjock stating the English are thieving from the Scots may have been the case 300 years ago, but boy are we making up for it now. We take a lot more than our fair share from the coffers of Westminster, and they allowed that solely to keep us United. If we take full independence there will be no free University for our children in the future, and just like the English kids, ours will start their working lives with a 25K debt around their necks. Far from kicking up all the fuss, we should stay quiet and enjoy it, lest the English find out exactly how much money Scotland costs them and that they call for a referendum for independence from us.

We shall simply have to agree to disagree on this one Jim!

In any case I look forward to watching the politicians give their spin on the proposals. I have yet to make up my mind on how I may vote in fact, preferring to wait and see what Salmond has to say on the financial issues.

Regarding the future politics of an independent Scotland I am sure that would in itself evolve into a two party system, much the same as any other country.

StreetCowboy · October 24, 2012

When I travel, I generally find that in the absence of Scots, I get on better with English fellow-travellers than other nationalities; it's not really a prejudice, but rather a matter of similarities. Our Anglophobia would be much more credible if we had fewer English friends.

Personally, I prefer to be part of "the United Kingdom", rather than "... and also Scotland"

SC

Chicog · October 24, 2012

remember 95% of the population had little more than porridge and sheep's offal to live on.

Can't have been that bad, they still eat it today when they have lots of other choices. I have some in my freezer.

GentlemanJim · October 24, 2012

remember 95% of the population had little more than porridge and sheep's offal to live on.

Can't have been that bad, they still eat it today when they have lots of other choices. I have some in my freezer.

I have a bowl myself every morning The original way, with salt Lol

phuketjock · October 24, 2012

Its not the facts that I find depressing Jim, simply your writing off of the idea before listening to the proposals.

Most Scots having a decent education will mean that they will listen very carefully before making their decision one way or the other and I hope and trust they will make the best decision for the future of Scotland.

Either way, this vote will be a fair one, unlike in the 70's!

What proposal has so far been presented that is satisfactory? What proposal so far will ensure that the high standard of education in Scotland is maintained? What proposal so far can illustrate that Scotland will maintain the ability to generate enough income to provide welfare? Yes it is depressing, but sadly the time and opportunity for independence was robbed from us by the cowans and the butcher of Culloden in the 18 th Century.

There are many well educated people in Scotland I agree, so why give the vote to a 16 year old who is not considered old enough to make the decision to smoke or drink or to be licensed to drive a car? I take great pride in my heritage, but the future generations of young children in Scotland need decisions made on sound fiscal policy, even more so with globalization, not decisions that are blurred by a nationalistic sense of pride. Scots can still maintain their pride in their Nations heritage, but as my last post says, where does that end? How far back should we go? How far back do we go for you in splitting up Scotland in to its original kingdoms do we go before you say, stop it, thats a stupid idea? The kingdoms that made up our Island gravitated together for one reason or another and eventually so did their amalgamated forms of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and it was only by forming the United Kingdoms that we made such a small poxy island a world player. Without the financial power house of London right now the Scots would not have a pot to piss in, and the falsities stated by the likes of Phuketjjock stating the English are thieving from the Scots may have been the case 300 years ago, but boy are we making up for it now. We take a lot more than our fair share from the coffers of Westminster, and they allowed that solely to keep us United. If we take full independence there will be no free University for our children in the future, and just like the English kids, ours will start their working lives with a 25K debt around their necks. Far from kicking up all the fuss, we should stay quiet and enjoy it, lest the English find out exactly how much money Scotland costs them and that they call for a referendum for independence from us.

Again much to say but no facts financial or otherwisa and I am getting the distinct impression that you believe that your opinion is the only valid one. I find myself wondering where all the revenue from Scotch whisky, Scottish oil, and Scottish hydro-electric exported to England, to mention a few earners, goes. I don't think it reaches any Scottish coffers or do you know better? I have the feeling that you may find a way to tell us that the English have somehow gifted all of the above to us over the years!!

In 2008 alone London took 12.9 billion pounds from Scotland in oil and gas revenues. This equates to every single scot giving away 2,300 pounds a year. and the 4 years up to 2008/9 Scotland had a budget surplus of 3.5 billion pouds for those four years as opposed to a UK deficit of 72.3 billion for the same period.Source www.oilofscotland.org

If you were to take the time to step down from your soapbox you might find this site quite illuminating, but I somehow think you will find a way to trash it as it totally destroys most of what you say

Edited October 24, 2012 by phuketjock

phuketjock · October 24, 2012

Not to mention the Secret McCrone report available on the above website

Edited October 24, 2012 by phuketjock

7by7 · October 24, 2012

I find myself wondering where all the revenue from Scotch whisky, Scottish oil, and Scottish hydro-electric exported to England, to mention a few earners, goes. I don't think it reaches any Scottish coffers or do you know better?

Surely it goes into the coffers of the Scottish companies who export the stuff to England?

If you mean revenue raised by the government in taxes etc; it's spent in Scotland. Plus a bit more as a 'gift' from the English taxpayer!

From The Barnett Formula

The continuing distribution of a per capita amount to each devolved areas higher than that allocated to England continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007,^[4] if a UK-wide per capita average were a notional 100%, identifiable per capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. Wales would be 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not take account of non-identifiable expenditure, such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the money is actually spent.

In monetary figures, this would work out as (per person):^[5]

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,139

Northern Ireland £9,385

What Salmond has yet to explain is how he is going to replace the money lost from English taxpayers should Scotland become independent. Maybe he thinks we'll continue paying it!

bigbamboo · October 24, 2012

I find myself wondering where all the revenue from Scotch whisky, Scottish oil, and Scottish hydro-electric exported to England, to mention a few earners, goes. I don't think it reaches any Scottish coffers or do you know better?

Surely it goes into the coffers of the Scottish companies who export the stuff to England?

If you mean revenue raised by the government in taxes etc; it's spent in Scotland. Plus a bit more as a 'gift' from the English taxpayer!

From The Barnett Formula

The continuing distribution of a per capita amount to each devolved areas higher than that allocated to England continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007,^[4] if a UK-wide per capita average were a notional 100%, identifiable per capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. Wales would be 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not take account of non-identifiable expenditure, such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the money is actually spent.

In monetary figures, this would work out as (per person):^[5]

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,139

Northern Ireland £9,385

What Salmond has yet to explain is how he is going to replace the money lost from English taxpayers should Scotland become independent. Maybe he thinks we'll continue paying it!

Maybe he thinks he can go to the EU and beg for massive development funds from them to repeat the Irish and Spanish 'economical miracles' that have worked out so well.

Only that particular well has already run dry.

phuketjock · October 24, 2012

I find myself wondering where all the revenue from Scotch whisky, Scottish oil, and Scottish hydro-electric exported to England, to mention a few earners, goes. I don't think it reaches any Scottish coffers or do you know better?

Surely it goes into the coffers of the Scottish companies who export the stuff to England?

If you mean revenue raised by the government in taxes etc; it's spent in Scotland. Plus a bit more as a 'gift' from the English taxpayer!

From The Barnett Formula

The continuing distribution of a per capita amount to each devolved areas higher than that allocated to England continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007,^[4] if a UK-wide per capita average were a notional 100%, identifiable per capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. Wales would be 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not take account of non-identifiable expenditure, such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the money is actually spent.

In monetary figures, this would work out as (per person):^[5]

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,139

Northern Ireland £9,385

What Salmond has yet to explain is how he is going to replace the money lost from English taxpayers should Scotland become independent. Maybe he thinks we'll continue paying it!

Maybe he thinks he can go to the EU and beg for massive development funds from them to repeat the Irish and Spanish 'economical miracles' that have worked out so well.

Only that particular well has already run dry.

You and 7by didn;t bother reading the McCrone report then??

Or maybe you did but found it too unpalatable and ignored it.

Edited October 24, 2012 by phuketjock

7by7 · October 24, 2012

The Mcrone report; a prediction made by an economist nearly 40 years ago; give 20 economists the same data and ask for a prediction, you'll get 20 different predictions!

Have you read the report, or just the edited highlights provided by oilofscotland.org? If you were to read the full report you will find it is full of assumptions about what may or may not happen. Some of which did in the intervening 40 years, a lot of which didn't.

Yes, if you were to draw a median line from the border (as per the Geneva agreement on natural resources under the sea) then 90% of the oil fields would be in Scottish waters. But who would protect it? Currently the Royal Navy does. Will they continue to do so for an independent Scotland? Why should they?

That is just one of the many questions Salmond needs to answer, but wont.

Could crude, whisky and wind make Scotland richer than England? by Severin Carrell makes some interesting points on both sides of the argument; maybe you should read that balanced report before swallowing the extremely biased opinions of a pressure group like oilofscotland.org.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for an independent Scotland. As an English taxpayer it would make me happy to see none of my hard earned tax sent to Scotland rather than the significant proportion currently spent there.

7by7 · October 24, 2012

A few thoughts on how Scottish independence might affect members here.

Those Scots living in Thailand would no longer be British. Would their visas still be valid? Would Scotland be on the 30 day visa exemption list? How would they go about exchanging their British passport for a Scottish one?

Those with Thai spouses living in Scotland would need a visa if they wished to visit England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as would those living in what remains of the UK who wished to visit Scotland.

Would a Scottish visa be easier or harder to get than a UK one?

What would happen to those Thais already living in Scotland with a UK settlement visa? Would they automatically be granted a Scottish one? Would it be free? What about ILR; would they keep it or have to apply for a Scottish equivalent?

endure · October 24, 2012

Those with Thai spouses living in Scotland would need a visa if they wished to visit England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as would those living in what remains of the UK who wished to visit Scotland.

People from the Irish Republic don't need a visa to visit the UK. If Scotland became independent why would the arrangement be any different to the Irish?

MAJIC · October 24, 2012

<snip> So you want all the rights of being British but none of the responsibilities! I'm not surprised.

Apologies for snipping your post 7by7 but that is a comment I feel a reply should be made as in my opinion its the right to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our failures which leads me to believe 100% in Scottish independence.

It will prove a rocky road and a difficult transition for many in our country but its the right one as our philosophy on how a country should run is fundamentally different to England.

There is much common ground however and we should remain close partners in many areas but in terms of government and funding separate.

I am a Scot. Regardless of what happened hundreds of years ago and no matter how many times I watch braveheart it is just NOT that simple. At the moment the Scottish Government have got the best of all worlds. They rake in cash from Westminster, they are even allowed to vote on parliamentary bills in Westminster, yet MP's holding an 'English' seat cannot vote in the Scottish assembly. What philosophy of running the country are you talking of? Scotland has its own parliament and runs itself more or less as it chooses and it is paid for by Westminster.

How do you just hand over the oil fields?

Are we also just supposed to leave all military hardware in Scotland? Every time a military base closes in Scotland it DEVASTATES the local communities and towns. Losses of hundreds of jobs, the loss of 3000 servicemen spending money in the local towns, 1000 children in the local schools. What this agreement to referendum will do is send a clear signal to defence planners every time there is a defence review to close more Scottish bases. You watch the Military in Scotland slashed next year!

you can only have free Universities if you have a country capable of financially supporting itself. How will Scotland have better health care? There will be no wedges of cash coming from Westminster?

Will they lock the Queen out of Balmoral?

Pensions, child allowance, social security the inevitable 'refugee's from other European countries living in scotland that will move south of the border to continue getting social security payments under European Law, housing TAX, blah blah blah.

From an entire socioeconomic point of view it is an absolute non starter and the fact that it is considered as an option is simply amazing. The world has changed A LOT in the last 800 years and this somehow romantic idea of crowning a new King on the stone of scone is all complete and utter story book twaddle. Cameron has just given Salmond enough rope to hang himself, and Salmond must wander around in a permanent state of intoxication (do they have ear medicine in Scotland) if on a day to day basis he considers this viable.

And hey lets take children, kids who are too young to get a driving licence and to drink or buy a pack of cigarettes, or get employment in most places now....let them vote on the future of the nation and all the socio economic problems that WILL follow. What will Salmond do, show Braveheart on primetime TV every week for the next two years to convince them? He will be wandering in to parliament with blue paint on his frigging face soon punching the air screaming 'Freeeeeeedom'.

The whole idea is romantic madness and the novelty would soon wear off when someone does the maths and realises there is not enough money coming in the coffers and then the subsequent break down in society, still the English could look forward to a huge tax cut not having to pay for millions of people North of the border. In answer to the question in the line we all sing "Oh Flower of Scotland...when will we see..your like again'....the answer is guys never! This should not even have got this far. From a purely objective point of view, if Salmond has engineered this to try and broker more money from Westminster then westminster should say 'ram it', hold your referendum and be damned.

So at least one Scot thinks it's madness.

Totally agree with you,it has been reported in the British Press,a few days ago,that Scotland receives £37 Billion from Westminster per annum. considering Britains financial state at the present,if Salmond is out to squeeze more money from Westminster,he hasn't picked a very good time to do it.

MAJIC · October 24, 2012

A few thoughts on how Scottish independence might affect members here.

Those Scots living in Thailand would no longer be British. Would their visas still be valid? Would Scotland be on the 30 day visa exemption list? How would they go about exchanging their British passport for a Scottish one?

Those with Thai spouses living in Scotland would need a visa if they wished to visit England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as would those living in what remains of the UK who wished to visit Scotland.

Would a Scottish visa be easier or harder to get than a UK one?

What would happen to those Thais already living in Scotland with a UK settlement visa? Would they automatically be granted a Scottish one? Would it be free? What about ILR; would they keep it or have to apply for a Scottish equivalent?

In theory if the vote goes for independance,and after the changeover period,one would expect Scotland to have their own Consulate and Embassys.

smokie36 · October 24, 2012

<snip> So you want all the rights of being British but none of the responsibilities! I'm not surprised.

Apologies for snipping your post 7by7 but that is a comment I feel a reply should be made as in my opinion its the right to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our failures which leads me to believe 100% in Scottish independence.

It will prove a rocky road and a difficult transition for many in our country but its the right one as our philosophy on how a country should run is fundamentally different to England.

There is much common ground however and we should remain close partners in many areas but in terms of government and funding separate.

I am a Scot. Regardless of what happened hundreds of years ago and no matter how many times I watch braveheart it is just NOT that simple. At the moment the Scottish Government have got the best of all worlds. They rake in cash from Westminster, they are even allowed to vote on parliamentary bills in Westminster, yet MP's holding an 'English' seat cannot vote in the Scottish assembly. What philosophy of running the country are you talking of? Scotland has its own parliament and runs itself more or less as it chooses and it is paid for by Westminster.

How do you just hand over the oil fields?

Are we also just supposed to leave all military hardware in Scotland? Every time a military base closes in Scotland it DEVASTATES the local communities and towns. Losses of hundreds of jobs, the loss of 3000 servicemen spending money in the local towns, 1000 children in the local schools. What this agreement to referendum will do is send a clear signal to defence planners every time there is a defence review to close more Scottish bases. You watch the Military in Scotland slashed next year!

you can only have free Universities if you have a country capable of financially supporting itself. How will Scotland have better health care? There will be no wedges of cash coming from Westminster?

Will they lock the Queen out of Balmoral?

Pensions, child allowance, social security the inevitable 'refugee's from other European countries living in scotland that will move south of the border to continue getting social security payments under European Law, housing TAX, blah blah blah.

From an entire socioeconomic point of view it is an absolute non starter and the fact that it is considered as an option is simply amazing. The world has changed A LOT in the last 800 years and this somehow romantic idea of crowning a new King on the stone of scone is all complete and utter story book twaddle. Cameron has just given Salmond enough rope to hang himself, and Salmond must wander around in a permanent state of intoxication (do they have ear medicine in Scotland) if on a day to day basis he considers this viable.

And hey lets take children, kids who are too young to get a driving licence and to drink or buy a pack of cigarettes, or get employment in most places now....let them vote on the future of the nation and all the socio economic problems that WILL follow. What will Salmond do, show Braveheart on primetime TV every week for the next two years to convince them? He will be wandering in to parliament with blue paint on his frigging face soon punching the air screaming 'Freeeeeeedom'.

The whole idea is romantic madness and the novelty would soon wear off when someone does the maths and realises there is not enough money coming in the coffers and then the subsequent break down in society, still the English could look forward to a huge tax cut not having to pay for millions of people North of the border. In answer to the question in the line we all sing "Oh Flower of Scotland...when will we see..your like again'....the answer is guys never! This should not even have got this far. From a purely objective point of view, if Salmond has engineered this to try and broker more money from Westminster then westminster should say 'ram it', hold your referendum and be damned.

So at least one Scot thinks it's madness.

Totally agree with you,it has been reported in the British Press,a few days ago,that Scotland receives £37 Billion from Westminster per annum. considering Britains financial state at the present,if Salmond is out to squeeze more money from Westminster,he hasn't picked a very good time to do it.

It does beg the question......why does Cameron want to retain the union?

MAJIC · October 24, 2012

@Smokie36

It does beg the question......why does Cameron want to retain the union?

@ MAJIC

IMO He may be calling Salmonds bluff,let's face it Salmond is not backward in screwing all he can out of Westminster, for most Brits I don't think if I said the majority of Brits are thouroughly Pissed off with Salmonds antics, constantly whittering and whining and speaking only of what he wants and sometimes using his merry band of 13 MPs at Westminster (our parliament) to screw us by selling his votes to the highest bidder, i.e when there is a close margin for something the Government in power needs to have passed,he's in their wheeling and dealing,frankly he's not doing Scots people any favours either.

Having said that, and I have said it before on this Topic,I would rather have mixied feelings on the forthcoming devolution vote,and err on the side of hoping the vote goes in favour of Scotland remaining a member of the union,Salmond is going for broke this time,but Scotland doesn't have to do,what this Power Hungry,Fat Cat, Career Politician wants.

Perhaps? Cameron feels the same,it may be a marriage made in hell sometimes,but no marriage at all can sometimes be better for the couple concerned than being alone........to face the world.

7by7 · October 24, 2012

Those with Thai spouses living in Scotland would need a visa if they wished to visit England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as would those living in what remains of the UK who wished to visit Scotland.

People from the Irish Republic don't need a visa to visit the UK. If Scotland became independent why would the arrangement be any different to the Irish?

Irish citizens do not need a visa to visit the UK, and UK citizens do not need a visa to visit the RoI. But Non EEA nationals, e.g. Thais, living in the RoI do need a visa to visit the UK, and vice versa.

I meant that it would be the Thai spouse, not the Scottish one, who would need a visa. Apologies that my poor phrasing didn't make this clear.

Of course, although I say 'visa' they could, as with the RoI and other EEA countries, apply under the EEA freedom of movement regulations were they travelling with or to join their Scottish spouse; if an independent Scotland applies to join the EEA and the EEA accepts them as members.

In theory if the vote goes for independance,and after the changeover period,one would expect Scotland to have their own Consulate and Embassys.

Doubtless; but that doesn't answer the questions I posed.

Edited October 24, 2012 by 7by7

theblether · October 25, 2012

1. The Embassies will be shared, there will be a Scotland Office within current UK Embassies. The UK is already moving toward a shared Embassy model, there is a proposal to share some facilities with our Commonwealth cousins such as Canada and Australia.

2. Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation. May I point out to our Commonwealth cousins, the UN Security Council seat is de facto their seat too, the UK uses the veto to represent the best interests of the UK and the Commonwealth. If we didn't have it, then we would have to rely even more on the ever weakening US for protection. Australians in particular should be switched on to the currents developments in regards to defence in their country. Like it or lump it, the Oz government knows the country is highly vulnerable to invasion due to the vast size of the place, so they need to put up more deterrent signals to possible Chinese expansionism, hence the token presence of US marines in Darwin.

3. The nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, the cost and implications of moving it to a suitable venue in England are eye watering. It was put in Scotland for a reason, our sea lochs are ideal for the purpose of providing suitable harborage in a secluded location, if you ever get a chance to see Faslane and the area around it, you will see what I mean. I'm no expert, but I don't know of anywhere in England that provides the same enviroment. The political implications of moving the nukes to England would have the NIMBY brigade hanging from the roof tops and could cause a movement to form against the nukes such as we haven't seen since the CND heyday. If the UK loses the nukes, then once again is the fast road to the World second tier.

Okay......once again our Commonwealth cousins fall below the UK nuclear umbrella, just as we are protected by the US umbrella. Set aside any immediate emotional reaction to what I have written and think about it, would you like to live in a country that has lost it's nuclear deterrent? It's place on the UN Security Council? a second tier financial power?

I could bring you dozens of more scenarios that would knock the rest of the UK out of kilter, the English among you that would love to see the Jocks out of the Union are going to get a few shocks over the next two years as it is explained clearly what the implications to you are.

As for the 37 Billion block grant.......that's a stupid argument, we Scots pay our tax to the Treasury that then returns the money to us so that we can pay our NHS workers, councils, education etc. If you read that and believed that we were being given a 37 Billion subsidy you have no idea how the UK works. On top of that, although we have a higher spend per head of the population, a lot of that is down to the vast size of Scotland compared to England, we have a population of 5.3 million, and a land mass that represents 44% of the UK total. A lot of our services are expensive to provide as a lot of our communities are in remote locations.

There is far more to this argument than meets the eye, some of the rants on this thread are embarrassing and ignorant. I know the argument that will be put forward by Alex Salmond, and you underestimate him at your peril. This guy is the genius British politician of this age, he has tied the Tory and Labour party into knots and they know it. Even the Lib Dems, which are a strong force in Scotland, wince at some of the idiocy that pours from the Labour dinosaurs.

Now my declaration and prediction, I am firmly in favour of independence, I will be a yes vote and I can put forward arguments to support my position.....here is my prediction, we will lose this referendum, with a 55% no vote.

Here's the long game, many of you will not be familiar with this.........during the 1979 Devolution debate the Conservative Party promised a new deal for Scotland if the Scot's voted no. The result was gerrymandered in the most disgraceful way by the Labour Party who are terrified of losing the Scottish votes. Of those people who voted that day, it was a clear win for Devolution to proceed, however as we could not get 40% of the total electorate to vote on it that day, Devolution was denied. Go read t6he details of how our British democracy was so rudely abused that day.

When the Tories took power, they reneged on their promises of a new deal for Scotland, that, along with some intolerable decisions such as using Scotland as the test bed for the hated poll tax has caused the Tory vote in Scotland to wither and die. The Tories have once again promised a new deal for Scotland if we vote no, you better believe that this new deal will come to fruition as the Tories cannot afford to renege again. You'll find the Labour party supporting the Tory position, and at the end of it Scotland will come out with some new tax varying powers and more control of our resources such as agriculture and fishing.

We will then enter a period of relative stability, the SNP have already promised not to reintroduce a referendum on Independence for 25 years if we lose this one, 25 years is a long time in politics, and it may be that we decide, including lifelong SNP supporters such as myself that the new deal was a good deal and we'll be content to remain within the UK. If not, the electorate may re-elect a future SNP government with a new mandate for independence, and that time, we will win.

So Alex Salmond is in a no lose situation here.......as I said.......genius.

ps. I enjoy reading rants about Braveheart and all the rest of the Tartan Army nonsence.......if you seriously believe that is the driving force for independence then you are a nutter. That's only froth and a bit of clever branding, the true drive for independence is equality, economic improvement and most importantly for Scots, social justice. A rage set in to the Scottish nation during the 80's that will never burn out, and it was a rage based upon the drive for greed typified by the Yuppies. people were losing their jobs by the hundreds of thousands in Scotland and the City was flashing cash, now we have lost our engineering and manufacturing base and the banks have gone bust.

Well done eh? Industry first last and always, our country, and I include all of the UK in this, needs to get back to the roots.......

Build it, Bake it, Design it, Make it.

We can't go on printing money and opening shops to sell Chinese goods.........so in as much as I support independence, I also support all of the UK on this issue. It's time we got back on our feet and started manufacturing again.

7by7 · October 25, 2012

It's taken 6 pages and 142 replies, but finally someone has outlined the case for Scottish independence in a rational way; thank you.

Chicog · October 25, 2012

It's time we got back on our feet and started manufacturing again.

Yes, if you're willing to do it for $1 a day you'll have no trouble competing with the Chinese.

nontabury · October 25, 2012

1. The Embassies will be shared, there will be a Scotland Office within current UK Embassies. The UK is already moving toward a shared Embassy model, there is a proposal to share some facilities with our Commonwealth cousins such as Canada and Australia.
------------/////---------------

Why should we share with you? The majority of the English want shut of the Scots,the least contact we have with you the better.

2. Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation. May I point out to our Commonwealth cousins, the UN Security Council seat is de facto their seat too, the UK uses the veto to represent the best interests of the UK and the Commonwealth. If we didn't have it, then we would have to rely even more on the ever weakening US for protection. Australians in particular should be switched on to the currents developments in regards to defence in their country. Like it or lump it, the Oz government knows the country is highly vulnerable to invasion due to the vast size of the place, so they need to put up more deterrent signals to possible Chinese expansionism, hence the token presence of US marines in Darwin.

------------------///--------------

That is your opinion.

3. The nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, the cost and implications of moving it to a suitable venue in England are eye watering. It was put in Scotland for a reason, our sea lochs are ideal for the purpose of providing suitable harborage in a secluded location, if you ever get a chance to see Faslane and the area around it, you will see what I mean. I'm no expert, but I don't know of anywhere in England that provides the same enviroment. The political implications of moving the nukes to England would have the NIMBY brigade hanging from the roof tops and could cause a movement to form against the nukes such as we haven't seen since the CND heyday. If the UK loses the nukes, then once again is the fast road to the World second tier.

-----------------//////-----------

The fact is, the UK is now only second tier, we don't need Nukes. Germany doesn't have Nukes and they are a much richer country than the UK.

Okay......once again our Commonwealth cousins fall below the UK nuclear umbrella, just as we are protected by the US umbrella. Set aside any immediate emotional reaction to what I have written and think about it, would you like to live in a country that has lost it's nuclear deterrent? It's place on the UN Security Council? a second tier financial power?

-----------------/////----------

Yes, I would, especially if we had no union with Scotland

I could bring you dozens of more scenarios that would knock the rest of the UK out of kilter, the English among you that would love to see the Jocks out of the Union are going to get a few shocks over the next two years as it is explained clearly what the implications to you are.

-----------------//////------------

I,am praying for what you call a shock, I call it relief from all those whinging Scots,

As for the 37 Billion block grant.......that's a stupid argument, we Scots pay our tax to the Treasury that then returns the money to us so that we can pay our NHS workers, councils, education etc. If you read that and believed that we were being given a 37 Billion subsidy you have no idea how the UK works. On top of that, although we have a higher spend per head of the population, a lot of that is down to the vast size of Scotland compared to England, we have a population of 5.3 million, and a land mass that represents 44% of the UK total. A lot of our services are expensive to provide as a lot of our communities are in remote locations.

---------------///// ------------

So you admit the English are subsidising your expensive services, we already knew that.

There is far more to this argument than meets the eye, some of the rants on this thread are embarrassing and ignorant. I know the argument that will be put forward by Alex Salmond, and you underestimate him at your peril. This guy is the genius British politician of this age, he has tied the Tory and Labour party into knots and they know it. Even the Lib Dems, which are a strong force in Scotland, wince at some of the idiocy that pours from the Labour dinosaurs.

-------------------/////---------------

According to yesterday's news from the Scottish parliament,he's also a first class LIER.

Now my declaration and prediction, I am firmly in favour of independence, I will be a yes vote and I can put forward arguments to support my position.....here is my prediction, we will lose this referendum, with a 55% no vote.

-----------------/////----------------

I hope your wrong, I would like to see a yes vote.

Here's the long game, many of you will not be familiar with this.........during the 1979 Devolution debate the Conservative Party promised a new deal for Scotland if the Scot's voted no. The result was gerrymandered in the most disgraceful way by the Labour Party who are terrified of losing the Scottish votes. Of those people who voted that day, it was a clear win for Devolution to proceed, however as we could not get 40% of the total electorate to vote on it that day, Devolution was denied. Go read t6he details of how our British democracy was so rudely abused that day.

----------------------///////----------------

You did not achieve 40%, so you lost the vote,what about the 60%+ who voted against you,how about their rights.

I agree with you, the Labour party are terrified of losing the Scottish vote, they would then have great difficulty in re-gaining power in England, they would just have to be content with forming a Scottish government.

Gerrymandering, the SNP have demanded that 16 and 17 yr olds are given the vote on this issue,that's what I call gerrymandering.

When the Tories took power, they reneged on their promises of a new deal for Scotland, that, along with some intolerable decisions such as using Scotland as the test bed for the hated poll tax has caused the Tory vote in Scotland to wither and die. The Tories have once again promised a new deal for Scotland if we vote no, you better believe that this new deal will come to fruition as the Tories cannot afford to renege again. You'll find the Labour party supporting the Tory position, and at the end of it Scotland will come out with some new tax varying powers and more control of our resources such as agriculture and fishing.

-------------------/////-----------------

So more subsidise's,payed for by the English. I hope your wrong on this,but probably it will be so.

We will then enter a period of relative stability, the SNP have already promised not to reintroduce a referendum on Independence for 25 years if we lose this one, 25 years is a long time in politics, and it may be that we decide, including lifelong SNP supporters such as myself that the new deal was a good deal and we'll be content to remain within the UK. If not, the electorate may re-elect a future SNP government with a new mandate for independence, and that time, we will win.

So Alex Salmond is in a no lose situation here.......as I said.......genius.

-----------------//////-----------------

Oh why, Oh why, can't they English be granted a vote on this issue,then we would be free of the Scot's.

ps. I enjoy reading rants about Braveheart and all the rest of the Tartan Army nonsence.......if you seriously believe that is the driving force for independence then you are a nutter. That's only froth and a bit of clever branding, the true drive for independence is equality, economic improvement and most importantly for Scots, social justice. A rage set in to the Scottish nation during the 80's that will never burn out, and it was a rage based upon the drive for greed typified by the Yuppies. people were losing their jobs by the hundreds of thousands in Scotland and the City was flashing cash, now we have lost our engineering and manufacturing base and the banks have gone bust.

---------------------/////-----------------

Tartan Army nonsense.,is that why Salmond demanded the vote takes place in 2014, now remind me,what year is that the anniversary off.

Some areas of England suffered far worse then Scotland during this period,FAR WORSE.

And did none of the Scottish banks go bust?

Well done eh? Industry first last and always, our country, and I include all of the UK in this, needs to get back to the roots.......

Build it, Bake it, Design it, Make it.

We can't go on printing money and opening shops to sell Chinese goods.........so in as much as I support independence, I also support all of the UK on this issue. It's time we got back on our feet and started manufacturing again.

----------------/////---------

Well on this we can agree.and as I've already pointed out on a pervious post, two of the prime minister's during this period, where Scots.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

GOOD LUCK IN TWO YEARS TIME.

nontabury · October 25, 2012

It's taken 6 pages and 142 replies, but finally someone has outlined the case for Scottish independence in a rational way; thank you.

As we all know Theblether is very good with the written English,possibly the best on this forum,unlike some of us semi illiterate posters, but at the end of the day, he's just a story teller, and this story is to use Theblether's own word nonsense.

StreetCowboy · October 25, 2012

Nontabury: Perhaps you're not old enough to remember, or perhaps you're not actually that interested, so you weren't paying attention at the time, or perhaps 1979 is too recent in the past, and you're short term memory is not what it once was - we could speculate endlessly. "There's no point speculating", though, as Ray French would say...

In 1975 a majority of the votes cast were for devolution. However, in an unusual twist, for a British vote, there was an additional requirement that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour; this was not achieved. I forget the exact vote percentages - Good Old Wikipedia!

FOR AGAINST

Percent of votes 51.6 48.4

Percent of electorate 32.9 30.9

SC

GentlemanJim · October 25, 2012

It's taken 6 pages and 142 replies, but finally someone has outlined the case for Scottish independence in a rational way; thank you.

As we all know Theblether is very good with the written English,possibly the best on this forum,unlike some of us semi illiterate posters, but at the end of the day, he's just a story teller, and this story is to use Theblether's own word nonsense.

I can verify everything that I have written, and I mean everything.

Can you verify this then?

The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize.

StreetCowboy · October 25, 2012

I'm always slightly surprised by the enthusiasm with which some British people denigrate their country.

SC

theblether · October 25, 2012

@GentlemanJim,

Is that the best you can do? there will be a few people reading that part of the post who had no idea that the seat on the UN Security Council is under threat.....and in this day and age we're seeing the Veto being wielded by Russia and China in connection with Syria and Iran on a constant basis.

Russia is still trying to get what it failed to get from the Crimean War, and China is building a new set of alliances in the Islamic world.

The UN Security Council is the highest political chamber in the World, that's where wars are approved or blocked. Big boy politics, and the UK wields the vote on behalf of the Commonwealth. To lose that would have serious ramifications.

Naturally you knew that.

Edited October 25, 2012 by theblether

Sign In

Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US