Independence - how would you vote?

[Paulo Sergio]

No.

Oh hi, Quintessentially British.

I've gave my reasons many times on the other independent thread actually.

I can't remember them, so they couldn't have been very good.

THE SNP government is spending tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers cash on an outside expert on Europe after a series of gaffes and U-turns on the issue.

Why are we paying for this?

Why aren't you complaining about Scotland paying towards the illegal and pointless war in Afghanistan or the weapons of mass destruction on the river Clyde as well as things like this?

Is it because you're "pure dead proud o' oor brave British troops" and think that "we need tae protect oorselves, ken?"

[Paulo Sergio]

Nicola Sturgeon has been actively encouraging #fraudulent activity. Is this the SNP's vision for a separate Scotland?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/2848824/The-fraud-the-flawed-Nicola-Sturgeon-faces-quit-call.html#ixzz2LGhaROHd

Three year old story. :lol:

The Sun. :lol:

The place is already bitter towards England, it always has been. It's worse now because of wee fat Hitler.

Ah, the old "only us Scotch are bitter towards Ingland" caper.

The comments on this BBC article below just show how England are never bitter towards us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21291786?sortBy=RatingValue&sortOrder=Ascending#dna-comments

Students at Strathclyde University put the SNP in their place.537131_486831708042491_762455484_n.jpg

Oh my.

[Paulo Sergio]

SEVEN out of ten small firms in Scotland are against independence, a survey has found.

They revealed fears about “unanswered questions” on banking, currency and interest rates.

And many said they were NOT convinced by SNP claims that Scots would be richer under independence.

The survey of 677 companies by Business Network International found only 30 per cent backed a split.

BNI’s Charlie Robertson said business people are worried at a lack of detail on SNP plans for banking.

He added: “These are very important questions.”

A pro-union Better Together spokesman said: “Only nationalists think it would be a good idea to throw up barriers between businesses.”

Successful Scottish businessman John Boyle has warned a Yes vote in next year's referendum would create a barrier to business.

He said: "I am unashamedly against an independent Scotland. I am Scottish, live here and love the country but I think it would be an economic and social catastrophe of epic proportions to disengage with England and the Union."

He added: "If you put a barrier to people you are doing business with, that creates problems. It looks to me the chances of the majority people voting for [independence] are getting slimmer."

His remarks, in an interview with The Herald, follow comments at the weekend when he dismissed the Scottish Government's bid for independence as a "bizarre experiment". He stressed, however, he respected individuals within the SNP.

Mr Boyle is one of Scotland's most influential business figures. He built up Direct Holidays before selling to Airtours for £80 million and creating private equity vehicle Hamilton Portfolio, which has a number of business and property interests.

A spokesman for the pro-UK Better Together campaign said: "Scottish firms sell more to England, Wales and Northern Ireland than they do to all of the other countries of the world combined.

"We are a single market and our companies don't need to worry about boundaries or borders. There is nothing to be gained by throwing up barriers within the United Kingdom. John Boyle is the latest business figure to make this point."

You sure love copying and pasting articles (if you can call them that), don't you ya little scamp - as they tell you everything your little currant bun tendencies want to hear and you lap it up. Good doggy.

So, what's your opnion on this one, where a Nobel Prize winner in the field of economics says that independence is the only way forward for us in order for our economy to prosper?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/warning-to-scots-over-uk-income-divide.20215477

Please get back to me.

[Swampy]

Yep. That must be it. A new voice pops up over the parapet ready to engage in an actual debate... Oh wait. Shot down already.

Good work proving my point.

You seem more interested in tone trolling than engaging in actual debate, tbh

[xbl]

You seem more interested in tone trolling than engaging in actual debate, tbh

I hate that term, "tone trolling". In fact, I hate the term "trolling" flat out. As I said last night, I do think he has a point. There can be a lot of negativity towards newcomers to this particular discussion.

[Swampy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9880314/Independent-Scotland-may-need-tax-increases-to-pay-for-welfare.html

This is what happens without full fiscal autonomy and control over natural resources.

[Swampy]

I hate that term, "tone trolling". In fact, I hate the term "trolling" flat out. As I said last night, I do think he has a point. There can be a lot of negativity towards newcomers to this particular discussion.

There's certainly plenty of negativity when someone enters the thread with the express intention of tone trolling, rather than, y'know, debating. If he'd just post his thoughts, and they were any good, nobody would think twice. But people with negativistic personality disorders, instead, make excuses for their lack of contribution first, usually blaming a cabal of others out to get them (who in reality couldn't give a f**k either way.)

[Swampy]

That's a fantastic article, thanks for sharing that.

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm given to understand the Yes camp came out of it looking very good, but frankly the guy writing it came across as an entitled navel-gazer who wants other people to do his thinking for him. How many thousand words was that?

[Mushroom]

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm given to understand the Yes camp came out of it looking very good, but frankly the guy writing it came across as an entitled navel-gazer who wants other people to do his thinking for him. How many thousand words was that?

It really does go on for far too long, but I managed to stay awake for long enough to read the bit about both sides of the debate needing to trying to persuade the middle ground by answering their questions rather than dismissing them as "CDUists" or "cybernats" for not having blind faith.

[ONeils40yarder]

It's always been an easy decision for me 'yes' just seems like the obvious way to cast your vote. Scotland, and the scots, are second class citizens in the UK and always will be.

People are frightened of the unknown though, hopefully we can get the message across and people will have the baws to vote the right way.

[Swampy]

It's always been an easy decision for me 'yes' just seems like the obvious way to cast your vote. Scotland, and the scots, are second class citizens in the UK and always will be.

People are frightened of the unknown though, hopefully we can get the message across and people will have the baws to vote the right way.

People will always be frightened of the unknown. The best way to combat that is to point out that we have no idea where the Union will be in three years, much less five or ten. A majority of Scots favour remaining in the EU, for example, but only a minority of English people want the same. There's every chance we'll be withdrawn from the EU against our will. The Scotland Act, meanwhile, is just a giant question mark. The "status quo" is meaningless.

[Highlandmagyar]

I find it very interesting that there are so few people now willing to admit to being staunch no voters. Of the arch Unionists on the thread, HB has claimed he's not all that bothered, Reynard has claimed that he is voting yes, and Berwick Mad has indicated that he's not "that" against it.

Is the No vote softening?

Could be that the NO vote is looking at the situation (polls, campaigning) and seeing that it is a foregone conclusion and that us Scots havent got the bollocks to break away and in their minds have decided that their vote doesnt matter as its all tied up?

Personally, of course, that would be dangerous for the Unionists (of which I have consistently been one), and there is a real danger of walking blindly into independence.

I, myself, have always stuck to the party line, that Scotland would suffer terribly in an independent form, BUT I am now more undecided than a NO.

I am becoming more and more dissolusioned with with the argument for UK plc. As for the party, I have voted for, all my voting life,(LABOUR), it is now clear that they DO NOT serve Scotland as they should. All the years Scots have weighed the votes in for Labour we have gotten nowhere near what we were promised AND EXPECTED.. BUT we kept, backing Labour to keep the Tories out at Westminster, although it was such a one sided system because of English votes, who are, I believe natural Conservatives that they will always vote for a right wing leaning party.

They went to their droves in Labour under Blair, because he spoke thier language. I accepted it, naively, because it kept the Tories out, but it has only delayed the push for independence.

I am waiting for any side to come out with arguments stating a strong case for their respective sides, BUT as yet, I have heard nothing. It wont take much for me to a YES voter, but, conversely, it wont take much to stay in the NO campaign.

Wether you disagree or not, its the YES campaign that has more convincing to do, to persuade genuinely worried Scots where we would be without the Union and its perceived comfort of looking after us.

For the youngsters of Scotland this is THE issue that will decide what happens to your future, so you need to engage, BUT the YES campaign, have yet to ignite them.

I await the campaign catching fire and fleshing out the real issues that worry the doubters, including myself.

Apologies for the long winded way to go about it, but there it is.

I am waiting, openly, to be convinced to say YES!!

[As We Rise Again]

But Mr Salmond’s insistence that Catalonia is a different case hurt those who had hoped for moral support from another independence movement. The word “treachery” was used about Mr Salmond, and it was rather indignantly noted that maybe Catalonia is, after all, different – with a “stronger case”.

While there is a debate over whether Westminster subsidises Scotland there is no doubt Catalonia subsidises Madrid. And while Scots hold senior positions in the UK government, Catalans are kept out of the Spanish government.

It was suspected that Catalonia had been abandoned by the SNP because of Spain’s threats to delay EU membership for Scotland, fearing agreeing membership might encourage other independence movements.

But the “treachery” to Catalonia is just one example of a surprisingly long list of small and emerging nations snubbed by Mr Salmond and the SNP. While they are desperate to promote Scotland’s right to nationhood and independence the SNP, more often than not internationally, side with the larger nation suppressing a smaller one’s push for autonomy.

There was the recent snub by Mr Salmond of the premier of Quebec, with whom he refused to do a public press conference, but more seriously there has been the way he has ingratiated himself with the undemocratic regime in China . This is, no doubt, because China is an important market for Scottish goods, but it looks bad for the leader of an independence movement to snub the Dalai Lama because of Chinese sensitivities over Tibet.

Even in the UK there seems to be a certain dismissiveness of others’ nationhood. The SNP have a Westminster election pact with Plaid Cymru and yet, in a recent Twitter exchange with this writer, Mr Salmond’s aide, the SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, appeared to suggest that unlike Scotland, Wales is just a part of England. Legally there are arguments for that, at least pre-devolution, but culturally there are not.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/david-maddox-snp-wins-no-friends-by-snubbing-the-underdogs-1-2798053

[As We Rise Again]

Scots would face tax rises to pay for the country’s growing welfare bill if it became independent, a report has warned.

The benefits system costs relatively more in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, because there is a higher proportion of pensioners and people on disability pay, according to economist Professor David Bell.

And a big increase is looming as more Scots live into retirement, pushing up the pensions bill in the decades ahead. Prof Bell warned taxes would have to go up to fund this under independence or if Holyrood is given full fiscal control under a devo-max style arrangement – unless there is an unlikely return to the strong economic growth seen before the banking crash.

The welfare system has become a key battleground in the independence debate.

Prof Bell’s new paper looking at spending on welfare in Scotland seems to be at odds with that claim.

“If Scotland acquires new fiscal responsibilities, including control over welfare benefits, there will be a need to raise revenues to meet the increased costs of state pensions,” he said.

“These will have to be derived from the economic activity of the working-age population.”

The number of pensioners in Scotland is expected to increase by 80 per cent between 2010 and 2060 and this poses a “particular challenge for Scotland”, according to Prof Bell.

“Meeting the costs of welfare entitlements for older people will require a return to consistent patterns of economic growth if increases in the tax burden are to be avoided,” he said.

Payments on welfare and state pensions in Scotland totalled £15.6 billion in 2010-11, with councils spending a further £5.2bn on support for groups such as older people, children and the homeless.

Overall spending on “social protection” – welfare benefits and state pensions – was higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, at £3,972 per head of population, compared with £3,658.

The higher spending north of the Border is because there is a higher proportion of pensioners and disabled people in the population.

Prof Bell said: “Scotland has lower income, more working-age people with no skills, a higher unemployment rate, higher proportions of older people and lone parents in the population and higher levels of disability.”

[~~~]

But Mr Salmond’s insistence that Catalonia is a different case hurt those who had hoped for moral support from another independence movement. The word “treachery” was used about Mr Salmond, and it was rather indignantly noted that maybe Catalonia is, after all, different – with a “stronger case”.

While there is a debate over whether Westminster subsidises Scotland there is no doubt Catalonia subsidises Madrid. And while Scots hold senior positions in the UK government, Catalans are kept out of the Spanish government.

It was suspected that Catalonia had been abandoned by the SNP because of Spain’s threats to delay EU membership for Scotland, fearing agreeing membership might encourage other independence movements.

But the “treachery” to Catalonia is just one example of a surprisingly long list of small and emerging nations snubbed by Mr Salmond and the SNP. While they are desperate to promote Scotland’s right to nationhood and independence the SNP, more often than not internationally, side with the larger nation suppressing a smaller one’s push for autonomy.

There was the recent snub by Mr Salmond of the premier of Quebec, with whom he refused to do a public press conference, but more seriously there has been the way he has ingratiated himself with the undemocratic regime in China . This is, no doubt, because China is an important market for Scottish goods, but it looks bad for the leader of an independence movement to snub the Dalai Lama because of Chinese sensitivities over Tibet.

Even in the UK there seems to be a certain dismissiveness of others’ nationhood. The SNP have a Westminster election pact with Plaid Cymru and yet, in a recent Twitter exchange with this writer, Mr Salmond’s aide, the SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, appeared to suggest that unlike Scotland, Wales is just a part of England. Legally there are arguments for that, at least pre-devolution, but culturally there are not.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/david-maddox-snp-wins-no-friends-by-snubbing-the-underdogs-1-2798053

Seems like you just don't like the SNP, nothing to do with independence, or any you a unionists cause thats what all the bears are?

[As We Rise Again]

Seems like you just don't like the SNP, nothing to do with independence, or any you a unionists cause thats what all the bears are?

Nope, how did you come to that conclusion? What team I support has nothing to do with this.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

I wasn't aware that Salmond is also meant to be campaigning for every other independence movement around the world. Looking forward to hearing in the Scotsman how Salmond "snubbed" a Ginsters pasty in a GIRUY to the Cornish independence folk.

[Ad Lib]

Why aren't you complaining about Scotland paying towards the illegal and pointless war in Afghanistan or the weapons of mass destruction on the river Clyde as well as things like this?

First of all, the war in Afghanistan isn't illegal; it has an unambiguous UN mandate. Secondly, even if we accept it is pointless (which I don't, though it's looking increasingly futile) people elsewhere in the UK are paying for it too. The rest of the UK are also paying for weapons of mass destruction to be placed on the River Clyde and, well, wherever else the UK Armed Forces consider it expedient to send them. They aren't all just sitting in the Clyde. There's one in reserve there but the rest are deployed all over the globe. One of them's probably circling the Falklands.

Even if you could show that people in Scotland like nuclear weapons less than people in the UK as a whole, you still have to show that it's because of something other than NIMBY perceptions which are accordingly absent by the absence of those nukes elsewhere. I'm sure people in Dorset wouldn't be over the moon at having Trident submarines based and maintained near them either.

[Big Rider]

My first question for your brother-in-law would be "why, if you think the UK is so great, wouldn't you just move to somewhere else in the UK?" The French mother excuse is a bit weak. Do France hand out passports to anyone who has a French granny? Hope not, it would f**k up his little plan.

Your brother-in-law is the type of no voter I despise; the type that thinks Scottish people are so incapable of running their own country that they'd sooner clear off than stay and try and make it a better country. Self-hating Scotsmen, f**k them.

I didn't have time to get his reasoning for this and I was dumbfounded actually when he told me. He'll have brainwashed his kids into this being a good idea. The prime irony is that he has sent his kids to a private school presumably to make them confident, outgoing individuals. Pity he cant see the same qualities extend to his country.As I said he's always been a flapper but family politics means ill probably need to leave him to it.

He's a prime example if a cringing Scotsman right enough.

[H_B]

There's certainly plenty of negativity when someone enters the thread with the express intention of tone trolling, rather than, y'know, debating. If he'd just post his thoughts, and they were any good, nobody would think twice. But people with negativistic personality disorders, instead, make excuses for their lack of contribution first, usually blaming a cabal of others out to get them (who in reality couldn't give a f**k either way.)

Indeed. This is often characterised by the blatant cry for attention posters who enter a thread with a first post which is demanding it be closed.

The fact that several people have, since the first thread was lost in the ether, said they avidly read the thread without contributing suggests that in fact there was a lot of both useful debate and valuable educational posts, in amongst the standard dross any large thread will encounter from time to time.

This tone troll is a particularly unwelcome visitor. It is to be hoped they don't prolong their visit to the thread.