Oh come on BB - that is some of the worse twisting of numbers and some "might have's" I have ever seen. Yes, 90% of their employees were based outside Scotland because they (Scottish Banks, with their HQ's in Edinburgh) purchased large retail banks that had 1,000's of beaches in England. But the fact remains that the policies and decisions were made in Edinburgh - no one forced Sir Fred to make an obscene bid for ABN AMRO. There was nothing stopping any bank behaving with restraint, so to blame a lack of Westminster control of the banks as the reason Sir Fred bet the company on a throw of a dice is laughable. Making claims that it would never happened under an Independent Scotland and "Let’s also ignore the probability that we would almost certainly have regulated lenders differently" is equally ridiculous. These institutions had HQ's based in Scotland were all the big decisions were made and had huge retail outlets across the UK - where is this moral high ground?
Two contentious points there cologne - firstly, Scotland's population isn't under 5 million - 5.2 million at the last count I believe, with a predicted rise to 5.5 million over the next few years fueled by the second point - the government's inward migration programme which is expected to account for 70% of the increase with the remainder down to the current higher birth than death rate. As to too many old people - well the demographics actually stand up well in comparison to those of England, so if Scotland are in trouble... Looking at three groupings - retired, working age and child - the percentages are similar, within a percentage point of each other. As is normal elsewhere, the immigration policy will in all likelihood lead to a higher percentage of children, with a birth rate far outstripping the death rate. So all is not gloom and doom on the population front as far as I can see. Just to touch upon your third theme of economics - I too would like to hear more talk of alternative energy sources, and in fact I am to a certain extent. Wind power is on the increase, in spite of Donald Trump's best efforts, as is wave power. The missing narrative though is on hydro electric power & I've no idea what plans, if any, are in the pipeline. Like most Scots, I'm well aware that oil & gas has a limited life, but take the point of view that that will equally be the case after a no vote - UK will will be facing the same problem. I can honestly say that I don't know of anyone here who shares Westminster's view that nuclear energy is the answer to that problem - another point in favour of the yes vote really, and meaning better the oil money in Scotland's pockets than Westminster's while it lasts.
Evening folks, In reply to an earlier post, yes ... Ayr is not far away either .... Some interesting points ... The last one, wind power ... There are stacks of wind turbines throughout West Scotland ... They are unsightly and ruin the countryside ... Anyone who has travelled between Ayr and Glasgow will know what I mean ... Seeing some of the views of the Yes campaign, I have a friend on Facebook who regularly posts so much drivel about it, I along with others are going to unfriend him until its all over and done with As said on my first post last night ... I still haven't read or heard where all the mass of money is suddenly going to appear to pay for everything (If it happens of course) .... Looks like it will be down to the good old tax payer resident in Scotland as I don't think the rest of the UK will give a blank cheque and say .. Off you go then and pay for everything you need ... Especially when there is a dispute about the contribution to the national debt. I have also heard mention of modelling themselves on Norway ... Obviously not to many Scots wanting independence haven't been to Norway and paid the prices for things ... Basic taxation is higher ( 25% against 20% for the UK) ... Prices of luxuries such as alcohol (£6-7 a half litre of beer) and cigarettes (£9 a packet) and even a McDonalds at £9 for a meal .. I have heard a phrase ... better the devil you know .... H654
Been away all day, but glad to see that more info comes out here than many politicians would want the populace to discuss. I have been reading of a poll taken by an American business organization in Scotland on the independence issue. The result showed that 75% of those polled who were currently in favour would change their vote if they thought it would cost them £500. As with elections of any sort, if people think that voting one way will cost them, they will vote the other way. It seems that a lot of the Scots don't have any real desire for an independent nation, but if they will be better off, well that is different. Not ideals about a way of life, fairness or anything like that, just money in the pocket. Speak to those who live in Norway about the taxation there and you will stay well away from that model. We are threatened with dozens of wind turbines in our area, and of course there is loads of opposition. I am not too worried by them as they will be in open countryside, away from the villages, and I don't think that they ruin the area anymore than when the hillsides were covered with windmills, even if they are a tad taller. We have also quite a lot of hydro power, but at what cost? Entire villages disappeared under the waters when dams were built in valleys. If you really want to get me going, start a discussion on the removal of hedgerows and everything that comes with that. Despite all the bluster I see that the committee of experts is being brought together again to discuss the issue of currency. Although they will not admit it, the SNP have received a body blow when all of the political parties forcibly agreed that if they were in power the plans put forward from Scotland were not acceptable. A brief comment I spotted today in the French news suggested that if the Scots wished to become a country in their own right within Europe, they would have to join the Euro zone, but that would be likely to take around 5-7 years of discussion and they would have to prove that they were not going to run up debts, as enough countries had done that already. Considering the debt of the French government I did wonder where that journalist was coming from.
Well. well - I think this goes back to my original points. Beside the economic issue of the certainty of further slashed spending against the possibility of self improvement through our own efforts - my rationale for voting for independence has always been that I firmly believe it will produce a fairer and more just society for Scotland than Westminster ever did or could, if they cared enough to try. I now wish that I had never re-entered the argument.
Yes, that too. I had a good chuckle at Frankie Boyle's twitter response to Bowie - https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/436410764560453632
I intend to vote "No" for the following reasons:- 1) The union serves Scotland very well, the country has prospered and has a high living standard 2) The influence of Scotland on England and England on Scotland within the Union is a valuable and healthy mix for policy making 3) I do not want to pay additional tax for what I see as an unnecessary government 4) I do not sympathise with Nationalistic sentiment, it is not for the good of the greater people 5) SNP populism will lead to even greater prejudice against the English. None of the national splits have resulted in improvement and neither would this one 6) I do not trust Salmond to organize a BBQ let alone a country, it's all fine whilst he spends other peoples money but creating an environment to make wealth is a foreign language to him. 7) I do not believe in National Socialism
With you on that one, hence the desire to get rid of the Westminster one... There are five eligible voters in our household - all intending to vote 'Yes'. My youngest eligible son, who is about to study Law & Politics at Uni, was initially on the 'No' side - but after receiving help from Dr Eilidh Whiteford with his Advanced Highers dissertation, he realised the error of his ways. My youngest is only fourteen and too young to vote, which, as an elected member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, frustrates him - he too is on the side of 'Yes'...
What a shame that five Anglo/Australians may sway a vote in which the English, Irish and Welsh get no vote and nor do many Scots living in Britain
Referring to point 4. Yes I agree that some people appear to be overusing nationalist sentiment - but is the belief in decentralization inherantly nationalistic ? I believe not. Nor is the idea that decision making should be made as close to the people concerned as possible.
1 I agree with that 2 I agree with that 3 Long term paying for one Parliament rather than two must cost less - there will be heavy transitional costs but they are a one off - so disagree 4 To me this is the crux of the issue - do Scots prefer an Independent country to a historic alliance within the UK. Again long term within Europe is it really so important - European law is tending to dominate National 5 I doubt that independence will affect how people feel very much - but if anything I think it may reduce the resentment felt by some Scots who have never forgiven us for Flodden Field and Culloden 6 Nobody trusts Salmond. Scots will vote DESPITE him not because of him - shame would be he would forever get the credit if that is the correct term 7 National Socialism is not the same as national Socialism and is almost an oxymoron. Socialist principles tend to be international. National Socialism far from being left wing is ultra right Nazism
Five Scottish/Australians actually - and our thanks go to David Cameron for his ruling that the referendum would be open to residents of Scotland only. A ruling he made with full knowledge that it would mean the half million English, Irish and Welsh residents here will also have the right to vote....
Thought you were educated in England BB - and only moved to Scotland - did not realise you had Scottish heritage. Are you sure that Cameron made that ruling? Whatever it was bound to be wrong as it either allows half a million living in the rest of the UK to vote whilst denying others that right or it is as it is disallowing Scots not resident. Perhaps the best solution would have been to have a two stage referendum. First one for Scots alone to gauge what they want and then a UK wide one to see whether the rest of the UK is prepared to be broken up if the Scots had voted yes. Doubt that would have gone down well in SNPland
Scottish born but undertook most of my secondary education in England - I say undertook as it wasn't a pleasant experience for me, one that I never completed... Yes Cameron did make that ruling. There was a debate instigated by Baroness Symons in the House of Lords that argued for the rest of the UK to have a vote, but the government rejected it, there being a precedent set in 1973 in the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum for allowing only those resident in one part of the UK to vote on its sovereignty.
I have to say I think it is right for only Scots to vote on whether Scotland should be an Independent Nation. The trouble is that there would be no easy way of incorporating everyone claiming Scottish ancestry - how many generations would you go back etc. The way chosen is I guess "easiest" if not more correct than other ways. Do Scots not care about how the rest of the UK feel about them? I am sure if there were a vote before the Scottish independence referendum and held only for residents of England, Northern Ireland and Wales it would be 80 to 90% in favour of asking the Scots to stay ""British" Shame we want them but so many of them do not want us
Five in my household who all intend to vote NO. We are blessed with the ability to make up our own minds rather than be indoctrinated by some loony Dr. One graduated first class hons, other in final year and final daughter in 2nd year. All kids I might add are devoutly Scottish rather than English but sensible enough to see the light and not fall for Alex Salmonds diatribe. As our local SMP we've had discussions directly with him, doesn't convince me despite the 5 million he gave to one of my pet projects.
Bit of an odd statement there, aberdeen - we (not the royal we either) are all capable of making up our minds and generally do so after wisely considering all the various angles and sources. The ability to change one's viewpoint after conducting appropriate research at the highest available level is the sign of an open mind - far better than many of the closed mind attitudes that abound. Your family consider that Alex Salmond's words are little more than diatribe and contain no substance - that may be in part due to the upbringing they have received from you and reflect your own political attitudes gained through your work history, study and achievements. My family, doubtless equally influenced by me, listen to the 'Better Together' group and hear nothing but 'you can't do this, can't have that, won't get the other' type of statements, along with so-far unproven accusations of incompetence. As my fourteen year old pointed out - "Why do they call themselves Better Together when they do nothing but offer negativity, and say nothing about how we would be better together?" Is it because they share your Conservative values - values that see nothing wrong with taking large sums of money from, and then denigrating the opposition? And they have the cheek to say that the SNP lack substance.... Given your implication that we who think differently from you are unable to make up our own minds, I think it's time for me to butt out of an argument that can never be resolved. So, good luck on 18/9 - I still think you'll need a lot of it....
My brother and his wife their son and daughter and son in law and daughter in law are all apparently in the "no" camp. No idea whether they have been brainwashed or are of superior or inferior intelligence or just been hypnotised.
Here's one for you people who like to steal money from those you disapprove of. Wayne Rooney is to earn £300,000 per week - so how much of it are you going to take from him in tax - I assume at least 99.8% as that would still leave him way above the average wage
