A conveniently unnamed source and no way of validating anything purportedly said.... And yes, the YES campaign did take a poll as well - the main difference being that theirs was commissioned at the end of last week whereas YouGov's was at the end of this week. A week is a long time in politics, as you well know.
From wanting to keep the union intact I'm now getting quite excited about the prospect of the end of subsidising many of the whinging whining 'chip on the shoulder' scots. Cameron should not shower them with devo (or devious!!) max bribes. Please take the high road, we are quite happy with the low road.
These are SNP policies but some also have broad support. It seems difficult for you to understand but the YES movemnet includes Conservatives who would not agree with such policies It includes Labour , Liberal, Greens, Socialists etc. They don't all support the same policies do they. The assumption is that Scotland will re-elect the SNP and follow their policies the reality maybe a little different. Things like Trident and the NHS receive pretty universal support in Scotalnd so any party that does not subscribe will probably not get elected. Perhaps difficult to see this in England where the parties are all very similar, in Scotland we don't yet know the shape of all the parties as only the SNP have set out a plan for an Independent Scotland. Once the YES vote is delivered the other partys will start to produce their own visions for Scotland.
If the no group win Scotland is remaining almost the same but with more given to them from the Westminster government as a way to keep the Scottish happy. If the yes group win no one knows or will not say what is to happen. How do you English feel about giving more to the Scottish?
I would treat the Scots within the UK exactly the same as I treat the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. It is wrong to promise more benefits and diversion of resources to Scotland as a bribe for a NO vote. As I said in an earlier post - we do not give in to terrorist threats - nor should we give in to threats to break up the Union. The Yes campaign is two things a) selfish: I have not seen one argument by either camp on what is best for the UK as a whole - despite this being an end to the UK the Scots are the only ones allowed to vote and care nothing for the UK but only for what they can get out of it. Isn't it funny that before North Sea Oil there was no call for Independence at all. Yes= pure greed. b) left wing; from Socialist Salmond - promise more benefits and other goodies to "working class people" and the millions of poverty struck Scots, through a coalition of Socialist Workers, Labour and Liberal trendy lefty Scots (goodness knows how they have attracted a few Tories, presumably those who simply bleed tartan). Post independent Scotland will be a Socialist State -make no mistake as Scottish Conservatives make up just under 20% of the electorate. They will forever live in a society that finds every reason to tax the rich and give to the poor.
History and current mutterings from both Tory and Labour parties suggest that, rather than more, nothing at all will be given - the suspicion is that the opposite would be the case and even more than the previously stated £6 billion would be taken from the Block Grant. I'd say that the announcement of this little threat could be the clincher for the Yes group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-plot-deal-Ukip-demand-Farage-Deputy-PM.html
The sad part is that you probably really believe that nonsense to be true... Rest assured, he wouldn't. He had the opportunity at the very start and refused to do so. and no doubt happy at the military opportunities this would afford rUK. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-07/miliband-borders-could-be-put-up-if-scots-vote-yes/
Yes - this seems to be what Independence is all about - hatred of the Tory party and use whatever lies and smears rags like the Daily Mail dream up. If the Conservaitves did a deal with UKIP its support would sink like a stone - but hey let's pretend it is true - another Yes campaign scare story - I thought the Independence debate was about the UK - but it is really about the hatred of Tory Britain.
I don't particularly blame you for having not read the article, but would point out that it is actually written by Jacob Rees-Mogg, as this attests http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Farage-bed-Ukip-Tory-MP-JACOB-REES-MOGG.html I doubt even the Mail would leave themselves open to court action by making it all up themselves.
- you caught me out there - I could not bring myself to read any trash that would appear in the Daily Mail. If the Tories do a deal with UKIP do you think I could come and live in Scotland please
I was thinking one of the those real details that will be determined after a Yes vote - the new Scottish nation will end to get up a passport service to print Scottish passports as clearly they will not longer be part of the UK and will no longer be allowed to hold a UK passport at some point in the future. But this will mean that people in Scotland will from a legal perspective, need to choose a nationality. How will this be done? So if it's a Yes vote, I am sure Aberdeen will not be choosing to become Scottish, but what about all of the other "non Scottish" Brrits living in Scotland? There are many other aspects of daily life that will need a decision on nationality not just passports.
There are lots of details like that w_y - they will have to set up their own driving test and vehicle licensing authority and I am sure many other silly little things - but these are essentially just details - however 18 months will not be a lot of time to decide what they need to do.
Spot on I'll be staying "British" and keeping my United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" passports. No I will not apply for dual nationality I'd rather rot in hell than be Scottish. I hated it when we went from proper blue passports to those nasty european red things. I admit it, I'm a relic and should have been born 100 years earlier and gone from this unsavory earth by now. In fact 1881 would have been a good time to start.....
Even Joel Barnett is calling for a review of his formula. His formula was a quick fix for Denis Healey and unhappily Margaret Thatcher's chancellors took it on and this tool for financial adjustment has continued to the present day.
No - the sad part is that I don't understand what led you to make that erroneous observation. The Barnett formula is fairly straightforward, but the one one thing it certainly doesn't include is misinformed claims about Scotland being subsidised.
Raises an interesting question. Which areas of the UK are "subsidised" ie. which areas take more in expense than they give in tax? I would guess that the independent republic of Yorkshire is the biggest nett contributor.
I really have no idea on this one - but all that is being suggested is the revoking of the act of Union from 1707, which united the English and Scottish parliaments. As far as I can remember from history, between the union of the crown in 1603 and 1707 all children born after the earlier date had held dual nationality ie. English/Scottish.
I believe that the UK government has said that they will allow for Scots to hold UK passports for 20 years. However it might be quicker to get a Scottish one if they can sort a passport system out.
On further reflection, what would happen if a large swathe of Scots remain as citizens of GB instead of becoming a Scot. They would still have their passport issued by a GB government, same goes for a driving licence. But it only takes 1 citizen to choose to swap nationalities and all of those systems and processes would need to be established - difficult one for King Alex to ponder! Of course it gets even more messy if GB chooses to quit the EU as many of these cross border agreements get kicked into a very deep rough...
