Agree re Westminster. Doubt there would be an "overwhelming" No vote - so a no vote will mean the campaigners for independence will regroup and try again. It is of course a one way door - it is difficult to imagine that Scotland once independent would ever consider rejoining the UK - even if the ohters accepted it. That means that sooner or later the Yes campaign is likely to get its way as Yes is forever but No means another referendum in some years time. Doubt you would win on HS2 - wont losing Scotland increase the Tory majority at least in the short term?
I think HS2 is a red herring. It is the British development of a European transport policy. The original proposal of HS2 in England was actually made by Labour MPs and carried on by the current bunch. There was comment at the time of the original HS2 proposals that it had been made by Scottish Labour MPs to spite the leafy green Conservative constituencies of southern England, though that is probably an urban myth put about to steer attention away from the Conservative and Liberal Democrats who have willingly taken this project on.
If Scotland voted for independence they would not only be outside the UK (with no going back) but also, initially, outside the EU. Getting back into the EU would be a long and rocky road with no guarantee of success in the end. In other words the English- Scottish border would then be a border between EU and non EU - how is that practical without border controls ? I am lead to believe that Scottish citizens could choose to have dual nationality (ie keep British passports if they choose) - thus retaining the freedom to work freely in Europe. Of the nearly 2 million British citizens working within other EU countries a fair number are Scots - what happens to them if they are suddenly non EU citizens ?
I would have thought that these were the kind of questions people would like answers to before they choose to vote. The mud slinging has been pretty juvenile though I'd concede that it's been pretty much one way traffic. Tactically i suppose it's difficult - how do you defend the status quo without being negative about the alternative? And how do you espouse the positives of a new state without having to make best guesses and estimates? If I had a vote i'd be in the no camp - have always regarded myself as British rather than English. All I hope is that if Scotland does go independent we retain close ties with it and are somehow able to work together for the common good. Some will disagree but I think it's in both our interests to have each other be as strong as possible.
Of course HS2 is a classic case of 2+2=5 and only exists for politicians and civil servants to grease their already unctuous palms. I can but hope that an English parliament independent of Scotland will have the sense to scrap this nonsense. However given that politicians are generally on an ego trip I doubt that common sense will prevail in this case. It rarely does. Anyway this is in danger of getting way off topic so I'll draw a line here.
Perhaps we need a thread discussing the merits of HS2. Why do you say that HS2 only exists "for politicians and civil servants to grease their already unctuous palms"?
Quite possibly the need for a thread if people want to discuss it, although it's another issue that people are likely to fall out over (Israel- Palestine thread has its victims) as, although not a matter of life and death in human terms, it is another passionate topic. Without going into great detail or justification here I consider HS2 to be a political ego trip based on false economics in terms of projected usage, insufficient consideration of environmental issues, insufficient consideration of the likely actual construction costs. Start with this independent report and go from there. http://www.bluespacethinking.com/subject/hs2 I'll copy this to a new thread.
Where is your evidence for this 'other case' I'm sorry but you are typical of those who argue for the status quo, full of opinions but lacking in anything to back those opinions up. The internet is there I am sure like me you can find the examples you refer to, so where are they? I am arguing my case AND providing links to back up what I am saying so I don't need advice from you thanks. You have to realise that these arguments have all been rehearsed many times, this debate has been going on in earnest for the last two years so forgive me if I am a little short with someone who has just decided to add their two peneth as though it started last week. And finally I am not a politician I do not have to placate you in the hope that you will vote for me, I can tell it as it is.
Again full of opinions and NO evidence. How do you know what will happen regarding Scotland and the EU? The answer is you don't because the British Prime Minister is the only allowed to ask the question and he won't, until after the referendum. Bearing in mind that Scotland is already in the EU and there is no mechanism for expelling it, bearing in mind Scotland has huge natural resources and all systems for the EU in place, the most likely event is that during the 18month negotiation period Scotland's individual EU membership will be sorted. Leaving and returning is just far too complicated. But these are opinions for which there can be no definitive answers until after the vote.
We are all British if we come from the British Isles regardless of whether the individual nations are independent or in a union. I don't think there is any doubt that the friendships between nations in Britain would continue just as before especially when you consider that 10% of the population of Scotland is English.
You are on our board, not a Spurs board or general forum, so perhaps you can conduct yourself in ways we do on here, keeping issues to points to be made and not trying to lump people together with others you consider them to be with. I do not consider myself "typical" of any group. In case you had not noticed I have neither argued for the status quo nor against. You have already admitted to being rude here and needing to use swear words to get your point across so stop playing the innocent. I also do not need to take advice from you on how to debate. I am not going to use favourable links like you - any fool can look them up if they care to - and we know you will only point to those that support your view. If you deny other views exist then you are more blinkered and naive than you seem. You clearly do not have an open mind on the subject so you only see what you want to see. You are presenting the Yes side or the argument, I have no wish or desire to present the No side. Why do you arrogantly decide I too have not followed the debate for 2 years and more - my brother lives near Aberdeen and I have followed the question for years - not just 2. Also if you are on our board to argue presumably you are trying to persuade or why make your points? By the way, I need no placating as I am not troubled by the issue. You tell it as you see it - not necessarily as it is. Let me ask you a few questions - so you can clarify for a fool like me. Please answer with reasoning and facts not just links to websites and articles that support one side. If Scotland votes Yes 1 Do you accept that it will have left the UK and thereby left membership of the EU? 2 Do you accept that the question of what currency Scotland will use has yet to be resolved. 3 Do you accept that as part of the UK Scotland has a share of joint debt? 4 Do you accept that Scotland will need to create various institutions to replace those it leaves behind with the UK? 5 Do you accept that rUK as some seem to call it will look to it's own interests post a Yes vote and will not be incentivised to give Scotland more that it can fairly negotiate - i.e there will be no favours 6 Do you accept that Scotland will need to apply to join the EU if it wants membership 7 Do you accept that if Scotland joins the EU it will have to adopt the Euro? 8 Do you accept that if Scotland retains the pound sterling interest rates and money supply will be set by rUK to meet its needs rather than those of an independent Scotland 9 Do you accept that in economic terms uncertainty is damaging to an economy? There are lots of other questions that could be asked of course. If you accept these points - or even some of them - then you will see that there is still much uncertainty and that those both in favour of independence and those in favour of a continuing Union both have to make assumptions on these points in order to make forecasts and predictions. If you accept that then you will realise that there is scope for all sorts of assumptions and it is no wonder both sides of the argument can quote "facts2 that support their cause. In deference to your request for me to provide some "external" sourcing I will just quote from two sources ECONOMIST "All this means the warm glow of independence would be brief. The SNP is offering Scotland a vision of its economic future in which oil solves most ills, and innovative policy spurs rapid growth. In truth, with its twin budget and current-account deficits, the new nation would face much the same challenges as Britain, only more acutely. Add in a parlous demographic outlook and a nationalist party intent on over-spending, and Scotlandâs economic prospects would be bleak". Scottish Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR is an academic research centre located in the University of Glasgow's College of Social Sciences. The CPPR Director is Professor Richard Harris. Professor Harris holds the Cairncross Chair of Economics and is a full-time member of staff in the University of Glasgow Business School. CPPR is concerned with the role of public policy in promoting economic and social development in Scotland and beyond. It provides 'Quality academic research for better public policies' and has developed a unique role in Scotland providing research and commentary on Scotland's public finances, the Scottish economy and wider public policy issues. To achieve its goals it publishes reports, papers and hold seminars and policy briefings on the key economic and social challenges facing Scotland and other regions. CPPR is independent of any political or corporate bodies. CPPR Say: Despite the huge amount of work published over the last year by the Scottish Governmentâs Fiscal Commission, various ESRC funded bodies (e.g. IFS and NIESR) and the UK Treasury, there is still an alarming amount of inaccurate information being presented by both sides of the referendum campaign. Many of the answers to the most pressing questions with respect to the independence referendum will be inexact and involve some degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless a narrowing of the range of likely outcomes is possible and that has been the purpose of this CPPR paper. If this does not tell you that the future economic position of Scotland is uncertain then nothing will. By the way I still do not believe Scotland will do badly in economic terms if it goes for independence so do not lable me with the No campaigners just because I can see both side s of an argument unlike you.
Eh! I am not making any secret of what my view is and of course I am only putting up those that support my view, that is fairly self evident. What I have said is that you have failed to put up any that support your view. No way are you fair minded in this you are clearly a NO supporter because you set out below their entire strategy. ie Ask questions that cannot be answered fully until after the referendum when both sides will negotiate all these matters. For example currency. Extract of a letter in the Herald from Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute: "I have no wish to argue for or against independence, but as an economist I would like to separate the economic realities of the currency issue from the political bluster that obscures them. The Chancellor has ruled out a formal currency union, though some say this is just negotiating bluff. Either way, there is nothing to stop Scots continuing to use the pound if they choose. A Westminster government with no jurisdiction over an independent Scotland has no power to stop them. Several independent countries, including Panama, use the US dollar, without seeking the permission of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which is conducted solely for the benefit of America. [ ... ] Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama - a country comparable in population to Scotland - has one of the world's most stable banking sectors. And the economic interdependence between Scotland and the other countries of the present United Kingdom is so deep that the Bank of England would, in reality, have to take Scotland's welfare into account when setting monetary policy. Not to do so would risk damaging the other UK countries just as much as Scotland. [ ...] The easiest solution, therefore, would be for Scotland to continue using the pound, with or without a currency union, safe in the knowledge that, as an important part of the sterling economy, the Bank of England would have to take Scotland's interests into full account when setting policy. The currency problem just isn't a problem." My point is that little in the way of facts is coming from Better Together there strategy which you have presented is to ask questions as I have said. Their idea of a fact is to say that; The NHS is safe! Or: If you vote YES the sky will fall in and Scotland will sink below the waves. Your questions as posed by Better Together. All answered.
There is already a rubbing of hands together here that there could be a yes vote because it will save money on the health budget. There has been discussion on the ex-pat forums about what it will do to those who currently live here. It will not actually matter where you lived in the UK before decamping, but it will matter where you were born. The French attitude is simple. Leave the UK and Scotland will be outside the EU, so if you were born north of the border you will not be able to join the health system or receive emergency treatment under the current arrangements. There are no maybe this or that possibilities, Scotland would have to apply for membership, a process that several governments would be in no hurry to push through. Driving on a UK license is allowed, but not on one from outside the EU. You must take a driving test and earn a French one. It is now generally accepted here from various statements that persons born in Scotland would have to enter and exit the country through non-EU channels even if they are travelling with a British passport until Scotland was admitted to the EU. This all might seem a bit unfair if you have lived outside Scotland nearly all your life, but of course all the people born in the EU but now living in Scotland will not be troubled. Maybe the vote should have been restricted to people born there.
Maybe you should open your eyes and notice there is a wider world out there that doesn't see everything through a blue haze. Were you not born in Scotland then?
You do not know me and have no idea what my experience of the world is so it's a little foolish to make assumptions. People often acuse others of that which they are guilty of, as you just did. I am English.
Simply reading your posts Spurf suggests you can only see what you want to see. Did you notice my question mark?
