Furthermore if you can't see how staying as we are is being part of the Me me culture what exactly do you think government in Westminster has been about for the last 35 years? Do you understand what neo-liberalism is? All three major parties in Westminster support this economic creed.
Apart from Health Services all are me first, but Health Service is probably the major reason to vote YES after democracy, because you will certainly not have an NHS if you stay in the Union.
Hey, come on! I know Tony Fernandes is Malaysian but you've had reasonable English owners and players in the past.
Perhaps us first..... the union being greater than the sum of its parts That is why I will do all I can with my vote to get the Tories out
I doubt very much it will turn out ****, just as I doubt it will turn out as rosy as Spurf imagines. It may turn out worse for Scotland if they get independence but if they do we will never know. I doubt if an independent Scotland will be a particularly significant country, just as Denmark or NZ, for example, are not particularly significant but there is nothing wrong with that. I think the worst scenario likely to happen would be to end up like Ireland, and again there is nothing wrong with that.
Apart from social policies which we all have a say on.... and they have voted in salmond on that.... so really that will ultimately be little different whether in or out.. All they have left is the oil revenues .... funny as our friend bangs on about me first... but they want all the dosh for them... .... UK will not let them off lightly and will screw every penny out of them
To put the lesser Tories in! The choice has gone in the UK. You should think about the future and support Scottish Independence which can lead the way into a more democratic future for the whole of the UK.
Excuse me where have I said it WILL all be rosy. I HOPE it will, that's different and I also can't see where such change will happen in the present UK
Perhaps you need to think through what you are saying before giving us the benefit of your one liners.
I don't disagree... BUT I don't base an argument on yes/no on this..... which is why I voted for none of the big three last time round. I think Scottish independence is about much more..... ...and I must say if I was a scot I could not vote for that fishy character.... plus all the hypocrisy of living off fossil fuel revenues...
To those who think it will no different in Scotland I would say; it already is different. NHS not privatised, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free University tuition, then many minor differences like wheel clamping is illegal here. The legal system, education all are different. We need to preserve those differences for a start.
yorkshire, yorkshire, we are not voting for Salmond (as good as most in Scotland think he is) we are voting YES for the right to vote in our own elections and chose our own government and oil represents only 15% of the Scottish economy we are not living off it.
Even after 2 years of this debate misconceptions in England are large. It just shows the grip the Westminster elite and their media have. This is why they were so surprised by the polls showing a YES lead. They still don't have a clue what this is about just as the BBC doesn't, they still thinks it's about policies. This is about Elites & Democracy!
My last line reflects the fact that I believe you have not argued the case in the way it should be argued and as for us here it is only you and BB representing the case I would have liked to see you explain the Yes campaign better. It is not spin but my honest take on what you have said. You have quoted a myriad of articles from one side saying that oil is plentiful and given us lists of independent countries - whether they be rich or poor. I accept that there are loads of independent countries - that does not actually mean that they would not fare better as part of a bigger union. As for oil - there is loads of it but the point you and as far as I can see the Yes campaign have failed to do is to explain how a country that would have oil as around 15% of its tax revenue can properly deal with the wide annual fluctuations that always do occur. For the UK as a whole oil is 1 to 2% of revenue so a halving of it is of little consequence on an annual basis. That just is not the position if it is 15% of your revenue - it means there has to be a strategy to deal with major fluctuations of revenue. I cannot believe the argument that Salmond has not considered this - he is a very intelligent man. So why does he not explain the strategies an independent Scotland would use to iron out the fluctuations. This is certain to happen and it is not acceptable to say the answer will be given after a yes vote. If I am mistaken and the Yes campaign have answered that then explain it to me - please not in another long article but in your own words. Secondly the EU - I am well aware that post a Yes vote negotiations will start. However you cannot expect anyone to accept that Salmond has not looked at all the possible outcomes - immediate re-entry, re-entry within say 5 years or possibly no EU. Why is it so difficult for anyone to tell us what the Yes campaign position would be in the event of these outcomes. They are all potential outcomes so explain what the strategy would be to deal with each. Finally currency. I know you can quote 200 countries around the word with their own currencies and Scotland can easily be another. But why will Salmond only tell us he wants a currency union and not tell us the response to an alternative outcome. It will make a great deal of difference to Scotland which currency it uses - so he should outline how Scotland will cope with each. That means acknowledging the increased costs that a new country would face starting its own currency - not least higher interest costs - or the loss of control if it "shadows" sterling and does not have its own central bank. Those are all legitimate questions and it is not good enough to say they are policies that will be decided after the referendum. Some people will want independence only if some of those outcomes are "favourable" unless the Yes campaign can show it has a successful contingency plan for when not all negotiations turn out as they hope - and as someone who has spent much of my business life in negotiations I can assure you we do not always get what we desire. None of what I have written here is spin - you are the only one who accuses me of that Spurf. The questions are the sort of questions I have posed to people who have come to me seeking investment in their businesses across the years. If you want people to buy into a idea you have to convince them it is sound. If I have missed the answers to these questions then again please in a few words explain them. You say you do not want debate for the sake of it - but this is not like that- it is debate about all our children's future - not just Scots. We have a right to know that Scotland is not being misled and not voting for an outcome it does not expect. I think Salmond's reaction to the publication of the RBS intention to move its headquarters demonstrates how he prefers to keep bad news hidden. Whether the Treasury did wrong in confirming it is not relevant - hiding the truth and then complaining when it comes out it just wrong. Salmond implies that all potential bad news are just scare stories so it is important that when businesses like Aviva, RBS and the like are making actual plans to relocate these are aired as fact to prevent it being claimed as just a scare. I challenge your assertion that this is about Democracy - that is the "spin" the Yes campaign has turned to as they have seen that promising a new social order is popular. I did not hear much of that in the early days of the debate. It is about Independence. How Scotland develops post independence will determine what social order changes there will be - but that will depend on how Scots vote in the future - nobody can promise the outcome of future votes. I do not expect you to be able to answer these questions properly as I do not think they have been thought through as fully as they ought to have been - which is why the No campaign has kept pressing for answers. I could easily be wrong and if I am then here is your chance to help us understand the truth.
Based on what? The figures show Scotland will be richer by BILLIONS, because we are subsidising the UK. I have posted the facts on here from Business for Scotland and economist Ivor Mckee. THE FACTS are from UK government figures produced by the civil service. If you just ignore that and say the opposite why should anybody take your comment seriously.
I have seen many articles saying Scotland are the ones being subsidised - like most statistics they can tell a very different story depending on how you present them. You criticise the "Me" culture - but is that not what the Scots are voting Yes on? They believe they will get oil revenues eclusiveluy to themselves and so will be richer - they clearly do not care about the English - let alone the Welsh or Irish.
