Scotland - referendum just for zoners :)

[87mtech27]

Nervous times. Darling really messed up on the last debate a˜¤. The vote margins are starting to move now but I think (& hope) Union will survive... Just about a˜a

[Gert_8]

This is hotting up now. What do you think the outcome will be come Friday morning?

[E30BeemerLad]

I haven't looked at TV listings, but is this being aired on STV on Wednesday night?

[Grrrmachine]

The result can't be anything other than No. Not because of what the Scots want, but because the legal and economical costs of splitting up a G8 country will be too great.

If you think the vote in Crimea was a sham, wait til Thursday.

[Gert_8]

If the Scots vote for Yes, then there is no option but to deal with the practicalities in the legal and economical costs of splitting, otherwise why have the vote in the first place?

IMO, this whole split thing is totally unnecessary. It will be extremely difficult and, as you say, expensive. Where is the money coming from? I have read, it may take up to 10 years for the dust to settle, and all for what?

Without being snobbish, it's also been observed that the majority of yes voters are the working class...

[pacerpete]

Without being snobbish, it's also been observed that the majority of yes voters are the working class...

Are you saying that thick monosyllabic tatted tabloid reading scum should not be allowed to vote ?

Sounds reasonable to me !

[Rtaylor2208]

This is hotting up now. What do you think the outcome will be come Friday morning?

Its going to be a close call, but there is a good possibility of a yes vote.

The polls are all over the place but mainly because of how polling is conducted.

There is still a lot of resentment to the UK government in Scotland for the way the UK government went about things in the 80's that is fuelling the desire for independence. Not to be mistaken for a dislike of the actual people in the rest of the UK.

For me the no campaign have went about it all the wrong way with focusing on the fight against Alex Salmond. The SNP will only be in charge till the next Scottish election in the event of a yes vote, its at that point the major changes would start to happen when a government elected by the Scottish people will get representatives that they want, rather than a tory government as it is now that they only elected 1 MP for in the whole of Scotland.

So far though there has been a lot of BS propaganda on both sides of the campaign which those who choose to only get their information from the likes of the BBC and facebook are not making a truly informed decision.

Whether you agree or not with the referendum it will be very interesting to see what the outcome is.

[macas]

Let them go on thier own,they will have no armed forces so we will just invade and take it back anyway

[Gert_8]

I don't understand this resentment to the UK government, nonsense. The government may be, at the moment, the conservatives, but has also been labour. What I would argue is that the people in charge of Scotland (the labour and Scottish MP's - that the Scottish people HAVE voted for) are the ones that have failed them.

It's not a case of a war that has been lost, so you have to put up with the consequences, your elected people have failed to successfully win their arguments, or put their points across.

It's a fact that Scotland receives far more spending per head than anywhere else in the UK (£1200?). It is also a fact that money provided for the NHS has been diverted and spent elsewhere -er, by the SNP.

The problem is, Salmond and chums will screw things up and then not be held to account.

What the people of Scotland should do, in the event of winning, is see what the changes are. If there is hardship and no improvement, then they need to get a neck-tie party arranged. Regrettably, this will be a disasterous move for the rest of us.

Despite protestations, I cannot help thinking there is an element of resentment on the part of the Scottish. History suuggests this.

[Rtaylor2208]

I don't understand this resentment to the UK government, nonsense

I'm not convinced its nonsense to be fair, Scotland has long been the guinea pig of Westminster reforms the most recent being the benefits changes dubbed "the bedroom tax".

Add to that the likes of the poll tax, mine closures, privatisation of the oil industry etc etc. you only have to look at a lot of the small towns around the central belt that had been devastated by the mass unemployment caused by these changes to see why a yes vote in these areas is prominent.

Don't get me wrong companies can fold every day and leave many unemployed but the resentment comes from where the state have been involved in the demise.

The Barnett formula does have a lot to be answered for which I can appreciate the argument on spending per head, but there are several economic studies that state that the taxation raised from Scotland is greater than the amount returned from Westminster, I can't remember the exact figures but its something like Scotland contributes 9.?% of the tax but only receives 8.3% to be spent in Scotland. That would suggest that if and its a big IF that if Scotland could still generate the same revenues it would be ran at a surplus rather than a deficit.

[Gert_8]

I didn't realise the poll tax or benefit changes, such as the recent bedroom tax were phased in, beginning with the Scots. These are policies affecting the whole of the UK, so it's not just the Scots that are being hard done by.

I accept both the policies you mention are from the Tory government, but if the Scots love labour so much, all they have to do is wait a little and we can see what happens next.

Mines, oil etc may all have suffered loses, but do you really think this will improve your situation by being independent? No one will take you seriously, especially when Scotland doesn't even have a currency to trade with. It cannot count on being an EU member, either.

Businesses will not invest (in the short-term) and Scotland's costs will go up. Oil revenues will stop over the next 30 years, but listening to the Yes camp, they are sitting on an infinite source. The short-term may be fine, but what happens after 30 years? 30 years in not long enough to become a Singapore.

Did you know that the NHS is at the heart of the yes campaign, yet Salmond is anticipating cutting spending on the NHS by £1bn? this is the here and now.

[Rtaylor2208]

To make this very clear I am not yet decided on whether I am a yes or no vote, but playing devils advocate neither side is actually giving me a good enough reason to choose.

I accept both the policies you mention are from the Tory government, but if the Scots love labour so much, all they have to do is wait a little and we can see what happens next.

Scots are very quickly dis-associating with the labour party and have been for some time.

Mines, oil etc may all have suffered loses, but do you really think this will improve your situation by being independent? No one will take you seriously, especially when Scotland doesn't even have a currency to trade with. It cannot count on being an EU member, either.

Why will Scotland not have a currency to trade in? There is options, and as previously mentioned a country does not need to be in a currency union to use its currency. This already happens in many south American countries with the use of the US Dollar. Yes Scotland cannot count on becoming an EU state but as this has not happened since the introduction of the EU no precedence has been set either. Add that to the possibility that not even the UK will be a member of the EU if the EU referendum goes ahead and the public choose to leave the EU, its hardly an argument against Scottish independence.

Businesses will not invest (in the short-term) and Scotland's costs will go up. Oil revenues will stop over the next 30 years, but listening to the Yes camp, they are sitting on an infinite source. The short-term may be fine, but what happens after 30 years? 30 years in not long enough to become a Singapore.

Oil is not an infinite resource but even 25 years is long enough to build a prosperous country, how much has changed in the UK in the last 25 years? There is no reason Scotland could also not change over those 25 years and diversify in other industries.

Why just because of independence and the possibility of a 3% reduction in corporation tax would a company choose not to invest in Scotland? Companies invest where there is a profit and its really as simple as that.

Did you know that the NHS is at the heart of the yes campaign, yet Salmond is anticipating cutting spending on the NHS by £1bn? this is the here and now.

As is Westminster, with its continued privitisation of many services, again not a argument that will sway a decision as both sides have changes planned that negatively impact the NHS.

[Rtaylor2208]

I'd recommend reading this website. It demonstrates the holes in both sides of the argument and has lots of information on the financial aspects of a yes or no vote.

https://fullfact.org/scotland/

Its not as clear cut as either campaign would have you believe.

[Gert_8]

This is how scotland voted in 2010. interesting figure are on pages 14 and 25.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf

25 years, IMO is not long enough to allow scotland to build and prosper, the land mass it too large and the population too small - it will take a minimum of 10 years for the dust to settle after a Yes vote, and I don't think the remaining UK is going to be too helpful, do you?

The figures used to calculate scotland's prosperity are based on a the volitile price of crude and a figure based on a barrel that has only ever been achieved 3-4 times since oil production started. The calculations are badly flawed.

The better together makes much more sense. If you want to use familial analogies, then Scotland is a selfish son that wants to leave home, and keep his earnings rather than contributing, despite having a generous allowance, because dad says the household's income does not allow him to buy a Rolls Royce.

[aimlessrock]

This is how scotland voted in 2010. interesting figure are on pages 14 and 25.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf

25 years, IMO is not long enough to allow scotland to build and prosper, the land mass it too large and the population too small - it will take a minimum of 10 years for the dust to settle after a Yes vote, and I don't think the remaining UK is going to be too helpful, do you?

The figures used to calculate scotland's prosperity are based on a the volitile price of crude and a figure based on a barrel that has only ever been achieved 3-4 times since oil production started. The calculations are badly flawed.

The better together makes much more sense. If you want to use familial analogies, then Scotland is a selfish son that wants to leave home, and keep his earnings rather than contributing, despite having a generous allowance, because dad says the household's income does not allow him to buy a Rolls Royce.

+1 politics aside building an economy on the sole revenue from a resourse as voliatile as oil is crazy. People have the right to self determination but books have to balance and bills paid.

[Rtaylor2208]

There is a significant difference between a Scottish and national election though. Yes, Scotland was predominantly voting labour when it came to national elections as very few here wanted a conservative government. The same cannot be said for the Scottish elections where the SNP became the majority vote when electing MPs for the Scottish parliament.

I agree oil prices are very volatile and basing a countries long term economy on a finite resource is foolish, on the other hand what is westminsters plans for an industry to replace the oil industry when it runs out? If 25 years is so little time what plans has Westminster made when this happens? Surely this would be as big a loss to the UK's economy as it would be scotland's in a united kingdom.

[Gert_8]

I agree, there is a marked difference between a scottish and national election, however, in 2010 scotland backed labour. Now they are backing the SNP. In both instances, there is an element of militancy

All Salmond wants is statues for being the one to provide Scotland with its long yearned for Freedom. He's not interested in whether Scotland is successful or not, as long as it is "free". As I have mentioned, when realisation dawns, he won't be around - probably living with his mate, Connory, in some tax free country.

I'm pulling your leg, of course, as I am not Scottish and the non-scottish residents do not have a say in what is going on.

Regarding the oil, you have a very good point, what is the UK going to do when this has all gone?

I don't have the answer to that, but I bet you it will be easier to suffer its loss as a United Kingdom, rather than a destitute, "single parent", Scotland...

[Rtaylor2208]

Jokes aside I agree with the statements about Alex Salmond, but he is the very short term future of an independent Scotland if it happens.

The political parties that would be formed post vote will be very different I imagine from the current status quo. He's only in charge for the next 18 months, and Scotland wouldn't actually be independent during that time anyway.

[Gert_8]

So, Rtaylor, what are you going to do come Thursday?!

[Rtaylor2208]

Still trying to work that out to be honest I can see benefits on both sides. But its my nature to embrace change in my life and probably why I have never stayed in a job for more than 3 years.

Life is generally what you make of it and success is always possible if you try hard enough. I was told I would amount to nothing at school and now take great pride in proving my teachers wrong, with a good job for the number one business globally in our field, a wife, a son, a house and generally enough cash in my pocket to enjoy life.

I want to believe the determination of the Scottish people can make this work and provide better opportunities for my son and further children.

It's a gamble as is any life changing decision, but just because someone says it wont work that doesn't necessarily mean its true.

It'll come down to standing there tomorrow night with my slip in hand before I finally make my mind up.

[Gert_8]

well, you seem to be a very level headed person, so whatever your decision, good luck.

Only time will tell with this one, but in the immediate future, a decision to part company is going to wreak havoc. There seem to be too many things that haven't even been considered, let alone discussed.

It will be a shame for the United Kingdom, a small country that has fought hard and above its weight. A separation cannot enhance anything, only harm it.

[pacerpete]

well, you seem to be a very level headed person, so whatever your decision, good luck.

Only time will tell with this one, but in the immediate future, a decision to part company is going to wreak havoc. There seem to be too many things that haven't even been considered, let alone discussed.

It will be a shame for the United Kingdom, a small country that has fought hard and above its weight. A separation cannot enhance anything, only harm it.

What upsets me most is that Euan, aka 'baby' has not got a passport and I really am going to miss our intimate weekends of bonding / barebacking when he comes to visit me in the valleys, boyo

So Gert, you do have a vested interest ! Rumbled !

[Gert_8]

well, you seem to be a very level headed person, so whatever your decision, good luck.

Only time will tell with this one, but in the immediate future, a decision to part company is going to wreak havoc. There seem to be too many things that haven't even been considered, let alone discussed.

It will be a shame for the United Kingdom, a small country that has fought hard and above its weight. A separation cannot enhance anything, only harm it.

What upsets me most is that Euan, aka 'baby' has not got a passport and I really am going to miss our intimate weekends of bonding / barebacking when he comes to visit me in the valleys, boyo

So Gert, you do have a vested interest ! Rumbled !

haha. Too right! Talking of which, where is he these days?! Bet he's out canvasing

[chippy1947]

Enjoyed the debate

[Gert_8]

My prediction for tomorrow:

NO thank you. The margin won't be as close as the 51% for staying united and 49% for leaving.

Reason for this is I feel a certain amount of intimidation from the Yes voters.

It reminds me of John Major standing against old Maggie. He couldn't find a supporter that would come forward for fear of reprisals, yet he won.

Looking forward to this

[Gert_8]

Anarchist!

[Gert_8]

One thing is for sure, a certain percentage of Scottish people are going to be pretty. P issed off.

[cliff_costa]

[Rav335uk]

Let them have their country back.

[shedrool83]

Come on Scotland let's take this chance to make our own decision's .