Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[The Great Montrose]

I've never claimed to be neutral whereas Dante has, and then gone on to show he's very much pro union, I'm not getting at Dante not at all. I was merely pointing out that he doesnt seem as undecided as he thinks.

Yes they approached him to write an article but they didnt say it was to be a pro independence (not seperation) article, they wanted an article about a constitutional framework which he was happy to write, hey he could have slated the SNP etc. , there was no influence from YES Scotland over what he wrote, he wrote what he wanted to write and then like any other normal person asked for payment for his time and effort in writing the article. Nothing wrong with that. He is an impartial academic, and you've said they agreed to his request of payment, they didnt offer him payment originally, they only asked an impartial academic to write an article on constitutional framework and after he's written his article he's asked for money for his time if you will. No big shock.

It amazes me that better together can be angry at things like this when they recieve lumps of money off of dodgy guys who make deals with dodgy people. Whatever happened with that case? Did they give the money back?

Hmm yes it came from abroad, I'm sure there lots of foreigners who have nothing better to do than hack into YES Scotlands emails nope not buying it.

[Rootsie]

Yes they approached him to write an article but they didnt say it was to be a pro independence (not seperation) article, they wanted an article about a constitutional framework which he was happy to write, hey he could have slated the SNP etc. , there was no influence from YES Scotland over what he wrote, he wrote what he wanted to write and then like any other normal person asked for payment for his time and effort in writing the article. Nothing wrong with that. He is an impartial academic, and you've said they agreed to his request of payment, they didnt offer him payment originally, they only asked an impartial academic to write an article on constitutional framework and after he's written his article he's asked for money for his time if you will. No big shock.

Don't be so dense.

It amazes me that better together can be angry at things like this when they recieve lumps of money off of dodgy guys who make deals with dodgy people. Whatever happened with that case? Did they give the money back?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Can you elaborate?

Hmm yes it came from abroad, I'm sure there lots of foreigners who have nothing better to do than hack into YES Scotlands emails nope not buying it.

Mate read the article. I didn't make that up, it is what the police are saying! I imagine that they have a much greater ability when it comes to tracking cyber-criminals than either you or me.

[selder]

Compare that to something like the Henry Jackson Society Report on defence implications for an independent Scotland and a (highly critical) analysis of the Yes Scotland/SNP defence plans - a report which has been promoted by the Better Together campaign. The writer of the report recieved no payment or contribution from Better Together, indeed the only political input he had was from Stewart Crawford who wrote the forward to the report and who was an SNP candidate in the last general election.

Lets do just that then...The Henry Jackson Society a British neocon think tank and political action committee writes a report critical of Scotland's defense plans, I am shocked. Founded in Cambridge, England, and launched in the Houses of Parliament in 2005. Includes some of the most powerful in Britain, former directors of the MI6 and CIA, British MPs, and a number of editorial staff from various newspapers. The secretive nature of the society is the very pinnacle of neutrality. But hey if they merged with the Centre for Social Cohesion, which was established 'because of widespread and longstanding concern about the diminishing sense of community in Britain.' they are being honest about what their mission is maybe you just didn't get the memo.
Look we are under no illusions as to the power of the 'unionists' and the many tools they possess, I mean look how easy it was for all the main parties to simply forget all their differences and jump into bed with each other. Instead of offering different views on alternatives to independence they instead chose to openly admit that they have only one and it is all the same. I am really looking forward to the next elections in Scotland.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I've never claimed to be neutral whereas Dante has, and then gone on to show he's very much pro union, I'm not getting at Dante not at all. I was merely pointing out that he doesnt seem as undecided as he thinks.

I know your not getting at me my friend, nor am i neutral, but i was willing, like many scots to listen to the pro-independence arguments, see what advantages they could offer, would we be better off etc. And at this point, the answer is no, we wouldn't be better off. And part of this is down to the independence camps appalling campaign thus far- lets face it, it has been one disaster after another, i mean the Unionists too have had their cock ups (I wouldn't expect anything more than from said Tories in particular) but the SNP especially have butchered reports, lied, made up figures, then when it all comes to a head, they completely then twist in the breeze and change their mind, or hide and pretend nothing happened! Do you have any answer my friend for them lying about the number of jobs that would be created? To take it down to our viewpoints? How did you feel about this? Did it inspire confidence in the SNP?

And these factual messes are the reason i believe why the Union is so far ahead in the polls. I think independence may have had a good shot actually, but the campaign has nigh on ruined that. Thus my hope for a close win for Union is fading (again for personal reasons i believe this might be the best outcome for both sides.

As to the academic my friend, the outrage is that yes he'd usually get paid- but by the paper/magazine that publishes his work- they would ask him, not the political opposition who would then pay him. Thats why it has a bias, the Independence camp asked and paid him to write an article about independence, its a little different than if say, the guardian asked him, as then the political affiliations which indeed may exist within all newspapers would be less apparent, and so a more balanced argument made- instead of outright being paid by a political party.

Hmm yes it came from abroad, I'm sure there lots of foreigners who have nothing better to do than hack into YES Scotlands emails nope not buying it.

Yet it would be a bit of a stretch to say the UK is purposely hacking emails...at such a low level, surely they'd go after the juicy gossip and leak it? Say Salmond's own thoughts and actions. Also i doubt UK security services would actually get involved in something as low as this, again if they did it would be higher up they'd target. Though we don't really have evidence these organisations work on political motives to keep one party in power.

[Rootsie]

Lets do just that then...The Henry Jackson Society a British neocon think tank and political action committee writes a report critical of Scotland's defense plans, I am shocked. Founded in Cambridge, England, and launched in the Houses of Parliament in 2005. Includes some of the most powerful in Britain, former directors of the MI6 and CIA, British MPs, and a number of editorial staff from various newspapers. The secretive nature of the society is the very pinnacle of neutrality. But hey if they merged with the Centre for Social Cohesion, which was established 'because of widespread and longstanding concern about the diminishing sense of community in Britain.' they are being honest about what their mission is maybe you just didn't get the memo.

Selder, you obviously haven't bothered to read the report. If you had you'd know it was commissioned by an independent body (they came up with the idea themselves rather than being asked by someone) who paid an internationally recognised academic - George Grant - to write it. Angus Robertson (as the SNP defence spokesman) was one of the largest contributers to the report, holding a series of interviews with Grant. As I mentioned before, another SNP man - Stewart Crawford - was acknowledged in the report and wrote the forward. Even if you hold the view that the Henry Jackson Society is the most partisan think-tank in existance, the report is totally non-partisan in the independence debate.

The report clearly is neither 'neoconservative' or 'liberal' as it is a critique of the Yes Scotland/SNP defence policy. It doesn't call for an independent Scotland to be directed toward a particular outcome in terms of foreign or defence policy (for example being a member of NATO or not). As I said above, the report doesn't give any opinion on the political debate - whether Scotland should become independent or not; it remains totally neutral on this issue.

The fact that the SNP held negative press briefings where they attempted to smear the report and the Henry Jackson Society says a lot about the way that the SNP are unable to take even the most constructive of criticism.

As the author says in his rebuttal of the SNP accusations, "To reiterate and to conclude: the report neither supports nor opposes independence for Scotland; it seeks simply to assess whether the SNP’s proposals for the defence of an independent Scotland are credible. The SNP may not be able to see it, but those are two quite different things."

For those interested the original report: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-co...rt-LOW-RES.pdf
And the author's responce to SNP criticisms: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-co...nce-report.pdf

I mean look how easy it was for all the main parties to simply forget all their differences and jump into bed with each other.

Are you serious? They came together in a common cause. One of the strengths of the Better Together campaign is that it contains people from across the political spectrum. From George Galloway to Nigel Farage.

You can't say the same about the Yes Scotland campaign.

Instead of offering different views on alternatives to independence they instead chose to openly admit that they have only one and it is all the same.

Alternatives like......staying in the union perhaps?

This is a debate about whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become an independent nation or whether we should remain part of the United Kingdom. There are only two sides to this coin: In or Out.

[The Great Montrose]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Can you elaborate?
.

http://radicalindependence.org/index...ther-pay-back/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-22208385

You know the 500k they recieved from a man who has made deals with Saddam and serbian warlords, why should this man be able to contribute to the future of Scotland with his dodgy money gained from dodgy deals? Vitol even threatened to sue National collective about an article, thats an attack on free speech. This money should have been returned at once but was it? No.

Yet it would be a bit of a stretch to say the UK is purposely hacking emails...at such a low level, surely they'd go after the juicy gossip and leak it? Say Salmond's own thoughts and actions. Also i doubt UK security services would actually get involved in something as low as this, again if they did it would be higher up they'd target. Though we don't really have evidence these organisations work on political motives to keep one party in power.

Bit of a stretch yes... impossible? No.

[Rootsie]

http://radicalindependence.org/index...ther-pay-back/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-22208385

You know the 500k they recieved from a man who has made deals with Saddam and serbian warlords, why should this man be able to contribute to the future of Scotland with his dodgy money gained from dodgy deals? Vitol even threatened to sue National collective about an article, thats an attack on free speech. This money should have been returned at once but was it? No.

Gotta say I'm not big fan of the major oil companies, but if you banned Taylor and Vitol from operating in Scotland then you'd also have to ban Shell, BP and all the others.

I also notice that when Taylor spent £2.5 Million+ (www.economist.com/news/britain/21573552-old-industry-goes-back-basics-loom-and-bust) bailing out the Harris Tweed industry, Alex Salmond seemed to not have an issue with him investing in Scotland.

In addition, I think it is very hypocritical for Mr Salmond to complain about Mr Taylor's donation, when the SNP have accepted over £1 Million in donations from Brian Souter; a man whose business practices were described as, "predatory, deplorable and against the public interest" by the The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (predecessor of The Competition Commission http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1527193.html) and who lead and funded the "Keep The Clause" campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm).

[The Great Montrose]

Well guys now we see the true nature of the Tory governments thoughts on Scotland http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...yWdwnk.twitter

Tory MP Priti Patel "There are many areas such as elderly care, tuition fees and prescriptions where Scots are basically getting a better deal than the rest of the country." Well Mrs.Patel thats because thats what the Scottish government choses to spent our money on, if you want free tuition and prescriptions then the tory party isnt for you dear. How about you campaign for that down south instead of moaning about us.

This just fuels my hate for the tories, "Backbencher Priti Patel said the Prime Minister should demand the country starts to “pay for itself”." I'm sorry but we already more than pay for ourselves, its clear the tories dont want us in this union and thats fine by me, this is an extremely embarrasing moment for David Cameron who's been trying so hard to pretend he and his party likes us. And they wonder why they're a non entity in Scottish politics. Come on Dante, again look at the tories, labour arent much better, lamont doesnt support free fees anymore, not the working class party that it used to be, they're just ToryLite. This is what you want to be stuck with?

[Rootsie]

Well guys now we see the true nature of the Tory governments thoughts on Scotland http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...yWdwnk.twitter

Tory MP Priti Patel "There are many areas such as elderly care, tuition fees and prescriptions where Scots are basically getting a better deal than the rest of the country." Well Mrs.Patel thats because thats what the Scottish government choses to spent our money on, if you want free tuition and prescriptions then the tory party isnt for you dear. How about you campaign for that down south instead of moaning about us.

This just fuels my hate for the tories, "Backbencher Priti Patel said the Prime Minister should demand the country starts to “pay for itself”." I'm sorry but we already more than pay for ourselves, its clear the tories dont want us in this union and thats fine by me, this is an extremely embarrasing moment for David Cameron who's been trying so hard to pretend he and his party likes us. And they wonder why they're a non entity in Scottish politics. Come on Dante, again look at the tories, labour arent much better, lamont doesnt support free fees anymore, not the working class party that it used to be, they're just ToryLite. This is what you want to be stuck with?

So you are saying that we should become independent because you dislike the view of a particular backbencher who is viewed as a loose cannon inside her own party?

Every party has its share of loonatics. Tories have Patel, Labour have Dennis Skinner, SNP have Joan McAlpine.

Fantasic logic there.

How about you reply to my previous post now?

[The Great Montrose]

Not because of one person no, but because our two countries are so so different politically and socialy, we're a country that constantly votes on the left compared to England who vote on the right. I dont want to be stuck with Tory and ToryLite in government for the rest of my life, I'd rather see the Scottish green party, the Scottish socialist party, the SNP, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib dems battle it out to win the people of Scotlands votes and have full control over decision making to do whats in the people of Scotlands interests.

And I dont really know what to reply, I've made my point and you've made a counter point, if I replied the argument would simply go nowhere. Or I guess maybe I could reply, has anyone who's donated to YES Scotland ever done anything nearly as bad as doing deals with Saddam and Serbian Warlords? The answer is no. Also its YES Scotland/Bitter together donations we're talking about not the SNP.

Also for the record I love Dennis Skinner, his remarks about the royals are hilarious each time in the house You dont like him?

[Their Law]

Not because of one person no, but because our two countries are so so different politically and socialy, we're a country that constantly votes on the left compared to England who vote on the right.

That has less to do with cultural differences and more to do population demographics, the primary population belt of Scotland runs between Glasgow and Edinburgh and is heavily urbanized and ex-industrial. Typically these areas a where labour and the socialist left have drawn their support from. If you check the voting patterns for similar urban conurbations in England you generally see a similar pattern of Labour heartlands. Even in the 2010 election Labout retained it's hold on the urban northwest and northeast and onto a fair portion of greater London.

The only difference is the percentage of the population residing in these areas. In Scotland the urban conurbations contain the VAST majority of the population. This less true for England and Wales, however the English population has time and again voted for Labour when the arguments are persuasive enough.

I dont want to be stuck with Tory and ToryLite in government for the rest of my life,

Given that we've just come out of 14 years of Labour government in comparison to 3 years of Conservative and think it's too early to call such predictions.

I'd rather see the Scottish green party, the Scottish socialist party, the SNP, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib dems battle it out to win the people of Scotlands votes and have full control over decision making to do whats in the people of Scotlands interests.

So you motivation for independence is less to do with a concept of nationhood and more to do with your political ideology not being represented?

[Rootsie]

Not because of one person no, but because our two countries are so so different politically and socialy

Firstly, I'd like to remind you that the United Kingdom is comprised of more than two countries. One thing I dislike about the nationalist campaign is there is a strong "English vs Scottish" undercurrent which I find deeply distasteful. Although I don't for a minute think that you are a racist Great Montrose, I'm sure you can see why so many people are suspicious of Scottish nationalists when they seem totally fixated on England and tend to ignore Wales and Northern Ireland.

Anyway, we will get onto politically in a minute, but can you tell me how you and I are "socially different" to an English person? Do we all live in nuclear families whereas the English all have one parent? Are we perhaps all atheists whereas the English are all Christians? Maybe we love football whereas the English love ermm...... You see what i'm trying to say?

I've lived in England for more than 5 years now and I've never once felt that I'm in a foreign country. Sure we do things differently, but the UK is a hugely diverse place. Think about how different the cultures of the Gaelic Highlands compared to the Doric North East are. I used to live in East Anglia, I could drive for an hour in any direction and I'd come across a different accent and a different culture (London, Essex, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire etc). When you compare the culture of the Cambridgeshire Fens with the culture of Lancashire or Cornwall you see that across the UK we are just as different between different counties as we are between different countries. Personally I think that is something we should celebrate by enjoying each other's traditions rather than using them to create a false barrier between us.

we're a country that constantly votes on the left compared to England who vote on the right.

Firstly, you seem to have a greatly inflated view of the differences between our political parties. Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and even the SNP are in broadly the same area of Centre-Right to Centre-Left. None is hard-right, none is hard-left. To suggest that we are so totally different that it is impossible for us to ever live together is really pretty absurd.

Secondly, the Government of the UK isn't elected on a England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland basis. It is elected through individual constituencies. To suggest that Scotland is and always will be left-wing is wrong. Parts of the Borders, Edinburgh and the North East are fairly consistent in their historical support for the Tories and - although the SNP stole a lot of votes in the 1990s/early 2000s - this is something we are starting to see returning. As someone who comes from the North East I believe that it is a fundamentally conservative area (as is anywhere with lots of fishermen and farmers), however the modern jazzed-up Conservative Party doesn't represent the kind of 'working class toryism' that people believe in.

In addition, while large areas of England do vote Tory, you've completely ignored Wales - part of the UK remember - who consistantly vote Labour at every election. No government in the UK gets in through the votes of one of the constituent nations alone - it has to be a pan-UK vote. The 2010 election was a bit of an irregularity in that although the Tories gained in Wales and England (infact they did better in Wales, up 4.7% compared to 3.9% in England), they only gained marginally in Scotland (0.9%). Even with such a small increase, the Tories only polled 79,000 (or 3% of the electorate) fewer than the SNP did in the general election!

I dont want to be stuck with Tory and ToryLite in government for the rest of my life, I'd rather see the Scottish green party, the Scottish socialist party, the SNP, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib dems battle it out to win the people of Scotlands votes

The fact that you want to live in a politically one-dimentional utopia is not really a serious argument for independence. Besides in the last election UKIP got more votes than either the Greens or the Scottish Socialist Party. Why haven't you put them on your list?

and have full control over decision making to do whats in the people of Scotlands interests.

Again I'd like to point out that MPs are elected on a constituency basis - not a country basis. MP's don't sit around saying, "What can us English do to shaft the Scots". They make decisions based on their constituency and on the UK. As part of the UK, what is in the UK's interest is generally in Scotland's interest.

Plus, this is an argument that can be taken to the Nth degree. In an independent Scotland, Glasgow would run the show. Will Glaswegians do what is right for Glasgow, or what is right for the rest of Scotland? Should Scotland split into microstates?

Finally, I don't believe that it is in Scotland's interests to throw away our significant global reach. As part of the UK we dictate policy in the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, G8, G9, G20 etc. If we leave the UK we will become a peripheral member of those organisations reacting to the policies of the 'big fish' rather than writing those policies.

And I dont really know what to reply, I've made my point and you've made a counter point, if I replied the argument would simply go nowhere. Or I guess maybe I could reply, has anyone who's donated to YES Scotland ever done anything nearly as bad as doing deals with Saddam and Serbian Warlords? The answer is no.

Well, I'm not at all impressed with Alex Salmond's chummying up to China and refusing to meet the Dali Lama now that you mention it, but there we go.

For me it boils down to the fact that if the Scottish Government considered Taylor's money good enough when he was investing in Scotland, then there is no reason for him to be banned from giving money to Better Together.

In addition, are we applying some sort of relative scale here? Deals with Saddam is a big no, but promoting homophobia is fine?

Also its YES Scotland/Bitter together donations we're talking about not the SNP.

Given that the SNP is Yes Scotland's second-biggest donor it is pretty relevant.

And saying, "Bitter Together" reflects on you, not them.

Also for the record I love Dennis Skinner, his remarks about the royals are hilarious each time in the house You dont like him?

I don't have an opinion on him to be honest. I disagree with him politically but thats it. I was using him as an example of someone who is on the fringes of the Labour Party.

[selder]

So you motivation for independence is less to do with a concept of nationhood and more to do with your political ideology not being represented?

At least for everyone I know including myself it was always about the practical application of political independence . We want the power to make decisions about fiscal policies, we want a government that is held accountable to us not a bunch of people that live in another country. It never really was about nationhood as much as it was about self determination.

To be honest that is why nothing the unionists have said seems to offer any alternative other than wait and see. Why are they afraid to make it concrete? They know a majority of Scots want it, therefore all we can do is assume they have no intention of offering anything.

If you had you'd know it was commissioned by an independent body

Really, then why does it have the Henry Jackson Society stamped across the cover page?

But to answer your question, of course I have not read it. Why would I? As I could care less what the SNP's defense plans are, no one said they would get to decide in an independent Scotland anyway. You see I do not have to support the SNP to support independence.

One of the strengths of the Better Together campaign is that it contains people from across the political spectrum.

George Galloway to Nigel Farage...I wouldn't exactly call those strengths.

This is a debate about whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become an independent nation or whether we should remain part of the United Kingdom. There are only two sides to this coin: In or Out.

That's right, the unionists/ Cameron made sure that it would only be about that...but that does not somehow excuse the lack of discussion about what happens after now does it? As long as we have the vote we have the power to demand, after its done we will have nothing. So I want guarantees and if the only one on the table is independence then I have no choice really. So lets hear what Labour has in mind or maybe The Great Montrose has it right and they are just the new ToryLite party.

Personally I think that is something we should celebrate by enjoying each other's traditions rather than using them to create a false barrier between us.

You mean false barriers like Poll taxes that were only used in Scotland while the rest of 'the countries' were exempt from them? The truth of the matter is the union was political and its dissolution will also be political we can remain quite close but like a marriage we are two separate distinct identities. Here is a great little read that may explain it better than I ever could.

Scotland and England are growing apart. A no vote won't stop that

And saying, "Bitter Together" reflects on you, not them.

Actually it has become a quite accurate description, as they only seem to run negative stories about this or that. Never actually explaining why we are 'Better', maybe because they will then find themselves in the same boat as the SNP and everyone will ask them to back it up.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Well guys now we see the true nature of the Tory governments thoughts on Scotland http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...yWdwnk.twitter

Tory MP Priti Patel "There are many areas such as elderly care, tuition fees and prescriptions where Scots are basically getting a better deal than the rest of the country." Well Mrs.Patel thats because thats what the Scottish government choses to spent our money on, if you want free tuition and prescriptions then the tory party isnt for you dear. How about you campaign for that down south instead of moaning about us.

This just fuels my hate for the tories, "Backbencher Priti Patel said the Prime Minister should demand the country starts to “pay for itself”." I'm sorry but we already more than pay for ourselves, its clear the tories dont want us in this union and thats fine by me, this is an extremely embarrasing moment for David Cameron who's been trying so hard to pretend he and his party likes us. And they wonder why they're a non entity in Scottish politics. Come on Dante, again look at the tories, labour arent much better, lamont doesnt support free fees anymore, not the working class party that it used to be, they're just ToryLite. This is what you want to be stuck with?

I think the others have argued it quite well thus far my friend, but the demographic distribution of the population tend to be what impacts their voting stance, i mean look at the highlands and isles here, they tend to be far more conservative in their outlook! But as said, we've just finished with a length spell under labor, compare that to the 3 years under the coalition (remember its the lib-dems too) nothing is taken for granted, also couple this with the changes we're beginning to see in the political make-up world-wide (smaller parties gaining more support due to the perceived same-ness of the major ones), remember nothing in politics is forever or certain.

And to counter, whats so different about the SNP? They've proven to be the same brand of liars, fact twisters as the others, except they seem to make far more claims that they can't back up, which i'm putting down to their relative youth on the political stage. If anything thats worse than currently.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

So if it is only about money then people have been bought.There freedom has been sold for the Queens shilling.
Lying in your beds from the now what will you give to come back and vote for freedom.

[Rootsie]

Really, then why does it have the Henry Jackson Society stamped across the cover page?

Because they commissioned it.....

But to answer your question, of course I have not read it. Why would I? As I could care less what the SNP's defense plans are, no one said they would get to decide in an independent Scotland anyway. You see I do not have to support the SNP to support independence.

There are a few glaring errors you've made here. Firstly, the report is about Scotland's defence (again, if you'd actually bothered to read it you would know that); the threats Scotland would face now and in the future, the assets we would have and what kind of equipment we would need. It is a general evaluation, that makes it worth reading regardless of what party you support.

Secondly, if you look at what the Yes Scotland campaign say about defence (for example here: http://www.yesscotland.net/undecided_armed_services) it is basically copied and pasted from the SNP's website, right down to the amount of GDP Scotland would spend on defence (see here: http://www.snp.org/referendum/faqs/d#). In addition, if Scotland votes 'Yes' then the SNP would be in government and would be the party that sets the first policies of an independent Scotland. Therefore their vision for the Scottish Armed Forces would be extremely important as it would set the foundations for decades to come.

Therefore it is reasonable for the report's author to use what has been publically said by the SNP and Yes Scotland as the basis for his evaluation of what our defence policy would be.

George Galloway to Nigel Farage...I wouldn't exactly call those strengths.

Only a fool believes that diversity isn't a strength.

That's right, the unionists/ Cameron made sure that it would only be about that

That's because independence is the issue we are talking about.

but that does not somehow excuse the lack of discussion about what happens after now does it? As long as we have the vote we have the power to demand, after its done we will have nothing. So I want guarantees and if the only one on the table is independence then I have no choice really. So lets hear what Labour has in mind or maybe The Great Montrose has it right and they are just the new ToryLite party.

The biggest issue facing Scotland is whether we want to be independent or whether we want to be part of the UK. After we have worked out that fundamental question then we can look at what comes after. In my view the whole 'devo-max' thing is a red herring and can wait until 19th September 2014.

Nationalists (including yourself) frequently tell me that you can support independence without supporting the SNP. Well this is the same, you can support the Union without supporting the status quo.

After all, in 2015 we are due to have a General Election. In 2016 we are due to hold Scottish Elections. Parties can contest those elections on plaforms promoting federalism, more powers within the current structure or whatever other arrangement they want.

You mean false barriers like Poll taxes that were only used in Scotland while the rest of 'the countries' were exempt from them?

Implementing a policy in one part of the UK before the rest of the UK might be stupid, but it isn't an argument for independence.

The truth of the matter is the union was political and its dissolution will also be political we can remain quite close but like a marriage we are two separate distinct identities.

Sure, its possible that could happen, but I don't see why we should break up a marriage that Scotland benefits from.

Here is a great little read that may explain it better than I ever could.

Scotland and England are growing apart. A no vote won't stop that

The argument put forward in that article would be more effective if all the things that Mr Macwhirter talks about were not already devolved to Scotland. He says that England is going in a different direction when it comes to social care and the NHS, that may be true but it has absolutely no bearing on Scotland as we can already make our own policy decisions in those areas.

Actually it has become a quite accurate description, as they only seem to run negative stories about this or that. Never actually explaining why we are 'Better', maybe because they will then find themselves in the same boat as the SNP and everyone will ask them to back it up.

I think you are failing to make the distinction between 'negative' and 'factual'. I'm frequently told I'm "scaremongering" when I question Scotland's future armed forces, future economy and future international relationships. I'm not, I'm asking realistic questions. There is a very big difference.

Finally, you say we are bitter? Look at the arguments put forward by Yes Scotland, even by our own Great Montrose, that if we don't become independent then we will be 'punished' by Westminister or we will face an enternity of evil tory rule. Is that really a positive campaign?

[selder]

Because they commissioned it.....

That's right, the Henry Jackson Society (a neocon think tank and political action committee made up of powerful people that directly benefit from the union and many actually serving in the British Government) commissioned a report authored by George Grant, who just happens to be a Henry Jackson Society Associate Fellow. The title of said report just happens to be, "In Scotland’s Defence? An Assessment of SNP Defence Strategy". So you still need me to explain why this should be treated with as much scepticism?

There are a few glaring errors you've made here. Firstly, the report is about Scotland's defence (again, if you'd actually bothered to read it you would know that); the threats Scotland would face now and in the future, the assets we would have and what kind of equipment we would need. It is a general evaluation, that makes it worth reading regardless of what party you support.

The report is titled "An Assessment of SNP Defence Strategy"...I am not making this stuff up. Read the cover page, it is an assessment of the SNP defence strategy. That is it. Not some neutral report that simply wishes to enlighten the Scottish people. Which is what you seem to be arguing.

Only a fool believes that diversity isn't a strength.

Or that this motley crew gives a @#$% about the people of Scotland.

That's because independence is the issue we are talking about.

Oh ok then we can just go round and round if you like. But don't be surprised when some take the lack of information as a sign that their is no intention of further devolution. Which is what a majority of Scots want and might not be willing to wait 10-20 years to iron out federalism, the writing of a constitution, and ensuring separation of powers/ equal representation.

Nationalists (including yourself) frequently tell me that you can support independence without supporting the SNP. Well this is the same, you can support the Union without supporting the status quo.

You are right, that is what you call a unionist. Someone who supports the union no matter what, you can change it, rearrange it, even redefine it, but as long as its still called union they will support it. I really is just nationalism of another kind, no better no worse. At least some of us admit it.

Implementing a policy in one part of the UK before the rest of the UK might be stupid, but it isn't an argument for independence.

It was not meant as an argument for independence, more like an argument that your false barriers between us my not be so false after all. If a head of state sees Scotland as a distinctly separate country that can be subjected to different laws then who are we to argue with her.

Sure, its possible that could happen, but I don't see why we should break up a marriage that Scotland benefits from.

But that is the argument, do we really benefit that much? Would we not benefit more from having the £1.3 trillion pound debt hanging over our heads coupled with full control over fiscal levers and government policies?
Is having power to "dictate policy in the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, G8, G9, G20 etc." really power when it is not used to benefit ourselves? I would argue we can afford to lose those powers and accept our rightful place along side all the other "peripheral members" of the international community. "To whom much has been given, much will be expected" after all.

that may be true but it has absolutely no bearing on Scotland as we can already make our own policy decisions in those areas.

That has only been the case for 15 years out of the 300 plus, can you guarantee that will remain the case?

Finally, you say we are bitter?

Not just me...

The Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear"

Pro-Union journalist Joyce McMillan wrote in the Scotsman: "The truth is that the tone of the No camp’s response to the independence debate has – in too many cases – been so reactionary, so negative, and so fundamentally disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament as an institution, that I now find it hard to think of voting with them, no matter what my views on the constitution. And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp"

An editorial column in the Sunday Mail said "The No campaign needs to start explaining why the Union can make Scotland better not why independence will be a terrible thing as Scots, mired in a swamp of endless negotiations, wander between our mud huts borrowing cups of woad. If, as their campaign claims, we will be better together, they need to start telling us why."

Scottish Daily Mail executive editor Kevin McKenna, said: "In one respect, 18 months is a very long time for a political campaign. For surely there is a limit on how long otherwise proud Scots, night after night, can stomach [Better Together's] own narrative: that Scotland is too wee to go it alone; that we can't make our economy work; that we must have a babysitter sometimes; that at other times we must be back before midnight. Months of telling people that, unlike Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg, Scotland is simply not strong enough may exact a toll on Better Together volunteers well before it takes a toll on the voters."

[Rootsie]

That's right, the Henry Jackson Society (a neocon think tank and political action committee made up of powerful people that directly benefit from the union and many actually serving in the British Government) commissioned a report authored by George Grant, who just happens to be a Henry Jackson Society Associate Fellow. The title of said report just happens to be, "In Scotland’s Defence? An Assessment of SNP Defence Strategy". So you still need me to explain why this should be treated with as much scepticism?

If the HJS is so disreputable why did two senior SNP figures take part in writing a report for it, with one going on to write the forward?

The report is titled "An Assessment of SNP Defence Strategy"...I am not making this stuff up. Read the cover page, it is an assessment of the SNP defence strategy. That is it. Not some neutral report that simply wishes to enlighten the Scottish people. Which is what you seem to be arguing.

I've already explained this. The SNP are the party that forms the Scottish Government. If Scotland votes for independence then the SNP will be at the helm and all the organs of the new state will adhere to their views and policies.

Currently the SNP are the only pro-independence party who have put forward any significant proposals for defence in an independent Scotland. The 'Yes Scotland' campaign talks briefly about defence on their website but (as the links in my previous post show) they have literally 'copied & pasted' from the SNP.

Therefore, it is reasonable that anyone writing an analysis of the defence needs of an independent Scotland will use the SNP's defence policy as the basis for their research. That is what the report is about, it analyses the SNP's policy along with the author's and contributor's views on the threats that an independent Scotland would have to deal with.

Or that this motley crew gives a @#$% about the people of Scotland.

This 'motley crew' represents the majority of the population.

Oh ok then we can just go round and round if you like. But don't be surprised when some take the lack of information as a sign that their is no intention of further devolution. Which is what a majority of Scots want and might not be willing to wait 10-20 years to iron out federalism, the writing of a constitution, and ensuring separation of powers/ equal representation.

I'm happy to take that risk as I don't believe the majority of Scots are stupid enough to cut the nose off to spite the face.

You are right, that is what you call a unionist. Someone who supports the union no matter what, you can change it, rearrange it, even redefine it, but as long as its still called union they will support it. I really is just nationalism of another kind, no better no worse. At least some of us admit it.

What exactly does that tirade have to do with my point that a vote for the union isn't a vote for the status quo?

It was not meant as an argument for independence, more like an argument that your false barriers between us my not be so false after all. If a head of state sees Scotland as a distinctly separate country that can be subjected to different laws then who are we to argue with her.

I'd hardly call a having different cultures within a single state a barrier. I call using those cultures to impose an international border (open or not) between each other a false barrier.

But that is the argument, do we really benefit that much?

Yes and it is something you see every single day. In the news at the moment is the story about the two girls arrested in Peru for alledged drug smuggling. One is British (a Scot) and the other is Irish.

The Scot recieves regular advice and support from the British Embassy in Peru - something that will continue for as long as she stays in the country. The Irish woman on the other hand only gets sporadic support and visits from Irish Embassy staff based in Mexico as there is no Irish Embassy in Peru.

The UK Diplomatic Service is one of the largest in the world, with embassies in almost every country on earth. As a small independent nation Scotland would only be able to afford to maintain a small number of embassies, greatly diminishing the global support network that works to help British citizens and businesses wherever they are in the world.

In my view that is just one - currently very relevant - way that Scotland benefits from being in the UK.

Would we not benefit more from having the £1.3 trillion pound debt hanging over our heads coupled with full control over fiscal levers and government policies?

Will we have full control over fiscal levers and government policies? No-one has been able to work out what currency we will be using, let alone anything else!

The only way to have full fiscal control is by having an independent currency - something that would be hugely problematic to implement after 300 years of using £ Sterling. What we are being offered by Salmond is a monetary union with rUK. Of course, this presumes that rUK would want a union and as Chris Nolan a Professor of Economics at Glasgow University says, "it takes two to strike a deal and it now seems that a deal over a Sterling zone will be difficult to achieve." Furthermore, as Professor John Kay (one of Alex Salmond’s former economic advisers) points out, "conventional wisdom is that monetary union is feasible only as part of a move towards eventual fiscal union." (Quotes from: http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry...he-experts-say)

In addition, we still haven't been given a definitive answer on whether Scotland would be oblidged to join the Euro - therefore handing control of our finances away again - when we apply to join the EU.

'Independence' seems pretty hollow from where I'm sitting.

Is having power to "dictate policy in the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, G8, G9, G20 etc." really power when it is not used to benefit ourselves?

I'd say it is used to benefit ourselves. A classic current example is the fishing dispute with the Faroe Islands where Britain has successfully used its influence to campaign - on behalf of Scottish fishermen - for the EU to impose sanctions on the import of fish from the Faroe Islands.

That has only been the case for 15 years out of the 300 plus, can you guarantee that will remain the case?

Oh come on Selder, you know how ridiculous that is. The death penalty has only been abolished in the UK for 15 out of the past 300 years, can I guarantee that it won't come back? No, of course I bloody well can't.

I can, however, say that it is unlikely that the death penalty will return, just as it is unlikely that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will be shut down. The public have shown no appitite for those institutions to be closed and politically it would be a pretty suicidal position for any party to adopt.

Not just me...

Some people seem to be under the misimpression that occasional negativity is the same as bitterness. I'd point out to those people that negativity isn't always a bad thing. If Alex Salmond is trying to sell me a new car he has to tell why I should buy that new car and why my current car isn't good enough. I, on the other hand, do not have the defend the car that I currently own. If I don't want Mr Salmond's car, I can just say, "No, I'm happy with the car I have." or, "No, I don't believe your new car will be better than my current car". That may be negative, but it is not bitter.

Secondly, Joyce McMillan is about as unionist as Gerry Adams. I can't think of a single article she has written where she promotes the union and explains why she supports it.

Finally, I find it laughable that you quote Kevin McKenna. This is a man who only today has written an article which finishes with the line, "Britain under the coalition government at Westminster has become colder, more ruthless and more aggressive. The Lord only knows what it will look like with Ukip in the coalition mix." (http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...alists-mckenna).

Project fear indeed.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Just some points i want to look at Selder, being of disagreement and interest.

That has only been the case for 15 years out of the 300 plus, can you guarantee that will remain the case?

Oh ok then we can just go round and round if you like. But don't be surprised when some take the lack of information as a sign that their is no intention of further devolution. Which is what a majority of Scots want and might not be willing to wait 10-20 years to iron out federalism, the writing of a constitution, and ensuring separation of powers/ equal representation.

Firstly my friend, i'd argue that look at how far we've come in 15 years then working with the Union? That in political terms is amazing that Westminster in so short a time are now actually listening to the Scottish people, now their are a variety of reasons for this, but their not going to stop listening and take away devolution, simply firstly politically speaking the UK is committed to self determination by treaty and political practice (indeed its in their interests look at the Falklands, which the UK is currently beginning to drill for oil, thus they can't take away our powers without destroying a major aspect to their case for the soverignship of the Island!), secondly due to the advent of mass social media, its practically impossible for the UK government to ignore and go back on their word with regards to out devolutionary status- hell they're allowing us to have a referendum! Remember that's Westminsters call, they could have held it off. Try and keep that in perspective.

Also i believe that most Scots are willing to wait for greater powers of devolution and federation, even if it takes 20 years- just look at the polls, theirs a reason the Union is so far ahead.

You are right, that is what you call a unionist. Someone who supports the union no matter what, you can change it, rearrange it, even redefine it, but as long as its still called union they will support it. I really is just nationalism of another kind, no better no worse. At least some of us admit it.

I think your simplifying it far too much, most of us are thinking 'how will we be better off' historical love of Scotland or Union has little to do with the votes on either side. States evolve, that's a certainty throughout history. Thus the UK will not be the same as it is now in a few decades, their are some arguments indeed that the UK is actually a Scottish creation (technically yes) mostly led by Scots (which again is partly true- David Cameron, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown to name a few recently). thus i'd say nationalism for either side isn't as important as getting the best deal, currently it seems the Union will provide that with greater security, more opportunity for change a more robust economy.

But that is the argument, do we really benefit that much? Would we not benefit more from having the £1.3 trillion pound debt hanging over our heads coupled with full control over fiscal levers and government policies?
Is having power to "dictate policy in the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, G8, G9, G20 etc." really power when it is not used to benefit ourselves? I would argue we can afford to lose those powers and accept our rightful place along side all the other "peripheral members" of the international community. "To whom much has been given, much will be expected" after all.

And yes an independent Scotland would start off in debt having to take its share (and more if we want certain things) of the UK's debt, on top of this an Independent Scotland would then get deeper into debt with having to actually build an independent state, that requires immense investment, that's not coming for free. On top of that, our own revenues in tax won't actually cover the things we have now as was poster earlier in a finance article, thus cutbacks will have to be made. This in turn means higher taxes than we pay now, or a greater debt (NHS, welfare system, free uni, armed forces and security (that's going to be an immense cost to start up with, purchasing the equipment the UK allows us to have with a higher percentage of the debt, then having to fund the building of our own infrastructure, ammunition dumps, conversion of existing bases, the set up of a secret service etc). An independent Scotland will be many things, but it will not be debt free, clean slate at all.

As to are being in those organisations worth it in the modern world, politically and economically its a hell yes. They have the ability to influence decisions on a worldwide scale, why would the UK make decisions in our interest when we're independent? Of course they won't they'll protect their own as they do now. Remember with the increasing globalization thats happening, greater trade, economic and military interdependencey, the days of truly sovereign Nation states are numbered, greater integration is required to survive and maintain a healthy economy. Small states just can't cope anymore (Thus look at the EU, who is trying to consolidate, and in the next few years probably will be its own pseudo-federation, indeed the argument could be made it already is now). Thus in reality all we'll be doing is getting out of one Union, which we share a common cultural affinity with, who has the same economic and political interests etc, with another Union with Brussels, in whom we'd be a small fish in a big pond, would have less say and less influence over, and who won't particular look out for our interests personally as unlike the UK, they literally don't really need us- we might benefit them, but they wouldn't die without us or go down in any major way- unlike the UK who's far more accommodating and likely to take our views into account (look at the fact they're allowing a referendum for us instead of putting it off, or indeed gave us devolution!)

Also we won't have control over our fiscal currency! Currently the big option is a currency Union with the UK- Who quite rightly will remain in control through the Bank of England (their is no precedent for a currency Union being shared in that all parties have a say in policy, why would we be any different, the Pound is the UK's currency, thus why would they give us any real control?) The other option is the Euro! Thus again, no control for us. Whats the point? We currently though do have a say in the UK's currency and fiscal policies.

Not just me...

The Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear"

Pro-Union journalist Joyce McMillan wrote in the Scotsman: "The truth is that the tone of the No camp’s response to the independence debate has – in too many cases – been so reactionary, so negative, and so fundamentally disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament as an institution, that I now find it hard to think of voting with them, no matter what my views on the constitution. And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp"

An editorial column in the Sunday Mail said "The No campaign needs to start explaining why the Union can make Scotland better not why independence will be a terrible thing as Scots, mired in a swamp of endless negotiations, wander between our mud huts borrowing cups of woad. If, as their campaign claims, we will be better together, they need to start telling us why."

Scottish Daily Mail executive editor Kevin McKenna, said: "In one respect, 18 months is a very long time for a political campaign. For surely there is a limit on how long otherwise proud Scots, night after night, can stomach [Better Together's] own narrative: that Scotland is too wee to go it alone; that we can't make our economy work; that we must have a babysitter sometimes; that at other times we must be back before midnight. Months of telling people that, unlike Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg, Scotland is simply not strong enough may exact a toll on Better Together volunteers well before it takes a toll on the voters."

Also you didn't answer his statement my friend, he said and i agree, whats wrong with us asking the important questions that need to be answered, of pointing out what might/will happen? I fail to see how that's scaremongering, are you saying that people shouldn't be asking these questions, and shouldn't be made aware of the possible downsides?

[The Great Montrose]

Firstly, I'd like to remind you that the United Kingdom is comprised of more than two countries. One thing I dislike about the nationalist campaign is there is a strong "English vs Scottish" undercurrent which I find deeply distasteful. Although I don't for a minute think that you are a racist Great Montrose, I'm sure you can see why so many people are suspicious of Scottish nationalists when they seem totally fixated on England and tend to ignore Wales and Northern Ireland..

Indeed I am not racist, I do realise Wales and Northern Ireland are also in the UK, People tend to ignore the other two since they are smaller partners in the union if you will.

Personally I think that is something we should celebrate by enjoying each other's traditions rather than using them to create a false barrier between us..

As Selders pointed out, the poll tax is a perfect example to show the barriers between us are not false.

In addition, while large areas of England do vote Tory, you've completely ignored Wales - part of the UK remember - who consistantly vote Labour at every election. No government in the UK gets in through the votes of one of the constituent nations alone - it has to be a pan-UK vote. The 2010 election was a bit of an irregularity in that although the Tories gained in Wales and England (infact they did better in Wales, up 4.7% compared to 3.9% in England), they only gained marginally in Scotland (0.9%). Even with such a small increase, the Tories only polled 79,000 (or 3% of the electorate) fewer than the SNP did in the general election!.

People dont tend to vote for the SNP in genereal elections so its pointless comparing that, because the people of Scotland know that to avoid a Tory government we need to vote Labour.

Yes and it is something you see every single day. In the news at the moment is the story about the two girls arrested in Peru for alledged drug smuggling. One is British (a Scot) and the other is Irish.

The Scot recieves regular advice and support from the British Embassy in Peru - something that will continue for as long as she stays in the country. The Irish woman on the other hand only gets sporadic support and visits from Irish Embassy staff based in Mexico as there is no Irish Embassy in Peru.

The UK Diplomatic Service is one of the largest in the world, with embassies in almost every country on earth. As a small independent nation Scotland would only be able to afford to maintain a small number of embassies, greatly diminishing the global support network that works to help British citizens and businesses wherever they are in the world.

In my view that is just one - currently very relevant - way that Scotland benefits from being in the UK.

Ahh ok, so In an independent Scotland we wont be able to give the best advice to stupid girls who get caught smuggling drugs on how to escape getting the jail. Well then thats me voting no


It also saddens me greatly to see the UK government manipulating armed forces day to promote the union. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23831879