The BBC ‘has learned’ that ‘Westminster could hand Holyrood the legal power to run a Scottish Independence referendum’.
You can feel the hackles rising. Self determination is self determination. For a nation to be ‘allowed’ to determine its direction cannot be other than inflammatory.
Not to put any fine point upon it, this is no more than dogs competitively pissing on a single lampost – and it is utterly tedious.
What is harming is that the posturing and chest beating disguises the important reality.
The actuality of an independence referendum
Such a referendum, from whatever source, will be voted upon by those who want their country either to remain within the UK or to become independent of that union.
We have emphasised two phrases above:
- ‘their country‘ – because it must not be forgotten that most of those who will vote for Scotland to remain within the UK feel every bit as Scottish and are every bit as proud of Scotland as those who wish to see it independent.
- ‘of that union‘ – because, still, much of so called ‘independence’ thinking is focused on being free of ‘England’. Too little is focused on the totality or the relativity of ‘independence’.
Our series of articles on what is currently in train with the euro, the eurozone and beyond that with the EU, underlines the lack of wisdom in the automatic assumption of tucking an independent Scotland under the wing of Europe. This would not be independence. It would be little more than swopping daddies.
Worse, an ‘independent’ Scotland within the eurozone now would have to sign up to a fiscal unity that would lose the country arguably more sovereignty than is already claimed by Westminster.
Anyone who imagines that fiscal unity would be the end of such a relationship is naive. The only logical – necessary – end to fiscal union is political union in a united states of Europe, which has always been the vision of the drivers of what is now the EU.
Such a position – which may not be available for long in any case, depending on the travel of events in and around the eurozone – has a logic but would not, for Scotland, bring ‘independence’ in any measure.
Where such an ‘independence’ is desirable or acceptable to nationalists, it demonstrates where the urge for ‘independence’ remains, simplistically, that old urge to be free of ‘England’. And that is very unevolved thinking, not a secure foundation for a new state.
In our view, it is currency that will be the deal maker or the deal breaker in the independence referendum – because it has practical and metaphorical weight.
The aftermath of the referendum
The point, in relation to the referendum, is that it will have a result and one which is unlikely to be of sweeping certainty.
A substantial number of voters of one persuasion, whichever it is, are going to have to live with consequences entirely opposite to those they voted to see.
Scotland needs to prepare for that situation now, before the referendum.
Whichever aspiration ‘fails’ – and the unionist parties have completely failed to be aspirational – is going to need to feel and to be included in whatever happens next. Stasis is not an option.
If Scotland chooses to remain in the union, it is clear that the strong majority of will here is to see radical change in the current relationship – and this would indicate a federal solution. Where is it?
If Scotland chooses to be independent, the nature and degree of that ‘independence’ must be clear before and after the referendum; and ‘co-ownership’ of the new Scotland must actively be made available to those who voted differently.
Either way, a Scotland divided against itself will be impeded in its development by such competing tensions.
‘Ownership’ of the referendum
So who ‘owns’ the referendum actually matters a great deal – and far beyond the issues of top-dogginess or of potential tricking with the question or questions.
For the result, whatever it is, to be accepted by a substantial opposing minority, the referendum itself must be ‘owned’ equally by participants from each side of the issue. Otherwise the legitimacy of its outcome will, damagingly, continue to be questioned.
Each of the two main positions is legitimate. Each must recognise that equal legitimacy and each must be given, in advance, a sense of the shape of either future – which will belong equally to all.
The grown up and enabling procedure would be for the Holyrood and Westminster governments together to ‘own’ and run the referendum, as a straightforward operation with no manipulation on either side. Were any participants in the referendum to be deceived into voting either way, there would be long lasting corrosion from such short termist trickery.
Dates should not be pulled from hats like a cheap conjuring trick designed to deceive. Set a date now – say for October 2012.
2013 is not an auspicious year for the superstitious. 2014 is too close to the next UK and Scotland general elections. Whichever is the referendum outcome, there will be serious work to be done afterwards that would be impeded and possibly mismanaged in the disruption of any election campaign, change of government or even the reinstatement of an existing one.
We need an end to the game playing, to the lampost competitions, to the ‘special offers’ which have been going on for several months now. We need serious informed adult debate – and forward planning.
This is a really big issue – the biggest, for a country. It’s not like dashing into a store and pausing to choose between a red and a blue jumper, knowing that if it’s not what you’d imagined when you get home, you can go back and change it.
Whatever we choose in the referendum will be that home we’ve come back to and will inhabit after our ‘purchase’ – and changing your home is recognised as the biggest decision of a lifetime. Let’s – let us – take it seriously.
The SNP were elected with a mandate to hold an independence referendum in the second half of the parliament. The next Scottish general election is scheduled to be held in May 2016.
This means that the mandate given by the voters to the incoming SNP government was to hold an independence referendum some time after November 2013
The logic behind this was to allow time for the dust to settle and for the Scotland Bill to be enacted, thus giving an established status quo to put on one side of the equation. Ever since May Unionists of whatever persuasion have been in a panic as they realise that the ongoing stagnation of the UK economy and the crushed aspirations of a generation can only play into ‘separatist’ hands as time goes by. As a result, every day we get a torrent of rabid nonsense about how the ‘uncertainty’ is damaging Scotland. The uncertainty has certainly put the wind up the Unionist parties, but it is not damaging Scotland.
No, what WILL damage Scotland is a hasty referendum brought forward before its time in an attempt to stifle the growing appetite – as confirmed by the polls – for real Scots independence. The original SNP timetable was what Scotland voted for, and that is the timetable that should be adhered to. Some time in the first half of 2014 would be fine.
(And really Newsroom – 2013 is not an auspicious year for the superstitious. . Get a grip!)
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
8
For Webcraft: The scaremongering on the consequences of Scottish independence has been widespread, organised, contemptible and counterproductive. One would have hoped that, in the 21st century, we had matured beyond these primitive practices.
We take your point on timescales – which would indicate say, Spring 2014. But we should set a date.
What you say also underlines the need for Scotland to prepare now for the aftermath of the result of the referendum, whatever it is. We have got to come to a scenario that reassures and includes everyone in ‘owning; and contributing to a positive and driven way forwards for Scotland either as an independent state or as an equal partner in a federation.
What we will live to regret, if we don’t get this right, is the undermining corrosion of a substantial number of disaffected, alienated voters regarded – and by themselves – as ‘losers’. Whatever we do, we have to accept that we go on to do it together and work to make it work.
And re 2013, it simply seems unnecessary to introduce any element of discomfort for anyone in the context of so major a decision – and an effective grip is positioned specifically and not generally.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I take a rather different view from Newsroom on this.
I think it is quite sensible for Westminster to enact the transfer of temporary power to Holyrood to “own” the referendum. There is no doubt about Holyrood’s moral legitimacy to hold a referendum but (as has been gleefully pointed by some unionists), constitutional matters are not devolved and the legal legitimacy rests with Westminster.
This means that a successful “yes” vote in the referendum would be open to legal challenge. This would be a very unsatisfactory situation and likely to lead to civil unrest. Transferring the power to hold the referendum from Westminster to Holyrood short circuits this possibility and is a logical progression from Westminster’s acknowledgement of the SG’s mandate to hold a referendum.
Of course, the devil is in the detail. If the transfer of power prescribed the question(s) to be asked then this would be unacceptable. The transfer of power also has to state the time by which the power is used. If this time period was set before the date at which the SNP Government would want to have the referendum then this again would be unacceptable interference. This is easily settled by having the date set to coincide with the expiry date of the current parliament so that both expire at the same time.
With these caveats met, then it would be churlish not to welcome Westminster actually making a sensible move to ensure that the democratic wishes of the Scottish people cannot be thwarted or delayed by legal technicalities.
Of course, more cynical minds than mine may consider this a move to ensure the Scottish Parliament give assent to the whole Scotland Bill.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Every week you see another story in the English press like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8973124/Why-the-Scots-want-independence-from-the-English.html#disqus_thread
deliberately promoting this insidious lie that “Scots want independence from England”.
These headline writers ignore an entire world of people out here who do not regard their lives as being defined by how they relate to “England”!
It’s like listening to someone droning on and on about themselves then they stop and say: “Well enough about me, let’s talk about you… what do YOU think of me?”
Translated to this issue it’s: “England is one of four countries in a political union with Scotland. Scots want independence from that union. Therefore Scots want independence from England.”
The whole thing is bent and twisted to give the impression Scots want independence solely because they have a gripe with “England”.
This is not the way most Scots see the issue of independence. It is just a media lie that these pro-unionist newspapers want people to believe.
Sadly there is a lot of evidence on internet forums that the lie is swallowed hook, line and sinker by many gullible members of the English public.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
9
Dr. McKenzie and Newsroom – I agree with both of you. It is essential that any referendum result is seen as wholly legitimate, which requires the goodwill of both Westminster and Holyrood. Any attempt on the part of Westminster to manipulate the date or format of the referendum is likely to lead to continuing unrest rather than a final settlement that is seen to represent the settled will of the Scottish people.
The constant fearmongering and urging to set a date and make it soon are signs that the SNP knew what they were doing when they specified the second half of the parliament for a referendum. Rushing it would be a travesty, particularly as it would mean abandoning the Scotland Bill and leaving that process in tatters.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Well done FA = a truly excellent piece and yes “In our view, it is currency that will be the deal maker or the deal breaker in the independence referendum – because it has practical and metaphorical weight”…….just as I have been saying on here for weeks.
For WebCraft:”The SNP were elected with a mandate to hold an independence referendum in the second half of the parliament.”
You are wrong, read the SNP manifesto ! Nothing about the second half of the Parliament.
FA. Your integrity is restored in my eyes.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
My concern is, post referendum and if the vote is yes for independence, one would assume Scotland gets all powers back from an elected Westminster Parliament only to hand them over to Brussels where the power lies with an unelected Commission.
The million dollar question, so far ignored.
Are we then better or worse off?
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
WS,
While the SNP manifesto made no reference to holding a referendum in the second half of the Parliament the party quite clearly campaigned on that platform in the run-up to the election.
See the Daily Record, 2nd May or the Labour Party website (same day) for proof if your memory is playing up.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Webcraft -
There is no point in muddying the waters with things like facts proven with verifiable evidence.
If it doesn’t support their distorted view of reality they don’t want to know.
And the idea of coming back on, putting their hands up, and saying: “Sorry! I clearly have it wrong” is totally out of the question.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Ah Jock ma loon . . .
It’s deja vu all over again.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Jock & Webcraft – ok, you two have this vision of an independent Scotland, what is it? Tell me about it.
What currency do we have? Are we in or out of Europe? What type of parliament do we have? Do we allow our financial institutions/banks to continue as they have been or do we adopt a new approach to national finance? Would EFTA be willing to accept us into the Association if we did decide on that route?
The thing is, I have the feeling you will both reply that these decisions will be made by the people following a successful vote on independence.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
The thing is, I have the feeling you will both reply that these decisions will be made by the people following a successful vote on independence.
I hope not. I expect a fairly well worked out model to be presented before the nation votes – which is one reason why 2014 seems like the earliest sensible date for the referendum.
It is up to the Scottish government to both start the debate on the future shape of Scotland and to put the project together before we vote. No point in asking me – I am not a politician, I am a voter. I would not vote for a completely formless, amorphous future and nor, I am sure, would many Scots.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Webcraft – My apologies, agree fully.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Robert
As Webcraft has already given the answer I would have given myself it’s only fair that you now answer a few questions about the view you appear to support. i.e. that Scotland is best served remaining part of the UK.
My question is this: what exactly are the POSITIVE benefits to Scotland of remaining within the UK?
Not a single supporter of the union has so far offered any such list of benefits.
They spend all of their time explaining why independence would not work, why Scotland is “too wee, too stupid, too poor”. Why Alex Salmond is “leading us all to our doom”, etc, etc. All of it negative, all of it telling us why we CAN’T do something.
Now, having asked this question in a reasonable way, because I genuinely would like to hear an answer, I expect you to respond in a reasonable, intelligent way, and provide a list of “positive benefits for Scotland of remaining in the union”.
If you do not, or cannot, then what are we to think? Surely it cannot be that supporters of the union are incapable of having a single positive thought about Scotland’s future within the UK? What sort of Scots would they be if that were the case?
I look forward to reading your list, which will no doubt be packed with solid, verifiable reasons why Scotland has such a wonderful future ahead of it as part of the UK.
And let’s not have the usual platitudes and glib “soundbites”, eh? You know the sort of thing: “We’re stronger together”, etc. I want to know exactly WHY “we’re stronger together”. “Stronger” in what ways? In what areas? In what specific situations?
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
6
The usual skewed logic of the SNP. Supporters of the status quo do not need to prove that it is better, you,who want to change things, have to prove that your alternative is better than the status quo.
So far I am hearing non answers and hedging such as “That will be decided after the referendum”.
Perhaps you could tell me how Scotland would have dealt with the potential crash of RBS?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
As usual, the same old rubbish that supporters of the union do not have to prove anything but supporters of independence have to prove everything!
Truly pathetic stuff!
The silence on the list of potential positive benefits for Scotland of staying in the union is absolutely deafening.
And as usual, you want answers to loaded questions full of wrong assumptions. Try to get it into your head: just because a multi-national company has retained the word “Scotland” in its name does not make it the sole liability of Scotland if it happens to fail. Even a child could understand that. You’ll be telling me next that Idi Amin really was “The Last King of Scotland”!
The same tired old unionist ploy of talking Scotland down: “Scotland would be too poor to bail out its banks”. Utterly tedious stuff.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
7
Jock – I don’t know if we are stronger together as I have nothing to compare it with, no one is willing to offer me a vision of what this new Scotland will be like. Personally I don’t think we are too small & I doubt anyone has said we are too stupid.
With respect it isn’t about myself arguing for maintaining the status quo, it’s about you and your colleagues giving ‘us’ the information we need to visualise an independent Scotland.
Whenever I ask questions relating to this I tend to get the answer “the people of Scotland will decide on that when they have independence”. Which translates for me as ‘we don’t know’.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
With respect, you have failed to provide even one single positive benefit of Scotland remaining in the UK!
Which translates for me as “we haven’t got any”.
You were asked politely to do so. There is no valid excuse for not having provided at least one, measly, pathetic, little example.
Trying to excuse yourself from the responsibility of providing valid reasons for your views is truly ridiculous.
However I am in some ways glad to see it.
Unionist politicians and their sheep-like supporters are clearly devoid of any meaningful counter-arguments to independence.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
Fair enough Jock, merry christmas.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
And you!
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
To Jock MacSporran. Notice you give a politicians response by asking a question instead of answering one. List your ideas for Robert Macs question.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
To James Walsh. Notice you give a politician’s response by ignoring my answer!
My answer was crystal clear and I repeat it for your benefit again here: “Webcraft has already given the answer I would have given myself”.
In case you don’t quite have the brains to work out what that means – it means exactly this: what Webcraft said in his post is exactly what I would have said anyway. Why waste time repeating it again?
I also notice that the silence is deafening from Robert Mac and you on a list of positive benefits of the union. Looks like you are joining all your union politician pals in not being able to provide a single positive benefit of Scotland staying in the union. If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be funny.
Not surprised this has touched a nerve though. Every time you ask for a positive from a unionist they get very angry – because they can’t think of any!
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
My apologies for the delay in answering, i was playing cluedo with the kids. Prof Plum, in the kitchen with the rope….
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
God Bless His Royal Highness Prince Philip , may his stay in hospital be a short one and may he be with his family for Christmas . God Bless the United Kingdom .
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
11
Glad to hear that the old buffer got back to his family at Christmas. While hospitals are necessary and useful it is no place to be once you are on the mend!
Sorry to learn that his first instinct once out was to be involved in the slaughter of wildlife, though. Clearly the peasants were happier than the pheasants at the Duke’s release.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
For Jock.
One question then. How would YOU like to see Scotland after we depart the United Kingdom? Currency? NATO? EU? Armed Forces? Immigration policy? Embassies?
I agree that the question is not about the benefits of the status quo but the proposed HIGHER benefits of leaving.
Think on this though. Without 1707 today the 800,000 Scots living and working in England (and additionally probably the 4 million of Scots descent) would have the same status as immigrants from, say, Mexico, and would need to go through passport patrol to visit home. In fact, thinking on, without 1707 they may well have not been allowed to migrate in the first place. However, thanks to 1707 they are welcomed, prosper, and treated equally and fairly, and without resentment everywhere in the UK.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
I’ve been watching this debate with interest and not a small degree of amusement. There has been a lot of “show me yours and I’ll show you mine. OK but only if you show me yours first”.
Hopefully we can up the ante a bit in the New year on this topic.
Clearly there IS a need for unionists to formulate and convey a positive vision of why Scotland is better off in the Union than out. If the case consists wholly of scare stories then you will lose the debate, the vote and the Union.
For Nationalists too I think there is a need to confront the sort of issues of just what the new Scotland will look like in terms of its internal workings and its exterior relationships. However, the actual decisions on these will be made post-independence (it cannot be any other way). Unionists would love the referendum to become really a multi-issue affair with Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time. The inevitable result of this would be complete confusion.
Fine then to debate what an independent Scotland would look like but let’s not lose sight of the central issue – do we want to be independent or not?
I can hear various contributors on this thread furiously pounding their keyboards along the lines of “typical nationalist, avoiding the question etc etc)” so here is my personal vision of what we will be like:
Similar to Norway or Denmark in size and national aspirations and international outlook. Similar to the Isle of Man in our relationship to England (Isle of Man has never been in a formal union with England and yet can anyone claim than Manx folk are worse off than the Scots who have been since 1707?). Similar to Ireland in our relationship with the USA and with Europe.
Like pretty much all of the above, we will make appropriate contributions to UN peace keeping . Continuing membership of NATO will depend on what NATO itself becomes and is for.
Currency just cannot be answered at present because of the uncertainty over the Euro. This will be clearer nearer the date as will what the EU will be offering Scotland in terms of its continuing membership. If this is unattractive then my personal preference would be a Scots pound. I don’t have the cringing fear of having our own currency that some others seem to have and it doesn’t seem to bother Norway or Sweden (or even Iceland , who should be starving now under the unionists arguments given their tiny size, collapse of banking, own currency etc. ). On the other hand, the Isle of Man seems to have done fine using the pound so I wouldn’t lose sleep if this is the short term position of an independent Scotland.
Embassies? (this one always cracks me up as if the future of Scotland would hang on the question of the cost of overseas embassies!). Like all other independent nations we would have our own embassies and consulates. Why wouldn’t we? However, this is not a matter of duplicating the UK embassy network globally. It may surprise people to know that Scotland already has a proto-network in the shape of the SDI offices in key market areas worldwide. Since an independent Scotland is unlikely to have delusions of grandeur, our embassies are likely to be focussed on areas where trade is important to us rather than reflecting our imperial past. The military intelligence function of the UK embassies is not likley to feature much in Scotland’s. Consulate services for our citizens abroad in countries where we don’t want to have a full embassy service will be through the shared facilities that many countries already use (including the UK in some parts of the world).
I haven’t heard anything coming from the unionists of the difficulties of statehood that remotely inhibits me from wanting independence for Scotland. Perhaps it is all the other wee and very successful countries I have visited that gives me this confidence.
As we say in business, never get hung up on detail when deciding strategy.
I also had a smile at W.S:
” However, thanks to 1707 they [the Scots] are welcomed, prosper, and treated equally and fairly, and without resentment everywhere in the UK.”
My dad used to tell me of when he was working for a brief time in London in the ’50′s. Looking for accommodation he would come across sign after sign that read: “No Paddys; Jocks, Tinkers or Blacks”. He felt very welcome.
Enough for now. I hope we all have a great Christmas and a reflective New Year. I hope Kintyre 1 enjoys the traditional address by Queen Elizabeth the First on Christmas day.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
4
More power to your fingertips Dr DM!
Thanks for putting it all in perspective.
Merry Christmas!!!
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Great stuff Dr. D – not much to add to that.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Dr McKenzie gave a frightening insight as to what we could expect in the so called “new Scotland”. His resorting to calling someone who disagreed with him a “loathsome creep” and his refusal to apologise tells us all we need to know about the kind of country we would be living in were DrM and his chums to succeed in wrecking the most successful partnership in history – the United Kingdom .
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
13
Good to see you getting into the Christmas spirit Kintyre1.
For the record I didn’t insult you because you disagreed with me (I would be running on invective if I spent my time insulting all the people who disagreed with me). Instead, I was reacting to your poisonous statement about inter-faith relationships. I reconsidered and regretted my outburst and edited my posts accordingly. You, however, have made no move to either apologise or even qualify your statement. Until you do I see no need to go beyond what I already have done.
Personally , I would have said that the most successful partnership in history was Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers but each to his own.
Frightening? For you maybe, for the rest of us, unionist or nationalist, I don’t think the idea of being independent scares us – the question is merely whether we are better of in or out of the union.
I have many friends in other small European countries. It is strange, but never once have I heard any of them express the wish to be part of a larger country. Nor have I heard them confess to going to bed each night afraid of the consequences of being small and wishing that they were part of the UK (noble creature that it is).
When I was a wee lad and the school classroom map was largely pink, I used to believe that the UK was the best place on earth and we had the best of everything. I also used to believe in Santa Claus. Age and experience has given the lie to both of these.
I don’t want independence because I hate the English or because I have a Bonnie Prince Charlie hang-up. I want it because I intend that my children grow up in a better land than the one I inherited. I believe that we are best able to achieve that by having control of our own revenues and direction.
I respect the rights of others to disagree with me on that. Perhaps you should learn to do the same?
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
3
“the question is merely whether we are better off in or out of the union.”
A question that, as we see here yet again, they will not or cannot answer.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
I have spent more than half my life living north of the border and have raised a family of children and grandchildren who are proud to be Scottish and a credit to their native land. I was astonished when having a long conversation with my brother a year or so ago, by the level of misinformation and prejudice against Scotland purveyed by the Westminster Government to the residents of the southern half of the UK. Until corrected, my brother was firmly of the opinion that Scotland was a net drain on the economy of the UK, with it’s population continually demanding more of their fair share of UK Government spending.
In much the same way as those who have been asked on this forum to list the benefits to Scotland of being in the UK, my brother was stumped by the question;”OK, if membership of the UK is such a good and necessary thing for Scotland, then why do so many Scots, well informed and intelligent, feel that they are getting such a poor deal from it?”
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
4
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie: Sweden? We can learn also from Sweden.
Ireland is a member of the eurozone and is highly unlikely to choose fiscal unity – as are Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic
What about the utility of EFTA – Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are members and EU states who choose not to accept fiscal unity in the eurozone might usefully turn to EFTA?
The problem with the euro – as far as this debate is concerned, is less its survival (rated at no more than 50/50) than the fact that using it means membership of the eurozone – and from now on there is no question of the eurzone operating on less than fiscal unity. It would have no trust from the markets if this were not the case. And fiscal unity means a ceding of sovereignty which would see Scotland simply swop one dependancy for another, rather than be independent.
The Isle of Man is an interesting example and a constructive curve ball.
\We’ve just looked at its relations with the EU – which are interesting.
It says: ‘The Isle of Man has a special relationship with the European Union, set out in Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom’s Treaty of Accession. The text of Protocol 3 is reproduced below. Under this special relationship the Island is neither a Member State nor an associate member of the European Union. It is also worth emphasising that, although the Island’s relationship with the EU is through the UK, the Isle of Man is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown and is not part of the UK.’
The website source with the terms of Protocol 3 are here for anyone interested: http://www.gov.im/cso/externalrelations/eu.xml
Personally, and not speaking for For Argyll – I would accept, with equal excitement, an intelligent proposition for either independence or equal status as a member state of a federation.
I would be interested in a federation to include the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands but would settle for a federation within the current member states of the UK.
I would not consider accepting the status quo because I think Scotland, for one, has certainly outgrown that essentially colonial scenario and is held back from development because of it. I also see England as especially and prejudicially deprived in the post devolution UK and am disappointed that Scotland has not found the collegiality to press England’s case.
If the UK is to survive in some form, with Scotland as a member, it needs to demonstrate that it has the vigour and the will to change, reinventing itself in a shape fit for today and lessening its bonds of attachment to all our yesterdays. For me, it is telling that it shows no sign of interest in such regeneration. In this, the UK has long been a complacent and moribund culture, if a broadly tolerant one, rather than the living organism that adapts and moves in evolution.
I’m attracted by the northern arc relationships (including the Faroes) for all sorts of reasons of commonality – and curiosity.
I would be hugely reassured and excited to see Scotland prepare openly and positively for whatever emerges as the result of the vote. Why? Because this is what an already evolved nation, fit for independence or equal membership of a new collective initiative, would want and be able to do.
The worst case scenario is a Scotland divided against itself which, as things stand, whatever the outcome, is the likelihood. We can avoid that. We must avoid that and, speaking for For Argyll here, we will campaign for that.
Speaking for myself again, of course the detail of what either an independent Scotland or a federal Scotland would be and do in the future would have to be decided according to ‘events’ and would have to be flexible in meeting changing and unpredictable circumstances.
But we should agree founding principles for our options before we sign up. I would not consider voting for a a overall generality of any kind; and I would not countenance exchanging one dependancy for another dependancy.
There are times simply to jump and sort out the landing and the new world in transit. This may be one of them , although I doubt that.
But – and here I am speaking for all the inclusive and growing team who create For Argyll – whatever Scotland decides, whether or not it is what each of us independently would have chosen, we will collectively work to help to shape it to Scotland’s benefit. And we will simply get on with doing that at once.
Lynda Henderson
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Newsroom: I didn’t include Sweden as it is a bit a larger than Scotland, whereas Norway and Denmark are of similar population size. However, you are quite right that we have a lot to learn from Sweden in terms of its approach to technology as a driver of its commercial activities. Still retaining its own currency but in the EU.
However, no time to go further into all of this now as lots of other jobs beckon.
Have a good one yourself.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Dr D – I disagree with an awful lot of what you are saying but as you say, now is not the time.
One question I would like to ask though that isn’t directly relevant to the debate, why do people keep on talking about Unionists and Nationalists?
It may just be me, but it makes me feel uncomfortable as I only ever associate the two terms with the troubles in NI.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Robert: and I look forward to debating it in the new year.
I agree with you on the unfortunate terminology we are left with but it is difficult to see alternatives (separatists and conjoiners is a non-starter).
Of course the term “national party” has even bigger problems given its use by the Nazis and I was once at a dinner where Alex Salmond said he had given considerable thought to changing the name of the SNP because of this.
It did strike me earlier that much of the debate is about what we should be in and what we are out of. So that Scotland is defined not by what it is but by what it is in (or out of). We have to be careful not to polarise the debate along some sort of tribal lines. Scottish Unionists are no less Scots because they are unionists and Scottish nationalists are no less humans (or sane) because they are nationalists.
I think we have to rise above the limitations of terminology to grasp the debate.
Being this time of year I would hope that the “Great Debate” will be carried out gracefully, with erudition and mutual respect. I will certainly try and do that myself. Sadly, human nature being what it is there will be much yah booing and name calling along the way as well. Let’s just all try and be friends at the end of it.
Have a good one.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Agree with many of your sentiments there. As you say we need to strip away any distractions which may hinder the debate and I feel the terms Unionist and Nationalist will sadly influence the debate, especially in the West Coast of Scotland.
Can it not simply be pro-independence & against independence or for independence & against independence, basically anything apart from unionist and nationalist.
I look forward to the debate and also hope we can get thru it with some dignity.
All the very best to you and yours, enjoy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“gracefully ,with erudition and mutual respect” , you make me puke .
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
12
Oh dear, Kintyre1 posting post-sherry again
Bile is rarely becoming, old fruit.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
“Clearly there IS a need for unionists to formulate and convey a positive vision of why Scotland is better off in the Union than out. If the case consists wholly of scare stories then you will lose the debate, the vote and the Union.”
I have just spent the better part of three hours telling them that but it is worse than talking to a brick wall.
They have failed to come up with a single positive benefit of Scotland remaining in the union.
Instead they hurl their usual list of childish scare tactics ad nauseum (see my “Bumper Book of British Bollocks”) available in time for Xmas, Waterstones £5.99.
This exposes more clearly than ever that THERE ARE NO POSITIVE BENEFITS TO SCOTLAND REMAINING IN THE UNION.
So they are reduced to ridiculous positions like “We don’t have to prove anything. You have to prove everything.” etc, etc.
This is all well and good, because while they are blustering with rage that they’ve been found out – they are failing to provide any meaningful counter-argument.
As you say, they will lose the debate by default.
Unfortunately for them they are discovering a very old truth:
YOU CAN’T DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Dr McKenzie -
“Unionists would love the referendum to become really a multi-issue affair with Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time.”
I don’t get this bit. The unionists I have seen (Forsyth, Lamont, Moore, etc) are all squealing for a “single yes/no question” on the ballot paper, not “Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time.”
They tried tinkering about with “Devo Max” for a couple of weeks – trying to get people to believe it was called “Devo Plus” – i.e. something short of devolution of all powers, but when they saw no one was stupid enough to believe it they ditched that and went full-square for the “one question” line.
All of it shows they are desperately casting around looking for a meaningful response.
The latest con is to use the Scotland Bill to “give” Scotland the right to hold a “legal” referendum, eagerly leaped upon or – for all we know – dreamed up by Michael Forsyth, who has a mandate to “govern” given to him by…the size of his wallet.
They have suddenly “found” a convenient clause in the Bill that lets them do it. (All total bollocks of course).
This has the advantage of making them look like, helpful, paternalistic Colonial Masters but it’s actually just a ploy to try to force the SNP to pass the Scotland Bill.
It’s an obvious trap – the “catch” is the Scotland Bill will also contain the date of the referendum and allow them to rig the vote using their corrupt unionist-controlled Electoral Commission – the same crowd of lackeys that found Wendy Alexander had “no case to answer”.
In other words they are trying to interfere with the democratic will of the Scottish people whilst kidding everybody on it’s some sort of bid to “ensure fairness and impartiality”.
We all remember how keen Michael Forsyth is on “fairness and impartiality”!
First with the “Great Scottish Guinea Pig Caper” – also known as “The Poll Tax” in 1989 and then with the official “No” campaign to Scottish Devolution in 1997, “Think Twice”, which was headed by Brian Monteith, a former employee of a public relations company owned by the Secretary of State for Scotland who, at that time, was someone called – oh yes! – Michael Forsyth!
Stand by for the flood of negative “Thumbs Down” votes from the unionist sheep. The one thing they can’t stand is their “cunning” little schemes being exposed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Sorry Jock (and are you in fact the real Jock MacSporran?) I obviously didn’t explain myself well enough there. I wasn’t suggesting that unionists are looking for a multi choice referendum, rather that they are hoping that the question (do you want independence yes or no) becomes linked with many questions in the electorate’s mind (are we in/out of the EU; or should that be EFTA? and what about NATO in or out, do we keep the monarchy yes or no? etc.).
By turning the debate away from a single proposition (that we should take control of our own affairs) into multiple debates about lots of things that are often contradictory then confusion can be sown and people either don’t vote (so no morale legitimacy for independence) or vote for the status quo.
That’s why the central debate needs to be kept firmly on whether we are better of in the Union or out of it. Everything else is detail.
And that really is me out of here!
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Doc
You should have said “unionists want the DEBATE to be a multi-issue affair with Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time” not “unionists want the REFERENDUM to be a multi-issue affair with Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time. ”
The clear reference to “Scots being asked to decide on a whole raft of issues at the same time” does rather suggest you were talking about the REFERENDUM, although now you are saying you weren’t.
Unfortunately people, not being psychic, can only read what you’ve written – not what you meant.
Your analysis of why unionists refuse to answer the question of whether “Scotland is better off in or out” credits them with too much intelligence.
They’re not answering the question because they can’t think of a single positive benefit for Scotland of remaining in the union.
The reason for that is there aren’t any positive benefits.
They then try to use their scare tactics to divert attention away from the important central question: what is in the best interests of Scotland?
The scare tactics are meant to frighten people through fear of the unknown.
Unfortunately for the unionists most Scots no longer believe their scare stories. With the economy the way it is people more than ever want to hear some GOOD NEWS. They want some HOPE for a better future.
The only party giving them any hope is the SNP.
p.s. my full moniker is “John, Harry, Lauder, Andrew, Stewart, Kenneth, McKeller MacSporran.”
“Jock” for short.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
W.S. -
Hold on while I consult my Bumper Book of British Bollocks.
1.”England will stop Scotland linking its currency to the Pound” (presumably out of sheer spite at having lost the referendum?!)
2. “Scotland is too wee to be part of NATO”
3. “Scotland will be/won’t be allowed to be a member of the EU” (Delete as applicable)
4. “Scotland is too poor to have its own Armed Forces”
5. “There will be passport checks at the Scottish border”
6. “Scotland is too poor to have foreign embassies”
Every one of these stupid scare tactics has been tried in the past and failed miserably.
Some of them are bigger bollocks than others but all are undoubtedly bollocks.
Where is my list of POSITIVE BENEFITS for Scotland, W.S.?
I am still waiting for ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE!
And still waiting for your apology to Webcraft.
He shot down your bluster about the SNP not having a mandate to hold a referendum in the second half of this parliament with proven facts.
Be a man and admit you got it wrong.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
One at a time then Jock:
1.”England will stop Scotland linking its currency to the Pound” ……no, anyone can link to any currency they like (Zim links to $ without any by your leave). The fact is that if Scotland uses the £ it will have its interest rates, money supply and fiscal leavers in the hands of London; that, my friend is NOT Independence!
2. “Scotland is too wee to be part of NATO”….Al Salmond will not join an organisation which has nuclear weapons and which will control Scotland’s military decisions !
3. “Scotland will be/won’t be allowed to be a member of the EU” …..Correct. Al Sal. needs to get a definive answer on that one. Currently the question is unresolved and is causing tremendous uncertainty amongst investors.
4. “Scotland is too poor to have its own Armed Forces”…..No. The question is what Armed Forces Scotland will have and how much they will cost.
5. “There will be passport checks at the Scottish border”….only if Scotland does not come into the EU on Day One.
6. “Scotland is too poor to have foreign embassies”…No. The question is will Scotland have foreign embassies or will we negotiate to have a couple of rooms in the UK embassies.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
W.S. -
Think on this: after Scottish independence we won’t have to listen to this ridiculous bollocks from the likes of you.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Jock says “after Scottish independence we won’t have to listen to this ridiculous b******s from the likes of you”
….and there’s your vision of an SNP triumph and life in Scotland after we leave the United Kingdom. All internal dissent gagged !!!! The truth is there just beneath the surface, just scratch a niaive wee Braveheart and out it pours, covered in bile and invective !!!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
I am afraid that on this one Jock is wrong. We don’t have to listen to you now, WS. We choose to do so and to engage in debate with you.
I see no reason why that should change in an independent Scotland. here is nothing in the Scots character or the current political system that mediates against free democratic debate. Perhaps we will see the rise post-independence of a real ‘Unionist’ party seeking a referendum on re-establishing the Union in due course, in which case I am sure we will be hearing a lot more of these spherical objects to which the intemperate Mr. MacSporran alludes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
“I am afraid that on this one Jock is wrong. We don’t have to listen to you now, WS. We choose to do so and to engage in debate with you.”
Too right. He is wrong.
…tell me; what is with the “WE” in your pronouncement? This is an open blog; not one exclusively for fantasies of one view point.
But I’m like you in the end. I choose to engage with you, or Jock or whoever on this subject because I love my country and don’t want to see my fellow countrymen led into another disaster by fantasists.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
WS,
No passports are required to travel between NI and the ROI.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
I’ll think you’ll find that both Eire and the United Kingdom are both members of the EU.
When we leave the United Kingdom we will not be members of the EU (of course the UK will remain as members because all the accession and subsequent treaties are between the UK and the EU) We will have to apply, and, assuming Spain and France do not veto us, until we are allowed to join passports will be necessary.
Not that showing my passport when I cross into England bothers me in the slightest. What bothers me is my lack of EU employment and residence rights once I’m across The Solway.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I suggest you read A Quarrel in a Faraway Country?: Scotland, Independence and the EU
If Scotland has a problem because it is a new entity, then so does the rump UK, which is also a new entity. In fact the most likely scenario is that both the rump UK and Scotland will succeed to the UK’s existing membership of the EU, but now as two States rather than as one.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
“I suggest you read A Quarrel in a Faraway Country?: Scotland, Independence and the EU
If Scotland has a problem because it is a new entity, then so does the rump UK, which is also a new entity. In fact the most likely scenario is that both the rump UK and Scotland will succeed to the UK’s existing membership of the EU, but now as two States rather than as one.”
So you’ve taken a blog written by some junior members of Cherie Blair’s chambers in London as gospel on the future of Scotland ? Good grief.
My point was that the question has not been resolved and can only be resolved by a ruling from Brussels. Something which the EU fatcats seem to have no interest in doing…so the current damaging investor uncertainty remains and the possibility remains that we will not automatically slip seamlessly into the EU, NATO etc on day one.
THAT is the point.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
The article was written by Aidan O’Neill QC. He holds law degrees from Edinburgh and Sydney universities, plus a degree in European and International and Comparative law from the European University Institute, Florence.
I presume since you scorn the legal interpretation given in this article that you have higher legal qualifications, WS?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
For those who have an interest in which currency we should use post-independence can I suggest that the undernoted film gives us a good step in the right direction? Additionally I think we should join EFTA rather than the EU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g
The Secret of Oz (by Mr Bill Still)
http://www.youtube.com
The Secret of Oz What’s the Movie About? It is well known in economics academia that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz written by L. Frank Baum in 1900 is loaded wi…
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
NOLLAIG CHRIDHEIL AGUS BLIADHNA MHATH UR!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
and Orra Best Fur 2012 to you as well Phil
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Apparently the odious Michael Forsyth is now joining in Westminster’s attempt to force the timing of the referendum:
Daily Record article
Any attempt by the current UK government to force the timing is surely going to lead to a flawed result and continuing resentment no matter what the outcome. They need to back off.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
7
Yet more evidence of the poisonous venom directed against those of us against Scottish separation , describing the Talented Lord Michael Forsyth as “odious” is hardly an example of the “grace , erudition and mutual respect ” nationalists pretend they want to see .
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Never mind K1 – you will be cheered by the news that The Times has declared Alex Salmond Briton of the Year
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Looks like Salmond’s sooking up to “Sir” Rupert Murdoch has paid off for him again then .
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
How come nobody does compares a future Scotlans to Iceland or Eire any more??
No need to reply it is a rhetorical question – ’cause I already know the answer.
Have a good and safe Christmas everbody.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
10
err, did I not just do so?
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
The current Simon persona,
Should you not be dying that big beard you hide behind in prep for playing Santa?
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Careful Simon, you’re in danger of being called a “loathsome creep” if you carry on with that line ….
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
12
Ah know Kintyre1 Ah know.
And here was me just trying to spread some peace and happiness…….
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
12
Jock McSporran – I return to the subject of RBS which you brushed aside. Too dificult?
Before the banks crashed I am sure I remember your leader talking about Edinburgh being a world class financial centre, led by RBS, a world class bank based in the city. In an independent Scotland RBS would have been registered as a Scottish company and bailing it out the responsibility of Scotland. I ask again how a country of around 7 million people could afford to borrow the squillions to save it. We would be in a worse position than Eire.
I note that you give the impression that someone else would assume this responsibility. Who, the heck, do you think would do, or assist in doing, this? Certainly not the English.
Independence means what it says on the tin and , to mix metaphors, the buck stops here.
I have heard Alec Salmond say we would stay in Europe, which is heading towards becoming the United States of Europe – not much independence there, mate.
As for this childish persistence on the question of would Scotland be better in than out. Nobody can do a comparison unless they can see both entities and you are keeping Mum on what an independent country would be like.
As an aside, and not a suggestion of financial incompetence anywhere, I find it humourous to look back to the setting up of the Union. The dastardly English did not force this on Scotland. The Scots went cap in hand to England because the Darian scheme bankrupted Scotland. (I think this is correct school and history classes were a while ago.)
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
JimB -
“In an independent Scotland RBS would have been registered as a Scottish company and bailing it out the responsibility of Scotland.”
Sorry, I don’t argue about hypothetical situations you’ve dreamed up to try to support the bollocks you’re talking about RBS. What “would have been true” or “would not have been true” doesn’t concern me. Only reality concerns me.
I again ask you to address yourself to the reality of the situation. The full name of the bank was HALIFAX Bank of Scotland. You will be trying to tell me next that Halifax could, hypothetically, be in Scotland “if you re-drew the border 100 miles further south.”
Do you know why the word “Halifax” was in their business name? Thought not. The former head office of Bank of Scotland’s operational headquarters was based in Halifax, West Yorkshire, England; the former head office of Halifax. That’s right. In REALITY they were a bank registered in ENGLAND! Hello! You do know what REALITY is don’t you?! Sorry to trouble you with inconvenient facts. I know how it upsets your attempts at twisting the truth.
You’re right, the subject of RBS is too difficult – for you!
Lastly, no one asked you to COMPARE “Scotland in the UK” and “Scotland out of the UK.”
I just asked you for one tiny, positive benefit of Scotland remaining in the UK. It can’t be so hard to come up with one, tiny, miserable little positive benefit can it? But apparently it is impossible for the likes of you – “mate”.
p.s. It’s not the “Darian” scheme. It’s the “Darien” scheme. You’re talking as if it took place in 2008. It took place more than 300 years ago. Of the total 2,500 settlers that set off, just a few hundred survived. Apparently you find that “humourous”. You are clearly a nasty sort, as well as badly educated. If this is the best you can come up with in the way of an argument against Scottish independence in the 21st century then Scots have nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.
p.p.s. It’s not “Alec” it’s “Alex” Salmond. When I have smart arses lecturing me about what is best for Scotland I prefer it if they have the literacy skills of at least a ten year old. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Sir, your language is foul and your temper ill-judged for the time of year. I suggest you retire to the fireside and read some Dickens (A Christmas Carol should do the trick).
Now, please go away, enjoy Christmas and let’s have reasonable and polite debate in the New Year.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I agree, JimB’s language is extremely foul. There’s nothing more foul than laughing at the dead. Especially if it’s only being done to support some pathetic little attempt to score a political point. Unfortunately, that’s the sort of people we’re dealing with here. I suggest you have a word with your unionist chum and see if you can knock a bit of human decency into his thick skull.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Too much of the nectar of the glens or have I touched a raw nerve?
HBOS is a totally different bank from RBS (Halifax Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland!) and the Halifax comes from the Halifax Building Society which became a bank and was swallowed or merged with The Bank of Scotland. So I think you are in the wrong there. Unionists 1 Separatists 0.
I was not mocking the dead. READ WHAT I WROTE. I just find the juxtaposition of the position 300 years ago and the situation now faintly amusing.
I hope I haven’t used any words that are too long for you and I apologise for misspelling “Darien” but as I wrote it was a long time ago.
Have a nice day!
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
HBOS is the holding company for Bank of Scotland plc, which operates the Bank of Scotland and Halifax brands in the UK.
You really aren’t worth wasting any more time on as you are totally detached from reality.
People can check that for themselves what you wrote, you idiot. No doubt they will come to the same conclusion I have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
Foul mouthed, ignorant chippy and aggressive. It’s people like you, John Harry Lauder Andrew Stewart, Kenneth McKeller MacSporran, that makes those south of the border want Scotland cut free.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
It’s arrogant people like you who believe “people south of the border” have some God-given right to “cut Scotland free” that makes real Scots sick to their stomach. You can stuff your patronising, ignorant, aggressive “cutting Scotland free” where the sun don’t shine!
Like or Dislike:
2 
11
(!)
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Could’nt agree more if this is the face of Nationalism who wants it?.Most folk in England get on with their lives without slagging off the government or blaming someone else.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
I am not a unionist or a nationalist but I am certainly Scottish and proud of it. I am not a sheep and will vote when I get the chance on hopefully a straightforward yes or no ballot. My own hope would be that we have a fairer society where everyone has at least a decent job and a roof above there head. Gone should be the days where people get paid more in a bonus than some people earn in a lifetime.
Merry Christmas everybody, power to the people.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Good comment from Neil MacIntyre, as a lot of the debates on here tend to be polarised opinions, and perhaps some of the less dyed in the wool unionists/nationalists should make their voices heard, as the more neutral yet undecided (constitutuionaly) public will hold the balance of power in the subsequent referendum in 2014. Well said Neil>
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Well said Neil.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
In the event of a referendum what are people’s opinion on who should be allowed to vote on it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anyone who is on the current electoral register.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I would agree with that Anne (and I am assuming you mean people on the current electoral register who live in Scotland) however if that is the case then I would expect those with more extreme views to point out that that gives a vote on Scottish independence to a lot of non Scots.
I also notice your post has two thumbs down which suggests there are people who disagree but haven’t taken the time to put forward a counter proposal. Having said that I realise it is more likely thumbs downs given by childish people who will simply give a thumbs down to any post made by someone they often disagree with irrespective of the content of the post..
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Those who are on the current electoral register in Scotland count as Scots regardless of origin. They live, work, pay taxes and complain about the council here so are in every sense functioning as Scots. These are the people making the nation right now and every one of them should have a part in its future.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Jock MacSporran.
The merger of Halifax and the Bank of Scotland was supposed to be a merger of equals but in reality it was 62% Halifax and 38% Bank of Scotland. Whilst the operational Head Office of HBOS was in Halifax England the registered Head Office was at The Mound Edinburgh.
If the electorate in Scotland vote for independence you will probably see a number of large companies moving their registered head office to England. If we vote for independence we will be stuck with the Labour Party in power for ever as there will be no Scottish National Party.
You cannot have an SNP party after independence.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I swore I wouldn’t comment on until the New year BUT..
Companies will move their HQ’s (and more importantly for tax purposes) registered offices where it is more advantageous to do so. In an independent Scotland expect oil companies to move regional HQs to Aberdeen. More UK wide energy utilities might move depending on the importance of renewables in their portfolio. As there are very few PLCs outside of energy and financial services HQ’d in Scotland, I would expect very few losses. Potential gains would be if the SG reduce corporation taxes as companies will locate their registered offices in the most tax efficient haven.
Business follows money and is absolutely uninterested in politics (no matter what unionists might believe).
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Treblet, I’ve asked you to explain this bizarre claim before – can you?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Douglas.
I notice that you did not reply to my comment about the demise of the SNP party if the Scottish electorate vote for independence.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I did! Search the thread a bit more carefully.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Treblet, I don’t know, and never have known, a single nationalist who thinks there will be no need for an SNP post-independence. Why would you strive to achieve a thing and then walk away from it? Why would it not be a treasure to be nurtured and protected? Why would its re-shaping be of no interest? Twenty years on I think it may have changed considerably, but I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would imagine the SNP will simply dissolve the day independence is gained.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
I perhaps am being a little thick, but can someone explain to me, why we can’t have an SNP after independence?
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
CSB
I’m sure the SNP could exist following independence and – shock horror – I’m not particularly in favour of having opposition parties who oppose, just for the sake of it.
I’ve come across an organisation called The Scottish Democratic Alliance who seem to be gearing up as a sensible alternative to the SNP. To my naive way of thinking, their website makes a lot of sense.
My biggest grief with the SNP is I’d prefer they stuck to the remit of taking Scotland forward to independence rather than becoming mired in social engineering subjects, green issues or the european shambles.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Credibility would be enhanced if that was one of their policies but do you seriously see Smart Alec giving up power if the SNP win a referendum? Surely not. The problem for many is that the SNP is a one policy party. Where would it lie in the political spectrum after independence? Another unanswered question.
Judging by the entry above suggesting that all financial problems will be solved by reducing Corporation Tax they will reinvent themselves as The Tartan Tories. This might bring a few jobs but the companies’ profits will go elsewhere. It could also lead to other countries competing with each other in a dutch auction to see who has the lowest rate of tax. Business would be delighted but it would do nothing for the ordinary people of Scotland who would have to make up the difference.
I refer to the item above pointing out that the Head Office of HBOS is also in Edinburgh which, if Scotland was free, means another mega sum of money the SG would have had to find and we would have had to pay for.
I notice that the subject of the National Debt has not been raised. I believe that the UK population is about 70 million and that of Scotland about 7 million. Therefore on independence Scotland should inherit 10% of the national debt. Mind you given that much more than 10% has been spent on propping up 2 Scottish banks, the English would probably demand more than 10% go to Scotland and be entitled to do so.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
This is the second time I’ve seen someone quoting the Scottish population as being 7M. It is just over 5M (5.22M)and Scots (those who live in Scotland) form approximately 8.5% of the UK population.
I think I have already answered the bit about the SNP post independence: central (but slightly left) party posting itself as the “Good Governance” party. It would lose some adherents who were just in the party to achieve independence but would probably attract some of the brainier Labour people.
I cannot claim to know the mind of Alex Salmond but he has already once given up control of the SNP so I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought that post independence leadership isn’t for him. How could he top giving Scotland its independence?
National debt will be divvied up on population grounds (as will all the national assets).
And unionists who claim that 1707 was great for Scotland should research the relative proportions of Scots v English in 1707 and what it is now. If we have done so well, why has the relative proportion of Scots fallen so low? Why do we die younger? Why are the best places to live in the South of England? Why are most millionaires based in the South of England? Why do Scots pay more council tax (as an index of band) than those who live in England? Why have more Scots than English died (proportionally) in every war since the Union?
Just where is the great Union benefit to be found? Buggered if I can spot it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Why has the relative proportion of Scots fallen so low?
Emigration to England and elsewhere in the English speaking world.
Why do we die younger?
Diet, lifestyle, urban housing and climate plus health is devolved to Edinburgh so ask them.
Why are the best places to live in the South of England?
You may think so but others will think other places are the best place to live. Purely subjective.
Why are most millionaires based in the South of England?
So as to be close to the core.
Why do Scots pay more council tax (as an index of band) than those who live in England?
Ask your local council.
Why have more Scots than English died (proportionally) in every war since the Union?
Have they? Reference please? If that is true I can’t answer your question. You’ld have to ask a militarty expert.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
WS: No time at present to give this the (lengthy) answer that will show you just how far wrong your facile dismissal of these facts is.
However, to educate yourself and everyone else who doubts it, why don’t you go and find the answer to just one point: how many Scots died in WW1 and then compare that to the relative proportion of Scots to English at the time and the total number of UK war dead. Might make you think a bit more about just how benign this union has been to Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Dr D, Maybe it was a case that the Scots had more regiments or that the individual scot was braver than average in battle, therefore more caualties proportionately. Its more than simple arithmetic!
A proud nation with courageous people we are be proud of, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and not alluding as you appear to suggest some sort of racist motive, by the war government.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
No sign of some research from WS so here is a quote based on Wolfe’s infamous comments about Scottish soldiers:
LEST WE FORGET by Lachie Munro
“They are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall.”
- General Wolfe on his Highland troops in Canada.
It’s that time of year again when we remember the dead of two world wars (and our thoughts may turn to present conflicts), but there’s a persistent and morbid fascination in England with the first of these wars – not with the futile obscenity of working man fighting working man to prop up corrupt and decayed empires, nor that it lead directly to World War 2 and many more deaths, nor the estimated 20 million civilian deaths in Europe from influenza that were precipitated by the war (including my grandmother who died on Armistice Day 1918 leaving seven young children); instead, writers and filmmakers seem obsessed with the individual tragedies of the middle and upper classes – the trauma of war, the ‘lost generation’, ‘doomed youth’ – “there’s some corner of a foreign field . . . ” etc., and of course – the tremendous loss of life.
The loss of one life in such a conflict would have been a tragedy, but let’s try to shed some light on this – just how many were lost – 30%? – 40%? – 50%? – not quite. Deaths as a percentage of the whole British Army (including the Scots and the Irish) were 11.8%, i.e. fewer than 1 in 8 died – far too many, but not as many as we may have been led to believe. However, the Scottish death-toll, taken separately, was a staggering 26.4% – i.e. over a quarter of mobilised Scottish soldiers (including non-combatants) never left the field, not to mention the physically and mentally scarred. This unenviable (sorry ‘proud’) record was only marginally beaten by the Turks and the Serbs, the large majority of whose casualties died of disease rather than gunfire. (When the Scottish and Northern Irish deaths are removed from the statistics, the remaining ‘British’ death rate drops below 10%).
So why did so many Scottish soldiers die – was it poor leadership, lack of discipline, cowardice, or a death-wish, or was it perhaps that the Scottish regiments, damned by their bravery and effectiveness were continually and indiscriminately used as spearheads to soften up the enemy prior to a mass attack, and as a consequence took the full force of stolid German resistance?
Although the loss of life in World War 2 was nowhere near as high, it remains a fact that a quarter of all British casualties were Scots (in the Korean War it was a third) – from a country that had only 10% of the total population, the ‘proportional’ sacrifice was even greater than in World War I.
Generations of Scots have either ignored, subsumed, or not been apprised of the fact that the flower of their manhood was, and continued to be, cynically thrown away with hardly a voiced raised in protest, and that Scotland, the country that gave most for ‘King and Country’ never recovered economically, culturally, spiritually, or nationally.
In the light of current events I leave it to the readers to decide whether General Wolfe’s words echo down to this day.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
So, in short, you are pushing a conspiracy theory that there was some kind of deliberate anti-Scots policy in the UK armed forces which callously led to a disproportionate slaughter of Scottish soldiers whilst English soldiers had a safer time and that Scotland never recovered economically from The Great War as a result.
Yup. I’ve heard that before but only from the sad types who used to paint “White Settlers Go Home” on the railway bridge.
Its utter tosh and is used to stir animosity against the English.
General Wolfe came from an Irish family.
Earl Hague was Scottish.
Please keep these nasty little conspiracy theories to yourself. I once heard it propounded by a fellow countryman in a bar in Carlisle. The returned vitriol about our ability as soldiers was one of the most unpleasant experiences of my time in that city.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Doctor?
Your above comments on the Scottish casualty rate in WW1 is damnable. At one time i used to take notice of your fairly balanced take on things, but you have done your self a great disservice by the uncalled for and utterly undignified way you have mocked the pride which exsisted and still exsists to the memory of those who perished for their country in order that we all have a better life.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Why have the Scots done so badly as you infer maybe it is a case of a bad workman always blames his tools.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
“Tools” certainly, but I think this refers to the generations of unionist politicians who have consistently failed Scotland (with some notable exceptions). Too obsessed with Westminster to pay much attention to their own land they turned a Nelsonian gaze on the dreadful impact that the Union was having on their fellow Scots.
Always a popular line from unionists: that the problems of the Scots are down to the personal failings of the Scots themselves rather than an inevitable consequence of the unionist political and economic policies determined by Westminister.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
One of the limitations of the FA threads is that you cannot sometimes continue them at their natural point:
To WS and Phil: I have said nothing about conspiracies, racist or otherwise. I have only pointed to the hard cold fact that Scots have died disproportionately in all of the major wars of the Union (and heavily so). The last piece was a quote from Lachlan Monro but I can attest to the facts.
How you deal with the facts is your concern but I for one have no doubts about the real impact of the Union on Scotland, on our bravest and our best. I take pride in our soldiers but not in the cause that led them to their deaths.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
That is a desperate attempt to boost your otherwise reasonable campaign for a succesfull yes vote. You will not be able to rescue the tone that your previous comments demonstrate. What were you thinking of?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
An interesting exercise to go through the major wars and collate casualties from the countries of the UK and then compare the ratios against the English or UK population. Please reveal the source and references for these statistics.Claims of deliberate discrimination and use of Scottish soldiers as disproportionate cannon fodder require to be substantiated with evidence.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“Credibility would be enhanced if that was one of their policies but do you seriously see Smart Alec giving up power if the SNP win a referendum? Surely not. The problem for many is that the SNP is a one policy party. Where would it lie in the political spectrum after independence? Another unanswered question”
I’m always surprised that some people cannot see the wood for the trees. Or has the good that the SNP government been doing for the last few years just ” scotch mist “? The fact is the Independence question is one that everyone BUT the SNP have focussed on since May!
For a party who have NEVER governed…they are doing a fine job overall,and should be congratulated on a lot of their policies.
And I’m sure that “..Smart Alec..” is more than capable of taking us on past Independence. Unlike “Johan Lamentable”, who’ll take us nowhere!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
What is all this post independence guff? The Scottish people are far to intelligent to allow this to happen.Don’t be fooled by the last election result, when it comes to a referendum the Scottish people will come out in force to tell the SNP to think again. Then Alex Salmond will have a huge decision to make on the future of the SNP.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
10
@webcraft:”The article was written by Aidan O’Neill QC…….
I presume since you scorn the legal interpretation given in this article that you have higher legal qualifications, WS?”
No, and I don’t scorn his blog.
I, however, do know for fact that our EU status will be decided by Eurocrats in Brussels with pressure from secessionist-wary Madrid and Paris…….and they haven’t even bothered to discuss the matter. They have more important matters at hand than the very vague possibility of a small part of the EU’s 3rd largest economy and contributer departing.
Our EU status will not be decided by a fatcat London lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Think we’re in danger of being ‘referendumed’ to death or worst disinterest, which i guess will continue in all media until 2014.
I think most voters will go with their own individual gut feeling, which of course no one can argue with. People will be ‘demanding’ as much info as possible over the next couple of years re EU membership, currency etc.
Once the shouting is over it will come down to ones perception of ‘how will it affect me’!
Plenty good debates to follow, conducted I’m sure in the customary respectful manner on here.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Once the shouting is over it will come down to ones perception of ‘how will it affect me’!
I think the Scottish electorate is slightly more far-sighted than you perhaps give them credit for.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
So Webcraft, what you are saying is that the electorate will sum up based on all the facts and arguments presented, then vote against the grain (for them)?
I think the Scottish electorate are well placed to make a decision, and can you explain what a ‘far sighted’ person would vote for if not in theirs and their future generations interest. That is what it will come down to in my humble opinion, and make no apology for that suggestion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Ah phil,
I see you haved now changed your tune and included the phrase ‘future generations interest’ – which is slightly different from ‘how it will affect me’.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Not so much ‘changed my tune’ as broadening what i said. My point being that that this independence referendum will not be decided by the experts (on all sides) giving forth opinions and rhetoric, but a localised feeling and instinctiveness all the way to polling in 2014.
For 99% of voters i would expect ‘how it affects me’ to encompass also how it affects my children and my locality.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Alison.
Which so-called bizarre claim do you wish me to explain.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Phill:
It was not me who was being hysterical. Go back to me earlier post (number 32). I posited a number of questions. A careful examination of those questions would conclude that they were all related and the relationship is poverty. Scotland came into the Union an impoverished country. The damnation of the Union is that it remained impoverished (and remains so today).
How does that relate to war casualties? More Scots fought in proportion than the English (and other nations) – taking WW1, 15% of the Imperial Forces were Scots, so a higher proportion of casualties is to be expected. The actual casualty rate of around 20% is for the simple reason that Scots fighting formations (along with the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Guards regiments)were considered the most reliable and were thus favoured in assaults. During WW1, the British Army was far more often on the offence than defence (on the Western Front especially) and so assault formations suffered heavier casualties than what might be considered “garrison” formations.
There was no racist conspiracy but the appalling casualty rates DID have a huge impact on Scotland.
Why were there so many more Scots in the armed forces in WW1 (and in fact during pretty much the whole of the Union)? Poverty. And specifically the lack of jobs.
This is too short a space for a proper rendition of drivers behind the relationship between poverty and the Scots contribution to the British Army but the simple fact is that the Union failed the Scottish people and the fact that we still die prematurely in our droves suggests that the Union continues to fail us.
I hear WS frantically scrabbling to write that it would have been so much worse if we had not been in the Union. That of course is a moot point as that was not the reality that our history followed and “what if” is not a basis for rationale debate. However, if we achieve our independence we can truly find out if we are better off out of the Union than we are in it. I for one have no doubts that we can achieve more for our people as an independent nation.
Campbell: a good starting point is the Scottish National War Memorial http://www.snwm.org/website/frames.html
However, there was no conspiracy. Complacency and perhaps a lack of real concern perhaps but no conspiracy.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
“Scotland came into the Union an impoverished country. The damnation of the Union is that it remained impoverished (and remains so today).”
Scotland is NOT an impoverished country. Is your game to continually talk Scotland down that we fall into such deep depression that we yearn for the sunlit uplands promised by the fantasies pedalled by the secessionists ?
“How does that relate to war casualties? More Scots fought in proportion than the English (and other nations) – taking WW1, 15% of the Imperial Forces were Scots, so a higher proportion of casualties is to be expected.”
If you’re going to keep pedalling this victimhood myth I suggest you stop making up facts as they are easily checked:
8,689,467 served in the ‘Imperial Forces’ during the Great War.
557,618 were Scottish….that is nowhere near 15% !!!!
More Canadians (628,964) were under arms than Scots and the English contribution was massive: 4,006,158
http://www.1914-1918.net/faq.htm
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Scotland an impoverished country?. Having lived in the home counties and travelled extensively throughout the UK I disagree. It appears to me that much of Scotland is awash with public money. Look at Leeds, Manchester,Sunderland, Middlesborough, Liverpool or the east end of London.I think you need to get out more.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Campbell: everything is relative. Having been brought up in Tollcross in the east end of Glasgow I well know poverty and at first hand. I am grateful that the hands of my parents and the efforts of my own have taken me and mine from this but I have a long memory.
There are indeed plenty of areas of wealth in Scotland – and also areas of crushing poverty. Far too many of the latter for us to be complacent. Just have a search through contemporary statistics for health, employment, disability and housing – particularly in Glasgow and then tell me if you think we are in Nirvana. That is why I want independence: so we can have the opportunity to drive out these stains on our national conciousness.
I have lived in Leeds, Belfast and Sheffield and saw plenty of poverty there too. It was not only the Scots who were failed by the Union but the Scots are unique in that we have the option of leaving and going our own way.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
So, are you backtraking now on your insulting claim that Scotland is “impoverished” or are you still wanting to talk Scotland down ?
Following your logic then our “impoverishment” is the fault of 1707 and thereafter your nasty English. Another conspiracy theory or a lack of understanding of social and economic development ?
Finally, do you care to apologise to those of us who have tremendous pride in our country for your claim that Scotland is “impoverished” ?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
WS: I cannot decide if you are just not following my argument (in which case I apologise for not being clearer) or are deliberately misconstruing it.
I am not talking Scotland down (my many friends overseas would be amused at the thought of Douglas McKenzie talking Scotland down). I am, however, capable of looking at my country through the eyes of realism, noting both its great strengths and its great weaknesses. My contention is that with independence we will be able to apply our great strengths to solving our weaknesses. The fact that these weaknesses are still with us in the 21st century is a damning indictment of the Union.
I don’t share your rose tinted view of the Union as being of immense benefit to Scotland as it does not accord with historical reality. I will not pander to your attempts to portray me as being anti-english nor to your attempts to rewrite history to flatter the Union.
I find it amusing the way unionists can simultaneously criticise nationalists who point to the strengths of Scotland and its ability to stand on its own feet, while decrying nationalists who point to the darker side of modern Scotland and the role of the Union is producing this.
And if anyone is interested in the darker side I suggest you look here:
http://www.poverty.org.uk/s60/index.shtml
Oh to see ourselves as others see us.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
W S you are doing a brilliant job here exposing the disgusting, divisive agenda of the scottish nationalists . I salute you .
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Ws: I think you are mixing up “recruited in Scotland” with numbers in Scottish formations. The numbers are not the same.
And just for clarity, the figure of 15% relates to total UK forces and not total Empire (apologies as my earlier post did not make that clear).
Fact remains that there are close to 150,000 names in the books of the dead relating to WW1 held at the National War memorial. One in four who served in Scottish formations who served did not come back. The proportion of Scots serving in the armed forces was higher than for any other part of the UK. These are the essential facts.
And if Scots did not form a higher proportion of the British Army (as I suggest) then why did they suffer such disproportionally high casualties? You cannot have this one both ways.
In any case, you are dodging the thrust of the argument: Scotland did not benefit from the Union to the same extent as England (and particularly the South of England). It still does not. That is historical fact.
My contention is that an independent Scotland would fare better relative to England than a Scotland that remains in the Union.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Douglas Mackenzie,
Your last sentence above; ‘My contention is that an independant Scotland would fare better relative to England than a Scotland that remains in the Union’, is a reasonable opinion for you to form and everyone will have their say, but your several about the Scottish casualties which nealy every family in Scotland had some connection to is pathetic and undermines the very cause which you profess to forward. Very odd, and hard to fathom out unless some English have captured you and started spouting ‘tartan terror’ propaganda in your name on this blog. its not your intention but thats the way it will be seen in some quarters.
You are now doing the work of Simon and Kintyre 1 for them. This cant be the same person of previous balanced posts on a wide variety of subjects. And to crown it all, you just keep digging.
Its quite sad because there are a great many undecided folk out there and if they are watching here then you will drive them away.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
On this I agree with Phil. The whole referendum campaign needs to be conducted in a forward-looking and positive way. The remarkable SNP success in this year’s election has been ascribed by many to the fact that they were the only party to run a positive campaign.
The referendum is about what is best for Scotland’s future, it is not about her past. Let’s keep looking forward, not back.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
To Phill: I’m deeply and genuinely puzzled by your reaction. My original post positing the various questions was in response to WS’s contention that the Scots did great out of the Union. My view is that while some Scots did well, many did not. The disproportionate losses of Scots in the wars of Union is just one part of this. As Webcraft says our independence will be won on the basis of looking forward, not back but when unionists prefer to wax lyrical about how great the Union has been to Scotland, well I’m afraid I know my history too well not to rise to the bait.
I have a keen interest in Scottish and military history so I know a little of what I am talking about here. Like most Scots I lost family in the wars. Anytime we are in Edinburgh Castle, I take my daughters to the National War Memorial and we walk past the serried books of the dead to that of the Seaforths. We flick through the lists and lists of names until we come to Private J. Douglas S/9645 who died of dysentery during the Persian Campaign. My great grandfather. My auntie still has a picture of him, a proud man, fierce in his moustache and Seaforth uniform. During the most recent Iraq war I saw footage of a group of British soldiers visiting war graves in Basra and wondered if one of them was my long dead but not forgotten great grandfather. On the 11th of November every year I remember him, and the millions of others who lost their lives in that senseless slaughter.
I am also old enough to remember those who survived the war: my Great Uncle Johnnie, blinded by gas on the first day of the Somme. We used to visit him in his tenement house in Johnstone. I still treasure the dictionary he gave me for my 9th birthday. He never talked much of the war except to say he considered himself one of the lucky ones when so many of his friends never came back.
And then there was my great Aunt Annie Yule (my grandmother’s sister). A spinster all her life for, like so many young women of her age, she could not find a young man to marry with so many cold in the soil of France or reduced to shambling wrecks by wounds and shell shock. I have no memory of her ever smiling.
I wonder, therefore Phill if you are doing me a disservice here? I cannot claim to feel the hurt of our military losses any more than other Scots but I do feel them, keenly, deeply and ever lasting.
If you are in any way interested in the real social history of Scotland since the Union may I recommend Prof Devine’s seminal “The Scottish Nation 1700-2000″. I may be doing Prof Devine a disservice here, but I don’t believe he is a nationalist so what you read there is not some propaganda but the often sorry and sobering truth of our past. I am sure you will find it enlightening.
While we must look forward it is vital not to lose the lessons of the past.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
DMK
Re your 2nd last paragraph above offering me ‘enlightening’ advice, how b###dy patronising can you get. You would be more succesful peddling your rhetoric and issueing pamphlets/magazines round the doors.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I’m just suggesting some interesting reading Phil. I found his book enlightening. I presumed you would too.
I really think you are reading something into my posts that is just not there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
“And if Scots did not form a higher proportion of the British Army (as I suggest) then why did they suffer such disproportionally high casualties?”
Could be a multitude of reasons but as I am not such a good military and social historian as you I don’t really know which is the correct combination.
So, go on, tell us………….
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
I already have: there WERE a higher proportion of Scots in the military and Scottish units were preferred in attack so suffered higher casualties. That is why Scottish casualties have always been higher.
This is not some remote opinion of mine, it is mainstream history and what we teach our children:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/higherscottishhistory/impactofthegreatwar/background/index.asp
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
Sorry Doctor McKenzie but I read your link and the only thing it confirms is the 25% casualty rate.
It gives no clue, nor does it mention in fact,as to why, you say, “Scottish units were preferred in attack so suffered higher casualties.”
Please answer me. Why was this that Scottish units were preferred in attack. ?
Because Scottish soldiers are better than other British soldiers in attack (ie a valid and entirely justifiable tactical reason taken by Earl Haig…a Scot himself by the way).
……….or was there some other reason ?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Dr Mckenzie have a read of “Somme Mud” by EPF Lynch an Australian who enlisted aged 18 all the way from Sydney.He saw action all the way through the war.
Private Lynch seems to think the best and most feared soldiers were Australian.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
WS: you obviously didn’t read the link well enough. here is what it says:
“Scots were important as attack troops and they played a significant role in the battles of Loos, the Somme, Arras and Cambrai. This was reflected in the casualty figures; in relative terms Scotland lost more of its troops from actual fighting than any other country.”
It also goes on to give the total number of enlisted Scots as 688,000 – the probable reason for the difference between this figure and the ones on the site you gave is that the latter did not separate out Scots who were already in the army at the outbreak of war. Nor is it clear if naval personnel are included or not. And just one last fact: the figure you gave for Canadians was the total under arms. However, if you look at “in theatre” troops then Scots outnumbered Canadians by about 2:1. In any case, many of the Canadians were themselves Scots emigrants and fought in kilted regiments. (Many of the rest were English emigrants who had recently left England).
Campbell: as I mentioned earlier, the most effective troops were the Scots, Canadians, Guards and the ANZACS. I have no doubt that an Australian would consider Australians to be the best. The Germans had respect, fear and hatred for all of the above. Invidious to select any of them as being the best. But the Scots were up there.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
As, somewhat, a neutral observer (neutral in that I am not Scottish nor am I decided on independence, but not neutral in that I live in Scotland and have Scottish children) I find it a little saddening that one of the biggest issues that the UK will ever face has descended into petty name calling. Irrespective of which side of the argument you are on it is surely essential that both sides make their case and are listened to, challenged and engaged with in a manner that doesn’t descend into the playground name calling which we witness far too often in Westminster and Holyrood.
The discussion about selling the benefits of independence or retaining the union is an interesting one. When proposing change of this magnitude there is greater pressure on the proposer of change to sell the benefits of it over the status quo and, as such, I think the SNP do need to better ‘market’ why they feel Scotland would be better off as an independent nation. However if the unionists are truly committed to retaining the Union in its current form then they also need to up their game to persuade the Scottish electorate of the benefits of that. It isn’t enough to simply assume that resistance to, or fear of, change will guarantee a referendum returns a ‘No’ result. It also isn’t enough to campaign for the retention of the union using negative politics. The SNP are closer to independence than I ever expected them to be and there are a number of reasons for this which the SNP can take credit for. However there are also reasons for it which have fallen into the SNPs lap (for which they are no doubt grateful) with one of them being the fact that the other major parties have failed to take it seriously for too long.
I was also interested in some of the comments on here about the reaction to the Independence issue south of the border. I am involved in a couple of other online forums that have a reasonably large number of members in England. Just as a small gauge of opinion (not for a second claiming any scientific credibility to this!) I asked on them how much interest there was in the issue and how much attention was being paid by the media (note I didn’t ask their own opinion, more about how much of a ‘story’ it was). Almost to a man (or woman he said in Monty Python spirit) they all said it is a non-story and that the media are ignoring it. Most of them just asked if Scotland could survive without oil money, which illustrates just how limited the information is south of the border.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
@ Dr McKenzie:
“I am not talking Scotland down”
….With all due respect you are. Claiming that Scotland is impoverished is talking our nation down in anyone’s book. All nations have pockets of poverty etc and we are no exception, but to claim that Scotland is an inpoverished nation is deeply insulting to our standing in the world.
“I don’t share your rose tinted view of the Union as being of immense benefit to Scotland”
….Please don’t put words into my mouth. That is not my view, nor is it one which I have expressed here.
My views are simple. I wish my country to stand on our own two feet, but I don’t want to be led by the nose into leaving the United Kingdom by false promises and romantic dreams of sunlit uplands awaiting us. I will vote Yes only when the vital questions are answered satisfactorily eg defense, currency, taxation, spending, EU., etc. So long as the deluded bravehearts keep saying that these will be answered AFTER the referendum then I, and millions of others, can only vote No.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
WS: You have a strange definition of talking your country down. I cannot see for a moment how discussing the reality of our socio-economic position and the problems we have in (particularly) our inner city areas is anything other than dealing with reality. And I’m suggesting doing something about it, whereas you seem to want to merely ignore it.
Talking your country down is, I would suggest, much more in line with making unfounded and unsubstantiated claims that the present constitutional debate is driving away possible inward investors.
I hate quoting people’s earlier writing back to them (and this has been a long thread) but my comments about you having a rose tinted view of the Union comes from your post 16 when you wrote:
“Think on this though. Without 1707 today the 800,000 Scots living and working in England (and additionally probably the 4 million of Scots descent) would have the same status as immigrants from, say, Mexico, and would need to go through passport patrol to visit home. In fact, thinking on, without 1707 they may well have not been allowed to migrate in the first place. However, thanks to 1707 they are welcomed, prosper, and treated equally and fairly, and without resentment everywhere in the UK.”
This is, I humbly suggest, a rose tinted view of the Union.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
W.S.
I think that is why we need two votes. The first to give the SNP the mandate to negotiate the very things you discuss and also the mandate to come back to the Scottish people with a clear model of how independence will work. Then the second to approve, or otherwise, that model.
Therefore they can be answered after the first referendum but will still be subject to a ‘Yes/No’ vote.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Totally agree.
To vote on secession totally blind is, to most sensible people, simply madness.
So: First Vote: the Scottish Electorate gives Edinburgh the mandate to enter negotiations (not just with Westminster but also with EU, NATO, Bank of England etc…whover we need to be with so we can start on Day One).
Second Vote: Yes/No based upon what Edinburgh has negotiated for Day One.
On that basis I can vote Yes assuming Edinburgh has not agreed to something I totally disagree with.
There is absolutely no reason why the Referenda should not get under way now. The sooner the uncertainty is gone the sooner the investors will consider us again. I see Gamesa has pulled 1,000 potential new jobs from Dundee due to the uncertainty. Forth Ports have desparately put up Leith as an alternative but seeing as it wasn’t in the picture initially its got no hope. Just a face saver. Hartlepool will now get the contract.
1,000 new jobs lost thanks to blustering Salmond. There’s been virtually no investment coming in since the election and the uncertainty caused by the certainty (!) of a referendum….the decisions for the jobs Alex bangs on about (Amazon etc) were all made long before the election.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
The SNP were given a mandate to hold a referendum in the May election. Furthermore, they were given a mandate to hold it in the second half of the parliament, not earlier. A vote to reaffirm this mandate is not required.
As to the real referendum – by that time the model for independence will be clear. It will have to be – the Scots aren’t daft enough to vote for a bucket of sky. It will take until 2014 for the details to be worked out.
A rushed referendum process – or one that is overtly manipulated by forces outside Holyrood – is a recipe for ongoing constitutional uncertainty, not the reverse.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
I don’t believe they were given a mandate for a referendum on an independent model in May. If they are going to make that claim then they would needed to have explicity stated that prior to the election. They weren’t and so can’t claim to have that mandate. I know a number of people who voted SNP in May but are not convinced they would vote ‘yes’ in a referendum.
There is also the question of turnout. The turnout in May was very high (relatively speaking) but again the referendum wasn’t clearly on the table and it could be that a lot of people would vote on that who didn’t vote in May.
I don’t think the SNP would be foolish enough to claim May gave them a mandate to negotiate an independent model as it would open to legal challenge.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
See my earlier comment. This has already been covered.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Surely the SNP don’t need to do to much to promote independence as David Cameron and friends are pushing Scotland towards it with the cuts they are making here.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
More slanted rubbish from WS. Gamesa’s decision is entirely to do with the current and near future logistics of the offshore wind industry and nothing to do with uncertainty over Scotland’s constitutional future, and I challenge him to produce any statement from Gamesa that backs up his idle speculation.
In fact the rate of private sector employment in Scotland is now at its highest level since devolution, having risen more than public sector employment has fallen – the opposite to the position across the UK as a whole.
There was a 30,300 rise in private sector employment in Scotland in the year to the third quarter of 2011, outweighing the fall in public sector employment of 23,500 by 6,800 over the same period. By contrast, across the UK as a whole, public sector employment fell by 275,000 in the year to the third quarter of 2011 – 26,000 more than the 249,000 jobs created in the private sector.
The private sector, including all financial institutions, now accounts for 77.7 per cent of Scottish employment, which is the highest share since devolution.
Is WS a clone of Kintyre1?
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
“More slanted rubbish from WS.”
Abject and immature rudeness does not do your cause, nor your credibility, nor your image on here, any favours.
Its worth learning, webcraft, that if you start a post with personal insults most people have no desire to read the rest of what you may have written, and make a judgement on you based on the ease with which you fly off the handle…..”More slanted rubbish from WS.” hmmmm !!
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
I see you have chosen to base your entire reply round just five words of my post.
I repeat – I challenge you to produce any statement from Gamesa that backs up your idle speculation.
And no defence of your unsupportable attack on the SNP’s employment record in this parliament either then?
Thought not.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Good post Webcraft: we need the arguments to focus around the real facts.
To WS: you are keen to promote yourself as someone willing to be persuaded of the case for independence (despite the apparently constant attack on the proposition).
You ask for the nationalists to explain what an independent Scotland will do in relation to a number of issues (in no particular order):
1: currency
2: EU membership
3: NATO membership
4: embassies
However (and my apologies if I have missed it) you have not explained what your own preferences would be (and why). So why not tell us what would make you vote for independence in relation to these issues. I for one am interested.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Okay Dr.
Amongst other factors I will vote Yes if I see arrangements in place to take off on Day One as follows:
1. Currency…..Our own currency; not GBP, not Euro, backed by a binding pledge of a balanced budget and M2 limited by GNP growth.
2.EU Membership….If current proposals for Brussels control over budgets apply then No. Otherwise Yes.
3. NATO membership…..Vital in an increasingly dangerous world.
4. Embassies…we must have our own embassies in every major capital.
5. Armed Forces…..no army, no air force. We should just have marine and coastal protection ie one regiment of marines and three frigates with helicopter support.
6. Commonwealth membership…..No.
7. Monarchy…..No
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
That’s very interesting WS. Thank you.
Just out of interest, what have you got against the Commonwealth?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Out of respect to an Irish Grandfather.
Pragmatically it wouldn’t be a dealbreaker though.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Dr:
“Good post Webcraft: we need the arguments to focus around the real facts.”
Sorry Dr but I don’t see it as a good post…it’s arrogant and rude again.
I have chosen not to respond directly to Webcraft as he seems intent on causing upset with his aggresive style of response. I prefer a peaceful debate.
Regarding Gamesa pulling out of the possible Dundee investment. I doubt if anyone on here is privy to their real reason. However I do know that shortly before Gamesa’s decision CitiBank strongly advised all their clients against any further investment in Scottish renewables projects due to the danger of ending up with orphaned assets.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Sorry ,you are incorrect..Citibank did not so advise…an individual member of Citibank?corp did!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Morag.
An analyst employed by Citibank (or any other investment bank) does not release an advice in his/her name. It is released in the name of Citibank.
Gamesa take advice from Citibank.
The advice to clients was given by Citibank based on the research of a team of their analysts headed by an individual employee.
It was not the private advice of one employee. It was corporate advice.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Douglas – Merry Christmas and I hope you and the family had a good one.
I fear you and your colleagues are giving the impression that your drive for independence is more governed by the heart than the head.
The majority of your arguments in this thread have been based on emotions. Yes, they have been backed up by referenced sources and you will argue that it is some how relevant to the current debate, but you appear to pose the argument with the aim of subtly appealling to individual’s emotional pride, therefore introducing a devisive ‘them and us’ scenario. Not a very nice thing to do really when you think about it. Possibly not your intent but it is how it’s coming across.
If we cut out all the rhetoric, I believe what people are asking for is some examples of how we will be better off in an independent Scotland, what are the benefits for us all.
Then we get into this great big debate about ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’…. If someone’s life is going ok (it was a bit silly to imply that we are living in an impoverished country) and you want them to change, simply saying to them “you need to change but I’m not going to tell you why”, isn’t exactly going to inspire them to change.
You and your colleagues are so suspicious of W.S. and others posts, you really shouldn’t be. He/she appears to be exactly the same as myself, a fiercely patriotic Scot who only wants the best for their country.
We are the people you need to convince not attack.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Robert: Thank you for your good wishes.
I think people sometimes read more into my posts than perhaps I intend or perhaps they read something that they want to rather than what I intend. However, you are mistaken if you think my intention is to persuade people to vote for independence. It is not. What I am trying to convey is what I think, what I know and what I feel. It is then up to you to weigh the import of this. Self indulgent I know but I am that sort of person!
I also have no colleagues. There isn’t a secret cabal of nationalists on here plotting the next move (or if there is it doesn’t include me).
I’m also disappointed you feel that I’m attacking WS. I would like to think that I am debating with him. He raises some interesting points and is obviously a complex fellow (I presume WS is a he). This is of course a very imperfect medium and open to easy misinterpretation.
I suppose above all I want people to think for themselves rather than just regurgitate tired clichés (otherwise this is going to become very boring before 2014).
Emotion? Yes – why should there not be? We are after all deciding the future fate of our nation. The heart should beat faster in anticipation and not everything can be judged entirely by the head. (How many of us follow our head when we marry for instance?). Having emotions, however, is not the same as being irrational. There is a proper place for both the heart and the head. However, worry not that I am trying to pervert anyone’s voting intentions through emotional manipulation. I’m just baring my own soul a bit.
Emotion has perhaps come through more emphatically recently in what I have been writing because we have touched on subjects that are close to my heart. I have a strong sense of social justice and I suppose if I am honest to myself that is one of the major drivers in my desire to see an independent Scotland. I believe that with the tools of statehood at our disposal we can tackle these injustices more quickly and assuredly than we have ever managed under the Union. In the past many talented Scots believed that the Labour Party was the vehicle for social change and they believed that nationalism was a dangerous distraction from this (though Keir Hardie himself was a Home Rule fan). However, the battle for social justice seems to have been lost at Westminster and while the Labour Party did try to roll back some of the issues surrounding poverty (particularly of children) the fact is that the UK has become a more divisive place, riven by increasing inequality.
http://www.cpag.org.uk/publications/extracts/CPAG_PovertyinScotland2011.pdf
It is difficult to see any serious attempt being made to reverse this coming from Westminster. This has made a lot of people who would have normally backed the Labour Party in Scotland to shift to the SNP. Scotland is much more socially cohesive than the UK as a whole and thus policies aimed at reducing poverty are more likely to be acceptable than is the case for the UK.
I am smiling as I write this as I can imagine Kintyre1 foaming about the socialist nightmare that independence will bring. Communism! The flight of the money makers! etc etc. However, my form of nationalism also believes in twin pillars of national advancement: policies aimed at improving social justice and policies aimed at improving economic performance so that we can afford the improvements to social justice. That includes ensuring that entrepreneurial activity and innovation is appropriately rewarded. Funny thing is that the millionaires I know (and I know a few)tend to be more concerned with how they can responsibly give their money away than about how to keep it.
You ask for a vision of the new Scotland: mine is one of rapid social and economic advancement as the wealth of Scotland and the talents of our people focus on making a this a better place to live for all of us. I believe this will be much easier in an independent Scotland than it has proved to be under the Union. In one word my vision: progress.
What do unionists offer as an alternative vision?
On poverty: I’m sure that most people contributing on here have lives that are going “OK” and we probably don’t recognise impoverishment in our own lives. But Scotland as a whole IS impoverished on a whole range of statistics. A failure to recognise that means that we will never sort it. I have no regrets about complaining that the emperor has no clothes.
There was a very interesting survey recently that suggested that most Scots would vote for independence if it only made them £500 a year better off. The price of the votes for union in the 1706 Scottish parliament are fairly well known but I wonder what price we will truly require for us to vote for our independence? Will it really just come down to a small bag of gold either way?
My price is simply hope for a better tomorrow and I see that more clearly in an independent Scotland than I can ever see in the continuation of the Union.
I hope you and yours had a fine Christmas and the New Year brings all of us good cheer.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Douglas – Thank you for the good wishes. The reason I use the term ‘colleagues’ is simply because I do not know how else to refer to them. I will not use the term nationalist as I believe there is absolutely no need to use it, however if you are willing to suggest some other term I will be happy to use it.
With the utmost respect, you are trying to convince folk to vote for independence as that is what you believe in. And you believe in it passionately. A quality that I always admire in an individual, even if I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment.
Irrational – an interesting word. One which is easily defined in dictionaries but is harder to define in real life. When one see’s the way forward when other’s can’t, who appears to be the irrational one?
You believe that an independent Scotland can undo a lot of what has happened in the past. You believe that we can remove poverty from our nation, how? What would a new independent government need to do to rid our nation of poverty.
You believe we will have rapid social & economic advancement in an independent Scotland, how?
We simply do not live in an impoverished country. Yes, we do unfortunately have areas of deprivation but to suggest the whole country is impoverished… don’t get that one?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Robert:
The title of this thread has “rumbles on” in it. The comments are certainly rumbling on! For that reason, please forgive me if we skip over terminology and my motivations and go to the more interesting questions that you pose concerning why I believe that we will be more effective in tackling poverty in an independent Scotland.
First is a simple one: with the ability to spend all taxes raised in Scotland in Scotland and with the loss of some of the unnecessary UK overheads we should have a bit more money to spend. This would not be a huge difference initially but would hopefully grow as Scottish specific economic measures start to impact (more on that later).
The second relates to the economic levers that are available to deal with poverty. As the House of Common’s Scottish select committee report on Poverty in Scotland (2008) notes:
In Scotland, the Government’s approach to poverty reduction must work alongside the
structures of devolution. In the view of our witnesses, the most powerful levers for the reduction of poverty are reserved matters. Social security benefits, the tax system and programmes such as the ‘New Deal’ are controlled by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmscotaf/128/128.pdf
In an independent Scotland these functions would reside with the SG not the Westminster Government and so can be tailored to Scotland’s particular circumstances rather than to the UK pattern of poverty. These are not the same. For example, fuel and rural poverty are very different issues north of the border than they are to the south. Having a single government dealing with the issue will also help as duplication and bureaucratic waste can be eliminated, freeing up more resources to actually tackle the issues.
Thirdly, Scotland’s priorities will be different from Westminster and it is likely that more prioritisation will be given to poverty than is likely under either the current Coalition Government or the succeeding Tory government (as seems likely). The SG and indeed the Parliament have already shown their willingness to utilise the tools available to them under devolution to prioritise measures designed to alleviate poverty and to improve the population’s health (eg free prescriptions, care for the elderly etc). We would expect this prioritisation to accelerate with independence.
As to the second pillar – that of economic performance – the SG will have a number of tools that are not currently available to it. Control of interest rates is an obvious one (though this obviously depends on what currency choice is made and under the current circumstances not likely to be very influential). The ability to borrow and execute capital spending allows the SG to prioritise capital expenditure aimed both at improving the economic infrastructure which allows companies based in Scotland to become more competitive and also increasing jobs will be vital. A major house building programme, for example, is likely to be not only socially beneficial but largely self financing (eventually) due to increased employment levels and thus tax revenues.
Another area I have a personal interest is in the leveraging of Scotland’s intellectual assets being created in our universities and research institutes. Scotland punches well above its weight here. A recent survey put 4 Scottish universities in the top 200 in the world. This was a better performance than France. Scotland is also fairly good at spinning companies out of this research but very poor at developing these companies into world leaders. Post independence the Government will be able to better target resources to the development of high innovation companies. UK policies are already fairly good in terms of, for example, R&D tax credits, but the SG will have the ability to go further when freed from the shackles of the UK Treasury. High growth companies will be major priority post-independence. Much of the failure to develop large scale companies rests I feel with a lack of capital in Scotland, an issue that can be addressed post independence.
These are just some of the ways we can tackle social and economic priorities more effectively post independence. But perhaps another no less important but more difficult to predict factor will be the release of creative energy that independence will bring. Scotland has been blighted by a benefits culture for far too long. Independence will give us an opportunity to replace that with a work ethic based culture driven by access to high quality jobs (many coming out of that high growth, high innovation sector I have just alluded to). Scotland has a huge and successful diaspora, particularly in the New World. I suspect they will be galvanised into lending a helping hand by the sight of the Old Country throwing off the shackles of torpor and standing on its own two feet again. SDI have been quietly culturing this diaspora for some years now via the Global Scots network and I don’t think we will find them wanting when the time comes for us all to put our shoulders to the wheel in an independent Scotland.
(Sorry if that last bit sounded a bit emotional but the Americans in particular love it)
I hope this answer is of some interest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I notice Webcraft that you produced the employment figures like a rabbit out of a hat. Can you quote a valid source as I, and others, are sceptical as a result of dollops of SNP spin generally applied.
I notice somewhere above someone claims that a post referendum SNP government will be a left of centre government. That is a good laugh. We have a divided country at present, a generally affluent east coast, and a generally deprived west coast. Where is all the big government money going? Trams in Edinburgh, by-pass for Aberdeen, dualling of the A9……………. Meanwhile our main access road has been given a set of trafficlights and flashing warning lights all bought out of the small change I suggest. Once a Tartan Tory always a Tartan Tory? Certainly not the actions of a left of centre party.
OK I grant you the M74 extension has been completed but it has been in the pipeline for decades.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
A bit cynical JimB. I think a look at the SG grants to councils will show that Glasgow is the largest recipient (by some way). The tram project wasn’t one the current government wanted. There is massive expenditure on regenerating the east end of Glasgow in preparation for the Commonwealth games (and very impressive it is looking too). The extension of RET favours the West Coast much more than the East.
I just don’t see any west v east divide in the SG’s priorities but perhaps you are being a bit mischievous here?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Mischievous? Moi?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
LOL – no that’s pretentious!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
There has been critisism by some that there are no benefits to Scotland being Independent.
Well,for the record,here are some of mine!!I do hope that others will add their own as well.
Money raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland.
No Trident,no nuclear.
Scottish army.
No more illegal conflicts.
Better secure healthcare.
No two-tier parliament.
No two-tier society.
Better chance of eradicating social inequality.
Rebuild manufacturing for the future.
Stop privatisation of everything..including Scottish Water.
Fiscal propriety.
Fairer tax for all.
Fair immigration.
Accessible government.
Nicer flag!!
Tighter bank regulation.
Fairer society based on need rather than want.
Redistribution of wealth.
No PFI/PPI.
Balanced media.
Reverse migration.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
Are you a descendant of Sir Thomas More?
…and quite how does leaving the UK achieve a balanced media? Reverse migration? Fairer immigration? etc
Sure, we’ll have a nicer flag but why on earth would we want an army (Size, mission, cost?)
ermmm; your elephant in the room…”Redistribution of Wealth”
If that is on the agenda in any form then there will be an absolutely massive capital flight before Independence and we’ll end up as some kind of impoverished (the Dr. will appreciate that) soviet nightmare……no-one, not even Comrade Alex Salmond, is going to steal from me that which I have spent years of hard work creating.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
I surely don’t have all the answers “WS”,but these are MY hopes and that’s fine if you disagree…I’m okay with that!!
But why do I have to cost an army for you? Come on!
And we would NOT be leaving anywhere…unless you know how we can achieve the impossible!!!!!!
As for the other hopes that I have….I can’t for the life of me think where you got the idea that they could all be implemented….but don’t you worry ….no-one wants what you have!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
“And we would NOT be leaving anywhere…unless you know how we can achieve the impossible!!!!!!”
ermmmmm….we’d be leaving the United Kingdom.
“but don’t you worry ….no-one wants what you have!!”
I guess you are refering to my negative comment about your plans for wealth redistribution. It appears, therefore, that you don’t know what wealth redistribution means.
As for your plans for an army. I am totally against that and it would push me into the No camp if it was for real (as you know my desire is Yes but I am totally pragmatic and realistic so I won’t make up my mind until Salmond is totally open and honest about how Scotland will look on Day One in detail).
Why would we need an army? Are we going to be an aggresive nation? Do you think that Salmond’s “best pals” are going to invade us?
All we need is one regiment of marines, armed fishery and rig protection vessels, and a small helicopter force to back them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
I’m going to leave the whole “how big should Scotland’s armed forces be?” topic for another time but I would point out that such a low level as you suggest would make it very difficult for Scotland to contribute to NATO – membership of which is one of your other pre-conditions.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
FRom The Times August 2009.
Documents detailing secret government plans in the 1970s to prevent Scotland laying claim to North Sea oil have been seen by The Times. They show the extraordinary lengths to which civil servants were prepared to go to head off devolution, which was seen then as inevitably leading to independence.
The proposals included suggesting to Labour ministers, for whom devolution was a manifesto commitment, that progress towards a referendum should be delayed, in the hope that enthusiasm north of the Border would wane.
Treasury officials also advised that the boundaries of Scotland’s coastal waters should be redrawn and a new sector created to “neutralise” Scotland’s claim to North Sea oil – a step that was taken.
One Treasury official even proposed that a local campaign for independence in Orkney and Shetland should be encouraged so that Scotland would be denied access to more than half the North Sea oil. The idea was that the islands would prefer to throw in their lot with London rather than Edinburgh.
Among those advising Labour ministers was Sir David Walker, who is investigating the banking crisis for the present Government. As assistant secretary at the Treasury, he wrote in May 1975 that “progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the government commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament”.
Sir David’s advice was heeded. It was another four years before the Scots were allowed to vote on whether or not they wanted an assembly in Edinburgh.
The documents – letters, memorandums and briefing papers from the Public Record Offices at Kew and in Edinburgh – show that some civil servants were alarmed by the threat that devolution posed to North Sea oil revenues, which were servicing Britain’s external debt.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Citibank.
That will be the Citigroup who used to be the largest company and bank in the world, until the global financial crisis of 2008?
Rescued in November 2008 in a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government, they built up an enormous cash pile of $462 billion USD.
The Citigroup whose heavy exposure to dodgy mortgages in the form of Collateralized debt obligation (CDOs), compounded by poor risk management led Citigroup into trouble as the subprime mortgage crisis worsened in 2008?
The Citigroup who in December 2002, paid fines totalling $400 million?
The fines were part of a settlement involving charges that ten banks, including Citigroup, deceived investors with biased research.
The total settlement with the ten banks was $1.4 billion.
That Citigroup?
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Yes.
Your point is ?
Seems like despite all you’ve detailed thousands of the world’s major companies still pay large sums for Citi’s advice…and still heed that advice.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Do they???…..and you know this how??
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I know this because I am very familiar with the relationships between investment banks and their clients.
I also know that Citi’s revenue for the period July, August, September 2011 was $20 BILLION.
Believe me Morag; $20,000,000,000 in three months tells you that their advice is valued and heeded.
To put that figure in perspective, annualise it and compare it to Scotland’s GNP.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
More fool them
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Maybe John, but an unfortunate consequence of Citibank’s advice to their clients not to invest in Scottish renewables is companies like Gamesa pull out of 1,000 job creation projects in places like Dundee…….thanks to Citi’s judgement we suffer. Gamesa, in taking their advice don’t, they just locate in Hartlepool instead.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I,like a few others on here, have tried really hard to give you some other benefits/ideas of how Independence may fit Scotland well.
But,we’re never going to get any serious debate from you because you refuse to open your mind to anything except petty comments and negativity.
And the fact that you don’t seem to see anything wrong in Citigroups activities…..says it all really.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
“And the fact that you don’t seem to see anything wrong in Citigroups activities…..says it all really.”
How on earth do you know that ??? When have I said that ??? re Citi all I’ve posted is facts, not my opinions of their activities.
“says it all really.”
Says what exactly ?
Morag. You do our cause no good by attacking at any opportunity when someone raise doubts about aspects of Independence. You’ll never persuade a sausage to vote Yes if you don’t try to understand their doubts and then try to assuage them…politely.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
” ……our cause….?”
According to you, there is no cause!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Gamesa have still not made their decision between Leith and Hartlepool.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
More sunshine on Leith would be very welcome.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
” I am Peter Atherton from Citigroup. For the lawyers,my usual proviso is that I speak for myself and not for Citigroup.”
That would be Peter Atherton who was in the cabinet office for a spell in 1996!
It’s a circular world in ” high finance “.Seems that they and the uk government are too cosy to be comfortable…IMHO
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Never a truer statement made Morag,
“high finance” = a cabal of crooks who have no morals
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Dr McKenzie
“I’m going to leave the whole “how big should Scotland’s armed forces be?” topic for another time but I would point out that such a low level as you suggest would make it very difficult for Scotland to contribute to NATO – membership of which is one of your other pre-conditions.”
Agreed. Best left for another time.
Be aware, though, that Iceland is a member of NATO and only has three ships, four aircraft and NO army at all. Latvia, another member, has an army of only 970 men.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
But Iceland has a population of just over 300,000. We have a population of over 5,000,000. I think other NATO members might expect us to make a military contribution somewhat more equal to our population size.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
A Good New Year to all on FA. And just to wind up the year, here is a message from the First Eck himself- as usual it is very upbeat. I could’nt have put it better myself!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HSQ-GJC-pR8#!&mid=567
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
I would not be surprised if Gamesa pull out of the UK completely because times are currently hard in Spain.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/toddlers-tantrums/
My final post on here this year.
Good and peaceful New Year to all!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2