Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

yes I can run and live
[video="youtube;WLrrBs8JBQo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo[/video]

Heres an internal SNP document on the issue.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee08022eec_u9m6vd74f.pdf

Thank you.

Your thoughts on independence?

We'd be economically worse off if there was a yes vote and the SNP have lied too many times to us.

Read through the post. Basically I'll be voting no. We have the best of both worlds at the moment. We're part of the most successfull union the worlds ever seen. The sum of the whole is stronger than the sum of the parts. We'd be economically worse off if there was a yes vote and the SNP have lied too many times to us.

Can you please ask those 'proud', 'patriotic' Scots at 'Better Together' who are unable to defend the union without first declaring their Scottish pride and patriotism?

Let me know when you have the answer, but I won't be holding my breath.

Read through the post. Basically I'll be voting no. We have the best of both worlds at the moment. We're part of the most successfull union the worlds ever seen. The sum of the whole is stronger than the sum of the parts. We'd be economically worse off if there was a yes vote and the SNP have lied too many times to us.

I don't see why these lads don't deserve a country for their own and always have to be a province of London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lofNXF-UMe0

I have yet to see a convincing argument for independence. Most of them seem to rely on 'we need to get away from the English'. Doesn't seem like a very sustainable strategy.

I think Salmond has a lot of convincing to do if he wants a yes vote to be returned next year. I want to see solid figures and an explanation of how he is going to sustain all the great benefits that Scotland offers its residents without raising taxes or suffering crippling debt.

I have so many questions. Who would pay for the removal of Trident from the Clyde (if Salmond managed to do it)? Would this negatively effect the Successor programme (quite a selfish concern, but still valid)? How much of the national debt would Scotland take with it? Would Scotland be able to continue to offer free education and prescriptions? What about currency? What effects will there be on the UK after Scotland leaves? What would happen if Scotland got into difficulty?

I had a long chat with an SNP activist a few weeks ago, and she gave me a lot of things to think about regarding things like Scottish heritage, the Scottish perspective on the removal of Trident and some more emotional issues. At the beginning of the conversation I said I wanted to know more about the cold hard facts and her response was something along the lines of 'we can't really give you that because Cameron won't come to the table before the referendum'. That's not a good enough excuse.

The only thing she said that sounded reasonable was the inability of Scottish MPs as a group to significantly influence policy in Westminster. That may be true, but the 3 or 4 MPs that serve Cumbria are just as unable to make an impact at Westminster and local issues are consistently ignored. The system may be flawed in that sense, but Scotland is not alone in being unable to influence policy. In fact, I'd argue that the existence of a Scottish parliament at least allows Scottish people to influence where money is spent. People in England do not have that luxury.

It's all well and good voting yes just to give Scotland independence, but how much are people willing to lose for that principle? Maybe Scotland would flourish, but at the moment all I've seen is people arguing for independence on the basis of a hope that Scotland will do well, and not on the basis of anything solid. Maybe that's enough for some people.

In answer to the original question, I definitely think the referendum is a good thing. People should be able to say definitively what they want to happen to Scotland.

I think Salmond has a lot of convincing to do if he wants a yes vote to be returned next year. I want to see solid figures and an explanation of how he is going to sustain all the great benefits that Scotland offers its residents without raising taxes or suffering crippling debt.

I have so many questions. Who would pay for the removal of Trident from the Clyde (if Salmond managed to do it)? Would this negatively effect the Successor programme (quite a selfish concern, but still valid)? How much of the national debt would Scotland take with it? Would Scotland be able to continue to offer free education and prescriptions? What about currency? What effects will there be on the UK after Scotland leaves? What would happen if Scotland got into difficulty?

I had a long chat with an SNP activist a few weeks ago, and she gave me a lot of things to think about regarding things like Scottish heritage, the Scottish perspective on the removal of Trident and some more emotional issues. At the beginning of the conversation I said I wanted to know more about the cold hard facts and her response was something along the lines of 'we can't really give you that because Cameron won't come to the table before the referendum'. That's not a good enough excuse.

The only thing she said that sounded reasonable was the inability of Scottish MPs as a group to significantly influence policy in Westminster. That may be true, but the 3 or 4 MPs that serve Cumbria are just as unable to make an impact at Westminster and local issues are consistently ignored. The system may be flawed in that sense, but Scotland is not alone in being unable to influence policy. In fact, I'd argue that the existence of a Scottish parliament at least allows Scottish people to influence where money is spent. People in England do not have that luxury.

It's all well and good voting yes just to give Scotland independence, but how much are people willing to lose for that principle? Maybe Scotland would flourish, but at the moment all I've seen is people arguing for independence on the basis of a hope that Scotland will do well, and not on the basis of anything solid. Maybe that's enough for some people.


In answer to the original question, I definitely think the referendum is a good thing. People should be able to say definitively what they want to happen to Scotland. If a yes vote is returned, which I seriously doubt will happen, I truly hope that everyone involved in organising Scottish independence takes every possible care to get it right. Salmond should be patient. There will only be one chance to get it right and party politics shouldn't get in the way of that.

A bloody excellent post.

English audience suggests to dump nuclear waste in Scotland

What trash! Please don't insult my intelligence.

The English have demanded one.

Utter rubbish.

For Scotland to have devolved government took decades and dominated the political lives of many. In the 1950s, there was a petition signed in favour of it by 2 million people - not bad for a population of five million.

Thereafter it was advocated until a referendum was held in 1979. It got more than 50% of the vote in favour, but that wasn't enough. Governments (of the UK) were brought down over the issue, vigils were held, a constitutional convention was created - eventually it happened in 1999.

I'm afraid in comparison, the supporters of a devolved English assembly simply don't have a movement at all.