Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

You missed the point. I wasn't slating it. Midlander tried to insinuate Bannockburn live was anti-English by celebrating its anniversary. Trafalgar celebrations is just mere evidence that the English/British do it too!

You're in Dundee? Come over to Fife some time


Posted from TSR Mobile

Eh?

You can try and dress culloden up however you wish.

But it was basically a nonce who thought he had a right to the throne.

Bannockburn live is anti-English, that surely isn't in dispute.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You said the commanders were loyal to England. William Wallace sure wasn't!


Posted from TSR Mobile

You consider a cartoon character to be Dundee's greatest icon? Well as cartoon characters go Dennis ain't even in the mix, it is Desperate Dan that has a statue on the High St and Oor Wullie is much more beloved around here.

Another false stereotype.

He's on a bus and I don't recall the Dandy being printed.

You don't recall the Dandy being printed?!!
There's lots of cartoon characters on Dundee buses.

Anyway that's like saying there's a Minnie the Minx statue, so therefore she's more iconic and well known than Dennis the Menace.

Desperate Dan was chosen ahead of Dennis for that statue. Simples!

I am disappoint at the lack of Bananaman though, hopefully the film will do it justice. The style did inspire Burnt Face Man.

I just want our country to be run by the people we vote for instead of the conservatives based in West Minster

and to shake up the inequality that is the distribution of wealth in the United Kingdom.

However, given that many of the drivers of inequality are linked to global trends in technology, trade, and family formation practices, there are likely to be limits to the extent that a small open economy can mitigate them. Scottish independence would provide opportunities, but it would also come with constraints.

Scotland is a wealthy nation but Scotland's wealth is being transferred to London and our economy is being held back. We generate 9.9% of tax in the United Kingdom but we only receive 9.3% of U.K total spending, so the idea that we are subsided by England is a fallacy.

This wealth can be put to better use an example is poverty, my family has been affected by this and I see others in Montrose that have/are suffered/ing in the same way. With a de-centralised government from west minster we can effectively tackle this and many more issues.

The statistics came from Business for Scotland.)

What are your reasons for voting no?

If its the debate about Europe, we are an already existing European Member for over 40 years and it should simple be a renegotiation.

The rest of the United Kingdom would have to re apply

What ever the course of the independence we will still be building ships because we have the skills and technology to do so.

An example of a Royal Naval craft build abroad are the royal refueling tankers currently being built in South Korea costing £400 million , so if they can be built abroad why can't they be built here?

Currently there are 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with only three members carrying nuclear deterrents, America, France and the U.K . The number of nuclear weapons in Europe under Americas sharing policy has decreased from 2400 to 400 because of Germanys stance against nuclear weapons, so this shows that in nato we can have a view that nuclear weapons should not be the last resort.

( I would also like to refer, that when you turn 16 you can marry in Scotland and we can serve our country by joining the army

But it's the only thing that we do go on about. Closest thing to Bannockburn.

It's because England on its own has been at war with many different countries whereas Scotland on its own was only at war with England and when the Irish invaded Pictland.

Our tabloid press does, nobody I know does. Scotland as part of the UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just 2...


Posted from TSR Mobile

Like who? The SNP? In 2011 more people voted specifically against the SNP than voted for them, yet we still have an SNP government. That is just how democracy works.

While you can justifiably criticise Westminister for being London centric, the Scottish Parliament is no different. As someone from the same part of the world as you (Johner) I don't see why a Central Belt-centric Scottish Government is any better for the North East than a London-centric UK Government.


How exactly will Scotland voting to leave help make London more equal?

Wealth distribution across the UK is actually pretty good. This recent report by the University of Stirling shows that the UK is a much more equal country than we all think, the problem is that London and the South East are very unequal and skew the statistics for the rest of us. Scotland is more equal than Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Ireland (among others). If you don't want the read the whole thing, the conclusion is on page 25. The report finishes with this:

Food for thought


It actually varies each year. For example, in FY 2012-2013, Scotland raised 9.1% (£53.1 Billion) of UK revenue, but spent 9.3% (£65.2 Billion). This gap in revenue vs spending was largely caused by a fall in the price of oil.

If we had been independent, that would have been a real issue as quite literally overnight we would have had to make cuts equivalent to our entire education budget.

As part of a large UK economy it isn't a problem. In the bad years we can get help from the rest of the UK and in good years we give help to other areas of the UK.

Furthermore, I'd challange the basis of your point; that we put in more than we get out and this is a bad thing. We pay in our taxes and while most of it comes back to us, some of our money is spent on helping particularly depressed areas of the UK or on funding national assets like our international embassy network.

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, then you are arguing we should become like South Africa; A few small extremely wealthy fortified villages who pay for their own security and their own upkeep, surrounded by grinding poverty where people cannot afford anything.

I happen to think that redistributive taxation is a good thing.


Since when did geographic proximity guarentee good government?


Business for Scotland is directed by a man called Ivan McKee. In his "30 year business career" Mr McKee has never run a successful business. Indeed, all three businesses he has previously run have gone into administration under his leadership.

I don't know about you, but if I needed advice, I wouldn't ask Mr McKee.


For me there are several reasons why I've decided that I'm against independence.

First, I really don't like the basic premise of the debate. The UK is a union that has done some terrible, but also some inspirational, things. It abolished slavery, it fought two world wars, it introduced parliamentary democracy and - although many do not know this - it developed ideas of social mobility and equality. We spend 200 years working together, but when we think we can use our natural resources to our advantage, we decide to unilaterally split off from the rest of the UK and go it alone so that we don't have to split the benefits? I don't know about you but I find that a totally morally vacuous argument.

Second, I find the idea that Scots are so different from the English, Welsh or Northern Irish that we couldn't possibly continue living together absolutely absurd. I often hear that England is moving to the right or, "going in a different direction to Scotland" and that may be true (although I don't think it is), however, it has no bearing on Scotland. This is for two reasons, firstly, we already have a devolved Scottish Parliament which means that any right-wing social policies would have to be introduced by MSPs in the Scottish Government. Secondly, the Government of the UK isn't elected on a England vs Scotland vs Wales vs Northern Ireland basis, it is elected through individual constituencies.

It is also worth pointing out that the United Kingdom is comprised of more than two countries. While large areas of England do vote Tory, Wales consistantly votes for Labour at every election. No government in the UK gets into office through the votes of one of the constituent nations alone - it has to be a pan-UK vote. The 2010 election was a bit of an irregularity in that although the Tories gained in Wales and England (they did better in Wales, up 4.7% compared to 3.9% in England), they only gained marginally in Scotland (0.9%). Even with that small increase, the Tories only polled 79,000 (or 3% of the electorate) fewer than the SNP did in the general election!

Third, I don't see how Scotland will be more independent than we are now. Upon independence Scotland's currency options would be to join the Euro, to convince the rest of the UK to create a monetary union with us, to use £Sterling without the consent of the rest of the UK or to create our own seperate currency. If we go for the Euro - which we may be oblidged to join when we join the EU - then our fiscal policy will be dictated by the European Central Bank. If we continue to use £Sterling as part of a monetary union then the Scottish Chancellor would have to submit his/her budgets to the Bank of England and we would have to adjust things like our interest rates to suit the larger partner (rUK). If we continue to use £Sterling without being in a monetary union then the Scottish Government would only be able to make marginal adjustments to things like tax and interest rates and our economy would be controlled by the Bank of England, although they wouldn't nessecarily act as our lender of last resort. The only way to have full fiscal control is by having an independent currency - something that would be hugely problematic to implement after 300 years of using £Sterling. None of those options seem to give us any real degree of independence in my view. As part of the UK we get to have our own independent currency that is recognised around the globe and which we can control through the Bank of England. Seems like a good deal to me.

Fourth, the UK has a large, diverse, stable economy which spreads risk. A smaller Scottish economy that would be overly dependent on a few areas like services and energy would be very vulnerable to shocks and would leave us exposed to the kind of issues we can see in small nations like Greece or Ireland. Being in the UK brings thousands of extra jobs to Scotland that wouldn't otherwise be here, for example, building and refitting warships for the Royal Navy. The UK has one of the world's largest defence budgets and big build projects like the T45, QE-Class Carriers and - in a couple of years - the T26 create and sustain jobs that are totally reliant on the UK. After being built these ships are constantly being refitted and upgraded in world-class facilities like Rosyth. It has been said that Scotland would continue to build warships for the UK but this simply is not true. There are shipyards in Glasgow, Barrow, Belfast, Appledore, Rosyth, Liverpool and Portsmouth that have built or refitted Royal Navy ships. Lets be honest, what politician would go to the House of Commons and say, "We'll shut the shipyards in Portsmouth and Appledore and we will build the ships abroad in Scotland". It would total career suicide. Plus, as far as I know the Royal Navy hasn't built a warship abroad since WW2 anyway; the MARS tankers being built in South Korea at the moment aren't warships and all the sensitive equipment will be fitted in the UK.

Fifth, being in the UK means that Scotland gets a genuine say in global affairs and rather than being dictated to by the bigger nations, we sit right at the top table making the decisions. For example, the UK is a permanant member of the UN Security Council, a Briton is the current EU Foreign Minister, recently a Scot was the NATO Secretary General and the UK is a key member of organisations ranging from the G8 to the WTO to the Commonwealth of Nations. The UK Diplomatic Service is one of the largest in the world. We have embassies in almost every country on earth. This means that a Scottish business can go anywhere in the world with the British Embassy providing vital local backing and knowledge that can open new doors. Not to mention the fact that they bail you out if your passport gets lost! Furthermore, the UK is ranked top in the global, "soft power" ratings. What this means is that brand 'UK' has more power globally than any other nation when it comes to fashion, music, films, TV programmes, cars etc. This matters because it means we get more tourists and we export more. More people see Britain and want British stuff thus boosting our economy. This is something that Scotland as part of the UK can - and does - tap into.


No, the UK has been a member of the EU for over 40 years, not Scotland. That might mean nothing to you but it counts in international law.


The 1707 Acts of Union (England and Scotland) were superseded by the 1800 Acts of Union (Great Britain and Ireland). Legally speaking, we are not voting to annul the United Kingdom, we are voting to leave the United Kingdom. This means that the UK does not end if Scotland chooses leave, the UK is the successor state while Scotland is leaving to form a new country.


As I explained above, the rest of the UK also has the skills and technology.

Currently shipyards in Rosyth, Govan, Scotstoun, Hebburn, Middlesborough, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Appledore, Birkenhead, Barrow and Belfast are capable of shipbuilding, refitting and heavy fabrication.

You'll notice that 3 of those yards are in Scotland, 1 is in Northern Ireland and 8 are in England. After independence, why would an MP stand up in the House of Commons and say that the rUK Government is awarding large contracts to Scotland (a foreign country remember) at the expense of English and Northern Irish jobs?

It would be total career suicide. That is why it won't happen.

I suspect our shipbuilding industry would go the same way as the Irish one did. Currently the Irish Navy build their ships in the UK.


First, they are not Royal Navy ships. The oil tankers will not be owned by the Royal Navy, operated by the Royal Navy or crewed by naval personel. They are merchant ships and will have merchant crews.

Second, the last time an oil tanker was built in the UK was about 20 years ago. The skills do not exist here. If we had built them in the UK as well as paying the cost of the ships themselves, we would have needed to pay for all of the shipyard workers to be trained in oil tanker construction. At the moment the UK is cash strapped so the Government took the decision to build the basic ship in South Korea (who build hundreds of tankers each year) and all of the sensitive equipment will be fitted at UK shipyards (I think Cammell Laird has the contract).

It is one of the best examples of sensible government procurement I can think of.


It is a requirement for all NATO countries to contribute to the defence of NATO nations, including facilitating the "nuclear umbrella". Furthermore, every country has to accept NATO's nuclear first-strike policy.

According to 'Yes Scotland' and the SNP, Scotland will have a written constitution that will forbid the use or deployment of nuclear weapons in Scottish territory.

The two simply do not add up.


You can only serve in the army with the written consent of your parents. You are not deemed responsible enough to make the decision yourself.

On the first part, a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, and the 5 wealthiest families own more than the poorest 5 million is not equal. The wealth distribution is clearly not as fair as it could and should be.


The Scottish parliament's makeup in itself is produces a more equal system. Each region has a representative 7 MSPs and one for each constituency. It produces significantly better representation and thus wouldn't lead to a central belt centric parliament. However, I would like to see powers decentralised; decisions are best taken at the most local level.


The mention of South Africa is ludicrous and the point is moot. You know that's not at all what we advocate.


If you want to belittle the referendum to one man, should I vote no because Gordon Brown supports a no vote - a man that oversaw the financial crash? Of course not. It is ridiculous to whittle this debate down to one man's business credentials.


Now to deal with each point individually.


1) If it ain't broke don't fix it, famous words. If it worked I wouldn't want to fix it, but I believe that maintaining the status quo is not right for the people of Scotland. We are enduring policies that we didn't vote for, and despite past successes of the Union, we need to look at the current proposition and see if it's working for us. You mentioned business, if you were a partner in a business that was successful 50 years ago, but was failing now, would you still stick? I know I wouldn't...


2) The Scottish parliament only deals with devolved issues. Currently we see Scottish MPs effecting no change at Westminster. They voted against the bedroom tax, trident, Iraq war, privatisation of the Royal Mail, increase on VAT but that all happened anyway. Scotland has little to no say in reserved matters.


The Tories have one MP in Scotland that point is null and void. If we were dealing in a PR system, the point would hold some substance, but we're not and it doesn't. One out of 59 and that party governs.
Seems awfully fair to me.


3) I'm not an economist, but economists have recommended a currency union as the best deal for Scotland. I cannot remember the full details, but a country can only control 2 of the 3 monetary levers; exchange rate, interest rates and another. Seeing as
Scotland would want to be on a par with the UK, and indeed with Europe, not having control over one of the levers would be the same with our own currency and thus is no more independent than a currency union.


4) It should be noted that Scotland too has a strong and diverse economy; recent reports - such as the GERS report - suggested that our finances are stronger than the UK's. Standard and Poor said that we would get a AAA credit rating. Greece didn't collect taxes, and Ireland had an IT based economy that collapsed when the housing market collapsed. Scotland's dynamic is different to both countries. It's worth remembering that the UK has slashed defence jobs in Scotland and that an independent Scotland would be able to offer our shipyards to the world. It doesn't have to be warships for the UK. A Scottish Navy, cruise liners, other vessels, there's huge scope.


5) Scotland is underrepresented at the top table with the lack of its own seat. For years, the UK has failed to stand up properly for Scotland's fishing and agriculture industries. Scotland needs it's own voice to stand up for itself. Scotland's capacity for renewable energy would also make it a vital asset to the EU, perhaps furthering the say that Scotland would have. Scotland currently has 6 MEPs, Luxembourg has more. Scotland may have a smaller voice than the UK, but it would be its own voice.


On the NATO point, there's nothing that states that NATO members must contribute to the nuclear weapons held by three countries. Only 8 out of NATO's 28 members are involved in the nuclear sharing programme; 20 are not. Scotland would be the 21st. Any conflict entered into has to be accepted by the Scottish parliament, as Libya would have been and Iraq wouldn't have been. It's quite simple really. Scotland doesn't need to have WMDs on its soil as a member of NATO, and thus the constitution isn't contradictory. Please feel free to retort, I've done my best to address the points raised.

The UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just two. Much much much more. In fact as war goes, we are pretty much world leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain

On the first part, a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, and the 5 wealthiest families own more than the poorest 5 million is not equal. The wealth distribution is clearly not as fair as it could and should be.

The Scottish parliament's makeup in itself is produces a more equal system. Each region has a representative 7 MSPs and one for each constituency. It produces significantly better representation and thus wouldn't lead to a central belt centric parliament. However, I would like to see powers decentralised; decisions are best taken at the most local level.

The mention of South Africa is ludicrous and the point is moot. You know that's not at all what we advocate.

If you want to belittle the referendum to one man, should I vote no because Gordon Brown supports a no vote - a man that oversaw the financial crash? Of course not. It is ridiculous to whittle this debate down to one man's business credentials.

1) If it ain't broke don't fix it, famous words. If it worked I wouldn't want to fix it, but I believe that maintaining the status quo is not right for the people of Scotland. We are enduring policies that we didn't vote for, and despite past successes of the Union, we need to look at the current proposition and see if it's working for us. You mentioned business, if you were a partner in a business that was successful 50 years ago, but was failing now, would you still stick? I know I wouldn't...

2) The Scottish parliament only deals with devolved issues. Currently we see Scottish MPs effecting no change at Westminster.

They voted against the bedroom tax, trident, Iraq war, privatisation of the Royal Mail, increase on VAT but that all happened anyway. Scotland has little to no say in reserved matters.

The Tories have one MP in Scotland that point is null and void. If we were dealing in a PR system, the point would hold some substance, but we're not and it doesn't.

One out of 59 and that party governs.
Seems awfully fair to me.

3) I'm not an economist, but economists have recommended a currency union as the best deal for Scotland. I cannot remember the full details, but a country can only control 2 of the 3 monetary levers; exchange rate, interest rates and another. Seeing as Scotland would want to be on a par with the UK, and indeed with Europe, not having control over one of the levers would be the same with our own currency and thus is no more independent than a currency union.

In short, a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty.

4) It should be noted that Scotland too has a strong and diverse economy; recent reports - such as the GERS report - suggested that our finances are stronger than the UK's. Standard and Poor said that we would get a AAA credit rating.

It's worth remembering that the UK has slashed defence jobs in Scotland

an independent Scotland would be able to offer our shipyards to the world.

It doesn't have to be warships for the UK. A Scottish Navy, cruise liners, other vessels, there's huge scope.

5) Scotland is underrepresented at the top table with the lack of its own seat. For years, the UK has failed to stand up properly for Scotland's fishing and agriculture industries.

Scotland currently has 6 MEPs, Luxembourg has more.

Scotland may have a smaller voice than the UK, but it would be its own voice.

On the NATO point, there's nothing that states that NATO members must contribute to the nuclear weapons held by three countries. Only 8 out of NATO's 28 members are involved in the nuclear sharing programme; 20 are not. Scotland would be the 21st.

Any conflict entered into has to be accepted by the Scottish parliament, as Libya would have been and Iraq wouldn't have been.

Scotland doesn't need to have WMDs on its soil as a member of NATO, and thus the constitution isn't contradictory.

Please feel free to retort, I've done my best to address the points raised.

I don't know enough (or really care) about other referendum campaigns to begin doing that. I'm stating my own perceptions as an outsider. Maybe you could help me?

The point I'm making is that Better Together, even going by the name alone, would be expected to put a positive spin on the benefits of the UK.

This is not out of Nationalism/Patriotism for Scotland but I am voting Yes in September. I just want our country to be run by the people we vote for instead of the conservatives based in West Minster

Funny then how the number of people in poverty in Scotland actually decreased by 20,000 last year then, isn't it? That's Scottish Government figures there, reflecting a reduction that occurred UK-wide.

On the first part, a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, and the 5 wealthiest families own more than the poorest 5 million is not equal. The wealth distribution is clearly not as fair as it could and should be.