FREEDOM!!!!

As an outsider, that comes across as surprisingly reasonable and non-condescending for a statement by Cameron (or his speechwriters). I'd be curious to see his papers that spell out the actual benefits of remaining part of the UK, though.

You are not the only one!

But I could point a few things out in that declaration, and being me, I will-

"As Britain’s Prime Minister I’ve always been clear that this is a decision for people living in Scotland to make."

Except when he was trying to get the decision for when the referendum would be and what the question would be and the timetable set at Westminister, overruling the Scottish Parliament.

"Over three centuries we have built world-renowned institutions like the NHS and BBC, fought for freedom and democracy in two World Wars, and pioneered and traded around the world. Our ancestors explored the world together and our grandfathers went into battle together as do our kith and kin today – and this leaves deep, unbreakable bonds between the peoples of these islands."

We also made slavery a mass international trade, profitted from supplying massive quanties of opiates to the chinese and committed atrocities against nations across the globe- down to what you emphasis this.

"Scots can take important decisions affecting their daily lives: decisions about what their children are taught at school; the way in which hospitals provide care; and how public transport operates across the country."

But we cant raise our own capital or exploit our own resources. All our money comes in a block grant set by and given by Westminister. We get pocket money to spend. We have no control over any fiscal levers, we cant set corporation taxes, business rates, VAT, and all major issues like foreign policy, taxes, military are reserved for Westinister.

"they can do so without losing the benefits of being part of the UK and having a full say in its future – economic strength and opportunity, international influence and national security."

Camerons govt has taken the country into a historic triple dip recession so economic strength not so good, international influence- we dont want to play empires, you can keep it, we will be happy to have our fair democractic voice alongside other nations, national security- the last two Westminister governments have taken us into illegal wars and increased the levels of terrorism and danger.
Also national securtity includes nukes- now many in Scotland do think its a good negotiating card if the other side know you have a big stick- but when the big stick might go off in your hand its a bit of a worry they are all placed in Scotland and none in England and right next to our densest popualtion centre.

All valid points, I think. I've seen you mention the nuke thing before. Is there any reason they're all located in Scotland? I've wondered about that before.

Yeah England doesnt want them there. Keeps the english voters happy- they get to be a nuclear power but they dont have to get their hands dirty.
And all you need to govern the UK are a majority of englishh voters- get that doesnt matter how the rest of us vote.
Ive lived my whole life well within the blast radius (and that really meant something during the Cold War especially).

I am reading the governemnts document on Indpendence- a rather dry read- this stood out though-

Integration:
The UK’s economy is fully integrated, and Scotland’s economic performance (excluding income from volatile North Sea oil and gas) closely follows the UK average.

So our ecomony- excluding our most valuable resource! is the same as Englands- what is it with it added in?
Who knows? The paper doesnt tell us- just warns us its volatile- damn rigth its volatile, every year the price changes, up the way and its worth more!

"Until the outcome of the referendum is known, neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government has a mandate to carry out these negotiations which, by their nature, would involve putting the interests of people in one part of the UK above the interests of another part of the UK.
All UK Government ministers have a responsibility to the citizens of all parts of the UK, and cannot undertake any activity that would undermine those duties.
•
For that reason, neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government can enter into talks in advance of a referendum on the terms of independence. To do so would involve unpicking the fabric of the UK before people in Scotland have had a chance to have their say in the referendum."

Or to put it another way Cameron keeps promising us if we vote no he will negotiate more powers for the devolved Scottish Parlaiment- but he wont tell us what they might be or when we might get them- supposedly for the reasons given above.
But it rather leaves a no vote as much in the dark as a yes vote.

On the one side we are being asked to vote for independence, which is unprecedented so basically no one knows exactly what will happen regards treaties, EU, national debt ect
But on the otherhand Cameron is saying if we vote no we wont know when we vote exactly what that means either- is it a vote for the status quo? Further powers? Devo-max? No one in the no campaign will tell us.

We need beter than political games on this from both sides to decide the bigget political issue of the last 300 years with a clear head. And if we are going to break up the UK we owe it to the rest of the counry to know and to be clear and able to say why we are doing it.
At the moment we are being asked to go to the polling both to make a choice between two unknowns. Its too big an issue for them to being playing at brinkmanship and silly-buggers with

One would think it wouldn't have gotten to the point of a referendum unless there was already a pretty good plan in place if Scotland did become independent. Are you saying Scotland doesn't really have a plan?

"Under paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement, both the UK Government and Scottish Government are committed to continuing to work together in good faith in light of the outcome of the referendum, whatever it is. As the UK Government has already stated, this means that in the event of a majority vote for independence, the UK Government would engage in a process to bring it about. But that does not mean that representatives of the continuing UK would or could facilitate everything that the Scottish Government has said it hopes to achieve through independence or that the details of that process can be spelled out now."




Halfwise- problem is if we become independant its a first- first time a member state of UN, EU, NATO has split through the ballot box into two seperate states- does Scotland carry on as a member- with the same deals and treaties inherited from the UK? Or are we a completely new country that has to renegoiate from scratch? DO we revert to post 1706 staus when the Treaty of Union was signed? If so our international treaties are a bit out of date!
Would we have to adopt the Euro to be part of the EU? Would we retain sterling instead as part of the striling block countries?


So on the one side we have the independence side who simply can't answer all these questions because we wont know till we try as there is no precedents to draw on.

And on the unionist side we have Cameron telling us he wont even discuss what might happen in the case of a yes vote until after its happened. And if we vote no promising extra powers that he again refuses to discuss, meaning we dont know what they are, when we might get them or if they are even worth having, or if he will give them at all- good chance Cameron wont even still be in power by the time it gets to negotiations.

Uncertainites on all sides at the moment.

I can understand there being a lot of points that the Scotland power structure would be unwilling to stick their necks out on, but one would think an outline of several possibly options would have been put forward, just to give the people a better idea of what they are voting for.

But expecting something reasonable out of politics is likely an unreasonable request....

I rather suspect ths is the Unionists tactic here- if they can create a fog of uncertainty around the whole thing people will probably not take the gamble.

A large part of the document released today for example is based on the principle the paper sets out that the remainder of the UK wold be the 'successor' state and inherit all the treaties and deals and Scotland would be treated as an entirely new state.
The entire latter half of the document lays out all the problems and fears this raises based on this premise.

Except its not clear that is what would happen- as Scotland as part of the UK has retaned its own borders and judicial system throught Union and have been EU citizens since it began exactly how we will be recognised and treated by other nations is an unknown still- and will remain so until it happens.

Right now every bit of info we get you have to first try to discern and sift for political manoevring and games- when what we need is for all the politicians to shut the hell up and let the experts in constituional and instituational fields give us some actual hard information. Probably the last thing we will get.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: what we need is for all the politicians to shut the hell up and let the experts ......give us some actual hard information. Probably the last thing we will get.

You and us both!

Are polling numbers being published regularly? My guess is that the political strategists will be watching the trends as the date gets closer. If it looks like the vote may pass you'll get increasingly clearer offers from the Unionist camp, but only just enough that they think it will defeat the vote. (Why pay more than necessary, right?)

If it looks like the vote is going to fail on it's own, you'll get nothing, of course.

Polls vary but so far have all been small scale- thousand people that sort of thing- last one the Unionists were touting as it showed 23% in favour of independence- when previous it had been holding about 32%

What they dont tend to tell you is that on average across polls the most popular choice is for 'devo-max'-not independence but a lot more powers to ur paliament short of actual independence (primarily the ability to raise our own money and spend it without needing a handout from England*)- the one thing we are not being offered to vote for.
Whilst there is no clear support for Independence, the one thing everyone is united on is there is no support for the status quo.


* and it speaks volumes that despite telling the english they bankroll Scotland they dont want us to raise and keep our own money but to send it to Westminister for them to decide what we get back to spend.
If we were costing england money why would they be so keen for us not to do it ourselves and save the english taxpayer money? Would be a vote winer in england.
Problem is its not true- all independent reports show we contribute more to the UK than we get given back. The government document Ive been quoting opens with a statement saying Scotland could stand as a viable independent nation.

Some reponse to a particularly contentious part of the UK government report.

Heres the contentious bit-

'The opinion from Professors Crawford and Boyle concludes that, in the event of a vote in favour of leaving the UK, in the eyes of the world and as a matter of law, Scotland would become an entirely new state.
In international law, new or 'successor' states are regarded as fundamentally different in law from 'continuator' states.
A successor state, in contrast with a continuing state, does not automatically inherit the rights, obligations and powers of the predecessor."

Heres the SNP response to this-

'The UK government's position is staggeringly arrogant.
The idea that if Scotland votes democratically to be independent then the rest of the UK waltzes off with all the rights and Scotland is left with nothing undermines any suggestion that we're an equal partner within the UK at the moment.
It also begs the question, if that's true of rights, it must be true of liabilities like the UK national debt as well."

Also worth of note the BBC policial commentators pov on things-

Profs James Crawford and Alan Boyle clearly think it is "most likely" that independence would create only one new state - Scotland.
They expect the rest of the UK would just carry on, having inherited the current UK's treaties and memberships of international organisations.
Scotland, they argue, would have to negotiate its way in the world from scratch, including joining the EU as a new member.
However these eminent lawyers do not completely discount other possibilities.
In the case of the EU, they say automatic membership is "not inconceivable" if member states were "willing to adjust the usual requirements" in Scotland's circumstances.
They also note the "importance of negotiations in predetermining the consequences of independence".
In other words, if the UK and Scottish governments wanted to agree a Czechoslovak style "velvet divorce" creating two new, equal successor states, they could do so.
Of course, the UK government does not want to run a new state and has ruled out any pre-negotiation with the Scottish government, because it does not support independence.
Creating two states from one is not just a legal matter.
Domestic and international politics are also in play.' - Glenn Campbell

This is rather intriguing- from the scottish sun-

On January 22, an obscure Washington-based political blog called the Wayne Madsen Report claimed that MI6 is behind a scheme to discredit the SNP.

But Wayne Madsen also claimed that Britain’s spies are hard at work on “crafting a scenario that points to an independent Scotland being vulnerable to international terrorism” and that “Scotland will find having to establish its own intelligence services will be costly and offset any financial benefits Scotland might otherwise see from independence.”

Funnily enough, a week later, David Liddington, the Foreign Office Minister, came to Edinburgh and said just that.
He told Westminster’s Foreign Affairs Committee that the SNP had yet to answer the “very serious question” of how it would replace Britain’s spy network.
“The costs of doing so would be enormous,” he said.
And at the end of last week, Home Secretary Theresa May, came to Scotland for a meeting with senior editors.
Mrs May is responsible for law and order, justice, police and prisons, all that stuff — stuff which is all controlled by Holyrood, stuff she has nothing to say about in Scotland. But she also covers spooks.
I have no idea what was discussed at that meeting. I was not there. But I could make an educated guess.

So the storyline seems pretty straightforward. The UK has a vast, international network of spies and security agents and it has not been over run by Islamic fundamentalist mentalists.
But the cost of setting up a separate Scottish spy outfit would be impossible to meet. Scotland would not have an international spy network so, obviously, Scotland would be conquered by al-Qaeda. Probably the Tuesday after independence.
It’s a song we’ve heard before. I was there when the former Conservative Minister, Lord Peter Fraser warned that the RAF would have to bomb Scottish airports to stop them falling into enemy hands. They’d do it with a heavy heart, of course but they’d have to do it.'

I saw somewhere that Sean Connery is an active supporter of the SNP, so I figure you've got the spy stuff covered.

I think he has retired!

The Declaration of Arbroath is the most famous document in Scottish history. It was signed on the 6th of April in the year 1320. In a skillfully written document, the Declaration was designed to persuade the Pope John XXII to recognise Scotland's legitimacy as a separate nation, with a separate King of Scots. The Pope had sympathised with English claims to Scotland. The Declaration is considered to be the world's first written declarations of independence.

The Declaration contains the inspirational words "It is not for glory or riches or honours that we fight, but only for liberty, which no good man will consent to lose but with his life." The United States Congress has recognised the historical significance of the Declaration of Arbroath as a forerunner to the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and legislated for a "Tartan Day" to be held annually on the 6rd of April.

I thought Tartan Day was just something dreamt up by our Tourist Board! Nice to see America acknowledging some of it Scottish heritage offcially though.

Firstly the Declaration of Arbroath set the will and the wishes of the people above the King.

Though they were bound to him 'both by law and by his merits' it was so that their freedom might be maintained. If he betrayed them he would be removed and replaced.

This remarkable obligation placed upon a feudal monarch by his feudal subjects may be explained in part by the fact that Bruce was still a heather king to many of them, still a wild claimant ruling upon sufferance and success. But the roots of his kingship were Celtic, and a Celtic tradition was here invoked, the memory of the Seven Earls, the Seven Sons of Cruithne the Pict in who, it was believed, had rested the ancient right of tanistry, the elevation of kings by selection.

This unique relationship of king and people would influence their history henceforward, and would reach its climax in the Reformation and the century following, when a people's Church would declare and maintain its superiority over earthly crowns.

Secondly, the manifesto affirmed the nation's independence in a way no battle could, and justified it with a truth that is beyond nation and race. Man has a right to freedom and a duty to defend it with his life.

The natural qualifications put upon this by a medieval baron are irrelevant, as are the reservations which slave-owning Americans placed upon their declaration of independence. The truth once spoken cannot be checked, the seed once planted controls its own growth, and the liberty which men secure for themselves must be given by them to others, or it will be taken as they took it. Freedom is a hardy plant and must flower in equality and brotherhood.

From The Lion in the North: One Thousand Years of Scotland's History, Penguin Books.

Latest polling results-

The Ipsos Mori survey revealed that support for breaking up the UK is up four points to 34 per cent, with 55 per cent wanting to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom — down three points.

The SNP Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is Scotland’s most popular politician.
She scored an approval rating — the gap between those who say she’s doing a good job and those who don’t — of +17 points.
Green leader Patrick Harvie is on +13, Ms Lamont scores +8, Mr Salmond has plunged to +7 and Mr Darling of the Better Together Campaign scores +1.

Prime Minister David Cameron achieved an embarrassing -40 points.

The latest figures also showed 43 per cent of people in deprived areas backed independence while 65 per cent of those living in more affluent parts wanted Scotland to stay part of the UK.

Support for the union was also stronger among females, with 61 per cent backing it while 41 per cent of men favoured independence.

The SNP is top in people’s voting intentions with 43 per cent saying they would vote for the Nationalists if there was a Scottish Parliament election tomorrow.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The latest figures also showed 43 per cent of people in deprived areas backed independence while 65 per cent of those living in more affluent parts wanted Scotland to stay part of the UK.

This seems like a pretty confusing way to report the statistic. There's only an eight percentage point difference in support for independence, but by reporting the second figure in terms of percentage who were pro-Union it makes the gap look bigger. To me, anyway.

Yeah, you really need to see %for, %against, and %undecided to begin to understand where people stand.

Often the %undecided is as significant as the %for and %against because it's an indicator of how flexible the general population is. In other words, it gives you a good idea how "hard" or "soft" the %for and %against numbers are.

I understand you better when you've got a rude vegetable in your hand! or at least,a piccy of one !

Here's a more telling set of numbers:


Scottish Independence Poll Shows More Voters Undecided Over U.K.
By Peter Woodifield - 2013-01-14T09:31:40Z

Voters in Scotland are becoming more undecided over whether the country should gain independence from the U.K., with support for going it alone unchanged and opposition to it declining, a new poll showed.

Backing for independence is 28 percent, the same as three months ago, according to a TNS-BMRB poll published in today’s Glasgow-based Herald newspaper. Those wanting to stay in the U.K. represented 48 percent, down from 53 percent, as the proportion of people who haven’t made up their mind rose five percentage points to 24 percent of respondents.

So that's 28% for independence, 48% against, and 24% undecided, with the trend moving from No to Undecided.

Now that the No vote is below 50% the strategy becomes very much about winning (or in the case of Cameron winning back) the large Undecided vote.

If this trend continues you can expect to hear some more concrete offers from Cameron in the near future.

Well (former) Cardinal Obrien has been keeping me amused.
I have mentioned him before as he has been the most vocal opponent in Scotland to the SNP same sex marriage bill- in fact he has gone as far as to condemn homosexuals.
All the funnier then he has had to resign after being outed for his gay shenanigans with other priests. The man can not fall low enough for me- he deserves every bit of bad press, every accusation thrown at him after what he has been hypocritically saying his whole life about homosexuals being deviants.
I hope he gets ten fold all the pain and agony he had has caused to so many people who are gay and struggle to cope with it in society made harder by men like him condemning them.
Surely its time the Catholic Church was properly investigated by outside authorities- as when you take all the sex scandals collectively it seems the true purpose of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with religion rather it is a big club for dodgy sexual practices- and a lot of it the illegal immoral underage sort.
Why the Church is left to 'deal' with these problems when it has shown itself incompetent of doing so, and more concerned with hiding the facts and protecting abusers is beyond me.