FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Its also worth noting that Scotland has always had its own legal system from England. So the EU law that is already integrated (all of it) is integrated into a legal system that has always been separate.
The retention by Scotland from the beginning of Union of a separate legal, education and other systems is one of the reasons we have always remained recognised as a separate nation, and not say like Wales, which is not.

So the SNP would have the peoples backing for going straight into the EU then?

That would be an incredibly contentious issue here in Norway. The pro EU people have lost two national votes and now we pay the EU several hundrerd million norwegian kroner a year to be semi attached through the EEA.

Are they planning on holding any EU vote in case of independence, Petty?- Blue

Not in Scotland- the SNP position is they favour EU membership. And whilst there is a vocal anti-europe voice in Scotland its a minority one.

But you are right to point out the possibly that within a year of Scotland getting independence, if it votes YES, we might be in and England might have voted itself out.

Problem if we vote No to independence is that we might find England voting us out in that referendum, even if every person in Scotland votes to stay in.

And for me its that huge imbalance in voting, and the lack of any political voice for Scotland and her people at Westminster thats the overriding reason to vote YES, even if it means short term pain of being out of the sterling zone and the EU.
I would still vote YES, as whats most important to me is the lack of democracy and the lack of the will of the Scottish people to make any difference to government policy or set a direction for our country.

In terms of cash we pay up more than our fair share, in terms of democracy we dont have any. Our votes dont count and make no difference. We get what England wants.

The current position is a classic example of it- ruled over by a Tory led government who only have 1 Scottish MP and are the fifth party in Scotland behind the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens, and yet they are our government dictating the law to us.

That to me is not only wrong, its unsustainable.

For me the argument is basically as simple as, would Scotland do better as an independent nation?

And for me the answer is yes. The Scottish people would be better off in an independent Scotland.

Alex Salmond on Hignfy.

Quite a great episode actually.

"For me the argument is basically as simple as, would Scotland do better as an independent nation?
And for me the answer is yes. The Scottish people would be better off in an independent Scotland." - Blue

The simple clarity you express there Blue is precisely what the No campaign is designed to confuse and cloud with fear.

If I look into my crystal ball, I see that an independent Scotland would be better for the Scottish people for the next couple decades, but in the long run the effects of weakening the  economy and strategic importance of England would have a gradual chilling effect over all the British Isles over time.  

Independence would perhaps be better than it is now, but even better than that would be to use independence as leverage to negotiate a strong alliance on more equitable terms. Remember that the word that follows "Divide" is "Conquer" in the global economic battlefield of the 21st century.

(Or you could apply for statehood, as I've suggested before..... just sayin'....  )

There David you do indeed hit upon something.

The most popular option in Scotland is what is known as Devomax- where we remain in the UK but gain control over our own revenue and spending thus giving more accountability to the Scottish Parliament and allowing the people of Scotland to directly through their votes indicate the direction they wish such spending to go in.

If such an opinion was on the ballot paper YES would not have a hope in hell of winning. Devomax is constantly polled as the most popular option by as much as 70%. The least popular option among both Yes and No voters is to maintain the status-quo- no-one wants that as it clearly is not working. If it was working and popular we would not find ourselves at this stage in the first place.

So why did Cameron refuse Devomax? Why isn't it on the ballot paper if it would kill the YES campaign stone dead?

Because Westminster does not want to hand Scotlands revenue over to the Scottish Parliament as they rather like it all going to Westminster to spend as they see fit.

This is true of all the Westminster parties.

Scottish Labour were floating the idea that in the event of a No vote the Scottish Parliament should be given just such powers- within a week they were backtracking after Labour HQ in London vetoed such an option.

Its not that Scots would not prefer such an arrangement, its that we re not being given the option of it. Just Yes or No, in or out.

And as I mentioned in a previous post whilst all three main parties can join together to agree what we cannot have, the talks to decide what we can have if we vote No have entirely fallen apart among the three main parties and they now say there will be no joint announcement on such offers before the vote.

So a No vote is just as much a leap in the dark as a Yes vote. We dont know what it actually means afterwards, if anything.

More 'interesting' choices of story link from the BBC Scotland site- the main headline is about childcare in Scotland- 'Academic to lead childcare review' and as is usual with the BBC site there are four connected stories beneath this to click on.
The first, third and fourth are all rightly connected to the subject matter-

MSPs call for 'right to childcare'
Salmond outlines childcare 'savings'
Scots referendum blueprint unveiled (focusing on the childcare provisions)

The three all relate to childcare issues and are all quite positive for the SNP.
But the second link is -

Darling: White Paper is 'slapdash'

An article which rubbishes the SNP independence white paper and which makes no reference to the childcare provisions in it at all, its also from the 27th November 2013.

So whats this old out of place report it doing there? Or could the BBC can just not have a piece on the subject without adding in a random old story rubbishing the Yes campaign?

After watching the video of the speach I also felt the article was a bit short on bringing up Salmonds points, Petty.

As for what best for Scotland, I think you hit upon it when talking about the lack of democratic input on the UK as a whole. Whit the huge difference in population sizes Scotland will never get the full opportunity to move in the direction it needs as part of the UK. Therefore Scotland will be better of on their own in my opinion, and not just for the next couple of decades.  

Thanks Blue for taking the time to watch the vid. Glad its not just my own take on things colouring my view.

As to the democratic deficiency- just London can outvote all of Scotland by 3 million plus votes, let alone taking all of England into account.
We vote for what we want and we get what England wants every time. It cant go on like that no matter how much the Westminster elite would like it too.

Bluebottle wrote: Therefore Scotland will be better of on their own in my opinion, and not just for the next couple of decades.  

{{{{Hmmmm......It sounds to me like some Vikinghobbits might be planning an invasion!  }}}}

We could be a new superpower, just think of how much oil we would have between us!   

"Intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has been elected to the post of student rector at Glasgow University.
Previous rectors at the university include Winnie Mandela and Mordechai Vanunu.
Among the post-holder's key duties are to attend the university court, which administers resources, work with the students' representative council, and to bring student concerns to the attention of university management.
Each rector serves a three-year term."- BBC

And everyone thinks he's in Russia!

My big issue with all of this is that actually, I think the whole thing is very selfish. Is the whole point of a union to be stronger as a whole? The nationalist argument is pretty much saying 'fuck the poor parts of the rest of the UK, why should we support them. It's our money.'

Now... don't get me wrong in thinking I believe our leaders in Westminster are angels because most of them are dickheads. But to be honest,  I think the fact that some Scottish people are clearly thinking about their own interests and somehow think they are more deserving than others is a bit backward.

We might as well go back to city states and stick a big fucking wall around London to keep the poor people out. Soon enough I am sure the people of Edinburgh will be complaining that all the wealth they generate is being spent subsidising farms rather than fixing potholes in the road.

Westminster needs to get its act together and stop the shit they are coming out with right now too. Not just for Scotland but for everyone. That won't happen though and you know what... an independent Scotland will have exactly the same issues too... There is always a minority that feel they are being shit on!

But what if you think the Union is not making you stronger but weaker?
What if you think its unfair, unbalanced and denies you a democratic voice?

Is it selfish to want a fair, balanced system in which your vote counts for something rather than nothing?

Is it selfish to want better social care, better job opportunities and better living standards for your people?

I dont think it is. The things Scotland as a nation strives for cannot be achieved in the current set up, and the political direction of our two countries is increasingly opposed.
England is more and more inward looking, more and more isolationist, more and more anti-immigration, anti-Europe and more and more right of centre.
Scotland is pro-Europe, pro-immigration, outward looking and has a centre left consensus across all parties (even the Tories, hell the Scottish Tories are led by a gay woman in Scotland, I cant imagine that going down well at Westminster with the english traditionalist Tories in the Shires)

As I mentioned above the most popular option in Scotland is devomax within the Union, but Westminster is denying even the option of voting for that, so that leaves only an in-out choice.

Nor do I think the SNP are saying fuck you to the poorer parts. England is always claiming to be the main wealth of the UK subsiding all us poor Jocks, perhaps they can redistribute some of their wealth to help the poorer parts of England (which they should be doing anyway) whilst the Scottish government can help the poorer parts of Scotland (for which we need control over our revenue and tax system which is currently denied to us).

As the Union stands its not helping the poor parts now anyway (see the bedroom tax for the latest abysmal assault on the poor), nor has it been since at least Thatcher (who created massive black spots in employment in the north of England by destroying the manufacturing base).

I have no idea why you think Scots see themselves as more worthy- we dont, we just see ourselves as unable to do anything to make things better as it stands. And the way to change that is to take some control back ourselves over our own country.
Believe me if Scotland could take over Westminster and follow a similar course as we have up here of social democracy, we would- but we cant because England never votes with us, with the exception of Blair who had to shift Labour to the right of the Tories to get England to vote for him. And as England has the bulk of the votes our voices are simply drowned out by the greater numbers every single time.

I said before for me this doesn't come down to money- Id still vote yes even if we were out the sterling zone and out of the EU, despite the short term hardship that would bring because I believe its worth the pain for the greater democratic freedom it offers and greater accountability to the people.

As the Declaration of Arbroath put it in 1320-

'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

A bit melodramatic and of its time perhaps, but the underlying principle still stands and always has in Scotland- its never been just about the money.

For me Scotland has always been a seperate nation and people. A fact the union of parlaments can't hide. So them going their seperate way when it's for the best for the people of Scotland I see as natural.   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:We could be a new superpower, just think of how much oil we would have between us!   

A union of oil, fish and whisky?   

Something to contemplate, yes.

For your people? So are we dividing based upon race then?  What about 'your people' who are pro union?  The ones who see themselves as British? I think you are painting a big brush there and doing exactly what you suggest Westminster is doing. Like I said, there will always be a minority that don't agree... so do we just keep splitting stuff up until each and every district has its own law? Where should it stop?

Or maybe, we can all stop being such a bunch of idiots and do what is right for everyone? That might mean that richer areas have to deal with having a central entity dividing the spoils up to benefit everyone. You may not like it, but you don't live in the Republic of Jason Campbell. There are other people around many of whom don't agree with you but will have to live through the changes they don't want the same as you would if the vote is pro union. Plus you are affecting lots of people that don't have the vote in the rest of the U.K.

Blue - isn't it strange that after all this time, the Scots haven't lost the most important thing... Their identity. Same as Welsh,  gordies,  those pasty eating cornish. Not sure what that view point has to do with what is best for the overall good though...?

Upon race? No, but certainly along nationality.
You point out yourself - 'the Scots haven't lost the most important thing... Their identity'*

We are Scots, but thats not a race, it doesnt matter what race you are- we have always been a mongrel nation, if you live here, work here, pay taxes here, raise a family here you are Scottish, your race is irrelevant. Thats why everyone who lives in Scotland regardless of origin has a vote. No one will be checking peoples race on the way into the voting booth.

As to those who are pro-union, if they lose I expect them to abide by the democratic will of the nation. Same goes if the No camp win, I will accept the democratic result and work from there.
Thats how democracy works afterall.
And at least the referendum will be democratic with the voice of the people being heard. Unlike Westminster elections where the Scottish voice is irrelevant.

"do we just keep splitting stuff up until each and every district has its own law? Where should it stop?"

Actually I am all in favour of devolving power to as small a base as possible, it makes democracy more immediate and politicians more accountable to the people who elect them.

I think England is asking Scotland to accept a situation England never would- you would never give all the revenue you raise in England to a Parliament in another country and accept a yearly handout in return, you would not put up with your taxes and benefits being set by someone else, you would never put up with your votes being superseded by a larger neighbouring country election after election. Yet we are expected to see this as somehow a good thing?

You say we should do whats right for everyone. How? How when an entire countries votes are meaningless do you do that?
How does Scotland which is majority centre left bring about change when we are simply outvoted by a country that is majority centre right?
That's not doing what's right for everyone, its doing what's right for only one country, England.

As to the rest of the UK not having a vote- are you suggesting they should? And Scotland can then be voted in or out on English votes, as if England did have the vote you would outvote us yet again no matter what we decided and we would have to accept whatever decision England came to. I cant see that working out well at all. What would happen if Scotland voted Yes and England No? Or vice versa? We would yet again just have to abide by what England decides.

We didn't get to this point of having a referendum because people felt they were being treated fairly. We got here because people can see there is a problem that Westminster is not interested in addressing and has made no attempt to for the decades over which the referendum has come about.
That is why poll after poll has shown that among Yes and No voters the one option out of independence, devomax and union that is least popular is maintaining the status quo- even the no voters dont think that's working. Its why the No camp are making noises, if not actual concrete promises, of further devolved powers after a No vote. If all the No camp was offering was more of the same they would lose votes.



* it should also maybe be worth mentioning we retained our identity in-spite of history- after all it was England who banned the wearing of tartan, banned the bagpipes and all but eradicated our native tongue from the mainland by making it a punishable offence to speak it following the Jacobite Uprising of 1745.

Firstly... I didn't mean race as in black, white or other. But you say 'our people' like they you are a different breed. You're not.

And you suggest that the democratic process doesn't work because you don't get your way. So then you have a minority group in new Scotland that always gets outvoted. So what happens there... oh yes... that's democracy!!!!

You want change because you don't get what you want. Because the majority of your nation isn't that if the rest of the UK. Well newsflash... you get what you want, there will be a new minority who become what you are fighting not to be. But fuck them... you got what you wanted.

And again... I am not trying to defend Westminster because I think they are a waste of space. But I don't think this separatist attitude is the answer.

And for the record, if a single world government could be formed with the well being of everyone always at its heart... I would gladly vote for all powers to go to them.

Truth of the matter is that will never happen and it will never happen anywhere at any level. That is the beauty of human nature... We are a bunch of fuck wits!

I used the term 'our people' solely to differentiate the people of Scotland from the rest of the UK, which they are for the purpose of this referendum, only people in Scotland have the vote.
And we are, and always have been a separate country and nation, we are in a Union of countries, we have never been one country.

And I dont suggest that it doesn't work because we dont get our way, I am suggesting it doesn't work because the odds are so heavily stacked against us we will never, ever get our way on anything. England will always be able to outvote us and decide our countries future for us.
That to me seems like a democratic deficiency as well as a dangerous set up that breeds resentment.

"if a single world government could be formed with the well being of everyone always at its heart... I would gladly vote for all powers to go to them."

And what if this government you handed all your powers to then largely ignored you, took your resources and used them as they saw fit and largely for their own benefit and implemented policies that were the opposite of what you consider to be for 'the well being of everyone'? Would you still think it a good idea to hand all your power to them?

But there will always be a minority Petty. By getting independence it will just mean you aren't it.

Oh I daresay I will be in the minority again at some point in the future over something. Thats ok though because the people of the country will still be the ones deciding democratically the way forward, not the people of another country deciding it for us. And at least technically it would be possible to persuade others over time as the numbers are not overwhelming.
But that last part is not possible in the UK set up, the numbers are just too huge. Its to imbalanced. Its 5 millions votes against 53 million.

Not for the ones who wanted to stay as part of the UK. Or the other minorities.

Can't have it both ways Petty. You are moaning that it's all unfair because it's 53 million versus 5. You have a majority left against the English majority right. You will then have a Scottish majority left against a Scottish minority right.

So 4.5 million versus 500000. Can't see that ever changing... but again, you get what you want so who cares about them?