Can I ask a serious question here.

Have ANY of you anti independence people posting here actually done any independent research, rather than just regurgitating media pieces?

Because you're all making very definative statements which in reality are little more than the aforementioned regurgitation of what the media is puting to print.

Its well known that from the BBC to the daily rags, bias exists and sides are taken.

 

Absolutely.

From the link above even the pro union BBC admit no jobs or operations transferred.

 

The much larger English client base is what they are worried about.

If it's a Yes and the UK screens are full of overjoyed Scots screaming "**** off you English *****" there's a reasonable chance they will think - I might just close my Scottish bank account and help out England as the Jocks have taken their oil money and run".

If I was in England and suddenly found myself with a foreign bank account I probably would close it.

 

I have attended a debate by the local chamber of commerce and have read the white paper and more. I feel I have done my due diligence and have already voted no. Clearly you are not of the opinion that anyone that disagrees with you is thick? I think the media are doing a good job of balance and the accusations of bias are few, and coming from both sides.

 

My biggest concern is a possible rise in whisky costs.

 

You're missing the point. If they don't declare their support one way or another, they would be deemed to be impartial.
However, going by the past couple of front pages, they are clearly in the "no" camp.

 

OK, I see what you were getting at, but I still don't think that makes them biased, in the true sense of the word.

 

Not sneaky at all, it was discussed and agreed by a number notable Scottish ministers, most notably , by Henry McLeish, a First Minister of Scotland who was at the time was the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution for Scotland. It was to do with bounderies for the British fisheries limits, not about stealing oil and gas.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/90323s01.htm

 

Alex Salmond "cusp of making history"

Is he drunk on the thought of being in the history books rather than doing what's right for Scotland?

I've no vested interest either way, but in the modern world bigger is better so far as economies are concerned.

 

John

My point is aimed at those on here who are simply linking to media articles, that are clearly very much one sided - from both camps and accepting the headlines as fact, without delving deeper, or reading between the lines, or understanding why a particular stance is being taken.

I know that the English media are reporting matters differently to those in Scotland. I am also fully aware (as are many) that the BBC has much to lose from a "Yes" vote. BBC Scotland included.

Don't take my word for it - read the actual stsatement from RBS and compare that to how the press (and in particular the no campaign) are presenting it.

http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/stat...-domicile.html


I don't judge someone's intelligence on whether they agree or disagree with my standpoint on this, or anything for that matter. But I do judge their ability to present a reasoned argument based on the source and analysis/understanding of the infomation they use.

I know many highly intelligent people in both camps. What is interesting however, is that those in the yes camp to a man and women have no personal agenda. They all want a better Scotland, even if that means a bit of pain along the way. Those in the no camp, however, all have a personal agenda. They are all, without exception, worried as to how it will affect them financially in the imemdiate to short term. And that is pretty much all they are concerned with. I suspect you also have that agenda as regards NHS Scotland. Youve made clear as much on here.

If you read my posts on this thread you'll see that I have not been "championing independence". But I am more than happy to counter some of the spin thats being posted as fact, and respond appropriately to unecessary anti Scottish sentiment.

 

Yes, but he doesn't have the currency covered.

He's trying to hoodwink the Scots with talk of currency union.

Scotland can't be independent from what's left of the UK if it doesn't control its own money supply and interest rates.

So he can't control the cost of Scot govt borrowing, can't control the cost of business loans, mortgages, personal loans, credit card borrowing.

In short, he can't control the Scottish economy.

 

You've got me exactly summed up there. I'm worried about my personal finances over the second half of my life - ie the next 40 years or so. The first 20 years was very difficult. The next 20 years has flourished. The next 40 could be very difficult I fear.

I have no love of the NHS, I think it is a sinking ship and the sooner we let it sink the better. It is a golden goose that needs more than shooting. I don't think it is good for many patients, and personally if it wasn't there I could do a much better job in an open market. I have to admit I'm only bothered about the patients in my care and that is where my responsibility and interest ends, broader issues are for politics.

 

Did you actually read it all?

Oil and gas is referred to. There was concern that this was more than just fisheries. There is significant concern that the order was passed without proper consultation (as is normal in such matters)

May well be the conspiracy theorists, but you can't deride Salmond as a lier and then accept the actions of other politicians without question of motive.

Just because Henry McLeish was Scottish doesn't make a difference. He was first minister by default following the death of Donald Dewar - Much as that arsehole Brown was forced upon the UK after Blair buggered off. McLeish lasted a year and then resigned due to being caught fiddling his expense.

A fine, trustworthy, upstanding example then...

 

This guy makes a No vote pretty convincing to be fair...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541

Perhaps the Yes voters can decipher, analyse and then rip apart but this whole currency union is a MASSIVE concern not just for Scottish people, but for English, Welsh and N. Irish too.

 

Dude - keep up...we've been through this already. Theres no hoodwinking going on. Maybe drag your **** out of Wales and see what's really happening up here before commenting on those lines

 

He's 100% right though.

Independent from Westminster but yet reliant on the Bank of England for setting monetary policy. You can argue until the cows come home but that is FACT and that is wrong and that is not independence.

Watch the video in the link above, sums it up very very well and will be persuading a lot of undecided into a No vote.

 

Good video.

 

All very elloquent by the Conservative councillor for one of Glasgow's most affluent areas.

He's not stating anything that's not already been said, to be honest.

Currency union is a big issue, for sure. However, do you expect those who don't want an independent Scotland to say "you can have what you want"? Of course not. Now Ive argued earler on this thread that the stance should be "we'll do what's best for all if it happens" but we all know politics doesnt work like that.

 

Yes, it is what we keep on and on coming back to.

It's the question "Yes" cannot answer and keep glossing over as dismissively as you just have....

How will an independent Scotland, bent on state investment and care and happiness for all, control its own economy?

_______________________________________
"It's the economy, stupid." James Carville, 1992

 

A well constructed video. The points he make are quite sobering with regards to losing representation in the UK whilst still having to allow them to have control over aspects of Scottish monetary policy.

 

Devildog are you suggesting that personal, present economic performance should be sacrificed on the vague notion that it will be better for following generations? Would you argue that things being better for following generations is more than a vague notion, or is it some Presbyterian type punishment-reward cycle? I might be slightly pejorative, but why should I throw away my security for some pie in the sky nationalist stuff? Where are the specifics?

 

I spent a fair bit of time going through both campaigns facebook pages

Jesus i am not saying this because i am voting yes

Firstly the yes campaign
There page is very nice lots of people showing there support it has close to 270000 likes
And everyone on the page conducts themself very nicely
One or two no voters posting and their questions being answered
The whole page is very positive


The better together facebook page with 190000 likes
Not joking the page is nothing but doom and gloom it is depression
Full of lies most of the articles which i am about to go on about
It is a political minefield not joking about this the amount of yes voters on that page is unbalievable
It is funny as hell as when a article is not true the yes voters in force start posting links to why it is not true
It is a war zone of opinions jesus it really shows how the people feel about the no campaign.

Could believe whats going on in the better together site
As i said i am not saying this because i am voting yes its just a observation

 

Maybe someone should ask the great Salmondi if small is so beautiful why has his government centralised the Police and Fire Services into a Scotland wide service ?

Does the small is better argument only apply when it suits him ?

 

No, he's not 100% right. He's stating opinion that Salmond is trying to hoodwink the scottish people. There's no hoodwinking going on as far as I can see.

Its all quite open. Maybe its different in Dundee to Glasgow

 

So, in a nutshell, the "Yes" line on Scottish economic independence is:

Vote "Yes" and HOPE and PRAY.

 

I find that No voters are less pushy, they are less in your face and they are much more conservative with their views. A lot of No voters are generally older, educated, in professional positions and dare I say it, more financially secure. No voters are less likely to be on facebook shouting from the rafters pushing their views on people.

The Yes campaign however, are the exact opposite, a lot of Yes voters are what you would call the 'proper working class' people with less money and a grudge to bear on Westminster. The kind of people that are voting to oust the Tories or because they are anti-English. They are loud like they are in life and they are pushing their points, somehow you're less Scottish if you're a No voter?

That's probably why the Yes page has 270k likes compared to the No page of 190k likes. The older generations do not have facebook accounts and they are pretty old fashioned with their views that you do not speak about politics or indeed religion publically.

I'm in the undecided camp, I'm on Facebook and this is my opinion based on being bombarded recently mainly from the Yes side. Tories are this and that (This isn't a general Election, but no mention that Labour were in power 1997-2010 to which the Scots DID elect) Everything is Tory this and Tory that. Then the Anti English brigade On the other side though you have Glasgow Rangers fans voting No purely on footballing beliefs.

If you were to believe facebook, the Yes have it in the bag convincingly but we all know that's not true going by all the polls so from that, it's fair to assume that the No camp are far more conservative and less likely to get involved, whereas the Yes are far more pushy and more vocal.

For me, my heart is saying Yes, it would be great to live in our own little bubble and have a government that we voted for that only needs to look after 5.2m people. My head is saying No though, the negatives outweighing the positives, currency, defence, economy etc etc. I'm still undecided.

 

He is trying to hoodwink the Scottish people with his "I'm asking you to give me a mandate to go and negotiate a currency union...".

Read my lips: it ain't going to happen.

Currency union would be bad for an "independent" Scotland and for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

 

In the same way as any other similarly resourced and sized nation does.

As posted earlier (not by me) and with the caveat that the oil revenue if far less (but never forget that new drilling may well require licences - and whats to stop IScotland having a national oil company?)



Quoted from the article in The Independent.

'It now has the opportunity to enact the same legislation, taxation and regulation that other top ten countries on that list employ, following, say, the blueprint of Singapore. It already has a rich tradition in trade, finance and banking.

It has the oil.

And, with just five million people, it is small.'


A comment sent in by a reader.

'A nation is measured on output, wealth and resources.

1. (OUTPUT) The Financial Times has stated that an iScotland will be in the top 35 exporting nations on the planet.
2. (WEALTH) Standard & Poor's international rating agency has stated quite clearly that an iScotland would be a wealthy country with or without the oil and get its highest credit rating.
3. (RESOURCES) The OECD (Organisation for European Co-operation and Development) have forecast a value for Scotland's oil at £4 Trillion.

 

Your opnion mate. Enjoy servicing that extra debt

No union means Scotland starts with no liability. And most likely a good credit rating based on its resources. its an asset rich country.

That's one hell of a better place to start from than the ecomony that will be left behind.

Scotlands balance sheet will be significantly healthier from the off than the rest of the uk's it would leave behind. That works for me.

 

We are only scratching the surface of the economic implications of separation. The true and honest answer is that NOBODY knows whether Scotland would be wealthier or poorer in the long run.