Is Scotland in the Best Position as it is NOW?

[Essex Lewis]

Has all the benefits of the UK, for being a part of the Union,
But we've most of the Benefits of Independence

Autonomy on Government (SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT/MSP's), Public Services and spending. Scotland has no Tuition Fee's for Students, just for example.

"SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE" = Little to Gain, Alot to Lose in the long run?
Especially if it turns Ultra-Leftist? No controls on immigration, Etc.

This would explain why only 30 % of people in Scotland so far want independence?
@SmilingDoctor; Totally Agree, that's my experience (in Edinburgh anyway)

[SmilingDoctor]

Interesting question. I'm from Oldham, near Manchester, but worked a lot in Inverness, Aberdeen and East Kilbride.

Suprisingly there wasn't that much difference in opinion. The lads up top weren't that bothered and wanted to stay in the UK. I expected a lot of grief in East Kilbride, but aside from the usual Anti-English tradition banter etc, the view was the same.

There are no benefits to us all separating. As much as we supposedly hate each other, since 1914 and beyond we've always pissed in the same pot and got on with it.

EDIT: From my own experience, I wish there was no English/Scottish animosity. The Welsh are my biggest issue, but we'd sort that out within a weekend. :-)

[robert c]

The Scottish National Party attained power on the premise that it would issue lots of freebies but the majority of Scottish voters did not want to be involved with this independence referendum.

It would be interesting just how much all this referendum business will cost the Scottish people which Salmond and Swinney will not give an even an approximate figure. The reason being that they are frightened of the follow up question being.'Wouldn't the money have been better spent on the Scottish National Health Service.

A reliable foreign agency sums it up most accurately when it says that if Scotland goes down the independence route little change will be noticed for 5 years as the Scottish National Party will be able to camouflage the effects by using the 'Robbing Peter to pay Paul out dated tactic.

After 5 years the cracks will start to appear as Scottish people will notice that people in Northern Ireland,Wales and England will have a slightly better benefits and pension regime and this gap will widen as time goes on.

This will be financed by the revenues from the oil bonanza of Falklands oil and gas reserves whilst Scottish revenues from North Sea oil diminish owing to difficulties in extraction techniques.

When you take into consideration that Westminster will not place further large contracts for ship building and with holding of money sent up through the Barnett formula events of a financial nature will gradually become very difficult.

Scottish voters have a lot to consider when they enter the voting booth this coming September.

Firetrap is as usual very selective in his reply. But there again can be expected from someone whose political campaign is beginning to unravel before his eyes.

I notice as other contributors have noticed that he does not dispute the questioners figure of 30% maximum who support Scottish political severance from Northern Ireland,Wales and England according to polls.

On the subject of Scottish Independence polls, time after time reveal that Scottish people are more interested in how much money they will have left in their pockets after independence than anything else..

Firetrap is very selective when he infers that Scotland continually year after year sends more money down south to Westminster than it receives. That is massaging facts which Scottish Nationalists are very good at. Only three times in the last 10 years has Scotland achieved that.

Not once will he and his fellow journeymen answer the question of :- Where will the revenue come from when the North Sea Oil becomes too expensive to extract in 25/30 years time?

The answer which Firetrap has given where he attempts to 'rip the questioner apart' fails time after time because the Questioner deals in facts whilst poor Firetrap deals in dreams and make believe!

Finally, Why is it that Scottish Nationalists when they are short of quality replies to a question relating to Scottish Independence always without fail attempt to use England as the 'Whipping boy'?
That record is wearing a little too thin now.

When I read Tearex's contributions I am sometimes of the opinion that this guy is a re incarnation of Andrew 87 at his wildest thoughts and lack of political foresight.

Tearex knows as well as others do that Scotland has only sent a surplus to Westminster which amounts to 3 years out of 10. That is why Scottish members of parliament keep hammering away that the principle of the Barnett Formula which Scottish members were instrumental in bringing into fruition is strictly adhered to.

Tearex knows full well that the voting population are only interested in How much they will have in their pockets at the end of it all and 'How much will all this cost?And would the money being spent on organising this referendum have been better spent on the Scottish Health Service?

But Tearex and his mates have never explained as to How will Scotland pay for its benefits,pensions and infra structure on a declining North Sea Oil revenue. Today North Sea oil trades at $107 per barrel against $94 for New York crude.

Well put Lord Britannia. You have summed it all up very accurately and have shown Tearex's rendition for what it is.Dreams and massaging the truth.

May I remind Tearex of the statement that Nicola Sturgeon made at the Scottish National Party Conference when she said that Scottish fuel bills will fall by 5% because of a grant from the European Union.

How can you obtain a grant from an organisation when you are not a member? Another case of massaging the facts by Scottish National Party members thrust upon the trusting Scottish elecorate

[Firetrap]

No benefits? Your joking right?

Why don't you mention the powers the house of lords stole bacvk from Scotland in December, because they didn't want Scotland to have lower energy prices than the rest of the UK? Does that sound like a benefi

I could go on, but the best ignorance in your statement about autonomy is mind boggling, what autonomy are you referring to, we don't control taxes, we raise more than we get given back in spending, another benefit? You mention tuition fees? How is that a benefit of the union? It comes out of Scotland's budget which is about 3 billion less than the taxation it send south, so if Scotland was independent we would have more finances to rid ourselves of say, I don't know, the bedroom tax? Or child poverty? Close the gao between the rich and poor, nationalise the energy company's? (Which we were going to do but the house of lords in all there wisdom thought less taxation from Scotland as a result of cheaper living cost was a bad idea)

Edit: I see Robert is back to attacking people with false or just made up statements. I'll let the headline of this article do the defence to his false accusation, which he never backs up.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases...6/23103654

[452]

The current quasi-independent status of Scotland means the nationalists are in a perfect position right now because they can take the credit when things go right but have someone to blame when they don't.

Scotland will never leave the UK because they love being the underdog, victim, "poor us" etc etc yawn yawn.

[Tearex]

You'll find that the default position is a No/undecided vote, this does not mean the people of Scotland do not want to vote Yes it simply means making a Yes vote requires being convinced that a change would be of benefit. This is something that can easily be achieved as when debates are held it becomes clear that there are ZERO positive cases for the Union and polls taken after debates will mostly result in a large swing from majority No votes to majority Yes. Cameron will not debate the matter for this reason.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24146570
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/yes...ate-polls/
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/yes...-analysis/

The Scottish Government is not a benefit from the UK it is something we had to fight tooth and nail for. It is also at the mercy of Westminster, when they decide we should have less powers then we have less powers. Case in point :
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/sco...m-scotland

Scotland's famous "freebies" are not free, nor are they a benefit from the Union. They are paid for out of the pocket money that Westminster deigns to return to Scotland, which in turn comes out of the revenues Scotland sends to Westminster. We get back less than we give.

By leaving we have everything to gain.
We can shape Scotland's future the way we want not the way our Tory neighours want.
We can create a constitution that will which expresses our values, embeds the rights of its citizens and sets out clearly how institutions of state interact with each other and serve the people.
We will have LESS politicians!! Plus no House of Lords.
Less corruption (mostly due to less politicians)
A more equal society.
We can invest in Scotland and generate foreign investment putting all money generated in Scotland to good use instead of lining the pockets of people we never voted into power.

The list goes on. There are no benefits to staying in the UK that Scotland did not create for itself and could continue to do better after independence.

@lord britannia - If you do not know where my information comes from then that is your failing sir as I always provide links to the information that you can study at your leisure (or just completely ignore as you seem to do).

@robert c - The UK does not tell people how much X, Y and Z is costing them nor how much money the will have in the future. The UK thinks its okay for Scotland to pay for the upgrade to London's sewage system 458 miles away.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php...er-upgrade

Westminster could easily produce a document that clearly outlines the money in and money out from and too Scotland but they refuse to do so, they could kill the argument stone dead simply be releasing figures that show Scotland is subsidised but they do not. This is because these figures do not exist.

You sir do nothing but speculate, guess, mislead or blatantly lie. There is no assurances that we will not be a member of the EU in fact the majority of experts and legal teams say that staying in the EU will not be a problem.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php...ays-expert
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php...dependence
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-to-the-eu

You wish to see poll figures? Then view them after fair and proper debates have been held!
Even the BBC (no fan of independence) displayed a 62% Yes to 38% no result after an informed debate. Your position simply has ZERO positive arguments and not one of your negative arguments can hold up to scrutiny.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/yes...ate-polls/
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/yes...-analysis/

edit*
@Lord britannia - Official British UK government figures? That show no bias? Really....
Sadly our own media will not report on the issues nor divulge the information which can only be found online on these pro independent websites.

Britain can not and will not leave the EU before the independence vote so there is no point in suggesting you could somehow circumnavigate EU law by running from your responsibilities.



That is a lie sir or at least a poor choice of words. There will be no blackmail there will be however negotiations, we have something they want they have something we want. That is how negotiations work not blackmail.


The rest is again speculation. There is no precedent example that we can follow. As the links above indicate there are many experts and legal advisers who suggest there will be next to no issues.

Not once does that article use the word "blackmail". It does not use this because it would be defamation as it is not true. When you share or trade resources you negotiate a deal if at a later date you wish to or need to change that arrangement you renegotiate. This is in no way blackmail.

I see your point its simply not valid.

[Lord Britannia]

I watched Question Time from Dundee last night and do not know where Tearex gets his info from but last night they said polls favour a 2 to 1 swing in favour of no. I'll answer this slightly differently the benefits of Scottish indepnedence are in fact more to the advantage to the UK.Scotland very Pro EU the rest of Britain is anti EU England in particular. If Salmond gets into the EU and gets to his flimsy claim a free travel area expect anti EU sentiments south of the border to get even stronger than they already are. Why? Because Scotland would vote for a left wing government which would let no amount in. Those Scottish migrants would become Scottish citizens and able to cross the free travel area with no passports with which they would be free to abscond. If this happens Farage would become very powerful indeed a refernedum on EU membership would happen in months Britain would leave the EU sign free trade agreements with Brussels and close the border. As EU law wouldn't apply to Britain in the event of this happening and Salmond loses eveything in his "best of both worlds". Pro EU Parties in the UK would be very weakened too Labour would lose 59 seats in Westminster and with the Lib dems so discredited the Right in Britain would gain no end. UKIP would most definitely gain hugely South of the Border if an indenpedent Scotland happens on Salmonds terms. Salmond really needs Britain to stay in the EU it forms the basis of his argument between our two nations if Scotland breaks away. But he's made a mistake in the fact he's overlooked anti EU sentiment in the rest of UK. If Britain leaves the EU which we will he loses everything for no EU law or EU lawer can help him. So if you're a Eurosceptic in the UK Scottish indpendence is a boom. It would put Farage over the top no doubt not to mention. The UK would lose alot of Pro EU voters in the event of Scotland going this would hugely favour UKIP and any referendum on EU membership
Essex as i said in a prevoius post the most Scotland has ever gone to the right is the one Tory they have in Westminster. Tearex ia being myopic about politics in his Tory reference. As i said to you last time Essex you need an effective Left and Right wing for debate in order to get the best ideas. In Scotlands case it has no right wing to reign in the left. So therefore Scotland will have a exclusively leftwing Government with no right i am certain of that Scotland will spend itself into the ground. Nationalists on here say independence is not a vote for Salmond who are they going to vote for Tory? they hate them. They often refer to Scandanvian Socialism. Sweden become rich between 1870-1970 with the free market then after 1970 they moved to the left and the Swedish economy went south. Norway has moved to the right and voted in a Conservative government. Scotland apprently seeks to mimick Norway but have left it too late. Norway has for years been pouring oil revenue into it's coffers. Unlike Scotland who will have to start from scratch with bombing oil renvenue. But what those who favour some sort of Scandanavian style Socialism omit is that Scandanavia Sweden in particluar has eye wateringly high taxes. Scotland wants cradle to the grave Social Welfare but as people are now living longer it's just going to cost more and more. And to afford the cost of living wages would need to meet the tax hikes. Otherwise i can see Scotland going bankrupt no matter how much the streets are paved with gold alteast that's what the yes campaign says. But to some up long term for them it's better that they stay. But there are advantages for we eurosceptics if they go
One final thing Norway is not in the EU but Scotland wants to join it

Here's Sweden's Tax rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/p...e-tax-rate
And Sweden's governement spending it has gone up and up year on year
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/g...t-spending

Tearex that was the figure quoted on Question Time Last night
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03...3_01_2014/
Skip to 19 minutes on the video
Tearex that link is old it was done in november and my figures are official government from assorted polls going back 2 years figures back going back two years
Tearex i have been looking at your source it's a pro independence website full of biashttp://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=4385932
My sources on polls are from neutral polls.

Tearex you fail to see my point. I am not arguing over Scotlands EU membership being difficult so that's why Scotland must vote no. Ok here goes Scotland is very pro EU but the rest of the UK is not. Independence camp is trying to move through EU law. It forms much of the basis of your argument in terms of a reltionship post independence. Now if Brtain was to leave the EU your flimsy EU argument is shot. For we would be exempt from EU law. If you are forced to Schenagen by Brussels that means border control yes. As the UK is exempt.
Now i now you have tried to blackmail brussels by threatening to block the North Sea from foreign fishing until a favourable deal can be struck is that a lie?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-in...-1-2677200
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lis...le-49.html
Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty says
The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification
by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional
requirements. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.
What this means is Scotlands application must fufuil the usual obligation to be accepted uanimously so that would mean joining the Euro. This means that you are new state wishing to join. So therefore any existing treaties you have as part of the UK become void.
So what that means is the UK opt out of the Maastricht Treaty the UK has will be void. You will have no option but to either float your own currency or join the Euro you cannot keep the pound.
Under European Law you cannot keep UK Financial Regulators or the pound

Oh it's no lie http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/r...a.21443529
I do not suggest that Britain will leave before again you fail see the point.
My point is valid Tearex it's not a negotiation it's a threat. You're threatening to block the North Sea until your demands are met. It's called holding them to ransom Tearex.
My point Salmond needs Britain to remain in the EU it forms the whole basis of his argument in terms of relationship between our countries. If Britain leaves AFTER Scottish independence he loses everything in his best of both worlds. If Salmond was negotiating for true independence rather than divorce from Westminster but keep everything. else. If he wanted border control and so on then yes my point would be invalid. But as to speculation both yes and no it is largely speculation nobody knows how well Scotland will do because Scotland hasn't tried yet.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/sco...part-of-uk
From your own media it shows a clear polarisation of opinion over the EU. It is a fair suggestion that a referendum on EU membership in the rest of UK would coincide with a independent Scotland.

[Stewart]

At present the Scottiah Parliament has limited powers, so we can legislate on planning permission power stations but can't control energy policy

We can introduce a tax on carrier bags, but can't get the income from the levy- one post amongst many on the lack of powers