To think Alex Salmond is in his own private dream world?

[SpineInABap]

Ok so Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland, and sets out his ideas.

Then all three Westminster parties tell him - "no you can't share the pound and be independent as well, it would be too unstable. Did you see what happened in Europe when they tried to share a currency between different countries with different economic policies? And those countries were trying to become more united, and in this case the two countries would be trying to split apart!"

Then a guy from the European Union remarks that it won't be plain sailing for an Independent Scotland to join the EU, as all the other members will have to agree - and many won't as they don't want to encourage their own splinter states to start asking for independence as well.

So two fairly serious problems. And what is Alex Salmon's reaction? Basically to go "Ner ner ner, you're all being mean and nasty and you don't really mean it. I think that if we all vote yes for an independent Scotland, then you will change your mind and let us share the pound, and let us join the EU. You're bluffing, and so I'm not coming up with a plan for what would happen if Scotland voted yes and we realised that, oops no...you weren't bluffing".

How can anyone think this man does not sound a bit bonkers? I'm English, but if I was Scottish I would be very worried about voting for someone who thinks nothing of destabilising a whole economy just to make a Political point.

It'sallgoingtobefine oh please, not the they're all against us argument.

Actually what I was thinking of was various rude and patronising supporters on Newsnight damming themselves by the way they conducted debate.

however, I believe that as whole the Yes campaign has been far more positive. I would be far more impressed with the No campaign if they focused on positive concrete reasons to stay in the union, rather than constantly releasing scaremongering press releases of arguable accuracy.

At 19.42.06 you described as 'all true' a post which said: Forget devo max, they can do away with our parliament all together, or at least reduce it's powers to those of Bliar's "parish council"; both Tory and Labour want to devolve powers away from gvt and towards local councils (where they have more chance of gaining power). WM just recently removed Scottish gvt powers over renewables, without and bother or fuss, or indeed mention in msm. Truly, a no vote terrifies me.

Why is this not scaremongering? I would be far more impressed with the Yes Campaign if it gave out actual facts as opposed to wish lists and didn't cry 'bully' when questioned!

But Caitlin I would see the absolute opposite on debates.

But Westminster did already strip powers from SP re renewables so it's not scaremongering to state something that has happened.

The only abuse I have seen so far has been from LMA towards those that are or considering voting Yes. Accusations of bring uneducated and insular and of not having travelled. Even the "Don't Knows" are tarred with the same brush. When she has been called on it, she continues to insist that her generalisations are correct.

For the most part, everyone else on these threads tend to respect others' opinions - while on many an occasion disagreeing vehemently and putting forward an opposing view.

When I've looked at Scotsman comment threads I've seen lots of nasty comments aimed at Yes voters (and categorizing them as all over 50, uneducated and unemployed).

Generally though, in RL, I have encountered people having heated but good natured debates - and agreeing to differ.

Abuse on both sides is wrong.

And Joan McAlpine ' s furious back pedaling after claiming not to be in favour is anti Scottish?

I have not seen any personal attacks by Unionist MPs similar to that. SNP mps , including its leaders seem incapable of even mentioning Cameron or Osborne without a sneer. It adds nothing to the debate or their credibility.

No one yet willing to defend Salmond's "Uncle Tam" pun?

Yeah prettybird its the cybernat tactic, or if you don't like that word, the fervent nationalistic tactic to try to bully and abuse posters who challenge their views. On and on and on ad infinitum. They try and grind you down into silence by attacking you every time you post, simply because you've come up with something they can't answer. Do you have anything to add to the debate, beyond personal abuse?

So get yourself together, man (or woman) up and get over what tiny perceived slight you would like to have suffered. After all, I'm not Scottish, I'm in a tiny minority in your country and I'm not complaining about suffering racism...

What do you have to say about Salmond's insistence on a currency union?

prettybird the only committed signed up SNP supporters and party members I know quite happily refer to English people in the part of rural Scotland they live in as "white settlers"

But Westminster did already strip powers from SP re renewables so it's not scaremongering to state something that has happened

I don't understand why this is constantly brought up- energy issues are reserved.

Sneering, have you seen Scottish question time in Westminster, did you see the "debate" in the House of Lords re Independence?

Salmond, Scotland's democratically elected First Minister gets called a Dictator, likened to Stallin, Hitler, terminology like that is commonly used, you only have to look at done comments on this thread and others on here anytime he is mentioned.

Cameron gets it just as bad from the Yes crowd.

Re renewable energy I think the point is that whilst Scotland might produce a lot of renewable energy it is reliant on inward flow of cash from the whole of the UK under renewable obligations and that is unlikely to continue if there were independence.

English lived in Scotland for 14 yrs, children born here, Dp (father) French
(Just to put it out there -I have come across two instances of anti-English feeling - one funnily enough from an ex -Glaswegian/Celtic supporter - but on the whole been welcomed - then again I do live in a place with a lot of English and other incomers.)
I love where I live ...don't want to move...

Still no idea how to vote (if at all - but thinking I need to vote for my children who won't be old enough)...
It seems the Yes campaign need to be clearer ...we need clear, honest and achievable facts ...and a back up plan - no point telling another country (the UK) what they are going to do for you - they need to agree to it too...(heard the White paper described as a 'wish list')
I don't want to be a Scottish citizen - but I will automatically be considered one (I like being English ) - will I have to move south of the border to avoid it ?
And what about my DP - if Scotland doesn't become part of the EU - will he have to apply for a visa? Or would he have to apply to become 'naturalised'? Would I need a visa (if I keep my British nationality)?
Stuff like this - as well as minor things like exactly how the BBC will work - and will my (WM guaranteed) FIT payments for my solar panels be honoured or will I be forever out of pocket on them?

I know I should read the white paper (intend to do so)...but not sure it is worth the paper it is written on ... it says Scotland will retain the pound, remain in the EU and we will be allowed UK dual citizenship - and all these points I know are being disputed...

Anyone fancy explaining the renewables 'stripping' issue to me, without a link to wingsoverscotland?

Apparently it's Amendment 54 which is the problematic clause. 'Amendment 54 would insert a new clause before clause 46 and confer a power on the Secretary of State to make a renewables obligation closure order. The closure order would prevent renewables obligation certificates from being issued under any renewables obligation order (whether made by the Secretary of State or by the Scottish Ministers) in respect of electricity generated after a specified date.' here

The purpose of this was to ensure consumers and industry have confidence that the planned renewables obligation closure will take place consistently across Wales, England and Scotland here.

An MP from Stalybridge complained that 'the Scottish National party in Edinburgh chose to play constitutional games with the issue, rather than focusing on the smooth transition between the renewables obligation and contracts for difference. There has been correspondence between the Minister’s Department and the Scottish Government, and given that the SNP raised the issue in Holyrood, perhaps the Minister will commit to publishing that correspondence to ensure transparency and so that we can be sure the system is working well'.

Fallon confirmed that we have given the Scottish Government full notice that we want the renewables obligation closed by March 2017. They have had every notice in correspondence at ministerial and official level and have been in no doubt of our intention for a long time.

So what is the problem?

*Itsallgoingtobefine The problem is the MSM, just like any other source is biased, and with a few exceptions generally biased in favour of the No campaign

Might it be easier for you just to list those sources which are not biased against the No campaign? It might save you an awful lot of trouble, since judging from what I've read on here, there cannot be very many.

Anyone fancy explaining the renewables 'stripping' issue to me, without a link to wingsoverscotland

The issue is that the Renewables obligation thing was devolved, then it was taken back to Westminster. This shows a deep lack of respect for the devolved powers of Scotland when things can just become "undevolved" without discussion. Its a rather worrying precedent.

I haven't tackled you every time you post - because, quite frankly, I find your comments boring and one dimensional. What I (and others) have challenged have been your generalisations about Scottish people. I have lived in France and NZ, went to an ancient university, worked for a multinational company for many years before returning to Scotland and don't recognise the stereotype you describe. I have a wide circle of friends from many different backgrounds, some of whom will vote Yes, some of whom will vote No and some of whom are still undecided.

If you can find any examples of personal abuse towards you (or others) please feel free to report it.

Regarding currency union, I can understand why Salmond is not describing his Plan B: if he did so, all that would happen would be that it would then be shot down in flames. I watched Carney's Q&As (and read his speech in full) and what I heard was a dry technocrat saying that "currency unions are difficult, here are some of the things that you need to watch against but if the politicians want me to do it, I can make it work". What I have concerns about is whether there will be the will to make it work, even if Scotland does vote Yes - and even if not doing so would be detrimental to the whole of Great Britain. I also genuinely don't understand the concern about ceding sovereignty as Gordon Brown has already conceded sovereignty when he made the Bank of England an independent body with control over interest rates and QE.

I also don't think that Scotland would be able to join the Euro as an immediate alternative anyway, as you need to be able to demonstrate 2 years of a currency and meet certain financial criteria (which the UK wouldn't be able to meet as its debt to GDP ratio is too high). There is always the option of doing what Sweden (and Denmark?) has done which is commit to joining the Euro but always ensure that they fail the financial criteria. Not sure how ethical a strategy that is though.

I happen to believe strongly in the EU and have my concerns that the UK will vote to leave if the Tories get back in next year.

I wasn't able to vote in the Devolution vote in 1979 even though I was on the Electoral Register (it was shortly before my 18th birthday) but would've voted No (as it was my "vote" counted towards the No vote because of the threshold requirement). Now, I'm not so sure.

unlucky you won't get any answers to those questions from the yes campaign or the White Paper. The White Paper is a mix of a wish list and a party manifesto.

On the passport issue I wrote to Sturgeon on this point. I got an assurance every one living in Scotland would automatically be entitled to a Scottish passport. Gosh ! Wow! I can't wait!Except that was not what I asked. I don't want a Scottish passport and I don't want my nationality ripped from me.

Anyone who is voting yes because they think that Trident will be removed is in for a nasty shock.

NATO are massively putting the kibosh on that little scheme - if you look carefully at the white paper, buried in the detail, it says that it is the 'aim and intention' that the weapons will be gone by 2020 but admits later that its prepared to compromise further. Oh and it's fine for submarines and warships carrying nuclear weapons to dock in Scottish waters.

So much for the nuclear free Scotland that was promised, huh? Once again, Salmond opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble. Or maybe NATO are being big mean old bullies too?

On another note, I would be disgusted if Scotland were to walk away from the national debt. I think of us as being a moral nation, and we helped to run up that debt. I think it would bring a lot of shame on Scotland to walk away from the debt. Debt is debt - no matter what currency it is paid back in, it should be repaid by ALL parties who were responsible for creating it.

Imagine if my DH left me but he wanted to keep a joint back account. I then told him I didn't want to, as I didn't think he was financially stable after leaving me, so he said that if he had to get his own back account then he wasn't going to help pay back the loan we both took out on our bank account?

Having read this whole thread I'm still voting YES.

Care to give us a good reason why, K999? Still waiting for that one...

Scotland can't walk away from its share of the national debt unless it's intending operating entirely outside the world financial markets as it would have no credibility. That is just an empty threat.

Scotland cannot however dictate there will be a currency union nor if there is one , dictate terms that suit Scotland.

Yup, the problem with stripping the control over the renewables is that the Scottish Government has really ambitious renewable energy targets which will now be difficult to meet.

Scottish Parliament want to be able to offer extra incentives for offshore windfarm developers etc.

As far as I understand it this pegs or caps the subsidies at the same level across the UK.

Which is a problem due to wanting to increase renewables here.

There was no consultation with Scottish ministers re this or how it would impact in the Scottish renewables sector.

Because I can

It was the UK government who were subsiding the Scottish renewables, though, wasn't it?