to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

Celtic

It's just people spouting guff on the internet. Yes, there are people who genuinely want Scotland to vote yes because they think it's a drain, but as the polls suggest, they're very much the minority.

I don't pay attention to hyperbolic rabble rousers no, see my previous advice on George Galloway.

The headline did not need to mention campaigning to save the union. All it needed to say was that he'd been attacked.
The last paragraph did not need to contain gallo ways threat to salmond. It is irrelevant to the rest of the article.

It's well known that when people read articles they'll read the headline , and then scan read to the end.

Honestly back at you

DeeeDeee I am ancient and have learned that in the Uk newspaper headlines (and indeed most journalism) is not the exact truth. Especially the Daily Record. YABU to take any notice of them!

Well, I think it did. The article was not about how Galloway was attacked. The Record has already run an article on that. It's linked to from the article that offends you so much, for Christ's sake.

The article is about how Galloway intends to continue campaigning. Sounds like news to me.

I think you are being over-sensitive.

I'm English and I'd prefer Scotland to stay in the UK.

But the BT campaign was always going to be a failure, because it can only offer the status quo. That's the safe option, but people always want something better, particularly in times of financial hardship like now.

Independence offers the possibilities of better or worse. The Yes campaign has naturally stressed all the positive ones and downplayed the negative, and it's not surprising that Scots are reaching for the positive that Salmond is offering.

On balance I think independence will be a bad outcome for Scotland and a good one for the UK, mainly due to the movement of jobs from Scotland and the ending of UK subsidies for Scottish windpower.

But I can't blame Scottish people for reaching for something better and taking that risk. I might do myself in the circumstances, but with my fingers very firmly crossed. It's a permanent one way move, and it could so easily be a disaster.

Sallyingforth I agree. I read a very good article(blog?) by the actor Bill Paterson, writing as a Scot living in England. It was in the Guardian, but (unlike the more zealous posters here) I don't do links!

Toad- the Union hasn't worked for Scotland.

If things were ever going to get 'better together' we'd be better together already. We aren't.

The UK government in Westminster is too London centric which especially disadvantages Scottish residents.

We were told we needed to keep the union to keep the triple A credit rating but then the UK lost it and better together had to remove it from their leaflets.

Why should anyone trust campaign like that?

We don't know how successful an independent Scottish economy will be long term because we've never had a chance to find out. Using figures based on the current system are at best estimates.

The new economic opportunities that will come with independence will actually benefit the people in Scotland rather than our successes and resources being creamed off by the London millionaire plutocrats.

Hi. Keen to get involved in the discussion.
Place marking for now.
For me the main issues are Trident, EU membership, brain drain and the opportunities for a redrawing of the Scottish political landscape in the event of a Yes.

weatherall

If things were ever going to get 'better together' we'd be better together already. We aren't

Better since when?

1706?

The UK government in Westminster is too London centric which especially disadvantages Scottish residents.

This is patently untrue since Westminster delegated all manner of powers to Scotland's own parliament, including tax variation powers.

We were told we needed to keep the union to keep the triple A credit rating but then the UK lost it and better together had to remove it from their leaflets.

It does not follow that iScotland would not be in an even worse situation. New Zealand (where I live) has a worse credit rating than the UK despite having a very low level of Crown debt - 10% going into the financial crisis (and no major banks to bail out). The reason for this is the smallness of the NZ economy and the volatility of its currency.

We don't know how successful an independent Scottish economy will be long term because we've never had a chance to find out. Using figures based on the current system are at best estimates.

So you admit the risk then.

The new economic opportunities that will come with independence will actually benefit the people in Scotland rather than our successes and resources being creamed off by the London millionaire plutocrats.

What economic opportunities?

Centralising Whitehall and unresponsive Westminster are issues for nearly all parts of the United Kingdom and many people want change within the UK with a move away from the dominance of London.

Staying together under the umbrella of the United Kingdom would give us all more resilience against unforeseen world events. (The economic situation in Ireland comes to mind.)

I certainly know a lot of talented people who've ended up in London (not to mention other places in the world)
Anyone have a view on whether this would get better or worse in an independent Scotland?

I wonder if an Independent Scotland would be a draw for expat Scots? Anyone out there?

I'm glad you're so optimistic about the uk's finances Afew Many are not.Uk banks were effectively bailed out by US banks!
Not something that would inspire confidence, or persuade me to vote to keep the union.

I suspect London's dominance would not be affected by Scottish independence. If you look around the world, it is increasingly the case that economic power is being concentrated in large urban centres. London is one of those cities. It is one of the centres for high finance and legal services. Scottish independence, and for that matter Welsh, Cornish, Northumbrian, Mercian, Anglian or Kentish independence wouldn't alter its brute size and reputation.

iScotland would probably remain in London's orbit, just with no votes in the parliament that controls it. Mind you, Alex Salmond has been selling Scottish independence on the basis of co-operative measures (currency, defence, monarchy, and now university funding) on the basis that the parliament that sits in that big, overweening metropolis will give him what he wants, even though it doesn't now. It makes no sense except as an electoral strategy to get the nervous to vote Yes.

Someone upthread was asking about the youth vote stats.

Last year the Aberdeenshire schools held a mock vote - the results can be found here.

It was a 75% No vote back then.

New opportunities in government - areas previously reserved to Westminster: foreign relations, banking/fin services regulation, etc. Lawyers, economists, journalists, all involved in drawing up and influencing new legislation, written constitution etc. IT contracting, as systems are separated/new ones set up.New representatives for Iscotland in Brussels on the Commission/European Council and other international organisations. All very good, high quality jobs. There would certainly be costs involved in transitioning, but think of the opportunities too. Find it odd that this isn't highlighted.

I can see a post-Indy boom in lawyers and bureaucrats!

I also feel my child who wants to do engineering /manufacturing may be even more likely to end up abroad.

New opportunities in government - areas previously reserved to Westminster: foreign relations, banking/fin services regulation

Where's your evidence that Scots don't do these jobs already?

You are aware, aren't you, that the UK had Scottish chancellors of the exchequer from 1997 to 2010? And a Scottish foreign secretary? And various other secretaries of state?

Lawyers, economists, journalists, all involved in drawing up and influencing new legislation, written constitution etc. IT contracting, as systems are separated/new ones set up.

Which the Scottish Government would have to pay for. So it's a zero-sum game, not an economic opportunity.

New representatives for Iscotland in Brussels on the Commission/European Council and other international organisations.

Are you suggesting that Scots don't represent the UK on these bodies?

As it is, Scotland already has a large, well-established financial sector, and has done for centuries. Very fine it is too. There is also (decreasingly) the oil. But should iScotland become independent, it would unbalance its economy. It is much more difficult for a small country to keep its economy balanced. Down here, for example, a decade of growth in dairy farming means that every time China makes threatening noises about milk powder, the whole country shivers. Scotland's population is not that much bigger than NZ.

Toadinthehole I agree, the world situation really doesn't lend itself to small nation states having any clout.

But Salmond has found plenty of people wanting change and is busy persuading plenty of them that in the entity of Scotland they will be provided with that change they seek.

That's probably the kind of response highlighting it would draw, true.
I don't see many opportunities in engineering/manufacturing at the moment. I always thought that was an issue for the UK as a whole, with very little status accorded to engineering and technical subjects. Engineering is highly respected in Germany and Italy, not sure about other countries - cf. UK where finance/law/civil service attracts many ambitious and talented types (disclaimer: I am NOT saying everyone in these professions are these things).

Of course I'm aware that Scots do these things. Its just that right now they have to leave to do them.

afew

And I don't blame people for wanting it. Salmond's rhetoric - a more egalitarian, progressive society, one that enables everyone to participate and have a fair share, and denies a rich few from eating all the pie - all these are things I want for NZ (which prides itself on its fast-disappearing egalitarianism) and for the UK, where I'm sure I will live again.

The problem is that he is promising that an iScotland will be able to deliver these things. Given that on the Scottish government's own figures, it received more public spending than it generated in tax revenues last year, it is not easy to see how this will happen. Especially given that the SNP opposes a raise in the highest income tax rate to 50% (Labour want this) and propose that in iScotland, corporate tax will be cut to just about nil. On his own proposals, he won't even be able to print the money, because iScotland would be using sterling.

I think the point is clear: he and other senior figures in the pro-nationalist campaign have long been happy to advocate whatever if it promotes their cause. Back in the 90s, when there were still quite a few Tory MPs in Scotland, the gripe was less about political divergance and more about the oil (apparently, it wasn't fair that Scotland didn't get to keep all of it). In the mid 00s, it was about how stupid it was that the UK didn't join the Euro. It keeps changing.

Yes, hence my wording "even more likely".

My guess would be that in the post_Indy years government would be the only recruiter of note.

If things were ever going to get 'better together' we'd be better together already. We aren't.

I keep hearing this from Yes voters and genuinely don't understand it.

A friend of mine recently posted something similar on Facebook along the lines of 'vote Yes it can't be any worse than it already is' I wanted to reply and ask what is so bad? I don't see what we have at this moment as bad -I think we are very fortunate. What is it that everyone thinks is so terrible?
And what difference do they think an independent Scotland will make?