IndyRef 7

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

...

Grandtheftmanual,you have answered your own question by saying
GOD HELP US & I may add FOR THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO. The people who consider safety for their children which includes protection from UK security forces,before we even begin to think about economy,will vote NO THANKS.........

Oops of course the above should have read "FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO" in other words we shouldn't follow a flag just for the sake of it.

Lets all vote no. If we hate the coalition government we can vote them out in the next election. It's a global recession & not just Scotland. Everyone is just trying their best to cope until the country gets through it all. Separation ie divorce, is not always the answer and indeed can prove costly which will happen to Scotland if we separate and of that I've no doubt.

Thanks oddcommentator and statistically for explaining likely outcomes of a yes vote so well. I hope its not as bad as you say as you paint a very bleak picture, but also one that seems inevitable.

I also really like hearing that the UK has been an incredibly successful union as I've read so many negative things about it from yes voters that I was feeling a bit down about being British (English).

I really hope a no vote is returned and Scots get more devolution. We (theUK) are the envy of many parts of the world. Why voluntarily leave that?

Read your long post, odd. Thanks for your anecdotes about working with the HoL, but I'm not such a fan of having an unelected second chamber when donations buy peerages and hereditary peers still sit. Or of the Lords Spiritual. Why on earth should only one religion - or any religion - should be represented here? The only countries in the world designating seats to religions clerics are the UK and Iran.

I'm not quite sure why you think MPs from Scotland should "immediately lose their voice at Westminster". There would be quite some time between the referendum and independence, and beyond the negotiations other political business would, of course, go on. How could it be seen as legitimate to offer no democratic representation to Scottish constituents on all other matters until 2016 (at least)? But then there used to be 59 MPs representing Scotland, and previously 72. The numbers were cut to compensate for the representation offered by the SP, but I am not sure why devolving certain domestic powers meant that Scotland should have a quieter voice when it came to issues impacting the whole of the UK. If that was supposed to be an answer to the West Lothian question then it was a very poor answer.

"The EU will be a distant pipedream as well as all the benefits it brings." Opinions vary, but I think this is pretty unlikely. But even a no vote could see Scotland removed from the EU, if Cameron's government and UKIP get their way. An in/out referendum, which Scottish voters would have next to no impact on. Simple numbers game.

And as for the notion that if "we hate the coalition government we can vote them out in the next election". We can't. The whole point is that we can't. The whole of Scotland could return four millions votes, each one for Labour, and it would still have no impact on the UK general election if rUK voted strongly for the Conservatives/coalition.

The idea that Scotland has an impact on the future direction of the UK is enormously optimistic. Earlier in this thread, when I explained that I was tired of my vote having no impact on general elections, that I was tired of voting for a party which doesn't represent my political needs or values but seems the 'lesser of two evils', I was told that I could 'always vote Lib Dem or Green' if I didn't like it! Vote Lib Dem or Green from a Scottish constituency in a FPTP system! Is that the best you can offer me? You're asking me to hold my breath, cross my fingers and hope - simply hope - that swing voters in England decide to vote differently.

I understand that some people will privilege (perceived) personal financial security over greater democratic representation. But I have an honest question for those who do - which of your existing democratic rights would you give up for the promise of greater stability?

If you could be ensured 25 years of economic certainty in exchange for your vote - would you take it? And would you believe the government who offered you that?

Criseyde You actually think this is better on an elected second chamber (look around the 7 minute mark if you want to see it kick off).

This is the Scottish Affairs Committee, one of the committees Scotland has in place of a proper second chamber acting as a check and balance on its legislature, taking evidence on constitutional law from Professor Adam Tomkins, a specialist in constitutional law and the John Millar Chair in Public Law at the University of Glasgow. At the beginning, he concludes that the Scottish Government didn't take legal advice before preparing the White Paper.

But do scroll to the 7 minute mark and see the awful behaviour of the Committee Chairwoman. To say its unprofessional would be to do a disservice to professionals.

I also can't help thinking back to the INEOS crisis at Grangemouth, where one union official who got sacked for using work time to do non-work stuff, nearly lost Central Scotland one of its major industries and employers.

It was astonishing behaviour. Lets not forget that the actual union crisis was caused by the union signing up people who hadn't actually joined it, and in some cases signing up member's relatives without their permission and knowledge.

Again, a male dominated industry in Scotland. I've often thought this, but just what is wrong with Scottish men? Why do so many of them seem to spend so much time whining and moaning, as opposed to actually working hard? Maybe I'm doing them a disservice, and of course there are many decent working Scottish men, but its the impression I'm getting more and more.

Kathoderet bunch of thugs yes, that is right.

OddCommentator thank you for your post. I do agree that a country does get the government it deserves. If decent people are too timid or apathetic to stand up and be counted against bad behaviour, and would rather shoot the messenger, then they will get what they deserve.

That is why we now have a centralised police force in Scotland coupled with the removal of corroboration. And that's just them getting started. Imagine what they can do once Scotland is no longer restrained by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Nobody is telling anybody to 'fuck off'

That's actually quite an insulting way to describe a referendum.

Sorry -had to go to bed.
Statistically challenged - I don't think post Independence Day in 2016 you will have a choice or dual citizenship. Potentially up till then, there will be an opportunity to move out of Scotland and retain British citizenship as I expect scottish citizenship can't be forced on you.

Anyway some interesting observations, I think if I lived in Scotland I would have a difficult decision to make.

That is why we now have a centralised police force in Scotland coupled with the removal of corroboration.

I have mentioned the issue of the police force and the fact the beloved FM is unconcerned about the fact Scottish police are starting to go about their daily business routinely armed several times. It's "an operational matter" as far as Eck is concerned.

My husband has written to all the party leaders and several other MSPs about this. He received considered, thoughtful replies from all of them agreeing this is worrying and not acceptable.

Eck got an assistant to issue "standard response number 23 to anyone who questions my brilliance" and Nicola didn't reply at all.

LuckyTwo I appreciate your view but there is very little evidence to suggest that would be the case, and that's not the approach Britain has taken historically with regards to citizenship for parts which have declared independence. There's no mechanism to strip citizenship from someone who was born in Britain to British parents and holds a British passport. Really it's the equivalent of me moving abroad - the place I live would not be part of the UK.

Please stop trying to scaremonger based on no supporting evidence. Even the government have not tried to say this would be the case. If you have evidence to support your argument from a reputable source then please supply it.

Morning!

here is a video of a great speech by Carolyn Leckie supporting a yes vote.

"75% of welfare cuts have hit women"

"Only 40% of the austerity cuts have come in yet"

"9/10 of the top countries for women to live in have populations under 9 million"

Powerful arguments for yes.

chocoluvva
"Statistically the person who asked the question has sons who would be competing with the women who have children who will be now free to return to work, so it would lessen the questioner's sons' chances of finding work."

Heaven forbid men have to compete with mere women for jobs.

Women should just stay in the kitchen drinking our tea!

Naughty us for wanting to earn a living!

lovley - my English friends have been told to f*ck off back home by Yessers

got a lot of catching up to do on this thread.

Can we submit debate questions yet?

Weatherall, how will an independent Scotland help women more than the union?

Carolyn Leckie was in Tommy's extreme left wing party, hardly a credible source.

And of course you're assuming there will be no cuts in indy Scotland.

Weatherall -do you not have a job?

The increase in free childcare is already happening with nursery hours for 3 and 4 year olds being increased to 600 a year. This started last month when schools returned. That can be taken up in council or partnership nurseries. The idea is to make that available to two year olds as well, if they were coming from a workless household but I think the rolling out of that has been postponed as the focus was on making sure the 3 and 4 year old hour's increase went smoothly. Councils were allocated money to provide this increase in hours. There was a wealth of nursery jobs advertised before the summer. The snp plan to continue rolling out increases until they reach their goal which I think is 30 hours a week available.

Now I don't know about you, but by God that would help me a lot. I don't think my set up is unique in where my husband works ful time and I work part time. As he's out 7 to 5 daily I count him out of daytime childcare so the hours I work need covered. I've been juggling that for 7 years now and it is hard.

2 hours nursery, 3 with a child minder, working back to back with my sister so we can cover each other's childcare, paying extra so I could study, granny helping out, private nursery. Through all my kids we've used all variations. It's not patronising or sexist to say that having that much childcare available would make my life easier.

I felt very sorry or Merryn Somerset-Webb on last night's Newsnight. It's clear she's having a very tough tiime. And she was right to highlight that Uni of Edinburgh research which shows Scotland considers itself to to be much more ideologically left wing than it actually is: politically & socially it is very similar to England.

I feel so sad for Scotland today. All that hatred.

But Rita that is happening now. Who is to say it will continue?

Well so far I've seen her grossly exaggerate various information, cherry pick, and not explain what the so called top 10 countries is actually a measure of. I would presume that she is referring to the Global Gender Gap index. It does not purport to measure which is the top country for women to live in but which have the smallest gender gaps. Not quite the same thing and construing it as "best countries for women" is a stretch.

I'm sure for example that British women would prefer to live in Lesotho where they may be marginally more equal according to the index, but their lifespan would be, according to the world bank, 42 years. Or South Africa, where it's 56. Women in Cuba are apparently more equal politically, but I'm sure most of us don't fancy the Cuban political system.

We're running a massive deficit. If you don't want cuts, how do you propose we rebalance our economy.

The SNP majority came suddenly out of the blue in 2011 with the polls suddenly swinging to Yes in the last two weeks.

If there is a 'Yes' vote next week then that will have happened out of the blue too.

So......on this logic there is simply no way of knowing at all what 'kind' of country an independent Scotland will be. Yes of course that will be determined by us but if you are voting in the belief that it will create a parliament that will create a vision of YOUR idea of independence then this is a mistake.

If it is a 'yes' then it will be completely unforseen and what it will be 'like' is therefore completely unforseeable too.

This is not an argument for either side, just an observation. In the same way as a majority SNP government was seemingly impossible, you may think an independent Scottish Tory government is unthinkable too. But it isn't. Post independence we will probably vote for it at some point.

It's sexist to only focus on it as a women's policy Rita. That might be your set up, but it is sexist to classify increasing childcare as a policy for women. It's a policy for families, whatever their set up

It disingenuous to deny it won't benefit more women.

LovelyRita, so glad you brought that one up. Go onto Mumsnet Local Glasgow to see how smoothly the roll out has gone. Or read a recent BBC Scotland article (wish I knew how to link) with regards to parents not being able to access their funded place.

I haven't been able to access my funded place in my area due to changes made. I wrote to my SNP MSP who was not interested at all saying that it was a local issue despite it being a flagship devolved governmental policy.

This is one example of where the devolved government has the power but does nothing about it when there are problems. If they can't get this one right, how can we trust them with all of the fantasy wish-list of the white paper?