To be Worried About How Bad The Atmosphere In The Uk Will Be In The Event Of A No Vote?

[CalamityClara]

The tension between the yes and no parties is awful. Campaigners from both sides are behaving in a very aggressive manner and I've even heard the odd report of people getting into physical altercations If the result of the referendum is no I fear Scotland is going to descend into chaos, things aren't just going to settle back down. How can we ever come back from this? I honestly fear there is going to be violence.

As a Yes-voting Scot, I'm intrigued by the idea that we should somehow be responsible for rUK electing a Tory/UKIP gvt, after we leave the union. Our votes have only made a difference to the UK Gvt twice in the last 50/60 years, and that, for a total of 22 months. (Unstable gvts, yes, we've had them too.) I do, totally, understand that it feels like Scotlands 40-odd
Labour MPs make a difference, but really, they don't. They might make a stronger Labour gvt at WM, but have not tipped the change at all.

If Scotland votes Yes, rUk is responsible for how rUk votes. rUk might like to change how (in a different sense) they vote; but that is a matter for rUK, and certainly not the responsibility of a "foreign country."

Even if it were a policy, BP isn't Scotland's to privatise. It is a British company registered on the London stock exchange with a London head quarters (which arguably makes it English). It has interests all over the world and investors from across the globe who would not be keen on handing back their shares. Scotland couldn't afford to privatise it apart from anything else - its equity is worth about £130bn which probably more than the whole of Scotland put together and given an independent Scotland's very shaky financial position post independence, it is certainly more than it could dream of borrowing. It is bizarre that anybody would think it could belong to Scotland and possibly one of the wildest ideas I think I have heard.

I am relieved to hear it isn't part of the mainstream pro-independence agenda.

I don't understand either Custardo. I'm not saying I personally don't want to keep it, but if I'm not sure it will make much ecomnomic difference to us in the end, or it will make a positive difference, whereas I don't think the same can be said of Scotland.

I totally get why David Milliband is pushing for No, but why David Cameron is has completely stumped me. I would have thought anyone but a Labour voter in England would be quite happy to see them go.

Aargh sorry that was garbled crap and I unwittingly contradicted myself. I don't mean any non-Labour voters should be happy to see them go, I just mean that wiping out so many Labour voters in one hit could be considered as something of an incentive, even if you don't especially want to split from Scotland.

Cameron is taking a longer view. But also short term there would be fallout -both economic and political from a split.

What will happen to house prices? That's all I care about

I would guess DC doesn't want to go down as the PM who presided over the break up of the union. He'll be perceived as weak and ineffectual by tory voters and the people who don't like him now (of which there are plenty) will like him even less.

Jam donut I agree with you. I dint vote for a tory government but I would never ever have voted Salmond into power but hey he managed to get in. Evening a independent scotland it doesn't mean we get the government we vote for.

even in a whoops!

I am unhappy about the oil money being spent on 5 million in Scotland, rather than shared across the UK. That is not social justice, but keeping all the sweeties for the good children who were born in the right place.
Why not take that one step further and share the money with everybody in Europe?
Or the world. I imagine they could manage a handful of change to everybody in the world. You know, just to be fair.

I am merely pointing out that those who see a Yes vote as a way of "ending poverty" and ensuring social justice don't really mean ending or ensuring either of those things. They mean just in their little tiny bit. My personal opinion is that a Yes vote is a route to fairly swift economic disaster and an IMF bailout which will bring stringent conditions that will do damage to the lives and finances of everyone living here.

But, you can't both keep the oil AND claim to be all about social justice.

"I am unhappy about the oil money being spent on 5 million in Scotland, rather than shared across the UK. That is not social justice, but keeping all the sweeties for the good children who were born in the right place."

I felt a bit like that when I moved from Scotland when unemployment was horrendous and went south and got offered 2 jobs on my first day of job hunting. I realised that many folk down south had no idea what other areas were going through. Didn't seem like the wealth and jobs were being shared out through the rest of the Uk.

"I am unhappy about the oil money being spent on 5 million in Scotland, rather than shared across the UK. That is not social justice, but keeping all the sweeties for the good children who were born in the right place.

Why not take that one step further and share the money with everybody in Europe?
Or the world. I imagine they could manage a handful of change to everybody in the world. You know, just to be fair."

You wouldn't take it one step further because Europe and the rest of the world aren't part of the UK and Scotland is, at least for the next few days. To extend the principle of what Rose says is nonsense.

There have always been disparities in employment across the country. There have been attempts to try and even it out with regional Development Grants and the like but they don't work do they? Despite the prospect of lower living costs people just don't want to move their businesses to other regions. I would think an independent Scotland should be trying to lure business but the prospect seems to be driving it away at the moment. What is the yes campaigns solution to that?

You wouldn't take it one step further because Europe and the rest of the world aren't part of the UK and Scotland is, at least for the next few days. To extend the principle of what Rose says is nonsense.
The UK is part of the EU isn't it? At least for now.
Of course it's nonsense, that was partially my point, but it's only the original nonsense on a larger scale.

Yes but at the moment the UK isn't entirely run by Europe - it can't even out the distrubution of wealth/jobs/powers or whatever within the UK, so is nonsense and it is a pointless comparison. The orginal point was about the wealth of the country being located in part of the country and not spread around. I don't see that saying it should be spread around Europe does anything to counter that point or to suggest a way of increasing social justice.

The question is whether the concentration of oil wealth in Scotland is fair and if not, how would you achieve greater social justice?

Personally, I think oil will be gone in the next half century so if they want to make hay whilst the sunshines they better get on with it. They don't have much wealth being generated elsewhere. Lets hope they use the money wisely to start creating other income streams.

I think the idea is to ficus on setting up of renewables. We have 25 per cent of EU's wind and wave potential.

Currently Orkney and Shetland are generating surplus renewable energy. It's wasted because they don't have a cable to link to the mainland.

Look at comparable size countries -Ireland doing better than uk at the moment, Denmark, Singapore - one if the richest countries in the world per capita. And they have nothing! No resources. The oil is a bonus for Scotland.

Yes but at the moment the UK isn't entirely run by Europe -
And Scotland isn't entirely run by the UK. The comparison is close enough to make my point.

it can't even out the distrubution of wealth/jobs/powers or whatever within the UK
Apparently, neither can the UK. Based on how things stand now.

If I was Scotland I'm not Scotland, I'm barely England and the argument for remaining in the UK, from WM, was that "we'll have less and we need yours" I'd be inclined to point out that Scotland has less now. Not just less than they might have out of the UK but less than England has - and apparently at Scotland's expense.
It's not a compelling argument, and comes across as nothing short of Empirical greedy.

What will happen to house prices?

They will fall. In fact, they already are.

BogQueen the contacts I have in Irish Republic are not saying things are good economically there right now. For ordinary people I mean.

Where are they falling? Certainly not in the south east, London and most parts of East Anglia they are not. Are you talking about Scotland?

bogqueen the trouble with focussing on renewables is we are already overrun with wind turbines and encouraging more is not conducive to promoting tourism.

Some. of my relatives are trying to move back to Dublin but it's really flippin' expensive .

Like everywhere else, the gap between rich and poor is growing. The money isn't trickling down because it is held in property or funds rather than being invested in the economy. Similar in New York which, like London, is becoming gentrified to the extent that ordinary people cannot afford to live there.

obviously I mean 'imperial' not 'empirical' and I don't know why it's capitalized either.

I think that in Scotland it is in danger of being poisonous, but not in England or Wales.