Indyref 11. The home of good manners

[grovel]

!0,000 and counting.

Rita the plans for further devolution in the event of a No vote weren't dreamed up in the last couple of weeks. All the other parties outlined their own thoughts on the matter and promised to make sure that it was delivered much earlier in the summer.

What changed is that Gordon Brown felt that the promises would be taken more seriously if there was a tight timetable that they could be held to account to rather than people feeling that it would never happen.

As it is there are already further powers on the statue book from the Calman commission.

Kasia Dugdale isn't a grey wet useless man.

There are some stars out there in the darkness lovely. Change is happening. I have no doubt that there will be a larger turnout in next GE.

Rita

I would agree with AnnieHoo. The re-engagement of the Scots in politics is not a genie that you can put back in the bottle. Thank God. Whatever the outcome on Thursday, the landscape of Scottish politics has changed for ever. It's just that I'm concerned to ensure that it doesn't change towards disaster and division and I'm prepared myself to put some considerable work in to attempt to avoid that. I hope others will also.

The fact of approx. half the Scottish electorate not wanting to leave UK really puts the onus on the yes campaign to explain how we would benefit from independence. The drive for independence came from one political party. It's up to that party to explain its ideas for independence so that the electorate can compare it with the current situation and what they think is most likely to happen to UK in the future .

In the event of a yes vote we don't know what direction Scotland would take - maybe it would be great - but we do know that we would have broken up the UK. We need a positive reason to do that.

Other parties outlining thoughts is of no use to anyone. Only the elected government can put it forward then it will have to be signed off.by the house of lords.

A Labour back bencher, because that's all Brown is now, writing down a timetable on the back of a fag packet means nothing.

Still a really interesting thread - but v hard to keep up!

Scotland is a strong country with a great history of inventors, thinkers, artists etc - but is imho stronger in a union with the rest of the UK, just as the rest of the UK is stronger with Scotland involved.

During a time of global economic and political unrest, like now, that combination is especially beneficial to all of the UK and actually to our global partners, like the EU and the USA.

Scotland voting no would not be timidity to me, it would be hard-headed pragmatism!

Rita

He doesn't have to have any aces u his sleeve. It's not a battle ground.

I'm afraid that this isn't going to be like some teenager leaving home and negotiating on the terms of his new flat with a formerly indulgent father. I see again and again 'It'll be sorted in negotiations' but one of the problems is that in the event of separation Westminster will no longer have any moral or emotional obligation to the Scots. They would be looking after their own interests and it would be hardball indeed.

Of course he would have to go to the table with something. I'm perplexed as to what he thinks that might be though.

He doesn't have to have any aces u his sleeve. It's not a battle ground.

It could however become one. Scotland can't go in banging fists saying we want, we will have, like there has been over CU. rUK will have it's own people and own interests to look out for and quite franky why shouldn't they?

rUK would have 60 million people to look out for and Scotland 5.5 million.

It wouldn't be a 'battleground' but it would be rUK negotiating for the best deal for rUK and Scotland negotiating for the best deal for Scotland. They won't be the same things. (some will, but they'll be two completely separate countries)

"But vote for who? The Labour party that are now practically indistinguishable from the conservatives?"

Indistinguishable?!? I can understand that Labour has let people down and made mistakes, they aren't perfect. But there is a huge difference between a Labour government and a Conservative one for ordinary people.

How do you lot manage to type so fast - I'm impressed.

BT campaigning at 1pm here.

Just a quickie - on the video I posted last night - someone from the German media has left a message that they want to use the footage for a piece on German TV.

Your 'No' message is getting out there!

Absolutely indistinguishable.

Miliband has no plans to halt the planned austerity, more than half still to come, if he's next pm.

New Labour proved time and tome again that it no connection with ordinary people.

I'm ashamed to have Ben a member and supporter.

Scottish Labour are marginally better.

LivingZuid says Scotland does not have enough people to make it viable, it will struggle to get enough people to make it viable, particularly in the face of increased competition from the EU and a drain of people and money south, and the Yes campaign has no plan at all to remove the dependency that you say exists through a currency

...and some on here have argued that it's nationalist propaganda to claim that No has said "we're too wee and too poor"?

Tell that to Denmark, Luxembourg, Holland, Finland, all of whom seem to survive quite adequately with populations of similar size and similar resources not even mentioning the oil

choc hope it goes well

The rUK didn't get a say in this. In the event of independence there's no way they'll be generous to Scotland. Fair, hopefully but they won't be wanting to give anything extra.

Saying that there are no parties to vote for in WM is an argument in favour of independent mps and/or proportional representation not for leaving. There's no reason to think there would be any better choice of candidate if Scotland were to get independence.

No one will be banging fists or role playing a teenager/father scenario. I don't get these emotive analogies.

It will be two parts of one country working on how to divide mutual assests. With a lit of lawyers involved I'm guessing.

There's no stomping,demanding, huffing or puffing involved.

Out of interest, what would the NO voters suggest is an acceptable percentage for a Yes mandate?

60% of the turnout? Or does it need to be higher?

"too wee, too stupid, too poor". Was the supposed description of Scotland.

Fair is all that's needed.

This is a legal, agreed referendum in a democracy to see if the people in Scotland want to break away from the union, agreed by the prime minister of the UK.

Despite what you might think it's not done despot decision taken to Lisa everyone else off.

It won't be two parts of one country. It'll be negotiations for how to make two separate countries. The UK wouldn't have voted for Scottish independence.

I'd say 70 or 75% would be an acceptable percentage. Most people have to want it for the claim that the people of Scotland want to be independent to be justifiable.

Why do people in Scotland doubt that we can go it alone?

Because Rita, they have studied all the available evidence and decided for themselves that the economic case makes independence unviable at the moment. Of course you can survive, but not without a lot of pain.
You may be prepared to suffer that, but they are not.

I think campaigners on both sides are "guilty" of using emotive language.

Who coined that phrase "too wee, too stupid" phrase, out of interest?

Lisa everyone off

That should be piss.
At negotiations we'll still be part of the UK.

Yes - fair. Therefore no CU, no shared embassies, no more subsidised renewables etc