Who's country is it?

[NickB]

.
Newsnight Scotland is showing a film on the Icelandic recovery at 11pm tonight, with a discussion afterwards on lessons for Scotland.

[DonnieC]

I cannot get over the condescending attitude of you PP, to consider that an independent Scottish Government cannot deal with 'variables' during its stewardship.

How utterly patronising. You seem to display a very much outdated colonial attitude to the Scots who handled their own affairs perfectly well for far more years than they have been in the Union.

To contemplate we cannot do it again is grossly insulting.

I do not base my self determination opinion on Bannockburn or sentimentallity. I try to avail myself of facts - difficult to come by, mostly from the 'Better' camp - but I would say that anyway!

Wait for the White Paper later this year and then we can all deal with its content and argue/debate from a factual stance. You cannot keep constantly speculatiing when NOBODY can give you the answers.

You seem to be keen on riling some of the people on this forum.

To answer your initial question. You are British. I am first and foremost a Scot and I live in the country, the former Kingdom of Scotland.

This is my last post on this thread but meanwhile, I suggest as a sign-off signature you start using.....'But, what if?'

[Foxglove]

Spoken like a true Scot Donnie....

[Pentlandpirate]

Donnie, I never said a Scottish Government couldn't deal with these variances. I did exactly as you suggested. I said

You may have Scottish MPS making all the decisions in Edinburgh but what if there isn't enough money, what if there is some sort of disaster, conflict, global financial crisis?

I consider myself British, my identity is defined by English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish elements. I lose part of my country and my identity if Scotland separates. This thing doesn't just affect people in Scotland. I'm neither patronising, insulting nor colonial in attitude. I am merely questioning, as this is an extremely important issue those in Scotland have been asked to decide, but which affects tens of millions of others.

And I question a party that has spent its whole political lifetime seeking independence for Scotland that still at this late stage seems to have no plan for what they will do should they get a Yes vote. Why are facts hard to come by? If I appear patronising to raise this issue it can only be that followers of their policies might be a little embarrassed to admit that after all those years nothing has been worked out yet. Or do they, but they don't want to tell anyone in case they start picking holes in it? They have a dream.....but what else?

[MonaLott]

Pentland old chap, it is clear that you aren't Scottish, don't live here and have negative impressions about Scotland's potential. That's fine. We all understand that you feel British first and foremost. That's fine too, though it's perfectly possible to feel British, as I do, and still want Scotland to be self-governing. And there are many English folk and other nationals who also support Scottish independence. However, in this thread, you appear not to have "listened" to what the rest of us have said. That's not so fine. So all we can really do now is refer you to the relevant sections of the Yes campaign's website (http://www.yesscotland.net/why_vote_yes and hope that you will have another go at assimilating the aims of, and proposals for, self-government. In so doing, please also bear in mind that the Yes campaign is not just an SNP/Salmond movement but has significant inputs from the other political parties. There is indeed a general plan on all major issues (government structure/finance/EU/NATO/defence and armed forces/energy/monarchy/health/nuclear weapons/ tax/pensions etc) and the finer detail will be added in the near-future. What you are revealing here - and on the neighbouring climate change thread if I may say so - is a great and dangerous propensity for playing devil's advocate and for imitating the dinosaur.

[Pentlandpirate]

I'm not totally sure what the defining criteria are by which you can claim to be Scottish. can anyone help me? That might be something for another Topic. But it seems from my investigations that should Scotland separate I could qualify for a Scottish passport. And I'm not playing Devils' Advocate (on either topic). I really do not want Scotland to separate, and felt strongly enough about the process to start the topic. That strength of feeling has been noticed in the tone and force of some of my previous remarks, but mistaken for something else.

Like millions of others I am part Scot, part English and British by nationality and I do not want my country to be split up. When you look at the 'general ideas' on almost every aspect of government, splitting apart the countries is such a complicated process, for the sake of a minority that want their way. The transitional phase, perhaps lasting a decade or more, will be enormously costly and perhaps very damaging, to re-shape Scotland to a position of where it starts to be fully in control of its own destiny. Why would you vote this mayhem in during your lifetime, when perceived benefits of separation may not be realised in your lifetime? Again, why?

[MonaLott]

We've tried to tell you why but you're not listening! I for one give up!

[Pentlandpirate]

Well I've tried to understand too, but it's difficult when you don't get any answers of any substance. Even the YesScotland, Why vote yes? just offers a load of fluff. There is no detail at all.

Alex Salmond said he wanted to start a national debate about Scottish Independence. I think all the evidence suggests he is geared only to try and get a Yes vote without having to commit to what an Independent Scotland is going tol do to ensure a better future.

You may say you've tried to tell me, I may say I think you are being led blindly!

[Gavin Rae]

Well I've read this thread with interest over the past few months

What interests me is the proposed timing of the referendum ie Autumn 2014

I'm probably a Yes voter BUT

Ask the more committed 'Yes 'Camp the following questions

Will this not be far too soon in terms of economic recovery to gain a positive outcome?

Will we see Alex Salmond trying to slow down the process in 2013 ? (As some of the opposition says : He's running scared' !

I tend to think that these two factors will play heavily towards a No vote

By the way a belated Happy New Year to all !

Snoman

[NickB]

.
Happy New Year Snoman.

I don't think that short of a war the referendum process can be derailed or postponed by either side now - we are committed to a vote in 2014. Apart from anything else the Section 30 agreement only lasts until the end of 2014.

As for economic recovery - well, if anything, a UK that is still in the throes of recession, doom, gloom and ever-increasing Tory cuts is surely likely to make leaving the Union seem more attractive rather than less, even if it is only 'what have we got to lose' reasoning. I would have thought the 'No' campaign's best hope is a sudden surge in the economy lasting for three or four quarters leading up to the referendum, putting a shinier spin on the 'Better Together' slogan - but I can't see it happening.

[sleepy]

I've been told this is a very worthwhile book to read. I have not read it but intend to order it.

It may have the answers to much of what has been discussed/argued/assumed/theorised over in these postings.

http://reidfoundation.org/2012/10/steph ... -launched/

[sleepy]

Just caught this on BBC Scotland teletex;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-21008959

Should be good!

[NickB]

.
Westminster debate on the Section 30 order now live: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006885

[NickB]

.
Westminster debate on the Section 30 order now live: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006885

Postscript 19:34 - well, the debate is now over after some pretty unedifying displays by Scottish Labour MPs. Here's the speech Angus Robertson, the leader of the SNP group at Westminster, made:


[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqrD1IixXI&sns[/youtube]

[NickB]

.
16th Jan 2013

Alex Salmond speaks about a written constitution for a future independent Scotland and contrasts that with the current democratic deficit at Westminster:

HERE

[Pentlandpirate]

I guess Alex's latest statement must have come as a significant disappointment to his many 'Yes' voters. Yet again, he avoids any real detail on the subject he worked at for so much of his life. It just amounts to more generalised warm air that does nothing to stop people asking, "Why?" To add the word "scaremongering" into his statement really implies that he knows the odds are stacking up against him.

Britain does have a constitution, but constitutions take many forms and the existing one has elements that pre-date even Magna Carta. So many constitutions are written after huge changes in a country, such as revolution, but Britain's has been created and developed into Constitutional law over 1000 years. It's wrong to say Britain doesn't have a constitution. If Scotland separates it will need it's own laws so having a constitution of its own is nothing remarkable.

Trident means more to Britain than just cost. It means alot in terms of defence of not only our own country but also our allies around the world. It also mean alot in terms of gaining knowledge, advanced technology and skilled jobs, benefits which are not easily measured in pounds. It's just that Alex would happily kill off all shipbuilding, navy and associated jobs in Scotland.

Scots have always made up a disproportionate part of the British Forces. If Scotland separates and only maintains a small defence force I suspect the same numbers of young Scots will still want to join the British Forces for the greater experience they will have. Only a socialist could imagine that young men keen on life in the forces will not look forward to conflict. It is what they train for. Saddam Hussein tried to string along the UN and unfortunately for him thought he could get away with a little bit more. He lost his gamble and took his country into a war which was declared legal. Scots will still go to fight in wars around the world whether Alex wants it or not.

Alex Salmond wants everyone to believe the EU would not refuse Scotland membership when Scotland has so much oil, fish and renewable energy. Well Scotland may end up with only 2/3rds of the oil that it thinks it is due. And where are all the fish that Mr Salmond refers to? And who will Scotland sell all it's renewable energy to, and how will it get to those markets?

Alex Salmond still can't give proper answers to serious questions. Is he deliberately trying to avoid admitting to the awful truth or, is the truth that he still doesn't have the answers, answers he should have worked out 10, 20, 30 or more years ago before he started banging on about Bannockburn and Scottish independence? Even today he's harping on about the significance of 16th January in 1707 as if the coincidence of the same date means something extraordinary. It's that sort of thing that makes so many think the guy has really lost the plot.

[NickB]

If Scotland separates it will need it's own laws so having a constitution of its own is nothing remarkable.

How little you actually know about Scotland. It already has its own legal system.

The UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a written constitution.

[Pentlandpirate]

How little you actually know about Scotland. It already has its own legal system.

That's rubbish Nick. Scotland may have it's own legal system but it does not have it's own laws on so many of the big matters, which are reserved to Westminster. As a tiny example Scotland is only just getting the right to set laws on air guns.

It is accurate to say that the UK does not have one single written constitution. But all the same it does have a constitution. And wow, golly, jeez, even kaaaappppooowww, Scotland will also have a constitution if it separates like most other civilised countries in the world. But after 40 years or so of hard thinking on the subject of independence, is this really the only thing that Alex Salmond can suggest which will be done to improve the livelihoods of all Scots if there is a, "Yes" vote? You would think he ought to have alot more ideas, so that instead of so many people saying , "Why?" they might be saying "Yes, these are great plans, we understand exactly how it will work, what it will cost, what the schedule is and what we will gain at the end of the process in real benefits to infrastructure, jobs, education, health, defence, social services, the environment".

Alex Salmond is hiding something. Is it nasty or nice? Who knows? Do you think he knows?

[NickB]

.
The Scottish government intend to publish a white paper published in November, 11 months before the vote. It will set out as much as can possibly be set out at that point in time. However, a lot of the detail will only become clear in the post-referendum negotiations with the Westminster government in the period between the referendum and Scotland becoming independent in 2016.

No-one, not even Alex Salmond, has a crystal ball. The Scottish government can set out certain aspirations and negotiate certain starting points, but they cannot predict the future. That future is uncertain for many reasons. It is uncertain because the nuts and bolts of the independence settlement will have to be negotiated. It is uncertain because the eventual fortunes and direction of an independent Scotland depends not on the current Scottish government but on what future Scottish governments decide.

But most of all it is uncertain because we live in an uncertain world. Did you know at the beginning of last week that the UK was going to be drawn into yet another foreign conflict in Mali? I don't think many people did. Do you know how the money markets will move next week? Do you know if the UK (or rUK) will still be in the EU in four years' time?

None of us know what the future holds. Governments may try to shape the future for their citizens, but their power to do so is limited and often thwarted by events. All independence-minded Scots want is to have a chance to try their hand at shaping Scotland's future and to be able to decide as a nation how they react to and deal with future events. The main thrust of the so-called 'Better Together' campaign has so far been to tell the Scots that they are too poor, too wee and too stupid to run their own affairs and that terrible things will happen if they attempt it.

So far there has been nothing of substance from the NO side, no positive case made for the Union, only an attempt to stir up fear over an uncertain future that is just as uncertain in or out of the Union. As far as I can see the Scots have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Anyway PP, the Section 30 order has been passed. Authority over the referendum is in then hands of the Scottish government and the future of Scotland is in the hands of its citizens. I am sure you will be watching the debate and the eventual vote with interest, but it is a matter for the Scots now.

[Pentlandpirate]

so far been to tell the Scots that they are too poor, too wee and too stupid to run their own affairs

Who exactly has said this?

I personally don't like this new tactic of politicians avoiding making manifesto pledges because they can't predict the future. There's nothing to stop them planning for and trying to shape the future. That's what they are there for. And, especially in this case, I find no evidence of a plan (even if only in it's half formed shape) is either a measure that nothing has been thought out or they are being evasive.

It seems strange that people are being asked to make up their minds to vote "Yes" now, but are being expected to do so without any concept of what the plans are for their new state. And they are being asked to do this without any democratic process that will allow them to get back to where they were before if they don't like the results of a "Yes" vote. Do you think the new constitution will have written into it a democratic process by which the people of Scotland can have the right (by majority vote) to re-join the Union if the people don't like the way things work out?

And on the subject of Mali, are you saying that if you had your way, you wouldn't support Scotland supplying two transport aircraft to help a Nato ally tackle Al-Qaeda on foreign soil, but rather let them train and equip so that they expand their operations and spread their brand of terror across the world? Would an independent Scotland want the protection of Nato yet not be prepared to contribute to it?