How much will it cost Scotland to become independent?

[Innes Newton]

What on earth has that got to do with it? SeilChat is not a democracy as you say, but at least when voting in the referendum a registered voter can give an opinion, " Do you think Scotland should be an independent country YES/NO?" when they vote, without it being traceable back to them.

[NickB]

What on earth has that got to do with it? SeilChat is not a democracy as you say, but at least when voting in the referendum a registered voter can give an opinion, " Do you think Scotland should be an independent country YES/NO?" when they vote, without it being traceable back to them.

You think so?

Have you never noticed that your unique ballot paper number is recorded beside your name when you go to the polling booth to vote?

[Innes Newton]

And a would-be anonymous poster on SeilChat still allows you trace their ISP, as you have done before.

[NickB]

And a would-be anonymous poster on SeilChat still allows you trace their ISP, as you have done before.

I think you mean IP address.

An IP address does not identify any individual unless the ISP examines their server logs, which they would usually only do at the request of the police or security agencies if a crime was suspected.

The main use to me - or any other forum admin - of IP addresses is to spot those using multiple identities to stir up trouble on the forum . . . as you and your pal Longshanks (among others) have done in the past. There is no way I or anyone else can put a real name or location to an IP address - only the Internet Service Provider can do that.

And please try to stay on topic. Your last post could have been more appropriately made in the Bits and Bytes forum.

[Innes Newton]

Why doesn't the Yes campaign know how much it will cost to make Scotland independent? If they do know, why haven't they published it, especially in the White Paper. Perhaps it confirms their socialist weakness. Don't care what anything costs, they can make money grow on trees. No idea how to make money, only how to spend it, until its gone.

[NickB]

Why doesn't the Yes campaign know how much it will cost to make Scotland independent? If they do know, why haven't they published it, especially in the White Paper. Perhaps it confirms their socialist weakness. Don't care what anything costs, they can make money grow on trees. No idea how to make money, only how to spend it, until its gone.

It will cost £21,479,013.34

Or possibly a completely different figure depending on how it is calculated and who is doing the sums and what axes they have to grind.

The question itself is fundamentally flawed, like most of the daft questions you and your fellow unionists ask.

Whatever it costs, for me it will be worth it just to ensure that I am no longer living in the same country as you

[Innes Newton]

for me it will be worth it just to ensure that I am no longer living in the same country as you

I joined SeilChat because I was planning to move to the area. I may still do it. I hope you'll move if I do

It will cost £21,479,013.34

You made that up. I want an honest answer.

The question itself is fundamentally flawed,

And so is, " Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?" It's not just fundamentally flawed, it's deliberately flawed and deceitful like so much of what Alex Salmond says.

[NickB]

You made that up. I want an honest answer

Your question is a stupid and fundamentally dishonest question so you will not get an 'honest answer'. Why don't YOU tell ME how much it is going to cost if it exercises you so much ? (Please show your workings)

Your puerile demonization of Alex Salmond is another playground tactic that has so far failed to bear any fruit.

The referendum question has been approved by the electoral commission an d is accepted by both sides, so it really is a bit late to whinge about that. This referendum is happening whether you like it or not; I thought you might have accepted that by now.

You and the NO campaign are a busted flush. You have been given the chance to make a 'positive case for the union' and all you do is whinge and cry, insult the intelligence of the Scots with daft 'too poor, too wee, too stupid' arguments and call people names.

Meanwhile the odds on a YES vote are tumbling at the bookies. Roll on September.

One last chance - give us one decent argument why we are 'Better Together'

[jimcee]

While it must be very gratifying for our Admisistrator to receive a good character reference from another supporter of his campaign, perhaps some of the indelicate references to one of his protagonists, should maybe have some alarm bells ringing about conduct of this Forum.
I refer to the word "Wa**er", which was used twice in the original posting, but has been subsequently amended by the censor to Wa**er. Does this make it any less offensive?
The word, which I will not repeat, presumably is a derogatory and defamatory term and in this context has nothing to do with sexual proclivities. Whatever the context, it is highly inappropriate in a debate of this nature.
If this is to be the continuing level at which this debate is conducted, I would suggest that the whole subject of Independance be excluded from the forum, and it sticks to less toxic subjects like Wind Farms, Fish Farms, lost cats, potholes, etc

[jimcee]

While not descending into the intracies of spelling, in this case where I have indadvertently put an A instead of a E - here is a serious point.
INDEPENDENCE does not mean that there would be a complete lack of INDEPENDANCE

[NickB]

.
Personally I can quite see why posters might be inclined to the use of profanities when dealing with someone as frustratingly unamenable to reason as the former pirate. As with the BBC we will 'bleep' out anything offensive by using the minimum editing required to sanitise the occasional profanity.

With the asterisks where they are the word could as easily be worker or walker.

Jimcee's use of the word has also been asterisked.

I might have used the term 'gripper' myself . . .

Perhaps I should remind people at this point that moaning about the way the forum is run is in fact a breach of the forum rules - see the section entitled 'back seat moderation'

Oh, and (stating the bleedin' obvious yet again) there is another area of the forum for subjects like Wind Farms, Fish Farms, lost cats, potholes, etc. No-one is under any obligation to open or read any of the posts in this section. (Or indeed any section . . . )

[Innes Newton]

Personally I can quite see why posters might be inclined to the use of profanities when dealing with someone as unpleasant and unamenable to reason as the former pirate

Oh come now, Nick, and you are right on everything are you? You think you are amenable to reason do you,....and pleasant and tolerant with it? Call me all you like. Wa**ker does not offend me, because the simple fact is the vast majority of people are wa**kers, and if they don't admit to it they are liars. So using Jim's terminology we are talking here about sexual proclivities. Think about it in that context. Do you want to admit to being a wa**ker or a liar?

Check everything I have written over the years and you will find I have rarely if ever insulted an individual. Yet I am subjected to the pus of Cnoc Beag.

I do not aim to be destructive to this site at all. I am not dishonest. It is slanderous to suggest I am. Even you have referred to me as a respected contributor to the site over the years. But on Scottish Independence, nuclear and green issues there are topics we disagree strongly on. I am chalk you are cheese, or I am cheese and you are chalk. I stand up for my views, you stand up for yours. You may consider some of my beliefs unpleasant, but no more than I consider some socialist policies to be unpleasant. You're a bit on the left, I'm a bit on the right. The majority of the population are probably somewhere in the middle. They are the ones who may say we're both wrong especially if we start name calling and issuing personal slurs.

[NickB]

I'm a bit on the right.

Of whom?

Atilla the Hun ?

[Innes Newton]

Haha! Don't make me laugh! I hate you!

[Innes Newton]

Well, well, well! I got an answer from "Yes Scotland" to my question, "How much will it cost to make Scotland Independent?" The answer came out of the blue and goes like this:

Dear Andrew

(Not a good start)

Many thanks for contacting Yes Scotland with your question for Yes Scotland.

A Yes vote is not a vote for the SNP or any particular political party. After a Yes vote, the government has indicated it would seek to form a broad and cross-party group to represent Scotland in the subsequent negotiations. The timetable proposed is for 18 months of negotiations, and for independence day in March 2016. Immediately after independence day there would be an election and the people would choose the first independent Scottish Government in May 2016 - and of course we would be free to elect whoever we wished.

Of course, the parties that are officially opposed to independence will not publish policy idea until after a Yes vote. However we are fortunate that many of their members and supporters have said they are voting Yes.

Laurie Clark, owner and managing director of Anglo-Scottish Concrete who is also a leading Tory businessman, conservative party donor and Business for Scotland Advisory Board member met the Prime Minister and told him why he will be voting Yes in the forthcoming independence referendum.

The latest of many prominent business people to come out for independence, Mr Clark said: “For me, a Yes vote represents the end of an unfair union but the beginning of a fairer and mutually beneficial partnership between Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

Business for Scotland and Wealthy Nation, lead by Michael Fry, are two organisations you may wish to read up about further:

"Scotland is a Wealthy Nation but the people of Scotland do not greatly benefit from that wealth. Scotland is held back by a combination of Westminster mismanagement of our economy and a lack of understanding on how to generate the wealth of a nation such as Scotland.

Wealthy Nation has been founded by a group of right of centre, business people, academics, creatives and entrepreneurs who wish to break the tired old politico-economic consensus and point out that people with what are often referred to as conservative views don’t need to be unionists, and that they should in fact support independence for Scotland.

Wealthy Nation believe that a new innovative right-of-centre, wealthy and independent Scotland can offer a better future for our communities, businesses and people."

I hope this information is useful to you but please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Best wishes, Gail

Did it answer my question? Of course not.