Seil Chat

But you know what?....for all the comments (great to see), the Yes voters have still given me little clue as to what an independent Scottish goverment is going to do to make things better and eliminate the risk of things getting worse. Where is the 'substance' to creating a fairer, greener, better Scotland? What's the plan? Does no one know?

(Separate point, but in the interests of being greener is Scotland going to stop pumping out oil so that it can't pollute the environment when used to fuel transport, industry and homes, or is it going to get it out of the ground as fast as it can?)

.
If Scotland votes for independence in 2014 then the makeup of the new independent Scottish government in 2016 is up for grabs. There may be a huge Labour revival in an independent Scotland, for example, while support for the SNP is consequently reduced. The whole political landscape will be new. So much has happened economically and politically around the world in the last four years that anyone claiming to know what conditions will prevail in 2016 can only be a charlatan. No-one can promise that everything will be rosy, that things will be better, that we will be better off or healthier or happier.

The main things that seem certain are that:

~ decisions affecting Scotland will be taken in Edinburgh.

~ the money raised in Scotland will be spent in Scotland with priorities decided by representatives elected by the Scottish electorate.

~ Scotland will - in due course - be free of nuclear weapons.

For me anyway these matters override whether or not we will be a pound better off or worse off. No-one can predict the future, but we can give ourselves a greater say in shaping its day to day reality.

OK those are the pros. What are the cons?

Pentlandpirate wrote:OK those are the pros. What are the cons?

The cons are that it is a bit scary.

It is the scaryness and uncertainty that the 'No' campaign are determined to play for all they are worth - but a future as part of the UK is just as uncertain in these uncertain times.

That's it really as far as I can see. From the point of view of resources versus population there is no compelling reason why Scotland cannot be a successful and prosperous country.

Even the 'No' campaign leaders Michael Moore and Alasdair Darling have admitted that in unguarded moments.

I think you're right. "Why?" was my question. Why take the risk? I might understand if everything was worked out and planned and it was calculated they could make a success of things but there is NOTHING! We all get emotional and nostalgic but that is when we are at our most vulnerable. Scotland separating for sentimental and parochial reasons alone just does not make sense.

Pentlandpirate wrote:I think you're right. "Why?" was my question. Why take the risk? I might understand if everything was worked out and planned and it was calculated they could make a success of things but there is NOTHING! We all get emotional and nostalgic but that is when we are at our most vulnerable. Scotland separating for sentimental and parochial reasons alone just does not make sense.

Have more faith in the Scottish electorate. I am sure that shortbread tin politics are not going to play any significant part.

And getting rid of nuclear weapons is not really a sentimental or parochial matter, is it?

Time for someone else to pick up the thread - I am off to see if DonnieC is still in the pub.

Do you think Scotland would join NATO?

Pentlandpirate wrote:Do you think Scotland would join NATO?

The SNP did have a long-standing committment to leave NATO primarily because it is a nuclear alliance but also because it is a nuclear alliance that has refused to rule out a first strike. This historic committment was abandoned at the party conference in the Autumn, where a motion was narrowly passed that would see an independent Scotland remaining in NATO in a strictly non-nuclear capacity. (25 out of the 28 member states in NATO do not have nuclear weapons).

The SNP and the Greens are committed to removing nuclear weapons from Scottish soil, and there is also widespread support for this at the grass roots in the Labour party. Remaining in NATO could make that more difficult, but at the moment the default position is that at the start of independence Scotland would be in NATO but would negotiate rapid removal of the Trident system from the Clyde.

Beyond 2016 in an independent Scotland it would be a matter for the Scottish people to decide. Who knows what the long term future holds? The one reasonably sure thing is that an independent Scotland would not host nuclear weapons, which for me is a huge plus.

But according to Alex Salmond, Scotland has the most natural resources per capita in Europe. Most of it is at the extremities of what would be Scotland's territory. Scotland may be thankful of a strong defence. Strategically Scotland is very important to NATO. It needs nuclear weapons based there. You just have to look at the map and you can see why Scotland is one of the best places to base nuclear weapons. A non-nuclear hosting Scotland with a tiny self defence force will be of little value to NATO
. If Scotland wants to be in NATO, NATO's condition will be that it can have nuclear weapons on Scottish soil.

It's just another can of worms that didn't have to be opened. It's just one more piece SNP policy built on dreams and not on reality. There needs to be a proper plan for what will happen with Scottish Independence and after so many years chasing the dream no one has got one yet.

Mr Ppirate, can you really be serious? Is your face straight when you propose keeping on a system run remotely and irrelevantly by wallies like Cameron and Clegg? You like being run by clueless toffs with no mandate? You like illegal foreign wars? You like pandering to billionaires and bankers? You still believe in Empire? You probably do - after all, you used the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee as supposedly cogent reasons for staying in the union! You're just havin' a larff!

Are you honestly suggesting that Alex won't use the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow as an example of how Scotland can deliver as a nation. No, I don't recognise Cameron and Clegg as clueless "toffs" (a rather offensive term) and they are certainly no less competent than the socialist wallies leading the Scottish Government. No, I don't mind the odd war (are you still harping on about Iraq? Saddam Hussein had his chance to stop that happening but he thought he could play his enemies along a bit longer). They happen and will always happen. An independent Scotland will just have to ignore probabilty and hope they don't, but it might just get caught with its trousers down.

So if Scotland votes "Yes" it has no Plan A. And those who have decided to vote Yes have no idea what the plan for an independent Scotland is. If they think they will have greater prosperity, more jobs, a better health service, better infrastructure, a better future no one has suggested any serious ideas on how this will be achieved. Unbelievably there seems to be no plan.

And if it doesn't work out well, is there a Plan B? It's unlikely Scotland can rejoin the United Kingdom 'club' after it has walked out. So if oil prices fall, the wind turbines don't turn and fall apart far sooner than expected, what's the plan?

And what has the Scottish Government suggested for scenario C. The 'No's win, the SNP retreat to think again, what's the plan then? The SNP will have been dealt a fatal blow, their whole raison d'etre destroyed in a day. The political landscape in Scotland will change (a few Tories might get in!). It will have been a pointless exercise, costing hundreds of millions, diverting cash from more needed causes and wasting parliamentary time. I have to ask AGAIN, "Why?" do some people want to put Scotland through this?

Have those people who have decided to vote "Yes" really thought about things or are they the sort of people who always have to blame someone else for their woes. If they are, I hope those same people will hold the SNP responsible for what happens should it not become some tartan paradise where everyone walks down the street, throwing their fist in the air and shouting, "Freedom!"

It's really such a shame that you have such a sad view of the capabilities of Scotland's people and that you seem unable to grasp the simple concepts of nationhood and self-determination.

That's not the point I'm making. Does anyone have a plan on how they are going to make Scotland better if they get a "Yes"? I'm not knocking the Scots, I'm just saying a) it is a common conception that many Scots seem to blame everyone (i.e Westminster and the English) but themselves for their woes and b) those that already state they will vote "Yes" seem to be doing so for emotional and parochial reasons rather than based on an understanding of what the plan is to make the country better. (Is that put unfairly?)

For me, my nation is the United Kingdom, as it is for millions of others. I do appreciate the concept of nationship and I am proud to be British and for it to be a free country determining its own future (as far as the EU will allow).

This topic is called, "Who's country is it? " The problem I have had so far is getting those, who think purely of their own interests for Scottish Independence, to recognise that I have a country too and it is called the United Kingdom and I wish to uphold my right to self-determination too! I do not wish MY country, even though I have Scots blood in me, to split up.

Whose country is it?

Pentlandpirate wrote:I do not wish MY country, even though I have Scots blood in me, to split up.

Sorry, but the Edinburgh Agreement exists and the franchise for the referendum is going to be those on the Scots electoral register. It is too late to change that. You will just have to hope the residents of Scotland vote 'No' - but it is a matter for them, not you. The process is determined, it is time to discuss the issues. If you can convince the Scots - as Darling, Moore and co are attempting to do - that we are 'Better Together' then go to it, but there is no point in moaning about the process. You are not going to get a vote unless you establish residence in Scotland and get on the electoral register.

And the issues are?.....Does anyone know what they will do to make Scotland better or is it a matter of saying they'll think about it if they get a Yes vote? The trouble is that if there is a Yes vote, from that moment on, there is no turning back. You have to become a separate country.

OK, not everyone is interested in politics, but I'm surprised that not one person so far has suggested what will happen and how it will happen in a separate Scotland. It just endorses my theory that the desire for independence is based on nothing more than emotions and parochialism with no substance at all to back up the reasons for going for it.

There have been real tyrants in the past, masters of spin. Adolf Hitler was one. Many would say Tony Blair was. And some are saying Alex Salmond is also averse to stating the truth. That's not to say he is a liar but he's not very forthcoming with the facts now is he, and when he does some of those he's made up? He's been called a Chancer. I think it fits him well. Like Tony Blair he want's HIS legacy whatever the price may be.

Pentlandpirate wrote:And the issues are?.....Does anyone know what they will do to make Scotland better or is it a matter of saying they'll think about it if they get a Yes vote? The trouble is that if there is a Yes vote, from that moment on, there is no turning back. You have to become a separate country.

OK, not everyone is interested in politics, but I'm surprised that not one person so far has suggested what will happen and how it will happen in a separate Scotland. It just endorses my theory that the desire for independence is based on nothing more than emotions and parochialism with no substance at all to back up the reasons for going for it.

P, can you predict what is going to happen in the UK after the 2015 general election? Will there be a referendum on EU membership? Will the UK electorate vote to leave? Will we be out of recession? Will there be war in the Middle East? What will the oil price be? Day to day government is largely reactive, no-one can predict even the immediate future, for the UK or for Scotland.

Certain things we can say about an independent Scotland. In fact, I have already said them. You seem to think they are matters of no great import or substance, but these things will be at the heart of an independent Scotland:

~ decisions affecting Scotland will be taken in Edinburgh.
~ the money raised in Scotland will be spent in Scotland with priorities decided by representatives elected by the Scottish electorate.
~ Scotland will - in due course - be free of nuclear weapons
~ There will be a written constitution that represents the will and aspirations of the nation
~ Scotland will be free to make alliances, form partnerships and friendships as she sees fit, as her own nation, not riding on the UK's coat tails.

I don't regard any of that as 'parochial' or 'emotional', and am surprised that you do.

I also wonder how you imagine it would affect you if Scotland became independent. Exactly what difference do you imagine it would make to your life?

.
I've just started reading this book:



It is probably the most learned yet accessible book yet written on the subject; it might form a good basis for further discussion. The link above goes to Amazon, where you can read more about it, but I expect you can get it in Waterstones as well.

The United Kingdom has a track record of dealing with these variables. Scotland, doesn't on the same basis. Scotland has no idea if it can join the EU, has no idea what currency it can use, has little idea what revenues will be available to it (apparently it will only get 2/3rds of the oil and gas it thinks it will get), has no idea what rates of tax it will set, etc, etc. It doesn't even know if England will buy any of its wind generated electricity.

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? These sort of things are far easier to ride out if part of something bigger. You can't just leave it all until after the vote and say we'll sort it out then. That's no way to run a country. You need clear strategies and long term plans agreed before a decision to go forward. Why aren't the electorate being told what they are?

Pentlandpirate wrote:You need clear strategies and long term palns. Why aren't the electorate being told what they are?

This is what will be discussed at great length in 2013. As I said before, so far - up to the Edinburgh Agreement - it has been almost entirely to do with process. This year the debate moves on to substance.

I've just been watching Newsnight Scotland, which was about precisely this point. If you want to see these issues being discussed then you need a TV service that can receive BBC Scotland, and you should also subscribe to at least one or two of the Scottish papers. You will get a very occasional and biased view via the English media as it is not a big issue for most South of the border.

There are a few lively blogs that might also give you a flavour of the debate:

Better Nation
Newsnet Scotland
Moridura
Bella Caledonia

Someone else on here can recommend some views from the 'other side', as I am less familiar with them.