[Rich Goodale]

Niall

I respect your pride and your opinions, but I do think that an independent Scotland would be a better place to live in than as a part of the UK as it is now.  I wonder if any of our Canadian friends would prefer to be a part of the USA rather than an independent nation, or how many Ukranians would prefer to be a part of Russia rather than what they are now?

As is said, think global but act local.

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

Rich,

Grovellingly dependent?  I don't recognise the Scotland I know, nor the Scots.  Hyperbole like that doesn't further the argument at all, I'm afraid.

[Jon Wiggett]

Possibly, Mark, because one of my great-great-great-etc.-grandfathers (Capt. John Parker) commanded the Minutemen at Lexington green in 1775 whose efforts eventually removed the yoke of British tyranny that led to the USA. 

Rich

Rich,

I am sure you feel fully justified in the above statement but the hypocrisy might be considered staggering if looked at from a 'Native American' point of view. It is so easy to start throwing stones basing arguments on a preferred version of history. In the end it will be people with the right to vote who will decide on Scotland's future but the type of argument you have been pushing in the last few posts does not help anyone.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I am still amazed such a large percentage of Scots will not get to vote on this matter.  I know folks go on about wanting those who pay tax in Scotland to vote, but thats exactly what a Scot does living in England.  A lot of Scots move south because there aren't the ready jobs in Scotland.  Their punishment is to lose the right to vote on the most important Scottish issue ever.  Its ludicrous that where one lives in relation to a broken wall ( ) determines ones eligibilty to vote.  Who in the hell dreamed up such a disenfranchising, rigged voter qualification system?  This alone makes me very distrustful of Salmon and the entire independence process. 

Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

whilst I agree with most of what you say it does not fit in with the underlying concept of democracy.  The question is about being under the control of a government in Westminster or in Holyrood so it is not the taxpaying public but the voting public who will decide.

Jon

[Tony_Muldoon]

Rich I asked you in posts 133 and 137 to put some meat on that argument and so far nothing that resembles in any form a single fact.  Luckily I haven’t been holding my breath.

I have no dog in this fight and am merely watching from the sidelines. So far, to me, Salmond etc haven’t made a compelling case for independence but at least they have so far tried to make a case based on more than mere rhetoric. As we move closer to voting day I expect that to change and the appeal to the emotions to be played up at every turn.  Cameron and Darling etc will struggle to find an answer.

Though it will always appeal to the drunks in the stands at Murrayfield, the cry of “Remember Bannockburn” will be useless to the (Australian born)  manager of the Scotland team as he prepares his fifteen (mostly playing overseas) to face Georgia in their attempt to qualify for the next Rugby World Cup. Times have changed!

This summer will be a long time in Scottish politics.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

whilst I agree with most of what you say it does not fit in with the underlying concept of democracy.  The question is about being under the control of a government in Westminster or in Holyrood so it is not the taxpaying public but the voting public who will decide.

Jon

Thats just it Jon.  For some bizarre reason, Salmon and the boys have somehow divorced the two as if never related.  Of course there is a very strong correlation between paying tax and having the right to vote.  However, in the absurdity in this case is heightened because someone could be Scottish and pay tax and yet not be offered the vote.  I have no idea how this set up could ever fly and I am bewildered that Westminster didn't step in and insist on offering the opportunity for all Scots to vote on the referendum.  This is democracy at its most basic level and Salmon has missed the mark by a country mile.  Lets put it this way.  I couldn't possibly trust a politician who is willing to disenfranchise a segment of the population for the sake of expediency - its rotten at the core.  As usual, I am far more concerned with the process being above board so democracy can truly be excercised than I am with the outcome.  If its fair vote, I don't mind the outcome.  

Ciao    

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

whilst I agree with most of what you say it does not fit in with the underlying concept of democracy.  The question is about being under the control of a government in Westminster or in Holyrood so it is not the taxpaying public but the voting public who will decide.

Jon

Thats just it Jon.  For some bizarre reason, Salmon and the boys have somehow divorced the two as if never related.  Of course there is a very strong correlation between paying tax and having the right to vote.  However, in the absurdity in this case is heightened because someone could be Scottish and pay tax and yet not be offered the vote.  I have no idea how this set up could ever fly and I am bewildered that Westminster didn't step in and insist on offering the opportunity for all Scots to vote on the referendum.  This is democracy at its most basic level and Salmon has missed the mark by a country mile.  Lets put it this way.  I couldn't possibly trust a politician who is willing to disenfranchise a segment of the population for the sake of expediency - its rotten at the core.  As usual, I am far more concerned with the process being above board so democracy can truly be excercised than I am with the outcome.  If its fair vote, I don't mind the outcome.  

Ciao    

I flicked on to this thread only in mild interest... But got me thinking that if someone is not living in Scotland, how do you define them as Scottish and thus give them the vote?

Purely on the city of birth I guess?... In which case, I am not Scottish.

But I am.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

whilst I agree with most of what you say it does not fit in with the underlying concept of democracy.  The question is about being under the control of a government in Westminster or in Holyrood so it is not the taxpaying public but the voting public who will decide.

Jon

Thats just it Jon.  For some bizarre reason, Salmon and the boys have somehow divorced the two as if never related.  Of course there is a very strong correlation between paying tax and having the right to vote.  However, in the absurdity in this case is heightened because someone could be Scottish and pay tax and yet not be offered the vote.  I have no idea how this set up could ever fly and I am bewildered that Westminster didn't step in and insist on offering the opportunity for all Scots to vote on the referendum.  This is democracy at its most basic level and Salmon has missed the mark by a country mile.  Lets put it this way.  I couldn't possibly trust a politician who is willing to disenfranchise a segment of the population for the sake of expediency - its rotten at the core.  As usual, I am far more concerned with the process being above board so democracy can truly be excercised than I am with the outcome.  If its fair vote, I don't mind the outcome.  

Ciao    

I flicked on to this thread only in mild interest... But got me thinking that if someone is not living in Scotland, how do you define them as Scottish and thus give them the vote?

Purely on the city of birth I guess?... In which case, I am not Scottish.

But I am.

Ally

You are Scottish through your birth parents, no?  It doesn't matter if you were born on the moon.  I believe you should have the right to vote in the referendum.  Why should a Pole recently moved to Scotland have the right to vote, but a Scottish British citizen does not?  It stinks of a rigged electorate.  The message Salmon is sending to the disenfranchised is that they aren't really Scots. 

Ciao      

[Mark Pearce]

Rich's comment about "grovelling dependency" would bear more weight if it weren't for the fact that Scotland is grossly disproportionate;y represented in Westminster.  If any region of the UK had a right to complain of being "grovellingly dependent" then I'd think the North East of England and South Wales had far better shouts.

As to who is entitled to vote, my wife was born in Fife and grew up in Edinburgh.  She feels proudly Scottish (though doesn't feel that pride in any way mitigated by the lack of independence) and has a clear view on the referendum, yet she is not entitled to a vote.  An EU immigrant who has been resident in Edinburgh for 3 years but has no understanding of the difference between Scotland and England, however, has a right to vote.  Perverse that a referendum about nationality is open to those with no interest but not to a large number of those for whom that nationality has a strong meaning.

[Niall C]

Rich

Happy to hear what the arguments are for Scotland being better off outwith the Union. As I've said before I'm open to persuasion but so far the (economic) case has been extremely weak. To propose a currency union where we would have little or no control over economic policy doesn't sound like independence to me. Neither does a head on rush to get back into the EU. If you think the UK's interests are compromised by Brussels bureaucrats imagine how a smaller country like Scotland would fair in any shake up.

However my main issue with the SNP campaign is all the name calling backed up by the cybernat offensive. They seem intent in closing down any reasoned argument against there cause rather than engaging in an adult debate. Instead all we get is invective. Your depiction of Scotland as a colony or a land of serfs who have been taken advantage of is part of that and is complete nonsense. As for Canada/US, well if both countries want a union then good luck to them, which BTW would be different from the US annexing the canooks Crimea style which is what you seem to suggest.

Sean

I think it wide of the mark to say that Scots go south because there aren't the ready jobs up here. I think it fairer to say they move because there may be better opportunities but then that is a two way street as can be seen by the number of foreign accents heards in any Scottish workplace. That is the nature of the world these days.

Tony

This is a no-rugby site, well at lkeast until we start winning again  

Niall  

[Ian Andrew]

Rich,

I just wanted to point out the Canada US analogy doesn't work. There's no chance of an union and furthermore we still maintain a parliamentary system based around the same Queen as you. 

The analogy with Quebec and Canada is a much better one. They have had multiple votes to separate, but none have been successful to date (one was very close). It's thought that immigration is now becoming a series the factor in Quebec not being able to achieve independence in the future.

There was a pretty comprehensive independent study done around of the one votes that concluded both new countries would suffer economically in the short term. It was a pretty rationale argument that touched on duplication of services, initial confusion both internally and externally, increased cost of debt because of debt rating reductions and the cost of sorting out the complete separation of to new governments (that was actually worked out in detail in preparation for a vote that most thought would be successful). The obvious was there would be a lot more for Quebec to do from establishing a wider infrastructure to cover national programs through to writing a new constitution and laws.

The biggest unknown that cropped up was whether other areas were free to have their own vote to stay in Canada. The native communities were the most interesting aspect of that secondary debate. As we got close to the last vote (assumed to be a successful independence vote) the level of complexity around the issue increased as they (Canadian Federal Government and not Quebec) tried to get all the ducks in order to make succession smooth.

It was an interesting time as politicians allowed the process to go forward and the federal government stayed largely out of the way. In frustration, normal Canadians became very active in campaigning for Quebec to stay. It had a remarkable impact on the process. Quebecers who wanted to remain went from quiet to vocal and the entire dynamic flipped mid process. I always thought this vote was very good for "Canada." Whether successful or not, the relationship between countries will have changed.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
As a Scotsman with dual Australian and British citizenship the rationale of whom is allowed to vote or not is bewildering and to some extent bizarre.  I do not feel disenfranchised as a Scot but am dumbfounded that European economic migrants are able to vote and I am not. I understand that I do not pay British taxes but I was born and bred in Scotland. My offspring and their offspring have a right to go to Britain and dwell there with British rights. I would have thought that I might well have had the opportunity and "right", ahead of an economic migrant to vote on the sovereignty issue but apparently not!  I am lucky that Oz is my country of choice, so being selfish, it is no skin off my nose. Nonethelesss the politics and wiles of who can or cannot vote seem twisted and whimsical from here in The Antipodes. As Sean Arble says the outcome is what it is but how that is decided on seems far from democratic in terms of Scottish heritage, culture and connection.

And I reiterate only about 10% of the people (in Scotland) that  I have interacted with seem to be voting Yes.
The Scots are living  "in interesting times"!

Cheers, never grovelingly dependent and no longer hemmed in by a "broken wall"!!!

Colin.

[Niall C]

Ian

Thats interesting to hear about the Canadian experience. One thing that the Scottish independence vote will do is make other parts of the UK re-examine their own identity and their relationship with their neighbours, which I think is no bad thing.

Personally I don't think you need issue your own passport to have a national identify.

Niall

[David_Tepper]

"Salmond has put Britain on the low road to breakup"

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/506cd31e-bf2a-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2yaIaQWbs

[Jon Wiggett]

It was an interesting argument that Wee Eck made on R4 today. Apparently the monetary union is 100% sure and the southern bluster about it not happening is just what ALL politicians do when making their case which is lie. Apparently the rUK will have to do a deal. Of course what Alex is forgetting is he to is therefore a lying politician by his own definition. What he also forgets is in the event of independence will any politician risk the wroth of the shunned electorate who will probably not want a monetary  union with an independent Scotland!

Jon

[Rich Goodale]

A well thought out and timely intervention from Scotland's most influential newspaper.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/sunday-herald-view/the-prize-is-a-better-country-it-is-as-simple-as-that-why-the-sunday-hera.24133829

[Niall C]

Well, at least they have at long last declared their hand although anyone reading this paper wouldn't need to be a genius to know which way it was leaning. Liked the bit about continuing to be independent in its reporting, very funny.

Niall

[Mark Chaplin]

Interesting stage at the moment - the yes campaign are far more committed and excited than the no campaign.

[David_Tepper]

Column on Bloomberg:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-02/if-scotland-secedes-who-gets-its-oil

[Jon Wiggett]

As Niall says, nice that they have finally declared what everyone knew. They are anything other than open and even handed in their reporting.

As for the Oil and Gas. A majority of the gas is in RUK waters not Scottish. As for the oil the SNP have already promised the Scottish people a fund such as in Norway but also are giving it away to pay the Scottish part of the national debt though this will not cover it. Good to see Alex like Putin though the thought of seeing a bare chested Wee Eck is not a pleasant one.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

Not that I have a corner in all of this but not sure that nationality is so practical to define, given that us Brits have British passports, rather than Scottish, English etc. Actually, we havw European-British passports but you see my point.

[Niall C]

Interesting stage at the moment - the yes campaign are far more committed and excited than the no campaign.

Mark

Not sure its about committment but the Yes campaign is certainly better funded and better organised. The last bit is due to it being all but a SNP campaign whereas the No campaign is a broad coalition of UK parties who don't normally co-operate.

Niall

[Jonathan Mallard]

The gap narrows, and the plot thickens...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11069121/Scottish-Independence-Yes-camp-closes-the-poll-gap.html

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()