Scotland's vote for Independence

handlemaster

Scotland looks as if they will get to vote for Independence. Will the country go on the slide or will it be a good thing. What about the North sea oil surely England would leave them with this ?

Fratton Fred

Scotland will get to vote for independence whenever they like, their destiny is entirely in their own hands.

Personally, I've never met a Scot who thinks it is a good idea. Nice in theory, but bad in parctice.

Will England let them keep their oil? not sure what you mean by that, it's in Scotland, so it is Scottich oil. If they leave, they take it with them.

handlemaster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scotland will get to vote for independence whenever they like, their destiny is entirely in their own hands.

Personally, I've never met a Scot who thinks it is a good idea. Nice in theory, but bad in parctice.

Will England let them keep their oil? not sure what you mean by that, it's in Scotland, so it is Scottich oil. If they leave, they take it with them.

Like the French in Algeria ? It doesn't have to left with the Scots you will find

Fratton Fred

handlemaster wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scotland will get to vote for independence whenever they like, their destiny is entirely in their own hands.
Personally, I've never met a Scot who thinks it is a good idea. Nice in theory, but bad in parctice.
Will England let them keep their oil? not sure what you mean by that, it's in Scotland, so it is Scottich oil. If they leave, they take it with them.

Like the French in Algeria ? It doesn't have to left with the Scots you will find

That's not exactly a like for like comparison.

handlemaster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's not exactly a like for like comparison.

True, Algeria has better weather

eire4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scotland will get to vote for independence whenever they like, their destiny is entirely in their own hands.

Personally, I've never met a Scot who thinks it is a good idea. Nice in theory, but bad in parctice.

Will England let them keep their oil? not sure what you mean by that, it's in Scotland, so it is Scottich oil. If they leave, they take it with them.

I know plenty of Scots who think it is the right path forward for Scotland. It will be battle for Salmond to get a majority to vote in favour of independance but I think by the time 2014 rolls around it well be a very tight call which way the vote will go. A recent Telegraph poll put the vote at 40% for independance 43% against.
You mention oil Scotland also has massive potential in terms of future renewal energy production as well.

passarellaie

eire4 wrote: »

I know plenty of Scots who think it is the right path forward for Scotland. It will be battle for Salmond to get a majority to vote in favour of independance but I think by the time 2014 rolls around it well be a very tight call which way the vote will go. A recent Telegraph poll put the vote at 40% for independance 43% against.
You mention oil Scotland also has massive potential in terms of future renewal energy production as well.

The Scots should have the balls to stand up and say they are a nation.Now is their opportunity to show the World they are a nation and not a province.If they dont why should they be allowed to have international sports teams.Let them
stand up and be counted or recognize they are merely the North of England.

Jorah

passarellaie wrote: »

The Scots should have the balls to stand up and say they are a nation.Now is their opportunity to show the World they are a nation and not a province.If they dont why should they be allowed to have international sports teams.Let them
stand up and be counted or recognize they are merely the North of England.

If you think Scotland has a problem with asserting its national identity...then you've never been to Scotland.

Scotland is not the North of England. The North of England is the North of England.

HowsAboutThis

I get the impression it'll be "a good idea" right up until you get to the ballot box and actually have to make the hard choice.

I don't see independence vote getting more than about 1/3. If it does manage to edge closer to 50% you might find the outcome is a transfer of even more powers to the Scottish Parliament (and probably the welsh on the back of it) so that you get close to a loosely held "federation" of countries inside the UK.

petronius

Independence for Scotland makes sense -
They would decide to send their kids to fight and die in Iraq or Afganistan not London
They would spend the revenue of North Sea oil on infrastructure education and job creation
They would chose to invest in renewable energy not Nuclear?
They have different views and priorities than England.
England has syphoned off the revenue from North Sea Oil and Gas, and the South East and London has benefited mostly from this. Not Scotland nor the North east of england.

If new oil deposits are found then the areas most likely are north west(with Ireland/Iceland) and north of scotland(Faroes and Norway), this is a future cash cow for the UK , so they are desperate to keep scotland.

Scotland has suffered massive industrial decay, and was perhaps punished or neglected in the 80s and 90s by tory governments since they voted labour anyways.
The evidence of where the benefits of the lottery win of Finding North sea oil, are shown not In scotland, but in London, where the dosh was spread, traded and some scraps were sent northwards

Surely a Scotland in the EU would be an ally of Ireland and strengthen the voice of smaller nations.

youreadthat

Most of what you said are lies, and you bumped an old thread. 10 points to you sir.

petronius

What part do you disagree with, or think is not factual?

TheCruiser

I currently live in Scotland, so bizarrely I'm entitled to vote on the independence question whilst a Scot living in England cannot. Anyone want to sway me on a question I'm rather indifferent about? :-)

AngryLips

passarellaie wrote: »

The Scots should have the balls to stand up and say they are a nation.

...but they're not.

eire4

TheCruiser wrote: »

I currently live in Scotland, so bizarrely I'm entitled to vote on the independence question whilst a Scot living in England cannot. Anyone want to sway me on a question I'm rather indifferent about? :-)

I found this link to be pretty interesting.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

LordSutch

BBC Question Time from Edinburgh 13-06-13, with an audience of 16/17 year olds, who will be the 1st of this age group in the United Kingdom to have the vote. Hosted by David Dimbleby, with guests George Galloway, Nigel Farage, Ruth Davidson, Angus Robertson, Lesley Riddoch, Anas Sarwar.

The show is very illuminating, even gripping at times as it gets to grapple with the core issues surrounding the Scottish independence debate. So may I suggest that you take an hour out, put your feet up, listen/watch carefully, and then come back and post your thoughts on this great debate surrounding Scottish independence > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ADouZXsag&feature=player_detailpage

A truly great (classic) edition of Question Time, and so enlightening too!

Enjoy.

Rascasse

I often wonder if the SNP conducted opinion polls amongst 16 and 17 year olds before offering them the vote. The presumption is teenagers would be lefty idealists and independence would be a cause they would get behind, but the opinion polls show the opposite.

Unless something drastic happens there will be a no vote. Where will that leave Salmond and the SNP?

OS119

Rascasse wrote: »

...Unless something drastic happens there will be a no vote. Where will that leave Salmond and the SNP?

oh there'll be some wailing, gnashing of teeth, possibly some threats of legal action about some aspect or other of the referedum/count, but it'll be politics as normal - the SNP will continue, probably broadly as they are, because regardless of peoples position on independance, the SNP government is reasonably popular. they manage such things as the NHS, gritting the roads etc.. reasonably well, and, again regardless of their position on independance, people seem to like a Scottish government that isn't a carbon copy of one of the Westminster parties, just without charismatic/competant politicians.

as for Alec Salmond, it will depend on why the referendum is lost, if its a 'the SNP lost it..' result then he'l probably have to go, if however its much more of a close run thing with the SNP having been judged to have run a decent campaign but just being unable to overturn the status quo, then he'll probably stay. he is, though not my cup of tea, by some margin the most impressive politician currently in any of the four parties in Scotland.

the big change, in the event of a 'no' vote, is that the current devolution set-up will be changed to 'devo-max', or some form thereof. all the Westminster parties want it, and i have a sneeky suspicion that a large swaithe of the SNP front bench could happily live with it - infact Salmond was pushing pretty hard for it to be on the ballot paper and saying 'its something we should look at' and other warm phrases.

personally i think the vote will be a lot closer than the polls currently are, firstly because - despite being pro-union - i am in awe of Salmond and the SNP's campigning skills, and secondly because if you were looking to persuade the Scottish vote to divorce from Westminster, the current government could not produce a finer blueprint of how to do it than their current policy platform.

VeryOwl

OS119 wrote: »

personally i think the vote will be a lot closer than the polls currently are

Don't votes tend to gravitate towards the status quo come polling day? If that were the case, it'd be a fairly heavy defeat.

georgesstreet

There is quite a campaign in England to encourage the Scots to yote "yes" as, without the drain Scotland currently represents on the UK exchequer, England/Wales would overnight become a much richer nation, and Scotland would be free to paddle its own canoe without any cash or inteference from anyone else.

That's why everyone I know in the UK is encouraging any scot they know to vote "yes"

georgesstreet

Rascasse wrote: »

I often wonder if the SNP conducted opinion polls amongst 16 and 17 year olds before offering them the vote. The presumption is teenagers would be lefty idealists and independence would be a cause they would get behind, but the opinion polls show the opposite.

Unless something drastic happens there will be a no vote. Where will that leave Salmond and the SNP?

Presumably in much the same place at they are in now.

If they get a "no" vote they can follow the democratic example of the EU in recent years, and say democracy only works when the electorate vote the correct way, send Scotland back to bed without any supper, and keep rerunning the referendum until they get the result they want.

LordSutch

georgesstreet wrote: »

There is quite a campaign in England to encourage the Scots to yote "yes" as, without the drain Scotland currently represents on the UK exchequer, England/Wales (& Northern Ireland) would overnight become a much richer nation, and Scotland would be free to paddle its own canoe without any cash or inteference from anyone else.

Surely the bold bit I added is very relavent, vis-à-vis its position within the UK and a bigger money box, courtesy of the Barnett formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

georgesstreet

LordSutch wrote: »

Surely the bold bit I added is very relavent, vis-à-vis its position within the UK and a bigger money box, courtesy of the Barnett formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

Maybe you might tell us why you think it's relevant as I cant see why NI has any bearing on whether or not Scotland is a drain on the UK's resources, and if Scotland greedy little hand is removed, the remaining UK is richer.

Sheldons Brain

The present Barnett is tightening the noose and does not allow for oil, fish etc. England wouldn't be much different either way. NI is another case, one outcome of the Scottish changes might be a restriction to expenditure there as calculations become more obvious.

georgesstreet

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The present Barnett is tightening the noose and does not allow for oil, fish etc. England wouldn't be much different either way. NI is another case, one outcome of the Scottish changes might be a restriction to expenditure there as calculations become more obvious.

I am not sure what you are arguing, but are you arguing that if Scotland's current net drain in the UK exchequer were removed, then the remaining UK would not be richer, then your argument seems to be fallacious.

Fukuoka Eagle

The SNP received a big blow when they lost the Dunfermline by-election recently, whilst at the same time a poll showing support for Scottish independence stands at just 30%.

It still didn't stop the British Government recently sacrificing English jobs in Portsmouth in order to save Scottish jobs in Rosyth to try and prevent the Scots voting in favour of independence. It's sick. I wish this government favouritism of all things Scottish would stop.

georgesstreet

Fukuoka Eagle wrote: »

The SNP received a big blow when they lost the Dunfermline by-election recently, whilst at the same time a poll showing support for Scottish independence stands at just 30%.

It still didn't stop the British Government recently sacrificing English jobs in Portsmouth in order to save Scottish jobs in Rosyth to try and prevent the Scots voting in favour of independence. It's sick. I wish this government favouritism of all things Scottish would stop.

One can understand that any Government does not want to see it's power diluted. The art of government is to keep increasing it's reach and power.

However, the people in the rest of the UK see Scotland as a drain on the Exchequer, and many would welcome an end to that shift of cash every year to Scotland.

sfakiaman

georgesstreet wrote: »

However, the people in the rest of the UK see Scotland as a drain on the Exchequer, and many would welcome an end to that shift of cash every year to Scotland.

In that case can we expect to see the english dominated media actively campaigning for Scottish independence in the run up to the referendum.

georgesstreet

sfakiaman wrote: »

In that case can we expect to see the english dominated media actively campaigning for Scottish independence in the run up to the referendum.

My understanding is that the media generally are reporters rather than actual campaigners. I'd expect the BBC to be agin it, for example, as thats a lot of licence fee payers it might lose.

sfakiaman

In an ideal world the media should report the facts but I think you will find that the media regularly campaign for the party they support. The ongoing trial in the UK has highlighted the close connections between politics and the media. The article from the Guardian newspaper is one of many you could find.

It's the Sun wot's switched sides to back Blair
Murdoch turns out the lights on tabloid's support for the Tories

Roy Greenslade
theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 1997 10.55 GMT
The Sun tells its readers today to vote Labour, switching sides after more than 20 years of unswerving support for the Tory party.
In a front page article headlined 'The Sun Backs Blair', the paper, which has a daily readership of more than 10 million, says Tony Blair should be the next prime minister.

georgesstreet

sfakiaman wrote: »

In an ideal world the media should report the facts but I think you will find that the media regularly campaign for the party they support.

As someone involved in the media for more years than I care to mention, I think you may find that usually the media doesn't actually campaign for one party or the other, and usually its more subtle. Some tabloids are less subtle, but the mainstream media tends to not take sides overtly. (Some of the greatest critiicisms of the Tories are by the Daily Telegraph, a well known conservative newspaper, for example).

Scofflaw

georgesstreet wrote: »

As someone involved in the media for more years than I care to mention, I think you may find that usually the media doesn't actually campaign for one party or the other, and usually its more subtle. Some tabloids are less subtle, but the mainstream media tends to not take sides overtly. (Some of the greatest critiicisms of the Tories are by the Daily Telegraph, a well known conservative newspaper, for example).

While I'd agree that political party support isn't a very strong feature of the media, it would be hard to argue that media outlets don't generally represent, and present, particular world-views. When the Telegraph criticises the Tories, for example, it tends to do so from a right-wing perspective - conversely, when the Guardian criticises Labour, it tends to do so from a left-wing perspective.

As such, each outlet tends to have a certain natural affinity with a particular party as the best representative of the world-view the outlet espouses. Usually, it is the political parties which move further away from or nearer to that world-view, and are criticised or praised for doing so in terms of that world-view.

In some circumstances, the 'natural' political party of a newspaper may move far enough away for the newspaper to find another party a better fit - the Daily Express, for example, would traditionally have been best represented by the Tories, but is increasingly perhaps better represented by UKIP. See, for example, their recent coverage of UKIP:

Ukip in call for 'national pride' | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 22, 2013 - BRITONS should celebrate their culture with an annual Festival of Britain, Ukip believes.

Allowing this new flood of migrants is economic lunacy - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › Comment › Express Comment‎
Nov 5, 2013 - I told them that I believed large numbers will come to the UK and they ... Ukip's position on the relaxing of rules for Bulgaria and Romania has ...

Nigel Farage: Ukip are not a 'rabble' | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 22, 2013 - UKIP leader Nigel Farage has called for greater discipline from his party members to avoid being seen as “a rabble which perhaps say things ...

Ukip 'will cash in on voter fury' | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 20, 2013 - DAVID Cameron is facing an “earthquake” of fury from voters over his Government's failure to stop mass immigration from Europe, Nigel Farage ...

Question Time: Ukip candidate Patrick O'Flynn slams ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 26, 2013 - PATRICK O'Flynn slammed the government's high-speed HS2 rail project as.

Ukip chief executive steps down | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Aug 20, 2013 - THE CHIEF executive of Ukip has stood down by “mutual agreement” after just eight months in the job.

versus their coverage of the Tories:

Ukip will become 'first force' in Britain, European ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 11, 2013 - EUROPEAN Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso today predicted the UK Independence Party would become the “first force” in British ...

Tory MP Grant Shapps states: 'We must not delay in ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Nov 7, 2013 - IT is “fanciful” to suggest voters do not know the UK is a member of the European Union, Tory chairman Grant Shapps said yesterday.

Tories get a chilly response after 'put a jumper on ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Oct 19, 2013 - RED-FACED Downing Street officials were forced to row back from comments yesterday which advised people worried about rocketing fuel ...

'robust' words with EC President after 'Tories are ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 12, 2013 - DAVID Cameron has promised a "robust" exchange with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso after he said Ukip would ...

Nick Clegg set to take on the Tories | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 14, 2013 - NICK Clegg will today fire the starting gun for a bitter election contest with the Conservatives.

Top Tory arrested on historical rape charge | UK ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 29, 2013 - CONSERVATIVE vice-chairman Alan Lewis has been arrested on suspicion of raping a teenage girl in the 1960s.

Tories 'vulnerable' to Ukip warns Cameron's former ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 4, 2013 - THE Tories are “vulnerable” to the electoral threat posed by Ukip, Andy Coulson said yesterday.

Conservatives to celebrate Margaret Thatcher at ... - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 28, 2013 - SENIOR Tories plan to turn their party's conference into a celebration of the achievements of Margaret Thatcher.

Ukip surge will destroy the Tories, shock poll reveals - Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK‎
Sep 15, 2013 - CONSERVATIVE voters deserting the party for the Ukip could put Ed Miliband in Downing Street, according to polling by former Conservative ...

The bias is subtle, but there. As per my comments above, it could be seen as using UKIP as a stick to beat the Tories - the natural party of the Express - from an anti-immigrant right-wing position, but I would say that the Express is perhaps rather further along than that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw wrote: »

While I'd agree that political party support isn't a very strong feature of the media, it would be hard to argue that media outlets don't generally represent, and present, particular world-views.

sfakiaman wrote: »

In an ideal world the media should report the facts but I think you will find that the media regularly campaign for the party they support.

Having a political view is different from campaigning for a political party.

Scofflaw

georgesstreet wrote: »

Having a political view is different from campaigning for a political party.

Sure, but the ongoing positives/negatives of press coverage of a party are perhaps more influential than any campaign, partly because they're not campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, but the ongoing positives/negatives of press coverage of a party are perhaps more influential than any campaign, partly because they're not campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sure, but the media do not actually campaign for political parties, which was the other poster claimed.

Scofflaw

georgesstreet wrote: »

Sure, but the media do not actually campaign for political parties, which was the other poster claimed.

True, but not what I claimed!

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but not what I claimed!

cordially,
Scofflaw

In this, as in al things, context is key. the context was that the other poster claimed the media campaigned on behalf of political parties. We seem to be agreed you and I did not make that claim.

LordSutch

georgesstreet wrote: »

Maybe you might tell us why you think it's relevant as I cant see why NI has any bearing on whether or not Scotland is a drain on the UK's resources, and if Scotland greedy little hand is removed, the remaining UK is richer.

My point being that if Scotland leaves the UK (big if), then the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom, namely England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, would have Scotlands share of the 'Barnett formula' to share out amongst themselves! Ergo Scotlands loss would be their gain.

georgesstreet

LordSutch wrote: »

My point being that if Scotland leaves the UK (big if), then the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom, namely England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, would have Scotlands share of the 'Barnett formula' to share out amongst themselves! Ergo Scotlands loss would be their gain.

That was my point also , that without scotland making a net gain form the UK taxpayer, then whats left of the UK after scotland's exit will be greater.

This concept is gaining ground in the UK, and many would be happy to wave goodbye to scotlands constant whinging about "D'inglish" (a concept not unfamiliar in Ireland) while being contend to take cash subventions from the same "D'inglish"

[Jackass]

Sometimes it's not so subtle. When a business tycoon can't buy off a Government as usual and loses a very valuable contract as a cell coverage provider / network, and this same tycoon owns a national newspaper....well, personal feelings can find their way onto the front page on the eve of a general election....

It's Payback Time!

eire4

georgesstreet wrote: »

That was my point also , that without scotland making a net gain form the UK taxpayer, then whats left of the UK after scotland's exit will be greater.

This concept is gaining ground in the UK, and many would be happy to wave goodbye to scotlands constant whinging about "D'inglish" (a concept not unfamiliar in Ireland) while being contend to take cash subventions from the same "D'inglish"

You keep saying that Scotland is a net benefactor from the British pot when this really is not at all clear. Depending on how the revenue from North Sea oil is calculated Scotland can be seen as either a net contributor or a net benefactor.

georgesstreet

eire4 wrote: »

You keep saying that Scotland is a net benefactor from the British pot when this really is not at all clear. Depending on how the revenue from North Sea oil is calculated Scotland can be seen as either a net contributor or a net benefactor.

It's very clear that England is the main driving force and engine of the UK economy, and generates the lions share of the wealth for the UK.

What is true is that Scottish politicians like Salmond have been trumpeting North Sea Oil as part of his campaign to encourage the scots to vote yes.

eire4

georgesstreet wrote: »

It's very clear that England is the main driving force and engine of the UK economy, and generates the lions share of the wealth for the UK.

What is true is that Scottish politicians like Salmond have been trumpeting North Sea Oil as part of his campaign to encourage the scots to vote yes.

It is very clear that England is the largest part of the UK economy yes but it is not clear at all whether Scotland gets more from the UK pot or whether it contributes more to the UK pot.


Why wouldn't a politican trumpet an important natural resource like North Sea oil? It's a significant resource that Scotland has. As indeed is the massive renewable energy potential which Scotland has.

georgesstreet

eire4 wrote: »

It is very clear that England is the largest part of the UK economy yes but it is not clear at all whether Scotland gets more from the UK pot or whether it contributes more to the UK pot.


Why wouldn't a politican trumpet an important natural resource like North Sea oil? It's a significant resource that Scotland has. As indeed is the massive renewable energy potential which Scotland has.

It may not be clear to you, but it seems pretty clear to most in the UK.

ewan whose army

So the White Paper seems to be a copt out - "We want independence but we still want to be in the Sterling oh and we want to keep the Queen"


It will be a disaster, they also want to keep UK passports but it looks like Westminster will not let that happen. The Yes vote is becoming increasingly desperate considering they have been hit by decreasing polls and the fact that they would be forced to join the schengen zone and there would be border controls since the CTA is only tolerated since it predates the EU.

My Entire family is Scottish but a load moved to England to find work and as a result being born in England I have no say in any of this mess.

They keep on going on about "The UK is dominated by England..." but England has by far the biggest population so its going to be that way, and IMO all the arguments they say can be said about the Northern 1/2 of England, but you don't see a Cumbric independence movement do you?

Scofflaw

Summary of White Paper proposals, via the Guardian:

• Retain the pound as Scotland's currency and would take on a fair share of the UK's debt.

• Take a full geographic share of North Sea oil and gas reserves, with more than 90% of the UK reserves in Scottish waters.

• No rise in general taxation to fund public spending, while increasing tax allowances in line with inflation.

• A new written constitution with the Queen as head of state.

• The renationalisation of the Royal Mail.

•A new Scottish defence force of 15,000 regular personnel and a new intelligence and security agency.

•A guarantee that the minimum wage will rise by inflation: if that had been policy already since 2008, the lowest paid would be £675 better off.

•A network of 70 to 90 embassies and consulates costing up to £120m.

• Cutting corporation tax by 3% and cutting air passenger duty by 50%.

• Extending free childcare to one-year-olds, creating 35,000 new jobs.

• A new Scottish Broadcasting Service to replace the BBC.

• An "early agreement on the speediest safe removal of [Trident] nuclear weapons a priority".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/scottish-indpendence-fairer-prosperous-alex-salmond

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

No free beer?

It does come across as a bit desperate.

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No free beer?

It does come across as a bit desperate.

It's a bit milquetoast, I'd say - independence but with as little change as possible, and a return to more traditional Scottish left-wing pattern of expenditure funded by the oil revenues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a bit milquetoast, I'd say - independence but with as little change as possible, and a return to more traditional Scottish left-wing pattern of expenditure funded by the oil revenues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's a no lose manifesto for the SNP. They don't need their proposals to work, only that people believe them enough to vote yes.

In five years time, if none of these promises have materialised, there will be no referendum to rejoin the UK. It's all about convincing people enough to go down a one way street.

georgesstreet

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's a no lose manifesto for the SNP. They don't need their proposals to work, only that people believe them enough to vote yes.

In five years time, if none of these promises have materialised, there will be no referendum to rejoin the UK. It's all about convincing people enough to go down a one way street.

Of course, politics is the art of the possible, and politicians would not be politicians if they didn't play politics. I have a suspicion that the SNP will not convince the Scots to leave the Union, and that a sort of "always keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse" attitude will prevent many Scots from voting for change.

eire4

georgesstreet wrote: »

It may not be clear to you, but it seems pretty clear to most in the UK.

Probably due to slanted media coverage then if this is true. There are no verified facts that I have seen produced by either side that clearly show either that Scotland takes more from the UK pot or that Scotland puts in more to the UK pot.
To claim one way or the other as fact is false as it is not proven one way or the other at this point.