[POLL] Should Scotland be an independent country?

[ZeroHour]

I still think that as it is MY country that is being broken up, I should get a vote too.

 

That could never work tbh although it would be interesting to see how many would want to keep Scotland.

 

Living up here I know quite a few that have seen the latest actions by UK gov as a reason to vote yes, not for Salmond who could have a hard fight in the next election, but because of things like the bedroom tax, the denial of poll tax (a policy snp came to power with which was denied by westminster) and other things like the regrading of St Andrews waters and the oil tax the tories added that slapped Scotland hard.

People seem to think a vote for yes is a vote for Alex Salmond, you are wrong, most in Scotland realise he is not ideal and see it as a vote for Scotland to be independent, Salmond could easily be kicked out especially since the Tory party in Scotland may actually try to win votes this time. Several people in this thread have already said to stop focusing only on Salmond.

@RabbieBurns, are you allowed to still be on the electoral register if you dont live in Scotland?

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[featured_spectre]

Whilst I see your side of the debate @ZeroHour it isn't that we see the yes as a yes to Salmond, we see the yes as a yes to trying to wipe the slate clean and pick the best bits from the plate (well at least that is how I see it) From what Salmond has said, the following is what he wants - keeping the pound but not wanting to keep any of the debt that we as a union created, keeping the oil and not sharing the revenues despite around 15-20% being in English waters, removal of the armed forces but wanting the protection from Nato - which includes the rest of the UK).

 

I hold no malice to anyone that wants independence, I will gladly help for Scotland to become independent if they (the Scottish government) were willing to shoulder their portion of what has happened, both collection of assets purchased AS the UK (proportionally distributed, such as lands from military bases, government buildings etc) and the same with the debt created as the UK (proportionally distributed).

 

If that were to happen, and it was done properly (new currency, new military (or civilian armed militia), health service adjusted so that English money no longer funds Scottish health services, same for education etc) then I would support it, but again that is if it were to happen properly. If anyone else wanted to follow suite and did it properly so that the English were no longer subsidising various parts of their system (just like Scotland, NI and Wales subsidise some parts of the English system), I would also support Wales and Northern Ireland if they wanted to go down the same route.

 

Doing this, would also mean of course, that MPs could focus on the remaining union (Wales and NI, along with England) matters alone, and not have to worry about (too much) what the Scottish Parliament were voting for etc.

Edited February 20, 2014 by featured_spectre

[ZeroHour]

Whilst I see your side of the debate @ZeroHour it isn't that we see the yes as a yes to Salmond, we see the yes as a yes to trying to wipe the slate clean and pick the best bits from the plate (well at least that is how I see it) From what Salmond has said, the following is what he wants - keeping the pound but not wanting to keep any of the debt that we as a union created, keeping the oil and not sharing the revenues despite around 15-20% being in English waters, removal of the armed forces but wanting the protection from Nato - which includes the rest of the UK).

 

Tell me where Salmond says we wont take a proportion of the debt!?!? this is a typical statement by many but I can't find a reference anywhere! I have interviews where he says we will take a % of debt. Also 15-20% are not in English waters? It did get increased because England grabber waters from St Andrews in 1999 and change the water boundary though but by most conventions the majority is in our waters and thus our oil if we go independant.

Regarding military, if Scotland paid for 10% (mythical number) of the costs over all these years we own 10% along with anything else.

 

I hate the impression so many (dare I say it, English) have that Scotland are sapping money off the rest, we have paid plenty over the years and the money from ALL the oil has served UK well. Read about the great black gold scandal, if we voted for independence last time we would be as wealthy potentially as norway but the tory gov classified the report under official secrets act as they want the monies. That horse has bolted though which is why I am kind of against it right now but the impression and sentiment that we are seeing in Scotland is helping fuel the vote for yes, it really really puts my back up too.

 

For those mentioning Shetland, I am from Shetland, Total are spending £200 million currently to build a new gas plant for on-shore work at Sullom Voe, also Aberdeen is having big investment recently too now the tory oil tax is gone.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[featured_spectre]

Tell me where Salmond says we wont take a proportion of the debt!?!?

Salmond never said this on a televised debate to my knowledge, but his party political members on various radio question times have. So I concede that Salmond has never said this, however he has never stopped his party members or reprimanded them for saying this either.

Also 15-20% are not in English waters? It did get increased because England grabber waters from St Andrews in 1999 and change the water boundary though but by most conventions the majority is in our waters and thus our oil if we go independant.

Probably my mistake, I know Scotland has most of the water territory, however I thought English territorial water constituted roughly 15-20% of the area where the oil is situated since the 1999 water boundary change. If I am wrong, again I concede this point.

Regarding military, if Scotland paid for 10% (mythical number) of the costs over all these years we own 10% along with anything else.

I agree, though I think Scotland has paid more into it than that. I personally have the opinion that the military bases in Scotland, (Army, Navy, Airforce) should be scottish upon independence. The forces personnel which are scottish (or within scottish units) should be given the option to change to a new scottish military, stay in the (then) New British military, or retire.

[witch]

I've never thought that the Scots have sapped the UK's finances.

I would like to see a vision for Scotland laid out-whether it be Salmond's view or someone else's. What assets they would get, what proportion of debt, what is going to happen with the currency, the EU, defence, the lot

I have searched to and cannot find anything definitive.

[featured_spectre]

As for Scotland being leeches (my paraphrasing you), I don't think thats the case. I know for a fact Scotland has paid into the coffers more than some other areas of the UK, but it is viewed by many to be unfair that the scottish parliament can make the decision that the English should subsidise prescriptions and free further education, whilst we have to pay extortionate amounts and we cannot get the same down here (also annoying that the Welsh and NI get the same NHS benefits).

[ZeroHour]

I've never thought that the Scots have sapped the UK's finances.

I would like to see a vision for Scotland laid out-whether it be Salmond's view or someone else's. What assets they would get, what proportion of debt, what is going to happen with the currency, the EU, defence, the lot

I have searched to and cannot find anything definitive.

 

The problem is currently that is only happening if we vote yes, thats when the negotiations start as such.

 

The black gold report: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf a disgrace! It was only 1/3 of what actually was realised.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[localzuk]

The simple fact remains, Salmond is spearheading the Yes campaign and as yet they have not put forward a comprehensive plan for an independent Scotland. Every time an issue is highlighted, the response has been "it won't be a problem" without any actual evidence. Just look at the warning from the EU. It wasn't a threat, it wasn't a big fanfare saying Scotland wouldn't be allowed in. It was an analysis of the current situation within the EU stating that there would be major issues with them trying to join. Same as the time before when EU lawyers said that Scotland would have to apply as a new country. The response was one of "stop threatening us, you're making it up, you're attacking us"...

[ZeroHour]

As for Scotland being leeches (my paraphrasing you), I don't think thats the case. I know for a fact Scotland has paid into the coffers more than some other areas of the UK, but it is viewed by many to be unfair that the scottish parliament can make the decision that the English should subsidise prescriptions and free further education, whilst we have to pay extortionate amounts and we cannot get the same down here (also annoying that the Welsh and NI get the same NHS benefits).

 

I have had it levied to me in pubs in England many times now. I am not sure what would happen regarding the secret boundary change of 1999, it was all hush hush behind closed doors and I would fully expect questions to be asked when people are more aware, no one I know realises this.

 

The independant about the McCrone report: How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland

 

EDIT:

I get to see a lot of the arguments via facebook and general feedback and comments, here are some of the latest yes stuff:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/nothing-to-lose-but-our-debt.23438687

 

 

Paxman really really did no favours although Salmond numbers are high but come on, calling him Mugabe!:

 

Trying to find some no stuff but scarily most things posted to facebook by people I know who will be voting is pro yes now, this was not the case a year ago.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[Roberto]

I would rather a No vote but don't mind, if the Scots feel they have to go their own way then we can't really stop them.

 

I'm just getting annoyed with the Yes campaigns tactics of basically sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA" loudly. A question comes up, various people in the know or high up in the group that would deal with the issue give an answer and yet SNP members turn around and say that is wrong, course they can do what they want, no one can stop them as it would be unfair and bullying which isn't allowed of a new country. The other tactic is saying that something would be sorted once a Yes vote was secured. It feels very much like they can get away with saying how wonderful everything will be and everything will slot in to place without any real facts.

 

Part of me would love for the Yes vote to go through just to see what would happen and how long before Salmond would implode.

 

I suspect that if there was a yes vote, Alex Salmond would very quickly learn the lesson that the Lib Dems have been taught since they agreed to the coalition govt:

 

It's easy to make lots of promises that sound good when you've got no power to implement them, but very different when the buck actually stops with you and you realise you can fund one of your promises but not the other, or you realise that one of your wild claims needs someone else to say 'yes' when there's no profit for them in doing so.

 

As someone with a Scottish father and an English mother, both of which are buried near Aberdeen and both of which would never have support devolution, the idea of it actually happening makes me very sad indeed.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Roberto

[featured_spectre]

Paxman really really did no favours although Salmond numbers a high but come on, calling him Mugabe!

 

Paxman is an embarrasement. He thinks he is high and mighty when in reality he is a misanthropic misogenistic douche (pardon the language)

[localzuk]

OK, hypothetical question. What if another random bit of the UK, let's say Devon, has a glut of natural resources (fracking gas). Should the government be handing that county evidence that they should become independent? Or, as the government of the UK did with Scotland, should it look at the benefits of the find for the whole country and focus on that?

 

Why does mere geographic location of a resource mean that the people living near it should be the ones to gain, rather than the entire country which owns it?

 

By highlighting historic North Sea oil, and getting upset about the fact that it wasn't directed to Scotland alone/wasn't highlighted as a Scottish thing to instil a desire to become independent, you are basically saying "screw the rest of the UK"... It makes me think that a lot of people are simply not understanding what being in a Union means - both the bad and the good.

 

Should we not be thinking as a whole, rather than simply about our own little slice of life?

Edited February 20, 2014 by localzuk

[featured_spectre]

If Scotland starts, wont be long until Wales and Cornwall start, they've been trying for decades, but lacked the gumption to follow through, and this is going to set the tone in the long run.

[ZeroHour]

OK, hypothetical question. What if another random bit of the UK, let's say Devon, has a glut of natural resources (fracking gas). Should the government be handing that county evidence that they should become independent? Or, as the government of the UK did with Scotland, should it look at the benefits of the find for the whole country and focus on that?

 

Why does mere geographic location of a resource mean that the people living near it should be the ones to gain, rather than the entire country which owns it?

 

By highlighting historic North Sea oil, and getting upset about the fact that it wasn't directed to Scotland alone/wasn't highlighted as a Scottish thing to instil a desire to become independent, you are basically saying "screw the rest of the UK"... It makes me think that a lot of people are simply not understanding what being in a Union means - both the bad and the good.

 

I wasn't there when the last vote was but one of the reasons it failed was a lack of belief we could support ourselves, the government of the time (which serves all UK and the report was paid for by all of the UK) knew that this report could easily tip the balance. I think its wrong that the government classified it and I am actually surprised you support the stance "sshhh dont tell them", that report is a nail against the union, who is to say the gov is being honest this time? we will have to wait 30 years to find out (I dont think they are doing this again, I hope, but its part of the yes rhetoric although a small part).

I think classifying the report was a farce and should never have happened.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[localzuk]

I wasn't there when the last vote was but one of the reasons it failed was a lack of belief we could support ourselves, the government of the time (which serves all UK and the report was paid for by all of the UK) knew that this report could easily tip the balance. I think its wrong that the government classified it and I am actually surprised you support the stance "sshhh dont tell them", that report is a nail against the union, who is to say the gov is being honest this time? we will have to wait 30 years to find out.

I think classifying the report was a farce and should never have happened.

 

The government of the UK is there to support the continuing of the union. So, yes, they did the right thing in my view. The rest of the union would have been up in arms about them handing over things to encourage bits of the country to break away!

 

If people want to break away, then they need to create reports themselves, they need to pay for it, they need to do the leg work - not expect the government to do it for them!

[ZeroHour]

The government of the UK is there to support the continuing of the union. So, yes, they did the right thing in my view. The rest of the union would have been up in arms about them handing over things to encourage bits of the country to break away!

 

If people want to break away, then they need to create reports themselves, they need to pay for it, they need to do the leg work - not expect the government to do it for them!

 

So is it correct to lie basically? They knew the results of the report and claimed we couldnt support ourselves inspite of this, which is deceit and lying when you clearly know otherwise.

I think its wrong for any politician to lie knowingly regardless of their aims. A certain war had high claims of cover up etc with reports hidden away, was that the correct action as well? rather than inform the uk which would result in the people saying no they knew best and went ahead anyway.

You can't be angry about other times the gov has classified/covered up for the common good of the union and then say yeah they were correct to here, especially since you were not the one being fed the lies.

 

That oil horse has bolted though, but no one should be saying it was correct to lie to your people as it was for the greater good.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[localzuk]

So is it correct to lie basically? They knew the results of the report and claimed we couldnt support ourselves inspite of this, which is deceit and lying when you clearly know otherwise.

I think its wrong for any politician to lie knowingly regardless of their aims. A certain war had high claims of cover up etc with reports hidden away, was that the correct action as well? rather than inform the uk which would result in the people saying no they knew best and went ahead anyway.

You can't be angry about other times the gov has classified/covered up for the common good of the union and then say yeah they were correct to here, especially since you were not the one being fed the lies.

 

That oil horse has bolted though, but no one should be saying it was correct to lie to your people as it was for the greater good.

 

There's a big difference between justifying an invasion of a foreign country with lies, and trying to maintain your own country by withholding information.

[featured_spectre]

*grabs popcorn*

[Domino]

I like haggis

[Ric_]

I like haggis

 

But I don't want to have to pay import duties (and potentially currency exchange costs) in order to keep buying haggis

[Domino]

You're buying me haggis?

[Ric_]

You're buying me haggis?

 

Not if the price increases!

[ZeroHour]

There's a big difference between justifying an invasion of a foreign country with lies, and trying to maintain your own country by withholding information.

 

I suppose I just hold politicians to higher standards, lies are lies, both involved oil ironically.

So any classified reports about the true state of the banks is fine, in fact any lies given its *for the good of the union* are okay too? Just lies involving wars are not?

Why and where do you draw the line?

MP's serve the people, lying is never the correct action and I think if politicians were more honest and upfront our political system would be far stronger and better unlike now where general feeling is very poor. When you lie to the people to suit your own aims (as a party especially) you are not serving the people, you are keeping them dumb and uninformed. You say we have all the good parts as well as the bad as part of the union, surely those arguments should have been enough to go for the union at the last vote, lying to 5m people though as the case for staying part of the union is wrong, make the case for staying part of the union better and remove the lie about the stats. Anything else looks like the union needed our oil more than an informed populace who could decide for themselves if we want to continue.

If the Scottish Gov had a report classified I would be equally outraged, the people who are literally deciding, not the politicians, must be informed fully before voting regardless of it being in their interests of independence or not, facts are facts but by your logic its okay.

Maybe we should vote yes to force through more honesty.

 

EDIT: One regarding Fraking, what if there are reports covering up environmental impacts, what about reports saying flood defenses were a problem? Fraking is a big policy now *for the good of the union* so anything that says otherwise should be classified.

Likewise I wonder if there are any reports claiming removing the pound would not be a good idea financially for the rUK, we wont know as long as lying/deceit is condoned. What if there is a report saying rUK would benefit greatly without Scotland, that naturally would have to be classified too.

There should be no lying.

Edited February 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[GREED]

Where is the option to allow the Yes vote on the Thursday, count Friday, announce Saturday, celebrate (Scottish style!) Sunday, England invades Monday... Job done, Scotland goes back to pre William Wallace times

[6Foot2]

I have now setup the parallel poll on SurveyMapper [mentioned earlier in this thread]

 

It is open to anyone on the web to answer. When answers are logged the system will ask respondents where they are. The system will then plot the responses geographically.

 

Link: Removed: Please see my later post.

 

I have set up the poll to match the Edugeek poll with the exception of the poll closing date [i have set this to be the date before the day of polling in Scotland]

Edited February 20, 2014 by 6Foot2
Remove URL and redirect users to new poll.