Be Excellent To Each Other

Only covers entry, not working.

This all gets complicated by Salmond's immigration policies.

I think I've come to the conclusion that were I in Scotland right now, I'd be voting yes. So I can't support a no vote in good conscience. To do so would only be in blatant self interest.

Good luck Scotland, whichever way you decide…

The Better Together campaign are excitedly mass-printing new leaflets as we speak.

Another quote for Alastair Darling to use:

In all seriousness, I would strongly consider moving to Scotland before Independence Day, should there be a yes vote.

What's your take on the currency then, given the articles you've been posting on FB?

Can Salmond even fly a plane?

I honestly don't know. That is the one sticking point I think. Everything else is surmountable.

If they don't go -> "Look, They don't care about us anyway"

For me it's a genuine risk. One you hope never becomes an issue, but if it does the results are catastrophic.

I'd consider it a more palatable risk if everything else was just a little more sorted. I think for the time that they've had, the case has only been part made. Obviously not an option, but I'd rather they spent another year really hammering shit out and then having a vote, but as I said, not happening.

My other concern is that I just believe all the claims of how amazing things will be afterwards. It sounds like exactly the kind of claims that every party trying to get elected always says. Woo! We'll be so much better off! Etc.

That said, if the strength of will to attempt the split is high enough, and the Yes vote is returned, then I hope it goes well for them. I don't expect it will all turn to shite, and in fact the most likely result is 'not a lot of difference', at least in the short term.

So, best of luck, Scotland, whatever your choice.

I have said it before and I'll say it again:

Peaceful, legal, and free secession would be something we all should be proud about. Think how rare this has been in the history of the world.

As you might have guessed, I am a Unionist but if the vote goes the other way, I would wish them godspeed.

Well, I seriously doubt there's anyone here who would wish any ill on Scotland or her people, whatever the vote. I certainly don't, far from it.

If they do vote yes, surely it'll be to just 'start the process, with true independence by 2023' or some such crap.

2016, which adds to rUK's troubles, seeing as how a UK General Election is scheduled for 2015…

Living somewhere certainly changes your view of a place. To try to insist the drive for independence is a mere consequence of Westminster government policy is utter bollocks.

I see the 'grassroots' of the whole campaign powered by an enormous chip on the collective shoulder of the country. So chiselled there by misplaced nationalistic fervour and a resentment towards the English for the imagined wrongs of history. Either that, or naked greed. I haven't met many people who roll out the 'fairer and more equal' line that really believe it. They're actually motivated by the belief that *they* will be better off, and that's all they care about.

Despite living here, I'd want rUK to be as acrimonious as possible in the divorce, because whatever 'we' can't forcibly bargain for, we don't deserve. That's what independence means, and it's better they learn it from the outset.

Indeed. Whilst it seems like they would still elect those MPs to form a government, surely that is completely unworkable? A year later the numbers could be significantly different.

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY! (except for viewers in Scotland)

Taking the Belgium example, I don't think that the non-long term government issue for 2015/16 would be a significant negative. Helps take some heat out of the secession to the extent that it could be an issue, but also a potential rUK consensus gives the possibility for a short period of government with a non-political bias. As I said, seems to have worked for Belgium the past few years

The main constitutional crisis would occur if Labour have the most seats in the Commons, but are dependent for their majority on the soon-to-be-departed Scottish seats. Which party would legitimately claim to be able to form a government to govern the UK during the transition, but also to handle the negotiations?

I expect a yes vote would all but guarantee a conservative government in 2015. The Scottish labour vote won't bother to come out on voting day. Why would they?

Latest Survation poll puts No ahead by only 5%... tight!

I wouldn't be so sure, the party completely responsible for the breakup of the union voted straight back in? A party riven with splits over Europe and lead by UKIP into a headlong plunge to the loony end of the right wing spectrum? I think (hope) there's enough people with the common sense to see that whatever the alternative that they would take the country to a very dark and ugly place indeed.

"Party responsible for the breakup of the union"... come off it Mark. Besides, nowt's broken up yet.
Don't even get me started on what Labour are inarguably and manifestly responsible for, or indeed the splits within that party over Europe and a whole host of other stuff besides. That, I am afraid, is an unavoidable consequence of large party, consensus politics.

As for the Conservatives being in a "headlong plunge into the looney right wing spectrum", that's absolute cobblers as well - but whatever they are, or are not guilty of, the facts speak for themselves: 3-4% year on year growth; an economy larger than it was in 2008 (within just one parliamentary term); very large falls in unemployment. If you'd have asked me, or most sensible people would we have taken this in the dark days of Labour's 2008-2010 dying, failed, "there's no money!!1" administration, we'd have bitten your arm off. The French, Spanish and others would dearly love to be where we are now, economically speaking, undeniable problems and all. I would ask you to give at least some grudging credit where it's due, then, but I realise that's a futile task.

"Don't get me started..."

It's not hard.

Ahem Douglas Carswell ahem.

Also, one only has to think of the delightful Jacob Rees-Mogg and his chums on the backbenches... Cameron has been heading ever rightwards to stave off both the rabid anti-EU, human rights PC gone mad blah blah nonsense from his backbenchers and the inexorable eating of the Tories' lunch by UKIP.



I'm poking the bear here, but is that because of or in spite of? I thougt the IMF or whoever were of the opinon that growth was not related to the austerity policies, and in any event the growth has been extremely unequal. Labour's "cost of living crisis" mantra is epic in its tediousness, but they do have a point.

The unemployment figures are also somewhat "massaged"... I posted something a while back that More or Less did on this, I'll have to see if I can dig it out. In any event, the short of it is that it counts a lot of unemplyedf peopel as being employed - for instance, a lot of people in workfare type things get counted as being employed. Also there are many, many more people on zero hours and part time contracts now than there were a few years ago. The workforce is becoming ever more uncertain a place under the Tories ("sell your rights for a few shares, yay", FFS), and I can't agree that that's a good thing, regardless of how much the headline employment figures have gone up.

One can honestly see why it's been so easy for the SNP to bang the Tory government bogey-man drum in this campagin.

Your post is predicated on the presumption that the IMF actually knows what it is talking about, as opposed to always being wise after the event. I mean seriously, what do they know? A couple of years back they were saying (IIRC) that the UK economy was doooooomed unless we completely abandoned austerity, yet we are where we are.

The Germans went through a massive shake-out in the late 90s whereby average earnings fell by 10-20% to make themselves more competitive, and a whole bunch of austerity measures at about the same time Labour's banking folly was gathering momentum (you'll recall their jibes about the "old fashioned" German economy). And yet, it doesn't seem to have done them much harm; they faced global realities, took some painful medicine and are now reaping the rewards. If only the French et al were able to do the same/live remotely within their means, the Eurozone would be a much more successful place - fat chance of that with a Socialist government, though. 75% tax rates ahoy, for all the good it's doing them.

If this appears arrogant, well, I'm not claiming any economic expertise either. I'm just a dumbass engineer lugging stuff up and down stairs on building sites. But then, I don't purport to be anything else.



Of course, but tell me Chris, which government(s) do NOT massage unemployment figures? This is THE issue of our age. Zero-hour contracts? I hate them, but prefer even these to people wholly out of ANY contract for years and years, drawing benefits and rotting at home. A lesser of two evils, but not to say we can't further improve the situation. Politically speaking, I believe the Conservatives are only too aware of this.

Wealth divergence? It was never worse than it was under Labour - in supposedly "good" times (though in retrospect we now know that was illusory), but aside from political point scoring, this, again, is a problem of our age and likely function of Capitalism. 'The American Dream', if you like, is predicated on a few people making it big, but for every one of them they'll be 10 or 100 who do not. It has been this way for 50 years minimum.

Of course, wealth redistributive policies are an important bulwark against the harsher side-effects of pure Capitalism and this is entirely right, but those levers need a gentle touch, otherwise we end up with Socialism and everyone in the shit. It is a very fine balance to strike and again, the global reality is that skilled Chinese workers are there in their hundreds of millions earning £1/hour and happy to accept dire working conditions. Europe does not live in an insular bubble.

All this aside, no-one could argue that there HAS been a marked, real terms, real world drop in unemployment and, however you slice it, that's nothing short of remarkable considering where we were in May 2010. From my side, this deserves genuine credit whatever one's politics, but like I say, that's just not going to happen.



Of course, but I mean seriously, who didn't see that coming? The Conservative Party is a so-called "toxic brand" in Scotland. However, even that is starting to wear a little thin, even there; I read recently that the number of Scots who regard current benefit payment levels as "too high" has risen from 25% to over 50% in just 2 years, and let's not forget they elected a UKIP MEP recently - unthinkable. Small "c" Conservatism is making a comeback, even in Scotland. I suspect the SNP have rather left things too late from their perspective; if they'd have grasped the nettle 2 or 3 years back, they could have conceivably pulled this off. (They still might, of course, with the narrowest of margins, but I very much doubt it).

As an aside, I'd quite like to see the results of the vote in a parallel universe where, instead of suddently promising Devo-Max-Max in the event of a no vote, the promise was instead that as Devolution clearly isn't making Scotland happy, if you're not prepared to vote for independence, we'll remove all devolved powers.

I can't help but think that aggressive as that display of 'political testosterone' would be, it can't have had that more negative an impact.

That's all well and good, but we all know that the majority of people don't vote based on issue, they vote the way they always have and the way their community around them does.

If Scotland leaves, the Conservatives will be in power for a long time coming.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Never get tired of that face.

!!!





Ahem. Joke, obv. I don't think I'd tire of his missus' face though, frankly.

Yes, clearly that's why every election has the same result.

Cavey is pretty much the most interesting thing to read on this forum. He says things I might say if I had the wherewithal to formulate a sentence.

<packs bags>

Aw shucks man. You're far too kind, but there are plenty of more interesting folk here than me, yourself included.
It's a great little forum for discussion though and no mistake. Good stuff.

I'm a bit tied up but will give your post the response it deserves (as it were) later. xx

I'm not sure if you are missing my point on purpose or not...

If Scotland leaves, 41 Labour seats go, and 1 Conservative seat. That's a big difference. Bigger I suspect than the whimsy of the floating voter can significantly influence.

Cool.

My major contribution to this thread has been to call Yes voters ignorant chip-scoffing whisky-addled peons. Admittedly I find that pretty interesting but I doubt anyone else does.

This morning I happened to notice an extreme proliferation of Yes banners and flags surrounding a particularly chavvy high rise in north Edinburgh. I'm sure that says something.

In 1997 and 2001 Labour had a majorities of 179 and 167 in 2005 it had shrunk to 66 and then they lost so clearly the whimsy of those floating voters had a very large effect.

You are both forgetting that people actually age and die and the voting populace is not the same in any given election.

And people like Galloway, getting large voting blocks to turn out for him.

Incidentally, what he is doing Scotland rather than looking after Bradford God only knows.

Don't know if this has been covered before, but assuming a split, what would happen to people's nationality?

Would you have to apply to be Scottish or would it be automatically decided for you, and what criteria would be used?

If you happen to be living north of the border, at the time are you opted in, and what about those of Scottish descent who happen to be down south?
Do you have to prove eligibility?

As I understand it, nobody's going to have British citizenship revoked. There's a list of eligability criteria for then getting Scottish citizenship which is very broad. Newly born Scots would then only get Scottish, not both.

Trying to decide if I want to watch the BBC's debate tonight where 16 and 17 year olds will be forming the audience (21:00 in Scotland, 22:40 on BBC1 elsewhere). Remembering how irritatingly self-righteous young Kern was at that age, I might find it a difficult watch.

Handy chart.

Also, where's the fun in being allowed to vote if you can't legally give yourself dutch courage before going in to the polling booth?

Thanks. So we all move to Scotland a month before?