Scottish Independence

Don't know about the football, but if Scotland vote for independence, then we might as well stop General Elections in this country!

It's scary, Tony. I live in London where I know several mulling getting out as buying a home is impossible. Add to that forever Tory rule, and I don't see the point remaining. Might head for Edinburgh.

I would presume the problems above would be negated by the Scots retaining rights under their UK passports, whether or not the country leaves. What happens on renewal though is a different story. Or perhaps with their place of birth at the time being the UK they are entitles to dual citizenship?

We have had Labour governments in the past that have not depended on the Scottish seats... but I agree it will be more difficult.

I would imagine UK passports held by individuals who are no longer UK citizens would immediately become defunct on 1 April 2016 when a Yes vote would lead to independence. Passports work both ways, both holders and the state have obligations and responsibilities to each other and the UK would no longer have obligations and responsibilities to citizens of a foreign country and vice versa. If you have a problem abroad or something like that and visit a consular office the first thing they ask you for is your passport to make sure they have an obligation to assist you.

As for dual citizenship I don't know anything about that or what the requirements are.

UK passports will be valid until expiry, but I'm not sure what the rule is on new passport applications between next week and March 2016.

I'm not from the UK so I'm no expert by all means, but how realistic is this scenario:

1) Scotland detaches itself from the UK and therefore the EU which – at least theoretically – gives problems in work permits etc.
2) In the remaining parts of the UK, the Conservative party holds an overwhelming majority and will go for a "brexit" anyways after the elections (in 2015 I guess?)
3) With both countries out of the EU, they can simply agree to open the borders.

To be honest, I am fascinated about this possible independence thing. Also, in relation to everything that is happening in the Ukraine right now, if Scotland is allowed to leave via a referendum, then why do a lot of people claim the Crimea and eastern Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to leave Ukraine via a referendum?

Because Ukraine itself never agreed to it. The referendum was conducted by 'rebels' who had just seized Ukrainian territory. If Scotland had done that, I don't think the UK or the world at large would recognise that either.

Andrew,

So if a Scot has just renewed his/her passport this year for 10 years then it would remain valid until 2024 and the UK would have responsibility for that person although theoretically he had been a foreign citizen for almost all of that time? Can't see that somehow. I can envisage the document itself remaining valid by amending it somehow but it would cease to be a UK passport surely.

Wouldn’t the UK have to abandon the term ’;UK’ as it applies to the English and Scottish kingdoms?

Being Irish, not sure.

Dave, it’s how I read the article on the BBC yesterday. EU passports will of course become invalid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25715397

Mike McLean, the UK includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland so I suppose the question actually is does a combination of just England and Wales still constitute Great Britain

Just checked the article on passports. Salmond has declared (in the way that he does) that UK passports will remain valid. However, the UK has not agreed to this (at least not yet) and has also made it clear that citizens of an independent Scotland will lose access to British embassies and consulates abroad. Accordingly, as passports have to be recognised by other countries this could cause difficulties for the Scots.

Thanks, Andrew. Pleased to see that part of the north of Ireland helps keep the ’Great’ in Britain and ’United’ in ’Kingdom’. Though the latter is a tad ironic!

So who gets to keep Billy Connolly then?

That’s a separate line on the ballot paper, Tony.

I am not taking a side here (that's up to the Scottish people) but my guess is that, if they vote Yes, the sky won't fall in. At the end of the day, politicians will have to be pragmatic and will come up with solutions on currency, passports etc. I'm guessing there would be a long transition period to smooth out any changes.

Very few elections UK have been decided by the Scottish votes. Don't quote me but I think only 3 since WWII. The idea that with Scotland gone rUK would elect never ending Tory governments doesn't hold water.

In my view, with the Scots gone, then 'the centre' of UK politics would shift slightly to the right & all parties would shift to accommodate this.

Interesting aside, is that Governor of the Bank of England (Mark Carney) who has been warning of the problems of Scotland continuing to use Sterling (if there was a Yes vote) is an avid Everton fan and just been appointed Ambassador for EitC.

Ciaran #17, why would Scotland want to use Sterling when the little diving shit is an English player?

Matt #18, if I am not misinformed, they want to pound Sterling...

In that case, Erik, he could be in for a rough ride when England play up there in November.

Dave #7, I can see where you are coming from, and there are ’indications’ that the referendum was rigged anyway (for example, in the city of Sevastopol turnout reached an astonishing 123% of registered voters apparently) so I am not one to claim that the Crimea referendum gives much reason for Crimean independence. But still, in a broader sense, in the east of Ukraine and on the Crimea, the culture is more Russian than Ukrainian, the language most spoken is Russian, not Ukrainian*.

One could claim that the differences between western and eastern Ukraine are far bigger than the differences between Scotland and the UK. From an outside perspective, and I do not want to start a political debate here, it’s just my two cents, it looks to make more sense to separate eastern Ukraine/Crimea from Ukraine than to separate Scotland from the UK. Yet in the media I read, it seems that most people and politicians here on the continent couldn’t be bothered too much about Scotland leaving the UK but parts of the Ukraine separating is a big deal and should be prevented. I am a tad surprised by that.

* I’m no expert and could be totally wrong, I’m just saying what I’ve read somewhere.

Andrew 10
on the politics of what's UK and GB

The term Great Britain was invented by (or at the time of) King James I and VI. He was England's first Scottish king (James I), and was also King of Scotland (James VI). It was used to refer to the King's two kingdoms as one. But there was no formal union for another century.

The Act of Union 1707 created Great Britain, and it refers to England and Scotland together. It also created the union flag: two crosses representing the two countries. No union, then the term is defunct. Great Britain will literally be dead, as will be the Union Jack. Britain and the flag confined to the history books.

The union was extended in 1801 to include Ireland, most of which left in the 20th century. The remaining "UK" would include England, its annexation of Wales from centuries ago, and the province of Northern Ireland. That hardly makes for a UK or a GB.

Who's to blame? Ironically, the so-called unionist party and self-styled champion of Britain. Two words: Margaret Thatcher. No Thatcherism, no separation. This will be roundly denied. But it's true.

Geoff 16

All parties going further to the right "to accomodate" England than has already happened in the past 25 years is my definition of permanent Tory rule.

There's a lot of piss and wind about Scotland going for independence, majority of it scaremongering nonsense. Comparing it to the desire of the Basques in Spain for example is rubbish, this country accepts Scotland in its form and has allowed the referendum, Spain doesn't recognise the Basque state, likewise EU membership would have to be applied for but Scotland already meets the entry criteria so should not be a major problem.

Passports remain valid, even if they voted to go then it would it actually happen until at least 2016 and even that date hasn't been clarified. Currency wise, any country an use whatever currency it wants, be it dollars, pounds or even pebbles, they just don't get central bank support.

In an ideal scenario, the rest of Britain would cut the head off the blood sucking snake, London, and go independent too; can you name any other countries that don't have a recognised second city because it's country is so capital-centric?

Tony #13 like celebrity scousers, the most famous Jacobites haven't actually lived in Scotland for years; Connolly and Connery – although the former does own some castle near Aberdeen I understand.

Roberto (#23), the parties only represent the people. If there was a demand for a left-wing party, then one of the main parties would move left, a new party would be set up to fill the gap, or one of the existing left-wing parties like the SWP or TUSC would be getting more votes than you can stuff in a bean tin!

It says a lot about the useless politicians in Britain that this scenario is even being allowed to happen.

Whilst I sympathise with the Scots to a degree, why do they get two parliaments, referendums, devolved power etc? What about other disenfranchised parts of the UK like Merseyside? Even if they vote No, they will still get a load of concessions.

Either they are part of the UK or they are not. If they vote Yes, then it should be adios in every way and as Dave says they have to join the EU to enjoy the ease of movement etc that brings.

What a shower of twats there are at the centre of all this: the out of touch Cameron, the impotent Miliband (Labour in Scotland in particular has just crumbled), the sycophant Clegg and that smirking slug Salmond. All not to be trusted and all useless. No wonder the Scots are split down the middle, the choice is grim.

Erik #21, if Scotland were leaving UK to become part of Russia then there would be an uproar.

I want to know who is going to pay to rebuild the wall? Or will they get funding from the Italian government and an Italian contractor in to do it like last time?

Eric #29 as I understand it, the parts of Ukraine that want independence are actually currently Russian in culture and language. As opposed to the Italian/Roman analogy you're presenting. The Crimea was only given to Ukraine in 1954 and before that date never was part of any Ukrainian state. Crimeans older than 60 have actually lived in the time that their territory was not Ukrainian.

The borders that were drawn after WWII by a communist dictatorship have nothing to do with culture, language etc. To dwell on your analogy, it would be more like if South East England was given to France in 1954 because, hey, it's close to it and easy to administer all at once if you're a dictator.

If the Scots DO vote to leave the Union, the Union flag could remain basically the same, with the blue changed to green which, along with the white and red, would include the colours of the Welsh flag.

Roberto @ 22
"The union was extended in 1801 to include Ireland, most of which left in the 20th century. The remaining "UK" would include England, its annexation of Wales from centuries ago, and the province of Northern Ireland. That hardly makes for a UK or a GB."

Not suggesting for a moment that you don’t already know this, but for the sake of absolute clarity, "Northern Ireland" is not a province in the Irish understanding. Ulster contains Donegal and Monaghan – counties in the Republic of Ireland.

Mike....and Cavan also?

Does the fact that the monarchy will still be in place in Scotland mean that the kingdom will still be united?

One thing that I want to clear up is the role of Hibbert and Osman in all this bollix!

Sean Connery said that he would leave the Bahamas and return to his homeland of Scotland if it gets independence....

I bet he's shitting himself now.

Mike McLean, how bloody dare you leave out the Breffni County from Ulster although I have no idea why you decided to tell Roberto that NI wasn't a province.

I'm just delighted we got a mention on ToffeeWeb.

Peter Laing, just like all those gobshite celebrities who threaten to leave the country every time there is a general election but are all still here.

So did we find out if the Scottish players will now be classed as foreigners and not meet the home grown stipulations?

Shane @ 35:

Apologies for absolutely everything. Posted while still much exercised by a poster on another forum who referred to H M Elizabeth II as "Queen of Ireland" and ensuing debate about Lloyd George’s parentage.

Roberto refers to N Ireland as a province. In the Oxford Dictionary sense, it is: administrative unit. is. What it isn’t is one of the four provinces. Bit pedantic of me but, as I say, was still seething from the other forum.

Anyhoo: good luck to the Scots in their quest to put a further spoke in the wheel of the Plantagenet imperial dream. (Wonder if this last sentence will save the post from being off topic. Probably not.)

Mike, not pedantic at all. I know exactly where you're coming from, living in Ulster myself, but not in Northern Ireland.

Queen of Ireland is a good one although there are plenty here who would probably welcome it.

Geoff (#26),

That's unimaginative rubbish.

Thatcher brought a new right-wing agenda for which there was little evident demand at the time. But give her some credit: she had the vision, imagination and bravura to try it.

A 30-year experiment in social democracy from 1945 to the 70s brought many victories: working class with money for the first time in history, affordable housing for all, health care for all. But the experiment was unwinding in the 70s, especially following the Oil crisis. That experiment in left-wing economics was followed by Labour and Tory alike.

We have just had a 30-year experiment in deregulated, neoliberal capitalism. Who the Hell is calling this an unmitigated success? The need for an alternative is blindingly obvious if we were a truly intelligent species. And that experiment in right-wing economics was followed by New Labour and Tory alike.

In fact, as I've noted above, a 300-year experiment in a political union is on the point of collapse precisely because of the disaster of Thatcherism. And still we hang on to nurse's skirt? As Thatcher showed, you don't need to wait for focus groups; you can have the vision to lead change.

Thatcherism has failed. It's time for some imagination and change. All we have from our politicians is to somehow blame the crisis on government spending and EU bureaucrats. As if that caused ballooning private sector debt and the collapse of the banks. It didn't. Deregulation and greed did. This ain't rocket science. And I can't blame the Scots for wanting out.

Yes Roberto, but with Stephen Naismith need a work permit or not?

Ulstermen: Shall I call NI two-thirds of a province? I was attempting to emphasis it's not a country, as many continue to write and define it. At least, I avoided that.

And is it really fair to call the 1707 Act the realisation of a Plantagenet imperial dream? Especially with the recent federalist moves, the Scots have more autonomy than any part of Britain, even if southern England too much calls the tune. Many English are not happy about the latter.

By the way, Prescott, you numpty. Calling for a united British football team to finally beat the Germans? That'll get the Scots feeling unionist (hope sarcasm is obvious).

Roberto, you could just call it Northern Ireland but if you can handle the mouthful of "two thirds of a province" then go for it.

I'm not sure what the definition of a province is but, as the province of Ulster contains three counties outside of Northern Ireland, I think it makes sense in this case to not refer to Northern Ireland as a province. It is also completely wrong to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster as many people do, e.g. The Ulster Unionist Party or Ulster Television.

I'm with Roberto here on the whole if-the-country-wanted-a-leftist-party view put by Geoff. That kind of ignores the media, who have played a key role in making the word 'left' synonymous with whacky radicalism or out-of-touch shop stewards, rather than an alternative mainstream position that doesn't make (capital) "growth" as the principal aim of a society.

Andrew (#42),

For all the scare-mongering, I expect emergency provisions would follow an Independence vote that would ensure a transition allowing English and Scottish workers to remain where they are of they want to continue working in the opposite countries.

But I don't know what the short-term can of worms that Independence would produce. And there would likely be some acrimony in divorce proceedings. Just don't expect that would impact workers in the short term, including Naismith.

Not a thought for poor Matthew Kennedy.

Being a proud Irish man, I find this Scottish independence debate a rad funny. Now before all you Scot TWers jump on me, let me explain. I lost some members of earlier generations of my family to the cause of independence and even my old man was tortured for his beliefs. Looking at the state of our country now, we no longer have independence.

The greedy sods in the stock exchanges around the globe, the bankers and useless politicians have us by the goolies. So if they have them in a vice you can shout 'independence' all you like but they still have control. Alas I think it is the same for Scotland and anywhere else that might have some assets.

So that's a No then?

How do our Welsh and Northern Irish readers feel about bringing an end to the Union as a whole? I guess for Ireland it would potentially mean a new union with the south but that brings it’s own issues.

NI unionists traditionally have deep ties with Scotland. If Scotland leaves the union, I can see that union potentially under threat.

The threat of semi-permanent Tory government may wake up the north of England to federalism.

Quite a can of worms.

One thing for certain is that many people south of the border and worldwide will have had their eyes opened to what a petty, small minded, vindictive, xenophobic load of English hating bigots far too many Scots are. I was made only too aware of what the Scots are like when I had the misfortune to live and work there for a few years back in the '80s.

Roberto (#40),

'That's unimaginative rubbish' Thanks very much!

What you say may be true in your mind but the fact that no left-wing party ever gets more than a derisory vote in the UK must tell you that there simply isn't a demand for this left-wing alternative. You & your ilk can rant about neo-liberalism (whatever that means) & call for a truly socialist alternative all you like but, if there isn't a popular demand, then you can't realistically expect any of the existing parties to move to the left to represent you. It's up to you & your ilk to create a left-wing party or join an existing one & make it electable. In fact, the only way to make it electable will be to move it to the right!

Sam (#45), Blame the media all you like. If, as you suggest, these people looking for a left-wing alternative are so gullible as to fall for the media line (as you see it), then I'm not sure that I'd trust their judgement on anything.

Geoff, being skeptical over the media doesn't make you immune to what the world around you prescribes as 'the norm'. If you genuinely think what the papers, TV, and online news organs (plus countless blogs etc) say have no effect on how you (and I) perceive the world, I would argue it's you who is being gullible.

The very fact you say I "blame" the media is in line with how much of the media imagines "lefties" frothing at the corners of their mouths, holding everyone else responsible but themselves. (And equally, there are stereotypes of the right, of course. But they're all true...*)

* That's a joke **

** Or is it?

Sam#54

There are certainly stereotypes of the right – I fit a number of them! Business owner, BTL landlord, live in the south, imagine lefties 'frothing at the mouth', think that Lady Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the UK since Churchill etc.

Are you saying that lefties don't froth at the mouth? How disappointing!

As a 'man of the right', I distrust left-wing media (I read Polly Toynbee in The Guardian for a laugh & regularly post on CiF to wind the lefties up). If these people, who you seem to believe are just waiting for a left-wing party to come along & represent them, don't distrust & disbelieve the right-wing media, one has to wonder why. Are they just stupid & gullible? Or could it be that the left in the UK isn't actually very significant or even very left?

To answer the original question, the current practice is that the UK will allow dual citizenship with any country that itself accepts dual citizenship.

So if you hold a UK passport and are a UK citizen, that would mean you are free to work in the UK post independence and you would also be entitled to a Scottish passport (if you qualify for it)

However the Home Secretary has pointed out that normal practice may not apply in this case and that decisions on citizenship of the UK are decided by the UK (minus Scotland). So there remains a chance that a Scot would not automatically be allowed UK citizenship and a passport, so would need to apply for permission to work here, given they will probably be in the EU. Should Scotland choose to join the EU and do not secure an opt out from Schengen (which is eminently possible) the chances of the above happening increase substantially and we would see passport controls on the borders with Scotland.

In other words, it is rather up in the air in the moment, as so much is with this issue.

Peter (#52) sorry to hear you had a bad experience. I worked for three years at Faslane and other Scottish MoD bases and have recently returned from just over 18 months in Edinburgh in the banking sector.

From both times I never had any bother with the locals who I still retain as friends to this day and a number of English who themselves have relocated to Scotland and would never willingly return over the border.

I've had far worse experiences of bigotry and worse whilst I was living in London years ago.

I think we're talking about two different things, Geoff, discounting for a minute the idea that a left-wing party will materialize out of nowhere.

1. The first is overt political editorializing, and I would agree that if anyone doesn't see that for what it is they are indeed gullible.

2. The other is the kind of collective perception of what is normal or acceptable in society – to a large degree an excellent thing that has evolved through millions of years of us all learning to live together and form things like morality, economics, circles of love etc.

To a small degree though this is, consciously or otherwise, manipulated by the media. Somebody makes editorial decisions about what it "news" and what isn't. And no matter how aware you are of that fact, your worldview is still biased by everything around you – you can't completely remove yourself from it. No-one can.

If that worldview is predominantly of the mind that the country is a PLC and should be run as such (I simplify to make a point), so services such as the NHS or Police are judged on how much they cost financially rather than how much contribute to society, then it is indeed not surprising that there is no "call for a party of the left" – as those values have been increasingly painted as old-fashioned. You're living in a country that pays bankers bonuses for fucking things up, remember.

Sam, a left wing party doesn't have to 'materialise out of nowhere'. They already exist & receive a pathetic share of the public vote. People choose not to vote for them. The great hope of the left, Left Unity, held a (locally) well publicised constituency meeting in a Northampton pub recently. Total attendance was 10 of which 5 were family of the organiser. I expect that the next meeting will be in a phone box!

We're not going to agree on this but one final point if I may. I believe that public services (police, NHS etc) should be judged on how much they cost financially AND how much they contribute to society. If they control their costs & get value for money in what they buy then they can contribute more to society without the need to impose extra taxation.

Gavin Ramejkis (#55),

You had worse experiences of bigotry in London, you say... Well, I am not surprised; not many English people live in London these days the majority are immigrants.

Geoff the party materializing out of nowhere was alluding to your post, where you suggested that there were people "who you (i.e. me, Sam) seem to believe are just waiting for a left-wing party to come along & represent them" – I didn't ever suggest that and don't now. That was a minor aside – the point I was making was about how the world around us shapes our views.

Anyway, we probably can agree that any public service needs to be financially accountable. I'm with you on that. I just think making money the bottom line is counter-intuitive to what the service is there for in the first place. I'd also agree the left is currently in a mess. But that doesn't mean that the ideals become worthless.

In the words of Darth Vader "the circle is complete". We started out as England, Scotland and Wales. We united and built the world's greatest empire covering 25% of the planet. We were the richest nation on earth. Our language is the most widely spoken on Earth. We have defeated just about everyone we have been at war with. We were a major power on the winning side in two World Wars. Our culture in the form of literature, music, art, sport is also spread worldwide. We gave the world Football. We had the world's first universal healthcare system that has versions spread around the nations of the earth. For good or ill, Great Britain has made its indelible mark upon the face of this planet.

Now all this has almost gone. Our once mighty empire is no more. Our rich and varied economy has been reduced to service industries and banking where once shipbuilding, manufacturing, steel production, mining, and heavy industries reigned supreme. Our national treasure has been stolen from us by greedy bankers, and short-sighted decision-making. We desperately try to maintain our ever shrinking influence in the world through relentless use of our much reduced armed forces.

In a few days, through the efforts of small men, our island could be once more reduced to its component parts. England, Scotland and maybe eventually Wales. Now we know how the Romans felt as their world contracted around them. Oh well. In a hundred years, we will just be a footnote in history books. How the might fall, eh?

Erik #31, my comment on Hadrian's Wall was just an aside not meant to refer to your post #21. But in your response you would have been more accurate to refer to North West France being returned to British rule.

My point to your previous post about the fuss about Ukraine joining Russia was meant to be that if Scotland declared they were joining Russia there would be a fuss, as it's unlikely to happen nobody cares. Russia is still seen as the Communist enemy by some governments.

Back to the OP – I don't think work permits would be an issue. The remaining UK (rUK) could agree with Scotland that their respective citizens could each work in the other country. I don't think it would be in either interest to block that.

A Passport is a travel document and not a certificate of citizenship or bring with it a right of abode. The UK passports will remain valid but when they expire if you no longer have a right to apply for one (which the Scots won't) then you can't get another. However UK passport or not a Scottish citizen will not get UK consulate protection.

The thing that will sink the Scots if the do go independent is:
(1) their cost of borrowing will be much higher than the UK's as they have no track record and government that is making promises it cannot possibly keep – they Scots will be taking on a chunk of the national debt and it they won't be able to service it without tax increases and service cuts and

(2) a government that is making promises that it cannot possibly keep so it won't make the necessary tax increases and service cuts leading to a quick default and a Greece type situation which will sink Scotland for a generation – and drag the rest of the UK down with it as the UK will need to bail the Scots out, and no doubt get the blame for it whilst doing so. The UK will need to bail the Scots out because when taking over their share of the national debt the only way the Scots will be able to do so is issuing IOUs to the UK and then they will default on them. To get its money back the UK will need to lead a bail out – just like Germany and Greece now.

It will be a total disaster for all concerned.

Frank Crewe 063 - hang on a minute. You want the UK economy to be dominated by manufacturing? Does that mean you want our per capita GDP to be the same as China's – cos that is what would happen. There's no value in hammering rivets into ships – it's a skill that is easy to acquire!

The reason why we don't do manufacturing anymore is precisely because it is an easy skill to acquire and poorer countries can do it cheaper. It wasn't some Thatcherite plot. It's just simple economics. Meanwhile, the UK is richer than it has ever been.

As long as they keep on supplying us with Chivas Regal, not arsed if they are part of the UK or not.

I used to work abroad with quite a few Scots and they were some of the most bitter men ever, but, fortunately, a great laugh to work with too.

Maybe Aye, Maybe Naw.

It certainly is getting lively up here. Next week should be fun if Kevin Bridges is anything to go by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIQL4lvIqU

Geoff (#53),

Your little rant reveals you either did not read my piece or failed to understand it.

If you bother to even try and still can't understand, I'll explain it more fully (including what neoliberalism means). If you don't, neither will I.

What is this thread doing on ToffeeWeb? All things related to Everton? I am astonished that the editors have not shut it down. We are all Evertonians and this is, in my view, divisive. What next?

David Ellis, I think if you look beneath the rocks under which they hide, the majority of the rich in the UK are evading taxes in their homelands and carving up large portions of the capital's high end properties between themselves. The disparity in the distribution of wealth in the UK harks back to the days of the workhouse with the poor and working classes being left further and further behind.

A lot of this economic genocide is by design. The abhorrent view that manufacturing and heavy industry holds no sway in the modern world is a nonsense, how else would you as a nation ever want to increase GDP per capita? You need to accommodate the full spectrum of your workforce and allow them to earn — not just your elite service industries, managing other people's money.

As a Scot, I should be offended by Peter's generalisation of 'what Scot's are like'. However, given your assertion that London's immigrants are bigots, I am not sure I can take you seriously... is this an attempt at irony?

I couldn't care less if Scotland stay or go but, if they leave, within 5 years they will be begging to come back.

David Ellis – are you actually defining manufacturing as 'hammering rivets into ships'?

Enough said.

Andy Crooks – considering how we fight over what the team should be any given Saturday, I think this whole thread has been remarkably serene!

It's the service industry in the form of the finance sector which has got this country into such a feckin mess, and governments which deregulated that sector.

Let's just devastate the manufacturing sector and buy all our goods from abroad and have nothing in that area to export – that'll do the trade surplus no end of good.

Manufacturing can be low value-added (hammering rivets) or high value-added.

With their appalling Health statistics leading to massive NHS costs and the fact that only 1in 5 people works full time north of the border, it's a financial disaster waiting to happen.

If they want to go, then let them go, but it has to be a true separation, not one subsidised by the rest of the UK.

If their football team is anything to go by, they'll be pretty crap as a single country on the world stage and about as significant as some other far flung corner of Europe like Bosnia or Bulgaria. Stronger together is a very true saying in this instance I think.

Well, fuck it. If Michael and Lyndon are going to let this thread run, and I believe it sets a poor precedent, then I'm going to have my say.

In my opinion, a yes vote will weaken the chance of any kind of fair society. Salmond in power in Scotland, and, however he tries to hide it, he seems to me to be a self-serving nonentity, and Tory rule for the rest of us. The vilification of Ed Miliband in the utterly biased media is fucking disgusting and beyond belief. COYB

Karl, you need to do a bit more digging on Scotland. There are very very few companies that employ more than 1,000 employees; the majority of Scottish people were employed by the government in one form or another.

When the Tories and their poodles came to power, Gideon Osborne's (I have to call the twat by his real Mungo and Farquhar name – not his assumed "George") austerity measures hit government-financed employees in the civil service and ancillaries (including the Ministry of Defence civilians) hard, leading to thousands unemployed. Many of them took years before they were able to find any meaningful employment in Scotland because of the way its industry has been set up. I know because I can name several ex MoD civilian workers who didn't work for more than 2 years after being made redundant and one who finally gained part time employment working with his wife in a florist.

In spite of that, Scotland has a thriving export industry with hundreds of millions of pounds worth travelling down the M74 and M6 into England. If you take a look at the total of non-oil-related exports and include service industry such as banking, you are talking in the region of 𧴜 billion per year.

The new EU banking regulations coming in are forcing banks to relocate their Head Office functions to the country with the largest risk, so Lloyds and RBS would on paper have to (note 'have to' by financial regulatory law) relocate HQ functions to England as it holds their highest risk element. More propaganda and scaremongering, avoiding to add this will be forced upon them, irrespective of a Yes or No vote.

Finally, if a Yes was secured, then even that would not necessarily give the SNP power as an election would still need to be held in 2016. The Tories wouldn't have a hope; their lapdogs the Liberals exactly the same. Labour haven't enamoured themselves either, it could come left-field and be the Green Party or a coalition.

Great thread. As an American, I just see the usual talking head/this or that on the TV.

Keep it going.

Si - shipbuilding was just one of the list of "glorious" past industries listed by Frank Crewe, along with other heavy industries. In the late 1700s, there was a theory that all economic production should be based on agriculture; manufacturing was not considered a proper part of the economy. They were wrong and the still prevailing obsession with manufacturing is just as wrong.

How value is created has changed over time and even China now has more than half of its GDP generated by services. Manufacturing is just not as important as it used to be.

Why is Apple worth so much? They don't make anything – that's the easy bit they outsource.

Gavin 71 - you have a legitimate point. It's essential not to leave people behind, not just because that is the right thing to do but because even the rich don't live in isolation so it's in their best interests as well that society is more fair and civil.

The question is how best to achieve this. Subsidising heavy industry is one way... but it is not sustainable — as we found out in the 1970s. Bluntly, it diverts resources into uneconomic activity which causes a drag on the whole economy.

A better answer is better education, and maybe that means privatising more of the education sector (although still paid for by the state). And also better investment in vocational training and service skills etc.

I think we have the same aims but have faith in different ways of achieving the same outcome.

David #82, better education comes with a caveat, it's only useful if the ones being educated are both willing and capable of learning.

Some of the kids I went to school with would not have learned anything if they had been taught by a team of Harvard professors, their only hope after school was getting a job on the factory floor at Metalbox or Ford, like their big brother and their dad.

What do kids today do on leaving school with such places being closed down?

Because of the work that I did, I lived in many parts of the UK, having been born and raised in Liverpool. I also lived and worked in many other countries too, in Africa, Europe and Asia, and I can state without a doubt that Scotland was the only part of the UK where I, and many other English and others, felt like and were treated like expats and not with welcoming hospitality at all.

Even back in the '80s, there was Nationalist graffiti everywhere and on a Railway Bridge I saw the slogan 'FREE SCOTLAND' to which a disgruntled ExPat no doubt had added 'WITH EVER FOUR GALLONS' — mimicking a well-known petrol advert of the time.

We also used to say to each other "Home Rule for Scotland and let the xenophobic bastards starve to death." — which gives you an insight in to the hostility most of us felt living there.

Stop getting ahead of yourselves, 18 September is only the decision day and if it does come to pass, it won't be the day after. When it is (if indeed it is) Implemented, all these questions about visas, currency, passports, work permits, EU and much more besides will have been committed to death down to the last full stop. With the key things, EU and thus Currency all sorted by the actual Independence Day (my pick, if it happens at all, which I doubt, is 30th Nov 2016 )... much like the Hong Kong thing.

David (#82) privatising activities, in my view, also "diverts resources" – into the hands of shareholders via profits. I'm not arguing for / against public sector nor for / against private enterprise, just against any assumption that public is bad / inefficient and private is good / efficient.

And I do have a suspicion of any suggestion that anything state owned / operated should be privatised without an argument as to (a) what the specific weakness is in the state operation? and (b) how and why privatisation would provide a better outcome? and (c) what is meant by outcome – Shareholder value? Benefit for the consumer? Benefit for employees? Benefit for society.

So I'd be interested in what aspects of education should be privatised and why.

Hell, NHS is public sector and it's WELL up there internationally in terms of effectiveness / outcomes (according last year to research by a group of medical Royal Colleges) AND efficiency (cost - according last year to OECD research).

East coast main line - I might be wrong but I thought the private sector ran away from that when they couldn't generate enough profit, that it's now in the public sector and that over the last 5 years has contributed ٟ billion to the treasury coffers.

Of course, there will also be examples of public sector organizations not doing well and private sector organizations doing well. My argument is against any assumption that one is INTRINSICALLY better than the other.

I'm wondering what will happen if the vote is yes - then in a few years time the grand experiment fails?

Is there a mechanism in place for Scotland to re-join the UK?

Can they beg back - or what if they ask to come back and the rest of the UK says no?

My personal view is that this is and has been driven for many years by Alex Salmond's personal ambition.

He wants to be top dog and knows that he was never going to achieve it via any of the UK main stream parties - so he is willing to bankrupt a small nation in order to achieve his private aims.

I just lost a massive rant on here, and at this time don't have the inclination to write it all out again.

Main points were Salmond and chums only ones decreeing absolute definites. The No campaign, for all its negativity, is only stating what could happen.

It's not just EU countries with separatist factions who'd block Scotland going straight in but also possibly the new kids who had to jump through several hoops.

Salmond is adamant about nuclear disarmament... But America won't like that, and they'd be an obvious choice as a non-EU country to aid with a trade deal. Of course they are more maxed out on credit than a retired footballer's wife after retirement. But one thing's for sure: nobody's going to welcome China wading in to 'help'.

So money's going to be tight... And even if the EU say did chuck some cash your way, you only have to look at Ireland to see it's a very short term thing benefitting the EU like some sort of crack dealer exploiting a junkie.

Costs could go up. Taxes might rise dramatically. Lending costs may increase. Trade deals will probably be jeopardized. Jobs may be lost. Sterling (pound, GBP) could not be permitted to be used... And if it is, then it begs the question: How is Scotland benefitting without any control of their currency? All of these things and many more might really happen.

However, for all that, I hope they vote 'Yes' as it would be interesting to see what happens. A bit like a middle-aged colleague jacking in their job to pursue their dream. Most of you think they're mad, but you hope they succeed – well unless they're a dick... But there's a small nasty side that doesn't want them to show you up as a loser.

Sadly though, I think the Scots will vote with their wallets rather than their hearts.

Yes, that was the short version!

Found the other long piece, but above is snappier only bits that were really missed out:

But hey, it might get resolved without all the negatives. However, as the Lib Dems and Obama found out, even supposed power doesn't mean much if if you get blocked by a majority.

The only knowns are that the Scots have a chance of independence.

Peter (#84),

I must disagree with your point there. I've been up here 25 years and having some great discussions with the Jocks, all in good spirits.

However, I do fear this whole debacle will split or put tensions on communities after it's all over. Let's see what happens next week...

If nearly 50% of the Scot's really do wish to be independent, then I'd rather they go, because if they vote 'no' by a narrow majority all we'll end up with is years of cancerous anti-unionism.

Honestly, I don't think that they will be any better off governing themselves. It's no nirvana. Politicians will always look after themselves, whether they are based in London or Edinburgh.

However, what riles me more than self-serving politicians are people who think their lives are shit and blame everyone but themselves. I think a lot of people in Scotland will vote Yes precisely because they really hate Westminster-based politicians and blame them for all their ills.

I often hear that "It's the politicians fault we have no manufacturing industry"; quietly forgetting that the products were often shit and the workers spent half their time on strike. My dad used to work at BL/Rover and it's no surprise that it went down the toilet, given how often they used to walk out.

Or, people blaming the 2008 financial crisis entirely on the banks and politicians, without thinking that they(individually) had any part in it by borrowing more money than they could afford, or demanding the government spend more money on cause X, Y or Z.

I think people in England should be asked: Do we want Scotland in the UK?

According to figures I have read, each man woman and child in Scotland have ٟ,300 more spent per annum on them than people living in England.

Northern Ireland and Wales also annually receive the benefit of more public spending per person than the poor relations of the UK, the England dwellers!

Now that may be only part of the story, I'm sure, but nobody seems to ask us: "What do we want?"

Too right Raymond. Pandering to the minorities as usual and bollox to the rest of us.

For all the good points of living in Britain, a very large amount of us are fed up with being taken for mugs by illegal immigrants, people who won't work, individuals who won't take any responsibility for their own actions and expect us to pay for it all while we work our arses off.

Add in self-serving, spineless politicians and you can see why a group like UKIP, despite having one dimensional policies, are gaining support as they are the only party who seem to understand this.

I wouldn't vote for them though, I'd never ever vote Tory, Labour have let me down and the Liberals getting into bed with the Tories means they are off limits.

To be honest, many of us won't vote for any of them anymore and as for the Scots, I don't see them being any happier on their own, just weaker and poorer. And if they go, the rest of us will probably be stuck with the Tories forever. A truly depressing thought.

Politics makes me sick!

Karl

No-one has sponged off taxpayers more than the banks in the past 100 years. Even if it has been in just the past few years, the amounts are utterly incredible. And UKIP are their biggest cheerleaders. So they can feck right off!

What few mention about the bailouts is that two governments have deliberately pushed house prices higher since the crisis as the banks would have otherwise collapsed. The added debts will be paid by generations of Brits for decades, while millions will never buy a home and will have to sponge off the state in their retirement through housing benefit – which will make the pensions crisis truly explode.

And then we have a government claiming they have a "long-term" economic plan. Couldn't blame the Scots for wanting out.

As for the poster mentioning higher government spending in Scotland, that's paid for by the oil. It kinda evens out.

The phrase 'if you know your history' would not go amiss on this thread. Most speak as though the current form of the United Kingdom has always been organised this way.

I can see why people in Scotland would choose to vote for independence as most powers are still retained by Westminster and in what way is the current UK coalition government representative of their views of the people of Scotland? What will be interesting should Scotland vote for independence will be the impact on Northern England, its political outlook and any developing ideas of regional devolved power to either cities or regions.

David Ellis (82) are you being serious? your idea of better education for ALL is to convert state schools into private ones? The reason why kids who go to private schools do better than those in state schools? it is called MONEY, it has bugger all to do with the quality of teaching or teachers. It is exactly the same as longevitY, those who are richest, live longest. It is not just the quality of healthcare/education they can access but their lifestyles from an early age. You need to look at the current cabinet for your example of the impact of inequity on society. Perhaps some Scots want to break away from the UK to create a more equitable society rather like some of the Northern European countries who can see the benefit of an 'active state' rather than a market driven approach that puts the pursuit of 'personal wealth' above all else.