[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Ive personally had some small dealings with SNP/SnG unpleasantness at the Bannockburn event and I know personally that some (many?) of that ilk are unpleasantly anti English. Having it spat in your face for two days tends to leave an impression.

I am not sure you should generalise form one event with scottish racists. It is like visiting England to hang out with the EDL and think it was indicative of the nation/people.

I see The Guardian has come out No. Interesting, as a lot of the tone of its coverage has been sympathetic to Yes & I would have thought the left leaning agenda that Yes has tried to claim for itself would have led to the paper being at least neutral.

Tinfoil hat malfunction Piemonster? 😀

I had a good laugh tonight. Got a letter through the post giving me £75 pounds off a commemorative coin entitled "Scotland The Brave"

It's funny as ****. Like something in Viz.

On 18th Sept,2014 2.5m households in Scotland will vote on whether the nation should become an independent country! For historic reasons Scotland's relationship with England is divided "since decades" :-).
The history of Scotland is affected by the bloody dispute about national determination.

It carries on like this. The coin has a lovely thistle emblem and the first verse of Scotland The Brave. (Although no mention of a Highland grandparent and her enlarged mammary glands and hairy lady bits).

People sucked in by this need only send the reply back to

Winsdor Wint
Worcester
WR2 4AY

Reminds me of this
[url= http://www.theonion.com/articles/collectibleplate-industry-calls-for-tragic-death-o,440/ ]http://www.theonion.com/articles/collectibleplate-industry-calls-for-tragic-death-o,440/[/url]

Robert Peston says
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29185319 ]Treasury briefed RBS decision before the board took the decision[/url] 🙂

Northwind. I lol at that. I know people with Diana plates, and I struggle not to laugh at that also.

gordimhor, I agree with you. Treasury say they caved into questions about RBS. I would have thought that any pressure from the press regarding RBS should have been answered directly by RBS.

Given that the Treasury would have already made the decision on behalf of RBS why would they need to wait for it to be discussed?

It always seems as if RBS are the uncontrollable dog not listening to its master. Although we own a huge amount of RBS I wonder how much control we have over it?

😀

I quite agree Junkyard, which is why I point out I'm anti SNP not anti Scot. The guys who invited us up and who were portraying the majority of the English army were Scots & they were mortified.
I also do know that SnG membership is proscribed by the SNP, but both were there.
That weekend brought home to me a realisation that some of the grassroots SNP membership were virulently Anglophobic, some on this thread may disagree with that statement but I experienced it and I know what I saw and heard.
I want the UK to protect its peoples interest, that for me means ensuring we are not tied to an Independent Scotland by currency. Simple as that.

muddy, I think you have previously said you are not keen to come back to Scotland based on a your experiences at a Bannockburn re-enactment. That is not the best place to get a flavour of Scotland.

Very probably not I quite agree. It was quite unpleasant. It was an event I'd really been looking forward to as well. To be fair the reenactors were fantastic, the regular crowd good natured - it was when the SNP followers and hangers on came over from the SNP rally that things started to deteriorate.
Before that event I'd never even heard of SnG so to have a small bunch of black t-shirted fascists hurling abuse and gloating about burning the Union Flag at midnight didn't exactly fill me with the desire to stick around. Add to that the SNP followers and I'm sure you can understand why my view of Scots Nationalists is a dim one.

I know it's going back a few pages, but it's hard to keep up round here - I don't know why we're discussing that would happen in iS refuse to take their share of the debt. It's not going to happen - when Alex walks into those negotiations he's going to be talking to real economists, not ignorant members of the public - they will laugh at him. The suggestion about not taking on any debt isn't even a negotiating position, it's just for public consumption.

muddy, in all honesty I had never heard of SnG until looking them up just now. It seems as if you came across every member.

I'd never heard of them either. are there a lot of beards, unpasteurized ales and rough-spun woollen garments involved in addition to the antienglish bigotry?

The suggestion about not taking on any debt isn't even a negotiating position, it's just for public consumption.

Almost everything that Alex Salmond says is purely for public consumption, misleading at best, pure lies at worst. It seems that through these lies, fear and misrepresentation, they are trying to turn proud, patriotic Scots into nationalistic, anti-union Scots.

Take the NHS for instance. Salmond made a big show of not privatising the NHS as one if the biggest reasons for independence at the last debate. Yet he knows full well that even under the current level of devolution that the NHS cannot be privatised unless members of the Scottish parliament vote for it to be privatised. It has nothing to do with remaining in the UK or not. So pure scaremongering then! Yet some of the Scottish public lap it up?

Yes but what about the UK cutting funding for the NHS in Scotland I hear you say?

You might not be aware that under control of the SNP, spending in the NHS is forecast to decrease by 1.2% annually over the next year whereas in England it's increasing by 4.4% (IFS figures). That's despite pledges from the SNP to increase NHS spending and despite the money allocated to Scotland under the Barnett formula increasing. So the money available from the UK for healthcare in Scotland is increasing but the SNP it would seem are choosing not to spend it on the NHS, hence the figures above. Still think the SNP care about the NHS?

So in summary I'm afraid:

[img] [/img]

Tinfoil hat malfunction Piemonster?

I said MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

To be fair, I was having a google fail looking for the goniad editorial.

Siol Nan Gaidheal - seed of the Gael, describe themselves as a Scottish cultural and fraternal society & described by even the SNP as 'proto fascists'. No doubt a small group but as an openly bisexual Scottish acquaintance of mine discovered they hold some rather unpleasant views about who would be welcome in iScotland.
Not a pleasant bunch in my experience.

Almost everything that Alex Salmond says is purely for public consumption, misleading at best, pure lies at worst. It seems that through these lies, fear and misrepresentation, they are trying to turn proud, patriotic Scots into nationalistic, anti-union Scots.

Really?!?! 😉 he is not the Deceitfully One for nothing! I would have enjoyed a proper debate with actual independence at its heart with the real pros and coins discussed. But this whole debate has been based on lies from the start. Good job it's not important...

You have to love Robert "mountain out of a molehill" Peston, the man who made his name with inside briefings on Lloyd's during the crisis and who then likes to make out this is all about him (notice his use if the first person). This is such a non-story? FFS, come and read STW Robert. Even us mountain bikers know that the major banks are going to relocate headquarters and change status to ensure protection of their franchise. And guess what, surprise, surprise they have been involved in discussions with the gov, HMT and BOE about it. Well knck me over with a feather. Still in the world of 25 hour news......

Bring back Stephanie Flanders and least she was sensible and understood the subject.

Even us mountain bikers know that the major banks are going to relocate headquarters and change status to ensure protection of their franchise. And guess what, surprise, surprise they have been involved in discussions with the gov, HMT and BOE about it.

We also know that no jobs are going to move. The moving of headquarters is a technicality which legally obliges the HQ of a bank to be in the country where it does the majority of its business. Dont let the facts get in the way of a shite bit of spin though.

Possibly true that depends. The "actual" news relates to the technical move for sure. The "actual" number of jobs relocated is separate and depends. Of course, there are many that refute the horses mouth testimony. But that is clear in terms of numbers, location and required office space. That again, you heard here first!!!

Like Peston, based in inside information (offices, senior staff looking for schools near me) I will happily wager that "no jobs are going to move" is incorrect - even whatever the outcome.

Take the NHS for instance. Salmond made a big show of not privatising the NHS as one if the biggest reasons for independence at the last debate. Yet he knows full well that even under the current level of devolution that the NHS cannot be privatised unless members of the Scottish parliament vote for it to be privatised.

Not true. There are at least three ways the Scottish NHS can be privatised against the wishes of the Scottish people:

- Reducing the budget. There are lots more austerity cuts to come anyway, but in addition to that the new tax raising powers proposed will lead to a reduction in the block grant. We'll face the choice of having to pay more tax in Scotland to maintain the NHS, or to allow private companies to bid for contracts.

- Introducing TTIP. The UK government had the option to exclude the NHS from TTIP, which opens public services up to competition, but refused to do so. Healthcare companies could use the courts to force the Scottish NHS to allow privatisation.

- The Scottish parliament only exists at the largesse of the Westminster parliament. Any and all powers can be pulled back to Westminster at any time. Nigel Farrage has said he wants to abolish the Scottish parliament, and he has support from some Tories too. Who knows what a UK parliament will do in 10-39 years with the rise of UKIP.

The boss of BUPA is a Better Together supporter. Lord Robert Winston who popped up in Glasgow to support the No campaign favours charging an annual fee to use the NHS. And just look at how many MPs have financial interests in healthcare companies.

There may be a shuffling of the pack, but that's not really going to effect the country as a whole now is it.

Alex Salmond gives a really good answer to that question in this video:

This video is pretty good too:

Scottish, Muslims, Irish, Jew, Chelsea Fan...all just artificial constructs to give attention seeking whores a flag to wave. Hope it's a no and we can all get on with important stuff.

Hope it's a yes, so they go away and we can get on with important stuff. After all, they are only going to go and on and on until they get it.

After all, they are only going to go and on and on until they get it.

Yup 😀

The NHS is being opened up to competition to benefit big pharmaceutical companies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29181332

Muddy I absolutely agree with you about SnG whom I have also had the misfortune to meet.They and their like do not represent Yes Scotland.

Jim Sillars just now on the Today programme. Oh my lord.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, leading the European negotiating team, has denied there is a hidden agenda and that the NHS might be undermined.

He said: "Public services are always exempted - there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds."

Sorry about the cut and paste odyssey but this is a good article

Banks' moves are a credit and not a debit in Yes camp accounts
Published on 12 September 2014

Ian McConnell
Royal Bank of Scotland might just have taken a big potential problem off the hands of First Minister Alex Salmond, and of any future independent Scottish government.

RBS's plan to move its head office nameplate from Edinburgh to London in the event of a Yes vote should ensure that the Bank of England will remain its lender of last resort, and that a Westminster government would have to stump up the capital if another financial crisis prompted a need for a new bail-out. It might be tempting to get wrapped up in the symbolism of RBS moving its plaque south. The No camp will likely make much of this, and of similar moves by other banks, between now and next Thursday's vote.

But what is more important from a practical perspective is that the moves by RBS and other banks to set up English-registered holding companies remove a potentially very significant risk from an independent Scotland.

It certainly appears to knock on the head the oft-heard argument that Scotland could be bankrupted by bail-out costs if a future global financial crisis brought the banking sector to its knees again, and make warnings about what happened to the likes of Iceland and the Republic of Ireland last time round largely irrelevant.

And it would have been surprising if RBS had not decided to move the domicile of its holding company in the event of independence, given previous comments from chairman Sir Philip Hampton about it being unusual for small countries to be home to the headquarters of big banks.

A raft of banks followed RBS's lead yesterday by unveiling plans to move their plaques south, including Glasgow-based Clydesdale Bank and Tesco Bank, which has its headquarters in Edinburgh. Bank of Scotland owner Lloyds and TSB said they would establish new legal entities in England in the event of a Yes vote.

It is good for customers and staff that these banks, unlike Prime Minister David Cameron, have some plans. We were reminded this week that Mr Cameron is not making contingency plans for a Yes vote. Such failure to plan for a possible outcome would be unlikely to stand Mr Cameron in good stead if he were head of a bank or other major company.

The stream of announcements from the banks, which followed comments from Standard Life on Wednesday about planning for new regulated companies in England to which it could transfer parts of its business if needed, is unlikely to have been music to the ears of the Yes camp.

But how negative is the news for the pro-independence camp, in reality?

It remains to be seen what it will do to people's voting intentions.

But RBS, Tesco Bank and Clydesdale appeared at pains to emphasise the shifting of their nameplates would have no significant impact on employees or customers. TSB also played down the actual impact of its move, and Lloyds did not flag any big shift of personnel.

Epitomising the tone of the banks, RBS chief executive Ross McEwan told staff in a memo: "This is a technical procedure regarding the location of our registered head office. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs. Our current business in Scotland, including the personal and business bank, IT and operations, human resources and many other functions, are here because of the skills and knowledge of our people, and the sound business environment.

"So far, I see no reason why this would change should we implement our contingency plans."

Given there is unlikely to be any great change in the split of where the banks' profits are made, there should not be any major corporation tax implications from their contingency plans. So it is difficult to see much downside in these plans for the Yes camp, with no suggestion at this stage of a southward drift of actual operations even in the longer term.

Life and pensions group Aegon UK has for years been run from Edinburgh, but registered in London.

In reality, much of RBS's decision-making is already in London, while Clydesdale has an Australian owner.

The Yes camp, although also having to cope yesterday with Weir Group chief executive Keith Cochrane's forthright reiteration of his No stance, could take comfort from interventions from venerable Edinburgh merchant banker Sir Angus Grossart and Aberdeen Asset Management chief executive Martin Gilbert.

Sir Angus, who has spent his career assessing and managing risk and showed impressive vision to dodge the mayhem of the global financial crisis, told a newspaper that some commentary on the referendum's impact on financial markets had been "severely overstated".

He said: "It is getting out of hand …To hear some of the comments you almost expect people to be predicting a plague of locusts or mice next."

And Mr Gilbert declared: "I think an independent Scotland would be a big success."

The views of these two senior figures should carry some weight.

And on the all-important practical level, which the No camp has been keen to dwell upon throughout the debate, it could be argued the moves by the banks are actually net positive, given any future independent Scottish government will not have to make contingency plans for huge banking bail-outs.

[quote=scotroutes said]Given that the Treasury would have already made the decision on behalf of RBS why would they need to wait for it to be discussed?

Hence why they were able to do a press release before the board of the listed company had decided and the meeting finished- I can only imagine the no ers reaction had AS done this. Dirty tricks on both sides though of course the no lot wont comment on that bit and just continue to have a pop at AS. OH my mistake they will shoot the messenger instead 🙄 Ah the noble use of double standards

The suggestion about not taking on any debt isn't even a negotiating position, it's just for public consumption

Muddy you met some nobbers dont let it cloud your view of an entire party or nation

Dirty tricks? [url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/09/12/scottish-independence-englands-shameful-secret/ ]Forbes has a good article. [/url]

Thats hilarious

[i]Yeah, like, well, we never wanted you anyway, so there! Bovvered[/i]

Yet a few months ago, they were trying to suppress the SFE report that this would be the likely outcome!

And on the all-important practical level, which the No camp has been keen to dwell upon throughout the debate, it could be argued the moves by the banks are actually net positive, given any future independent Scottish government will not have to make contingency plans for huge banking bail-outs/

.
That last sentence is a bit desperate= Think positive! Scotland wouldn't have to worry about a financial crisis in the future because it wouldn't have a financial sector. 😕

 

I dont think he has ever said it except in a quid pro Quo debt for asset type negotiating position. I think everyone would agree that is imminently sensible negotiating position

That’s the very foundation of the lie though, that iScotland will be able to negotiate assets in exchange for accepting the debt. Scotland already has the assets; it has the schools, hospitals etc. that the debt has been used to pay for. That is what Scotland gets for accepting it's proportion of the debt, the things that it has 'bought' with it

this approach just gave all the nuke subs to scotland as they are in Scotland You seem to think that only the things in scotland were bought by scotland. Why?

Shared assets are things that both paid towards be it embassies abroad or tax office or benefit computer systems or DVLA ofices etc. Scottish money helped set them up even though they are not located in Scotland. It is dividing these assets that is tricky. I am sure there must be some in Scotland as well -Students loans company for example where the reverse applies- ie rUK has a share of this.
This is what needs to be debated

this approach just gave all the nuke subs to scotland as they are in Scotland

No it didn't the subs are movable assets of the UK, Scotland has zero claim to them.

You seem to think that only the things in scotland were bought by scotland. Why?

No I don't. Things were 'bought' by UK tax payers, whether in the rUK or in Scotland. The UN law has clear criteria how these assets are divided and Scotland will get to keep the things that the UK bought that are located in Scotland - because of this, they are obliged to take a share of the debt, again this is stated in UN law.

Crikey! I've just realised that the one thing I do love about Scotland would have massive implications.

All the great golf courses that are currently used on the Open Championship rota, suddenly wouldn't be! That would devalue them massively.

Scotland will get to keep the things that the UK bought that are located in Scotland

LOL imagine if iS roams in to rUK and start taking any movable asset citing UN law 😆
I am ooot this is just silly

All the great golf courses that are currently used on the Open Championship rota, suddenly wouldn't be! That would devalue them massively.

The Open is controlled by the R&A right? Don't think it would be an issue and can't see anything changing.

It's the British Open in all but name, so reckon it will be something else for the English to get 'petty' about!

Faslane would have to remain soverign UK territory until a suitable alternative site could be found.

you forgot to say that is what UN law says 😉

It certainly has to be haggled over and the only viable solution is to give[lease] the base to rUK in the short run [ possibly for the length of a currency deal???]making it rUK territory - given SNP say iS will be nuke free.

Its certainly an area that has to be debated like so many others with many of them having no obvious solutions.
Again if iS refuse it will be a mess hence why both sides need to discuss maturely. I doubt many us have much hope of that happening given the entrenched views on here and from the politicians involved.

From The Herald

Throughout this campaign the DO has very deliberately misrepresented the issue of debt (1) the real reason why Scotland has an obligation (2) how debt works - the share of debt issue is irrelevant, it can't be broken up, it's a financial transfer, (3) that it has nothing to do with assets (4) even if it did that still would not involve a currency since it's not an asset.

And yet he's has developed the false narrative that if we dontget to use our (sic) pound we will walk away from the debt. Complete and utter bllx on every count, other than confirming that he is happy to frame the debate around deceitful lies and people swallow it.

Just played tennis with a senior man at RBS - any takers on the earlier wager? But be careful of betting against assymetric information.

I hadn't thought about the open championship - I guess using the correct title would easily get round this possible eventuality though

I don't think we lease our bases in Cyprus do we. It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it. iScotland will be nuke free. Faslane will remain part of the UK until it is no longer needed. So strictly speaking the SNP pledge would be met. I doubt the UN would object to a permanent UN security council member keeping hold on to it's nuclear arsenal.

It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it

Really this is a nonsensical debate where there is no way on earth you would respect AS /SNP/iS if they proposed doing this to sovereign rUK territory or just tol;d you how it was going to be
I am oot till the grown ups come back to debate.

fasternotfatter - Member
...It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it. iScotland will be nuke free. Faslane will remain part of the UK until it is no longer needed.

No bloody way.

Any Scottish govt that agreed to that would be out of power quick smart.

They won't have a House of Lords or tame media to cower behind.

They simply hide behind "don't ask, don't tell" instead.

Transparency anyone?

Epic - ditto on currency union without monetary and fiscal union. It doesn't work. For a rUK to negotiate on any basis other than this - laid out clearly by BOE, HMT and by the parties themselves - would be their own version of suicide.

Currency unions do not work without monetary AND fiscal union. SImple. Now if an independent country wants to hand over control over both, then so be it.....

Any Scottish govt that agreed to that would be out of power quick smart.

Is there going to be some sort of procedure for removing a government "quick smart"?
Or will it have to wait until the next election?

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane. There are soverign bases in Cyprus so there is already a legal precedent [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia#Constitution_and_governance ]Link[/url]

JY is that adult enough for you? 😉 Realistically iScotland would not be able to make the same demand of the rUK, iScotland just wouldn't have the same clout as the country with the 6th largest economy on the planet, permanent seat on the UN security council, guaranteed EU member etc. iScotland need to appreciate the weak negotiating position they will have.

That is not adult in any way shape or form.

Would rUK still have the 6th largest economy on the planet without Scotland?

My guess, it's not really a guess, is that the rUK economy would slip down a couple of places to be behind Brazil and Russia.

So what? You guys are arguing that small is beautiful - Luxembourg not the US. C'mon get the story straight. That is grown up.

Come back when your guess contains some facts. 😕

So what? You guys are arguing that small is beautiful - Luxembourg not the US. C'mon get the story straight. That is grown up.

Come back when your guess contains some facts.

Eh?

Eh, indeed.

Hardly relevant or grown up to say without us you will be smaller "nah, nah, ni nah nah." 😉

The NATO summit, European views about should rUK stay in Europe tell is what we need to know about status - again the the extent that's relevant

[quote=fasternotfatter ]The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane.
Aye - the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place. A barrage would soon stop any further sub movements. What about Coulport? What about the warhead convoys traipsing through Glasgow? Do you envisage some sort of regular parachute drop of supplies?
🙄

Hardly relevant or grown up to say without us you will be smaller "nah, nah, ni nah nah."

I didn't know that you'd turned against Better Together.

Aye - the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place.

So threats are the way to open discussions with future NATO partners. Brilliant!

[url=

biggest-hitter weighs in[/url]

[quote=teamhurtmore ]
So threats are the way to open discussions with future NATO partners. Brilliant!
Like the one above to retain Faslane as part of rUK you mean? I agree.

The whole debate is Irrelevant anyway - nukes will be at Faslane either in an open and transparent way or in an opaque don't ask, don't tell way. So why waste time on it.

The maths behind polling and current odds is more interesting IMO

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2014/09/13/scottish-independence-polls-margin-of-error/

Aye right so they will. 🙄

Glad you are learning. Remember they are copying the Danes and they make explicit reference to the elephant in the room

But what of another area of contention - nuclear weapons?

Ole Kværnø says it is "the elephant in the room, [b]we just don't discuss it at the moment."[/b] The Danish government oppose nuclear weapons but do not question whether their Nato allies sail nuclear armed submarines in their waters.

[transparency anyone?]

That was one of the controversies at the last SNP conference which saw the party adopt a pro-Nato stance. Mr Kværnø says that ignoring the issue [b]is a matter of military practicality.[/b]

John Dyrby Paulsen represents the Social Democrats who lead the current Danish government. He says Denmark cannot interfere in the nuclear policies of other nations. He said: "We are a small country. We can't decide what big countries want to do. "Nuclear disarmament for instance, we have to say that we support it but we can't decide on nuclear policy. Especially not in France, US or England, on what they want to do.

[independence anyone?]

"We have a certain point of view on that one but we don't interfere with big countries."

And there is absolutely no difference between foreign warships visiting a country and having them stored permanently there. Honestly, you are getting more desperate as the days count down

It's a fair bet that Faslane and Coulport will remain operational for at least 10 years if not longer.

To think that in the event of a Yes vote, they will pack up and ship out in a couple of years is not realistic.

No Scotroutes - I just don't have to lie to my children that voting yes will result in a nuclear free Scotland.

The Danes in contrast are honest about the contradictions and the practicalities. Alex Salmond has a week to show he could do this just for once....don't hold you breath.

Aye - the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place.

The Flying Ox - Member
"Aye - the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place."

If only there were some way to produce your own power and fresh water. Oh, wait...

Going to breed your own sailors and servicemen as well?

How are you going to get the subs in and out? Go to war?

[i]Would rUK still have the 6th largest economy on the planet without Scotland[/i]

Isn't sixth largest economy with Scotland, more like 25th-ish

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane.

Going to breed your own sailors and servicemen as well?

How are you going to get the subs in and out? Go to war?

JY is that adult enough for you?

The Sovereign Base Areas were created in 1960 by the Treaty of Establishment, when Cyprus achieved independence from the British Empire.

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane.

It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it

Realistically iScotland would not be able to make the same demand of the rUK, iScotland just wouldn't have the same clout as the country with the 6th largest economy on the planet, permanent seat on the UN security council, guaranteed EU member etc. iScotland need to appreciate the weak negotiating position they will have.

threats are the way to open discussions with future NATO partners. Brilliant!

All you noers really imagine what you would be saying were AS saying this about UK territory and really engage your rational mind rather than just bicker

So the rUK are going to allow the national nuclear deterrent to be under the control of the SNP? I would not be surprised if Faslane permanently remains UK sovereign territory. The land would not be ever be Scottish to take, it would simply remain part of the UK.

Oh and the UK remains the 6th largest economy in the world without iScotland. I am sure we will miss you in some ways...I just can't think of any at the moment.

So the rUK are going to allow the national nuclear deterrent to be under the control of the SNP?

*facepalm*

Where on the ballot paper does it have the words 'SNP' on it? Which part of the referendum means we're voting in the SNP for ever? I swear that a lot of people arguing about the referendum are being deliberately thick.

I swear that a lot of people arguing about the referendum are being deliberately thick.

Indeed.....imagine believing half/any of what the DO says.

You can't keep hiding behind its not about the SNP. They are setting the yS agenda, it's their proposals under debate and don't forget their tactic about focusing on Westminster Tories. This is bare arsed politics for better or worse as many yS posters keep reminding us.

or any other Scottish party for that matter. You do want the rUK to allow you to be independent don't you? iScotland is going to need to use a lot of rUK facilities after independence and can't function without them. If you do as you are told regarding Faslane then we just might continue to collect tax for iScotland and let them use the DVLA as well as use any IT systems that you won't have on day one of independence.

Which part of the referendum means we're voting in the SNP for ever?

Probably the same bit that says voting NO is a vote for the Tories/NHS privatisation/Bankers/Boris/UKIP

It's hard to argue it's not about the SNP

If it wasn't, the moral thing to do following a yes vote would be to hold a Scottish general election to allow voters to decide who they want looking after the accession negotiations or leave the discussions until after the 2016 election.
Instead, they seem quite keen to set a timetable to have it all done and dusted before the 2016 election, during which time they'll be pushing their agenda.