[Closed] Scottish Independence... here we go a again 🙂

[quote=athgray ]Social ties scotroutes. I outlined my feelings on this earlier. You can make what you want of the point and say I am talking sh*te. You wouldn't be the first on this thread. I'd liken it to leaving your home town. The friends with which you maintain something common are the ones you'll keep in touch with. The ones you don't, you'll gradually cease to contact. Of course, you'll also make new friends along the way.

And an annual Scotland-England match will just be like going home for Hogmanay. 😆

Some of those "close social ties" being celebrated in Edinburgh today.

Members of the far-right Scottish Defence League (SDL) and anti-racism campaigners have been staging rival protests in Edinburgh.

[img] [/img]That'll be the Sunderland Division of the Scottish Defence League and the Blackburn Division of the Scottish Defence League then?

That'll be the Sunderland Division of the Scottish Defence League and the Blackburn Division of the Scottish Defence League then?

So English fascists support Scottish fascists (there's a Saltaire on one of those placards). What's your point, caller?

I am not sure the point to be proved by quoting me before posting a picture of some far right gathering. I don't think I could be anymore vehemently express my opinions on nationalism???

Athgray what is the point of differentiating between the style and policy of a government at this point .You didn't distinguish between them earlier.
SDL a shower of racists wherever they come from.

When I mentioned social ties I was thinking along the lines of last years olympics rather than a joint right wing rally. That must be the yes campaigns 'positivity' coming through. Who is scaremongering?

I don't think I could be anymore vehemently express my opinions on nationalism???

You are just choosing which brand of nationalism you like [ unionism is a national identity clearly] not opposing nationalism- the same could be made about any position to be fair

I am in no way saying you are a racist or support that shower to be absolutely clear

Don't see how the Olympics could really be called a social tie. A fantastic experience for the volunteers and competitors but not much impact beyond that...except that they were an economic boon to the south east of England.

scotroutes - Member
Some of those "close social ties" being celebrated in Edinburgh today.

LOLZ "Never forget Glasgow Airport". Is that really all they've got?

The premiership point was a bit tongue in cheek, but it would appear that athgray doesn't really do tongue in cheek. I don't wish to be an independent country through any anti-English or British sentiment, more of a pro Scottish sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't actually think we will succeed in a yes vote, as many people fear change, and the status quo is what they have been used to all their lives.

The irony is that the union is not the norm worldwide, independant countries are. The politicians have even moved on from the economic arguements, as they all (even Gideon) accept that Scotland is viable, it is only hurdle of fear of the unknown that is wheeled out now.

Ruling by fear, it's worked for centuries.

I can do tongue in cheek nobeer, however it does not always come across in this format. It seems we have all made up our mind where to put our cross next year, I am sure we can all agree on that.

Yip, I wouldn't try to change your mind, each to their own.

The irony is that the union is not the norm worldwide

Actually that's not true. Most countries in Europe are made up of smaller old states. Germany and Spain are both Federal states these days , not sure about others.

EDIT Switzerland too

There is no UKGBNIDL, so the above is a perfect example of discrete English and Scottish organisations coming together to argue for a common cause. That's a very good model for the sort of social, non-political ties we could still have post-independence.

Contrary to most of the posters in this thread, I reckon DC is a better (cannier?) politician than Salmond, by giving him a Yes/No vote (and nothing else) he's got rid of the sniping and ended up with a heads I win / tails I win too situation. If Scotland becomes independent, it'll be Tory governments in rUK for the next 20 years. If it fails, he's a hero to the UKIP voters and the like.

It's a pity devo-max isn't on the table - though for the reasons above Dave would never have offered it. A fully federal UK (with an English, Welsh and NI government) would be IMO the best solution, and get rid of the Lords while we're at it.

[url= http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=England&word2=Scotland ]There can be only one way to solve this debate...[/url]

mogrim - Member

Contrary to most of the posters in this thread, I reckon DC is a better (cannier?) politician than Salmond, by giving him a Yes/No vote (and nothing else) he's got rid of the sniping and ended up with a heads I win / tails I win too situation. If Scotland becomes independent, it'll be Tory governments in rUK for the next 20 years. If it fails, he's a hero to the UKIP voters and the like.

We're still in the phoney war stage. ..plenty of time for the relentless scaremongering from better together to sicken voters.

I'm not sure it's win win for Cameron - going down in history as the Conservative and Unionist party leader who presided over the break-up of the union?

not really, its not like he's lost an embarrassing war. a referendum is going ahead. westminster is sort of on side with it happening. there is a good chance he might be viewed as quite liberal on the matter by not sending in the troops to stomp some heads. which is what quite a few nations around the world would do. that line of thought might take a while to settle in mind you.

double post

As an inhabitant of Wales, I would like to see a federalised UK. Most of us here would have no wish to be governed by tories forever. But then what would we do about the North of England? There aren't many metrics by which you could separate Wales but not Northern England.

I look at the pro indepence campaign as an old nation trying to reassert its identity more than a group of people trying to break up a nation . Federalism wouldn't work for me.

So... Wales for independence then? What about Mercia, Northumbria? Nations do change, it isn't always bad.

I'm not sure it's win win for Cameron - going down in history as the Conservative and Unionist party leader who presided over the break-up of the union? But then he'd be crying all the way to a generation of election victories.

Or maybe not.

Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1997 (with a majority of 139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/scotland-labour-majority-win

I think federalism of smaller areas with greater autonomy whilst all under the EU umbrella is the way to keep co-operation and keep localism alive

Think global and yet act local so to speak

he might be viewed as quite liberal on the matter by not sending in the troops to stomp some heads

No one is going to invade Scotland and do what they did to NI after a free vote. No one

wrong word ok

but the point still stands. he will look better in history as a man that didnt stand against a referendum happening. even if that mean losing. if he really has his eye on his place in history, will he be thinking of how it looks in 2015 or 2115?

JY. The view expressed in your first sentence I am in agreement with. I may disagree however with how local is defined. It's a bit like how long is a piece of string. If you break the UK down, you could in theory cut it into very small bite sized chunks. I think membership of the EU is important, however if we vote no next year and then pull out of the EU shorly after, we could vote a majority SNP government again and repeat the process.

Zokes - just for pedantry's sake, the Welsh, southern Scots and perhaps the Cornish are British. The rest of the inhabitants of the British Isles (generally speaking) are not. The English (Cornwall excepted) have little claim to be British.

Happy to muddy the waters.

How long do you have to be resident as a people to be considered British?
1600 yrs possibly?

Well the English weren't here 1600 years ago now were they? 550 according to Wikipedia.

We are. Mongrel nation and all the better for it. Nationalism which is about saying how great you are is fine, nationalism that is about saying how rubbish someone else is isn't.

Nationalism should not be allowed to split up governmental/legislative blocks which exist to further people's livelihoods. (Both Scotland and England did rather nicely out of the union of parliaments - read your history covering economic growth post 1707)

Disclaimer: Comments made by me about the English should be assumed to be good humoured stirring - as people who know me will know.

The coalition certainly does a good job of furthering some people's livelihoods 😉

Like SNP politicians? 🙂

The premiership point was a bit tongue in cheek

How fitting. The Edinburgh defence 😀

Zokes - just for pedantry's sake, the Welsh, southern Scots and perhaps the Cornish are British. The rest of the inhabitants of the British Isles (generally speaking) are not. The English (Cornwall excepted) have little claim to be British.

If you inhabit somewhere for long enough, geographically, you could be described as being from there. So, if you liven on the British isles, you're British. If you widen the scope, you're all European, etc...

No amount of nationalistic pride on mine and my wife's behalf will change the fact that our first child will be Australian. It'll have dual nationality with Britain, but it will be an Australian.

550yrs? That's somewhere in the mid C15th, the Angles and Saxons started landing on the eastern shores of Britain in the C5th. That's coming up to 1600yrs now.

EDIT: Wiki says they arrived around A.D. 550, not 550yrs ago!

Yes like some snp politicians athgray and politicians of other parties . Especially thinking of bankers though and note that they've done hee haw for care workers 😉

Nationalism should not be allowed to split up governmental/legislative blocks which exist to further people's livelihoods.

But yes, I agree, economic well being is generally more important than quixotic imagined community idolisation. And it's up to the voters to decide whether the union makes economic sense, and how important that factor should be.

And of course the voters are the people least likely to understand the economics and most likely to be swayed by romantic idealism.

See gordimhor post reads 'tory' 'Westminster' 'London' 'evil'. SNP mantra like a broken record. Does not sound positive to me. To look at economics going forward, it seems fair to say that nobody can confirm whether we may be better off, but one year we may be richer, maybe poorer the next. Long term the economics are nearly impossible to predict. I think the reality of social tie erosion is undeniable.
Would an independant Scotland have put stricter controls on banks like RBS? Would they hell. Before the crash Salmond was touting Iceland as the banking sector we should follow. Iceland is now on it's knees.

Athgray the yes campaign can count on my vote ,if they win I may well not support the SNP at the next election I am in favour of spending more money on improving and preserving local services if the SNP don't provide that I will vote for someone who does.

Iceland’s economy is recovering at a moderate pace and is now more balanced than before the crisis, although more remains to be done in private-sector deleveraging, reducing non-performing loans and lowering external indebtedness. Economic growth should gain momentum in 2014, led by a large increase in energy-intensive investment. To increase economic growth on a lasting basis and better manage risks, capital controls need to be removed in an orderly fashion, monetary and financial stability arrangements strengthened and the government debt-to-GDP ratio reduced to more prudent levels.
From the OECD website

And of course the voters are the people least likely to understand the economics and most likely to be swayed by romantic idealism.

Also from the OECD
Recovering from the recession, improving longer-term growth potential and reducing inequality are key challenges for the UK economy. Lingering effects from the global financial crisis, the restrictive impact from necessary fiscal consolidation and headwinds from the euro area sovereign debt crisis risk prolonging and worsening the economic downturn and hurting the long-term growth potential. Monetary policy and the operation of the automatic stabilisers should support the economy in the short term. Structural reforms, including those currently implemented by the government, are crucial to boost growth and equality.???

The messed up thing in this whole situation is that following a yes vote the SNP may hold power for a few terms, as even I agree that they are the only people that can negotiate the split. After all it has been their political lifes meaning. This could be a very messy period politically, with the sort of sabre rattling and ugly nationalism seen over Gibralter and the Falklands recently.

Athgray - who would be doing the sabre-rattling?
It wouldn't be in the interest of any UK Govt to do that, and there is precious little interest south of the border in whether Scotland goes or stays from what i can garner - in fact i think there is marginally more support for Scotland going than staying.

Athgray How about some facts or sources or links to backup your assertions

Up to now the sabre rattling has come from the better together campaign,not the nationalists.I would like to see them give me some benefits about the union continuing,despite their recent decision to stress the positive aspects of the status Quo. Will that stop if we win our freedom,or will we have right wing members of the English parliament demanding an end to cross border free trade? (again 8) ) Citing EU membership etc.

muddydwarf - Member
Athgray - who would be doing the sabre-rattling?...

Perhaps the Lord who said it may be necessary to bomb Scotland, or the people suggesting that it may be necessary for England to annex Faslane so that they can keep a nuclear target next to a major Scottish city instead of in England.

Are these people speaking for the Govt, or just waffling off the cuff?
No UK Govt would gain anything from attempting to intimidate the 'new' nation of Scotland, it would be incredibly damaging to a UK Govt in the eyes of many other nations and probably result in a loss of trade with them.

There is a lot of emotional rubbish being spouted by people on this subject and most of it is just that - rubbish.
It's important to the people of Scotland but its merely background noise to most English (i won't speak for the Welsh). From what i hear when i speak to people about this subject the general feeling here is 'have they not gone yet?' I seriously think there is a somewhat stronger groundswell for Scottish Independence south of the border than there is north of it. And before we get to the inevitable accusations of racism most of this attitude is boredom with the subject.
Personally i don't care either way much, it won't affect my daily life but it will offer some interest from the armchair so to speak.

I ask the question whether Scotland could have bailed out the majority of the UK banking sector on its own, even with control of oil revenues, because is that not what it would have had to do? I thought that the consensus was that the UK government dealt capably with the hand it was dealt when the crash happened. You can argue that they should not have let banks like Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB get to the position they found themselves, but I don't recall dissenting voices from people like Alex Salmond. We are still taking a hit due to UK reliance on the banking sector, but surely the Scotlands reliance on bankibg is far greater?
My point is that is it not easier to weather the financial storm together?

I think the UK government is part of the betterogether campaign that is trying to intimidate the people of Scotland at the moment with it's scare stories on one hand and by not releasing information that the Yes campaign or the SNP government has asked for.

muddy, I am interested to hear your perspective on why you think there may be greater support for seperation down south.

I assume the emotional comments you mean me. I admit to being emotive, however most of my points have been based around social ties dissolving over time. As emotive as my language has been, there seems to be some agreement with them by some of the nationalists posting here.

Athgray my reply to that would be we are not weathering the financial crisis together the coalition are supporting the banks multinationals and the better off at the expense of the most vulnerable in society. I believe that an independent Scotland is a better bet for a fairer society

Athgray - not you in particular, i mean pretty much everyone who has a dog in the fight is emotional about it.
When i speak about possible Scottish Independence to my friends/family/work colleagues etc the overwhelming standpoint is for Scotland to just go and get it all over with. There really doesn't seem to be much antipathy for Scotland, just that people are bored of the subject and would prefer Scotland to just get on with it. Add to that there are quite a few who believe England will be better off without Scotland and you get a sense that more than a few English people would be happy to see Scotland gain Independence.

One sense is the feeling that "If you don't like us then just go", I personally have never experienced any anti-English racism from Scottish people but i do know of two English people who live in Scotland who are faced with it regularly from their neighbours and it seems to have risen as the Independence debate rises. For balance, i've no idea how much anti Scottish racism has risen in England but i wouldn't be too surprised if it has - this subject has all the bullet points for the ignorant to rally behind.

For me it's simply an interesting process, i don't care much one way or the other as Scotland's impact on my daily life is non existent.

Athgray my reply to that would be we are not weathering the financial crisis together the coalition are supporting the banks multinationals and the better off at the expense of the most vulnerable in society. I believe that an independent Scotland is a better bet for a fairer society

I wouldn't bet on that, the supposedly socialist government in Spain ended up having to bail out the banks, no different to the conservative government that has followed it.

I also wouldn't want to bet on a left-wing government not bailing out a major employer, however "multinational" it might be. (It won't be called "bailing out", they'll be "development grants" or whatever, but it'll be the same thing...)

athgray - Member - Quote
I ask the question whether Scotland could have bailed out the majority of the UK banking sector on its own, even with control of oil revenues, because is that not what it would have had to do?

As Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor of Economics at St Andrew’s University, put it: “The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries.

“In the case of the RBS, I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of RBS and Scotland 10%.

“And the precedent for this, if you want to go into the details, are the Fortis Bank and the Dexia Bank, two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands.”

Did you know that RBS was also bailed out by the American Federal Reserve and the Australian Central Bank? The UK government bail out of RBS and HBOS amounted to £65bn a lot of money but the US federal reserve made emergency loans available to RBS of £285bn and to HBOS of £115bn and $552.32bn to Barclays – sorry who bailed out the British banks again?

Again it is worth noting that 80% of all losses generated by RBS came from their London based investment banking division.

FWIW, as an ex-employee of HBOS I can assure you that the "Scotland" bit in the company name was little more than a sop to those who opposed the initial take-over by Halifax.

I used to rather be indelicately referred to as a porridge wog while living and working in London. That was 20 years ago,about the same time neds from Dundee were going across to St Andrews and beating up English students after Braveheart came out. I think there have always been shagwits in each country,worst I remember anti-English feeling was during the poll tax/thatcher years.

Gordimhor, it may not sound like it, but I do feel a proud Scot first and foremost and do think Scotland is a far more egalitarian country with a greater sense of social justice. I do also feel that Holyrood politicians come from a grater range of walks of life. Westminster could learn from it at times.

I do also believe however that there is a not insignificant anti English sentiment often hidden, but dig deeper snd you can find it in pubs, streets and work places.
Recently asked someone how their holiday in London went. They thought it was great apart from all the English.
This is only outdone by Scotlands real shame of religious bigotry mainly in the West.
My naive English mother in law was shocked by this on a recent news report on Reporting Scotland.
I have been emotive because you cant put percentages on bigotry.

Interesting post scotroutes

To clarify I dont think all nationalists are bigots. You have all put forward your reasons for seperation as I have put forward my arguments for union. If I thought you were all raving loons I would not have spent the time debating the issues that I have here.

The recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking should be implemented to shield the taxpayer and the domestic economy from failures in the financial sector.The government should pursue growth-enhancing and inequality-reducing structural reforms. A prolonged period of weak growth risks worsening social inequalities. Labour market and social policies need to mitigate this risk. In particular:The welfare reform, which introduces a Universal Credit with generous earnings disregards and a single taper rate in place of myriad means-tested benefits, will improve work incentives for many individuals. Nevertheless, work incentives could be further improved, especially for lone parents and second earners dependent on formal childcare. Measures to lower childcare costs and increase public support to make work pay for these individuals should be considered, although this comes with a fiscal cost. On the other hand, better incentives for lone parents and second earners would increase the effectiveness of the benefits reform and thereby raise the economic growth potential and reduce inequality.Active labour market policies must be reinforced to ensure that vulnerable groups do not become permanently excluded from work. Despite a highly flexible labour market that has maintained fairly high levels of employment through the downturn, unemployment is high, especially among youth and low-skilled individuals.Weak skills in some segments of the workforce hinder employment and growth, and contribute to large differentials in employment and earnings across education levels. Workers’ skills need enhancement, especially among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, through improved educational outcomes, reinforcing vocational training and by facilitating transition from education to work.

[quote=athgray ] You have all put forward your reasons for seperation as I have put forward my arguments for union. If I thought you were all raving loons I would not have spent the time debating the issues that I have here.
Agreed. I'm always interested in peoples objections to Independence as they are often based on mis-information.

The above post isn't my own work it's from the OECD survey of the UK economy. Fwiw I abhor anti English bigots,religious bigots, BNP , SDL, EDL and all the other bampots.

A government thats willing to implement the findings of the independent commission on banking. ..now there's a thought I don't really have any argument with the bale out of the banks but with the miserable failureto tighten up regulations since the crisis.

Scotroutes.
Why would you say that wishing to remain within the UK is portrayed as a sign of negativity, and wishing to remain within the EU is a sign of positvity?
As a supporter of both unions that seems the most logical outcome.
I recently told you that I would be concerned by remaining in the UK then pulling out of Europe.
If we vote no next year, could we not go through this interesting debate again in 5 or 10 years

If I am being duped by misinformation I am in good company. Andrew Marr and Gorgeous George seemed to have approached similar conclusions (see recent appearance on QT. Ran rings around Angus Robertson on the issue). I try to form my concludions rightly or wrongly on what I sense on a daily basis, whilst trying to avoid a wikipedia copy and paste war.

As a supporter of both unions that seems the most logical outcome.

I recently told you that I would be concerned by remaining in the UK then pulling out of Europe.

I do find it amusing that that pro UK union are amongst the most Anti EU folk in the country

Conversely, i am pro EU but don't care if Scotland remains as part of the UK or seperately as part of the EU! 😛

I find it odd also.
As I said Scottish nationalists portray themselves as pulling out of a union to start on a bright new dawn for a forward thinking nation, whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.
This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.

anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.
I give you Mr Nigel Farage

It does not answer the point gordimhor. I trump you Alex Salmond. Unfortunately I don't really have the opportunity to hound Salmond out of Scotland. The two are closer than you imagine, Salmond is far more shrewd and politically astute.
I dont give UKIP and its leadership too much time however I have to pay attention to the people ruling Scotland. I wonder if UKIP have had any of their top brass arrested before xScotland v England football games for being drunk and disorderly, because the SNP have unless I am being sold misinformation again as has been claimed.

whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.
This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.

Have a look at farage and the kinds of thing UKIP says about Europe and the rhetoric used- his comments on Belgium as a non nation for example* and what the SNP say. FFS even a Tory like CMD called them fruit loops and closet racists.

If you cannot spot a difference in the nationalism then you really cannot be looking very hard,

I am not saying every anti EU person is UKIP but they are far more anti EU[ in a daily mail gentle racist sense]than the Scots are anti England.

Of course there are racists in both countries but only one party stands on a platform of it

*

You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states - perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country

He then got upset when some folk were rude to him and called them racists, the ignorant unaware tit.

JY, you also are missing my point, I am equally repelled by Farage and Salmond. I think the majority of people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are reasonably minded as are most people in Scotland that will vote yes next year. I again ask the quesion, why are the supporters in Scotland considered visionaries and those down south little Englanders?

Actually the pro Union, anti EU including membership of whatever single currency regime remains is entirely logical, if not at first sight. Leave aside the independence for Indepndence sake arguments (which I can have some sympathy with) the best economic interests for Scotland would be served by Union, Indepndence ex-€, then membership of € a very distant third.

The easy one is the € (assuming this still exists). From the snake through ERM to the € history has made three things abundantly clear. 1. There are only three players whose interests are served - Germany, France and the Bundesbank. Read any Economic history of the 1980- early 2000s to understand this (Connelly's The Rotten Heart of Europe is a good start if a nightmarish read) 2. Each of the players have fundamentally different objectives that can and do conflict with each other. History is clear that the interests of all other countries are subordinate to this troika. 3. Fixed exchange rates (contrary to € propaganda) magnify economic swings and condem periphery players to competive disinflation and or wage deflation and or higher than otherwise unemployment. Scotland has too many clever economists to fall for that error hopefully.

So that leaves the other two. From the argument above, it would appear that independence should be the best answer surely. Well perhaps not. The Scottish economy's size is unlikely to support the full infrastructure that goes with Indepndence as well as the status quo. Simple economies of scale. Borrowing costs eg at the sovereign level (and by consequence at the corporate level) would increase most likely. If you are a Scottish company with high gearing why run the risk of being capped by the small country rating cap that Scotland would suffer. You decamp south of the border PDQ. Then the whole issue of central banks/pensions etc......of course you could keep the pound but that defeats the whole objective since you would lose any control over interest rates and currency if you go independent.

In the current situation, Scotland has the benefits that accrue from being part of the union, representation at the local level and at the union level and therefore influence over the key tools of economic and political life. (better than the English?) The economy would be saved the folly of a fixed exchange rate that is designed for the benefit of the three listed above. Scotland is a beautiful country, with a clear national identify (even if it really needs to find a decent national anthem to replace the dirge of FoS that should remain limited to rugby showers and the like), a devolved assembly, excellent education which can teach the rest of the Uk a thing or two, and a clearly identifiable history, culture and heritage. The union protects all this and provides a safer economic future. Is a thistle on the front of a passport really worth giving all that up for??????

thm. You state my feelings in one post better than I have over 7 pages. 🙂

I again ask the quesion, why are the supporters in Scotland considered visionaries and those down south little Englanders?

ones right wing and a bit racist
one is left [sih] wing and nationalistic

If you cannot see the difference they you are not looking.

Clearly this simplification does not apply to all on either but the difference is pretty clear and obvious

the best economic interests for [s]Scotland[/s]uk would be served by European Union

Whether true or false economic arguments alone are unlikely to be the decisive factor on either side

Still missed the point JY. Not all people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are UKIP supporters. It is oversimplifying the issue to assume they are. Take political parties out of the equation and try again!!

Still missed the point JY. Not all people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are UKIP supporters. It is oversimplifying the issue to assume they are

Clearly this simplification does not apply to all on either but the difference is pretty clear and obvious

I am not saying every anti EU person is UKIP but they are far more anti EU[ in a daily mail gentle racist sense]than the Scots are anti England.

Would you like me to be even more explicit ?

Take political parties out of the equation and try again!!

As I said Scottish nationalists portray themselves as pulling out of a union to start on a bright new dawn for a forward thinking nation, whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders

Junkyard - lazarus
...Its quite hard to take the political parties out of the equation when discussing a political issue whilst answering your question...

The interesting thing is that it is a cross party issue. The reality is that the SNP vote is coming from people who would otherwise vote Labour or LibDem plus Scotland's other Tory voter.

Because of the top down nature of our supposedly democratic parties everyone is expected to dance to the Westminster tune, but this is creating rifts in the parties, so now we have Labour for Independence, LibDems for Independence as well as the single purpose SNP.

However I don't think there's an Orange Order for independence. 🙂

JY, I will spell it out to you as you are dug deeply into a hole. The reason is fairly simple. The yes campaign is portrayed as positive, whilst the no to the EU campaign is seen as negative because the yes campaign choose to portray it that way. A great example of how to blinker yourself to the truth you don't want to hear. The truth that yes voters are closer in mentality to the people they deride as little Englanders than they will ever admit. The words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men spring to mind.

As Anglo-Welsh living in Wales I would be sad to see Scotland go. I like Scotland, and I would be sad if it were no longer part of my country. Plus Wales would become even more of a rump than it already is!

However, emotion aside, surely the bottom line has to be economies of scale as THM says. How many big businesses would leave Scotland? If you were a big company would you want to be based in a tiny country if you could help it?

Surely an independent Scotland would be more vulnerable simply due to having fewer eggs in fewer baskets?

If you were a big company would you want to be based in a tiny country if you could help it?

Probably. That way you can do what you like and make the government of said tiny country dance to your tune. Multinationals love basing themselves in small countries. Ireland (Erie) must be about half the size of Scotland.

Works even better if they have a well educated workforce.

Doesn't necessarily do the tiny country much good.

A great example of how to blinker yourself to the truth you don't want to hear.

The words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men spring to mind.

As for hole I notice you dont want to comment on your error 😉

surely the bottom line has to be economies of scale as THM says

Many think there is more to being a nation and "free" than economics