Scottish Independence... What are your thoughts?

[suesjools]

Pets, much thanks for your thoughtful and well written responses, especially the responses to the currency and devolved powers questions; IMHO it makes so much sense the way you put it and does answer both questions beautifully, which leads me to wonder why it is that the leaders of the two parties involved can't or won't put things so clearly to their potential supporters.

Squern, thanks for the info. about the podcast, will see if I can find it and have a listen. IMHO the best part of the last debate was the audience involvement, a lot of thoughtful and intelligent questions. I do hope both sides do a better job of answering the audience questions (assuming there is audience involvement) this time around.

I really enjoy this thread and am learning something new every day. Not sure why I'm more interested in foreign politics than domestic, maybe the same reason I've always been more interested in European and Asian history than American, cause there's more of it and the personalities involved are intriguing.

Best wishes for many sales to all,

[PetBazaar]

...radio programme last night... ...No politicians allowed, just actual Scottish people...

It sounded like a "No overall majority" with perhaps the edge to the No campaign, but with a large proportion of "undecided"s, it could go either way.

By the way, Pets, I don't go much on being called an oppressor, though i know you meant it tongue-in-cheek. As far as I recollect, I've never oppressed anybody, though I suppose there's still time. I do recall being in Glasgow in the late 1960s, when the police had to go round in threes for their own protection (from other Glaswegians!). Short of sending in heavily-armed infantry, I wonder how the English could have oppressed the aforesaid Glaswegians, even if they had wanted to.

As you said, the oppressor comment was tongue in cheek. The very idea annoys me too, but it's sad to say that there is a reasonable proportion of folk in Scotland, and not just Yes voters, more along the lines of traditional socialist labour voters, who are quite willing to believe that all of Scotland's problems would never have happened if only Thatcher had never been prime minister. Unfortunately many of them can't bring themselves to accept that Labour is no longer the party of the working classes and keep voting for them. There are also a small number who believe that the Jacobite uprising never ended. Equally, there are those in Westminster who believe that the Scots are getting ideas above their station with all this independence talk, and ignoring them or fobbing them off with some trinkets is the way to deal with it. I was just pointing out that a Salmond v Cameron debate would give a boost or pose a risk to those who think that way on both sides.

Glasgow in the 60's was before my time, but by all accounts it was seriously bad. Thankfully things have changed a lot in that regard.

When it comes to oppression and the UK, the Scots probably did more than their fair share of oppressing as part of Empire.

As for the debate, I think your pretty close. I also, at the moment, think it's closer than the polls suggest. But it is interesting hearing what real people think, rather than just getting soundbites from politicians on all sides.

Pets, much thanks for your thoughtful and well written responses, especially the responses to the currency and devolved powers questions; IMHO it makes so much sense the way you put it and does answer both questions beautifully, which leads me to wonder why it is that the leaders of the two parties involved can't or won't put things so clearly to their potential supporters.

On the No side, it's the "jam tomorrow" approach. Keep promising "real and meaningful" powers and you might just convince enough people to vote for you, or rather to not vote for your opponent. Just don't ever explain what those real an meaningful powers are. The problem that the No side has, is that they're made up of three different political parties who hate each other almost as much as they hate the idea of independence. Bearing in mind that there's a UK General Election approaching next year, they can barely agree about what's happening now in case it gives some sort of boost to their opponents. Getting them to agree about hypothetical future powers is virtually impossible.

For the Yes side. The supporters don't believe that a currency union will be vetoed. If it is, then an unofficial use of the pound is accepted as the next choice. So by giving further information Salmond is pandering to the demands of the No campaign. It puts him on the back foot and just opens up 100 more questions about the specifics of Plan B he'll also be accused of u-turns by the media. This is one that I don't think he can actually win as it's all about detail. Detail, unfortunately, doesn't make headlines and will just result in bogging down the debate - which is what the No side want.

Unfortunately, the undecided's are rather left to get on with it and have to figure things out for themselves. They are the ones who are being let down the most.

[suesjools]

That sounds about like the politicians on this side of the pond: promises today, silence tomorrow. That's interesting about the No camp, didn't realize they didn't like each other all that much, surprising they can work together at all, that's better than the parties do over here. Not being from the UK I know my opinion doesn't count, but for what it's worth, based on what I've read and heard, I think if I were Scottish I'd vote yes, and if I were English, I'd hope for a No vote.

That's sad about the undecided voters, IMHO like undecided voters (heck, all voters for that matter) everywhere they deserve to have their questions answered in a respectful and timely fashion. OK, I know I'm being facetious here; if politicians really treated constituents with respect they wouldn't be politicians, not sure what they'd be, maybe clergymen.

Best wishes for many sales to all,

[squern]

"all of Scotland's problems would never have happened if only Thatcher had never been prime minister".

The people who believe that forget that there were also a lot of English who felt the same way. Being"oppressed" by Thatcher is not the same as being "oppressed" by the English. I was a Poll-tax protester, and remember the feelings very well.

I always felt that the IRA missed the point when they cited oppression by the English. The Irish were very badly treated by a few absentee landlords and their political chums, who were treating the majority of the English people in much the same way at the time.

To suggest that some farm labourer in Wiltshire in 1850 living on 10 shillings a week, subject to eviction and starvation at any time, was an oppressor of the Irish would be laughable if it were not so ironic.

But this logic was used as a reason to bomb and kill ordinary working people, both in Ireland and England.

[suesjools]

"all of Scotland's problems would never have happened if only Thatcher had never been prime minister".

The people who believe that forget that there were also a lot of English who felt the same way. Being"oppressed" by Thatcher is not the same as being "oppressed" by the English. I was a Poll-tax protester, and remember the feelings very well.

I always felt that the IRA missed the point when they cited oppression by the English. The Irish were very badly treated by a few absentee landlords and their political chums, who were treating the majority of the English people in much the same way at the time.

To suggest that some farm labourer in Wiltshire in 1850 living on 10 shillings a week, subject to eviction and starvation at any time, was an oppressor of the Irish would be laughable if it were not so ironic.

But this logic was used as a reason to bomb and kill ordinary working people, both in Ireland and England.

Too true. IMHO it's the wealthy who abuse the less fortunate, regardless of geographic location, and always have, (and this from someone of southern Irish ancestry no less, LOL).

Best wishes for many sales to all,

[astral276]

"all of Scotland's problems would never have happened if only Thatcher had never been prime minister".

Was and remain a big Maggie fan. The only true leader we have had since Churchill. Other weak leaders both before and after her are the cause of UK's ills. The demise of several industries were brought about by the unions and idle workers and could not have survived in a modern globalised market. Maggie merely put them out of their misery rather than keep pouring taxpayers money into them to try and keep them alive bit longer.

[squern]

Unfortunately Maggie also destroyed much of our manufacturing base.

Her view was that we could survive on the "products" of the bankers in the City of London.

How does that look now?

[buttons-and-bows]

Has anyone any thought or idea's as what will happen if you have money in RBS or other scottish banks, is it best to withdraw it now or wait to see what happens? or doesn't that come into it.

[PetBazaar]

Unfortunately Maggie also destroyed much of our manufacturing base.

Only problem with that is that it isn't entirely true. Something which you'll probably never hear someone from Central Scotland say again.

It's safe to say that lots of industry did shut down, but much of it was beyond help anyway. It had already been crippled by poor industrial relations, indifferent management and high inflation. It had been uncompetitive for a long time before Thatcher came, regularly relying on state bailouts in and was in many cases was a lost cause.

But it's also probably safe to say that while she didn't destroy manufacturing, she didn't throw good money after bad trying to rescue the lost causes and basket cases either. What isn't commonly known is that UK industrial ouput was actually higher when she left office, than it was when she entered it.

Whether she was right to let it decline is a completely different argument, but I don't beleive that it's true to say that she destroyed it.

[PetBazaar]

Has anyone any thought or idea's as what will happen if you have money in RBS or other scottish banks, is it best to withdraw it now or wait to see what happens? or doesn't that come into it.

Shouldn't think it will make a difference... At least not to begin with. Even if there is a Yes vote in September, nothing is going to change until 2016 at the earliest. There should be plenty of time to get reliable information from the banks themselves about the implications of the vote.

If it gets close to 2016 and there still no currency union, then you may want to reconsider.

On the other hand, it's also possible that Scottish banks may also higher interest rates to encourage you to stay.