Views on Independence.

[GregR]

They have included 16 / 17 year olds who on the whole, don't have a clue to up votes.

But why stop at splitting Scotland from UK - why not split Fife from the Lothians, etc., etc. At what point do you stop, and why?

Cheers,
Robin

Now the latter is a jolly good idea.

I vote that Aberdeen should declare itself a Sovereign City-State à la Monaco, and break away completely. We would be loaded.

tut

It's not Aberdeen's oil

[Lazydonkey]

Very true. But if you take the best bits out of anything it'll look far worse.

I guess the argument for independence is you'd end up with a government that could see outside of the M25, so hopefully the situation in Glasgow could be improved.

There's 10 million people in London, so you could argue that those citizens should have just under 10% of the MPs and influence. If the government can't currently see outside the m25 then surely the impetus is on the rest of the country to vote with their feet and elect a movement that can.

The electoral system the UK has isn't perfect but it should mean that any government would be foolish to focus purely on the 10% of the population living in London as they wouldn't last long.

[tut]

Lib Dems are completely out of the running now, they will be almost wiped out at the next Election.
UKIP are gaining ground but would never have a chance of being elected.

So you have Conservative or Labour who have swapped places since 1922. Take your pick and see if you can tell the difference.

tut

[j2 lot]

I know the Independence vote requires a simple majority across the country but each region will count their vote and know locally before they will be added together to get the countries answer Yes or No.
SO if a region - say Glasgow, votes No (which is likely as they have a clear Labour majority) but the vote goes Yes can they then say we want to stay in the UK rather than be in an Independant Scotland ????
Or somewhere in the Borders votes to have the line drawn to the North rather than the South of the area

... what you going to do then Alex?????????????

[tut]

All or nothing at all (borrowed from Sinatra)

tut

[robin]

Tut, that is totally arbitrary - if people will have the right to self determination then that should be based upon reasonably sized groups of people having a common view and desire to manage their own affairs, not on some historical boundaries. If Scotland's current government can argue for independence then as soon as they have it, why should various groups within Scotland not have the right to a further referendum to leave Scotland (and perhaps rejoin rUK?).

Cheers
Robin

[campbell]

Canton system, anyone?!

[BiggestNizzy]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/th ... ish-money/

Interesting article.

[tut]

Good hypothesis Robin but idealistic, just putting forward a straight yes/no vote to the whole of Scotland is as much as one could hope for considering the range of intellect that it will be covering.

That may sound derisory or condescending, but it is not meant to be, it is just the way things are. I just can not imagine that if there were a "yes" vote it would go any further than that. Just too many potential pitfalls for me, so it will be a "no" vote.

tut

[Rosssco]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/th ... ish-money/

Interesting article.

Business for Scotland is basically run by independence / Yes campaign supporters so is highly biased. You'd be as well quoting a link from the Yes Scotland Facebook page..

[Sanjøy]

Imagine if the campaign was fronted by John Smith and Donald Dewar.

[pete]

If Scotland's current government can argue for independence then as soon as they have it, why should various groups within Scotland not have the right to a further referendum to leave Scotland (and perhaps rejoin rUK?).

Cheers
Robin

Because Scotland is not arguing for independence per se but the dissolution of the union.

[pete]

If it were me campaigning (honestly) for the better togethers I would avoid the whole economic debate. I would argue it's impossible to say whether you'll be better off or worse off but chances are it won't make that much difference, really. The real debate should be about whether or not the stability of being part of a larger entity is outweighed by the opportunities afforded a smaller one. Similarly are the risks of being small better than the burden of being part of the larger system. You could almost toss a coin to answer that.

Cheers,
Robin

Which is almost the exact argument I was making during a discussion this evening (mental note - don't drink and talk about politics) except my conclusion was different.

It probably just comes down to what is a good size for a country and I don't know what the answer to that is. Once folk imagined there would be one world power by now, a world government. Then they thought maybe a European government was the answer...

I suspect (but can't know) that a Scottish govt would be better for Scotland and the rUk than a UK govt. I'd rather that was part of a federal UK which was part of a federal Europe but that ain't on the cards.
At the end of the day I might be wrong but I think at best we are talking about marginal gains so let's try independence - we've tried your way for ages and things don't seem to be getting better...

[jason]

... so let's try independence ...

"try"?

I wasn't aware the SNP's policy and consequential Referendum was for something that's a temporary trial....?

[BiggestNizzy]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/th ... ish-money/

Interesting article.

Business for Scotland is basically run by independence / Yes campaign supporters so is highly biased. You'd be as well quoting a link from the Yes Scotland Facebook page..

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_gu

What about a guardian article ?