INDEPENDENCE

[muppetanimal]

If people want stability we would all be living in our childhood homes with our aging parents and not dreaming about our independence.

I mean, look at the cost of moving into your first flat! Council tax, rent, electricity and gas , telephone and broadband costs, TV licence etc etc.

Yeh, becoming independent comes at a cost right enough.

But hang on, we've either all done it or are thinking about doing it. And, blow me down with a feather, somehow people survive this life changing event and go on to better things. Being independent allows us to strengthen old relationships and to form new ones, to make our own decisions and our own way ahead with our priorities, not with someone elses'.

So why do the YES side have so much to say? The message is a positive one, the "glass half full" approach, so that our message always comes with a smile. The YES side are the optimists in the independence debate.

Can you think of anything more negative than "No Thanks" from the pessimist "glass half empty" side? No, neither can I.

[EphemeralDeception]

What i care about is the impact on me and my family in real terms...

Frankly, that is an anglocentric / Anglo-American perspective that is quite alien to most people in Scotland. Scots want what’s best for their family but care for what happened to others and want policies that support the population as a whole. Eg. Scots are not comfortable with foodbanks but the British politicians now tell us that this is the norm.

The UK however does not even care for its own citizens and as a British citizen we are guilty by association of Ethnic cleansing of our own people. Why? You should be aware that the Unelected House of Lords is the highest law in the UK? Recently the UK Gov via the Lords sanctioned the forced deportation and ethnic cleansing of the entire population of Diago Garcia, a British Island. This was after having killed all their animals and pets so that they had no choice but to leave.

The people of Diago Garcia took the UK to court and won. The UK Gov. appealed to the High Court and lost again, the judge calling the Uk Gov actions 'repugnant'. Nevertheless the House of Lords overturned the ruling unilaterally.

Worse, the reason the UK evicted the population was to lease the island as an Air base to the US which they have since been using for international criminal acts of extraordinary rendition.

An independent Scotland doesn't have such territory so no matter who we elect we cannot possibly engage in such nefarious acts on our own citizens.

Within Scotland one other thing is certain. If there is a no vote, we will have sanctioned this and all that comes after...all the foodbanks, illegal conflict, and abuse of our resources. All the policies that will be implemented in Scotland will be deployed with impunity. We will have
voted No, winner takes all and will have voted for London’s right to decide what we get. When that happens the scale of regret will be enormous, but it will be too late.

[baz]

@EphemeralDeception

Completely agree. (but not my quote)

Diego Garcia is just one recent example,
the treatment of Gurkhas is another,
of The Crown and Westminster's disregard for its subjects/citizens.

Were the Diego Garcians too late for Independence,
or their land considered too valuable a resource?

List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom
Has any one country regretted Independence?

[lochend]

What i care about is the impact on me and my family in real terms...

"Frankly, that is an anglocentric / Anglo-American perspective that is quite alien to most people in Scotland. Scots want what’s best for their family but care for what happened to others and want policies that support the population as a whole."
Dear oh dear I was told that the Better Together movement had the monopoly of scare stories.The quote about People in Scotland being the ones who care about what is happening to others,suggesting that the English dont,well really. As for Diego Garcia,do me a favour! Do I sense an element of desperation creeping into this and Baz's predictable follow up?

[baz]

@ lochend

National demographics have always shown Scotland's people to favour
a more conscionable approach to life and politics, than the UK as a whole.
It is simply a fact.

The No campaign, does rely upon scare stories.
The YES campaign does not need to.
There is plenty to be scared of though.

"I'm all right, Jack" is an abysmal national motto,
but would make an excellent epitaph.

[EphemeralDeception]

@Lochend

The thing is, Diego Garcia really is scary, but isn't a story. It is real and it is right now. It is not what might happen it is what has happened and is happening. Rather than ridicule it perhaps you can point to anything that is not true, noting that I linked to independent European news sources?

Regarding Scots caring for others. This refers to all in Scotland overall, including English/Polish/Asian, whatever. I specifically mentioned Anglo American as it is Neo Con policies that the people in the South of England and British politicians that have bought into but we in Scotland wholly reject. How many Conservative MPs are in Scotland? So with just 1 MP it is accurate to state that Scots (meaning most voters in Scotland) reject these policies which are therefore alien to Scots but are the norm South of the border. QED.

This however deflects from the issue that independence would negate this unilateral, undemocratic power of the House of Lords. It would stop the neo cons and would leave the Governance of Scotland to be 100% decided by the people in Scotland as opposed to just 8%. 100% voting power is surely better and fairer than 8%? Scotland cannot influence anything with 8% of the vote, that is just insane.

So lets stick to facts, much more unforgiving than scare stories.

Everything I have stated is factually correct and easily verifiable. That is in contrast to the No campaign stating that we cannot use the pound ( a lie), that a No vote won't impact our NHS (a big fat lie) and that Scots would not be able to get treatment or operations in England (a totally sickening lie). Just like the access to Embassies abroad, which is guranteed to all EU citizens.

[WC1]

I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson saying about the Tories, "If they promise to stop telling lies about me, I promise to stop telling the truth about them." I agree with the previous posts about the lies emanating from the No camp. I think we should be deeply suspicious of a campaign that can't even tell the truth about itself.

[lochend]

Edeception, surely making a big issue about Diego Garcia constitutes a scare story whether true or not! Also,the suggestion that Scotland may not be able keep the pound with the full backing of the Bank of England is not "a lie," it is the opinion of many eminent observers who have no interest in the outcome of the vote! I am surprised that WC1 suggests that lies only emanate from one side of the argument!

[Hume]

Some of these posts are making my think about what Prof. Sir Tom Devine said in his interview published at the weekend. He said many things but if he only decided to move from No to Yes very recently then he is certainly no nationalist, making the constant harping of Better Together about 'the 'nationalists' seem pathetic.

Sir Tom spoke along the lines that Scotland is being seen as trying to break up the Union, when in fact it was England (generalising) who effectively broke the Union 35 years ago when it abandoned the principles that made Britain good.

He suggests that is has been Scotland that has tried for those 35 years to keep alive the spirit of Britishness and it has come to the point where that is becoming more and more difficult as other parts of the UK drift further away from holding on to that spirit.

Scotland's values have not really changed, its those of other parts of the UK that have and ironically the only way we can preserve those values is if we leave.

We would not be on the verge of Independence today if the UK was still working for Scotland and when you accept that, Independence becomes such a normal and obvious response.

The UK that existed 50 or 60 years ago is gone and I would urge everyone to vote with an eye to the future and not look back.

[lochend]

Hume wrote "He suggests that is has been Scotland that has tried for those 35 years to keep alive the spirit of Britishness and it has come to the point where that is becoming more and more difficult as other parts of the UK drift further away from holding on to that spirit.Scotland's values have not really changed, its those of other parts of the UK that have and ironically the only way we can preserve those values is if we leave." This is one man's highly subjective opinion,it is presented here as fact! I take objection to the suggestion that others in the UK have changed their values and have not tried to have not tried to hold onto their Britishness! Their is a whiff of Braveheart creeping into the debate.

[Hume]

Braveheart? Really, lochend? I'm trying to have a sensible discussion here.

You'll note I put the work generalising in brackets. I'm not saying your values, or those of people where you live have changed but are you really saying the UK is the same place politically, it was?

It may be one man's opinion but if you are going to read the opinion of someone then I guess that of Prof. Devine is not a bad place to start, being one of our foremost academics and intellects.

Do you fancy adding anything positive instead of just sniping at what others say?

[WC1]

I am surprised that WC1 suggests that lies only emanate from one side of the argument!

I'm afraid I tell it as I see it, Lochend. Better Together No Thanks are still claiming we'll lose the pound and they know that's a lie. They're still saying we'll be dumped out of the EU when we won't. Darling even said on 'Good Morning Scotland' today that the NHS isn't being privatised in England. I could go on and on and on. Tell you what. Go on to wingsoverscotland.com and download 'The Wee Blue Book'. All the true, verified and fully referenced facts, and it'll show you just how deliberately deceitful the No camp has been and is being.

As for the Yes campaign telling lies, I can honestly say we don't need to. I've now spoken at meetings the length and breadth of Argyll, one of them a debate broadcast on Oban FM, and I've not told a porky yet (nor will I).

[lochend]

WC1,I would not dare to question your integrity or sincerity.You have strongly held opinions, but so do other honourable men of the other persuasion, and I am sure they are not all liars!

[Shona]

As we draw closer to the big day, my instincts to reject breaking away grow stronger.

Why?

Central is the currency issue. So much stems from it for me - mortgages, pensions, insurance, benefits, etc.

Alex Salmond stating that everything will be OK and that the rest of the UK will agree to his terms for a currency union is shoogly at best. They might. They might not. Salmond needs to consider all eventualities. Swatting away genuine concerns does not fill me with confidence.

Of course, the original plan for an independent Scotland to adopt the euro as the current. But the crisis in the eurozone meant the option wasn't popular, so Salmond dumped the plan. However, adopting the euro as a currency is likely to be a condition imposed on Scotland when it applies to join the EU (if there is a vote for independence, that is).

Using sterling in a continuing or renegotiated - Salmond isn't clear which - currency union is the favoured option at the moment. But surely this makes a mockery of independence? The people with the clout will be the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee.

It makes no sense to me - break up the union, but keep the union when it comes to money. Vote for independence to run our own affairs, but not when it comes to money - we'll let the Bank of England run things.

Even if the rest of the UK doesn't agree to currency union, Scotland could use sterling anyway - which seems to be the current direction of travel. Ecuador and Panama have adopted the US dollar, so Scotland could simply use sterling. But there would be no central bank, no say on monetary policy, no lender of last resort.

The option of new currency is risky and, as such, not on the agenda.

[baz]

But there would be no central bank, no say on monetary policy, no lender of last resort.
The option of new currency is risky and, as such, not on the agenda.

With Independence, comes transition.
Too much change too soon, causes anxiety.
But you do not need a central bank.
The Bank of England creates "money" out of thin air,
and the public repay the principal, with interest.
Regulate the banks, protect savings, and let them go bust if need be.
There is nothing Scottish, English or British about them, apart from geographical location.
Banks are a business, nothing more.

A new currency, backed by tangible natural resources, would be more secure than Sterling.
Sterling is subject to the volatility of the financial market.

Currency is a unit of exchange, nothing more.
Why shouldn't Scotland adapt to the most advantageous currency solution,
and create the foundations of it own fiscal reality?

The reality is this, the "currency issue" is not an issue at all.
Scotland should be an Independent country, and the rest will follow,
without the sky falling, Chicken Little.

Or ..... keep the Union, the food banks, the lack of democracy, WMDs on the Clyde, social injustice,
foreign intervention, support of genocide in Gaza ..... etc
Oh, and don't forget to mourn the destruction of the NHS.