An Independent Scotland?

I speak for myself and those like minded Doug, I've never presumed to speak for anyone else.
 
Hugh, many of us want trident here. It brings us well paid job and prosperity. It brings other people into our area that spend in our shops and businesses.

Remember what happened to Dunoon after the US left there. It became a backward sh*t hole. I don't want the same happening for where I live.
 
Steve have you been to Helensburgh? The high street is full of boarded up shops and charity shops! The Faslane base brings no money into the local economy, the folk who work there commute back and forth every week spending nothing locally. An independent Scotland will need a navy albeit we won't need aircraft carriers and faslane is an ideal West coast base for that. The area will be better off without the subs.
 
Steep said:
Steve have you been to Helensburgh? The high street is full of boarded up shops and charity shops! The Faslane base brings no money into the local economy, the folk who work there commute back and forth every week spending nothing locally. An independent Scotland will need a navy albeit we won't need aircraft carriers and faslane is an ideal West coast base for that. The area will be better off without the subs.
Click to expand...

I live in Helensburgh. Compared to Dunoon, its paradise.

I've no issues with the subs, and have several family employed directly due to the submarines. The town is full of folk such as this. The high street BTW isn't boarded up, there isn't one shop that is, plenty of charity shops but other little businesses thriving such as cafe's, galleries (I should know, I am trying to exhibit there) etc
 
Loss of Faslane :-

http://forargyll.com/2014/04/labour...lking-about-faslane-and-local-jobs-in-lomond/

I cannot verify the figures quoted, but it is inconceivable that Faslane base brings no money to the local economy. All military establishments bring money to the local economy wherever they are.

I would expect Rosyth to be in a similar quandry if there was a yes vote, as would Lossie etc.

I recall the protests when the US Navy brought their Polaris boats to Dunoon. I also recall the protests when the US Navy announced it was leaving Dunoon. It hurt the local economy bad:-
http://www.oocities.org/ssncob/loch_close.html
 
This from another Helensburgh resident "Since all the new accomodation blocks were built within the fence most naval personnel don't really contribute to the town. They might shop at the new Waitrose but that's not a Scottish company so all profits end up South of the border. Since the navy estates have been sold off, they just don't spend their cash in Helensburgh." The current count on closed shops is 24, this from YesHelensburgh. A street full of charity shops is a sign of a troubled economy, these shops are the only ones who can afford to be there (tax breaks, better deals on rent etc. because they only have short term leases).

Doug in response to your post, there's a big difference between the US pulling out with nothing to replace them and trident leaving to be replaced by a Scottish navy base. (incidently The US leaving would have happened anyway, they no longer station nuclear subs on foreign soil)
 
Waitrose employee's local people and is a great asset to the town. Its a very, bordering on racist IMHO view, to discount the value of a supermarket coming to a place, as it's based in rUK as opposed to Scotland. And thats really what the yes campaign is based on, thinly veiled hatred and racism of our brethern south of the "border".
 
I still don't get why the scots want to be rid of being governed by London but instead want to be governed by Brussels?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Steep said:
The current count on closed shops is 24, this from YesHelensburgh. A street full of charity shops is a sign of a troubled economy, these shops are the only ones who can afford to be there (tax breaks, better deals on rent etc. because they only have short term leases).
Click to expand...
I'm really struggling to see what your point is here. I live in Maidenhead, in one of the wealthiest parts of the UK, which has some of the highest house prices outside London. But if we had 24 closed shops in the town centre we'd think that was a *massive* improvement. Last time I saw it reported in the local paper, the count was 55. And of course that doesn't include a dozen or more charity shops, and a handful of 99p-type shops.

So what's going on, then? We can't blame it on a remote government 500 miles away, especially with our high profile MP (Theresa May). We can't blame it on the closure of military facilities because we've never had any near here, except the Windsor barracks but that's in Windsor and obviously it will never close. We can't blame it on poverty in the area, not when two-up-two-down houses are selling for £350,000 here. We can't blame it on a council which is incompetent or unstable or hostile to businesses. We're 20 minutes from Heathrow, we're getting a massive pot of gold dumped in our laps in the shape of the CrossRail link, and still the town is dead.

But if we were in Scotland, independence would fix all that, right?
 
The reason high street shops are closing down is due to the internet shopping boom.

Where you live matters not one iota, who governs you matters not one jot, anybody thinking differently is slightly deluded i`m afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Stewart the point is Steve has been bemoaning the upcoming loss of trident, saying it will be a great loss to the local community. I'm saying that a) the community doesn't benefit that much to begin with and b) the subs would be replaced by a Scottish navy base negating any actual financial loss to the area.

/edit - With regards to Maidenhead, I suspect that towns problem is it's proximity to London, it's become a commuter town. So if it was in Scotland then yes the problem most likely would be sorted.
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
The reason high street shops are closing down is due to the internet shopping boom.
Click to expand...

Which in the case of Helensburgh just helps to prove my point that trident would not be the loss Steve is assuming.
 
A small one Simon, all we'd need them to do would be to protect the North sea and the new oil fields off the west coast.
 
fracster said:
The reason high street shops are closing down is due to the internet shopping boom.

Where you live matters not one iota, who governs you matters not one jot, anybody thinking differently is slightly deluded i`m afraid.
Click to expand...

And councils with their anti car policies!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
And Scotland.............
 
The base brings employment and people to our area, the buy food in our restaurants, drink in our pubs, live in our town (and pay council tax).

Why scare them away?

I'd have more respect for the YES campaign if it said a) they'd maintain a nuclear weapons program b) said they'd wish to go it alone and make their own scottish currency - afterall they are wanting to establish a proper country, proper counties have their own currency c) actually said, no, we don't want nor need EU membership because we want to establish something new, something better than the legestlative crap that comes from Brussels.
 
You would have respect for their thinly veiled hatred and racism if they promised to keep nuclear weapons?
 
Hi Steep

Thank you for reply perhaps break the argument into sections start with EU UKIP

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/1560/scottish_results_of_european_elections_announced

This is Scotland's result if you take Ukip and Conservative party they get the same percentage of vote as the SNP

1 seat for Ukip in Scotland out of 6 seats is what 16% of MEPs

24 seats Ukip for the union is about 32% so Scotland had less people who voted anti EU I accept I have not included the Conservative party in this but low turn out still holds a large error quality about it

If you look at turnout which was low in both Scotland and rUK you surely must conclude the odds of the rUK leaving the EU is slim at best

My feeling is not the the amount of immigrants but more a desire to know who is here and say Mr Hook (sorry don't know name) who had maybe 2 million in aid his family is reported having a £1.5m council home and with EU law the UK has no legal right to deport him or the family

Would a new Scotland part of the EU enjoy the same quandary and let's say the same happened would the electorate prefer less food banks being required with the money spent on poorer families

Next post will be war and trident

Thank you for the debate it's like canon or Nikon have a new dslr and which is better sometimes what you have is good enough no need for change lol
 
Last edited:
An independent Scotland in the EU would have (probably) 11 or 12 seats as compared with the six we have currently. Those of us who believe in indy also believe that Westminster does not represent Scotland well in Brussels unless it has something to gain elsewhere, so the loss of their bargaining power is not something we'd be worried about. That's not to say that both nations would not vote together on issues they agree about.

According to the news today Cameron has threatened to bring the in out referendum forward so UK out of Europe could be reality very soon. I think as you probably do that most of the UKIP vote was a protest vote against the Lib Dems but watching Question Time the other night people were saying that they would continue to vote UKIP which is troubling.

I have no knowledge of the Mr Hook person you're speaking of so I'll not comment.

Re food banks, this independence movement is not just about separating from rUK but creating a more just society in Scotland, we will make sure our elected representatives deliver what we want and that may not be the SNP. Yes Scotland is made up of many groups with widely different political ideas. We will make sure the poorest people in our society are properly cared for, not made to pay the cost of bankers mistakes.
 
Here's something to help the No campaign, it's a joke but it's actually quite accurate in some of the things we're being told.

View attachment 12907
 
Steep said:
An independent Scotland in the EU would have (probably) 11 or 12 seats as compared with the six we have currently. Those of us who believe in indy also believe that Westminster does not represent Scotland well in Brussels unless it has something to gain elsewhere, so the loss of their bargaining power is not something we'd be worried about. That's not to say that both nations would not vote together on issues they agree about.

According to the news today Cameron has threatened to bring the in out referendum forward so UK out of Europe could be reality very soon. I think as you probably do that most of the UKIP vote was a protest vote against the Lib Dems but watching Question Time the other night people were saying that they would continue to vote UKIP which is troubling.

I have no knowledge of the Mr Hook person you're speaking of so I'll not comment.

Re food banks, this independence movement is not just about separating from rUK but creating a more just society in Scotland, we will make sure our elected representatives deliver what we want and that may not be the SNP. Yes Scotland is made up of many groups with widely different political ideas. We will make sure the poorest people in our society are properly cared for, not made to pay the cost of bankers mistakes.
Click to expand...

But Scotland will be a very, very tiny part of the EU, so will have no influence. At least they have a stronger voice at Westminster. Without sounding rude, the likes of Germany, France etc... Will care very little about Scotland.

The thing about "poorest people being cared for" makes me laugh... It's a theoretical view, in reality how many countries actually do properly care about the poorest?
 
Steep said:
I speak for myself and those like minded Doug, I've never presumed to speak for anyone else.
Click to expand...
Using "we" instead of "I" is a well-established rhetorical device to make one's opinions sound more weighty and well supported than might actually be the case.

For example, when you say "we want no part of Trident", a naive reader might easily suppose that "we" refers to all Scots. Or at least to the 40% (or thereabouts) of Scots who are currently in favour of independence. Whereas in fact it refers only to you "and those like minded", which makes it pointlessly tautological: "I, and (unquantified) other people who want no part of Trident, want no part of Trident".

I'm still trying to get my head round who the "we" are when you say "we will make sure the poorest people in our society are properly cared for". Are you - with the aid of some of "those like minded" - planning to create and run your own organisation to achieve this? That's about the only way to make sure, and if that's your plan then it's an incredibly noble ambition and I wish you well. But it's nothing to do with independence - you could do that now. I suspect what you really mean is that you would vote for a political party which claims to do this, and of course by definition those (unquantified) like minded would also vote for it. The trouble is, "I would vote for this" sounds a lot less impressive than "we will ensure this".

It's a tactic similar to that adopted by the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution, who named their faction "Majority" in order to lend it an air of substance which was, initially at first, undeserved. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are deliberately doing this, but it can come across like that if you're not careful.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Waitrose employee's local people and is a great asset to the town. Its a very, bordering on racist IMHO view, to discount the value of a supermarket coming to a place, as it's based in rUK as opposed to Scotland. And thats really what the yes campaign is based on, thinly veiled hatred and racism of our brethern south of the "border".
Click to expand...

My impression, too.
 
cambsno said:
I still don't get why the scots want to be rid of being governed by London but instead want to be governed by Brussels?
Click to expand...

That is a point I have made before. It makes no sense (except, perhaps, for certain politicians who think it gets them a seat at the top table.
 
cambsno said:
And councils with their anti car policies!
Click to expand...
cambsno said:
And councils with their anti car policies!
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a big one. Boarded up shops are not new. Just steadily increasing. Make car access difficult or expensive then don't be surprised if customers vote with their wheels.
 
StewartR said:
Using "we" instead of "I" is a well-established rhetorical device to make one's opinions sound more weighty and well supported than might actually be the case.

For example, when you say "we want no part of Trident", a naive reader might easily suppose that "we" refers to all Scots. Or at least to the 40% (or thereabouts) of Scots who are currently in favour of independence. Whereas in fact it refers only to you "and those like minded", which makes it pointlessly tautological: "I, and (unquantified) other people who want no part of Trident, want no part of Trident".

snip

It's a tactic similar to that adopted by the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution, who named their faction "Majority" in order to lend it an air of substance which was, initially at first, undeserved. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are deliberately doing this, but it can come across like that if you're not careful.
Click to expand...

Using 'we' to be inclusive of others in a like minded group is perfectly acceptable and natural thing to do. This isn't a debating society or a meeting of politicians where nuance and rhetorical devices would be used to score points, thankfully there has been very little point scoring in the thread so far. I respond to issues raised as and when I think I need to and try to keep the conversation off a personal level because the issues are bigger than one person.

How people perceive what I write is not something I have control over, there is a growing tendency (on t'internet) to try to read between the lines when in reality there's nothing there but space. I write what I think, what I know and what I believe, if I get it wrong I acknowledge it, there is no hidden agenda or meaning in my posts. If somebody takes what I write the wrong way I can only suggest the fault lies with them since I always try to be clear in what I type and don't just hammer away then hit the post button.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
An independent Scotland in the EU would have (probably) 11 or 12 seats as compared with the six we have currently. Those of us who believe in indy also believe that Westminster does not represent Scotland well in Brussels unless it has something to gain elsewhere, so the loss of their bargaining power is not something we'd be worried about. That's not to say that both nations would not vote together on issues they agree about.

According to the news today Cameron has threatened to bring the in out referendum forward so UK out of Europe could be reality very soon. I think as you probably do that most of the UKIP vote was a protest vote against the Lib Dems but watching Question Time the other night people were saying that they would continue to vote UKIP which is troubling.

I have no knowledge of the Mr Hook person you're speaking of so I'll not comment.

Re food banks, this independence movement is not just about separating from rUK but creating a more just society in Scotland, we will make sure our elected representatives deliver what we want and that may not be the SNP. Yes Scotland is made up of many groups with widely different political ideas. We will make sure the poorest people in our society are properly cared for, not made to pay the cost of bankers mistakes.
Click to expand...
You know I give in I tried suggesting that your assertion that the Scottish and rUK are miles apart for me we share as nations many issues.

Your response is maybe 12 MEPs how that makes any difference is a strange concept for me I will say again a referendum does not mean the union will vote to leave you and as far as I am concerned no one knows that not even Alex

The independence campaign as far as I am concerned is little different for the union having a referendum because it is perceived Brussels has way to much power and our national identity is threatened

Your argument seems at least to me to point at many issues are now controlled by the EU

Take the name hook out and I ask do you feel Scotland would like to spend £2 million on legal aid for a person broadcasting hate against us the host nation or that the persons family on state benefit has a house valued at £1.5 million paid for by the state that is the reality of EU membership do you really think the union would not have deported the person had they had the option. Result of these issues for the union less money for the less well off.

You have a vote I don't the least I can do is ask of the things you consider the union does you don't like at least consider how many of the issues are due to Europe that it seems clear you support

I do think Scotland can will join the EU however it may take longer than you imagine and seems very likely you will have the euro for currency

Once you vote for this remember its for good and the EU accepts defence is needed even if you or I think nuclear is not great weapons
 
Allan - "I do think Scotland can will join the EU however it may take longer than you imagine and seems very likely you will have the euro for currency"

More and more we hear opinions from various EU Sources* that Scotland will have little problem rejoining the EU in fact the latest is that we would simply carry on as a member. The *sources are usually 'ex' ministers or judges. Ex because the EU itself cannot have an opinion until after the event, that would be seen as meddling in internal politics.

I still have no idea what this hook thing is about.

Nothing about Westminster government is good to those of us who want independence and I'll never change my mind on that.
 
Steep no worry you do what you want we all do but one thing for sure you have convinced me you are not even willing to review your perspective when it stares you in your face.

I still of course hope Scotland stays in the union if that's the case I recognise it will spoil your day but that's life eh

Doubt less we can disagree more later as the referendum gets nearer see no point in showing the error in defence

Good luck for now
 
Let me summarise my views on this.

The world is in the process of massive change, whether we like it or not.. Power blocks are manouvering for position. We are seeing this more and more. The global politics of the near future is all about spheres of influence of those power blocks. The nation state is coming to an end. Little nationalists will either be absorbed or ignored.
An independent Scotland will be part of Europe, with all the constraints that they seem to think will be lifted once free of Westminster. I predict the European constraints will be rather more resented than those from Westminster.

Or it will be a forgotten, impoverished backwater.

A middle ground would be an economic and political deal with the U.K. In other words, union.

Quick edit: I don't really care either way personally. I do care that ordinary Scottish people are being sold a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
I'm interested to know, where do you folk South of the border get your information on the referendum issues?
 
Aah, the issues.

The little man, little nation, little politics issues.

Fascinating as they may be, with their pious promises, their sage certainties and their misty eyed visions of a better life, free from the power politics of the wolves of Westminster, they have nothing to do with global real-politik.

Some little politicians are drooling in anticipation of becoming big fish in a small pond.

I don't think I can make my views any clearer, so I'll leave it at that. Good luck Scotland.
 
Steep said:
I'm interested to know, where do you folk South of the border get your information on the referendum issues?
Click to expand...
I ain't as far south of the border as you think, I watch many Scottish tv articles I see Alex had newsnight Scotland closed had a dissy fit with the Marr on Sunday show. Take a guess he does not want you knowing the truth everyone is a scare monger. I have visited Scotland for about 55 years I count it as much my home as England I even hoped in just over 4 years to move near Dumfries.

I have said on here Scotland can of course go alone no one questions that, all I asked from you was to consider at first where the blame for some of the things you quote really belongs, it ain't all the UK a fair bit is the EU you plan being part of that in your new brave Scotland!
 
The BBC closed Newsnight Scotland because they were starting a dedicated politics show Scotland2014 with big name ex ch4 news Sarah Smith. They should have kept Newsnight, Scotland2014 has bombed.

The reason I asked where you were all getting your information from is because we're having real problems up here. There was a big demonstration outside BBC Scotlands HQ on Sunday against their biased reporting. Hundreds of people there and not one word in the Scottish press, it made the news in Europe, cameras from German TV and other journos interviewing.

Last week when Danny Alexander quoted figures that had been made up by the treasury and denounced by the guy who was supposed to have done the research, the story made the front page of the financial times but not one word about it in the Scottish press, they carried the treasury story as if it was fact for two days before finally accepting the truth.

So I was asking because I'm interested to hear what info you guys get and where from. Clearly if you think Alex Salmond got a tv program shut down there's something iffy going on.
 
Steep have a google for a Scots reporter Libby Brooks reporting how Alister Darling portrayed Alex.

I have watched him what in my opinion is bully and generally be a bull in a china shop with reporters he is thinly vailed with threat and menace when a reporter is doing their job.

You want figures for economy, he does not want them out so he pulls strings and confuses everything said this is only my opinion
 
I've read her article in the New Statesman, there are a few things you should bear in mind when looking at what Alistair Darling has said, firstly, it's his job to belittle Yes campaigners and Alex Salmond is top of the list.
The No campaign really want everyone to think this is about Alex Salmond and the SNP it's not! the independence movement is far more encompassing and much wider reaching than just the SNP. Alistair Darling cannot attack his labour colleagues in Scotland; the leader of the Yes Scotland movement Dennis Canavan was a Labour MP! see also www.labourforindy.com/ so A.D. must create a devil for everyone else to hate.
A.D. is quoted "Darling claimed Salmond 'said on the BBC that people voted Ukip in Scotland because English TV was being beamed into Scotland' this is a gross distortion of the truth, I KNOW because I was watching live when A.S. was interviewed that night but get any newspaper or broadcast media to admit that and you'll get a coconut. He's supposedly said A.S. behaved like Kim Jong Il crying that the big bad west was bullying him, this would be funny if the facts didn't fully support A.S.
That article goes on to say he claims that he speaks to people all the time who are afraid to come out as unionist because of intimidation and bullying but does not offer one shred of proof to back his claims up. The mere fact that he says it and it gets printed is enough for many people to believe it must be true.

Before this campaign started I thought the BBC was a pretty accurate and informative place to get my news but their conduct so far has been nothing short of appalling. They report Government sources as if they carry the word of god on stone tablets regardless of how preposterous the things they say. Interviews with unionists are easy going, they get to make their points without interruption (see Danny Alexanders 10 minute uninterrupted monologue on Scotland2014), Indy representatives are hammered with questions and interrupted when they try to reply. The NUJ representing the people, journalists and presenters at the BBC are threatening to call a strike over the BBC bias. Decent Presenters who try to do their job are sacked (Gary Robertson, fifteen years with the BBC, contract not renewed)

Any time a Yes supporter argues against something they see as misleading or wrong they are labelled "cybernats" and accused of bullying tactics and this get repeated and repeated, the idea being if you say something often enough people will believe it's true. A lot of this happens because unionists keep spouting the same distortions and untruths fed to them by Westminster long after they have been proved false and they are being called on it more and more.

Here's a video of the demo I mentioned in my post above, note the folk here are just normal people, no politicians. It was first mentioned on FB and Twitter the day before, even so the turnout was impressive. There's another demo mooted for this Sunday which should be much bigger.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top