Better the devil you know than the devil you don't, a regularly used phrase which so often turns out to be true

I was chatting to a fella from Abberdean that works in the oil/gas industry (cranes). He has been out in Angola for 16 years working. He reckons he will be much worse of tax wise if its a yes vote as he gets paid into his scottish bank but is taxed like the rest of the uk.
There must be thousands like him.

I am starting to think that the current UK Government actually want Scotland to say YES

Politicians spend a good deal of effort and money trying to be slick and convince people of their argument. The "Better Together" group and campaign has looked like a bunch of blithering idiots, and have seemingly gone out of their way to antagonise the Scots.

It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that without the Scotts the conservatives would be unbeatable in 2015, would it?

They have missed the obvious riposte to the comment made earlier in the week: The no campaign is entirely negative...

"That's because there's nothing positive to say."

I was undecided until it emerged that a Yes vote would strengthen UKIPs cause, so let's go for that Yes shall we?

Not so bothered about the "UK" bit of UKIP then...?

Got another one of the "Free money and cookies for all" pro-independence leaflets through my door yesterday.



Comedy gold.

Watching many of the "yes" campaigners on TV, in the streets and coming around the doors it strikes me that they seem to see themselves as revolutionaries.

They're fighting for a socialist revolution and the massive risk and gamble they're taking with the future of the entire country is obviously fully justified "for the revolution" (comrade) and the resulting socialist utopia which would naturally follow.

Maybe MI5 will see it as an issue of national security and fix the vote, haha.

I bet Ukraine are pleased they don't have a nuclear deterrent.

When Ukraine left the USSR in 1991 they inherited over 5000 nuclear weapons and thus had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They took the decision to adopt the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and by 1996 had disposed of all their nuclear weapons - mostly to Russia!

Looks like that strategy did them the world of good!

Not sure how much good a nuclear "deterrent" would do them against Russia.

We've just received through our letter-box the following:

"Wee Blue Book"

compiled by Jim Sillars, formerly Labour/Scottish Labour party/SNP. "Rev" Stuart Campbell (JS has the stand-out quote on the first page)

This as you might glean is a pocket-size tome which happens to be, one has to admit, one of the best-compiled and most concise summations of the pro-Yes campaign. It's easy to read and extremely to the point, debunking much of the propaganda (in the eyes of the Yes's) aimed against them.
For example something like 27? of the daily papers available up here are owned by folk south of the Border, so no surprises which stance they're taking. Something like the good old BBC perhaps, that bastion of fair-mindedness, which is also clearly camped on the No side. (Last night's News 24 example.....a verbal statement that banks were locating their legal premises south of the Border, but at the top left-hand corner in bold letters in a red box - BANKS LEAVING... what are people going to believe?)

Not to mention the Salmond - Nick Robinson interview recently which was economically reported.

I have to ask, where is the similar handy companion for the No campaign? What's happened to the organisation? Don't they care? Are they slovenly? Or worse don't they have the factual content?

Now I realise this makes me sound like a Yes voter, and hitherto I have been anxious about the effects on pensions, taxes and other mainly economic concerns.

But it does really worry me how rag-bagged the No camp is, loose cannons like Gordon Brown and John Prescott being allowed to fire off while Salmond (even though there's a sneaking feeling he might be over-full of guile) is gliding through as a master-strategist and orator.

You may not like him, but he is very good at his job.

Oof, I'm sweatin'

I understand your point, Simon, but I have two thoughts.
The first is that the yes campaign was always going to be more fun and sexy than boring old no and that combined with with staggering complacency has gifted the yes lobby a fighting chance.
The second is that the Tories genuinely wouldn't mind losing the union for perpetual rule in the rest of the UK.

I'm not a massive fan of The Economist and acknowledge its bias, but this article was quite good:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21...nation-went-mad

Jim Sillars - the lunatic who thinks an independent Scotland can nationalise BP and break up another country's banks, take anything he has written or compiled with a large teaspoonful of salt

British Broadcasting Corporation, Simon, the clue's in the name...

Besides, they just dropped a couple of billion on Pacific Quay and no doubt they'd hate to lose it.

Well at least it's something, which is not the case for the opposition.

I have to confess an error, in my haste I said it was by Jim Sillars. It's not, it's produced by Rev Stuart Campbell, editor of Wings over Scotland.

Even worse, he's another lunatic who can't even be bothered living in Scotland - so at least he does'nt get a vote.

A stinks if so. Cameron's policies may not be popular but I'd be surprised if he was that twisted. Having said that his complacency over the issue beggars belief.

B all very satirical. It doesn't cover the feeling that many Scots have had that their worth is very secondary the further south they go. Also that English who have taken up employment north of the Border tend to be forgotten by their southern counterparts. The latter happened in my father's case (to colleagues also); having been frequently engaged by orchestras all over the country to perform while he lived in London suddenly experienced a drop in requests when he accepted a full-time post at what's now the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland.

In those days too, and countless will attest to this, one's Scottish currency was pooh-poohed and often refused - perhaps still questioned today - as not being kosher. What's the problem with education here, wouldn't it be more respectful to make sure all traders recognised the currency? Or was it just not important enough?

There is an emotional issue here as well, if a nation is given the respect it deserves it's not going to turn away, and by gum there are and have been brilliant enough Scots to earn respect.





Names change all the time - insurance companies for example - this one may need to. Britain would be composed of only England and Wales....quite a thought that other names may fall too.



And it seems he is no Rev. either, just a blogger but industrious.
It seems his wee book has aroused more than casual interest by journalists and politicians alike whether they agree with it or not.

It doesn't resort to name-calling at least.

I think your point about an emotional response was a good one, Simon. I can see the attraction of telling London to shove it. The article from The Economist makes the very good point that Scots don't have a monopoly on despising London and Westminster; as someone who grew up in Yorkshire, it's pretty endemic anywhere outside of the Home Counties. The problem is that once people have been lured into the Westminster/London web, they quickly forget where they come from...

The thing I hear over and over is that "We'll have control so it's bound to be better". Apart from savings on Trident (and the attendant loss of jobs in the naval shipyards), there doesn't seem to be a single firm policy to validate that view. It's more than a bit scary.

The gobsmacking complacency and mismanagement of the no campaign will have played a huge part if the yes vote wins. It really does look like hugely smug Westminster politicians patronising the "wee Scots" until suddenly it looked like the Yes side might actually win.

What I hope - as pointed out by MrsC - is that if there is a yes vote that the remainder of the UK does what it can to support an independent Scotland, rather than childishly taking the bat and ball home. The no side may believe the UK stands a better chance as it is, but nobody would benefit from a Scotland that failed to make the most of its new status, especially if that were due to sabotage.

Ian Blackford, Business for Scotland, has just been on BBC news. Apparently Business will be safe post Yes vote because financial institutions have stated they will move South of the border so will be protected by The Bank of England.

So it would appear that Scotland will be financially safe because they won't have Scottish based banks. Interesting policy.

I would love this to be the case Jim however, having read what my English pals are posting on Facebook there does seem to be a bit of spite developing over the temerity of us Scots.

Sad to see he BBC will not cover the Orange order parade in Edinburugh today as it doesn't fit their agenda... I'm sure censorship was something we didn't do?

Why are people calling this an Orange "WALK". It is not! It is a MARCH of mass intimidation and triumphalism based on an ancient animosity

Should push more to the yes vote...idiots

I can't help thinking the Orangemen MUST have been booked by the yes campaign... Seriously, who will they persuade (with their entirely unsymbolic and un-inflammatory display, honest!) to remain with the United Kingdom?

Jim

You are assuming only those on the march support their beliefs.

I've read enough anti-English vitriol which at times makes me think " them let them all just off" so pointing the finger at English posts is not indicative of a general anti-Scots feeling.

I'm still firmly in the we should remain one camp (despite the very attractive sweetener of a reduced Labour vote). However I do like the idea of further devolution across the UK.

It was slightly tongue-in-cheek, RK. I'm sure there are supporters of the Ulster brand of unionism across Scotland.

Right at the start of this thread I seem to remember mention of trying to keep it objective and avoiding abuse; with an emotive subject like this, that is difficult, but whatever the outcome of the vote, England and Scotland will still be geographically in the same place.

We would all be better off treating our neighbours with respect; recriminations won't make either country more profitable (or viable).

Absolutely.

On a more important note has anyone decided if the "an Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman" jokes will still be valid?

They need to be updated: "an Englishman, a broke Scotsman and a broke Irishman"

Seriously, I hope it all works out sensibly after the event but I think it might end up messy.

May i take this opportunity to wish all of our Scotish friends on this forum the best of everything, which ever way the referendum voting goes.