Independence
Ex Dennistoun posted on the 21/05/2013 8:55:29 AM
As someone who now lives in England, I am wondering what the general feeling in Scotland is regarding Scottish independence. I'm not asking for a debate on the pro's and con's of independence, as I don't think this forum is the right place for that. I'm asking what your general impression is as to whether or not the prospect of independence is popular in Scotland. You see, here in England there is very little detail on the news about the subject, only a few headlines from time to time, so I have no way of knowing how the feelings of people are going in Scotland. I'm very interested because I still love my Scotland and my Dennistoun. I'm not asking anyone to state their own opinion, just what they think the general opinion is of Scots in general at this time. Â Thanks.
- 69 Replies :
#1 - Paul replied on the 21/05/2013 9:07:14 AM
Well, I'm English and love living in Dennistoun. And I hope Scotland has a bright future as an independent, responsible social democracy which looks after all of it's citizens instead of looking after the rich and the elite first. Â Interesting that you're reading and hearing very little about it down there. Â We're hearing an awful lot about it up here, but mostly from very biased sources // all of whom have a duty to their masters to dismiss the idea of independence.
#2 - Scot replied on the 21/05/2013 4:06:01 PM
I see it from another view, I don't think Scotland is quite ready for independence, and reporting is very biased in favour of it. Â King Salmond should be told no.
#3 - anon replied on the 21/05/2013 4:25:03 PM
The general feeling is people want facts not party political propaganda,our whole future is at stake here, we want serious debate and time is running out fast.Immigration is a big concern with many people I speak to.for and against is pretty equally divided for independence
#4 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 21/05/2013 4:29:23 PM
Thanks Paul. What do you think is the general feeling amongst the people you know in Scotland? Are they mostly for or mostly against independence?
#5 - Doll replied on the 21/05/2013 6:19:29 PM
Im a firm no and would like to think im in the majority.
#6 - Jock Tamson replied on the 21/05/2013 10:33:40 PM
I really don't understand why anyone wouldn't like to see an Independent Scotland. We're talking about a political separation, not a social or cultural one.
#7 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 22/05/2013 10:42:30 AM
Yes, anon, I wondered about whether or not the facts were being made available without bias, especially the financial implications of sparation. I hope independence doesn't come about for emotional reasons. Thanks for the feedback everyone. If I had a vote I'd probably be a "don't know, but don't want to make a big mistake" kind of person. To separate then regret it would be a nightmare. I think the financial implications are the most important and need to be understood by everyone, because without financial stability you can do nothing.
#8 - Swan replied on the 22/05/2013 10:44:09 AM
I think it's hard to tell what the general feeling is right now. We're hearing a lot of pro-independence opinions at the moment, which perhaps isn't surprising, as the Scottish Government is obviously in favour. However, anyone I have spoken to - across a wide range of the political spectrum - is against it, myself included. I think it won't be until nearer the referendum that we get a clearer picture.
#9 - Andy replied on the 22/05/2013 10:46:17 AM
A definite no from me too.
#10 - Suz replied on the 22/05/2013 10:47:17 AM
Fully support independence - I want what I vote for. Also not the slightest bit concerned about immigration, and I don't know many people who are.
#11 - ano_l replied on the 22/05/2013 12:39:08 PM
I dont know anywhere near enough facts about Independence - facts I'll understand. I admit I really dont know a lot about politics etc and I think that goes for a lot of people. I can read up about it online but as someone has said its very biased. They are not doing enough to educate us on this and I cant believe voting starts so soon with out this
#12 - A salmon replied on the 22/05/2013 8:35:00 PM
All the facts are right there at your fingertips. More importantly, the facts are all around you. Decade after decade of Conservative Govts not voted for here but implementing their Southern biased policies. Anyone for oil? Look into the facts about Scottish oil in the 70's. In a democracy, it cannot be right that a nation is governed by a party barely any Scots voted for. For that reason alone you have to consider independence.
#13 - anon replied on the 23/05/2013 12:23:29 AM
The bookies are giving odds on the next Conservative leader. Boris Johnson is the likely successor with George Osborne a possibility too. So is Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt. If you want fact search for articles featuring Johnsons' opinion on cutting spending in Scotland, UK.
#14 - mc replied on the 23/05/2013 9:03:19 AM
I would love to consider an independent Scotland but at present I am a firm no. When each side proposes information to completely contradict the other you are left void of what to believe. I want actual facts and figures presented to be able to make informed decision, until I have that I feel unable to support such a significant change into the unknown. I dont know what to trust anymore when it comes to figures being banded around.
#15 - Suz replied on the 23/05/2013 9:06:27 AM
People also don't seem to realise that a vote for independence is not necessarily a vote for the SNP. If we can get proportional representation (ie a voting system that is ACTUALLY democratic) there is every chance that Scotland could be governed by a cross-party coalition. I can't see any evidence of Labour or the Tories doing anything recently to benefit Scottish people. I don't want a privatised NHS or libraries run by volunteers. Do you?
#16 - anon replied on the 23/05/2013 4:28:48 PM
If we voted for independence we wouldnt have any political seperation,just another capitalist government,so whats the point,// Salmond isnt going to last forever.Now if we had a socialist marxist state that would be attractive but theres no chance of that happening,so it looks like the status quo.
#17 - Fiona replied on the 23/05/2013 4:29:57 PM
My opinion, and the opinion of most people I know is that currently it is just too risky and there too many unknowns to confidently vote for an independent Scotland. We need it spelled out for us what will actually happen, and how the economy would work. As someone else said, we are not in a position to make an informed decision.
#18 - A salmon replied on the 23/05/2013 4:32:43 PM
Suz is right, independence would mean we, the Scottish people would be able to elect politicians who worked for us here in Scotland, made decisions here in Scotland and lived and worked here in Scotland. A fairer electoral system and above all, a compassionate society. Just look at events yesterday in London; all brought about by a Westminster govt continuing to toe the USA's foreign policy line.//
#19 - anon_l replied on the 23/05/2013 7:02:08 PM
Fiona and MC you said it so much better than I tried!
#20 - Suz replied on the 23/05/2013 9:31:30 PM
Also, I don't know where everyone else gets their news from, but I've found more than I'll ever be able to read on this subject. The Guardian is writing a lot on independence, and some of the commenters on these articles are extremely knowledgeable and provide links to facts and figures on a regular basis. Ian Bell in The Herald is also great. Please bear in mind that some media outlets may have a vested interest in maintaining the union so may be a little, er, "choosy" about what they report. Seek and ye shall find dudes. Media Studies 101 ;)
#21 - No thanks replied on the 23/05/2013 11:09:49 PM
FAO A Salmon.
Nothing annoys me more than this nationalist line about Scots being disenfranchised. What complete nonsense. We have representation at both the UK-level and Scotland level. Scots politicians, if anything, have been proportionally over-represented in cabinet positions over the past 15 years.
The Scottish parliament also has a substantial array of powers at their disposal. Sadly, they have obsessed about getting more power and have neglected to use the vast tools at their current disposal. Shameful really when there are so many issues they could be investing their political energy in.
The other issue relates to the calibre of politicians in the current Scottish parliament. I've been able to get a good insight into the government and its output through my work, and i have to say, there is a real lack of quality. There are some good politicians, and i will admit (as a more natural labour supporter) that the SNP currently has the most able and intellectually impressive MSP's, but generally speaking I would have concerns about the first 5-10 years of independence.
The other posters have hit the nail on the head when they complain of a lack of information (from both sides of the argument). The primary reason for this lack of information is that this is such a radical, unprecedented proposal that there are too many variables to consider and predict effectively. There are so many 'if's' that depend on unpredictable macro-economic factors outwith anyones control (i.e. the market, economy, oil prices, trade relations, currency) that to sell the vision of Scotland being some kind of land of milk and honey post-independence is extremely reckless on Salmond's part. Look at the small countries he has previously held up as visions of a future Scotland (Iceland, Ireland etc).
Can Scotland be independent? Of course it can. It will however, most likely be a far worse-off place than it is now, especially once we have isolated ourselves from our biggest trading partner.
A big no from me and I would estimate around 75% of people I know.
#22 - craig replied on the 24/05/2013 6:30:55 AM
Re. the comments about uncertainty by No Thanks - the uncertainty I see is with staying within the UK. The economy certainly continues to be uncertain and is currently performing better in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. And what certainty do we have about continued membership of the EU under a Tory government and with the rise of UKIP south of the border.
Independence would allow us to make all our decisions ourselves, in the best interest of Scotland rather than what suits the south east of England.
Those looking for information should have a look at the Yes Scotland website - if there's any specific details you want to know just ask them. There's a very positive case being made for independence, and unlike the No campaign there is nothing to hide.
#23 - jay replied on the 26/05/2013 9:17:22 AM
// I would like to see the audit books. Â No-one knows if we will be able to sustain ourselves - just look at Ireland for example, and as for changing to euros I can only say everyone who went over to the euro was complaining like mad at how quickly the prices went up - and I know I was in at the start of the euro changeover.
#24 - Tom replied on the 26/05/2013 1:57:19 PM
Whatever your opinion, whatever you decide, please let's not have anymore complaints about lack of info. If you're sitting typing a message to post on here then you're clearly connected. Spend an hour searching and reading and you will have all the information you need, it's all out there and no one is keeping it from you.
#25 - anon replied on the 26/05/2013 2:18:14 PM
/ / Yes there is information, but it is of dubious quality and tainted or spun by either side.
How is the ordinary person supposed to interpret completely contradictory on economic and constitutional information when even the experts can find no common ground.
I think what most people (well, me anyway) would like is some kind of independent fact checker. Newspapers are all politically biased to some extent and do not perform this job properly.
I especially don't trust much the SNP say - they are doing an ok job in the Scottish parliament but are too quick to use unlikely best-case scenarios to support most of their claims for independence.
Salmond also ducks almost every question he is given on key issues such as currency, the EU, corporation tax rates etc. No wonder people don't know what they are voting on in 2016
#26 - Suz replied on the 26/05/2013 8:36:56 PM
Re the anon at 2:18 today (there are so many of you!), there are plenty of economic reports available in the public domain. You may struggle to find anything that is truly impartial, but we can't let anyone spread their version of the "evidence" in front of us and accept it blindly. That's what we've been doing for too many years now. And please, while the SNP campaign for independence, if we actually get it (and a more equitable voting system)it doesn't mean they'll be "in power" necessarily. This is our country and our chance to get away from policies that only benefit SE England - wish more of us would see it as an opportunity. Of course yes, it's a gamble, there are unknowns and no guarantees, but isn't that true of everything in life? Where would we be if no-one ever took a chance?
#27 - anon replied on the 27/05/2013 12:39:08 AM
Every day I seem to read a new reason why an independent Scotland would a bad idea. A few days ago I read Scottish students might be in a position where they have to pay for their further education as English students would no longer be required to pay fees due to E.U rules, losing £150 million a year. Either that or taxpayers have to subsidise that figure. Our future relationship with Europe is by no means guaranteed - there are EU members that will not support Scotland's automatic entry as they fear it will cause problems in their own nations with regions seeking independence (eg, Spain might not support this due to the issues with Basque region - they don't want to send a message encouraging regions to gain their own independence.)
What currency would we have - the Euro or the pound? SNP seem confident we can retain pound, but Westminster say nothing of the sort. Every day big business leaders are coming out saying they are concerned how their businesses would operate in an independent Scotland, and the uncertainty is not good for them.
The Scottish Government and the UK Government have both recently published papers on the the issue, looking at the stakes for the economy, and they both paint very different pictures. There are no 'facts' out there because we don't know the circumstances will be at the time of the vote. And, whether anyone like it or not, Westminster still has to agree and negotiate the terms of independence with the SNP - this is not a done deal, and so we don't know what will really happen - the amount of UK debt Scotland will be required to take on, the percentage of the oil fields/ revenue Scotland will get, etc. This is all still unknown because the 2 sides haven't fully negotiated it yet. And until they do the voters are not in a strong position to decide what will be best for themselves.
#28 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 27/05/2013 1:24:33 PM
It may be that independence would allow Scotland to make all its own decisions, but devolution and the Scottish Parliament mean that a lot of decisions are already being made for Scotland in Scotland, many more than used to be the case. My understanding is that devolution can be taken further, giving Scotland even more decision-making power and that this is the route which the SNP will take if there is a "No" vote. Apart from decision-making ability, albeit an important issue, what actually is the point of complete separation? At this time of world economic uncertainty, it might well be wiser to stay as we are. If the SNP or any other party play their cards right, Scotland could have the best of both worlds, i.e. a high level of self -government through devolution and the partnership benefits of remaining an integral part of the UK. Anybody agree??
#29 - Colin Smith replied on the 29/05/2013 1:02:54 AM
Imagine you came home one day and your neighbour had broke in to your house. Â Changed the locks and then said that they own the house, but you can still live there. Â Would you want your house back?
#30 - anon replied on the 29/05/2013 8:58:08 AM
Colin Smith, if you are implying England 'stole' Scotland then you confirm my worst fears about some nationalists.
#31 - Louisa replied on the 29/05/2013 4:16:10 PM
I know of no one amongst family, friends or work colleagues who is remotely pro-independence, or even who would vote tactically to remove Scotland from the sphere of influence of the current Westminster incumbents. On this basis, I'd be surprised if voters en masse say aye.
#32 - Robert replied on the 29/05/2013 9:01:12 PM
The SNP think offering the removal of the so-called 'bedroom tax' and the reinstatement of other benefit's will encourage votes in their favour.
But to me this will only put more of a burden on our 'Country'and what Currency will we be using? What about our defence? Lot's of unanswered question's I am afraid. It's a big NO from me and from most of the people I know!
#33 - Wellpark replied on the 22/06/2013 10:45:05 AM
I and the majority will vote NO ,hopefully .That is my choice as the thought of Scotland being independant from the rest of the United Kingdom is unthinkable and frightening .
#34 - anon replied on the 22/06/2013 12:00:20 PM
we need to stay part of the uk this will take years to work does this mean we will need to pay for soaps if they get independence
#35 - Wellpark replied on the 23/06/2013 2:27:34 PM
" we need to stay part of the uk this will take years to work does this mean we will need to pay for soaps if they get independence "
anon - 22/06/2013 12:00:20 PM (IP: Logged)
We wont have time to watch the soaps , we will be too busy trying to survive if they got independence !!!!
#36 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 25/06/2013 7:29:37 PM
How I wish I could be at the meeting in the church in Armadale Street tomorrow night, but I can't. Maybe some people will post about it. I hope so for me and for others who can't make it. Thanks!
#37 - attendee replied on the 30/06/2013 3:49:53 PM
Some of the responses in this thread are very 'out there', to say the least.
I suppose that reflects the tone of coverage of the issue in the wider mainstream media -today's number one headline story on the BBC tv news was based on mobile phone and postal charges.
Firstly, Is anyone seriously going to base their decision about the future of their country on an alleged marginal change in mobile or stamp costs? Adjacent independent countries in mainland Europe don't collapse under the intolerable confusion and strain of such issues. And, farcically, on the BBC website, the story supporting the main one is about how roaming charges in the EU are falling and being capped (again, as part of an ongoing trend to avoid 'bill shock').
Secondly, to expand on that, the EU is looking to remove roaming charges completely, and they are widely expected to be abolished well before 2016. Even about Tory MSPs admit that the claims that mobile phone bills could rise under Scottish independence are just silly.
Thirdly, with regard to the postal service, since 2002, more than 400 Scottish post offices have closed and plans for privatisation of Royal Mail threatens jobs and the operation of the universal service obligation. Not exactly a stunning record under the watch of Westminster.
That's just the brief breakdown of one particular news story on one day. You don't have to scratch very far below the surface to get beyond the fear and uncertainty that the No side seems to be happy to indulge in.
Another recent example was the issue of international treaties. The notion was put out that there would be untold hassle in negotiating thousands of treaties with other countries. The reality is that: i) that figure was seemingly plucked out of thin air; ii) some of the treaties alluded to are centuries old and have since been superseded; and iii) some of the countries involved don't even exist any more. It was a nonsense claim which has since been withdrawn.
There will be more of this kind of thing over the coming weeks and months. Keep an eye out for it and make a mental note of who is coming out with these claims and ask yourself this: what's the actual situation here, why are they making such a big deal of it, and is it even something that forms part of the independence debate?
Think beyond party politics, too. Westminster is broken. It's not going to be fixed any time soon -this is an opportunity to move away from the cosy, privileged, out of touch clique that had a hold over it. And forget about any gripe you might have with Alex Salmond (or whoever else) - you'll still have the chance to vote for whoever you want after a Yes vote.
This is about seizing a moment and taking responsibility, not for getting bogged down by diversions and in-fighting.
#38 - Paul replied on the 1/07/2013 12:47:13 PM
Attendee - well done. This thread was much in need of an intelligent post and you made some good points well argued.
#39 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 7/07/2013 6:32:13 PM
Attendee, I doubt if any thinking person who has expressed doubts about the wisdom of independence on this thread has done so on the strength of mobile phone charges or the cost of stamps. To imply that is to insult their intelligence and sincerity about doing the right thing for Scotland. It is obviously a complicated issue, and to over-simplify it is silly. As someone who expects to return to live in Scotland in a year or two, I welcome hearing all sides of the argument - what took place at the meeting? I am interested in what the thoughts of the SNP are on the feasibility of continued membership of NATO and the EU for an independent Scotland? Any thoughts?
#40 - Non-independer replied on the 8/07/2013 1:20:24 AM
Fingers crossed the majority vote NOOOOOO!!!
#41 - attendee replied on the 8/07/2013 11:35:43 AM
Ex-Dennistoun, I also doubt that any thinking person that has expressed doubts about the wisdom of independence on this thread has done so on the strength of mobile phone charges or the cost of stamps alone. But all these completely baseless, factually incorrect (and downright irrelevant) scare stories keep getting reported as front page news by the mainstream media. There's as reason for that. And it doesn't take too much thinking to work out what it is, so I won't risk insulting anyone by spelling out it.
But what I will say is that I've spoken to many people, who could never be classed as anything other than clever, who have taken a starting opinion in this debate based on an accumulation of the aforementioned scare stories. The drip drip effect, if you will - sow enough seeds of doubt and some will bear fruit. (A classic false worry is the thing about 'border controls' and 'my granddaughter in Portsmouth becoming a foreigner'.) But when I've extended these conversations to go beyond superficial fears, some very basic rebuttals have been enough to make them think 'hang on a minute, maybe these negatives aren't the emphatic reasons for a No that I thought they were'.
You ask about 'the meeting'. Assuming you mean the Yes Provan launch, information about that can be found in the discussion thread on this forum that's specific to that event.
It's encouraging that you now welcome hearing all sides of the argument, after stating in your original post at the top of this discussion that you didn't think that this was a place to talk about the pro's and con's.
I'd like to think that this forum, as a neutral platform for local voices, is the perfect place to discuss all sides of the debate.
As such, I'm always interested in hearing eloquent reasoning that supports a No vote (rather than some of the examples on here which are certainly emphatic, but lack a little in terms of explanation behind their thinking). Simply shouting YES or NO at each other would merely undermine the respective positions.
Regarding your questions about specific policies - continued membership of NATO and the EU for an independent Scotland - I should point out that the Yes campaign is an organization that represents all parties and none. Any policy of the SNP would only become a live issue were the party to win a majority of seats in the Holyrood election following a Yes win in 2014.
But rather than let this be seen as an opportunity to duck the issue, the SNP positions on the EU and NATO (as I understand them) are fairly simple to summarise (as are the, admittedly many, associated issues).
The intention is to continue with EU membership. Whether automatic or not is not 100% clear. The EU position on things rarely are. But we can say with certainty that EU membership does not mean joining the Euro currency. We can also say that Scotland, seeing as it is already an existing member (as part of the UK), there would be no real barrier to it becoming a standalone member. The issue of whether Scotland would be a 'successor state' or a 'new country'. This could be discussed until the cows come home, but the upshot is this: if Scotland is a successor state, it takes on it's fair share of UK liabilities (aka debt) but also it's fair share of assets (and benefits from the stability of existing international agreements during transition to independence). If the UK pushes for Scotland to be considered as a 'new country', it would start life with a clean slate in terms of national debt etc (and all the opportunities that affords it). The EU would be able to offer more clarity on this if Westminster were willing to open discussions on the matter. But it isn't. So we've got to look at things from all sides fir the time being - but, to cut to the chase, 'the EU issue' shouldn't be viewed as posing any fundamental barriers to an independent Scotland. The opportunities are many. In terms of stability, that is certainly not guaranteed by continued membership of the UK: with the rise of UKIP in England and the planned 2017 referendum on UK membership of the EU having taken another step forward just this week, stability within the EU is definitely not something that the UK can offer.
Regarding NATO, the SNP's position is that Scotland ought to be a member, but without being a host of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. A pretty simple position, and a number of other countries currently share it without major issues. I note that the LibDems recently raised the prospect of not renewing Trident 'as is', and the Tories seem happy to defer the decision until the last possible moment. So, again, the supposed stability offered by sections of the No side isn't nearly as emphatic as they'd have you believe.
But those are just SNP positions. As mentioned, the Yes campaign is a separate movement comprising many parties. And the Yes campaign is based on the underlying principle that the people in Scotland should be making the decisions that affect Scotland.
Perhaps someone out there is willing to offer a summary of the above issues from the point of view of the Better Together campaign (or the United with Labour campaign, which seems to be a separate version of the No side)?
#42 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 8/07/2013 7:06:28 PM
Attendee, thank you for your huge reply. I see that you wish to discredit me by pointing out that I stated initially that I did not wish to use the forum as a place for airing the pro's and con's of independence, yet went on to say that I was interested in other people's opinions. Of-course I am interested in other sides of the argument - who wouldn't be? When I started the thread I did not want to presume that this forum was the right place for arguing the pro's and con's, but it soon became apparent that other people were quite willing to use it as such, so I went along with what I saw to be a general acceptance of this use of the forum. I took what I thought was a reasonable stance when I joined in with the general conversation. This is surely understandable. You sound like a professional YES campaigner. I am not a professional NO campaigner, in case you thought I was. I am just a member of the public trying to understand how much of a leap in the dark independence would be, and whether or not it is worth the risk.
#43 - attendee replied on the 8/07/2013 11:05:09 PM
Ex Dennistoun, I can assure you I'm not a professional campaigner - I'll take the notion as a compliment that I'm being vaguely coherent. :-) I'm just another member of the public like you. Although I don't consider independence to be a leap in the dark. Rather, I consider it a chance to step out into the light. :-D
Just a little addition to the above (as if it weren't already lengthy enough!)... very soon after posting that reply earlier today, I overheard a brief conversation about independence. One of the points being put forward, and agreed with, (by educated, management level people) was the inherent stability the Queen brings. Well, that may or may not be the case, but it's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the independence debate: we're not voting on having a republic! Whatever the result in 2014, The Queen will still be the Queen. Just like she is for existing independent countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Belize...
Apologies for my somewhat lengthy replies. It's not my intention to swamp the debate. But there are just so many fundamental falsehoods and errors that seem to be firmly embedded in a lot of people's minds (and thus preventing a helpful debate from taking place) that brevity is sometimes difficult when trying to credibly outline the reality.
#44 - anon replied on the 9/07/2013 1:11:06 PM
Attendee, I'm firmly in the Better Together camp. The one potential benefit of independence however, in my opinion, would have been to make Scotland a Republic //. I find it incredible that independence campaigners want to start off the rebirth of Scotland with a system where some are born into unelected power. This is not democratic or fair and makes a sham of Eck's 'equitable and fair' notion of an independent Scotland.
Separation looks increasingly like a watered down version of what we already have. Same currency but no control over it, same monarchy, member of NATO....the list goes on.
If this is the confusion and u-turning before independence, can you imagine post-independence?
I recon even the SNP realise that independence is stupid now. They just won't admit it.
#45 - attendee replied on the 9/07/2013 5:09:59 PM
anon - like you, I'd prefer a republic, too. But whether a country is a republic or not has no bearing on the validity of it's independence or otherwise.
Currency? Economic control? Remember: the UK government does not set interest rates. The Bank of England does. And, despite it's name, that's a UK institution, which acts in the best interests of the currency it's responsible for. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using Sterling. And if it did, the BoE would act accordingly, in the best interests of the currency. Note that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man aren't a part of the UK, but they use Sterling as their currency. A difference in scale, sure, but an indication that those who say "Westminster wouldn't allow it" aren't really being honest. Further to that, independent Ireland was in monetary union with the UK currency for many years. The same applies to independent Australia etc etc.
I acknowlede that international economics is a complex issue, but the challenges faced are in no way prohibitive. Anyone who tries to claim that there are simply no workable solutions is pedalling fear. Yes, it's true that borrowing powers might be restricted, for a while, whilst the new statement beds in. But the current Holyrood government (responsible for Health and Education spending, and more besides) currently balances the books without borrowing a penny.
"...a watered down version of what we already have now"?
It won't surprise you to hear that I don't agree. But if I did, I'd be asking myself this: If it's not that much different from what we've got now, why not take the opportunity? If it's not such a change after all, why the fervent opposition to it? Is this as good as it gets? What is there post-Yes 2014 to be truly afraid of that would definitely be avoided by not allowing Scotland to govern itself?
We can't always have everything you want at once. But sometimes you can have a good thing now, and work towards more good things in the future. And I think acknowledging that fact is more a case of sensible pragmatism and repair government than "stupid" "u-turn".
Now, I don't deny that answering 'What if's' and 'Aye, but's' is an important part of presenting the Yes point of view. But let's not make this thread only about that. Again, I invite the Better Together or United with Labour side to put forward a positive case for voting No in 2014.
#46 - anon replied on the 10/07/2013 11:44:15 AM
I'm afraid I disagree with you when you say that being a republic has nothing to do with independence. We would still be subjects, would still have to pay for the upkeep of a distant wealthy family, would still have an established religion, would still have to sacrifice income from the 'crown estates'.
This doesn't sound like independence to me. This sounds like a continuation of an archaic and discredited system.
"The Bank of England does. And, despite it's name, that's a UK institution, which acts in the best interests of the currency it's responsible for."
Yes, the bank of England may set rates etc, however, as we have seen in the EU crisis it simply doesn't work having countries operating different economic models under a single currency. If England was booming and Scotland was in the doledrums, why would the BOE want to deflate the currency to help Scotland? If this single currency were to work, Scotland would have to mirror all of England's financial policies and that seems to strip out a lot of the benefits of independence to me.
On a similar note, most people accept that Scotland would lower corporation tax and roll back worker rights in order to become more internationally competitive. Is this what you want? A race to the bottom and courting large multinationals with 3% tax rates like Ireland?That's not the economy I want for Scotland - its all that is wrong with neo-liberal economic policies if you ask me.
"It won't surprise you to hear that I don't agree. But if I did, I'd be asking myself this: If it's not that much different from what we've got now, why not take the opportunity? If it's not such a change after all, why the fervent opposition to it?"
I could turn this round very easily and ask - for such little benefit (and more likely pain) why bother?
I have always been very happy to have two identities. I've never once felt that being British has diminished or overpowered my Scottishness.
We have the best of both worlds - why ruin it?
I'm not saying that we don't need to rebalance the UK economy (London is definitely too powerful), but look around Glasgow. Its a great city and the transformation over the past 20 years has been incredible. We can work within the existing framework rather than destroying a great relationship.
#47 - attendee replied on the 10/07/2013 3:53:27 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree about the level of independence a country can have under a monarchy, but Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc aren't inherently held back by it. Not sure about the "distant" thing. That might apply to Australia or NZ, but the Queen has an official Royal residence in Scotland, and three of her four private residences are in Scotland. However archaic and discredited anyone feels the monarchy to be, a simple fact remains: republicanism is not an issue that is being voted on in 2014. Neither a Yes nor a No will get you close to your goal.
"Scotland would still have an established religion."
No.
The Church of Scotland is recognized as the national church of Scotland, but is not a state church and thus differs from the Church of England. Its constitution, which is recognised by acts of the British Parliament, gives it complete independence from the state in spiritual matters.
The Church of Scotland has disclaimed recognition as an "established", state-controlled church since 1638. The Church of Scotland Act 1921 formally recognised the Kirk's independence from the state.
There are no proposals I know of that would significantly alter that situation in an independent Scotland.
"as we have seen in the EU crisis it simply doesn't work having countries operating different economic models under a single currency"
The Euro? I'm not really sure you can compare it directly to the proposed Sterling zone due to the disparity in size and political setup. But, for what it's worth, the UK had (is still having?) an economic crisis, too. And plenty of countries within the Eurozone are recovering better than the UK is. "Why would the BOE want to deflate the currency to help Scotland?" For the reasons stated - i.e. the BoE operates in the best interests of the currency. "Scotland would have to mirror all of England's financial policies". Why? It doesn't now. And I don't see why that would be the case in the future. "Scotland would lower corporation tax and roll back worker rights...". Why would you claim that the two are intrinsically linked when they are not? Where are these suggestions about worker's rights coming from?
You turned my question around. But you didn't answer it. What you did do was add in a dose of fear by claiming "likely pain", without any real explanation to back it up. I find that telling.
Identites are a personal thing (I have a range of them, depending on the circumstance), so I'll tread carefully. It's not about being more or less Scottish at the expense of Britishness - it's not a zero sum game. You can be as Scottish or British as you like and you'd be no less British in an independent Scotland. To be clear: I've no interest playing up to politics based on ethnic or cultural nationalism. That's a game best left to the more desperate ends of the spectrum.
The best of both worlds? Really? Wouldn't it be better to co-exist as friendly siblings rather than unequal partners? Glasgow's progress is heartening, but it's not enough. I agree about London having too much influence - there can be no doubt that Westminster has more time and money for Chelsea than Calton. But the necessary significant change will not be forthcoming from within - turkeys don't vote for Christmas - we must take control of our own future.
#48 - Meadowpark Resident replied on the 11/07/2013 9:18:28 AM
I am very impressed by the standard of debate on this subject on Dennistoun Online having only looked at it just to see if the meeting of YesProvan was mentioned.
It is very clear of the significant amount of information mentioned for a positive Yes vote, but there seems to be no positive vision of a No vote as there are no valid reasons are mentioned above.
If I was taking this debate alone I would vote YES because I believe that there is a far greater deal of certainty with a NO vote i.e. that things will get worse as they have been doing in the UK for the last goodness knows how many years.
To take one example from yesterday the privatisation of the Royal Mail which all the polls show the public do not want and would not be happening in Scotland if the Scottish Govt actually had control over it.
To mention something from above about workers rights being compromised in an independent Scotland, has this not all ready happened and is continuing to happen in the UK (or have I been living on another planet for the last 30 years?).
At least with a YES vote Scotland might actually get the Government it actually votes for that has control over all its own affairs. To take two recent examples... 1. Of Scotlands own MPs 11 voted for the cuts in benefits whilst 46 voted against. It is being imposed nonetheless. 2. Of Scotlands own MPs that you voted for, 4 voted for the bedroom tax, 41 against. It is being imposed nonetheless.
Interestingly 52% of small to medium sized businesses polled were in favour of independence too.
I don't want the certainty of being on a slowly sinking ship no matter what Scotland votes for. I want to be on a ship (or an independent Scotland) when we might actually have a chance of influencing the steering unlike the status quo. Although the Scottish Parliament has helped in some ways it has also emphasized what powers it does not have.
For example would the Scottish Government position a nuclear deterent, if it decided to have one, around 30 miles from the country’s largest city? I think not.
I continue to look forward to receiving a positive reason to vote NO. My heart says NO as it still wants to believe in a vision of all the peoples of the UK working together for a better future, but that is not based on fact or the experience of the last 30 years, and also my study of history before that.
My head says YES. All the facts, figures, evidence, etc. point that way.
I will however decide for sure nearer the time although I definitely know which way I’m leaning.
#49 - Wellpark replied on the 17/07/2013 2:26:50 PM
See today in the news we have the revelation under the Freedom of Information law that Alex Salmond has been ignored by Scotland's leading sport stars after sending a string of // letters and never received a single response .Seems they are like the majority in the country ready to vote a resounding NO ,hopefully .
#50 - attendee replied on the 21/07/2013 9:19:24 PM
Politician in 'writing congratulatory letters' shocker!
//
In the spirit of the Freedom of Information law that Wellpark mentions...
-The letters released under FoI can be viewed here: imgur.com/a/AbUiV
-The Daily Record story that Wellpark has read is here: is.gd/as_letters_foi
Judge for yourself whether you think the letters are "grovelling" or just 'supportive'. Were they "ignored"? Or did they not really warrant a reply? Is this "string of letters" really a revelation? Or just the normal correspondence of a First Minister?
I feel the need to repeat something I've said further up the page - There will be more of this kind of thing over the coming weeks and months. Keep an eye out for it and make a mental note of who is coming out with these claims and ask yourself this: what's the actual situation here, why are they making such a big deal of it, and is it even something that forms part of the independence debate?
#51 - Alan replied on the 22/07/2013 9:31:51 AM
My family is Scottish from the time of Jane Beaufort queen consort to James first of Scotland ,who was a family ancestor,the family has deep roots in Duff town ,anyway not that that matters a great deal but it gives ,i think ,some right to express an opinion.I wont be voting as I am not resident in Scotland ,even although I was born there, so if I was voting I would say "no" stay with the known... ..
#52 - Wellpark replied on the 22/07/2013 11:11:11 AM
Think it's time to draw a line under this subject as it seems to have turned into a tit for tat , " my dads bigger than your dad " platform for posters .Surely members wont be influenced by what is said on a very small forum like this , though there may be one or two ? Most folks will be aware of what's at stake and will have already decided on which way they will vote .No doubt we will be bombarded through the media in coming months with pros and cons , numerous debates etc.till we are sick to the back teeth of it .It wont influence me one iota as I shall vote a resounding no based on my own thoughts on the matter observed over many years and watching the people / parties /sides involved .All welcome to their own opinion and chance to express this at the ballot box when the time comes .
#53 - Ex Dennistoun replied on the 22/07/2013 2:28:21 PM
Well said, Wellpark, I'm with you. and am beginning to wish I had never started this thread and the time to draw a line under it is overdue.
#54 - A salmon replied on the 22/07/2013 4:23:14 PM
I think this thread has encouraged debate. I also think it has encouraged interested people to seek out further information on the subject. I don't see why the thread should close at all; there's still much to be debated and if this forum isn't one of the best local places to do so where is?
#55 - Suz replied on the 22/07/2013 4:24:27 PM
Wellpark and Ex-Dennistoun, I didn't read this thread as being "tit for tat" at all. I've read some excellent reasons for independence. The points about the media's Project Fear (that's what the Better Together camp are calling it) are valid and their claims need to be openly challenged.
What I haven't seen - anywhere - are valid or coherent reasons for staying in the union. I think any right-minded person would give these a fair hearing.
What I can't stand to listen to are people saying "ooh, it'll all go wrong, you'll regret it" without justifying their claims.
#56 - anon replied on the 22/07/2013 6:20:03 PM
The biggest problem I have with Nats at the moment is that they accuse unionists of 'fearmongering' if  any concerns are raised about independence. This is completely absurd. Independence is, almost by definition a massive risk. Nationalists would like to have you believe that its all upside. Of course, it could be this way. But, they quickly and aggressively rubbish anyone who does raise the legitimate claim that it could be a total disaster.
You are not 'talking down Scotland' by saying that we may struggle. It is a very real possibility that Nationalists should at least have the courtesy to acknowledge.
I'm fed up feeling like a 'traitor' or 'anti-Scottish' because I do not accept the SNP's massively over-realistic and poorly evidenced claims.
#57 - wellpark replied on the 22/07/2013 7:01:12 PM
There are many points that can not be debated or presented on this forum due to rules and regulations , rightly so .For example , I posted // and it was rejected / censured .There are many other points that could be raised elsewhere but this forum cant be used as a platform for such debate .The original poster is in agreement with those sentiments I believe .
#58 - Suz replied on the 23/07/2013 12:08:50 AM
"anon" at 6:20pm:
The accusations of 'fearmongering' are valid - as I said earlier, it is the Better Together campaign themselves who refer to their negative news stories as "Project Fear". You can verify this for yourself with a google search.
I haven't heard anyone who supports independence claim that everything will be all rosy in the garden - what I and others seek is the right to fail or succeed on our own terms, and not those of a Westminster govt with little interest in or understanding of Scotland.
As a final point, I would not describe myself as a nationalist. I have no particular interest in the SNP, though I am hugely supportive many of the Scottish Govt's social policies. And what people seem to forget is that this isn't really about the SNP. Yes, it suits the establishment media to conflate the two, because then Salmond can become the bogeyman breaking up Britain, but in an independent Scotland, we will be able to elect who we choose using a fairer voting system than FPTP. Sadly, the other parties haven't engaged in any discussion about their place in an independent Scotland - presumably because their wages are paid in London and the interests they serve are based there.
#59 - John says yes replied on the 23/07/2013 8:45:07 AM
So, Alan "stay with the known". Yes, what a great attitude for humanity. If we had always stayed with the known we wouldn't have electricity, medicine, computers, the National Health Service, etc. etc. On the plus side we'd still fear visits from demons at night, witches, and send kids up chimneys.
#60 - anon replied on the 23/07/2013 11:26:32 AM
Suz, with regards to your comment:
"what I and others seek is the right to fail or succeed on our own terms, and not those of a Westminster govt with little interest in or understanding of Scotland."
This is a common line from Nats and it would give the impression that Scots somehow have less of a voice than others in the UK. This is nonsense. We have more representation than other parts of the country (i.e. we have seats in parliament and the Scottish parliament). Just because you don't like all the policies all the time isn't a good reason to split off.
Where does this kind of atomisation end? I see Shetland and the Orkneys are threatening to declare independence from a separated Scotland should that happen. What next, Glaswegians asking why they should subsidise air and ferry transport for residents of the Highlands and Islands??
And, forget about the generous welfare provisions Scotland currently enjoys (that the RUK do not). They will be long gone post-independence.
#61 - attendee replied on the 23/07/2013 6:41:10 PM
There is ample explanation further up this page explaining why those using "Nats" as a shorthand in the way that anon has at 11:26 are fundamentally misrepresenting what this debate is about. Whether that's intentional or not is unclear.
Less of a voice than others in the UK? Perhaps not "less". But certainly 'different'. Scotland has it's own specific priorities not shared by much of the rest of the UK. The devolved parliament has allowed Scotland to take responsibility for the NHS and Education. And that has meant the avoidance of the tuition fees imposed on students south of the border. Similarly, the creeping privatisation of NHS England hasn't been replicated by NHS Scotland. But when it comes to welfare, even though a majority of Scottish MPs and MSPs voted against it, and even though it affects Glasgow and other Scottish city regions more acutely than almost any other part of this island, the 'bedroom tax' is nevertheless being imposed by a parliament with a disproportionate focus on the South East.
But It's not just about representation within the UK, it's as much about representation outwith the UK.
And Scotland's voice in international affairs is dominated by a London-centric, backward-looking attitude steeped in outdated views about power and influence.
The Scottish people don't want a nuclear deterrent, but it was imposed without consultation. Scotland's fishing industries, for example, would be much better represented in an EU scenario by a Holyrood government representing an independent Scotland than a Westminster government that doesn't properly understand or value regional industries and has The City as it's first and foremost priority. Whiskey is a £3bn industry - William Hague tried to use the withdrawal of government promotion of the Scottish industry overseas as a threat - the truth is that the UK charges Scottish Development for promotional events - the twist is that UK trade groups get to use the Embassies for free. The list of other, similar, examples is long.
"I see Shetland and the Orkneys are threatening to declare independence from a separated Scotland..."
Do you really? I'd love to see the source for this news of an uprising. But, should there be a credible movement for the full independence of Orkney/Shetland, based upon the settled will of the people of Orkney/Shetland then there will no doubt be a referendum on the matter. In reality, I expect there is supposed to be some sort of subtext about oil behind this particular flight of fancy. But before anyone attempts to put that forward more explicitly, I suggest they do some proper basic research into the matter rather than throw it out there as another unsubstantiated 'Aye, but...' to, inevitably, be refuted.
"...forget about the generous welfare provisions Scotland currently enjoys (that the RUK do not). They will be long gone post-independence."
What information is this claim based on? If you make grand sweeping assertions such as that, you need to be prepared to back them up.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but an opinion alone isn't fact, and opinions without evidence are always open to being challenged and refuted.
The truth is that Scotland is well placed to pay it's own way, based on the natural and human resources it possess. I could post endless facts and links to the McCrone report, GERS figures, etc, etc, and may end up doing so if the unfounded doom and gloom claims continue. In the meantime, ask yourself this: if numerous countries with populations of a similar size and education (yet with significantly fewer natural resources) can thrive... why not Scotland? Don't let anyone tell you we're too poor, too wee and too stupid. We're not. The evidence shows us we're not. So what makes the big "claim that it could be a total disaster" so "legitimate"?
I know of no-one planning to vote Yes who is selling a vision of milk and honey. Post-Yes, we're going to be instantly transformed into a utopia. There are serious struggles ahead. But they're struggles that can be overcome. And much progress that can and should be achieved just isn't happening within our current political union.
Alan said "stay with the known", and 'John says yes' pointed out the flaw in using that as a starting point for making an by decision. And he's right. Why settle for 'your lot in life'? Why not dare to dream? On a more practical level, the UK doesn't offer you the safe bet of a default future free from risk. The Tories are dancing to the UKIP tune and are threatening our relationship with the EU. UK financial stability has been undermined by the removal of the UK triple A credit rating. The Westminster gov and Labour opposition are both committed to a policy of cutting their way to growth, the result is the UK being outpaced by other countries attempting to recover from a big financial downturn. That very downturn affected the UK more seriously than many countries because of an imbalance in industries and an overcooked housing market (typical front page news on the Daily Mail, the pulse of middle England: 'Hooray, housing is more expensive'. And that's supposed to be a 'recovery'?). It's worth following the money, though. Earlier this year it was reported that the value of the homes in the ten richest London boroughs could buy all of the home in Wales, Scotland and Ulster. And the residents of Elmbridge in Surrey apparently pay more tax into HM Revenue & Customs than all of Glasgow or Cardiff. How can that be? They're not that much cleverer. They don't work that much harder. But they're the beneficiaries of the UK becoming the 4th most unequal industrialised nation in the world. With facts like that, how can there be any truth in the claim that we're Better Together?
#62 - Suz replied on the 23/07/2013 6:42:18 PM
"Anon": It's not that I disagree with a few Westminster policies. Their whole ideology stinks. They reward the rich and persecute the working poor and for as long as we have a network of old Etonians in charge I can't see that changing. I don't want to live in that kind of society and I don't believe that Scottish people do either.
Bowled over by all your positive reasons for staying in the union, btw - keep them coming ;)
#63 - anon replied on the 23/07/2013 9:19:27 PM
Reasons for staying in the union?
1. If you look at Scotland's fortunes over the course of the union rather than a myopic 30 years (where the de-industrialisation cycle has disproportionately harmed us) Scotland has benefited incredibly. Look at the architecture of Edinburgh, the engineering of Glasgow, the trade in Dundee. Under the union we have produced more inventions per head than any country in the world
2. Under the union we have begun the process of rebalancing the economy towards renewables and other hi-growth hi-end sectors (bio-tech, luxury food & drink, advanced materials etc). Glasgow is going through something of a mini-boom at the moment in terms of these businesses with TIC and ITREZ. The RUK would chop their arm off for a piece of this.
3. Under the union Glasgow has emerged as a key financial sector. In a 2011 report it was listed in the Global Financial Centres Index top 10. Yes, London is a black hole in terms of finance, but this would be the same regardless of an independent Scotland or not.
4. Glasgow is one of the worlds top conference locations. This is a major economic coup. Glasgow was 27th in the world beating Melbourne, Toronto, Boston, Bangkok, Brussels and Dublin. We are only 2 places behind London which is frankly incredible. Aside from Edinburgh, no other uk city makes the top 100.
5. Glasgow attracts amongst the highest inward investment of any city in the UK. It really is an economic powerhouse. You may look around and see the scars of poverty, but things are getting better at an incredible rate - look at the new masterplan for sighthill, Laurieston, the Commonwealth Games site. The reason parts of GLasgow are still so bad, is that it had much further to recover from than other cities.
6. The commonwealth games. We can still attract big events like this under the union.
So, accuse me of sticking with the status quo....but it ain't all that bad when you actually go beyond the separatist bluster. We're doing well as a country.
Yes, we may be able to do even better under independence. But the macro-economic dynamics and unknowns mean this is highly unlikely. We would have to be very fortunate for the stars to align in our favour.
There is a confidence about our country just now and i;m more than satisfied with how things are going. Want to make things even better?Then do so with teh ample powers and opportunities that are already there.
#64 - average jimmy replied on the 24/07/2013 5:35:25 PM
If we gain independance will i still have to buy a television liscence to watch parochial Easties . Is my benefits guaranteed and index linked . And in reference to the article in the son will Alex Salmond post out my share of the oil revinue bonus , three hundred thousand pounds for each and every skull in Scotland ; i think they may have to shut up shop in England as everybody will obviously move up here , happy days as i can let out that pesky extra bedroom at the back .
#65 - Suz replied on the 24/07/2013 11:42:40 PM
"Anon", I'm not sure that the union can take sole credit for any of those great Scottish achievements. Devolution has given us a good amount of freedom - and confidence as you say - from SE England's apron strings. We could harness this and be an even more amazing country with independence. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :)
#66 - attendee replied on the 25/07/2013 8:52:28 AM
Quite right, Suz.
1. Scotland's education has a long and distinguished history, quite apart from other parts of the UK, which goes toward explaining why distinguished levels of innovation, engineering and architecture in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee can hardly be claimed as direct products of the UK governance.
2. The potential successes of ITREZ and the TIC, based on a partnership driven by Scottish Enterprise and the University of Strathclyde are to be welcomed.
3. "Under the union Glasgow has emerged as a key financial sector." Under devolution Glasgow has emerged as a key financial sector. Stalemate.
4. No idea how independence would tarnish Glasgow or Edinburgh's reputation for holding conferences.
5. To use anon's own words, "The reason parts of Glasgow are still so bad, is that it had much further to recover from than other cities"... because the "de-industrialisation cycle has disproportionately harmed us". And who has been chiefly in charge of overseeing that de-industrialisation cycle?
6. The Commonwealth games. No idea what membership of the Union has to do with anything. Non-UK cities of the Commonwealth have had their fair share of the games. Aus, Canada and NZ have been awarded them, 5, 4, and 3 times, with England, Scotland and Wales hosting 2, 3, and 1 times each. Being outwith the UK wasn't an impediment to Jamaica, Malaysia, and India being hosts. Note that the 2014 games is being underwritten, 80:20 by the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council. London 2012 was more like a split of 70:20:30 between UK central government:National Lottery:London itself. Another UK dividend in favour of London.
Not sure if it's the same anon throughout, but the most recent one at least admits that "we may be able to do even better under independence". I'll take that, seeing as I can't se any reason why the alignment of the stars(!) or unknown macro-economic dynamics will be affect us more negatively over time as an independent state than than they already presently do.
Yes, potential short term risks exist. But potential medium and long benefits exist, too. That applies to both sides of the argument.
Small countries are no more immune to financial risk than large countries. But Ireland and Iceland appear to be taking steps toward recovery. Spain, Italy, and the UK are still struggling to stabilise. Perhaps smaller countries have more flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances than larger ones? The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden have all come through the recent financial crisis in better shape than many larger countries. Risk is ever-present for the large and the small, but it can be minimised with good governance. I don't believe the tools presently available to the Holyrood government are sufficient or ample. And, based on the historical evidence available, I don't think the Westminster government being the custodian of those tools is in Scotland's best interests.
#67 - Saor Asda replied on the 3/08/2013 8:37:14 PM
Why anyone in Scotland wants to be tied to a UK government which continually refuses to consider you exist is crazy.
Why don't people want to take control of their own future? A 'No' vote means there is no more hope of control of finances, jobs, development, etc.
To remain in the UK would be a shameful missed opportunity which future generations would be ashamed of.
We must vote Yes.
#68 - Rich replied on the 27/08/2013 10:04:20 AM
Scots only elect 4% of the UK parliament. Is that going to give a proper representation of the needs and wants of scots? 94% of the scots parliament rejected the Bedroom Tax but could not stop it. Democracy? Only by voting yes can Scotland be truly represented.(scots only elect 1% women to the uk parliament, Some countries have a 50% representation of women, coincidence that they have amongst the best ranked quality of life?). (the Scottish parliament has tried to address this inequality and has approx. 30% women represented but without the benefit of independence it will make little impact on the problems facing Scotland.)Many of the posts earlier are on specific aspects of governance and deserve to be discussed but are not the fundamental point. Personally I want Scots to be fully represented so I will be voting yes.
#69 - Picasso replied on the 28/08/2013 4:47:02 PM
Ill be voting yes as i want my vote to represent who runs the country. How many people in scotland voted conservatives? Yet they are the ones running the country.
Yes for politics to be brought closer to home and to more closely reflect who we actually vote for. Simples
You can reply to the post Independence by completing the form. No registration required. The forum is moderated in order that messages adhere to the editorial integrity of Dennistoun Online. Please read the guidelines before you submit to the forum. If you believe that we have missed a message that contravenes these guidelines then please contact us and we will either edit or remove it.
