Mike at Taree

I vote Barnsley for the Capital.

Amazulu

There's a lot of investment going into the North Sea at the moment but it's being done to wring the last drops out. Scotland can't bank on it for future prosperity

The loss of the sub base at Faslane will affect 1000's of jobs and they won't build any nuclear power stations

The state is the biggest employer in Scotland. The private sector is not that big - who's going to pay for all those civil servants

That free uni education, increased pensions that they want is going to cost a fortune

Good luck to them and it may work but Salmond is not the man for the job - he's a hard-left socialist with an axe to grind

scottishcelts

As soon as Scotland gets independence, first thing they do is vote Salmond out. Can't think for the life of me why some people in Scotland cannot see this.

Amazulu

The problem with guys like Salmond, Farage etc is that they are one-trick ponies. They have this one burning issue: independence, get out of the EU etc - and that's it. They haven't thought through the other policies that they will need to implement, and they are usually a mess

paulry

I agree. Farage's UKIP could never get sufficient votes to form a government on their own but I wouldn't be surprised if they become part of the next coalition government. On Scotland, I could be wrong but I believe the Scots will vote to remain a part of the UK. I hope so, we are all British and are stronger together.

OzTennis

So, Cameron 'allowed' a referendum and he did so because North Sea oil revenues are declining? There's a bit more to it than that.

It is on the agenda because the SNP won the last elections to the Scottish Parliament and they campaigned largely on the independence issue. Technically with their absolute majority at Holyrood they could have just declared independence but have always said it is such an important issue that it needs to be the subject of a referendum.

I think Cameron consented to a referendum for a multitude of reasons - uppermost among these is to deny it would increase sympathy for the Yes campaign and he is also aware of the polls which suggest the No campaign will get more votes. The Scottish and UK Conservatives also now favour giving Holyrood more powers but not full independence. I reckon they think No will win the day now let's sit down and negotiate more tax raising powers and the like for Edinburgh.

One of the interesting quirks in the referendum is who is qualified to vote. The 800,000 people who were born in Scotland but live in other parts of the UK don't get to vote; the 400,000 people born outside Scotland but who live in Scotland (e.g. me) do get to vote. Our neighbour's children live in England - no vote; their relatives live in Canada and Australia - do get a vote. The franchise for the referendum is the same as that for Scottish Parliament and council elections - i.e. those residing in Scotland.

I've yet to make up my mind on the issue but have an inkling which way I'll lean. There's plenty of time until 18th September 2014 to consider all the pro's and con's. One thing which is coming out of the woodwork regularly is discovering things that will and won't happen with independence which Salmond hadn't originally factored in - EU membership, currency, defence implications etc, etc.

FWIW I reckon if/when the No vote wins it is more about the fears about some of the consequences of independence rather than the Union is such a brilliant thing to be part of.

not2old

funny about separation & going it alone

The UK is part & parcel of the EU with many of the folks in the UK whinging about 'get us out of it' and now with the upcoming referendum for Scotland independence, on a yes vote it would likely be out of the EU, except Salmond wants to negotiate to have Scotland in the UK.

On a yes vote Salmond would have his 5 minutes of glory up to the point he resigns

GarryP

True enough. Cameron also wants a yes vote because it gets rid of a tranche of Labour MPs - making his life easier. This is probably the prime reason.

If you look at it right, Cameron can't lose:

• If the vote is yes, he swiftly kicks out the scottish MP's, 'negotiates' the terms such that scotland gets the 90% of the oil fields it craves, but also gets a load of debt, no direct access to the UK market, and obviously none of the delusional stuff Salmond thinks he's entitled to. The treasury models are good enough that they can design it so scotland is guaranteed to fail. Salmond is so delusional he won't spot it. The con of the oil revenues lose falls away over time.
  
  Then, after getting back into Parliament, and 5 years later as scotland fails, he gets to look good taking them back into the UK on wales-type terms. Cue another election win.
• If the vote is no (as seems certain) then the SNP is dead, Cameron looks to be a winning leader (helping at the elections) and although appearing superficially magnanimous can wind back the handouts going north.

Of the two alternatives, the first is preferred by Cameron AND Salmond, which is the only reason it's on the table, but either can be made to work for Cameron. His real issue is the EU and the promised referendum; and doing a two step with the scottish referendum. He needs the UK people to say "YES", but they would say "NO" at present - but if he can include the scots then that bolsters the yes vote, particularly if done at the same time as the scottish referendum.

OzTennis

A Conservative and UNIONIST party wants a Yes vote?? That's akin to the SNP campaigning for dissolving the Scottish parliament and cancelling the referendum. It's a democracy so Cameron has little choice but to accede to the wishes of the majority party on the referendum.

What I will say is that he will then keep his fingers crossed for No and he'll encourage the Tory press to scaremonger. Almost every day in Scotland the papers have a headline like - we'll have to give up the pound, or the nuclear subs at Faslane will be removed or we'll have a smaller army or (yesterday) all prices will go up. There's an element of truth in all these things but they are more complex issues than the headline writers make out.

TheCreature

SNP should have allowed the English to vote... independence would have been a shoe in.

scottishcelts

Bollocks and you know it.

TheCreature

I wonder if that would rattle your cage. I guess it depends how the question was phrased...

1) Should we keep the Union.
2) Should we get shut of those skirt wearing, blue faced whingers, who hate our guts.

It would be close.

GarryP

You mean 'journalists' oversimplify complex matters and ignore the full dynamics of the matter for a trite narrative?

Perish the thought.

Reality is, going from being a subregion of a successful country to a small country in it's own right requires a whole flock of ducks to be placed in a row... just so that when the stuff you didn't think about crops up, you have the bandwidth to cope. The SNPs ducks have all flown south for the climate, I don't think there is one thing they have realistically sorted out - yet they keep claiming that they will all magically fly back and line up in single file at Salmond's whim. The newspapers don't really have to work at finding things that are going to go wrong - the problem is finding something you think will go right (have you seen one logically sensible example?).

Cameron and Salmond aren't happy about that, since they have the same approximate aim (just Cameron has a parallel agenda) - so expect it to get slathered in emotion. Salmond will make appeals to fictional hollywood films and Cameron will play his part by getting a minister or two to 'accidentally' diss the haggis eaters.

Hell, I expect the Beeb will be told to run a Braveheart marathon just before the vote to push an extra 5% across the line. The only real question is will people get wise to it.

scrubbedexpat098

Rebuild Hadrians wall and be done with it, what have the sweaties ever done for us?

I seriously think there'd be no benifits whatsoever, but independance should be total if that's what they want, no half measures.

scottishcelts

No.2