A train service between London or Edinburgh, privately run or nationalised, would simply be a joint venture between 2 states, as is EuroTunnel.. no problem there.

Sovereignty is the key here. Only Westminster has the sovereign powers to sign and cancel treaties, to stay in or leave the EU, NATO, the UN. In that sense independence is crucial to the ideology of the SNP, as their main objection to the union is the location of sovereignty.

” . . with a storm already brewing over the significant question of the crown estates which are key to the vision of renewable wealth, and over corporation tax, which Salmond wants to cut (he is not the socialist he once was).”

The SNP’s proposed cut in corporation tax for companies operating in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with whether Alex Salmond is left-wing or right-wing. The nationalist motivation is to counter the attraction of Ireland’s relatively low corporation tax rate so as to attract more inward investment to Scotland – and re-establish that failed vision of Silicon Glenn among other objectives.

What worries the Scots is that Scotland’s population was in steep decline until 2002 and a recurring nightmare is that it will revert to that trend unless the fundamentals of the Scottish economy are dramatically improved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland

That is why the failures of the major Scottish banks RBS and HBOS was such a blow.

Why do readers suppose that Robert Crawford, a SNP candidate for the Westminster Parliament and previously head of Scottish Enterprise when he was the the highest paid public servant in Britain, has become the chief operating officer of the South East England Development Association?

“Former Scottish Enterprise chief Robert Crawford is to lead the economic development of the south-east of England. Former Scottish Enterprise chief Robert Crawford is to lead the economic development of the south-east of England. Dr Crawford, a prospective SNP candidate for Westminster, has quit his senior post at Glasgow Caledonian University to take up the new challenge, the university said yesterday. The 57-year-old has been appointed chief operating officer of Seeda, the South East of England Development Agency.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/snp-candidate-crawford-to-take-up-post-at-seeda-1.883272

C’mon. Wake up, everyone.

@3 Bob B

Like all your other over long, derivative cut and paste posts, the above proves nothing, and does nothing but take up space, annoy other people posting, and divert threads.

The actions of one individual have nothing relevant to say about the issue as a whole, however much of a “bad thing” the particular situation might be. Similarly, the “Scottish” banks are international, and it makes no more sense talking about their nationality than it does talking about NatWest being English.

Your perverse determination to post reams of pointless “proofs” of your point, (which are of course nothing of the sort) only help demonstrate you are a mono-maniacal bigot, with a bee in his bonnet.

Why Sunny and/or other site mods let you away with it I don’t know; charitably they are asleep of diverted by something else.

@Galen

Your repetitive personal abuse of myself is thoroughly – and boringly – familiar but you recurringly fail to respond to the argument made – because you manifestly lack the intellectual ability to do so and so revert to ad hominem abuse. I post the links that I do in order to robustly document with impeccable sources what I’m posting.

I recall some heated debates online with Robert Crawford about a decade or so ago over whether Britain should join the Euro. He thought it was crucial that Britain should join and I disagreed. He became abusive too – it must be a national trait. Does anyone now seriously think we should have joined the Euro – apart from loonie LibDems, that is?

I’ll let you into a little personal secret: as a student fresher at my uni more than half a century ago, I was a guest speaker in one of those famous regular debates in the Glasgow Students Union. The debating style is familiar from then – and I learned the robust arts of public speaking at Marble Arch in London before I ever went to uni.

“The debate around Scottish independence often seems to miss something: there is no such thing as an independent country.”

That’s going to make the referendum question a bugger to write.

Here we go again. Adam Ramsay makes an interesting post about how potential independence would be complicated and cites trains as an example. Bob B makes no mention of anything that Adam speaks about in his post but demands we debate demography in response. In what way exactly is someone who used to head the Scottish Enterprise agency moving to head the South East of England Development Agency relevant to this thread? How is it relevant that he might be a prospective SNP candidate?

We are treated to the obligatory mention of the ‘ Scottish banks ‘ RBS and HBOS. Yes H as in Halifax. Not national and international banks, but uniquely Scottish. No mention that they were regulated in London.

In Bob B world refusing to debate his points rather than the subject of the thread is avoiding the subject. I have never been a nationalist and have always been hostile to the small mindedness of nationalism. However, it is the likes of Bob B who turn people into nationalists.

@7: “Bob B makes no mention of anything that Adam speaks about in his post but demands we debate demography in response.”

That’s another of your blatant lies. I began @3 by DIRECTLY quoting Adam Ramsay on Alex Salmond’s plan to cut corporation tax for companies registed in Scotland if the SNP government in Scotland gets greater fiscal powers.

I didn’t demand we debate “demography” but explored @3 why an SNP government might want to cut corporation tax.

Richard W @ 7

This is the same for me. I was never a Nationalist, not really, but if the chioce is between the SNP and the independence full monty and the ‘strutting little Englanders’ of Bob et al, then give me the former every time.

@9: “the ‘strutting little Englanders’ of Bob et al, then give me the former every time.”

Anything, anything to evade the actual analysis @3 – and I’ve already said that I would vote for Scottish independence. I mean, why should the rest of us go on propping up a nation of drunks?

These are direct quotes from the Scottish government:

The country drank nearly 50 million litres of pure alcohol in 2007 – equivalent to 11.8 litres per capita for every person aged over 16. This is considerably higher than England and Wales, which had an average consumption figure of 9.9 litres per capita.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/02/20161722

Scotland’s drink problem is significantly worse than the rest of the UK. Figures suggest that as many as half of men and a third of women in Scotland regularly drink above sensible drinking guidelines.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/Alcohol

@5 Bob B.

When you actually manage to make a coherent argument Bob, the folks in here will tell you… assuming they haven’t been struck dumb with surprise that you’ve finally managed it.

As Richard notes at 7, your deviation onto the case of one individual adds nothing to the points in the OP. You don’t “post the links that I do in order to robustly document with impeccable sources what I’m posting” you cherry pick things that are sometimes relevant, and sometimes not… more often the latter. They are hardly impeccable, and even if correct are only one side of the argument…. yours.

Your points about demography and the “nationality” of the banks were off topic; no surprise there as you did the same on the other thread with respect to sectarianism and the Darien project… even going back to Hadrian to “prove” your nonsensical point.

Even your attempt to address one point in the OP is wide of the mark, as you specifically link it to your hobby horse of the failure of Silicon Glen.. as if it were some knock out blow.. it isn’t, as it never is in your posts.

Can’t you please sod off and ramble somewhere else?

@11: “Can’t you please sod off and ramble somewhere else?”

I’m sure most readers are able to digest the analysis @3 about Salmond’s plans for a SNP government in Scotland to cut corporation tax for companies operating in Scotland – and also to question how come a SNP Parliamentary candidate and the previous chief of Scottish Enterprise – where he was famously the highest paid public servant in Britain – should now be running the South East England Development Association.

I’m sure most readers are able to digest the analysis @3 about Salmond’s plans for a SNP government in Scotland to cut corporation tax for companies operating in Scotland – and also to question how come a SNP Parliamentary candidate and the previous chief of Scottish Enterprise – where he was famously the highest paid public servant in Britain – should now be running the South East England Development Association.

There was an analysis @3? It read more like a plate of spaghetti being thrown at the wall in the hope that something sticks.
Instead of dancing round the houses, how about stating your position in clear plain English, rather than making faint allusions and muttered hints.

@ Bob

I’m sure they can too… you may even have a point in relation to some of it… the more general issue however is that neither issue adds anything to the general debate. Why can’t you see something that every reasonable person can?

You are diverting the thread with extraneous crap with no relevance to the points raised in the OP. Crawford is an individual… how could you think it IS relevant?

Similarly, the point about corporation tax is one fairly minor issue amongst many..not some touchstone that knocks out all others you plank.

bob B @ 10

Er, what analysis, Bob? What have you actually got to show?

What is exactly your problem? Are you suggesting that the English do not drink alcohol? Are you suggesting that England does not have an alcohol problem? What, Bob? All those figures mean nothing because averages in this context are absolutely meaningless.

Go to ANY centre of any town, city, village in the British Isles and you will find drunkenness and all the associated problems and what are we deduce from your figures? That the Scots are more drunk than their English counterparts? That they are more drunks in the streets on a Friday night?

If I was to show you two pictures of two town centres, you could pick out the Scots town by counting number of drunks? Yeah, welcome to ‘BoB B land’.

@10 Bob B

You wouldn’t know analysis if it jumped up and bit you in the arse m8. As Jim notes @15, what are you blithering on about with the stats on drink consumption? what is it actually meant to signify…? Exactly… it signifies nothing relevant to the OP, or to the general issue.

Thankfully you won’t get a vote on Scottish independence.. altho I’m guessing you don’t get one in England either, as mental defectives aren’t allowed to vote are they?

@13: “There was an analysis @3? It read more like a plate of spaghetti being thrown at the wall in the hope that something sticks.”

What matters is whether most English readers can duck under or between the repeating ad hominem abuse and follow the analysis about why Salmond wants to cut corporation tax for companies operating in Scotland and how that connects with how Robert Crawford, a SNP Parliamentary candidate and previously head of Scottish Enterprise, has come to be running the South East England Development Association.

Why not focus on that??

I’ve been debating online for 15 years. From that experience, I’ve long since learned of the incapacity of most Scots, drunk or sober, to engage in rational argument so they quickly switch to personal abuse instead. A decade back I had some famous interchanges, often with Scots, about whether Britain should join the Euro. I was called “insane” for saying it wasn’t a good idea. Evidently, not much has changed in debating capabilities since them.

@17 Bob

Because it isn’t sensible to focus on “your” pet topic, which nobody else is interested in, and isn’t relevant either to the OP. or the general issues under discussion.

Your broad brush dismissal of all Scots simply demonstrates your bigotry.

You don’t engage in debate.. that requires some rationality. Cutting corporation tax is (I say it again) one relatively minor issue. The linkage to Crawford as an individual is opaque to everyone but you.

It already seems you are nine sheets to the wind for all the sense you make Bob…. which as anyone who has read your mind farts here and elsewhere will recognise and accord all the merit they deserve.

Top article, cheers.

You’re right. The audit of the Crown Estates must be vast. Obviously, a referendum would be a heafty lifting exercise and one which the polls seem to show hesitence to but, yeah, there’s a load of wiggle room between independence and current status. Hmmm….

Cheers

Bob b ” I’ve already said that I would vote for Scottish independence. I mean, why should the rest of us go on propping up a nation of drunks?”

They don’t. They prop up the south east of England as I have already told you. Your crap statistics prove jack shit. They don’t include all the hidden subsidies for London and the South east.

You sound very much like Duncan Smith, the right wing tory who has spent his entire life sucking at the teat of govt either directly (in the Army) or indirectly as a salesman for a private arms manufacturer, or most recently as a politician. I bet he has never been on welfare in his life , but that does not mean he has not been living off the state.

The tory south of England is full of these jokers. The English tory farmer is a particular favourite of mine. Blocking up oil refiners , and motorways pleading poverty , sitting on their fantastically expensive tractor that is filled up with subsidised red diesel.

The Scots are not going to break away form the Union. Many people who voted for the SNP are former Labour voters who like Salmond. They like they way he runs things. They particularly like the way he stands up to the right wing Blair/America/torygraph bullshiters.

But that does not mean they will vote to leave the Union.

Bob B @ 17

connects with how Robert Crawford, a SNP Parliamentary candidate and previously head of Scottish Enterprise, has come to be running the South East England Development Association.

You keep bringing this up, Bob, but none of us are any the wiser. You clearly think this is an issue, yet you appear rather reluctant to explain what you attempting to say.

Can you explain what it is you are attempting to say here?

A man had a job and then he got another job, so far most of us get that, but what is the part of the sentence you have missed out?

@18: “Your broad brush dismissal of all Scots simply demonstrates your bigotry.”

I only need to read and report the mainstream history books on the Darien venture and the Caledonian Canal and to quote the Scottish government’s (very sensible) recurring concerns about the scale of alcohol abuse and drunkeness in Scotland. And to show those (illuminating) pics of the Orange Order’s impressive turnout in Glasgow last year to celebrate the protestant victory at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10493551

Bigotry? C’mon. Why did the Roman emperor Hadrian, on his visit to Brittania, order in the 2nd century the building of that 70 mile wall, which was the most heavily fortified border in the Roman empire?

There are challenging implications flowing from proposals for Scotland to levy a different rate of corporation tax from England and Wales. Why is Salmond so keen to do that? Here’s a clue:

In the negotiations last year to prop up Ireland’s economy by a massive Eurozone loan, Germany was pressing the Irish government to raise its rate of corporation tax to somewhere nearer the average rate in the Eurozone – and the Irish government fiercely resisted that pressure, in the event successfully:

“Ireland last night insisted it would resist any pressure to ditch its ultra-low corporate tax rate – which has persuaded major companies such as media group WWP to move their headquarters to Dublin – in return for an €80bn (£68bn) bailout by its European partners.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/15/ireland-corporate-tax-eu-bailout

I’m sure Alex Salmond took note of that. But how come the previous chief of Scottish Enterprise, a SNP Parliamentary candidate, took up a post to run the South East England Development Association?

Btw from this pic on the BBC website, I see that the (very many) blocks of flats in Glasgow have already been painted in camouflage colours::
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310

My God! Hadrian’s wall! Why didn’t I notice the significance sooner? Well everyone, Bob b’s right, tinfoil hats on………NOW!

Bob B “I’ve been debating online for 15 years. From that experience, I’ve long since learned of the incapacity of most Scots, drunk or sober, to engage in rational argument so they quickly switch to personal abuse instead. ”

Priceless. the troll thinks he is important.

@26: “Priceless. the troll thinks he is important.”

Thanks, Sally, more personal abuse but no rational discussion of the issues – and that about says it all.

Another perceptive quote from George Orwell with a contemporary resonance :

“Hence the Southerner goes north, at any rate for the first time, with the vague inferiority-complex of a civilized man venturing among savages, while the Yorkshireman, like the Scotchman, comes to London in the spirit of a barbarian out for loot.”
http://www.george-orwell.org/North_And_South/0.html

Btw much of Orwell’s essay was based on his experience of staying in South Yorkshire in 1936 to research the book that became The Road to Wigan Pier.

Bob… I’d perhaps be able to take you more seriously, if not for the fact that the link you’ve posted is not of a “block of flats” in Glasgow, but of the Holyrood Parliament… in, um, Edinburgh.

The drunkenness jibe is pretty atypical of hysterical Little Englanders who like to have a dig. But I’m not quite sure the significance of the lots of flats in Glasgow jibe – major UK city in high rise accommodation shocker?

Pfft! Idiots like Bob are the reason why the Nats are where they are right now.

Sally @ 21

The position regarding Scotland and independence is a bit complicated to say the least. You are correct that most Scots are not for independence at the moment. It appears that many of my fellow Scots have felt that Scotland was not a capable of running our own affairs.

Many of us, myself including, have no strong feelings on the issue. However, we are coming to a crunch, simply because we are now making most of our important decisions in our own backyard.

A lot of affluent Scottish people feel that their contribution to the Union has been completely undermined by the likes of Bob B, Paul Ilc and columnists like Quinton Letts et al. People in Scotland who pay every bit as much tax (and more, given VAT and fuel duty) as their English counterparts are being rebuked as parasites by the strutting little Englanders. Natural Tory voters turned out to vote for the Lib Dems and moved to the SNP because they feel betrayed by the English Tory Party. Seats that would be solid Tory South of the border, the posher parts of Edinburgh, for example are now solid SNP seats now, certainly at MSP level, simply because poor Annabel Goldie has to toe the English line.

You get big business owners like Brian Souter pumped 5 million quid into the SNP coffers. Hardly a ‘Left Winger’ by anyone’s standards.

The SNP have moved from minor Party bye election specialists to the Party of Government, even though, few of us really want independence.

Sally, if there is a clear choice between independence and London Tory rule, where we are expected to feel grateful from taking most our own money out of a pot that we have contributed 35 + billion quid into along with the silly statements above and independence, I will take the latter every time.

“I’d perhaps be able to take you more seriously, if not for the fact that the link you’ve posted is not of a “block of flats” in Glasgow, but of the Holyrood Parliament… in, um, Edinburgh.”

Too funny!!!!

Bye bye Bob. When you can get your facts straight come back. But that might take some time.

“Pfft! Idiots like Bob are the reason why the Nats are where they are right now.”

More personal abuse but no actual discussion of the corporation tax issue or as to why the “highest paid public servant in Britain”, who used to run Scottish Enterprise and is now a SNP Parliamentary candidate, would want to come and run the South East England Development Association?

Thanks for the correction about that building in camouflage paint. I’d not appreciated the architecture of the Scottish Parliament building was so awful.

Btw I’ve already said that I’ll vote for Scottish independence – why would the rest of us want to go on propping up a nation of drunks, which is how the Scottish government has effectively described it own people – see the links posted @10?

Jim, is it not the case that Murdoch backed the SNP? I suspect just to do the most damge to Labour. I wonder if Souter did the same.

But I agree the Bob B’s and the idiot little tories are helping independence, not stopping it.

31, yes you have already said that. But as I have pointed out it is the south east that is dripping in subsidies.

I bet the Scots are just agog at all that olympic spending in London.

Can I just say I really enjoyed Adam Ramsays’ article?

As outlined, Salmond has some attractive options in front of him. However it will take one hell of a battle to win full independence. If, as we are led to believe, the ‘A’ Team of Scottish Unionist politicians are all at Westminster then we can expect them to flood back to Scotland in the weeks before the referendum.

Should be interesting. Though I think our – SNP if you didn’t know – organisation on the ground is probably much better. I’ll stand corrected but not one unionist party managed to get anyone out to canvas me, nor anyone else up my close. I got the general feeling that they don’t have many activists left.

@33: “I bet the Scots are just agog at all that olympic spending in London.”

As usual, you have missed the really important outrage:

The full scale of the bumper salaries being paid to London 2012 Olympic chiefs has been revealed.

Senior executives at the Olympic Delivery Authority are being paid up to £110,000 each more than previously thought. Seven have salaries in excess of £200,000, more than Gordon Brown, who earns £188,848.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435137-amazing-2012-gravy-train.do

Believe me, a lot of Londoners didn’t support the bid for the games, not least because our council taxes have been hiked to help pay for the construction work – and all those gravy train salaries.

Yet another thread hijacked by mindless bigotry and trolling by Bob B. I mean really Hadrian’s Wall. Lets look at it HW from your inane perspective. The British isles was invaded by the world’s most powerful empire. Those who lived in the south of the island collaborated with the invaders. The tribes in the north fought the invaders and because the most powerful empire in the world could not subdue them they built a wall for defence. Apparently being unsubdued by the Roman Empire counts as a bad thing in the whacky world of Bob B. I have news for you, Bob. The current population of England and Scotland are not the same people. Moreover, the current populations are not even primarily the descendants of those tribes.

We are also treated to an Orwell quote that he has copied and pasted to about thirty different threads now is yet more wearisome irrelevance. Your sweeping generalisations and irrelevant links add nothing to this thread.

“I bet the Scots are just agog at all that olympic spending in London.”

In fairness, many Londoners don’t want the Olympics, and it’s London which has to put up with the risk of a terrorist attack, even more crowded transport networks and a 38p per week payment from each Londoner’s council tax bill towards the event. I would have thought Scotland would be glad London and not Glasgow or Edinburgh had the Olympics.

@36: “We are also treated to an Orwell quote that he has copied and pasted to about thirty different threads now is yet more wearisome irrelevance. Your sweeping generalisations and irrelevant links add nothing to this thread.”

The Hadrian stuff is a joke – which only goes to show that the Scots have absolutely no sense of humour when it comes to jokes made at their expence. Piling abuse on the English is great, but no one can make fun of the Scots!

And course, as usual, absolutely nothing on the challening issue of a SNP government in Scotland wanting to levy a different rate of corporation tax on companies operating in Scotland or as to why Salmond would want to do that.

And nothing on that SNP Parliamentary candidate who is now running the South East England Development Association after previously running Scottish Enterprise – a job from which he was pressed into resigning. I can post the quotes if need be.

Btw I’ve not copied that particular Orwell quote previously, other quotes, yes, but not that one.

Richard,

Glasgow got the wee prize, the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

I’d quite like to compete with Scotland on tariff issues. The seas that Scotland owns are ferkin’ huge and perfect for strategic navigation. Fuck it, i’d rather fight the Jocks than the fucking Germans; at least Jocks have fresh kippers. Currency is a huge problem rearing its ugly head – what do Greece use when they recuse from the Euro? Ho hum. Absolutely adore Vatersay and Oban, Edingburgh and, well, Scotland. Gatehouse o’ fleet (surely not?) – beautiful pine forests and deep lochs, pine martins and badgers, deer and stags. Scotland ofcourse can choose its own direction but I can’t forsee any major problems from serious people. It’s good tactics by all the British people to vote their way; the electoral map has been interesting this weekend and i’m nowhere near getting me head round it. Good luck to Scotland but it ain’t going anywhere! Sorted – good political crisps to munch on.

Bob B @ 38

but no one can make fun of the Scots!

Well certainly you can’t if that is your best effort. No wonder so many English comedians died a death at the Glasgow Empire.

And nothing on that SNP Parliamentary candidate who is now running the South East England Development Association after previously running Scottish Enterprise – a job from which he was pressed into resigning. I can post the quotes if need be.

No need for quotes, just some kind of idea the point you are failing to make.

On the corporation tax issue they want the power devolved because they want to cut business taxes. The Coalition raised taxes on North Sea operators and Salmond wants to cut them. My impression is the SNP are quite a broad church and are certainly not the Soviet socialists that some on the right south of the border imagine. The Scottish Conservatives campaigned to freeze council tax for two years and Salmond pledged to freeze council tax for five years. It is issues like this where Salmond has managed to broaden their appeal and it is why they are gaining more business support. Salmond has been masterful at triangulation of stealing other parties type of policies in order to win their voters. The other parties just do not know how to respond effectively. We will now get the strange scenario of the Westminster Coalition being portrayed as keeping taxes too high, and the SNP wanting the autonomy to cut taxes. None of this fits into a neat left to right perspective.

I especially like how Bob b thinks that everyone disagreeing with him is Scottish.

Bob B,

And nothing on that SNP Parliamentary candidate who is now running the South East England Development Association after previously running Scottish Enterprise – a job from which he was pressed into resigning. I can post the quotes if need be.

What do you recommend is done?

Does anyone else care?

@44: “Does anyone else care?”

They should at least reflect on the consequences of Salmond getting his way and (dramatically) cutting the corporation tax rate for companies operating in Scotland – like BSkyB, which already runs its subscriber services from there – and as the result of companies moving their headquarters there, which is what I think Salmond is after, as well as chasing after the internationally mobile inward investment projects which have been attracted by the Republic of Ireland’s attractively low rate of corporation tax.

The Scots are very envious of the US computer/electronics companies that Ireland has attracted todate – an Intel fab, Dell computers, Microsoft S/W distribution to European markets etc – and see corporation tax as key to competing with Ireland for such projects in future.

Note that Ireland’s low corporation tax rate didn’t prevent the catastrophic collapse of Ireland’s banking system, which is why they needed that Eurozone bailout. The truth is that Ireland should never have joined the Eurozone – the evidence for that comes from the massive house-price bubble in Ireland because Ireland lost monetary autonomy and was unable to set interest rates to suit Irish conditions.

Reflect back a decade and recall that John Monks, then gen sec of the TUC, was pressing for Britain to join the Eurozone, telling home buyers on mortgages in Britain that their mortgage interest rates would be cut if only we joined. What do you think would have happened had we listened to that advice? As it is, by 2008, and outside the Eurozone, we had a consumer debt mountain of £1.3 billion.

We also need to think of what could happen downstream if the nutty advice of Scottish folk like Crawford prevail and “an independent” Scotland decides to join the Eurozone. And, of course, Crawford in his current post could be very helpful in facilitating the movement of companies in the south east to Scotland to take advantage of a lower corporation tax rate there.

In England, with our larger tax revenue base, we could make up for the loss of corporation tax revenues by hiking the VAT rate and with more cuts in public spending.

Thinking it through, the implications of Salmond’s plan for cutting the corporation tax rate in Scotland are not insignificant – which is probably why all those Scots here are more concerned to heap abuse on me rather than to discuss the issue.

“And nothing on that SNP Parliamentary candidate who is now running the South East England Development Association after previously running Scottish Enterprise – a job from which he was pressed into resigning. I can post the quotes if need be.”

Why labour this point? If he was forced to resign from his “highest paid public servant” post, and subsequently went to work in the South of England, surely that says more about SEEDA than it does about Scottish independence? Scottish person goes to work in England isn’t exactly headline news. And if it bothers you so much, I’d suggest a quick trip to Edinburgh. Not only will you perhaps be able to recognise the Parliament building in future, but you’ll be able to console yourself with the fact that there’s plenty of English people who have made the reverse journey.

And forgive me if I don’t boo-hoo at Council Tax rises in London – Wandsworth has the lowest Ctax rate in the country, and Londoners might not like the Olympics, but I’ll bet they won’t refuse to use the improved infrastructure and facilities that it brings to the city. Where does the money to support TfL come from?

If you can’t work out why Salmond would want to charge lower corporation tax for countries operating in Scotland, I fear there is no hope for you Bob, old chum. Cheaper to operate from Scotland, than from England. Hmmm… no I can’t see why a Scottish leader would want to introduce that at all. :-/

The SNP are the biggest winners from this coalition government. The fact that the Tories haven’t had a majority in Scotland for decades, and yet were still in a position to rule it, still rankles with many. If there comes a chance to divorce the running of the country from Westminster, I can’t see many people wouldn’t give it serious consideration. Obviously, when it comes to independence, there are much more important issues to consider (membership of the EU, for example. And whether people would accept a republic, when there are still many who identify themselves as royalists). But Salmond is not a fool, and has mellowed considerably since his days in the ’79 group who were expelled from the party. I think the overwhelming feeling in Scotland is, despite feeling part of the Union, the presence of a Tory government, who have shafted the country too often in the past, means that the SNP find themselves in an extremely strong position to change the face of British politics forever.

“More personal abuse but no actual discussion ”

Not personal abuse, my friend. Statement of fact. You’re labouring points which don’t make sense, and you’ve proved that you have no real understanding of the issues raised in the article- rather, you’re jumping on a soapbox and having a whinge about how unfair it is that a Scottish person can earn money in England, and that the Scottish government can control the taxes paid by corporations in their own country. Get some understanding of the subject, and you’ll find that people might listen to your points, rather than dismissing your witterings out of hand.

I’m struggling to see any coherent strand of thought in any of Bob B’s posts, never mind relevance to the thread.

OT – it’s true that independence seems to be hovering around 30% – 40% (depending on the question, and fluctuating over time). However, I’d not be so sure about the permanence of this as some folk seem to be. We were told people would never vote SNP, as they were just an eccentric distraction. We were told the people would never vote for a Scottish parliament. When it became clear that there would be one, senior Labourite George Robertson confidently assured us all that the existence of a Scottish parliament would “kill the SNP stone dead.” It didn’t. We were told the SNP would never win power. Then they did. Then we were told it was just a one-off, anti-Blair vote, normal service would be resumed shortly. We were told the SNP would never get their budgets through, and the government would fall in a year or two. Didn’t happen. We were told the SNP would never win a second term. When it started looking like they would, we were told that it would be so tight, they’d never have enough votes between them, Margo and the Greens to get an independence referendum tabled.

And now we are where we are.

Bob B,

I asked you @ 44 about this guy that has apparently taken over the South East England Development Association.

You replied to me directly @ 45. Can I take it that this new leader of SEEDA is some bloke called Crawford, or what?

It is still your shout.

What do you recommend is done?

Does anyone else care?

Bob b,

Provide some evidence for what you claim, why don’t you?

The SEEDA site mentions nothing about what you claim. Either they see it as irrelevant or they see it as irrelevant.

Dunno.

An Duine Gruamach,

It is once in a blue moon that Liberal Conspiracy bothers it’s arse to discuss Scottish Politics. When it does we get idiots like Bob the boy fucking up a thread.

The interesting thing to me is how the collapsed LibDem vote appears to have gone en masse to the SNP. Yet, you have strange situations like Labour being unable to hold places like Glasgow Shettleston, which is one of the poorest constituencies in the country. However, they manage to hold places like Glasgow Eastwood one of the most prosperous constituencies in the country. The Conservatives were expected to win there after the likely Labour voting areas were dropped in redrawing the constituency boundaries. Who knows whether the LibDems can win back the disaffected before the next General Election. Unless they do something Scotland could be a LibDem free zone after the next election.

Maybe the wisdom of crowds of the electorate worked out that the Westminster Coalition government was more likely to tread carefully in their dealings with a Salmond administration in Edinburgh. However, the coalition would have relished cross-border fights with a Labour administration. Alternatively, Salmond was just the best leader against an uninspiring Labour clone and the chairwoman of the local Women’s Institute.

@49 Douglas Clark: Provide some evidence for what you claim, why don’t you?

I have previously posted what follows in another thread here – which likely explains the scale of abuse being heaped on me here:

“Former Scottish Enterprise chief Robert Crawford is to lead the economic development of the south-east of England. Former Scottish Enterprise chief Robert Crawford is to lead the economic development of the south-east of England. Dr Crawford, a prospective SNP candidate for Westminster, has quit his senior post at Glasgow Caledonian University to take up the new challenge, the university said yesterday. The 57-year-old has been appointed chief operating officer of Seeda, the South East of England Development Agency.” [June 2008]
http://www.heraldscotland.com/snp-candidate-crawford-to-take-up-post-at-seeda-1.883272

Shall we look some more into the affairs of Scottish Enterprise and Robert Crawford, who was the highest paid public servant in Britain – note that?

“It takes a lot for anyone to look on the bright side after the year Crawford has faced; a year during which he resigned as Scottish Enterprise’s chief executive, following a media circus he said had turned the agency into a ‘political football’. And anyway, it doesn’t ring true that this edgy, 52-year-old workaholic stopped moving and talking long enough to browse the kind of trash magazine where such quizzes are to be found.

“Others point out that this past year, Crawford’s glass was not only half-full, but overflowing, since his name was rarely mentioned without it being pointed out that he was Britain’s highest-paid public servant, earning more than the Prime Minister.” [February 2004]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20040215/ai_n12586946/

Now why would he want to leave such a well-paid job? Could the answer to that question have anthing to do with news reports like this – which is worth reading in full IMO:

“THE chief executive of Scottish Enterprise yesterday admitted to key failings at the heart of the troubled quango.

“Robert Crawford, the UK’s highest paid public sector employee, told the Scottish Parliament that there had been ‘unacceptable’ failures surrounding contracts awarded to consultants by the development agency. . .” [January 2004]
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Scottish-Enterprise-executive-admits-to.2496490.jp

@46: “Londoners might not like the Olympics, but I’ll bet they won’t refuse to use the improved infrastructure and facilities that it brings to the city.”

There is a continuing public debate over the use of the Olympic stadium after the games and the paralympics have ended:

“Will the Olympic stadium have a life after the games?

“Politicians are haunted by the white-elephant experience of the Dome as the final design for the Olympics arena is revealed. So what will be its legacy to the nation post 2012?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/artblog/2007/nov/07/artblogbyjonathan

“Mike Lee insists the Tottenham bid with which he is involved would rule out the Olympic Stadium becoming a ‘white elephant’ after the 2012 Games – and that ‘football and athletics don’t work as a combination’.

“Lee was a key figure in London’s successful bid to host the Games, alongside Sebastian Coe, but the pair have found themselves on opposite sides in the debate over how best to ensure a legacy for the centrepiece venue.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-1354790/Spurs-win-Olympic-Stadium-bid-says-key-London-2012-figure-Mike-Lee.html

Ummmm…. and?

Sorry. Still struggling to see the relevance of these links – 7 years after the fact. I’m bored now, so Ahmma gonna just ignore you now, m’kay?

@Richard W. I agree, the loss of Glasgow Shettleston was a big coup. It’s worth noting that the SNP candidate was John Mason, who took the Glasgow East by-election a couple of years ago. That was seen as a warning to Labour. But in the 12 years since devolution, I think the Scottish people have become savvy, and know how best to vote to achieve a means to an end. There are many who think that Labour only took Glasgow East back because of the Tory threat in Westminster, bringing out the Labour voters. It’s hard not to see why the Scottish public have taken to an SNP who have proven themselves to be fairly adept at running a country successfully – their branding as the “Party of Scotland” and their ability to straddle the three-way system, picking the best policies from each of the three “nationwide” parties to best suit Scotland as a whole.

As An Duine Gruamach said above, we’ve been told for many years that the SNP challenge would amount to nothing, and yet here we are. It will be interesting to say the least how the major parties will deal with being in true opposition in Holyrood – there’s a feeling, I think, that the other three parties can’t be relied upon to tell the truth.

And there remains the question of the consequences that would follow if a SNP government in Scotland with greater fiscal autonomy chose to levy a different rate of corporation tax rate from that in England and Wales.

It’s becoming increasingly clear why the Scots here don’t wish to dicuss this

Bob, you do know the devolved administration in Northern Ireland have been given this power? There is no secret why many in the Scottish Parliament want corporation tax raising powers devolved, and that is to cut taxes.

Bob B, we’re trying to engage you in discussion, but you’re having none of it. We’re talking about the prospects and degrees of independence; you’re posting endless links to stories about a guy who was in one quango, and is now in another one.

Bob, I’ll happily discuss the last point you made. But what is there to say?

You’ve said there are consequences to Scotland levying difference rates, but you haven’t said what you think they are. From what you’ve written, you’ve not actually RAISED any issues TO discuss – other than stating the facts.

Despite living in Scotland, I actually believe that if the SNP want more financial autonomy, then that should go hand in hand with a reduction in Westminster financial support. If the Scottish ability to be financially independent of the rest of the UK is likely to end in failure, I don’t see what Westminster would have to lose, quite frankly. Teach them a lesson, whilst putting the independence issue to rest once and for all. I’m not aware of the exact figures which would be involved here, I’m more talking in a very general sense of how the idea would work. But the fact that you appear to be having a very anti-Scottish rant, whilst indicating you’re not in favour of fiscal powers being handed over to the Scottish Parliament, that tends to suggest to me that you may be slightly concerned that the plan by the SNP to lure large business to Scotland *might* just work in their favour, and it would be England and Wales who would lose out financially.

I don’t for a moment think it would be the case, I think England are already established enough as a world financial power to take that hit. I think the onus would be on the SNP to make it a success, and I’m not entirely convinced that the infrastructure of the country would support it. It strikes me as a similar policy to a “loss leader”, and that they would have to make damned sure that they followed up the initial surge in investment with a strong economic policy to ensure that the business stayed around when the inevitable rates rise came in the future. But after the fiasco of their budget prior to the 1999 Holyrood election, I think the SNP would know better than to make financial commitments without knowing that they could back it up with workable figures.

So what is *your* opinion on it, Bob? Are you worried about investment flooding from England? Is it simply concern for your own homeland’s financial security which leads you to want to “discuss” the matter? We are all eyes…

@58: “You’ve said there are consequences to Scotland levying difference rates, but you haven’t said what you think they are. From what you’ve written, you’ve not actually RAISED any issues TO discuss – other than stating the facts.”

Not so. @45 I discussed at some length what I think is Alex Salmond’s motivation for wanting to cut the corporation tax rate for companies operating in Scotland.

In short: to attract internationally mobile inward investment projects to settle in Scotland rather than Ireland – and so perhaps restore the failed vision of Silicon Glenn – and to attract the relocation to Scotland of companies presently headquartered in England. London, for example, is currently rated as hosting the headquarters of some 100 of the largest 500 European companies. BSkyB already runs its subscriber services from Scotland. RBS and HBOS were intended to turn Edinburgh into a major centre for financial services.

The present chief of South East England Development Association, a SNP Parliamentary candidate who was previously head of Scottish Enterprise, is well placed to act as a facilitator for companies wanting to relocate to Scotland.

I pointed out that Ireland’s low rate of corporation tax and the inward investment it had attracted had not prevented the collapse of Ireland’s banking system and the misery that will inflict on its citizens as they pay off the loans needed to prop up Ireland’s economy.

Before anyone interprets that as a personal endorsement of George Osborne, try this: Bank of England forced to cut UK growth forecast yet again – The Bank of England will downgrade Britain’s economic growth forecast this week, confirming that the recovery is stalling as the Government’s austerity measures take their toll.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8500145/Bank-of-England-forced-to-cut-UK-growth-forecast-yet-again.html

Because of England’s larger tax revenue base, it is possible to compete with corporation tax reductions by Scotland – such as hiking the VAT rate, extending VAT to presently exempt items or by tougher cuts in public spending.

I’m sure Sally will like those policy options.

Bob, have you ever considered that they want to cut corporation tax because they believe it to be a good policy? Moreover, the likes of these guys including Nobel laureate Sir James Mirrlees who actually knows something about what constitutes a good tax system are advising them it is a good policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Economic_Advisers_%28Scotland%29

The failed so-called Silicon Glen.

“The electronics industry in Scotland Silicon Glen is the phrase that is used to describe the growth and development of Scotland’s hi-tech and electronics industries in the Central Belt through the 1980s and 1990s, analogous to the larger concentration of hi-tech industries in Silicon Valley, California. Companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard have been in Scotland since the 1950s being joined in the 1980s by others such as Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle). 45,000 people are employed by electronics and electronics-related firms, accounting for 12% of manufacturing output. Today, Scotland produces 28% of Europe’s PCs; more than seven per cent of the world’s PCs; and 29% of Europe’s notebooks. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland

You may not have noticed but there was a rather large global electronics bust in 2000.

“The heavy dependency on electronics manufacturing hit Silicon Glen hard after the collapse of the hi-tech economy in 2000. ”

” The move from a primarily manufacturing dominated region to a wealth creation one has been successful as demonstrated in a report from UBS Wealth Management in 2006 showing Scotland with more venture backed companies per capita than any other UK region. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Glen

I suppose biotech can be included in Silicon Glen.

“Edinburgh BioQuarter, a landmark £600 million life sciences facility, makes Scotland one of the world’s top ten centres for biomedical commercialisation ”

” Five of the world’s top 10 life sciences companies are based in Scotland: Quintiles, PPD, Charles River Technologies, Kendle, and Aptuit ”

“Scotland has been named one of the ‘Top 5 Global Locations’ for carrying out biotechnology research by respected industry magazine Fierce Biotech ”
http://www.sdi.co.uk/sectors/life-sciences/life-sciences-key-facts.aspx

Does not sound like ‘ Silicon Glen ‘ is a failure to me.

A chief executive taking the post at South East England Development Association to facilitate the relocation of companies from the South East is tin foil hat land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg

Ignoring the welcome bollocking BobB is getting, I wonder what Cameron’s reasons are for the actions cited in the OP? Is this the start of a strategy aimed at removing or reducing Scottish MPs’ influence in Westminster? Is he hoping that England will become forever tory if he can only drop those pesky Scots?

@60:

All that is just the usual PR froth pumped out by the inflated Scottish media machine, not least to distract public attention from the grotesque failures – like RBS and HBOS, with their command and control centres firmly embedded in Scotland which were by far the larger part of Britain’s financial crisis in 2008 and why the national debt shot up to fund the bailouts:

“UK public sector net debt was £875.8 billion or 58% of National GDP – (note this excludes financial sector intervention.)
Source: Office National Statistics

“If all financial sector intervention is included (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds [which took on HBOS]) , the Net debt was £2,252.1 billion or 149.1 per cent. This is known as the unadjusted measure of public sector net debt.

“The PBR (annual government borrowing) forecast for 2010/11 is for net borrowing of £149 billion or 12.6% of GDP.”
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Naturally, no mention of that or the hundreds of millions of British taxpayers’ money that went into promoting all that inward investment in (failed) chip fabs and Scottish innovation and no mention of Salter’s Ducks to harness wave power:

“The original OSPREY was a 2 MW device but was unfortunately wrecked by waves during 1995 when it was taken out on its first sea trial.”
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/98-9/offshore/wave.htm

More millions down the swanny. In the 1950s and 1960s, the fashionable battle cry in Scotland, as I learned at first hand, was that Scotland absolutely had to have a motor industry, just like the West Midlands. So the Hillman Imp got set up there, with taxpayer support, naturally, and Bathgate, with more grants. And what happened?

More millions went down the swanny. Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose.

BobB,

I’ll raise you a TSR2. For wasteful spending look closely at the MoD.

@62 Bob B (and all your other waste of effort posts)

It has already been pointed out to you that the content of your posts are usually rubbish, and only tangentially related to the OP. Thus when you are presented with a direct counter to some of your pointless google trawling (as in Richards response @60 above), you simply ignore it.

None of the supposed “arguments” you cite are relevant: failed government projects aren’t unique to Sctoland, but cover the whole country. Non-Scottish banks fell prey just as much to the global financial crisis.

You seem to be on some pointless anti-Scottish crusade, for which you have no real evidence, and has no real point or relevance to the OP. It is correct to assume therefore, as more and more people on here are realising, that your pointless trolling is motivated by a combination of bigotry and tin-foil hat trollery.

To repeat, not a single one of the issues you have raised has any substance; Crawford and Salmond somehow conspiring to divert investment from the Se to Scotland, the Scottish banks somehow being uniquely culpable in the global financial melt down, Scottish sectarianism, Scottish drunkeness, and our responsibility for Hadrian’s wall.

Stop embarassing yourself.

@63: “I’ll raise you a TSR2. For wasteful spending look closely at the MoD.”

I’m hardly a defender of the MOD mess – which has been going on for decades.

A large part of the roots of that go back to the industrial policies of Labour governments in the 1960s for letting Weinstock, then supreme boss in GEC, increasingly turn the company into an arm’s manufacturer and locate armament projects into or near politically sensitive constituencies. Sure enough, governments would predictably sign up to support the latest super project, with a media fanfare, and rush back in to renew the commitment regardless whenever the sense of it was questioned in public debate.

It’s crucial to understand the political and commerical chemisty.The key insight is that Germany and Japan have relatively small armament industries – for obvious of reasons of history. But both have formidable electronics and automotive engineering industries focused on competing in international markets to gain sales. But arms manufacturers can legitimately only sell to government agencies here or abroad and that is a soft and potentially corrupt market. The usual dodge was/is to offer an inducement to whoever is negotiating the purchase and add the cost of that into the final negotiated price paid by the taxpayers of the purchasing country. Everyone gets happy apart from the taxpayers who are kept ignorant.

Britain is the world’s fourth largest exporter of armaments by sales. BAE Systems, the ultimate successor of GEC armaments companies, is Britain’s largest manufacturing company so all governments tend to be supportive. This is what happened to the downstream successor of GEC electronics companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/1527551.stm

Guess what? Lord Simpson is a native Scot from Aberdeen. Don’t blame me for the history.

Hmmm hmmm hmmm. Sunny, if you’re about, I’d like to report Bob B under this site’s policy on xenophoic abuse. See “I mean, why should the rest of us go on propping up a nation of drunks?” @10 as an example.

@66 Fuck the xenophobia charge, what about the fact that his posts amount to little more than drunken rambling with google links chucked in. The bellend rarely makes a clear point. He posts walls and walls of text, and never says anything.
What “constructive debate” can be had with such a pompous meandering windbag?
Who probably thinks I’m Scottish for saying so.

Well, at last Bob’s revealed what the relevance of banging on about Crawford was (at only about the twelfth time of asking):

> The present chief of South East England Development Association, a SNP Parliamentary candidate who was previously head of Scottish Enterprise, is well placed to act as a facilitator for companies wanting to relocate to Scotland

It’s a conspiracy! He moved jobs three years before the SNP first came to power so that he could be around to help companies relocate if the SNP ever got its way on tax plans! Lucky for him that it finally looks like happening after only seven years. He could have been down there for decades. And this conspiracy was necessary because… and is evil because… I’m not sure about this one. Because those companies somehow belong to England? Is Bob B advocating their nationalisation? Funny position for a rightwinger to hold. But then, it is always the most passionate defenders of the free market who throw their toys out of the pram and scream “It’s not fair!” whenever it does anything they don’t like.

@66: Hmmm hmmm hmmm. Sunny, if you’re about, I’d like to report Bob B under this site’s policy on xenophoic abuse. See “I mean, why should the rest of us go on propping up a nation of drunks?” @10 as an example.

And do check out how the government of Scotland describes its own people in the links posted @10, which, naturally enough, I have taken as my definitive guide on this subject.

Is it wrong to directly quote the government of Scotland on the extent of drunkeness in Scotland?

@ 69 Bob B

“And do check out how the government of Scotland describes its own people in the links posted @10, which, naturally enough, I have taken as my definitive guide on this subject.

Is it wrong to directly quote the government of Scotland on the extent of drunkeness in Scotland?”

If I look at these sources, will I find the Scottish government calling its people “a nation of drunks”, or similar offensive terminology? Or will I find the data that you’re using as an excuse to say this yourself?

You’re either merrily quoting bigotry as fact, or making up the bigoted statements yourself. Either way, guess what that makes you?

@ 67 Cylux

“Fuck the xenophobia charge, what about the fact that his posts amount to little more than drunken rambling with google links chucked in. The bellend rarely makes a clear point. He posts walls and walls of text, and never says anything.”

Sadly, that’s probably not covered under the site rules. And yes, his MO of posting anecdotes that appear to argue for something unpleasant, but not actually admitting what he’s trying to say for ages (presumably to make people guess so he can declare straw men), is more annoying than the bigotry itself. Like that time he posted dozens of links about Muslims committing crimes, without saying what implication we were meant to pick up, so he could say “who, me?” when accused of Islamophobia.

“What “constructive debate” can be had with such a pompous meandering windbag?”

Very little! He doesn’t seem capable of rational analysis – point out that he’s being anecdotal and you’ll get another five anecdotes in response. At this point, we’re borderline troll-baiting.

Ah right. So basically, you’re blaming the economic meltdown on Scotland (because obviously, where a company’s headquarters is means that all operations are solely the responsibility of the nation). Of course, you’ve conveniently missed out mentioning Northern Rock, as the catalyst, and the fact that Lloyds TSB took over HBOS… and THEN asked for a handout.

Scottish Government implements business policy to benefit Scotland isn’t really that hard to understand, is it? Which leads me to conclude that your actual issue is that you don’t like the idea of those uppity Scots standing to gain from this. The financial crisis in Ireland was more complicated that just charging low tax rates for companies.

So yes, whinge away. You’ve stated your take on things, I’m not seeing many people understanding your objection. It seems to be based on xenophobic and a sense of entitlement. If you can explain why you think this is a bad idea, without heaping blame on the whole of Scotland for a financial crisis which was managed in England, then maybe you’ll be making more sense.

“Of course, you’ve conveniently missed out mentioning Northern Rock, as the catalyst, and the fact that Lloyds TSB took over HBOS… and THEN asked for a handout.”

Northern Rock was a significantly big mortgage lender in Britain but as a bank was small relative to RBS or HBOS. Notice that the big banks headquartered in Londoin did not succumb – although Barclays was obliged to make a rights issue to strengthen its balance sheet.

I don’t think there was much of sinister economic significance in the timing of events in Lloyds’ request for a bailout – not a handout, since the government took shares and will later sell those back into the private sector, hopefully making a profit for taxpayers.

Lloyds claimed after taking over HBOS that there were more toxic assets in the HBOS balance sheet than it had appreciated – I’m not in any position to assess the truth of that. Recall that deal with Gordon Brown to exempt Lloyds from a standing statutory competition policy requirement to automatically refer to the competition commission mergers which would breach the 25% market share rule – and the Lloyds-HBOS merged bank is reckoned to have about 30% of retail bank deposites. A referral would have delayed the merger pending a commission report when the over-riding priority at the time was to arrest the systemic collapse of Britain’s banking system.

I reckon that GB was only too pleased for Lloyds to take on the headache of sorting out HBOS since HMTreasury was already tied up dealing with Northern Rock, RBS, Alliance and Leicester (A&L) and Bradford and Bingley (B&B). Santander helpfully waded in and took over A&L and B&B – Santander rates as being in the global league of the 10 biggest banks.

Many of Lloyds shareholders and banking account holders were none too pleased with the merger. Lloyds chaiman at the time left shortly after and the chief exec has been replaced.

“Which leads me to conclude that your actual issue is that you don’t like the idea of those uppity Scots standing to gain from this”

Many hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money have been spent – and often wasted – promoting various industrial fads and fancies in Scotland. This side of Labour’s National Plan in the 1960s, England has never had a coherent national industrial strategy, just various ad hoc measures which seemed good ideas at the time – like advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors, support for ICL, the steel industry, the coal industry, British Leyland etc etc. Note that the Toyota (Derby) and Honda (Swindon) car plants did not have government aid.

The point I was trying to get across is that consequences will flow from Scotland having the option of setting a lower corporation tax rate to that in England and Wales – and we need to reflect on those consequences. And we might also need to reflect on the possibility that an indpendent Scotland might seek to join the Eurozone.

@ 73 Bob B

“Many hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money have been spent – and often wasted – promoting various industrial fads and fancies in Scotland”

And your point is that this has never been done in the English regions? Or that Scotland has benefitted disproportionately? So rather than just assert it…. Prove it! All major western countries have done similar things in depressed or poorer areas. Many are failures, some are successes. Such is life. The failure of a particular project doesn’t allow you to generalise from the particular case, to a generlaised concept that the Scots are feckless, or subsidy junkies, or unable to make a go of things given to them by the largesse of central government.

“The point I was trying to get across is that consequences will flow from Scotland having the option of setting a lower corporation tax rate to that in England and Wales – and we need to reflect on those consequences”

Lots of countries have different levels of taxation; states in the USA, cantons in Switzerland, duty free areas in Spain etc. The sky doesn’t fall down. Companies make choices based on a whole host of factors; if the rump British state felt disadvantaged, then it could change it’s tax rates too, or offer other incentives.

“And we might also need to reflect on the possibility that an indpendent Scotland might seek to join the Eurozone.”

What would that have to do with the English after independence? An independent Scotland could do as its government and people saw fit surely? They might well decide not to join the Eurozone as was the case for Sweden and Denmark.

Returning to topic

I doubt Salmond will have a referendum in this Parliament. He will hold it as a threat over the Westminster government in order to win concessions over power and funding. He will win these without the political risk a failed referendum poses the SNP (a rejection of independence would cause them a huge problem in terms of internal discipline and throw it away for a generation).

So he will wait and wait and wait and obtain powers where he can. A concession here, a concession there without the risk of taking a referendum to the electorate. He is too canny for that.

Douglas Clark

We had armies and squads of folk in Edinburgh campaigning (Labour) and our ground campaign was good. We lost it (as stated lots) on a poor national message and the fact that we did not hold the SNP on their record till later on . We wasted two weeks on the tories.

There are reasons we lost, our ground campaign and activists were not one.

@75 Peter

I think you are right the SNP will wait… but I think you may be wrong that they won’t hold a referendum, even if they “know” they won’t win. If their administration goes OK over the next few years, they may judge that a punt on a vote is worth it (look out for a 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn date perhaps…?).

If the vote “for” is significantly higher than people expect, the SNP may judge that it will have a corrosive effect on the Union, and galvanise the pro-independence movement.

The problem for Unionist parties now, is that the SNP have taken votes and seats from all of you. The biggest danger is that you will be seen as increasingly irrelevant, if not actually inimical, to the delivery of the agenda that *most* Scots want, whatever their ideological outlook.

If you are seen as anti-Scottish, ot toadies for parties which enough of the Scottish electorate believe are advancing policies contrary to their interests…. then the Union is doomed in the longer term. The Tories and the LD’s are certainly in no position to offer effective opposition, and unless Scottish Labour up their game over the next few years, the prospects for your party doing it don’t look too great either.

Your ground campaign and activists can be top notch… but lions led by donkeys are still going to lose.

Bob B — for FFS don’t be so parochial! And, Galen10, please don’t encourage this amiable bore…

Adam:
“there is no such thing as an independent country. Britain, for example, is a member of the EU, the UN, and NATO, and is a signatory to countless global or bilateral treaties.”

Only if independence (cf personal freedom) is absolute. But it (like personal freedom) isn’t, as it admits of degree! And degree is what concerns the SNP…

More generally, Adam, in response to your interesting piece:

1. Independence for Scotland is fraught with many (though not insuperable) problems! Chief among which, I think, is that an independent Scotland (as a seceding region of a member state) would have to re-apply for EU membership – and in so doing would (almost certainly) have to abrogate all UK opt-outs and (most probably) accept the ‘acquis communitaire’ package of EU legislation in total. So, most probably, the EU would stamp firmly on a lower corporation tax for Scotland, for example….[This is not certain, as it would depend on negotiations; but my advisor, who is quite expert in EU Law, is pretty sure of her ground.]

2. Independence for Scotland would ensure an almost permanent Tory government in Westminster….

3. Despite what has been said on other threads, I simply don’t understand how the SNP can distinguish between ‘true’ Scots and other ‘non-Scots’ without being racist, if independence were ever declared.

4. It’s very interesting that the political chameleon Salmond is now muttering about ‘shared defence’ and ‘retaining sterling’. That sounds like a reasonable devolutionist argument to me! But perhaps Alex has finally looked into the consequences of independence….

@77 paul ilc

Some of your questions (tho probably novel to a non-Scottish audience) are well rehearsed;

1. It is inconceivable that the EU would be that hard on the Scots applying for membership. However well informed your legal chum, there are no doubt others equally well qualified who would argue exactly the opposite…. lawyers, go figure! Since the EU actually did SFA about the issue of Irish corporation tax when it came to it, I think your point is pretty weak. Even if they took a stronger line with a “new” applicant, it’s all up for negotiation I imagine. Remember also, that depending on the circumstances, the Scots may well feel they are better “doing a Norway” and staying out of the EU.

2. Tough! Look to your own; no doubt the English/Welsh/NI people are capable of sorting it out for themselves.

3. The answer to this is pretty clear I think, and has been for a long time. Anyone on the electoral register living in Scotland when independence is delaclared would be able to claim Scottish citizenship. If they don’t want it fine, they can keep their “British” nationality, and live in Scotland subject to whatever regulations there are for foreign nationals living in any other country. Presumably they would not then hav a vote however. People born in Scotland, but currently not living there, (like me) would be able to claim a Scottish passport. I’m sure many of us would. We would then no doubt be treated in “Britain” much as EU nationals from other countries (or e.g. Norwegians if Scotland didn’t join the EU).

I fail to see how you can regard any of that as racist?

4. Some form of defence collaboration would seem eminently sensible to most folk I would imagine? As for currency… who knows? It might be sensible to keep a link to sterling… it might (by then) be preferable to join the Euro, or to have our own currency. Hardly an insuperable obstacle, as the plethora of newly independant states in E, SE and C Europe have shown.

Galen10

I would disagree with you.

1. The reason we lost was not a renewed thirst for independence but that the SNP was a reasonably competent Government for the last 4 years (when no difficult decisions had to be taken). We are now entering the period when they will be and cannot ‘blame’ anyone except themselves (the joys of majority government) and the tories.

2. The party will reform and reinvent itself and perhaps even detach from Westminster to create a Scotland specific brand of Labourism. Not an impossible goal to be honest and one where our manifesto this time around should have been grounded.

3. Renewal as a ground up campaigning force will be necessary too. That means working locally with people on issues that matter and doing more effective community activism against SNP government cuts. (None of us mentioned them in the Manifestos but they are coming, SNPs preferred choice at the moment is to cut peoples living standards through short working and pay freezes this is not sustainable over a parliament.) Given the financial settlement we were all doomed to overpromise and underdeliver to some degree but the SNP will now be affected by this most of all.

4. This leads us to a position where we have strong bases across Scotland and the ability to campaign on the issues locally and nationally that inimically matter to people (jobs, the economy and public services).

5. I disagree that union is not in the best interests of the Scottish people (and a recent poll by yougov agrees by 58% against to 27% for). However, as a colleague Duncan Hotherstall has stated at his blog it may be possible for a different approach to be taken to campaigning on the issue.

@79 Peter

1. I’d actually agree with much of your point 1; I’ve never said there is a huge thirst for independence in fact. What I AM saying is that many Scots who are not ardent nationalists are certainly open to persuasion that independence might now be more attractive. You are right that support hovers around 25-33%…. bear in mind however that it wouldn’t take that much of a swing to make it a pretty close run thing.

2. Good for you if you can pull it off: you may be a day late and a dollar short however. Having a distinct Scottish identity didn’t do much for the LD’s in scotland did it? You will still have to put some clear tartan water betweeen yourselves and whatever version of New Labour lite ends up prevailing in London. THAT is possibly your greatest problem… if London is seen to be pulling the strings, more and more people on the left in Scotland will think the SNP are worth a punt as happened last Thursday.

3. Also good… but people in Scotland aren’t any more likely to fall for the line that “it was all the SNP’s fault” than people in the UK generally will fall for the line that current problems were ALL New Labours fault, or are ALL the Colaition’s fault. People feel they were lied to last May, because none of the parties levelled with us…. part of the reason the SNP did well last week was for running a relatively competent administration.

4. JFDI… there is all to play for after all!

5. The perceived value of the Union is I think decreasing, but that isn’t to say people discount it, or don’t have affection for it,or aren’t worried about the potential change. I doubt I’m the only one however to think that we could be seeing the start of something big happening. No guarantees of course….

I think you are right the SNP will wait… but I think you may be wrong that they won’t hold a referendum, even if they “know” they won’t win. If their administration goes OK over the next few years, they may judge that a punt on a vote is worth it (look out for a 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn date perhaps…?).

If the vote “for” is significantly higher than people expect, the SNP may judge that it will have a corrosive effect on the Union, and galvanise the pro-independence movement.

The thing I think this is missing is that they almost certainly won’t be holding a simple two-option referendum: “Independence – yes or no?” They likely will go for a multi-option referendum with the status quo as one option, “full independence” (whatever the hell that actually means) as another, and a couple of “enhanced devolution” options on there as well. And they’ll claim any result other than the status quo as a victory, as one more step down the road who’s ultimate destination no one yet knows…

I don’t imagine that the Union will ever be killed by a single blow, and I suspect that many in the SNP agree with that. A death of a thousand cuts is much more likely… Which is kinda what this post is about (in my interpretation) – there’s a lot of room for effective independence that doesn’t necessarily involve the absolute and final dissolution of the Union.

Galen10

I agree with a lot of what you say and hope the outcome is as suggested a Scottish brand of labourism (I think this has to be the result). There would be then some coherence of message required for Westminster elections.

On the issue of SNPs fault etc. Our job is not just to point out where the SNP is cutting and failing to deliver but also to lay out a plausible alternative to them. (Thats the game with opposition). We do that in a Scottish context. While acknowledging its not a binary issue. I honestly think the result has offered us the opportunity to do this and this should have happened in 2007 (the renewal, not the result).

I don’t think Salmond will ever win an outright independence referendum. If he did the negotiations would be torturous. The membership of the EU is an interesting point. However, the legality of England’s membership could also be questioned. The Act of Union abolished both the English Parliament and the Scottish Parliament and legally created a new Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster. It is this body that signed up to the European Union. So if Scotland was to pursue independence would this Parliament legally cease to exist? Would England legally be a member of the EU?

Almost the entire UK nuclear defence is parked on the Clyde. What would happen to it in the event of independence? A 9% share of the national debt would see an independent Scotland starting with a national debt of over 100%. How would they calculate an offset of UK assets? I don’t think currency and monetary policy would be much of a problem. Even after Ireland was independent and they used the punt for exchange, they were still effectively part of the sterling-zone until they joined the euro-zone. Until then Irish monetary policy was really just the same as UK monetary policy. When the UK Treasury was changing interest rates they would phone up the Irish even though they were independent and they would change theirs at the same time.

In an interconnected and globalised world I think the notion of formal sovereignty for small nations is a bit dated. I can see developments along the lines of more control over their own affairs, especially in regard to taxation and a rejection of outright independence the most likely scenario.

Galen10 @ 78:

1. OK, perhaps.But the EU is ruthless and utterly bureaucratic. Don’t expect any favours!

2. OK. Not unreasonable…

3. Sorry, not convinced. You may be right; but I forsee almost endless litigation from UK citizens wanting to claim Scottish citizenship…. (and vice-versa, from those wanting to bail out, if socialism prevails…)

4. “It might be sensible to keep a link to sterling… it might (by then) be preferable to join the Euro, or to have our own currency. Hardly an insuperable obstacle, as the plethora of newly independant states in E, SE and C Europe have shown.”

Perhaps; but Scots seem to be very sceptical about the Euro — so an SNP devolved government that tried to offer independence + euro-membership would likely fail in any referendum. (And by the way, it’s ‘independent’, NOT ‘independant’. Sorry. Just hope you are not a teacher…)

@84 Paul

I can spell, honest..I just can’t type ;-p

As for your point at 3, I guess that’s a risk…but like anything else most cases will be fairly clear cut: an electoral register, and actually living in a place with lots of evidence of utilities etc isn’t that easy to conjure up.

As for other cases, presumably there would be some clear categories and guidelines of what qualified you to claim citizenship, and what didn’t? It’s hardly rocket science is it?

Galen10 @ 85:

I can always forgive typos!

As for my (3) and your response…unfortunately, it is in the borderline cases that one’s learned friends make their not inconsiderable fees…

Meanwhile, my money is on the Union remaining, though with further devolution.

The stealth approach is best and given the weakness of the other parties then I don’t see why independence can’t be achieved within the next 5 years especially as the economy worsens and the UN/US collaborations pitches us into World War 3. We need to get the nukes off Faslane or the whole Scottish central belt will be wiped out.

Peter @ 79

I think the Labour Party lost for a number of reasons.

You have turned your back on the core vote. Great play was made by the Nats of ‘stunning’ victories in Glasgow. However, when you look at it, all that happened in these areas (i.e. inner city, working class, in Glasgow and the central belt) was the more politically astute moved from one progressive Party, discredited by its involvement with the Tories, to another. The five thousand or so Lib Dems moved along to the SNP.

The turnout in these areas was shockingly low, around 35% in some cases. In short, your vote has completely disengaged with the political process. In England, that is not so much of a problem, because there are no real challengers and the far Right are too stupid to capitalise (so far), but I seriously wonder just how many kickings do you guys need before you start to see that totally ignoring the needs of your core vote is killing you? Put the Daily Mail down and pick up the Sunday Mail once in a while and talk TO the people you are supposed to be there for and not AT them.

You appear to treat the Scots as naughty kids who fill their school bag with toys before leaving home. Don’t tell me that ‘Barnet’ is the only thing keeping me going, I am an adult and I can run my own affairs thank you very much. Simply telling us we cannot look after ourselves is seriously pissing us off. You may find it difficult believe, but I pay tax too, and I pay lots of it. I do not need to hear Tories telling me I should be grateful that the ‘British’ consent to payout from a pot I (and the rest of us) pay tonnes into, nor do I need Labour telling me the same. Why not admit that we could have independence if we want, but explain why it would be better for us all if we stuck together. Telling me that I need to be hinged to the South East is a big lie and we both know it.

You were outspent, Peter. Your anti trade union stance has left your coffers empty and many people work in de-unionised, badly paid jobs. That means you guys have little base support and less money too. You used to be the dominant force, but you told us to piss off a decade ago and now you are washed up.

Peter @ 79

If you want to lead the fightback to power, you could do worse for collecting and highlighting stories regarding people who have been targetted for ‘reclassification’ under ATOS, you could admit you got it wrong and suggest that people who are handicapped are perhaps not actually responsible for the World’s bankers taking a collective hieder?

But that would entail supporting people who do not own Mondeos, so better luck next election.

Jim

Your analysis is way off beam.

Our core vote held. (Look at the polls). Low turnout is an issue but a lot of that is down to the wrong message. For good or ill the SNPs message was the one that the Scottish people bought and it had sod all to do with Devo max, independence or anything like that. The key messages were jobs and economy not independence and to say otherwise is to miss the point. The SNP did so well because they hid independence from their message.

Outspent yes by the SNP who garnered money from Souter, who also funded the tories. Outfought, no not locally, just risible nationally. And you truly think that the SNP will not cut, would not have made welfare changes or anything like that you are sadly deluding yourself. Look at SNP run councils and what they are up to…

The vote was an anti-westminster vote and strangely enough we ran a poor campaign that focussed on Westminster and not Scotland.

Peter @ 90

Our core vote held. (Look at the polls).

I have looked at the polls, but I have looked at the turnout as well. A lot of the ‘industrial’ seats have been declining in turnout over the last twenty years. In the past the ‘anti Labour vote’ has been split two or three ways, even though turnout was down, Labour still held sway. Much of the anti Labour vote has swung behind the SNP and Labour’s failure to get it vote out has damaged them. When you lose a solid labour seat on a turnout of 35% that should set alarm bells ringing and direct questions demand answers. Simply rejigging figures to ‘prove’ that you vote held up is not cutting the mustard. When two thirds of the elecorate don’t even bother to vote (with the usual cavaets regarding the age of the electoral roll), you should be asking harder questions than the ones you are asking now.

And you truly think that the SNP will not cut, would not have made welfare changes or anything like that you are sadly deluding yourself.

Again you miss the point. Let me remind you that YOU are supposed to be the Party of defending the weak and defenceless, you are supposed to bestanding up for people driven into poverty.

To walk away mutering about changes to the system etc is political cowardice and, no offence, I hope you get the political fate that you richly deserve.

I think the whole notion of Scotland being left wing is nonsense on stilts. What most people in Scotland have been for a generation is anti-Tory. Anyone who believes the swathes of voters that Labour have been able to rely on in Scotland were Islington Socialists is very much mistaken. Those voters in my experience are inherently conservative. What the other parties will need to address is how Salmond a slightly left-of-centre politician can sweep up traditional Labour voters and right-of-centre voters all over Scotland. He can sell a vision even though the others might think it is BS. What can Labour offer that they did not offer for thirteen years?

@ 92 Richard W

I think there is a lot in what you say. People need to remember that things change: as late as the 1955 GE the Tories won 50% of the Scottish vote, and 36 of 71 MP’s…. although it’s been downhill all the way since then

Salmond and the SNP have to some extent been successful in recasting the terms of the debate from a UK tinged left/centre/right choice, to a more narrowly Scottish focused us/them debate. This is why they took seats from all 3 of the other main parties; people of any political persuasion feel able to vote for the SNP in hope that it will help achieve things they want, even if they don’t want independence. Even some Tories can find certain things to their taste in the SNP manifesto, and their apparent enthusiasm with the private sector.

They are politically savvy enough to know that they can use the SNP without necessarily voting for full independence; that doesn’t seem particularly conservative with a small “c” to me. It is however pretty worrying for Labour, both in Scotland and London, but also to other parties.

There is an inherent problem in it for Alex Salmond too of course…. the Scottish people are in effect “using” the SNP to send a message. The party can’t be “all things to all men” for ever of course, but it might be able to pull it off for long enough to increase the proportion favouring independence.

With respect Jim.

The party will go through a reform and renewal process.

Part of that will be listening to its members, the electorate and its activists and the broader labour movement. The results of this are some way off, so to prejudge it as you have is a bit rich and a bit unfair. I agree the electorate dealt us a kicking and turnout has been execrably low in some seats (I would say that was anti politics rather than anti Labour).

Part of the point will to reinvigorate and connect with local campaigns to enfranchise and connect those people who will be affected by the Westminster welfare changes and those affected by the SNP cuts to come. (Its why I got into politics and joined the party) and protect them. I am a volunteer, not part of the leadership or indeed an elected official. Thats in part what we need to do. I responded directly to your points. But this is what will need and has to change. We have to be a campaigning party and work for people. Thats what we were set up for, thats what a lot of us give of our time for free for.

Galen10

You hit the nub of Salmonds problem there. As a majority Government he has nowhere to hide and he knows he cannot afford to deliver all of his manifesto. And for me thats where the real crisis comes. Cry too often about Westminster cuts and you end up seeming weak and incapable of governing (which harms independence case). Deliver not a lot of your manifesto (designed as they all were with minority govt or coalition) and have no one to blame.

Keep quiet and people will turn against you as they will be SNP cuts. I personally think he is on an incredibly sticky wicket now. And with the vote being soft, could be vulnerable in 2016.

SNP’s proposed cut in corporation tax for companies operating in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with whether Alex Salmond is left-wing or right-wing. The nationalist motivation is to counter the attraction of Ireland’s relatively low corporation tax rate so as to attract more inward investment to Scotland – and re-establish that failed vision of Silicon Glenn among other objectives

Seeing all the bickering in the comments above between Bob B. and many others, I am surmising that Bob B. is in the English camp.

Who cares about all the arguments along economic lines, or of general benefits?

This looking out for a group or personal benefit to be gained by leaving or not, is exactly the same kind of disgraceful thing, that led the Crown side to betray Scotland 300 years ago.

They spit on the memory of Bannockburn then, and on Wallace’s grave too when they did this.
Not being Scottish or English (thank the lord for that) I can take the outsider looking in perspective, and having gotten to know the Scotland around the Clyde.

Just like those teensy EU countries only joined for the benefit of sucking off Berlin’s teat (joing the EU and/or the Euro) and nothing else, see where that oh so principled thing has gone less than 2-3 decades later.

One can only hope that at some point the Scottish people and the SNP go for REAL sovereignty and abrogate the Act of Union 1707 300 years hence.
But, please don’t stop there:

Use this blog’s MAIN point, and AFFIRM your independence by leaving the EU also. Maybe Scotland can be the one to start the collapse of this most misbegotten experiment called the EU. It will fail anyhow, those getting out soonest will be the ones to gain.

Finally, to the blog’s point “that it is Westminsters power alone…”
NOT TRUE!
A people have a right to determine their own future, and they do NOT need someone else’s permission to do so (unless they happen to be Silesians not wishing to become Poles in Kattowitz, or South Carolinias not wishing to be part of the United States).

YOUR country (meaning the one that really runs Westminster) just recently affirmed that principle by killing Serbs to enforce it against them viz the so-called Kosovars, or against Khartoum viz Darfur, or in some sense also, right now, against Tripolis.

You can not argue against the principle, and you can not find an argument against the Scots being, and having had, a separate people from the English.

Scottish independence is merely no more than the application of the greed of the few over the frank and ouvert ignorance of those in Scotland who delusinally think that thei so called independent country will sail off into the North Sea, free from control by anybody.
Never mind the fact that Scotland is financially and politically unviable. With it’s now majority SNP government few have opened the history books to realise that large majority led movements based on simple divisions (such sa pretending that the Scottish are some other kind of human being) will always fail once the divisions open up – which they will seeing as anyone who knows anything about Scottish history would understand that it was almost never a unified country at any point in its pre-union history..
Those of you North of the border bolstered by stories of how the UK has been bad for Scotland also have been swept up in a xenophobic argument that because you’re history and culture are ‘somewhat’ different that you were forced into the Union.
Yes England did sink your attempts at colonies (in clear collusion with Europe), but on the other hand those colonies were unviable. The place they chose was a death trap so even if trade wasn’t sunk by the rest of Europe it wouldn’t have survived. Better countries like Sweden and Denmark failed at the same thing.
Furthermore Scotland was actually rebated £389,000 for joining the union and enjoyed a privelged position not usually granted to countries joining ANY union.

Independence (seeing as it’s not a financial reality and no other countries support it – erm which is crucial to any countries emergence) is a misnomer. You would have to apply to join the EU; currently the UK protects the three Scottish banks and the entire economy (don’t mention the decline of industry – which is simply the advancement of science and technology rendering obsolete things well obsolete) and considering how apparent Scotland’s hatred of outsiders and their closest neighbours is; how are you going to cope being entirely beholden to the EU.

Laughably clearly a republic is assumed, never mind that legally you would still have the same Head of State as we do now – not to mention that simply voting to remove the Crown is not a solution. You will then vote in a republican system which will be as corrupt as teh current Scottish assembly and your place on the world stage will decline as will your economy – which is and always has been – even pre-union – is entirely propped up by England!

You won’t be in any position to join without the Euro. You assume an even trade relationship and a free market – however that is an English/British idea not a European ideal.

My problem is with Scotland self pitying obsession with feeling dominated in the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES SUCH.
Scottish independence is regional nationalism, xenophobia, racism and using an invented, revisionist history and the flash freezing of a mythic Scottish culture that re-creates a geographic backwater as an downtrodden, bullied people despite the fact again that Scotland could never have achieved successes as great as it currently experiences right now.

So thanks for taking away my British identity. (I don’t have the luxury of being white, my father is but his family are from the continent).
Why Scotland will never be happy with the luxuries it experiences for very very very little input into British society beggars belief when compared to how other countries have dominated other regional groups that simply can’t hack not being the center of attention deservedly or not.
Compared to the Basques, Kurds, Uyghurs, Macedonians etc Scotland has absolutely no right to complain about anything. There never is and never was any struggle as the Scottish establishment clearly wanted to join the Union and were understanding of the obvious geopolitical and cultural contexts.
you have never been dominated, subjugated, enslaved, debarred, restricted or repressed to anywhere near a newsworthy degree vis-a-vis other regional minorities that still lack a plausible form of autonomy.

Scotland has not earned any say in independence and the entire campaign is backwards and fraudulent. Racist, racist, racist.