This Poll Has Closed

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

Yes 90%
No 10%
Total 6466

We've launched an impartial #KILTR #poll, please help us make it the biggest online real time #indyref poll!


Sign up or log in to comment

Sign up Log in
Alex Macgregor

The UK debt figure is still firmly embedded in my mind. Our fellow "NO" countrymen and women voted two days ago to ensure that a debt of circa £30,000plus would pass to every man woman and child living in Scotland as their share of the UK National Debt. The debt figure, by the way, is increasing every week. Would anyone out there feel confident with someone so profligate with your finances and financial future? Today's newspapers are filled with the usual pejorative comments and pictures of Mr Salmond who has done the honourable thing by stepping down and he has done it with considerable grace and dignity.
What are the news media going to do now keep up their persistent sneering campaign. Perhaps they should take a close look at the perilous state of the UK finances and ask questions as to why this has come to pass? Is that too much to ask?

Liked by

Diane McWade

I think an amicable short term solution should be a proposal where all revenues raised in Scotland stay in Scotland and we pay Westminster a fee for shared services on foreign affairs and defense for example. England, Wales and NI do the same.

I would like to see our parliament get onto the front foot with these proposals, rather than wait for a timetable of vague promises by politicians who have no power to implement anything for years.

May sound simplistic, however, Westminster needs to realise they are public services to the people.

How to get this on the appropriate agendas? Any suggestions?

Liked by

Alex Macgregor

Hi everyone,

I hop the interest in this little post site is not waning because there is really quite a lot to do in the months ahead especially as the separation game is by no means over. I would, in general terms, agree with Diane about finances and how they could be structured. Reading certain commentaries over the weekend it appears that quite a few fairly elementary mistakes were made in the lead up to the referendum. For example who had the ultimate say so on how the campaign was organised and run. It seems as if the SNP were firmly in charge whereas the Yes Campaign office with more relevant expertise should have been in total charge. The questions about the currency raised like Lazarus from the dead by Darling should never have been allowed to get off the ground or, excuse me, out of the 6 foot long box. This was a side show straight out of the Fairground and was a complete and major irrelevancy. The National Defence arguments were equally turgid but pronounced with such solemn gravitas to make people believe that this was a significant issue and they would never sleep soundly in their beds again. It was not a significant issue.
The voting figures tell the story very well i.e. the YES and the NO voters were equally divided at circa 45%. The deciding factor was the 10% of "don't knowers" in the middle most of whom were hoodwinked by the spurious arguments put forward by Darling and his back up team. A clear case was not made by the Yes Campaign, for example, about pensions. A clear case was not made about Defence. A clear case was not made about the overall financial position i.e. our GDP, the tax generated from it and, finally the costs needed to run the country efficiently. A gigantic hole could have and should have been blown through the subsidy funding we are supposed to receive from the poor suffering English. It was and remains a fallacy but it is still widely believed. The subsidy is debt borrowing which is wrapped up in the curious melange of Treasury expenditure. That is money borrowed to buy Trident, money borrowed to fund the Olympic Games, money borrowed to fight more senseless and un-winnable wars in the Middle East etc.The UK debt is only second worst to that of the US. The money to cover the short fall in the UK between taxation revenues and expenditure is covered by International loans and they do not come cheap. It is even extremely difficult to find out who does all this lending. The simple truth the entire UK economy is underwritten by the tax payer and the remainder, the shortfall, is generated through expensive International loans. Part of the supposed shortfall in the Scottish financial position is our allocation of part of this debt. Apart from the wee Blue Book, there was no attempt to explain any of this to the voters.
The Scottish Government did not light up in bright neon lights that they had:
1. held local rates at the same level ever since they came into power. We were paying too much and every Socialist controlled Council was jacking them up year on year.
2. there are no prescription charges.
3. parking fees at hospitals were dropped.
4. no one attending a University undergraduate degree programme pays any fees etc.
5. home care is still free.

It seems to me that these, while small, are/were exactly what were making most people angry. It must be the case that the next campaign for a free and sovereign Scotland must be prepared thoroughly and not left to the last minute. In short it should begin now. As most of the promises made by the great and good of Westminster politics slowly and surely turn to dust, and they will as the English political storm gets underway and gathers momentum, the previous "undecided" and quite a few of the NOs will be angry enough and vulnerable enough to reconsider and change their minds.

Liked by

Alex Macgregor

Of course, the first sentence in the past para was the result of pushing the post button too soon. The sentence should have read: -

It seems to me that these measures, while small, are/were exactly what were making most people angry about the previous Labour Administration where they coat-tailed behind Westminster in almost everything..