Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by decomm18

  1. I'm hearing Ruth Davidson is being questioned 'under caution' regarding the electoral fraud issue with the No campaign. 


    Awaiting more info.



    Seems that both sides were up to this:



    I hope that appropriate enquiries include Mr Yousaf as well...

    • Like 3
  2. Now that independence is mainstream, having the support of 45% of the population,

    Its really quite inspiring.


     Not quite, SS. Just under 45% of those who voted, so that's 45% of 85%, or just over 38% of the over-15 population. Clearly we can't definitively say what those who didn't bother to vote think about Indy, but surely if they weren't content with the status quo and remaining as part of the union, they'd have joined the ranks of yes supporters? 

    • Like 5
  3. Oh and I've skipped a page or two but a bit of graciousness from the 'winners' on here wouldn't go amiss.

    I'm relieved, that's all. It was the wrong proposition from the politicians, too hurried, poorly considered, with fundamental flaws; and to be honest, letting down those grass-roots activists who worked so hard to support the 'Yes' campaign. There will be lessons to be learned for next time, and they're pretty clear lessons.


    I feel intense sympathy for everyone who threw themselves  into the cause, and see themselves as defeated - but the success of their efforts - and of the No campaign too - is the degree of engagement of the Scottish people  that has been achieved over the last  month, when the electorate  could very easily have become disenchanted and bored by the end of a very long campaign. the amazing turnout underlines this. I've been amazed, and heartened  too.


    There were lots of things from 'yes' that worked wonderfully well. The flaws that there were, which became evident, through the campaign and in retrospect, will all be possible to correct  if devo-max (or whatever  it is) doesn't deliver, and the Scottish people continue to seek true independence. 


    Interesting times ahead - and hey, we're owed a good winter after last year, when there was almost no snow at all in Falkirk. Hope springs eternal..

    • Like 3
  4. I've not voted yet, but will be going later to add to the 'no' tally. Seems to be that upwards of 18% have already voted, and it's barely lunchtime!


    I've read a lot on social media about voters making a 'journey', mostly in the direction of yes. I haven't done that, but I have moved my stance, particularly in the last couple of months, as the extent of Scottish societal engagement in this referendum has become evident. A year ago I was a hard no - I believed that Scotland would never have the interest to be fully self-governing and to hold its leaders to account appropriately. However, I've changed my view, and now think that if a more careful and managed approach was taken, working with rUK instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that Independence could and should happen in the medium-term.


    I still hope fervently for a 'no' this time around. If we get a 'yes' my entire working life will be turned upside down, and not in a good way - this could possibly be skewing my view a little ;-). But if it's a narrow 'no', change - and not just devo max - will come sooner rather than later. If it's the right change, managed in the right way, that will be a good thing for Scotland and the Scots - and for rUK - and it's a change I'll be much happier to embrace.

    • Like 3
  5. I'm a strong Yes voter - and at times I've let things get a bit heated in debates I'll admit that. But I do find it sad that what has largely been an energetic and positive debate can so very quickly turn nasty both online and off. One of the things it appears the Scots have yet to consider is that come Friday - roughly HALF the country is going to be bitter about the outcome and everyone is going to have to accept the result and get on with things - together again.

     Andrew, although the last few weeks have been a bit of a shock to very many Scots, who tend to the unemotional and jokey self-deprecating type, I think it's been a good thing, showing us all that we are capable of engagement when it matters enough. But the closing stages of this extraordinary marathon, although dramatic, aren't cataclysmic. Afterwards, whatever happens, I think we'll all roll up the banners and put away the badges and go back to how it was before, in terms of getting on with one another, even those we've fallen out badly with over this.


    It might be a bit harder after a 'yes' because of the huge changes to be wrought, but again everyone will work together to make it work, as I think our leaders will. Conversely,  if it's a 'no', those on the losing side will I think be disappointed and resigned (Scots are very good at losing, after all ;-)), but also - the activists at least - looking to the future to prepare for next time. There will be a next time, and I don't think all of these youngsters newly engaged by the events of 2014, will be prepared to wait the 'generation' suggested by AS. And I for one will look forward to next time. I might even be on the 'yes' side

    • Like 6
  6. I must have blotted that one out :D


    A small part of me thinks a narrow NO win might be for the best for the time being. A narrow YES win will never get accepted by a large section of the unionist population. It's only a small part of me that thinks this about a NO win...about half my left pinkie.

    You and I are as one on this, CMD. As I posted several dozen pages back, I think Scottish independence should happen, but just in a more objective, planned and collaborative way, enabling preparation on both sides of the border, and a more considered approach to what we should be sharing long-term for the best for all parties. I think a small no win will deliver that, in the end, and both sides will - i hope - have learned lessons from what's happened since 2011. I hate this oppositional approach to politics, which has spilled over into this referendum and messed things up good and proper.


    A long timescale with a clear timetable to full economic independence and a proper partnership of equals - and a properly independent Scotland by 2025 - would tick all of my boxes.

  7. Decomm I wouldn't take the Torygraphs opinion on anything in Scotland seriously. That paper is completely anti Scottish. Anyway I take your points but they are really just opinions.

     It's not the Telegraph - it's ex-Naval people writing to the Telegraph. And sorry, not opinions, but fact. Something the white paper's short on

    • Like 2
  8. Well I must admit I am no expert but I see no reason why Faslane and the Clyde could not house a conventional Navy. We will need ports in the North Sea and the Atlantic. There is likely to be new oil fields there once Trident is removed. If we can port dangerous submarines there and warships can enter. I can only conclude the area is of some strategic capability and importance. Sounds like our friend got from the borders to Central station in 8 minutes. Some trains we have these days!

     I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad November, I was just passing Carstairs when I first posted, and about ten minutes out from Glasgow the second time. And those Virgin trains can be quite fast ;-). Now you'll be accusing me of speeding along the motorway to Glasgow because I'm now back in Falkirk.


    Faslane could be used to base-port a conventional naval force, no problem, although berthing-space would be an issue if the SDF got as much as it seems to expect to get (and we can argue about that too). What it's in no way suitable for is the back-office functions required to act - as is stated - as the 'HQ' of the SDF. There's not much office-space, and the site is very sloping making new-build  hideously expensive. The new quarters built to house submariners was eye-wateringly over budget, and is already falling apart due to the lovely weather over there. No parking to speak of, not enough flat ground for stores and other support-functions, and a large number of specialist buildings that would need knocked down and (in some cases) expensively decommissioned. The costs will run into tens of millions, actually make that hundreds. Then there's the fact that it's so far away from the motorway network, and seat of government. Then there's the other fact that most of Scotland's assets are in the north sea, and who wants to go round the top of the country whenever you need to get to work? Any sensible consideration would have had them put the HQ at Rosyth, where it's handy for Holyrood and the existing infrastructure is far better suited to creating huge offices and stores.


    In any case, most of the jobs which would supposedly be created by siting the SDF HQ on the Clyde are of far lower quality than the specialist engineering support tasks currently carried out. No need for electrical, civil, nuclear engineers, no need for safety-case specialists. These are all civilian jobs, carried out by highly-trained personnel, and it supports a large training programme for apprentices as well. Don't tell me that renewables will fill that gap - it won't; and your average skilled safety engineer doesn't want to retrain as a pay-clerk. Our ambitious youngsters will need to go south in even larger numbers than they now do to get the jobs they want, and we'll lose still more of the engineering excellence that made - and still makes - Scotland great. The Clyde as it currently operates has a long-term future, and will continue to employ current levels of quality personnel into the distance


    Don't just take my word for it - try these guys



    • Like 1
  9. Yes, I have been to Faslane. Anything stopping a Navy being based there? 


    Meaning the west coast, where new shipbuilding will take place thanks to Jim McColl at Clyde Blowers, is wrong?



    Quick fix? It's estimated to take 4 years for complete removal of Trident. I'm sure jobs will be safe initially as the dismantling, quite rightly, is started. I'd like to put some positivity into your statement - perhaps some are quite happy to leave Faslane for Portsmouth or wherever this waste of money is planned to go. Sadly, job losses can occur any time, BTW. But, I expect nothing else from the scaremongers.


    Think positive. Stop holding Scotland back from flourishing. 


    No, nothing stopping a small naval presence being there - it's the proposal to use it for the HQ of the SDF that's barking for all of the reasons I gave. The west coast isn't the obvious place to base the navy, even because the main assets we're protecting are in the north sea, and our NATO support role will focus on the north sea as well. Nothing to do with shipbuilding. There's even an existing ammunitioning depot at Crombie on the Forth. 


    Sorry I can't be positive, and perhaps that's because there's absolutely nothing to be positive about in the White Paper, in the defence section at least. Just a lot of hot air that disappears as soon as you examine it with any understanding of the subject. 

  10. Really? A deep water port protected on all sides by tall mountains. Seems like an ideal base for a navy. Granted a presence on the East coast would be good too.

    Not just the navy proposed to be there, remember. And in truth not even enough berthing-space for the numbers of small craft suggested. The land-side would be hopeless for the admin and support-services. built on slopes, no parking, huge specialist facilities aimed at submarines that would need lengthy decommissioning... I could go on. It's a joke really. Not thought through, like so much else in that white paper

  11. Don't worry, we'll soon build up our defence force when Trident is moved out of Faslane. I mean what a great empty space of a base for the new SDF. Thousands of jobs will be created, too...Hey, we'll even re-open our coastguard centres again after the current UK govt closed all but one. Just like they did with the RAF bases up here. 

     You ever been to Faslane, BFT? I think anyone who had been there would realise just how completely unsuitable it is for anything other than submarine support. The infrastructure, the topography and the geography is all wrong - along with the small matter of it being on the west coast rather than the east.


    Rosyth would be much better, IMHO. the very fact of Faslane being suggested shows the exceedingly poor understanding of the needs of the armed forces by those who look for a quick fix for the huge job-losses associated with the loss of the submarine support function on the Clyde.

    • Like 2
  12. I could move to Spain and my current UK  pension would be paid by the DWP, why would an Indy Scotland be any different. OK, they might consider it frozen (much the same as anyone living in the US or Oz) but they will still pay it because I qualified for a UK State pension.

    ...which will henceforth be paid by Scottish Government, because you'll no longer be (only) a UK citizen. The agreement is that SG will take over responsibility for all Scottish Pensions for those living in Scotland at Independence. So they'll pay even if you go down to live in England. DWP will be out of the picture entirely, except for those from rUK who emigrate to Scotland after Independence, which they'll pay in exactly the same way as UK pensioners in Spain.

  13. everyone who is currently paying into a state pension will have that honoured in full by DWP the Scottish government will just take over and there isn't any start up costs thanks to Gordon brown we are currently paying the pensions of the older people and our kids will pay ours there isn't a start up its running freely just now because Gordon brown plundered the pension pot but hey lets believe a letter from the slime ball.

    BUS, this is all political soundbites. DWP won't be paying pensions any more, will lose all involvement after Independence - Scottish Government have to fund all pensions from 2016 onwards. By start-up costs I mean the cost of replicating what DWP currently does for the whole UK, in Scotland as well. New offices, new (expensive) IT, new employees; all to be funded within Scotland. And the concern about the ageing population is just that - all of those pensioners' pensions being paid for by fewer young people's efforts.

  14. plz go and look up DWP or contact them to ask and they will tell you that pensions have been assured

    Yes, pensions have been assured, and it's been agreed that Scottish Government will be funding them! So ability to deliver future payment of pensions becomes the responsibility of Scottish Government, and nothing to do with DWP, who will be disappearing from Scotland along with all of the other rUK machinery of government. Ability to deliver will come from Scottish Government's ability (or inability) to make overall budgets balance.


    And don't get me started on start-up costs...

  15. or you could put it the other way and say if someone is silly enough to believe the letter why would child and housing benefit go they already fit in our spending, pensions have already been assured by the DWP, I don't see how mortgages or rent would rise either as if its a currency union these would be in line with the rest of the UK so no change and even at a pegged currency these wouldn't change drastically at all, the plan B on currency is settled it will be the pound on a 1:1 pegged basis darling said we cant be stopped from using the pound, no jobs will leave businesses have already stated this and paying for the NHS well don't we already do this.


    There you go with the rose-tinted spectacles. The SNP future projections are all based on optimistic assumption, not on firmly-understood future costings. All of these things - benefits, pensions, the NHS - will have to be funded from a budget that will be squeezed at the mercy of international markets, the whim of big business and speculators, and fluctuations of oil-prices. You can't say what'll happen to interest- or mortage-rates, because there is no Plan B on currency - just Plans B, C,D, E etc. Pensions have not been 'assured' by DWP, because they'll be funded after Independence by Scottish Government, and will need to be funded from within the budget as a whole. So if the budget tanks, pensions - more probably for future rather than current pensioners - will be under pressure too.

    • Like 1
  16. ...and we have already seen that tory back benchers will stop us getting any new powers so we will still have all our oil money taken and be left with the same crap we have

     Scaremongering much BUS? I think everything in that letter is true, and absolutely good reasons to vote no if you're not seeing everything through rose-tinted spectacles. 

  17. I wouldn't worry about it, Sons and fathers have always fallen out whether it be about the length of hair or what time to come in at. Look on the 'discussion' as an extension of that. lol


    True, but in this case my laid-back biddable son has never stood up to his quite 'assertive' father before. However on this (son's a 'yes') he appears to feel strongly enough to have fuelled a series of increasingly bad-tempered arguments, including threats to leave home (!). On the other hand my feisty argumentative daughter who constantly goes head-to-head with her dad, agrees with him utterly on this - it's actually brought them together -  and instead spends all her time bemoaning the stupidity of her (yes-supporting) friends at school. She's in sixth year and not shown any interest in politics until now. Second son is keeping his own counsel, but has told me he's (probably) 'no' and too ashamed to admit it to any of his friends.


    I reckon I've got a complete spectrum of opinion, just within my own family! Suspect many others are exactly the same. Whatever the rights and wrongs of all of this, it seems to have radicalised a huge number of people. Still not sure whether that's good or bad, based on my own experience...

    • Like 1
  18. My boss at work voted no. 3 Kids voted yes and his wife. Interesting division in that household.

     Tell me about it. My husband and son are almost at the point of coming to blows over the subject. So much for a peaceful democratic evolution!

  19. My granny, 89 years old, has voted Labour in every Scottish, European and Westminster election since turning 18.

    Today she returned her postal vote to the Highland electoral office and voted Yes.

     I take your yes-voting granny and raise it. My 93 - yo mother is not only a firm no, but keeps arguing with my (yes-voting) brother on the subject. He's not for changing, but neither is she ;-).

  • Create New...