Have we managed to hit the growth figures that we enjoyed before Gidiot got his hands on the cash till?

He inherited a growing economy, immediately reversed Labour's VAT cut and then topped it a bit more. He sent the economy backwards.

Care to refute my claim that he has borrowed more in 5 years than Labour did in 13?



that just about sums up the level of your intellect

Without Labour's 41 Scottish seats the Conservatives would have had an absolute majority in the current Westminster parliament rather than having to share power with the Lib Dems.

The lastest national polls suggest Labour would be 10 seats short of an overall majority. But if you exclude the Scottish seats then the Conservatives would have 278: Labour 274, Lib Dem 18 and others 21.

The Labour led 'Better Together' campaign has been a disaster and is seems ironic that with Labour having most to lose from independence they have failed to deliver the Labour vote for the 'NO thanks' campaign with a dramatic defection over the last two weeks as Labour 'No' voters have switched to the 'Yes' camp unlike the Conservatives and Lib Dems who are firmly voting against independence.

Which perhaps explains why Ded Moribund (likened to a visiting alien in The Herald)) has suddenly leapt into action and flying north of the border with his shadow cabinet and he plans visits from 100 Labour MPs from south of the border.

Something I pointed out many months ago.

What is now being mooted is that if the 'Yes' vote wins the day then our election in 2015 is postponed until Scotland actually becomes independent (Salmond is sticking to his 18 months of negotiation) or if the 2015 election does go ahead then any Scottish MPs elected will only serve until independence day.

You seem to have fallen for Salmond's muddled economic thinking

The difficulty for the 'Better Together' (BT) campaign is that the Scots are not happy with the status quo and it was only right that Salmond's fantasy promises were exposed. Unfortunately this meant some negative stuff. But Labour's ineffective Alexander & Darling led BT campaign has been out thought and out smarted by the bluster of Salmond.

Salmond's economic's simply don't add up. He talks of having a mandate if they win to demand to keep the pound and was not challenged strongly enough on this point. Every time he said this the counter point should have been made that the rest of the UK also had a mandate, and a much bigger one at that, which would not allow on purely economic grounds for the Bank of England to be the bank of last resort to what would then be a foreign country. Examples of the troubled Euro zone is proof of this.

Falling oil revenues, high public spending and a lack of currency plans wreck the economic case for voting yes. Make no mistake either the real and negative effect a Yes vote will have on the rest of the UK. We could lose our G7 place and influence in Nato. Our economy would suffer as we would incur huge extra costs in moving our defense forces back to home territory many business would relocate south of the border again with wasted expense. The pound would weaken and stock markets would drop. We also would no longer be in control of our borders as Salmond has not budgeted enough for a defense force.

I haven't fallen for anything Salmond has said because I haven't listened. I think I posted last week asking whether it was full independence or they'd still be part of the UK. I paid so little attention to it I didn't know and I was actually surprised that it was a vote on an exit from the UK.

It just seems the English are really, really scared of Scotland voting for independence and I don't really get why. They are a small country of 5m people and a fraction of the UK economy. The way the English politicians say that Scotland can't survive by themselves as though they are a basket case, but if they were such a basket case then surely we'd be happy to see the back of them.

Not being in control of our borders is a nonsense scare tactic. Like we're suddenly going to become vulnerable because Scotland is independent. No one was planning on invading us before, they won't be planning on invading us afterwards.

The truth is that we probably wouldn't need to move any defence bases. We pay them a stupid rent of a few pounds/dollars/euros and they'd stay defended as they are and benefit from the spending of the troops. The businesses that leave Scotland and come back to England, this is supposed to be a bad thing for England? All scare tactic BS IMO. If Scotland was a viable place for business before it will still be viable afterwards.

If Scotland and England can't amicably split then it really shows what a bunch of utter cretins our politicians are when they have destablised countries throughout the world and created war zones. It's alright for Ukraine to push for independence with our half ar5ed backing and create the problems with Russia but if the people of Scotland vote for independence from us then we threaten to put up every block we can to it.

I think if Mexico was polled on becoming the 51st state of the USA they'd vote yes in a heartbeat. The US doesn't want them because they're too poor. If Canada was polled they'd vote no. On heath care alone they simply wouldn't accept becoming American. I think Scotland is a great deal closer to being our version of Canada than they are a Mexico.

It has only been "Labour-led" because Camoron won't go anywhere near it, for fear of being blown out of the water.

His government proposed it and presented the legislation to enable the referendum.

If Scotland do vote YES to independence, Camoron is toast. Forget the Bedroom Tax or flogging off the NHS wholesale, he will always be remembered as the Prime Minister who lost Scotland and split apart the Union

If by turn around you mean the rich have got richer while the poor have got poorer, where they have continued the sell off of state assets at bargain prices to prop up their economic plan, one that has seen them borrow more in the last 5 years than Labour did in 13, one that continues to see hundreds of thousands on short term/zero hours/part time contracts where employment rights continue to be errorded, that kind of turn around?

You really aren't too bright are you?

If Scotland vote YES then there are a significant number of problems that would arise.

The first and major point (that Salmond continually ignores or dismisses) is money: All three major parties have stated that if there is a yes vote, Scotland will not be part of the (now) UK £. Of course you can be an independent nation and link your currency to another bigger, friendly economy but you would then be beholden to your big neighbour's interest rates and fiscal policies. Scotland could always go it alone but what sort of credit rating would they attract?

As for defence bases, the SNP have already stated quite clearly that Scotland would be a nuclear-free zone. Where do you suggest we park our submarines? As for defence ship-building: we have, since the end of WW2, made sure that all of our naval vessels are built within the UK. We do not contract strategic vessels to any foreign country. Independence would mean Scotland then becomes a foreign country, they'd lose that gig straight away.

As I said, the three major parties may have said they won't let them keep the pound but that IMO is massively influenced by the fact that none of them want Scotland to leave the union. But it should be that Bank of England's decision as they have authority over monetary policy.

Salmond seems to think that the party leaders are bluffing and I'm inclined to agree.



All issues sorted through negotiation and don't need to be massive unless the parties choose them to be.

I'm not particularly bothered which way the Scots vote, but it seems to me that requiring only a 51% majority is not enough for such a major decision. When a vote to split would be irreversible, would those wanting to see a split accept a 51% majority against them as a decision for all time?

BTW the Bank of England would have absolutley no remit regarding monetary union or other arrangements put in place. That's political territory - the BoE's only role would be in implementing whatever policy the government gives it. The BoE may argue that the chosen policy is wrong, but they could not enforce monetary union on the remainder of the UK. In fact 'monetary policy' in terms of the BoE itself is powerful but via a limited range of tools - basically interest rates and money supply.

Anyway, assuming a yes vote happens, it will be interesting to see what approach is taken with regards to practicalities. Would a 'snubbed' England play hardball over everything - causing far more problems for Scotland than itself? Or would England try to play nice?