Scotland votes no to Independence

[chris89]

That doesn't surprise me. Conservative policies (pursued by the Conservatives and New Labour) have probably led more than anything to the partition of Britain.

I fully agree with that. When i did tell her we don't get free prescriptions she was surprised. Another reason why i would/ when able would choose to move up to Scotland. The area she is in is good as well.

Also just been linked this:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...and-with-scottish-brethren-in-edinbu.25254357

So 'yay' for that and change of plans for upcoming weekend. (Well the Saturday at least)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My own personal don't know is why and how so many intelligent Scottish people and residents of Scotland, are falling for the half truths and exaggerations being put forward by Salmond

Perhaps you are under a misapprehension? Perhaps the "many intelligent Scottish people" are inclinded towards a 'Yes' decision irregardless of anything Alex Salmond or any other politician has declared to the local media.

Perhaps their choice might have been informed by facts?

I suggest only this because I am one of those who don't watch TV nor read newspapers, so have no idea what may have been 'put forward by Salmond'. As a result, I'm condemned to making decisions based on official documents and discussion with officers, civil servants and others before I can form an opinion. I don't have the benefit of media statements, but I do still manage to form opinions.

Consequently, I rebut the suggestion that informed decisions follows from media reports of what politicians have been reported to have said.

I will leave it to others to determine whether or not I am 'intelligent'.
But, and for what my opinion is worth, I can add that speaking with Alex Salmond and his closest advisors leaves me in no doubt that he, and they, are 'intelligent'.
It disappoints me that political discussion of such importance is mapped onto the perception of personalities in the media - personalities who come and go, but issues which are constant.

Of course, other interpretations of the facts are available. And I'm equally sure that a cacophony of interpretations based on hysterical media noise is also available.

But, the point of importance to me is nothing to do with Alex Salmond, nor with the SNP. If Scotland chooses to appoint its own governance, it will then hold an election, and only then will it be relevant to talk about parties or personalities. The Scottish Independence Referendum Act entitles Scotland to choose to establish a government or not. and then, if approved, in its subsequent elections, the Scotland Act entitles its people to vote for government members from the Conservatives, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour or whoever comes forward. It is misleading to assume that a vote for a national Government in this referendum just now is a vote for any particular political party or leader.

It is not. It is disingenuous to conflate the referendum for an independent government with a specific political party's success in such a future government should it be approved.

 

[GaryMcEwan]

The Yes voters can't be that intelligent when they start bad mouthing anyone who isn't voting yes.

I was travelling home after work one day last week and a Yes voter sat beside me and started to ask me about the referendum and I told him that I was voting No. He then started to call me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' because I was voting that way, and also the person also stated that I shouldn't have a vote because I am voting No...

It's people like this that are ruining the referendum in all it's entirety. I've never seen so many yes voters being so aggressive towards either people voting no or are undecided and are trying to persuade them...

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
There is, however, a lesson from history that Scots would do well to remember. Darien.

That scheme, in which Scotland attempted to become a colonial power, all but bankrupted the country at the turn of the 18th century and was one of the important factors in bringing about the Act of Union in 1707.

There is a more recent, highly apposite, precedent. When RBS became a "British" bank, effectively asserting its control over Williams & Glyn's, the board and Scottish Head Office brought with them their "big fish in a tiny pond" mentality, and strutted around as if the bank was a big player in the international scene. Scottish systems, suitable for the small domestic market, were selected over W&G systems that had been proved to work in the City. To back this up, the Scots went on a massive binge, sucking up institutions in aggressive takeovers until, in asset terms, the bank was huge. But the small-minded parochial approach they had brought with them was in no way up to the task, and we all know what happened. (Oh, by the way, thank you Westminster!). I do worry.

 

[Bevan Price]

Being English, I have no vote. It is for the people of Scotland to decide their future, to decide if life will be better or worse if Scotland becomes independent. It seems to me that Mr Salmond is trying to persuade them that they can have the best of both worlds - they must decide if they can believe him, or are he, and his party, like many other politicians, offering promises that they cannot deliver.

Yes, Scotland can have a currency called the pound, but unless it retains comparable financial policies to rUK, there is no way to guarantee permanent 1:1 equivalence of the currencies. That will lead to greater expense for currency exchange - commission for bankers, etc., added expense for business & travellers.

Yes, Scotland thinks it can be part of the EU - but will the other countries meekly accept Salmond's claim that this in an automatic right ? Maybe yes, but maybe no - and what conditions will they apply to let Scotland into EU ?

Border controls - there won't be any immediate changes, but in the long term - who knows. Will, at some time in the future, the Scots & English need passports to cross the border ?

Even simple things like the BBC. Will the Scots continue to pay TV licence to fund the BBC ? If not, how do they expect the BBC to pay for transmission facilities located to give good signals for Scottish viewers ? They surely don't believe that rUK viewers will be happy to continue funding facilities that entirely benefit Scotland ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Yes voters can't be that intelligent when they start bad mouthing anyone who isn't voting yes.

I was travelling home after work one day last week and a Yes voter sat beside me and started to ask me about the referendum and I told him that I was voting No. He then started to call me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' because I was voting that way, and also the person also stated that I shouldn't have a vote because I am voting No...

It's people like this that are ruining the referendum in all it's entirety. I've never seen so many yes voters being so aggressive towards either people voting no or are undecided and are trying to persuade them...

I think the main reason why that happens is that a No vote is effectively the default (being the status quo) and people have to persuade people to vote for change. A behavioural sciences lab at Edinburgh University did a study and basically found that once people are given balanced information, undecided voters tend to then move to the Yes side. Providing more information about how things actually are at the moment makes people realise what the UK is actually about - we've heard a lot about how an independent Scotland would or would not be able to function, trade, pay for things etc but we've not heard much about how well we actually do at the moment as part of the UK. In a sense, Yes activists consider the move from No to Yes to be like leaving Plato's cave and seeing the world for what it really is.

The fundamental failure of Better Together has been to accept that the reason the referendum is happening at all is that people are not happy with the status quo or minor variations thereof. They've just promised minor changes when people want radical change. If we had a three-option referendum the overwhelming majority (including many Yes supporters) would vote for proper Devo Max. This Devo Max is well beyond what any of the three parties are offering, the Lib Dems being the closest, as it would basically be for Scotland to raise and spend taxes all on its own and pay Westminster a fee for defence and foreign affairs. That option diminishes the power of Westminster and the UK parties quite considerably though, so that's why it was not offered and that's why they're in this mess at the moment. When the promises of more powers only came out 11 days before the referendum, just when the first Yes majority poll came out, it stinks of desperation. Even then Alastair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, has basically said that the promises made by George Osborne were more than what would actually be delivered.

 

[Clip]

.
But, and for what my opinion is worth, I can add that speaking with Alex Salmond and his closest advisors leaves me in no doubt that he, and they, are 'intelligent'.

I have no doubt that they are as you are yourself Dave but he is a politician just the same as no other spinning stories in the media that are indeed half truths.

As I pointed out in post #189 spinning a yarn about the NHS being broken up which will affect Scotlands NHS is not true when they already have control over the Scottish NHS budget and not Westminster.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-plan-new-poll-reveals-vote-knife-edge.html

That could be interesting especially for the ECML and the WCML if that were to happen

 

[NotATrainspott]

I have no doubt that they are as you are yourself Dave but he is a politician just the same as no other spinning stories in the media that are indeed half truths.

As I pointed out in post #189 spinning a yarn about the NHS being broken up which will affect Scotlands NHS is not true when they already have control over the Scottish NHS budget and not Westminster.

The Scottish Parliament has control over how it spends the money it is given but it does not have enough power to realistically alter the amount of money it receives. Under any of the three parties' devolution plans, there is still a link between public spending in the rUK from Westminster and the level of funding made available to Scotland. Effectively the key tax for Scotland to run its own taxation system separate from the rUK (which is what a plurality of Scottish people want) is oil, and none of the UK parties are ever going to give this to us within the Union. Watch this and you'll see what I mean. Only oil revenues balance out the extra public spending we get from Barnett, so any reduction in the Barnett formula grant (to be replaced by a direct share of some income tax revenue) represents an overall cut in the Scottish budget.

 

[ExRes]

The Scottish Parliament has control over how it spends the money it is given but it does not have enough power to realistically alter the amount of money it receives. Under any of the three parties' devolution plans, there is still a link between public spending in the rUK from Westminster and the level of funding made available to Scotland. Effectively the key tax for Scotland to run its own taxation system separate from the rUK (which is what a plurality of Scottish people want) is oil, and none of the UK parties are ever going to give this to us within the Union. Watch this and you'll see what I mean. Only oil revenues balance out the extra public spending we get from Barnett, so any reduction in the Barnett formula grant (to be replaced by a direct share of some income tax revenue) represents an overall cut in the Scottish budget.

I hope for the sake of an independent Scotland that there is one hell of a lot of oil left, it seems to be the only form of future income that anyone can think of

 

[berneyarms]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-plan-new-poll-reveals-vote-knife-edge.html

That could be interesting especially for the ECML and the WCML if that were to happen

I have read some rubbish in this campaign, but this scaremongering takes the biscuit.

Is Ed Milliband serious? Is he suggesting that the Common Travel Area that exists in these islands will be abandoned?

I imagine the Irish government would have something serious to say about that as that has serious implications for all of the nations.

Someone should point out to him that a land border already exists between the UK and Ireland and that there are no border controls in place along it.

This is utter nonsense and he should have known better than to suggest it. Makes me fear for this man ever becoming PM.

Things will continue as normal in this regard, I'm quite sure about that.

 

[Greenback]

Is it me or are the 'No' campaign beginning to look more and more desperate?

 

[JohnB57]

Is it me or are the 'No' campaign beginning to look more and more desperate?

Yes, it's you.

I have read some rubbish in this campaign, but this scaremongering takes the biscuit.

Is Ed Milliband serious? Is he suggesting that the Common Travel Area that exists in these islands will be abandoned?

I imagine the Irish government would have something serious to say about that as that has serious implications for all of the nations.

Someone should point out to him that a land border already exists between the UK and Ireland and that there are no border controls in place along it.

This is utter nonsense and he should have known better than to suggest it. Makes me fear for this man ever becoming PM.

Things will continue as normal in this regard, I'm quite sure about that.

But getting away from the emotional aspect of this - and the Daily Mail's own spin - what happens between a Scotland within Schengen and England, NI, Wales and RoI that are not? I agree it makes no sense at all for Scotland to be within the Schengen area, but it's up to Scotland to negotiate out of that and whatever your leanings, you surely have to accept that it's not certain either way.

 

[berneyarms]

Yes, it's you.


But getting away from the emotional aspect of this - and the Daily Mail's own spin - what happens between a Scotland within Schengen and England, NI, Wales and RoI that are not? I agree it makes no sense at all for Scotland to be within the Schengen area, but it's up to Scotland to negotiate out of that and whatever your leanings, you surely have to accept that it's not certain either way.

Let' be realistic - they are not going to want to be part of Schengen.

The CTA countries have much larger trade with each other than any other EU member.

Scotland wanting to remove itself from the CTA is nothing more than poppycock, as is the other countries not wanting them to stay in it.

You will find that pragmatism will set in and that for matters such as this no one is going to choose an option that will be negative for everyone such as border checks.

 

[JohnB57]

Let' be realistic - they are not going to want to be part of Schengen.

The CTA countries have much larger trade with each other than any other EU member.

Scotland wanting to remove itself from the CTA is nothing more than poppycock, as is the other countries not wanting them to stay in it.

You will find that pragmatism will set in and that for matters such as this no one is going to choose an option that will be negative for everyone such as border checks.

I totally agree with you, but applying it strictly, as a new member, Scotland would have to be within (rather than outwith - lovely Scottish word!) Schengen. Hence Miliband's comment and the Daily Mail's measured, balanced article. Tongue in cheek alert for those not sensitive to irony.

Actually, I think the whole campaign has been mis-played by the no campaign. Had they emphasised the reality, which is that as one of our closest neighbours, Scotland will always have a cheek-by-jowl relationship with the rest of us. And should Scotland decide to go its own way, of course we'll make it as easy and seamless as possible. No borders, a workable currency agreement, etc. That reflects how things will have to be in real life and I believe would have resulted in a more representative vote rather than the anti-English xenophobia that, if anything can, will sway the vote pro-independence.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Let' be realistic - they are not going to want to be part of Schengen.

The CTA countries have much larger trade with each other than any other EU member.

Scotland wanting to remove itself from the CTA is nothing more than poppycock, as is the other countries not wanting them to stay in it.

Joining Schengen, like becoming part of the Euro is compulsory for new countries joining the EU. At the moment it is still unclear if Scotland will count as an existing member of the EU it if becoming independent, in which case the UK's exemption from Schengen will still apply, or if it will be treated as a new country, in which case it will only become a member of the EU after application for membership.

This is an issue that I can't believe has not been confirmed by now as really it is one of the biggest issues affecting the entire debate. A Scotland that forms outside of the EU is going to really struggle and given that a number of other European countries, Spain being a key example, are trying to avoid the Scottish example being used by their own regions, I can see no reason why they would be liberal in allowing Scotland to join the EU and get away with not having to take on the same policies as any other new join.

If Scotland therefore joins Schengen and rUK does not, there will be no option but to close the border or rUK would de facto be part of the Schengen agreement anyway and people could travel without passport checks into Scotland then travel into the rest of the rUK under the CTA.

Given that without the Scottish votes, the rUK is likely to trend far more to the right and with the increasing apparent reach of UKIP and the Daily Mail media, any suggestion that we might open up our borders more freely is likely to be the death knell of any rUK parliament.

 

[JohnB57]

Even if it's in theory compulsory, Schengen makes no practical sense for Scotland as it lacks the land borders that make Schengen work as intended. Passport checks are nothing when compared with the sort of security we now face at airports for example.

If the EU insisted on an independent Scotland being within Schengen, I can see massive political objections, not only from Scotland, but also the rUK and Ireland as to have a major trading zone such as the British Isles partly disfunctional benefits nobody. If and when independence actually happens, we'll all have got used to the idea and we'll be looking forward as a zone rather than gazing at our navels.

And these comments are made both in the context of my belief that we should stay together and that we need, as someone else said , a pragmatic and realistic approach to how things may turn out.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Even if it's in theory compulsory, Schengen makes no practical sense for Scotland as it lacks the land borders that make Schengen work as intended. Passport checks are nothing when compared with the sort of security we now face at airports for example.

Iceland has no land borders at all, yet it has signed. Ditto Cyprus who are planning to sign.

For passengers it does make difference to air travel, particularly for people wanting to change planes.

For instance - at the moment a passenger wanting to fly from Aberdeen to New York can fly to London Heathrow and change there for a flight to the USA, without needing to pass again through passport control and security. If they fly with KLM to Amsterdam they need to pass through a whole new set of passport and security controls. If Scotland was to sign, the opposite would be true.

It would also allow more flights from Scotland to regional European airports that don't have passport and immigration controls and vice versa.

 

[danielnez1]

Looking at how the value of the pound is tumbling today, I have no doubt that some pain and dysfunctionality is inevitable.

If Scotland votes to become independent, regardless of how pragmatic each side chooses to be, "the deed is done" and a period of chaotic activity will begin. The world financial markets will have a field day. Things like changing the CTA to incorporate Scotland could take time to reach consensus and agreement and of course the EU is another kettle of fish.

 

[JohnB57]

Iceland has no land borders at all, yet it has signed. Ditto Cyprus who are planning to sign.

For passengers it does make difference to air travel, particularly for people wanting to change planes.

For instance - at the moment a passenger wanting to fly from Aberdeen to New York can fly to London Heathrow and change there for a flight to the USA, without needing to pass again through passport control and security. If they fly with KLM to Amsterdam they need to pass through a whole new set of passport and security controls. If Scotland was to sign, the opposite would be true.

It would also allow more flights from Scotland to regional European airports that don't have passport and immigration controls and vice versa.

I can't believe that anyone would argue for the comparatively few, marginal advantages of a Scotland within Schengen that you quote at the expense of easy transit and trade between countries within the British Isles, except to make some sort of technical point. Iceland has no land borders and Cyprus has its own unique problems so neither compare directly.

 

[Jonny]

Iceland has no land borders at all, yet it has signed. Ditto Cyprus who are planning to sign.

For passengers it does make difference to air travel, particularly for people wanting to change planes.

For instance - at the moment a passenger wanting to fly from Aberdeen to New York can fly to London Heathrow and change there for a flight to the USA, without needing to pass again through passport control and security. If they fly with KLM to Amsterdam they need to pass through a whole new set of passport and security controls. If Scotland was to sign, the opposite would be true.

It would also allow more flights from Scotland to regional European airports that don't have passport and immigration controls and vice versa.

Are you sure about the passport/security bit for security? I know that Heathrow and current UK airports require transit passengers to pass through immigration but this isn't universal - I've only ever had to pass through security when changing 'planes in the UAE and Australia. I would be very surprised if Domestic-to-International didn't involve a security check.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I can't believe that anyone would argue for the comparatively few, marginal advantages of a Scotland within Schengen that you quote at the expense of easy transit and trade between countries within the British Isles, except to make some sort of technical point. Iceland has no land borders and Cyprus has its own unique problems so neither compare directly.

I don't think anyone would argue for it, but there is no reason the EU would chose to allow Scotland an opt out since it would set a precedence for other new entrants and it would force the rUK's hand into signing as well which the French in particular would support, given it would end the refugee camps in northern France.

 

[Jonny]

I can't believe that anyone would argue for the comparatively few, marginal advantages of a Scotland within Schengen that you quote at the expense of easy transit and trade between countries within the British Isles, except to make some sort of technical point. Iceland has no land borders and Cyprus has its own unique problems so neither compare directly.

Also, Scotland in Schengen would mean that those who are hanging around Calais would have another route - and the remote, hilly areas around The Cheviot, Carter Bar and Kielder would be very difficult for border enforcement because of the sheer remoteness and hilly terrain. Whilst the USA-Mexico border is often 'enforced' by local volunteer groups, the likelihood of anyone in Northumbria (North-East England) being bothered to stop people who are most likely London-bound is slim to pretty remote.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Also, Scotland in Schengen would mean that those who are hanging around Calais would have another route - and the remote, hilly areas around The Cheviot, Carter Bar and Kielder would be very difficult for border enforcement because of the sheer remoteness and hilly terrain. Whilst the USA-Mexico border is often 'enforced' by local volunteer groups, the likelihood of anyone in Northumbria (North-East England) being bothered to stop people who are most likely London-bound is slim to pretty remote.

Precisely. Scotland, the rUK and the ROI (plus other bits like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man) will join Schengen together or not at all. The rUK will demand that Scotland is not forced to join Schengen as if it were, it would destroy the reason why the rUK is allowed and is technically/realistically feasible to have an opt-out. The ROI is different because if it did join Schengen, the UK would have passport checks for all Ireland-bound ferries (including for Northern Ireland).

 

[21C101]

One thing that has completely escaped debate so far is partition. This could very easily occur in two ways.

1) British Sovereign Bases: Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde (Faslane) and a sizeable chunk of territory around it might be retained as a British Sovereign Base, just as happened in Cyprus, complete with nuclear subs and Salmond would be powerless to do anything about it.

2) East Ukraine equivalent. The lowlands/borders decide they want to remain part of the UK. Much of this area is still solid tory and may not want to leave.

I do think though that too much panic is resulting from one opinion poll. Mike Smithson's Politicalbetting site is the gold standard on this sort of thing and the following post on the subject is interesting. I reckon it is still 60-40 No, especially bearing mind many have already long voted in postal ballots. Smithson hasn't forgotten that opinion poll that put the liberals in the lead after the tv debates two weeks before the 2010 election.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...itical-earthquake-the-cleggasm-in-april-2010/

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The rUK will demand that Scotland is not forced to join Schengen as if it were, it would destroy the reason why the rUK is allowed and is technically/realistically feasible to have an opt-out.

I doubt the rUK will really have much of a voice on the issue, given their continued threats to leave the EU entirely, they don't have much power to negotiate with.

The default option for new countries is to have to sign up to open borders and so all that could be done by rUK is to propose a vote allowing an exemption.

As mentioned, it is certainly in the interests of other European countries not to have an exception in the UK and no reason for them to go easy on Scotland so I can't see it passing.

I imagine that if Scotland signed, the rUK would be compelled to sign (and thus probably ROI as well, who are only outside to ease ROI/NI cross-border movement). But far right parties and media are likely to make tremendous capital over this and there could be a strong backlash against Scotland if they are seen as forcing the rUK's hand.

 

[21C101]

Also, Scotland in Schengen would mean that those who are hanging around Calais would have another route - and the remote, hilly areas around The Cheviot, Carter Bar and Kielder would be very difficult for border enforcement because of the sheer remoteness and hilly terrain. Whilst the USA-Mexico border is often 'enforced' by local volunteer groups, the likelihood of anyone in Northumbria (North-East England) being bothered to stop people who are most likely London-bound is slim to pretty remote.

A large fence/earth wall with army patrolling it and searchlights/watchtowers will put a stop to that.

You are right that rUK will have little influence over the EU vis Scotland joining (they will have a veto but unlikely they would use it, however, Spain will and they will veto any entry for fear of encouraging basque and catalan separatists. Salmon cant get round the fact that existing EU members have a veto on new states joining.

The fundamental immediate problem for Scotland is that it receives far more from HM treasury than it pays in and this will cease overnight in 2016 if they vote YES at the same time as they face all the extra costs of running a separate state. If I were up there I would be tempted to vote YES for the same reason as I would vote UKIP down here - far better to run your own country, however badly, than have outsiders running it who you cannot depose, but I wouldn't be under any illusion about the hardships that will result in the next 20-30 years.

 

[JohnB57]

I don't think anyone would argue for it, but there is no reason the EU would chose to allow Scotland an opt out since it would set a precedence for other new entrants and it would force the rUK's hand into signing as well which the French in particular would support, given it would end the refugee camps in northern France.

I think a precedent needs to be set. If the situation is unique, a unique solution needs to be agreed. Schengen is of very limited benefit to the UK and Ireland or whatever we have in future - in fact if you also consider the status of the Channel Islands, an additional layer of complication comes in. So it must be of benefit to the EU to have transparent trade and travel between member states that would derive far less benefit from Schengen than mainland European ones. I know it's a rare event, but common sense does occasionally prevail in the EU...

Precisely. Scotland, the rUK and the ROI (plus other bits like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man) will join Schengen together or not at all. The rUK will demand that Scotland is not forced to join Schengen as if it were, it would destroy the reason why the rUK is allowed and is technically/realistically feasible to have an opt-out. The ROI is different because if it did join Schengen, the UK would have passport checks for all Ireland-bound ferries (including for Northern Ireland).

I'm not sure what you're saying about NI ferries - passport checks within one state? However, this just emphasises the sense in maintaining the current travel area.

As mentioned, it is certainly in the interests of other European countries not to have an exception in the UK and no reason for them to go easy on Scotland so I can't see it passing.

I don't understand your assertion that Schengen is in the interest of other EU countries. Why and in what way? It would make so little difference that it's almost not worth the argument. Everything and everybody has to stop at the border, even Eurostar passengers for tunnel security. Explain your assertion please. If you mean in the interests of political expediency, maybe I get that the EU is capable of that, but destroying a functional arrangement to replace it with much less is certainly worth fighting against.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . another route - and the remote, hilly areas around The Cheviot, Carter Bar and Kielder would be very difficult for border enforcement because of the sheer remoteness and hilly terrain.
. . . . the likelihood of anyone in Northumbria (North-East England) being bothered to stop people who are most likely London-bound is slim to pretty remote.

Hmmm. The enthusiasm of the locals in dispatching rabbits with a rifle is audible as regular loud 'bangs' across the County, often done as paid work as well as as an ad hoc 'duty' to protect the environment.

I can't see larger targets being any more difficult to hit by the tweeded sportsmen and women of Northumberland.

 

[Clip]

The Scottish Parliament has control over how it spends the money it is given but it does not have enough power to realistically alter the amount of money it receives. Under any of the three parties' devolution plans, there is still a link between public spending in the rUK from Westminster and the level of funding made available to Scotland. Effectively the key tax for Scotland to run its own taxation system separate from the rUK (which is what a plurality of Scottish people want) is oil, and none of the UK parties are ever going to give this to us within the Union. Watch this and you'll see what I mean. Only oil revenues balance out the extra public spending we get from Barnett, so any reduction in the Barnett formula grant (to be replaced by a direct share of some income tax revenue) represents an overall cut in the Scottish budget.

That may be so but that does not mean that they have to cut the NHS though does it - in fact it very much says so in the link I provided- but again that is not what Salmond and the Yes people are saying though are they.

No, they are saying that Scottish NHS will suffer because of Westminster using private companies. Thats a lie when they have control over NSH Scotland spending.

Of course, they should also check their facts as it is apparent that they themselves have been using private companies for health care, the very thing they say they had eradicated LINK