Scotland YES or NO

No mention of the extensive oil fields known to exist between Scotland and Northern Ireland and off the Western Isles? The problem there is not a lack of technology as further exploration or development of these fields is currently prohibited and no licences have been issued because they are in the path of the Trident armed subs as they make there way in and out of their base at Faslane.

Also if RUK claims that it is the only successor state from the Union and claims all the memberships (EU, UN, NATO etc) and assets including the Bank of England, then it is also responsible for ALL the debt accrued in the name of the UK. If a proportionate share of assets is not transferred to Scotland then there will be neither legal nor moral responsibility on Scotland to repay any of the current deficit.

I hope that the the referendum and debate is handled by the media in a responsible and even-handed manner but I will be very surprised if it is.

International law will dictate the sharing of oil revenues/ownership. Refusal to repay any part of the deficit (in no small part grown out of the behaviour of Scottish banks, but that's another story) will simply tarnish the newly independent country as a state that cannot be trusted and so future international lending will be at prohibitively high rates of interest.

Which Scottish Banks would that be Pollaidh? Not the Australian owned Clydesdale Bank, nor HalifaxBOS (headquartered in Halifax) nor the TSB - privatised under M Thatcher and subsumed into LLoyds, which leaves only the RBS/National Westminster which got too big for its boots in an unregulated environment, and suffered the consequences through massive losses furth of the UK. Most of the 'bailing out' was actually done by the USA. Just because a Bank has/had a Scottish name in its title does not make it a Scottish Bank - just as the inaccurately named Bank of England (should be Bank of UK) is not an English Bank but 'belongs' to us all and should be shared properly in the event of Scottish Independence.

Pollaidh I do not consider it helpful to the debate to continually repeat the mantras and misinformation of the 'Better Together' campaign. Gransnetters deserve better.

That's a bit harsh, Granny23.
As one of the many millions who are disenfranchised from the decision-making process of an issue which will affect my country possibly as much as yours, I'm interested in hearing both sides of the argument.
I'm not sure that 'mantras and misinformation' are confined to the No campaigners.

Actually JaneA if you're after hearing both sides of the debate you won't get it from Better Together. Their spokesman has recently been accused by reputable publications such as the New Statesman of either getting his facts wrong or deliberately peddling misinformation. The jury is still out in whether it was deliberate or just ignorance of the true facts (a la George Bush Junior)

So not really harsh,.

Surely as this situation has never occured before then both the YES and the NO campaign arguments are based on ifs and maybe's. The YES campaign appear to only see things in a rose tinted specs, positive way and I have honestly heard so very little from the NO's that I don't know what on earth they are saying???????

Did anyone read Giles Corens piece in the Times, Saturday, sorry I cant send a link, cos we dont subscribe to the online version.

I think Coren was correct on his evaluation of Pestons delivery, live on radio it is a pain to listen to, as he stumbles to find the correct word, and by the end of the piece are none the wiser

By contrast Stephanie Flanders was concise and informative, however she has now left BEEB for pastures new.

His delivery on the news channels was flawless , presumably reading off autocue, written by himself.

Was this programme written for the Scots to see, or some other agenda.

Jane I didn't say that myths and oft repeated mantras are confined to one side or t'other. The point I was making is that repeating such misinformation does not advance or inform the debate. There are sources which are not biased, have no vested interest one way or the other e.g. The Financial Times has good analysis of the economic issues. Of the main stream print media only the Herald is relatively unbiased although the Sunday Herald has become the only newspaper to back a Yes vote. If you want to see Better Together's arguments try checking out the Scotsman on-line and read the comments section to see the 'arguments' put forward by the 'No' campaigners. You will see, I am sure, why I get so frustrated with constant repetitions of lies, half truths and misquotes. Check out the original sources e.g. The Scottish Government's White Paper, the McCrone Report or the Statement from the Governor of the Bank of England to find what was actually said therein rather than either side's version once they have put their spin on it. For instance at an open meeting on Monday one of the speakers mentioned that the basic old age pension in the (poor-wee-independent) Republic of Ireland is over £180 per week (£113.10 in UK) but I would not be quoting that here unless I had gone onto the Irish Government's web site to confirm that it is indeed 230 Euros per week.

I can understand your frustration with having no vote in this game-changing referendum but would point out that it was David Cameron who decreed that this was a matter only for people resident in Scotland, thus disenfranchising Scots who are living elsewhere long term or temporarily and simultaneously enfranchising people who identify themselves primarily as English, Polish, Swedish, etc. etc. who happen to be resident and on the electoral roll in Scotland on Referendum day. I have spoken to several temporary Scottish residents who have decided they will not vote in the referendum as they believe it is not for them to decide as they will not be here to suffer or benefit from the consequences.

I have spoken to a few Scottish residents who have told me that they will not vote even though they are perfectly entitled to do so. Their argument was, that they really don't know what they will be voting for, or indeed end up with. I do think they have a point in that it all seems to be guesswork.

I do not normally use Wiki to formulate my ideas, but here is what they say on' Robert Peston delivery'

Delivery style[edit]
Peston's delivery on radio and television news has attracted comment. The Times described his style as "ragged and querulous",[23] and more recently "rambling" and "excruciatingly hard to listen to".[24] The Telegraph identifies "strangulated diction" and "repetition of small words" among his traits; in the same article, maintaining he is "loads better than [he] was", Peston himself conceded he is "still not as polished as some".[25] His characteristic mannerisms have been well-observed by impressionist Rory Bremner.[26] Peston has stated "I am not going to endeavour to become somebody hugely smooth and polished."[27]

Go to wiki and see the annotated notes.

Ed Balls did indeed have a stammer, but worked hard to overcome which he has.

Nearly witnessed a war on holiday. We were I was chatting to a Scottish mother and daughter at the edge of the swimming pool and the subject of the referendum was brought up (not by me I hasten to add), they both had such opposing views I just stood there looking from one to the other. Eventually (losing her end of the argument) the mother splashed her hands down hard on the water causing a tidal wave and then swam off in disgust. For once I was almost speechless.

As Scot living in England I feel I should have a vote. I watched Robert Peston with anticipation but ultimately with disappointment as I felt little more informed then before. But, and I think this is very important and is not being addressed: If Scotland does get independence, we in England are doomed to a right wing government with no effective opposition for years to come. So, all those who live in England and profess lack of interest in what happens to Scotland, we should be interested!!

GillT57 and Jane I meant to say earlier that although you do not have a vote you most certainly have a voice which you can use to influence or persuade family and friends who DO live in Scotland or the wider community via the various blogs, websites and newspaper letters and comments sections. You can even donate to whichever campaign group most closely represents your views.

Oh yes Granny23 I am certainly getting my message across to family in Scotland! On a lighter note, DH claims that he will turn me in as a passport bride, saying I only married him for his nationality. I point out that he was lucky to marry me with my fine Scottish blood to strengthen the family line.

Like many others on here, I would be very sad if Scotland voted to leave the UK. Spending most of my life in NE England, we spent most holidays in Scotland and owned a holiday home in the Highlands until the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.
My only sister has lived there since the 60s, married a Scot, worked in the Scottish Office , and has similar views to Granny23. She says the Scots are fed up with being bossed about by English Conservatives.
One point which I don't think has been made yet is that a big proportion of Labour MPs come from Scotland. If the split led to withdrawal of these MPs from Parliament the English Labour Party would be in serious trouble.

Here's a link:
[http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/what-happens-scottish-mps-if-scotland-votes-yes]

So the Scots didn't mind being bossed about by Westminster when Labour was in power? All this discontent has only been brewing for four years?

Possibly 'New' Labour was just too right wing for other voters in the UK including the Scots.

Dear Granny23 I did not say that Scotland would have had to bail out the RBS after the debacle that was part of the economic crash. I know full well that Scotland would have had to bear approximately the same share of that burden if independent as it did in the UK (approx 10%). What I was talking about was international trust and the cost of borrowing to a new country with no previous track record, possibly a scary habit of not meeting a share of an existing deficit and also possibly a new currency - untested. And if the new Scotland is to be tied to sterling, but with no say in fiscal policy, then I fail to see the advantages in independence. If I could see sufficient advantage that I believed to be reality and that outweighed the risks, then I would vote for it. Sadly, I remain unconvinced. And I do not "peddle" the misinformation of anyone. The Better Together campaign is as astonishing in its banality as the Independence Campaign is in its arrogance.

Such is the suspicion of the utterances of politicians of all persuasions that it is very difficult to decide about the Scottish referendum, let alone the next General Election. If Scots decide to support Salmond then on their own head be it. The consequences for all will be far-reaching and irreversible but could lead to the re-launch of old England.

Someone asked the question yesterday as to what happens to those Scots serving in one of the armed forces if the vote is Yes

We are not "supporting Salmond". papaoscar. I repeat, this is NOT a presidential election. We are just as likely to be supporting Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Scottish Greens, or one of the Labour politicians who support Yes, or what's left of the Scottish Socialist Party, or any of the other groups which have registered as official Yes campaigners. What is the obsession with Alex Salmond? He is a very accomplished politician, and a successful loser of weight, which many of us can admire, but he is not running for resident Scottish Deity, despite what some people appear to think.

If you lived in Glasgow, would you be happy that Trident missiles are being transported through your city in the middle of the night, according to the Scottish CND? The only chance we have to stop that is to vote Yes, and who knows, it might save those of you who live in Plymouth, Portsmouth or coastal Wales from the same thing.

www.banthebomb.org