The Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

[The Sandman]

Could be a new Ireland...

[DieselDaisy]

So, in summary your solution is "Keep doing what you've been doing for the last 30 years, it will possibly get you the government your people want some of the time."

Great. What an attractive option.

Meanwhile a threat levied at our heads that if we choose to govern ourselves you'll throw the toys out the pram and go in the huff with us? Well, that makes England sound like a friend worth having...

Also, there are morons and cupcakes on both sides, if you like I could link you to some antisocial behaviour by Unionists as well, it doesn't add any weight to your arguments or mine.

I fail to see how the Scottish can not expect a reaction. Unionism, especially in England, is as legitimate and passionate a concept as, Scottish nationalism. I fail to see how, the English, are supposed to react when they wake up one morning only to find out that they are no longer 'British', and that, there 300 year old chum has buggered off! I am sure you despair of such behaviour, Graeme, considering your whole approach to the debate seems grounded in Marxoid scientific and statistical objectivity, but the rest of us are, mere mortals.

Edited September 7, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Graeme]

You appear to have run out of rope.

[DieselDaisy]

Rope? Am I going to get a reply on the customs border, or merely more statistics about heinous Tory governments? Please note, that this effects me personally as I live in Northumberland.

[The Sandman]

We can simply rebuild Hadrian's wall to keep the picts out.

Will we have to have a separate trade agreement with you? Because you won't be in the EU anymore, so importing to your country may be difficult - or you may wave any fees with your imaginary currency, as you won't have the luxury of the pound. You can then have a lovely economic crash - and so, you'll be even worse off than before.

Moving all the nuclear stuff will mean even fewer jobs - in a place that isn't exactly flush with them (where is?!) - and probably even more poverty. I feel for the children who will be in poverty (as per Salmond's relentless emphasis in the second debate), but wanting to be some bizarre separate nation is just excessive - long term, it will not benefit you. Nor, does it benefit us - or the remainder of Britain. But, obviously, the selfish whim to have some odd pretense that you're actually capable of running yourselves (by one individual, an overarching crusade to be remembered) over stability and sense, is just reckless.

I appreciate you want to be Scottish, and you have that strong identification with nationalism and who you believe you are - but there are so many things that haven't been thought through and the long term consequences will fundamentally be catastrophic. To vote to separate is a vote to kill off Scotland long-term, it will not be good for it in any way.

[DieselDaisy]

We can simply rebuild Hadrian's wall to keep the picts out.

Will we have to have a separate trade agreement with you? Because you won't be in the EU anymore, so importing to your country may be difficult - or you may wave any fees with your imaginary currency, as you won't have the luxury of the pound. You can then have a lovely economic crash - and so, you'll be even worse off than before.

Moving all the nuclear stuff will mean even fewer jobs - in a place that isn't exactly flush with them (where is?!) - and probably even more poverty. I feel for the children who will be in poverty (as per Salmond's relentless emphasis in the second debate), but wanting to be some bizarre separate nation is just excessive - long term, it will not benefit you. Nor, does it benefit us - or the remainder of Britain. But, obviously, the selfish whim to have some odd pretense that you're actually capable of running yourselves (by one individual, an overarching crusade to be remembered) over stability and sense, is just reckless.

I appreciate you want to be Scottish, and you have that strong identification with nationalism and who you believe you are - but there are so many things that haven't been thought through and the long term consequences will fundamentally be catastrophic. To vote to separate is a vote to kill off Scotland long-term, it will not be good for it in any way.

I agree but in regards to the latter point, I do not think it enters Graeme's thought at all. He seems to want to be Independent, merely so he can get a left wing government and push through socialist legislation. Border control? Migration? Scottish military and defense? national identity? Culture? History? the status of the Royal family? None of this matters and you are over passionate and completely off-topic to raise any of these subjective points!

It was like pulling teeth merely trying to that that quotation on the SNP's military/defense policy out of him, and even then, it did not answer all my questions.

Edited September 7, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[The Sandman]

A left-wing government that will just be a centre party....

Unless you want actual socialism cum communism, which would just be bizarre.

[Graeme]

DieselDaisy, on 07 Sept 2014 - 7:53 PM, said:

The Sandman, on 07 Sept 2014 - 7:29 PM, said:

We can simply rebuild Hadrian's wall to keep the picts out.

Will we have to have a separate trade agreement with you? Because you won't be in the EU anymore, so importing to your country may be difficult - or you may wave any fees with your imaginary currency, as you won't have the luxury of the pound. You can then have a lovely economic crash - and so, you'll be even worse off than before.

Moving all the nuclear stuff will mean even fewer jobs - in a place that isn't exactly flush with them (where is?!) - and probably even more poverty. I feel for the children who will be in poverty (as per Salmond's relentless emphasis in the second debate), but wanting to be some bizarre separate nation is just excessive - long term, it will not benefit you. Nor, does it benefit us - or the remainder of Britain. But, obviously, the selfish whim to have some odd pretense that you're actually capable of running yourselves (by one individual, an overarching crusade to be remembered) over stability and sense, is just reckless.

I appreciate you want to be Scottish, and you have that strong identification with nationalism and who you believe you are - but there are so many things that haven't been thought through and the long term consequences will fundamentally be catastrophic. To vote to separate is a vote to kill off Scotland long-term, it will not be good for it in any way.

I agree but in regards to the latter point, I do not think it enters Graeme's thought at all. He seems to want to be Independent, merely so he can get a left wing government and push through socialist legislation. Border control? Migration? Scottish military and defense? national identity? Culture? History? the status of the Royal family? None of this matters and you are over passionate and completely off-topic to raise any of these subjective points!

It was like pulling teeth merely trying to that that quotation on the SNP's military/defense policy out of him, and even then, it did not answer all my questions.

Sandy, given that you're an educated man, I really expected better quality of debate from you than ethnic jibes about barbarians and predictions of the collapse of society. The thread of argument you pursue here has a name in Scotland: "Too wee, too poor, too stupid", and a lot of us used to actually believe it. Myself included. Until we took the time to educate ourselves and realise that there are plenty of countries smaller than us, with fewer natural resources which not only function, but thrive in a way that we currently do not.

First of all, you cannot categorically state that we will not be in the EU any more than I can absolutely guarantee that we will. That information does not currently exist and there is no equivalent scenario to set a precedent. In the event of a Yes vote, Scotland will not immediately assume the position of an independent sovereign state. There will be a period of negotiation during which things like division of assets, transfer of administrative offices, working out the share of national debt accepted by each party, etc. will be addressed from within the framework of the UK. During that time, Scotland will still be within the EU as well, at which point it may be able to negotiate the terms of its membership internally. It took several years for Greenland to negotiate its way out of the EU (at the time, the EEC) despite a democratic mandate to do so. Given that the Scottish Government which will be performing the negotiations is pro-EU, there is at least a possibility that Scotland would not leave the EU at all, in which case all of the "must adopt" policies which you and Dies' have been levelling at me like some sort of threat, would not apply.

If the Tories get to hold their referendum on EU membership in 2017 and Scotland still only constitutes 8% of the electorate, if a majority over 55% of the other 92% vote to leave then we would be powerless to stop our exit. Would it not be preferable from our viewpoint to be on our way back in after a self-imposed hiatus than irreversibly removed against our own say-so?

You also cannot assert that an independent Scotland would have an "imaginary currency" with any certainty, we need to see if Osborne (and his successor)'s resolve holds in terms of granting Scotland use of the pound as an asset and the Bank of England as lender of last resort. If not, we have three other options, using Sterling without a currency union, adopting the Euro or establishing our own currency. All of which are things which have been done in other instances around the globe and have not led to their respective economies falling to pieces. I don't believe that it would be an instantaneous land of milk and honey and we would probably have to work quite hard together in the beginning but the potential rewards are fully evident just across the North Sea. I believe Irvine Welsh said it best when he said "Couldn't give a toss whether Indy Scotland would have pound, euro or new Scot currency. It's who's pockets it's going into that's the issue."

Macroeconomic risk remains the No campaign's go-to in the debate but if we restructure our economy along social-democratic lines then precedent has been set to show we could do well with modest resources. With all three major Westminster parties committed to the austerity agenda, it offers a ray of hope to people sick of seeing the most brutal attacks on the welfare state since its inception. With the vast resources at our disposal, there is no reason why we could not overcome any initial stumbling blocks and absolutely thrive. Here's a summary document from a collective of academics (one of my old Uni professors is part of the group) and activists who have taken time to write a series of papers talking about remodelling the Scottish economy based on systems in other countries which work much better than the neo-liberal economy currently endorsed by Westminster politics: http://www.allofusfirst.org/the-key-ideas/what-a-common-weal-economy-might-look-like/ . You can also find documents on their site around the creation of jobs http://www.allofusfirst.org/resources/library/economic-policy-options-for-an-independent-scotland/ and for Dazey, the creation of a high-wage-high-tax economy without running earners in the "middle" income brackets into the ground http://www.allofusfirst.org/resources/library/the-jimmy-reid-foundation-in-place-of-anxiety-social-security-for-the-common-weal-2014/.

There are 520 jobs at risk from getting rid of the nuclear weapons on the Clyde, in a base which employs 11,000 and which (according to the current administration) would become the joint headquarters of the Scottish military in the event of an independence vote, keeping employment in the area. Obviously forcing redundancies is not something anyone wants to do, but with all the cuts from Westminster there have been plenty of those in the last few years, at least these redundancies would be in line with the wishes of the Scottish electorate, rid Scotland of weapons of mass destruction and free up enough public expenditure to train 3,880 nurses or 4,527 teachers, or to build 13 to 20 primary schools.

I can't believe that you'd be patronising enough to use the phrase "actually capable." We are perfectly capable. Our devolved government has far higher approval ratings amongst its electorate than the Coalition could ever hope for. They're not perfect, no government is, but to suggest that Scotland is incapable of administrating its own affairs to the satisfaction of its electorate is a claim bordering on the offensive.

"It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another successful independent country." -David Cameron.

It's also not about Alex Salmond's ego trip. Watch the hour+ long film I posted at the beginning of the thread, he does not feature once. Not an appearance, not a mention. This is not about him, nor is it about his party. The Yes movement is made up of 3 political parties, splinter groups from all the main Unionist parties and more than 100 distinct grassroots groups (the No campaign has to pay volunteers' expenses, Yes has no such problems). To portray it as the personal crusade of Alex Salmond has been a typical tactic of the media designed to cheapen the debate.

Don't think that just because you haven't thought it through that no-one else has. Since you're an academic, presumably with a respect for peer-reviewed research: "A study by the Behavioural Laboratory at the University of Edinburgh found that when undecided voters are presented with a balanced set of arguments, their support for independence increased by between 10% and 15%.This rose amongst individuals who described themselves as more engaged with politics, to between 18% and 22%." Just published.

I appreciate that you want to be British, that English people seem considerably less comfortable with their immediate national identity than Welsh or Scottish people and are generally far more emotionally attached to the idea of "Britain" (which you basically see as England plus a couple of other bits that you allow to tag along but think are basically England as well) but your political establishment is rank to the core, you are almost irreversibly tied to a political agenda which will only see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's funny that you say the left in Scotland will only end up being the centre, because the Westminster Labour party now sit on the right of the political spectrum, committed to austerity, privatisation and Thatcherite levels of taxation.

Dies', regarding Migration, the current Scottish Government would like to see an open border with England in the event of independence. If the rUK government wants to set up border controls in Cumbria and Northumbria then that's their prerogative and their decision, outwith the remit of the Scottish electorate. Regarding the military, your main question seemed to be "would the Scots regiments be incorporated into the new Scottish military or remain part of the British Army?" They would remain part of the British Military until such time as the MoD decided to incorporate or discontinue them. We can assume the MoD would not like to instantly lose 15% of its workforce so the likelihood is that those currently employed would not lose their jobs. At the same time, the establishment of the Scottish military would open up new vacancies, presumably both would be able to provide employment simultaneously. Your other questions appear to be just a series of words. What specifically about national identity, culture and history concerns you? The union of parliaments would be broken, the union of crowns would stand. Scotland would again become the Kingdom of Scotland, with Elizabeth I as head of state, until such time as the Scottish electorate potentially decide they would like to become a republic.

And if you decide to attack me on the basis that a lot of what I'm saying is speculative, remember, not a single one of you has attempted to answer my question. How would you avoid a repeat of the 2010 general election, where Scotland ends up governed by a premier from a party with 5.9% of its popular vote, within the framework of the union?

Additionally: Do you guarantee that the austerity agenda South of the border will not impact on Scottish public spending? What additional powers can you promise to the Scottish parliament? How do we address the fact that the UK is currently one of the most unequal societies in the developed world? How do we address our aging population when there is a general impetus in Westminster to reduce immigration? Can you guarantee that the trade deal currently in process with the U.S. will not open up the Scottish NHS to American market forces? If the referendum on EU membership goes ahead, can Scotland retain its position if the rUK votes to leave?

^All of the above are among the key concerns of the Scottish electorate. "Put up and shut up" is not good enough, the people of Scotland will not settle for it. The fate of the Union is in your hands. Get to work, boys.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Graeme

[DieselDaisy]

There is no point in arguing with him Sandy. He will bombard you with tedious statistics and smug intellectual superior shout downs - or, he will just ignore your posts which is what he has basically done to me (hence, I have given up). Either way, it is a waste of time. Points that are perfectly valid ones to make when discussing, national sovereignty, such as migration and defense, are clearly not important. What is important is securing left wing votes and ousting Westminster Tories.

It will be an absolute disaster anyway. I am almost tempted to desire a yes vote because the SNP party are so politically inept. I mean you have a leader here who wants independence yet believes he is carrying with him the currency of the nation he is seeking that very independence, from! That nation are basically saying, 'fuck off', yet he is not even listening. England has the purse strings yet he is not even listening.

We have a leader here who is very pro-EU yet believes that we can have the same old UK border (not reading the EU small print that, if he signs with the EU, this is an impossibility).

Now imagine this guy running a country haha? It will be like watching Maradona manage the Argentinean footy team. Car crash television. Watching Salmond lead Scotland will be completely hilarious. Do not forget his ghastly flag stunt at Wimbledon - something Graeme has also ignored incidentally.

Edited September 8, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Graeme]

I think I read, considered and responded to everything you had to say to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Signing up to the EU? NO-ONE KNOWS if we'll even have to do that! Everything that is currently known and the two potential outcomes are in my previous post, you didn't quote it, didn't engage with it, didn't speculate on it at all. Just dismissed it.

Likewise, I took you through all the currency options...

Alex Salmond may never be the elected leader of an independent Scotland. Again, in my post before (which I put quite a lot of thought into) I talked about the fact that he is not "Yes" personified.

Why is him holding up a flag at a tennis match relevant to this debate? How would you like me to "address" this?

You seem to want a level of detail regarding the political machinations of an independent Scotland that's impossible to give because it will depend on the type of government elected to an independent Scottish parliament in 2016. They will decide our defence, migration and foreign policies based on the mandate given them by the Scottish electorate. The current debate is about our right to elect that government. I can't answer you better than I have.

You, on the other hand have made no effort to answer me at all.

[The Sandman]

I can go through what you've posted in more detail at another time, but in passing: most of us don't get the government we vote for anyway. You're hardly unique!

[The Sandman]

Sandy, given that you're an educated man, I really expected better quality of debate from you than ethnic jibes about barbarians and predictions of the collapse of society.

Also, likewise, I thought it'd be pretty obvious what was clearly jesting, and what wasn't.

But I am serious about your economic collapse and repercussions thereof.

RE: EU - it isn't clear-cut - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26173004 - but I dare say when everything is revealed it won't be wholly bonny for all Scots.

[UK SUBS]

Have to say I'm really enjoying the passionate debate here!!

On a lighter (but highlighted) note -- When Salmon (whom I can say I actually 'hate') waved his flag like a complete FAT COCK at Wimbledon I wanted to drive down to Wimbledon and nut him!!

That's all from me, carry on ....

[Dazey]

I've not looked into this in a great deal of detail so forgive me if I'm way off the mark here. I'm actually kinda in favour of a yes vote for no other reason than that it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think Graeme makes a lot of good points here and I do think that the Scandinavian way of doing things is clearly very successful. The issue I have with it all is that I can't see the transition being a smooth one.

When you talk about higher taxes coupled with a high standard of living and a good welfare state it sounds tempting but these countries also have much higher average salaries to compensate for the higher rates of tax. My concern would be that you can't simply hike taxes to 50% across the board without increasing wages at the same time.

Problem is that companies having to pay people more have to recoup that cost from somewhere which will drive prices up and therefore result in high inflation will it not? Again I'm just speculating here but that seems logical to me.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Dazey

[The Sandman]

Problem is that companies having to pay people more have to recoup that cost from somewhere which will drive prices up and therefore result in high inflation will it not? Again I'm just speculating here but that seems logical to me.

Biggest fears are currency changing and inflation, not to mention what they'll actually use. It'd probably be better to let them use the Pound, but I'm unsure on Scotland's gold reserves (which is generally how these things are measured) - and simply to avoid a catastrophic currency crash, a la the Euro.

Because then people will want to spend it - or change it - which generally leads to inflation and devaluation of currency - and could be damaging to our Pound, or theirs, or whatever they choose to adopt. That would be a Eurocentric fear.

[Facekicker]

Could be a new Ireland...

Yeah if they join the Euro they can expect the following:

Everything dictated by Brussels instead of Westminster

Fucked up the arse by the Euro.

Scotland think they might have it bad now....they are about to jump from the frying pan into the fire

[sturginho]

So you are really just substituting anti-Brussels rhetoric for anti-Westminster rhetoric, neither of which is particularly productive

Edited September 8, 2014 by sturginho

[GivenToFly]

My predictions:

I think Scotland will do ok in the long term.

Probably out of the EU initially but instantly entering a wide-ranging trade agreement either within the EFTA or something very similar to EFTA.

Not in Schengen. Eastern EU countries have been nominally applying to the Schengen area for years now without success. If Netherlands can keep Romania out there's no reason why UK can't keep Scotland out.

Border controls can alleviate immigration worries to UK.

Scotland can use the sterling like so many countries in the world use the USD without specific agreement with the Federal Reserve. You just need to have a current account surplus with the issuing country (or enough reserves to hold you until you get to surplus or accept deflation). It probably won't be easy initially.

My main concern would be RBS liabilities. Is there anything close to a consensus on that yet?

[Graeme]

Could be a new Ireland...

Yeah if they join the Euro they can expect the following:

Everything dictated by Brussels instead of Westminster

Fucked up the arse by the Euro.

Scotland think they might have it bad now....they are about to jump from the frying pan into the fire

It's not a carbon-copy swap of Westminster control to Brussels.

Brussels would not collect all of our tax and then decide how much to give us back in a block grant. Westminster does that.

Brussels would not set the rate of VAT. Westminster does that.

Brussels cannot demand that we keep Trident 30 minutes from Glasgow. Westminster does that.

Brussels could not force us to send soldiers to Iraq or Afghanistan. Westminster did that.

Brussels does not get to tell us how much our state pension should be... guess where does?

I'm sure, like any EU nation, there'll be decisions made in Brussels that we grumble about but are you going to tell me that Italy, Germany etc. are not sovereign nations?

[Graeme]

I've not looked into this in a great deal of detail so forgive me if I'm way off the mark here. I'm actually kinda in favour of a yes vote for no other reason than that it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think Graeme makes a lot of good points here and I do think that the Scandinavian way of doing things is clearly very successful. The issue I have with it all is that I can't see the transition being a smooth one.

When you talk about higher taxes coupled with a high standard of living and a good welfare state it sounds tempting but these countries also have much higher average salaries to compensate for the higher rates of tax. My concern would be that you can't simply hike taxes to 50% across the board without increasing wages at the same time.

Problem is that companies having to pay people more have to recoup that cost from somewhere which will drive prices up and therefore result in high inflation will it not? Again I'm just speculating here but that seems logical to me.

http://www.allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=2E643042-DEE4-CBC5-43D28F0D545B8270 <--- from much more accomplished economists than I.

[Dazey]

I've not looked into this in a great deal of detail so forgive me if I'm way off the mark here. I'm actually kinda in favour of a yes vote for no other reason than that it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think Graeme makes a lot of good points here and I do think that the Scandinavian way of doing things is clearly very successful. The issue I have with it all is that I can't see the transition being a smooth one.

When you talk about higher taxes coupled with a high standard of living and a good welfare state it sounds tempting but these countries also have much higher average salaries to compensate for the higher rates of tax. My concern would be that you can't simply hike taxes to 50% across the board without increasing wages at the same time.

Problem is that companies having to pay people more have to recoup that cost from somewhere which will drive prices up and therefore result in high inflation will it not? Again I'm just speculating here but that seems logical to me.

http://www.allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=2E643042-DEE4-CBC5-43D28F0D545B8270 <--- from much more accomplished economists than I.

Do you have a link to an economist that can spell "security"?

I posted this a couple of pages back too Graeme. You must've forgotten to reply to me I guess.

Why would it be that they can handle health, justice, education, transport and business perfectly well but if you threw in defence, foreign policy and tax-raising we would suddenly fall to pieces?

Thankfully this doesn't really affect me but I am intrigued to see how it works if the yes vote wins. I would ask though how much more tax should some poor bugger like me have to pay? I'm pretty much getting gouged right now so what is fair as far as tax rises are concerned? I know it's easy to talk about jacking up taxes on the "rich" but I'm not fucking rich and the exchequer is already taking 40% of any pay rise I'm ever going to get from now on. How much more would you say they're entitled to help themselves to?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Dazey

[WFA]

looks terrible. why can't the Scots just simmer the fuck down?

[Graeme]

I've not looked into this in a great deal of detail so forgive me if I'm way off the mark here. I'm actually kinda in favour of a yes vote for no other reason than that it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think Graeme makes a lot of good points here and I do think that the Scandinavian way of doing things is clearly very successful. The issue I have with it all is that I can't see the transition being a smooth one.

When you talk about higher taxes coupled with a high standard of living and a good welfare state it sounds tempting but these countries also have much higher average salaries to compensate for the higher rates of tax. My concern would be that you can't simply hike taxes to 50% across the board without increasing wages at the same time.

Problem is that companies having to pay people more have to recoup that cost from somewhere which will drive prices up and therefore result in high inflation will it not? Again I'm just speculating here but that seems logical to me.

http://www.allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=2E643042-DEE4-CBC5-43D28F0D545B8270 <--- from much more accomplished economists than I.

Do you have a link to an economist that can spell "security"?

I posted this a couple of pages back too Graeme. You must've forgotten to reply to me I guess.

Why would it be that they can handle health, justice, education, transport and business perfectly well but if you threw in defence, foreign policy and tax-raising we would suddenly fall to pieces?

Thankfully this doesn't really affect me but I am intrigued to see how it works if the yes vote wins. I would ask though how much more tax should some poor bugger like me have to pay? I'm pretty much getting gouged right now so what is fair as far as tax rises are concerned? I know it's easy to talk about jacking up taxes on the "rich" but I'm not fucking rich and the exchequer is already taking 40% of any pay rise I'm ever going to get from now on. How much more would you say they're entitled to help themselves to?

The woman's deid... have a wee bit of respect . I'm a geographer rather than an economist, so asking me how you convert a low-wage neoliberal economy into a social-democratic model is a bit beyond my ken. I just appreciate that, from everything I've studied, the Maxim of the current British paradigm will never see standards of living throughout the whole of society that can hold a candle to the social democracies. I would have thought that as soon as that became apparent, we'd stop and have a good look at ourselves and start to think about restructuring, but no party in Westminster is even talking about that.

That organisation "The Common Weal" is the most prolific advocate of a social-democratic Scotland in the whole campaign. This paper will hopefully be able to answer your questions much better than I can: http://www.allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=0BFB46DF-B85A-636D-1279B7412D648889.

[Dazey]

For me the issue is not so much the idea of a system such as you're proposing. It can and does work very welll in other parts of the world but the transition from one system to the next I can imagine would be rather painful to many people.

For instance whether or not it's all working towards a common good at the end of the day a tax hike is still a tax hike. It's fine to tell me that these measures are being put in place for the greater good but to me the bottom line is still that I have less money left every month after I've paid all my bills.

I'm currently paying substantially north of £1,000 a MONTH into the system which I kinda think is more than enough.

[Graeme]

Aye, read that second paper I linked you to .