Scottish Independence

[Hibrandenburg]

Fair enough I see the point you are making, but how do we know that if an iS had have been an established entity at the relevant times, it wouldn't have backed the Iraq war, or traded with Gadaffi?

We'll never know but we could have at least held the decision makers responsible at the polls.

[Hibrandenburg]

Do the Greens come anywhere near being a realistic alternative in Scotland?

Errrrm, going to have to mention it seeing as you brought it up but "after a yes" you say? Think you are being a bit optimistic aren't you? ;):)

That's the beauty of independence, every party will have to model it's policies to what the electorate demands instead of following the party line designed to win votes in the home counties.

So yes, the greens would be in with a shout like all other parties.

[JeMeSouviens]

3 encouraging polls for Yes yesterday and today, figures are all ex DK. The post-debate bounce for Darling has disappeared completely.

ICM:

Y 45 (+2)
N 55 (-2)


Panelbase:

Y 48 (+2)
N 52 (-2)


Yougov:

Y 43 (+3)
N 57 (-3)

[over the line]

We'll never know but we could have at least held the decision makers responsible at the polls.

You are right that we will never know, that is my point really. I can't see how anyone can say whether any decisions would have been different had an iS previously existed? We may well have had the exact same policies that BH disagrees with in his/her post?

I understand that had an iS existed at the time of HB's disliked policies, the voting may (again we can't be sure) have been different, but the fact remains that the decision makers weren't held responsible at the polls after the Iraq war were they? Scotland still voted overwhelmingly for those decision makers. Not a criticism BTW, just a fact.

[Moulin Yarns]

Do the Greens come anywhere near being a realistic alternative in Scotland?

Errrrm, going to have to mention it seeing as you brought it up but "after a yes" you say? Think you are being a bit optimistic aren't you? ;):)


That's the beauty of independence, every party will have to model it's policies to what the electorate demands instead of following the party line designed to win votes in the home counties.

So yes, the greens would be in with a shout like all other parties.

Polling of voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament put support for the Greens on 10 per cent on the regional vote. Analysis suggested this would result in 11 MSPs, making the Scottish Greens the parliament’s third largest party, one MSP ahead of the Conservatives.

The Greens secured 8 per cent and 108,000 votes in May’s European election, coming ahead of the Lib Dems in 21 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas.

[over the line]

Polling of voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament put support for the Greens on 10 per cent on the regional vote. Analysis suggested this would result in 11 MSPs, making the Scottish Greens the parliament’s third largest party, one MSP ahead of the Conservatives.

The Greens secured 8 per cent and 108,000 votes in May’s European election, coming ahead of the Lib Dems in 21 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas.

Ok, they certainly seem to be a party on the up then. Do you think they would/could be a valid and affective ruling party?

[JeMeSouviens]

You are right that we will never know, that is my point really. I can't see how anyone can say whether any decisions would have been different had an iS previously existed? We may well have had the exact same policies that BH disagrees with in his/her post?

I understand that had an iS existed at the time of HB's disliked policies, the voting may (again we can't be sure) have been different, but the fact remains that the decision makers weren't held responsible at the polls after the Iraq war were they? Scotland still voted overwhelmingly for those decision makers. Not a criticism BTW, just a fact.

No, but we can say with absolute certainty that in an iS, the Scottish electorate will have the chance to remove the governing party at every election, forever!

If you believe Scotland is a country, this is important. If you believe Scotland is just a region within a larger country, it's not.

I'm with the former, suspect you will stay wedded to the latter. Thus, further debate on this point is largely futile. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Ok, they certainly seem to be a party on the up then. Do you think they would/could be a valid and affective ruling party?

Yes, but probably as part of a coalition. Patrick Harvie is pretty impressive when he gets a chance to be heard.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ok, they certainly seem to be a party on the up then. Do you think they would/could be a valid and affective ruling party?


Yes, but probably as part of a coalition. Patrick Harvie is pretty impressive when he gets a chance to be heard.

Remember, I've said it before, the electoral system at Holyrood is designed to prevent one party having a majority and the first 2 Scottish Governments were coalitions. That the 2 SNP administrations were not coalitions showed the disaffection in Scotland of Westminster politics.

It has been a refelation listening to Patrick Harvie, and he has changed my view on a lot of things, and if ever a Green Candidate were to stand in Highland Perthshire that's where my cross would go.

[sauzee_4]

Do the Greens come anywhere near being a realistic alternative in Scotland?

Errrrm, going to have to mention it seeing as you brought it up but "after a yes" you say? Think you are being a bit optimistic aren't you? ;):)

Yes I believe they are. Far more likely to make headway under a PR system in an Independent Scotland than they are at Westminster.

Likewise we are far more likely to leave Nato if we exit the UK first.

Optimistic? Who knows. Not here to debate who will win, here to debate who I think should win

[sauzee_4]

Ok, they certainly seem to be a party on the up then. Do you think they would/could be a valid and affective ruling party?

Yes.

[over the line]

No, but we can say with absolute certainty that in an iS, the Scottish electorate will have the chance to remove the governing party at every election, forever!

If you believe Scotland is a country, this is important. If you believe Scotland is just a region within a larger country, it's not.

I'm with the former, suspect you will stay wedded to the latter. Thus, further debate on this point is largely futile. :wink:

No need for debate on that one (futile or not), I agree Scotland is a country and has been for errrrrr, well certainly as far back as I can remember ;) (I feel a link to a history site coming on). It is a country that is part of a union with other countries that it is either joined to or very close to. I'm not sure if anyone is questioning if Scotland is a country, but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[over the line]

Yes.

Ok.

[JeMeSouviens]

No need for debate on that one (futile or not), I agree Scotland is a country and has been for errrrrr, well certainly as far back as I can remember ;) (I feel a link to a history site coming on). It is a country that is part of a union with other countries that it is either joined to or very close to. I'm not sure if anyone is questioning if Scotland is a country, but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Oxford dictionary:

country (n) - A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory


All this pish about families of nations etc. is just so much waffle. The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetrically devolved fringe. As such, Scotland is not a country unless/until it votes Yes.

So there. :na na:


(So actually my previous should've read, "If you believe Scotland should be a country" but you knew what I meant. :wink:)

[marinello59]

Yes.

Cutting back on oil exploration should prove to be a real vote winner.

[Beefster]

Oxford dictionary:

country (n) - A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory


All this pish about families of nations etc. is just so much waffle. The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetrically devolved fringe. As such, Scotland is not a country unless/until it votes Yes.

So there. :na na:


(So actually my previous should've read, "If you believe Scotland should be a country" but you knew what I meant. :wink:)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

[itslegaltender]

Because NATO countries are protected by nuclear weapons. There's a difference between the NIMBY-ism of not wanting them in your country and never having had them in the first place but supporting and accepting protection from them.

Incidentally, a few NATO countries host NATO nuclear weapons without having ever developed them themselves or officially being 'nuclear states'.

Dont see why the nukes cant just stay in the US. They hold the launch codes anyway. It would be easy enough to transport them to wherever in the unlikely event of having to use them.

[Beefster]

Dont see why the nukes cant just stay in the US. They hold the launch codes anyway. It would be easy enough to transport them to wherever in the unlikely event of having to use them.

"Oh no, Europe is being attacked."

"Can someone call the truck driver and pilots please? We need these missiles transported to Europe before next Wednesday"

[over the line]

Oxford dictionary:

country (n) - A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory


All this pish about families of nations etc. is just so much waffle. The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetrically devolved fringe. As such, Scotland is not a country unless/until it votes Yes.

So there. :na na:


(So actually my previous should've read, "If you believe Scotland should be a country" but you knew what I meant. :wink:)

Yes the definition of country seems fairly straight forward, but I think the definition of the word government may throw up a grey area in your theory? But I am possibly needlessly splitting hairs now. ;)

Anyway I'm not sure if you Yes lot should be using the Oxford English Dictionary to make points in favour of an iS!?!?! ;):D

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

As I'm sure you know, "power devolved is power retained". The current Scottish Government exercises power devolved from Westminster, ergo it is a part of the UK government (although it's usually less than keen to admit that).

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes the definition of country seems fairly straight forward, but I think the definition of the word government may throw up a grey area in your theory? But I am possibly needlessly splitting hairs now. ;)

Anyway I'm not sure if you Yes lot should be using the Oxford English Dictionary to make points in favour of an iS!?!?! ;):D

See previous answer ... and I'm happy to use the OED. I think England is a great country that has given the world some great things. I think you'll (probably) get on just fine governing yourselves. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes the definition of country seems fairly straight forward, but I think the definition of the word government may throw up a grey area in your theory? But I am possibly needlessly splitting hairs now. ;)

Anyway I'm not sure if you Yes lot should be using the Oxford English Dictionary to make points in favour of an iS!?!?! ;):D

Why shouldn't we use the Oxford English Dictionary? After all the first editor of the OED in 1879 was Sir James Augustus Henry Murray, born in Denholm near Hawick. #justsaying :greengrin

Amazing how much England owes to the exprtise of Scots.

[sauzee_4]

Cutting back on oil exploration should prove to be a real vote winner.

I think you're being sarcastic :) and if so you're possibly correct. I'd certainly need to be convinced of the Greens economic argument behind it if this was to be a key policy but would be willing to listen.

Would certainly be more interested in debating SNP vs Green vs Labour in an i.S than which party I should vote for at Westminster

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes the definition of country seems fairly straight forward, but I think the definition of the word government may throw up a grey area in your theory? But I am possibly needlessly splitting hairs now. ;)

Anyway I'm not sure if you Yes lot should be using the Oxford English Dictionary to make points in favour of an iS!?!?! ;):D

English is the language we use, eh no?

[Hibrandenburg]

Oxford dictionary:

country (n) - A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory


All this pish about families of nations etc. is just so much waffle. The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetrically devolved fringe. As such, Scotland is not a country unless/until it votes Yes.

So there. :na na:


(So actually my previous should've read, "If you believe Scotland should be a country" but you knew what I meant. :wink:)

Aye, weel Scotland fulfils that definition anyhoos!

Efter the poll ye''ll no be able tae use the Oxford, England only let us use their lingo coz wir in the UK and ah'm sure better the gither winnae be huvvin it.

:wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Aye, weel Scotland fulfils that definition anyhoos!

Efter the poll ye''ll no be able tae use the Oxford, England only let us use their lingo coz wir in the UK and ah'm sure better the gither winnae be huvvin it.

:wink:

Ah, you say that ... but I won't believe it until I see the signed pledge from Nick Clegg! :rolleyes:

[over the line]

Why shouldn't we use the Oxford English Dictionary? After all the first editor of the OED in 1879 was Sir James Augustus Henry Murray, born in Denholm near Hawick. #justsaying :greengrin

Amazing how much England owes to the exprtise of Scots.

Yes I think I've read somewhere that it is the great, great, great, grandson of Sir JWHM himself, who is tasked with collecting all the OED from an iS, should the vote go Yes (unlikely as that seems now)? Not 100% on that one though, might research it? (naa, course I won't :) )

Sir JWHM was clearly a fan of the Union though, as he seemed to accept a knighthood. Just saying like. ;):)

[sauzee_4]

Yes I think I've read somewhere that it is the great, great, great, grandson of Sir JWHM himself, who is tasked with collecting all the OED from an iS, should the vote go Yes (unlikely as that seems now)? Not 100% on that one though, might research it? (naa, course I won't :) )

Sir JWHM was clearly a fan of the Union though, as he seemed to accept a knighthood. Just saying like. ;):)

So did Sir Donald Mackay :)

[GoldenEagle]

Just seen the Better Together TV advert... One guy voting No because "there will be better job opportunities as we'll be able to travel freely"

Holy Jesus, at least if your voting NO make it justifiable.

[ronaldo7]

It's amazing what the Indyref is throwing up. I had a twitter convo with this lady the other day after she was sharing a platform with Alisdair Darling. Little did both I, and Better Together know what she was really like.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/08/18/scots-better-together-campaign-removes-blog-post-after-writers-unacceptable-bnp

http://therealmcgowan.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/better-togethers-biggoted-blogger/

13293

[over the line]

Dont see why the nukes cant just stay in the US. They hold the launch codes anyway. It would be easy enough to transport them to wherever in the unlikely event of having to use them.

Yeh, Yeh, I imagine its a piece of piss moving NW over 4000 miles at a moments notice! I think DHL do a guaranteed next day delivery from Colorado to the UK, for a minimal upgrade fee? Maybe they could deliver them straight to Red Square for us, I will look into it right away? ;):)

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeh, Yeh, I imagine its a piece of piss moving NW over 4000 miles at a moments notice! I think DHL do a guaranteed next day delivery from Colorado to the UK, for a minimal upgrade fee? Maybe they could deliver them straight to Red Square for us, I will look into it right away? ;):)

Don't they just press a button? :confused:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Yeh, Yeh, I imagine its a piece of piss moving NW over 4000 miles at a moments notice! I think DHL do a guaranteed next day delivery from Colorado to the UK, for a minimal upgrade fee? Maybe they could deliver them straight to Red Square for us, I will look into it right away? ;):)

You made a point of saying you were not being arsey a couple of pages back when the truth is a whole lot different. You are consistent though I'll give you that.

[over the line]

You made a point of saying you were not being arsey a couple of pages back when the truth is a whole lot different. You are consistent though I'll give you that.

I'm only playing, hence the wink and a smile on the end of the post. ;):)

[over the line]

Don't they just press a button? :confused:

Yes probably. It was just the "it would be easy enough to transport them to wherever" bit that made me smile. Only playing anyway. :)

[JimBHibees]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

Oil predictions too pessimistic say neutral report. There's a shock, the complete spin, propaganda and lies from Bitter together is embarressing.

[over the line]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

Oil predictions too pessimistic say neutral report. There's a shock, the complete spin, propaganda and lies from Bitter together is embarressing.

Sorry but how is it neutral? If I've read it right, the founder of the organisation who wrote the report is on the advisory board for the Yes campaign isn't he?

[Northernhibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

Oil predictions too pessimistic say neutral report. There's a shock, the complete spin, propaganda and lies from Bitter together is embarressing.

:faf: How's your independent legal advice over joining the EU or formal negotiations with the Bank of England going?

[GoldenEagle]

http://www.independentscotland.org/content/what-to-vote-at-scottish-referendum.htm

A wee bit of fun but answer truthfully :)

[Northernhibee]

http://www.independentscotland.org/content/what-to-vote-at-scottish-referendum.htm

A wee bit of fun but answer truthfully :)

:faf:

So if you want to stay in the EU you should vote Yes, even though that would put us out of the EU for years?

It's almost as if the Yes campaign has given up now.

[over the line]

http://www.independentscotland.org/content/what-to-vote-at-scottish-referendum.htm

A wee bit of fun but answer truthfully :)

I did have a bit of fun with it and I think I broke it! ;) Just to test it I answered British to the first question, I then said I did see Scotland and England as one country, I wanted the UK govt to decide on oil and war and I looked at an iS with doubt and fear. All these answers are fundamentally against the Yes principles and would make it impossible for me to be pro an iS, would you agree?

But because I answered the rest of the questions pro Yes, it told me I was best to vote Yes! :eek:

Not thought it through really have they? :confused:

BTW, some of the above answers aren't my true answers.

[sauzee_4]

:faf:

So if you want to stay in the EU you should vote Yes, even though that would put us out of the EU for years?

It's almost as if the Yes campaign has given up now.

Not sure the game actually says that.

Are you sure we'll stay in if we vote no?

And why doesn't Cameron pick up the phone and ask? He could put the whole indyref to bed.

[Northernhibee]

Not sure the game actually says that.

Are you sure we'll stay in if we vote no?

And why doesn't Cameron pick up the phone and ask? He could put the whole indyref to bed.

If it goes to a referendum on EU membership, a recent poll had a narrow lead to stay in, which was notably greater if an option for renegotiating terms is added.

[Fergus52]

:faf:

So if you want to stay in the EU you should vote Yes, even though that would put us out of the EU for years?

It's almost as if the Yes campaign has given up now.

Thats not gonna happen though.

Cant be bothered digging out the articles but several high ranking members of the European parliament have said that we would almost definitely get fast track entry

[Beefster]

Is it just me or is the rhetoric from the Yes campaign/supporters getting increasingly desperate/hysterical?

Should be a few weeks to forget.

[marinello59]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

Oil predictions too pessimistic say neutral report. There's a shock, the complete spin, propaganda and lies from Bitter together is embarressing.

Both sides are guilty of talking up or talking down the future prospects of our oil to suit their own agenda. It's thoroughly depressing. The multiple Facebook pages about oil finds being kept secret until after the referendum are truly cringeworthy. If any of it was true then we can only assume that our First Minister is part of the conspiracy of silence.

[GoldenEagle]

Is it just me or is the rhetoric from the Yes campaign/supporters getting increasingly desperate/hysterical?

Should be a few weeks to forget.

I'm kinda with you on that one Beefster. Ignoring the pollsters I can only talk of the average punter that I speak to and there is some excitement of something new for Scotland.

'new' might not be the land of honey and milk but I get the impression that it's replaced the fear of the unknown and I've seen a shift towards 'yes'.

Ach, listen there are people who will generally go OTT on both sides. You may see it as desperate and hysterical and they'll look on it as being passionate and exciting.

For the better though the ordinary people are looking much more deeper into politics and, no matter the result, the charlatans who have been MP's and not given a toss to the people they 'represent' will now get a run for their money over the next generation.

[Hibrandenburg]

:faf:

So if you want to stay in the EU you should vote Yes, even though that would put us out of the EU for years?

It's almost as if the Yes campaign has given up now.

I best start packing my bags then if a YES vote prevails.

Utter utter scare mongering.

[Beefster]

http://thesteepletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lying-Scotsman-550.jpg

I rarely use smilies but...

:tee hee:

[over the line]

I best start packing my bags then if a YES vote prevails.

Utter utter scare mongering.

Well there is no definite answer for an iS in the EU is there though? Although even I would expect an iS to be in the EU, in some form or another.

Both sides are scare mongering anyway. Have you done that pro Yes quiz thing that GE posted a couple of pages back? It suggests that the UK is leaving the EU. It also suggests the UK is going to charge for education (vast majority is free and will remain so). It also says that childcare isn't subsidised in the UK, which is not true.

None of the above are true, so both sides are just as guilty of scare mongering.

[Moulin Yarns]

It is not complicated, it really isn't.

I seek for Scotland no more than that status and those powers which other nations assume to be theirs by right. It is about being normal. Independence is normal. Ask any of the approximately 200 independent nations and you will get the same answer, they are not seaking an alternative which involves relinquishing their independence.

[over the line]

It is not complicated, it really isn't.

I seek for Scotland no more than that status and those powers which other nations assume to be theirs by right. It is about being normal. Independence is normal. Ask any of the approximately 200 independent nations and you will get the same answer, they are not seaking an alternative which involves relinquishing their independence.

That seems fair enough but independence isn't always the better path is it? There are examples of countries that are worse for independence, so its not a given that its always an improvement. Asking the 200 or so countries if they want to relinquish their independence is obviously a totally different question isn't it, as none of us know a Scotland before the union do we?

The question is more 'what is best for Scotland', rather than a straight 'should Scotland be independent'. The former is a more practical question, where as the second is probably more emotional? That's not to say that emotions shouldn't come into it though.

[Stranraer]

Is it just me or is the rhetoric from the Yes campaign/supporters getting increasingly desperate/hysterical?

Should be a few weeks to forget.

It pains me to say it but yes I agree with you. Some of the stuff I've read on Twitter is embarrassing to say the least, the Yes camp are showing signs of desperation.

[JimBHibees]

:faf: How's your independent legal advice over joining the EU or formal negotiations with the Bank of England going?

So oil is running out is it. We were told this by a Labour Scottish Secretary for State in the 80's and of course the infamous McCrone report which was drawn up by an esteemed Economist which indicated that Scotland could be one of the 3rd or 4th wealthy nations in the World which was immediately classified as secret because the illiterate Scots incapable of running themselves couldnt deal with it and the benevolent UK establishment would look after them and give them pocket money.

Scotland has areas of poverty under Westminster and ironically given their position in Scotland of Labour party rule
which are some of the worst in Europe while wealthy countries such as Norway have £500bn pounds in an oil fund. Go figure who is better off.

How many times to we need to be taken for mugs before the penny drops.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=
Sorry to go on about it but have a go of the questions on the link that GE put on a few posts back. The questions on there are so loaded, misleading and scewd it is embarrassing. It is Yes spin and desperation at its worst. They even put a cute robot thing on it, to make you think it hasn't been thought up by devious politicians, trying to trick you.

PS, not having a pop at GE in any way, glad he/she put it on here for us to see.

[JeMeSouviens]

Both sides are guilty of talking up or talking down the future prospects of our oil to suit their own agenda. It's thoroughly depressing. The multiple Facebook pages about oil finds being kept secret until after the referendum are truly cringeworthy. If any of it was true then we can only assume that our First Minister is part of the conspiracy of silence.

Agree on the fb pages. I think it's pretty poor that the supposedly independent OBR is cooking the books to the same extent as nationalist leaning think tanks though.

[Stranraer]

Just read this (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/9611-embarrassment-for-better-together-after-darling-shares-platform-with-bigoted-tweet-campaigner) about a Better Together campaigner... and supposedly ordinary mum. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Well there is no definite answer for an iS in the EU is there though? Although even I would expect an iS to be in the EU, in some form or another.

Both sides are scare mongering anyway. Have you done that pro Yes quiz thing that GE posted a couple of pages back? It suggests that the UK is leaving the EU. It also suggests the UK is going to charge for education (vast majority is free and will remain so). It also says that childcare isn't subsidised in the UK, which is not true.

None of the above are true, so both sides are just as guilty of scare mongering.

The thing about iS in the EU is that there are political reasons to use the scare of excluding us from the EU ahead of the vote, but no reason for anyone to exclude us after the vote. There is no precedent but the EU will adapt to suit the will of its members, just as it did when absorbing East Germany (also without precedent). The only possible reason for exclusion, the Spanish need to scare the Basques and Catalans, is trumped by the same country's need for access to our fishing grounds.

There are no credible commentators suggesting exclusion, only some politicians with vested interest.

[RyeSloan]

So oil is running out is it. We were told this by a Labour Scottish Secretary for State in the 80's and of course the infamous McCrone report which was drawn up by an esteemed Economist which indicated that Scotland could be one of the 3rd or 4th wealthy nations in the World which was immediately classified as secret because the illiterate Scots incapable of running themselves couldnt deal with it and the benevolent UK establishment would look after them and give them pocket money. Scotland has areas of poverty under Westminster and ironically given their position in Scotland of Labour party rule which are some of the worst in Europe while wealthy countries such as Norway have £500bn pounds in an oil fund. Go figure who is better off. How many times to we need to be taken for mugs before the penny drops.

Can we go figure the oil revenue of Norway v the oil revenue of the UK (or an iS) then go figure why Norway are better off?

[JeMeSouviens]

[QUOTE=
Sorry to go on about it but have a go of the questions on the link that GE put on a few posts back. The questions on there are so loaded, misleading and scewd it is embarrassing. It is Yes spin and desperation at its worst. They even put a cute robot thing on it, to make you think it hasn't been thought up by devious politicians, trying to trick you.

PS, not having a pop at GE in any way, glad he/she put it on here for us to see.

What do you expect from a completely unofficial "bit of fun" website? :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Can we go figure the oil revenue of Norway v the oil revenue of the UK (or an iS) then go figure why Norway are better off?

http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/sidebars/art/north_sea_oil.png

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4133655]

What do you expect from a completely unofficial "bit of fun" website? :rolleyes:

It is thinly veiled as a bit of fun but that is the trick isn't it? It is designed to fool and mislead people but they use a cute robot to hide it behind. Maybe Alex Salmond could employ Metal Mickey for the next tv debate? He could get MM to answer the difficult questions he seems to struggle with! ;)

I don't think many people will be fooled by the quiz thingy, well I certainly hope not anyway! I admire the devious thought behind it though, it shows that the art of deliberate political deception will live on and prosper in the event of an iS.

[Moulin Yarns]

That seems fair enough but independence isn't always the better path is it? There are examples of countries that are worse for independence, so its not a given that its always an improvement. Asking the 200 or so countries if they want to relinquish their independence is obviously a totally different question isn't it, as none of us know a Scotland before the union do we?

The question is more 'what is best for Scotland', rather than a straight 'should Scotland be independent'. The former is a more practical question, where as the second is probably more emotional? That's not to say that emotions shouldn't come into it though.


Read my signature and you will know I don't think our taps will be flowing with milk and honey. It will be for the pro independence side to work hard to make Scotland better, while the No thanks side can just sit on their hands doing nothing while waiting to say 'told you so'

[over the line]

The thing about iS in the EU is that there are political reasons to use the scare of excluding us from the EU ahead of the vote, but no reason for anyone to exclude us after the vote. There is no precedent but the EU will adapt to suit the will of its members, just as it did when absorbing East Germany (also without precedent). The only possible reason for exclusion, the Spanish need to scare the Basques and Catalans, is trumped by the same country's need for access to our fishing grounds.

There are no credible commentators suggesting exclusion, only some politicians with vested interest.

That's the thing with politics isn't it, its full of politicians! ;):)

The No campaign are bound to play on uncertainties aren't they? It is down to the Yes campaign to alleviate those uncertainties. They don't seem to be doing too well at doing this at the moment and that may well lead to their downfall?

I mean would you invest in a market stall that was not sure if it was going to be allowed to set up in the market and even if it was allowed, you had no idea how much the rent would be or what the trading restrictions or opening hours might be?

[CropleyWasGod]

That's the thing with politics isn't it, its full of politicians! ;):)

The No campaign are bound to play on uncertainties aren't they? It is down to the Yes campaign to alleviate those uncertainties. They don't seem to be doing too well at doing this at the moment and that may well lead to their downfall?

I mean would you invest in a market stall that was not sure if it was going to be allowed to set up in the market and even if it was allowed, you had no idea how much the rent would be or what the trading restrictions or opening hours might be?

... or would you prefer to remain with your current trader, which may be leaving the trading co-operative for good in a couple of years?

[over the line]

Read my signature and you will know I don't think our taps will be flowing with milk and honey. It will be for the pro independence side to work hard to make Scotland better, while the No thanks side can just sit on their hands doing nothing while waiting to say 'told you so'

Well whatever the result, I genuinely hope there is never a 'told you so moment', because that means Scotland in what ever form its in, will be failing. I have no doubt this is at least one point we can both agree on? :)

[Moulin Yarns]

That's the thing with politics isn't it, its full of politicians! ;):)

The No campaign are bound to play on uncertainties aren't they? It is down to the Yes campaign to alleviate those uncertainties. They don't seem to be doing too well at doing this at the moment and that may well lead to their downfall?

I mean would you invest in a market stall that was not sure if it was going to be allowed to set up in the market and even if it was allowed, you had no idea how much the rent would be or what the trading restrictions or opening hours might be?


... or would you prefer to remain with your current trader, which may be leaving the trading co-operative for good in a couple of years?

I like the analogy




I'll go further, would you rather have a potential 63.23million customers or




the current number of potential customers, 742.5million

[JeMeSouviens]

It is thinly veiled as a bit of fun but that is the trick isn't it? It is designed to fool and mislead people but they use a cute robot to hide it behind. Maybe Alex Salmond could employ Metal Mickey for the next tv debate? He could get MM to answer the difficult questions he seems to struggle with! ;)

I don't think many people will be fooled by the quiz thingy, well I certainly hope not anyway! I admire the devious thought behind it though, it shows that the art of deliberate political deception will live on and prosper in the event of an iS.

Don't know if you ignored or missed the point? It has nothing to do with Yes Scotland, the SNP, the Greens or anybody "official" on the Yes side.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's the thing with politics isn't it, its full of politicians! ;):)

The No campaign are bound to play on uncertainties aren't they? It is down to the Yes campaign to alleviate those uncertainties. They don't seem to be doing too well at doing this at the moment and that may well lead to their downfall?

I mean would you invest in a market stall that was not sure if it was going to be allowed to set up in the market and even if it was allowed, you had no idea how much the rent would be or what the trading restrictions or opening hours might be?

Ok, you explain how the Yes campaign can alleviate the uncertainty? I agree the No campaign's best tactic to win the referendum is to play on the uncertainty. This one might come back and bite them on the bum if we vote No and Catalunya sails into the EU seamlessly.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well whatever the result, I genuinely hope there is never a 'told you so moment', because that means Scotland in what ever form its in, will be failing. I have no doubt this is at least one point we can both agree on? :)

To be fair, I don't think the waiting for a "told you so" will be true of either side. The SNP have fully embraced devolved government and tried to make it work (in practical terms, they do, of course, still point out its shortcomings as often as possible). If no, I expect them to try and push for as much devo as possible.

If yes, I fully expect that almost all the No side will fully engage in the task of nation building and the few that don't would only hinder things anyway.

[over the line]

Don't know if you ignored or missed the point? It has nothing to do with Yes Scotland, the SNP, the Greens or anybody "official" on the Yes side.

I know its not officially "official", but it is undoubtedly pro Yes and the site obviously has some interest in, or even direct links to the Yes campaign. It's definitely politically driven isn't it?

[over the line]

... or would you prefer to remain with your current trader, which may be leaving the trading co-operative for good in a couple of years?

I can't realistically see that happening though. The UKIP thing is just a protest vote like similar protest votes were made in a lot of other EU nations. I think what people want is changes in the EU, I think the vast majority still see the benefit in being in it.

[CropleyWasGod]

I can't realistically see that happening though. The UKIP thing is just a protest vote like similar protest votes where made in a lot of other EU nations. I think what people want is changes in the EU, I think the vast majority still see the benefit in being in it.

... and can you realistically see an independent Scotland being refused entry to the EU?

[over the line]

Ok, you explain how the Yes campaign can alleviate the uncertainty? I agree the No campaign's best tactic to win the referendum is to play on the uncertainty. This one might come back and bite them on the bum if we vote No and Catalunya sails into the EU seamlessly.

Good question but I'm not exactly sure how they could have alleviated the uncertainty TBH. I've not given it a lot of thought from a pro Yes perspective. The Yes campaign certainly should have given it a bit more thought though as the doubt is still there isn't it?

[GoldenEagle]

I know its not officially "official", but it is undoubtedly pro Yes and the site obviously has some interest in, or even direct links to the Yes campaign. It's definitely politically driven isn't it?



If anyone is so gullible to cast their vote based on this site then they probably don't deserve a vote (half joking).

Should YES voters be embarrassed at this site, is that your point as it's not very clear.

[ronaldo7]

The No camp continue to bus up their astroturfers from dan saff. :cb

13301

[JeMeSouviens]

Good question but I'm not exactly sure how they could have alleviated the uncertainty TBH. I've not given it a lot of thought from a pro Yes perspective. The Yes campaign certainly should have given it a bit more thought though as the doubt is still there isn't it?

The answer is there's nothing they can do. There is no precedent, presumably it didn't occur to whoever wrote the EU's articles that a member state would split up. The articles can be read different ways. The EU say they would only provide an answer if asked officially by one of the member states. Guess which member state with an interest hasn't asked?

So, there is no definitive answer. In its absence this is the best we have. Zip down to the bottom to read the bio of the guy that wrote it, he's a UK gov and Brussels insider, so hardly screaming nat material.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm


2. In the debate on Scottish independence it is natural that opponents tend to exaggerate the difficulties of EU membership, while proponents tend to minimise them. This note tries to address the subject as objectively as possible. In summary it argues that:

· Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence

· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens

· For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission

· Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence

· The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries

[Beefster]

The No camp continue to bus up their astroturfers from dan saff. :cb

13301

What's the issue? Are they putting Scottish accents on when they knock on someone's door?

[over the line]

... and can you realistically see an independent Scotland being refused entry to the EU?

No I don't personally see it being a problem for an iS, I'm just saying that the Yes campaign seem to have made a bit of a mess of convincing enough people that it will be ok. They haven't even convinced me and I already think an iS would get into the EU! :confused:

[over the line]

If anyone is so gullible to cast their vote based on this site then they probably don't deserve a vote (half joking).

Should YES voters be embarrassed at this site, is that your point as it's not very clear.

I hope not many are duped by it but hard to be sure really. They produced it for a purpose didn't they, not just for fun.

No I don't think Yes supporters should be embarrassed about it, didn't mean that at all. Although I think the developers of the questionnaire and anyone who is swayed by it should be embarrassed shouldn't they?

[ronaldo7]

What's the issue? Are they putting Scottish accents on when they knock on someone's door?

Issue? Anybody say there was an issue? Bit touchy aren't you. Polls must be getting close eh:greengrin

Just keeping people posted on the Grass roots campaign from a No perspective, like the Vote No Borders people.:aok:

[Stranraer]

Issue? Anybody say there was an issue? Bit touchy aren't you. Polls must be getting close eh:greengrin

Just keeping people posted on the Grass roots campaign from a No perspective, like the Vote No Borders people.:aok:

Watch yourself, you are treading on dangerous ground - remember we're all anti-English on the Yes side :rolleyes:.

[over the line]

The answer is there's nothing they can do. There is no precedent, presumably it didn't occur to whoever wrote the EU's articles that a member state would split up. The articles can be read different ways. The EU say they would only provide an answer if asked officially by one of the member states. Guess which member state with an interest hasn't asked?

So, there is no definitive answer. In its absence this is the best we have. Zip down to the bottom to read the bio of the guy that wrote it, he's a UK gov and Brussels insider, so hardly screaming nat material.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm

Seems fairly straightforward doesn't it? So how have the Yes campaign failed so spectacularly in convincing people? :confused:

[Hibrandenburg]

What's the issue? Are they putting Scottish accents on when they knock on someone's door?

Ok, picture this. The Tories decide to have a referendum next year on EU membership, bus loads of French come over to campaign against England leaving it. Nothing wrong with it and to be honest it's quite flattering when you think about it. But can you imagine the reaction from some sectors of the English public? I'd love to see the headlines in the sun.

[ronaldo7]

http://thesteepletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lying-Scotsman-550.jpg

I rarely use smilies but...

:tee hee:

Can I add this Lying Scotsman please.

13303

:hahaha:

[over the line]

I like the analogy




I'll go further, would you rather have a potential 63.23million customers or




the current number of potential customers, 742.5million

Ok.

[Beefster]

Bit touchy aren't you. Polls must be getting close eh:greengrin

I'll admit I'm getting edgy about the result. It's down to only 14% difference now. If 500,000 'No' voters forget to vote, it's anyone's game.

[Stranraer]

I'll admit I'm getting edgy about the result. It's down to only 14% difference now. If 500,000 'No' voters forget to vote, it's anyone's game.

For someone who isn't edgy you sure went off on one over a perfectly acceptable contribution to the thread.

[degenerated]

Interesting front page on the Herald tomorrow. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/19/85080cc36b1720f446a4d04e51366eb7.jpg

[Beefster]

For someone who isn't edgy you sure went off on one over a perfectly acceptable contribution to the thread.

Two questions about a post are going off on one?

[Moulin Yarns]

More info on the Herald front page

http://wingsoverscotland.com/here-comes-the-love/

[Hibrandenburg]

More info on the Herald front page

http://wingsoverscotland.com/here-comes-the-love/

There's been bad feeling boiling up for a while now. Some of my English friends would appear to think I'm some sort of Scottish Nazi because I'm pro independence. Although they've known me for years I can't get through to them that this is not about them, it's about us. Funnily enough my Welsh and Irish friends seem to get it.

[over the line]

There's been bad feeling boiling up for a while now. Some of my English friends would appear to think I'm some sort of Scottish Nazi because I'm pro independence. Although they've known me for years I can't get through to them that this is not about them, it's about us. Funnily enough my Welsh and Irish friends seem to get it.

I really don't think the Wings Over Scotland logo will help with dispelling the whole Nazi thing? What a weird choice of wings? :eek::confused:

[over the line]

I really don't think the Wings Over Scotland logo will help with dispelling the whole Nazi thing? What a weird choice of wings? :eek::confused:

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi BTW, or comparing WOS to the Nazi's, purely saying the wings on the logo are a strange choice.

[southfieldhibby]

George Galloway at porty town hall tonight from 7pm

[Bristolhibby]

So can anyone from the No Campaign confirm that the Barnett formula won't be altered and Public spending in Scotland will remain the same?

The papers seem to think that this won't be the case.

J

[Moulin Yarns]

I think the No Thanks campaign might have difficulty with trying to convince a martian that the Barnett Formula will remain in place

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-priti-patel-sparks-1471711

[CropleyWasGod]

So can anyone from the No Campaign confirm that the Barnett formula won't be altered and Public spending in Scotland will remain the same?

The papers seem to think that this won't be the case.

J

I have said from the off that the Yes campaign's best assets may turn out to be the Tories themselves. That hasn't turned out as I expected, but this latest "threat" might yet shove a few more don't-knows off the fence.

[Stranraer]

George Galloway at porty town hall tonight from 7pm

His stance on independence is a complete paradox and he puts forward probably the weakest case for staying in the union. His dreams of a British Republic are ridiculous.

[over the line]

I think the No Thanks campaign might have difficulty with trying to convince a martian that the Barnett Formula will remain in place

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-priti-patel-sparks-1471711

Ok.

[Bristolhibby]

Is there more evidence to suggest the Barnett Formula will change, or is it just down to one ill informed 'gob on a stick' backbencher?

Serious question, as I don't know?

As I have said many times, a lot is simply down to who you trust to do right by Scotland.

A politician directly elected by Scotland's people in an Independent Scotland.

Or Westminster.

It's an easy decision for me.

J

[Stranraer]

As I have said many times, a lot is simply down to who you trust to do right by Scotland.

A politician directly elected by Scotland's people in an Independent Scotland.

Or Westminster.

It's an easy decision for me.

J

Scotland directly elects the MP's that represent us in London...

[JeMeSouviens]

Seems fairly straightforward doesn't it? So how have the Yes campaign failed so spectacularly in convincing people? :confused:

Because the papers won't print something so helpful to yes. The broadcast media will only let them say it in the context of having somebody from No saying they're making it all up (false) and that it can't be guaranteed (in a 100% legal sense, true) and will wheel out someone to say it's all terribly complicated and will take centuries.

US campaigns talk about "air war", the broadcast and print media, and "ground war", local meetings, door to door canvassing etc. In our referendum, Yes has a significant advantage on the ground but is completely overwhelmed in the air.

[JeMeSouviens]

Is there more evidence to suggest the Barnett Formula will change, or is it just down to one ill informed 'gob on a stick' backbencher?

Serious question, as I don't know how to use Google?

FTFY :wink:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021511/Tories-end-funding-mechanism-Scotland-hints-David-Cameron.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cameron-delivers-pledge-barnett-formula-1924151
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9008823/Scrap-formula-giving-Scots-extra-cash-say-Tory-MPs.html

[over the line]

More info on the Herald front page

http://wingsoverscotland.com/here-comes-the-love/

In my experience from living down here in "The Jewel Of The Mersey", I don't think the people I know think England is subsidising Scotland. To be fair I don't think there is a lot of info or coverage about the subject and it would seem the 'info' being spread is way of the mark anyway.

Do I smell a Yes campaign conspiracy? Are they spreading misinformation and maybe commissioning scewd surveys, with loaded questions and asking select sections of English society? :eek:

I don't know obviously, but it would make sense wouldn't it and if they aren't doing it, they have missed a trick haven't they?

It's difficult to believe much from either side and their respective media supporters now isn't it? It seems to have come down to a choice between who is the least full of s***!

Standard politics then! :rolleyes::)

[JeMeSouviens]

Canon Kenyon Wright takes a real kicking from the CyberNos at the bottom of this article:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/canon-kenyon-wright-a-no-vote-dooms-us-all-1-3514704

As the chair of the constitutional convention that laid the groundwork for the Scottish Parliament, it would be nice to see him given a little more respect. I suspect these comments will be headline news tonight, just like the few about JK Rowling that were dredged up. :rolleyes:

[over the line]

FTFY :wink:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021511/Tories-end-funding-mechanism-Scotland-hints-David-Cameron.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cameron-delivers-pledge-barnett-formula-1924151
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9008823/Scrap-formula-giving-Scots-extra-cash-say-Tory-MPs.html

;):D

[RyeSloan]

Thanks for the chart. As suspected it clearly shows Norway has produced and is producing huge amounts more oil than the UK. Not sure if that translates into the same for government revenue but none the less it is clear you can't just point to Norway and say we will be like them.

Their oil fund has been built up over many years and through peak production with a population of 5m...to say Scotland could now emulate that now seems somewhat unlikely I would suggest.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks for the chart. As suspected it clearly shows Norway has produced and is producing huge amounts more oil than the UK. Not sure if that translates into the same for government revenue but none the less it is clear you can't just point to Norway and say we will be like them.

Their oil fund has been built up over many years and through peak production with a population of 5m...to say Scotland could now emulate that now seems somewhat unlikely I would suggest.

I think you've misread the chart, the bars give cumulative total for the N Sea but show how much each country contributed to the total. But regardless of that, I agree with you we've missed the boat on a Norway-scale bonanza. We are looking across the N Sea at the Norgs cavorting in their speedboat while Jim Bowen says, "Let's have a look at what you could have won."

Great, super, smashing indeed. :boo hoo:

[Moulin Yarns]

Is there more evidence to suggest the Barnett Formula will change, or is it just down to one ill informed 'gob on a stick' backbencher?

Serious question, as I don't know?

Your 'gob on a stick' has recently been appointed to a senior post in the Treasury, so definately not a backbencher, FACT.

[over the line]

Your 'gob on a stick' has recently been appointed to a senior post in the Treasury, so definately not a backbencher, FACT.

Ok.

[Moulin Yarns]

A woman, in the treasury!?!? She will only blow the whole budget on shoes and cushions! ;):)

YAWN!

Oh, very good, not very PC wait until some of the girls on Hibs.net get to heasr about this. :wink:

[southfieldhibby]

Norway only created their oil fund in the mid 90's,we've got plenty time to catch up if the word on the rigs is accurate.

Imagine Scotland being worried that they have too much money and too many shares in pretty much every fortune 500 company.

[over the line]

YAWN!

Oh, very good, not very PC wait until some of the girls on Hibs.net get to heasr about this. :wink:

Ok.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just kidding, but you knew that anyway. ;)

Aye, but it is becoming very tiresome when the majority on here are trying to have serious discussion. But never mind, you keep having your wee bit of fun so long as it amuses you.

[over the line]

Aye, but it is becoming very tiresome when the majority on here are trying to have serious discussion. But never mind, you keep having your wee bit of fun so long as it amuses you.

Really, no room at all for occasional lighthearted banter?

Fair enough, I'll consider myself put in my place and I'll get me coat then.

[GoldenEagle]

https://twitter.com/scottiedata/status/502209811824783361

Surely not?

[marinello59]

https://twitter.com/scottiedata/status/502209811824783361

Surely not?

Surely not indeed. The review actually says 12 -24 million barrels.
The gist of Wood's message is correct. Both sides have deliberately manipulated what his report said to suit their own ends and judging by that tweet some are still at it. The good news is we still have at least 12 million barrels of oil left which is 12 million barrels more than most countries.

[Moulin Yarns]

The Scottish Government approves creation of up to 2500 jobs in the Highlands for renewable energy.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28879158


http://www.highland-news.co.uk/News/Former-oil-yard-set-for-jobs-boost-20082014.htm

[Beefster]

Job losses in Scotland within the UK = "****ing Westminster. Let's leave the UK as soon as possible."

Potential jobs in Scotland within the UK = "Go the Scottish Government. Let's leave the UK as soon as possible."

It's partially consistent, I suppose.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apparently the Scotch Whisky industry will no longer exist if Scotland becomes independent.

The reason I know this, it was in a Better Together leaflet.

This is the conclusion they came to:

"Being part of the UK over the past decades has been a critical factor in delivering the success of the Scotch Whisky industry. This has allowed Scotch Whisky to play on the world stage, and, despite being based in a small country on the northern fringes of Europe, this support allows Scotch Whisky to punch well above its weight.

Independence would take all of that away and who knows what would replace it – if anything?

A £4.3billion industry, 35,000 jobs. Would you meddle with that?

It is really quite simple – we need this relationship to continue for our Scotch Whisky industry to be successful."


The bit in bold is what gets me confused, a small country on the northern fringes of Europe? with a world wide market worth £4.3billion is not punching well above its weight. It is called supply and demand.

The world demands Scotch Whisky, Scotland supplies that demand, nowhere else in the world is able to.

Now, I'm not going to go searching for every Scotch Whisky producer, but the 2 largest ones are

Diageo (head office in Park Royal, London borough of Brent)

Chivas Brothers (owned by Pernod Ricard)


I really can't see why an independent Scotland would suddenly lose a £4.3 billion industry as a result of a yes vote.


Would anybody like to explain that one to me?

[JimBHibees]

Surely not indeed. The review actually says 12 -24 million barrels.
The gist of Wood's message is correct. Both sides have deliberately manipulated what his report said to suit their own ends and judging by that tweet some are still at it. The good news is we still have at least 12 million barrels of oil left which is 12 million barrels more than most countries.

But having loads of oil is obviously a bad thing and thats without new fields which could be explored when nuclear weapons are no longer in Faslane. We were being told in the 70s by a Labour Sec of State just before the last vote coincidentally enough oil was running out yet here over 30 years hence there is still loads with the potential for more. Only country in the world when having this resource is seen by some as a negative.

[Stranraer]

Apparently the Scotch Whisky industry will no longer exist if Scotland becomes independent.

The reason I know this, it was in a Better Together leaflet.

This is the conclusion they came to:

"Being part of the UK over the past decades has been a critical factor in delivering the success of the Scotch Whisky industry. This has allowed Scotch Whisky to play on the world stage, and, despite being based in a small country on the northern fringes of Europe, this support allows Scotch Whisky to punch well above its weight.

Independence would take all of that away and who knows what would replace it – if anything?

A £4.3billion industry, 35,000 jobs. Would you meddle with that?

It is really quite simple – we need this relationship to continue for our Scotch Whisky industry to be successful."


The bit in bold is what gets me confused, a small country on the northern fringes of Europe? with a world wide market worth £4.3billion is not punching well above its weight. It is called supply and demand.

The world demands Scotch Whisky, Scotland supplies that demand, nowhere else in the world is able to.

Now, I'm not going to go searching for every Scotch Whisky producer, but the 2 largest ones are

Diageo (head office in Park Royal, London borough of Brent)

Chivas Brothers (owned by Pernod Ricard)


I really can't see why an independent Scotland would suddenly lose a £4.3 billion industry as a result of a yes vote.


Would anybody like to explain that one to me?

A few posts back I said the Yes campaign were becoming a bit desperate. The No campaign however are stringing out a series of bare-faced lies, treating the public as if they are stupid. I politely told a No campaigner not to knock my door this morning (maybe she saw the SSP sign in the window). It really angers me some of the tripe they put on their leaflets. The "Best of both worlds" < what does that even mean!? I really hope the first minister will destroy that New Labour buffoon Darling at the next debate.

[over the line]

The Scottish Government approves creation of up to 2500 jobs in the Highlands for renewable energy.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28879158


http://www.highland-news.co.uk/News/Former-oil-yard-set-for-jobs-boost-20082014.htm

Yet more evidence of Scotland prospering whilst being part of the UK.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=

I agree with your point about both sides being desperate now 3m. As I said a few posts back, its almost become a choice between who is the least full of crap. If people haven't made their mind up yet they are being treated to some right old rubbish from both sides.

[marinello59]

But having loads of oil is obviously a bad thing and thats without new fields which could be explored when nuclear weapons are no longer in Faslane. We were being told in the 70s by a Labour Sec of State just before the last vote coincidentally enough oil was running out yet here over 30 years hence there is still loads with the potential for more. Only country in the world when having this resource is seen by some as a negative.

Why have you quoted me on that. I haven't said anything about oil being a negative.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yet more evidence of Scotland prospering whilst being part of the UK.

No evidence whatsoever.

This is a Plannning decision made by Highland Council and approved by the Scottish Government. If the jobs had gone to Birkenhead instead, then you could have said it was a UK decision, but they didn't, so it wasn't.

:na na:

[CropleyWasGod]

Yet more evidence of Scotland prospering whilst being part of the UK.

How so?

[Moulin Yarns]

The Labour Party, the party that first introduced 'Home Rule' onto the political agenda are now dead set against it. Anybody know why?

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/party-of-home-rule-now-wants-us-to-vote-no-177072n.25103996

[Stranraer]

The Labour Party, the party that first introduced 'Home Rule' onto the political agenda are now dead set against it. Anybody know why?

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/party-of-home-rule-now-wants-us-to-vote-no-177072n.25103996

Because, as a right-wing journalist (rightly) put it: The Labour party are made up of "fat bourgeois bohemians who secretly despise the working class".

[JimBHibees]

Why have you quoted me on that. I haven't said anything about oil being a negative.

I was only adding my own point to your comments about oil, I wasn't arguing about your point. Sorry should have been clearer.

[JimBHibees]

[QUOTE=

I agree with your point about both sides being desperate now 3m. As I said a few posts back, its almost become a choice between who is the least full of crap. If people haven't made their mind up yet they are being treated to some right old rubbish from both sides.

Though given the vast majority of the press are pro-Union as well as large outlets like the BBC then you will find more from the pro-union side IMO.

It deliberately suits the pro-union for there to be so much noise that many are struggling to make sense of the debate.

[over the line]

No evidence whatsoever.

This is a Plannning decision made by Highland Council and approved by the Scottish Government. If the jobs had gone to Birkenhead instead, then you could have said it was a UK decision, but they didn't, so it wasn't.

:na na:

How is it not evidence? 2500 jobs created in Scotland (prospering) and Scotland is in the UK. Seems straightforward enough.

Whoever made the decision, its a no brainer isn't it? Company asks local authority 'do you want 2500 well paid engineering jobs in your area?, pretty sure anyone would say yes?

Lord knows Birkenhead could do with the jobs, no doubt about it! But whilst on the subject, Cammel Lairds are flat out tooling up to make tidal energy equipment, or they may even have started production now?

[over the line]

How so?

Please see my reply to GF, on this subject. I think the first bit answers your question?

[CropleyWasGod]

Please see my reply to GF, on this subject. I think the first bit answers your question?

Your implication, though, is that the jobs wouldn't have gone there in an iS.

[marinello59]

I was only adding my own point to your comments about oil, I wasn't arguing about your point. Sorry should have been clearer.

No problem. I guess I am just too used to people disagreeing with me. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

How is it not evidence? 2500 jobs created in Scotland (prospering) and Scotland is in the UK. Seems straightforward enough.

Whoever made the decision, its a no brainer isn't it? Company asks local authority 'do you want 2500 well paid engineering jobs in your area?, pretty sure anyone would say yes?

Lord knows Birkenhead could do with the jobs, no doubt about it! But whilst on the subject, Cammel Lairds are flat out tooling up to make tidal energy equipment, or they may even have started production now?


Your implication, though, is that the jobs wouldn't have gone there in an iS.

In that case, in the event of a no vote, you are saying that more jobs will be created in Scotland. WOW!!!

At this point I will repeat what Better Together claim on Scotch Whisky:

"Being part of the UK over the past decades has been a critical factor in delivering the success of the Scotch Whisky industry. This has allowed Scotch Whisky to play on the world stage, and, despite being based in a small country on the northern fringes of Europe, this support allows Scotch Whisky to punch well above its weight.

Independence would take all of that away and who knows what would replace it – if anything?

A £4.3billion industry, 35,000 jobs. Would you meddle with that?

It is really quite simple – we need this relationship to continue for our Scotch Whisky industry to be successful."


That is astonishing. Whisky exists only because we are part of the UK, apparently. The difficult thing to understand from that is how the first written mention of Scotch whisky is in the Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, 1495 - BEFORE THE UK WAS FORMED.

Next, the headlines from the Herald and Telegraph the other day

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/english-say-scots-will-pay-a-heavy-price-for-referendum.25092377

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the English want Scotland to pay heavily for having the audacity to hold a referendum. That will really create jobs and wealth in Scotland.

[Moulin Yarns]

Picture this hypothetical situation.

I am in partnership with a friend and neighbour, but I think he isn't pulling his weight in the business, indeed I think he is taking more out of the business than he puts in. He approaches me and says he would like out of the partnership to go his own way.

I have a dilemma, I like him, but this could be the chance to let this drain on the business go leaving me with a better more profitable business.

What do I do, try desperately to persuade him to stay and make him realise he will have to pull his weight in future or say, thanks, I've been wanting to let you go but didn't know how to say it.

Think about it, let this drain on the partnership go alone or keep him and hope he tows the line.

Sound familiar?

Scotland the slacker, drain on the partnership, according to the rest of the UK. Why would you want to keep this drain on your hard earned resources.

[JimBHibees]

Picture this hypothetical situation.

I am in partnership with a friend and neighbour, but I think he isn't pulling his weight in the business, indeed I think he is taking more out of the business than he puts in. He approaches me and says he would like out of the partnership to go his own way.

I have a dilemma, I like him, but this could be the chance to let this drain on the business go leaving me with a better more profitable business.

What do I do, try desperately to persuade him to stay and make him realise he will have to pull his weight in future or say, thanks, I've been wanting to let you go but didn't know how to say it.

Think about it, let this drain on the partnership go alone or keep him and hope he tows the line.

Sound familiar?

Scotland the slacker, drain on the partnership, according to the rest of the UK. Why would you want to keep this drain on your hard earned resources.

Great point and it makes no logical sense for it not to be the case. If we were such a drain and basket case that is commonly made out all the rest of the UK would want rid of us and wouldn't be shy about letting us know. Their silence and desperation says it all.

Ironic when in fact we have been inputting much more than been given.

Read this admittedly pro-independence site covering and referencing many of the cover up and lies we as a Nation and people have been fed for years by the Better Together parties.

http://ghostsofdarien.com/tag/oil/

[PeeJay]

Apparently the Scotch Whisky industry will no longer exist if Scotland becomes independent.

The reason I know this, it was in a Better Together leaflet.

This is the conclusion they came to:

"Being part of the UK over the past decades has been a critical factor in delivering the success of the Scotch Whisky industry. This has allowed Scotch Whisky to play on the world stage, and, despite being based in a small country on the northern fringes of Europe, this support allows Scotch Whisky to punch well above its weight.

Independence would take all of that away and who knows what would replace it – if anything?

A £4.3billion industry, 35,000 jobs. Would you meddle with that?

It is really quite simple – we need this relationship to continue for our Scotch Whisky industry to be successful."


The bit in bold is what gets me confused, a small country on the northern fringes of Europe? with a world wide market worth £4.3billion is not punching well above its weight. It is called supply and demand.

The world demands Scotch Whisky, Scotland supplies that demand, nowhere else in the world is able to.

Now, I'm not going to go searching for every Scotch Whisky producer, but the 2 largest ones are

Diageo (head office in Park Royal, London borough of Brent)

Chivas Brothers (owned by Pernod Ricard)


I really can't see why an independent Scotland would suddenly lose a £4.3 billion industry as a result of a yes vote.


Would anybody like to explain that one to me?

Not an explanation as such, but ... like much of Scotland's supposed "wealth" - the Scotch industry does not actually belong to Scotland (only ca. 20%+ is owned by Scottish companies) - most of the companies that own it are in fact international companies, i.e not Scottish, and they have registered offices outwith Scotland. As you are no doubt aware, the very two you reference in your post are not Scottish either ... seems to me that the point being made is not so much that lots of people will lose their jobs in the industry (although ultimately this would not be completely unthinkable, surely) or that there won't be any more whisky being distilled in Scotland - but rather, it is simply the case that the majority of revenues generated by the industry will not be staying in Scotland, i.e. Scotland will not have access to the majority of the wealth created by the industry, it may very well diminish. Scotland won't have much say in what happens - independent or not.

One has to wonder why the Scottish entrepreneurial spirit (assuming it actually exists) allowed so much of this industry to be sold off? Seems to me to be a typical UK short-term thinking policy with regard to business, something that is obviously just as much at home north of the border as it is south of it.

By the way, Diageo is well-known for schemes that enable it to avoid paying "any" tax in the UK - it won't be paying much in Scotland if it can help it either I would assume ...

Personally, I think people best be wary of the term "Scotland's resources" ... seems to me that it's not quite what some people seem to think it is.

[JeMeSouviens]

Picture this hypothetical situation.

I am in partnership with a friend and neighbour, but I think he isn't pulling his weight in the business, indeed I think he is taking more out of the business than he puts in. He approaches me and says he would like out of the partnership to go his own way.

I have a dilemma, I like him, but this could be the chance to let this drain on the business go leaving me with a better more profitable business.

What do I do, try desperately to persuade him to stay and make him realise he will have to pull his weight in future or say, thanks, I've been wanting to let you go but didn't know how to say it.

Think about it, let this drain on the partnership go alone or keep him and hope he tows the line.

Sound familiar?

Scotland the slacker, drain on the partnership, according to the rest of the UK. Why would you want to keep this drain on your hard earned resources.


What you have to add to the situation is ...

You used to have a thriving business with a large workforce, now there's only a few of you left and your partner is the only presentable guy about the place save you. You're still the president of the local chamber of commerce but you don't really impress them like you used to and the only thing they really like is when you invite them out shooting and maybe show them your most prestigious weapon even though you've nowhere to fire it. Only problem is you've nowhere to store it, so it stays locked in the garage over at your partner's house, he had room for a secure gun cupboard. It would be really embarrassing to front up and admit you're on your own and shooting days are over. You'd probably get blackballed at the golf club too ...

[over the line]

[QUOTE=Golden Fleece;4135555]In that case, in the event of a no vote, you are saying that more jobs will be created in Scotland. WOW!!!

At this point I will repeat what Better Together claim on Scotch Whisky: QUOTE


Merely saying that Scotland is prospering whilst being in the UK, as your original post pointed out. I don't see the problem with that, seems a sensible enough point doesn't it? What would you rather me say 'doom and gloom, more jobs created in the UK'?

Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with my point, or me at all really, as I have already commented on the whisky misinformation by the No campaign. But I hope you feel better for getting it off your chest anyway?

[over the line]

Your implication, though, is that the jobs wouldn't have gone there in an iS.

No not at all, none of us can say what might or might not happen in an iS can we. Nothing to say these engineering jobs wouldn't be created In an iS, as far as I know. Just pointing out that 2500 new jobs are a good thing and its happened whilst being in the UK.

[Hibrandenburg]

Your implication, though, is that the jobs wouldn't have gone there in an iS.

Maybe he means it's Westminster that send us the wind and the waves for our renewables? :dunno:

[sauzee_4]

Not an explanation as such, but ... like much of Scotland's supposed "wealth" - the Scotch industry does not actually belong to Scotland (only ca. 20%+ is owned by Scottish companies) - most of the companies that own it are in fact international companies, i.e not Scottish, and they have registered offices outwith Scotland. As you are no doubt aware, the very two you reference in your post are not Scottish either ... seems to me that the point being made is not so much that lots of people will lose their jobs in the industry (although ultimately this would not be completely unthinkable, surely) or that there won't be any more whisky being distilled in Scotland - but rather, it is simply the case that the majority of revenues generated by the industry will not be staying in Scotland, i.e. Scotland will not have access to the majority of the wealth created by the industry, it may very well diminish. Scotland won't have much say in what happens - independent or not.

One has to wonder why the Scottish entrepreneurial spirit (assuming it actually exists) allowed so much of this industry to be sold off? Seems to me to be a typical UK short-term thinking policy with regard to business, something that is obviously just as much at home north of the border as it is south of it.

By the way, Diageo is well-known for schemes that enable it to avoid paying "any" tax in the UK - it won't be paying much in Scotland if it can help it either I would assume ...

Personally, I think people best be wary of the term "Scotland's resources" ... seems to me that it's not quite what some people seem to think it is.

Giving you a chance to educate me here, (as someone who is possibly naive on this topic). But I've heard this argument before and don't quite understand it.

Many organisations in the Whisky industry are not based in Scotland, I completely accept this truth.

But despite this, Whisky contributes £Xbillion to the "revenue" streams of Scotland currently, so that figure obviously comes from the companies who are based here (yes/no? please correct me).

Why would the fact that many companies are based outside Scotland (and therefore not paying tax currently, result in a diminishing revenue column in an indy Scotland?)

Likewise you say Diageo don't currently pay much tax, so they obviously are not included in the £Xbillion figure. So why would it hurt our revenue streams if they didn't pay much tax in an indy Scotland?

I'd also like to hear the no camp's response to the NHS being under threat if we vote no because I haven't heard a satisfactory response to that one either.

The NHS is a devolved matter but if the NHS in the rest of the UK goes our budget will be cut further (further than the English already want it to be cut due to the Barnett formula).

:coffee:

[over the line]

Picture this hypothetical situation.

I am in partnership with a friend and neighbour, but I think he isn't pulling his weight in the business, indeed I think he is taking more out of the business than he puts in. He approaches me and says he would like out of the partnership to go his own way.

I have a dilemma, I like him, but this could be the chance to let this drain on the business go leaving me with a better more profitable business.

What do I do, try desperately to persuade him to stay and make him realise he will have to pull his weight in future or say, thanks, I've been wanting to let you go but didn't know how to say it.

Think about it, let this drain on the partnership go alone or keep him and hope he tows the line.

Sound familiar?

Scotland the slacker, drain on the partnership, according to the rest of the UK. Why would you want to keep this drain on your hard earned resources.

Nice analogy.

As I have said before, from down here in England (and on the Welsh border), I don't get that vibe at all. The people I know don't seem to think that Scotland is a 'slacker'. They speak highly of Scotland in my experience (apart from the obligatory mickey taking, which is fair enough). I accept some of the the press may be trying to paint a different picture, but we all know the press are full of it anyway. It may suit to believe this 'slacker' theory, but I just don't see it in reality.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe he means it's Westminster that send us the wind and the waves for our renewables? :dunno:

If you can be bothered, have a look at Armando Iannucci's tweet the other day when he suggested that, in an iS, Scots astronomers wouldn't be allowed to look at English comets. One of the replies (all following his lead) said that any wind that originated in the Yorkshire Moors would be stopped at the Border from going any further North.

:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

If you can be bothered, have a look at Armando Iannucci's tweet the other day when he suggested that, in an iS, Scots astronomers wouldn't be allowed to look at English comets. One of the replies (all following his lead) said that any wind that originated in the Yorkshire Moors would be stopped at the Border from going any further North.

:greengrin

That would interest me but I don't do twatter.

Anyway I've heard that it's Britannia who rules the waves so I'm sure she'll be cutting off that source of income too if we vote YES.


(correction: if you vote yes, I'm not allowed to).

[PeeJay]

Giving you a chance to educate me here, (as someone who is possibly naive on this topic). But I've heard this argument before and don't quite understand it.

Many organisations in the Whisky industry are not based in Scotland, I completely accept this truth.

But despite this, Whisky contributes £Xbillion to the "revenue" streams of Scotland currently, so that figure obviously comes from the companies who are based here (yes/no? please correct me).

Why would the fact that many companies are based outside Scotland (and therefore not paying tax currently, result in a diminishing revenue column in an indy Scotland?)

Likewise you say Diageo don't currently pay much tax, so they obviously are not included in the £Xbillion figure. So why would it hurt our revenue streams if they didn't pay much tax in an indy Scotland?

I'd also like to hear the no camp's response to the NHS being under threat if we vote no because I haven't heard a satisfactory response to that one either.

The NHS is a devolved matter but if the NHS in the rest of the UK goes our budget will be cut further (further than the English already want it to be cut due to the Barnett formula).

:coffee:

Is it not "truer" to say that the sum you refer to contributes to the UK (of which Scotland is a member still of course) - if Scotland becomes independent then these revenue streams will - in part - fall away - the whisky isn't all sold in Scotland is it? The billions you refer to are mainly generated by exports - exports of companies that are - in the main - not Scottish owned. Apparently 40% of total whisky output is accounted for by Diageo alone ... Scottish-owned companies can only muster roughly 16% of total output. Most of the profits made in the industry end up outside Scotland as with Diageo, it is easy - in this age of globalisation - to circumvent tax laws so little tax (by comparison) is - apparently paid to the treasury (in this case the UK treasury).

Again I'd suggest people be wary of the term wealthy - ultimately what is important is how much of the wealth Scotland can actually access for itself - in the case of the whisky industry, it seems to be very little.

[CropleyWasGod]

That would interest me but I don't do twatter.

Anyway I've heard that it's Britannia who rules the waves so I'm sure she'll be cutting off that source of income too if we vote YES.


(correction: if you vote yes, I'm not allowed to).

Here's another one :-

Scottish Twitter users 'may be restricted to no more than 34 characters' if they vote Yes, warns Minister.

[JeMeSouviens]

Giving you a chance to educate me here, (as someone who is possibly naive on this topic). But I've heard this argument before and don't quite understand it.

Many organisations in the Whisky industry are not based in Scotland, I completely accept this truth.

But despite this, Whisky contributes £Xbillion to the "revenue" streams of Scotland currently, so that figure obviously comes from the companies who are based here (yes/no? please correct me).

Why would the fact that many companies are based outside Scotland (and therefore not paying tax currently, result in a diminishing revenue column in an indy Scotland?)

Likewise you say Diageo don't currently pay much tax, so they obviously are not included in the £Xbillion figure. So why would it hurt our revenue streams if they didn't pay much tax in an indy Scotland?

I'd also like to hear the no camp's response to the NHS being under threat if we vote no because I haven't heard a satisfactory response to that one either.

The NHS is a devolved matter but if the NHS in the rest of the UK goes our budget will be cut further (further than the English already want it to be cut due to the Barnett formula).

:coffee:


It doesn't, put simply, it says that although our economic output (GDP) is high, a lot of the wealth created from that output is exported outwith Scotland, so overall standards of living etc aren't necessarily as high as the GDP figure would suggest. Otoh I'm not altogether sure the best measure most of us would want to use for how wealthy our country is is how many millionaires are cutting about in it.

[speedy_gonzales]

I'd also like to hear the no camp's response to the NHS being under threat if we vote no because I haven't heard a satisfactory response to that one either.

The NHS is a devolved matter but if the NHS in the rest of the UK goes our budget will be cut further (further than the English already want it to be cut due to the Barnett formula).

:coffee:
I'm not an expert but have paid a little attention to this subject. I get a little frustrated when people start perpetuating the myth that NHS Scotland will be at risk.
Although things have a tendency to change, as it stands, WE decide how we spend our budget, as it stands the budget is not changing. Whilst it's true that privatisation of services would seem to affect that, the upshot is we could get more money via the Barnett formula because NHS England/Wales has a commitment to provide the funding for the same level of treatment that it does today, I very much doubt services will become cheaper if privatised.
Remember, it's the provision of care that's being discussed here, we already tender some of our care out to private companies up here in Scotland.

[sauzee_4]

Is it not "truer" to say that the sum you refer to contributes to the UK (of which Scotland is a member still of course) - if Scotland becomes independent then these revenue streams will - in part - fall away - the whisky isn't all sold in Scotland is it? The billions you refer to are mainly generated by exports - exports of companies that are - in the main - not Scottish owned. Apparently 40% of total whisky output is accounted for by Diageo alone ... Scottish-owned companies can only muster roughly 16% of total output. Most of the profits made in the industry end up outside Scotland as with Diageo, it is easy - in this age of globalisation - to circumvent tax laws so little tax (by comparison) is - apparently paid to the treasury (in this case the UK treasury).

Again I'd suggest people be wary of the term wealthy - ultimately what is important is how much of the wealth Scotland can actually access for itself - in the case of the whisky industry, it seems to be very little.

I would need to look into the figures in a bit more detail, my point was that this 16% that are Scottish owned, must actually be generating a lot of tax, even if it is a small slice of the overall pie.

[Beefster]

If you can be bothered, have a look at Armando Iannucci's tweet the other day when he suggested that, in an iS, Scots astronomers wouldn't be allowed to look at English comets. One of the replies (all following his lead) said that any wind that originated in the Yorkshire Moors would be stopped at the Border from going any further North.

:greengrin

I thought Iannucci would be well-informed enough to know that a state can't claim sovereignty on an extraterrestrial body.

Such ill-informed nonsense won't be spouted in an independent Scotland.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought Iannucci would be well-informed enough to know that a state can't claim sovereignty on an extraterrestrial body.

Such ill-informed nonsense won't be spouted in an independent Scotland.

:greengrin

I applaud your confidence in our home-grown polly-tishuns....:cb

[PeeJay]

I would need to look into the figures in a bit more detail, my point was that this 16% that are Scottish owned, must actually be generating a lot of tax, even if it is a small slice of the overall pie.

Well yes, but it could (and probably should) have been more, don't you think? Politicians never narrow it down to the figures that really matter, do they - well, at least that's the way it seems to me? In fairness - both sides are probably just as guilty as each other at this practice. I'd be surprised if you find different figures though ...

What I find particularly worrying is, if Scotland is hoping to make a success of independence how is it going to do so if most of its industry is not Scottish owned? Who is going to generate the wealth and profit from it - or will a small slice of the pie (as you refer to) suffice to make that fairer society a possibility - I'm not convinced.

Whisky is one thing, and it's bad enough that the industry has been sold off - but apparently only a mere 6% of the oil industry is owned by Scottish companies - by comparison Norway owns 70%! Salmond never mentions that either, of course. Scotland's greatest and most valuable natural resource and almost none of it belongs to Scotland? Again: most of the revenues, most of the profits, most of the taxes will not be at the disposal of the Scottish Government/people.

One has to wonder where Scottish industry, banking, finance, investors, politicians - and - how can it be otherwise - the Scottish people were when the oil industry was sold off to anybody who wanted it. For some reason Scotland didn't want it, 6% certainly seems to suggest that this is so. Salmond and his SNP Yes proponents praise it (granted among other things) as Scotland's cornucopia - but although there is wealth to be had in Scottish waters, Scotland will be unable to access most of that wealth - that's crazy and sad! Norway has not only a sovereign wealth fund, it has a different philosophy to life in general. It invested for the long term and for the future of its people. The UK (and Scotland) opted for short-term profits (at the expense of its people it would seem) - a wrong move and one that cannot be reversed.

Seems to me that the slices of the pie are getting smaller ... which isn't to say there isn't any pie at all, of course:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Well yes, but it could (and probably should) have been more, don't you think? Politicians never narrow it down to the figures that really matter, do they - well, at least that's the way it seems to me? In fairness - both sides are probably just as guilty as each other at this practice. I'd be surprised if you find different figures though ...

What I find particularly worrying is, if Scotland is hoping to make a success of independence how is it going to do so if most of its industry is not Scottish owned? Who is going to generate the wealth and profit from it - or will a small slice of the pie (as you refer to) suffice to make that fairer society a possibility - I'm not convinced.

Whisky is one thing, and it's bad enough that the industry has been sold off - but apparently only a mere 6% of the oil industry is owned by Scottish companies - by comparison Norway owns 70%! Salmond never mentions that either, of course. Scotland's greatest and most valuable natural resource and almost none of it belongs to Scotland? Again: most of the revenues, most of the profits, most of the taxes will not be at the disposal of the Scottish Government/people.

One has to wonder where Scottish industry, banking, finance, investors, politicians - and - how can it be otherwise - the Scottish people were when the oil industry was sold off to anybody who wanted it. For some reason Scotland didn't want it, 6% certainly seems to suggest that this is so. Salmond and his SNP Yes proponents praise it (granted among other things) as Scotland's cornucopia - but although there is wealth to be had in Scottish waters, Scotland will be unable to access most of that wealth - that's crazy and sad! Norway has not only a sovereign wealth fund, it has a different philosophy to life in general. It invested for the long term and for the future of its people. The UK (and Scotland) opted for short-term profits (at the expense of its people it would seem) - a wrong move and one that cannot be reversed.

Seems to me that the slices of the pie are getting smaller ... which isn't to say there isn't any pie at all, of course:greengrin




I fail to see how Scotland could have gone about making good use of North Sea oil revenues after we handed it to Westminster after the 70's referendum. We bottled it then like we're bottling it now.We should barrel it instead :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Apparently the Scotch Whisky industry will no longer exist if Scotland becomes independent.

The reason I know this, it was in a Better Together leaflet.

This is the conclusion they came to:

"Being part of the UK over the past decades has been a critical factor in delivering the success of the Scotch Whisky industry. This has allowed Scotch Whisky to play on the world stage, and, despite being based in a small country on the northern fringes of Europe, this support allows Scotch Whisky to punch well above its weight.

Independence would take all of that away and who knows what would replace it – if anything?

A £4.3billion industry, 35,000 jobs. Would you meddle with that?

It is really quite simple – we need this relationship to continue for our Scotch Whisky industry to be successful."


The bit in bold is what gets me confused, a small country on the northern fringes of Europe? with a world wide market worth £4.3billion is not punching well above its weight. It is called supply and demand.

The world demands Scotch Whisky, Scotland supplies that demand, nowhere else in the world is able to.

Now, I'm not going to go searching for every Scotch Whisky producer, but the 2 largest ones are

Diageo (head office in Park Royal, London borough of Brent)

Chivas Brothers (owned by Pernod Ricard)


I really can't see why an independent Scotland would suddenly lose a £4.3 billion industry as a result of a yes vote.


Would anybody like to explain that one to me?

You've answered it yourself.

We derive some jobs and some money from the whisky industry.

But the vast, vast majority of the profits from the Scotch whisky industry would seem to go to the shareholders of Diageo and Pernod Ricard.

There was an exchange of posts about this maybe twenty pages ago, which go into the numbers.

[Mibbes Aye]

Thats such a tenuous point.

I know plenty of people who are very pro yes but don't agree with the snp on a alot of things, so why should a yes voter have to answer for their policies?

Thats like saying a no voter has to answer for every jobbies policy that labour or the Tories have had


There's nothing tenuous, it exposes what would appear to be a blatant hypocrisy.

The SNP talks about wanting a fairer Scotland. It says we can have a fairer Scotland if we vote 'Yes'.

Yet when it has been given the levers of power, it has made its flagship domestic policy out of a council tax freeze that benefits the rich ahead of the poor and benefits the poorest not at all.

It didn't have to do that. It wasn't cudgeled into it by big, bad Westminster :rolleyes:

Is that your definition of a 'fairer Scotland'?

And on that basis, why should we believe their claims that 'Yes' means a fairer Scotland?

[Mibbes Aye]

As I said, I don't think the answer you got was to your liking, but constantly trying to foist one policy into the light whilst not taking a manifesto in the round really dilutes your argument.

Manifestos are wide and varied. They will have policies that entice the electorate to vote certain ways although they may not like "ALL" of the policies within them.

If we could take certain policies from each party we might be onto a winner eh.

Maybe :greengrin

It's not just one policy though. It's not their policy on what font to use in their press releases, for example.

It's their leading domestic policy, the one they trumpeted about on a constant basis, the one they highlighted in 2011. It's probably the main policy, outside of the referendum, they have defined themselves by.

And genuinely, R7, I haven't seen anyone answer how the council tax freeze benefits the poor ahead of the rich. If you want to point me to it I would be grateful.

[marinello59]

I fail to see how Scotland could have gone about making good use of North Sea oil revenues after we handed it to Westminster after the 70's referendum. We bottled it then like we're bottling it now.We should barrel it instead :wink:

We handed nothing to Westminster in the '79 referundum. How could we? And we didn't bottle anything, the majority voted in favour of the proposals put to us. Unfortunately the goal posts had been shifted.

[PeeJay]

I fail to see how Scotland could have gone about making good use of North Sea oil revenues after we handed it to Westminster after the 70's referendum. We bottled it then like we're bottling it now.We should barrel it instead :wink:

Nice line :greengrin - Westminster is to blame for a lot of the UK's ills: no arguments there from me, but I'm not sure Scotland can lay the blame for its entrepreneurs, capitalists, financiers, industrialists, banks and so on failing to commit to the major industries located on its own doorstep. Westminster didn't say buy this or sell that - the UK's hardly a communist dictatorships, it's a free market in the UK, open to all private investors, companies, industrialists: where were they? And - more to the point - will they turn up if Scotland votes for independence? Or is everything to be nationalised and run by AS/SNP and a central government with some 5-year plans in their back pockets ... Fred forbid!

[speedy_gonzales]

but apparently only a mere 6% of the oil industry is owned by Scottish companies - by comparison Norway owns 70%!

Would you happen to have a link or point of reference to this stat? I have a poster on FB that copy's & pastes propoganda from all sorts of sources, some credible, some not. I've tried to intimate for a while now, regardless how much oil is under our waters, that a vast majority of the profit leaves our shores!

[sauzee_4]

Maybe :greengrin

It's not just one policy though. It's not their policy on what font to use in their press releases, for example.

It's their leading domestic policy, the one they trumpeted about on a constant basis, the one they highlighted in 2011. It's probably the main policy, outside of the referendum, they have defined themselves by.

And genuinely, R7, I haven't seen anyone answer how the council tax freeze benefits the poor ahead of the rich. If you want to point me to it I would be grateful.

I admitted that it didn't. And then qualified it by saying you can't judge a party on one policy.

And then qualified it further by saying the SNP are not the only party at Holyrood.

And then asked if the Labour party or the Tories at Westminster have ever made any progress towards this fairer society you speak of?

[sauzee_4]

Maybe :greengrin

It's not just one policy though. It's not their policy on what font to use in their press releases, for example.

It's their leading domestic policy, the one they trumpeted about on a constant basis, the one they highlighted in 2011. It's probably the main policy, outside of the referendum, they have defined themselves by.

And genuinely, R7, I haven't seen anyone answer how the council tax freeze benefits the poor ahead of the rich. If you want to point me to it I would be grateful.


"it's the policy they define themselves by" ok so we should ignore all their other policies?

By that logic should we not judge new labour solely on the removal of Saddam Hussain in the Iraq war?

And the Tories on increasing ISA limits for people who have £15,000 of spare cash or the Bedroom Tax?

[Moulin Yarns]

There's nothing tenuous, it exposes what would appear to be a blatant hypocrisy.

The SNP talks about wanting a fairer Scotland. It says we can have a fairer Scotland if we vote 'Yes'.

Yet when it has been given the levers of power, it has made its flagship domestic policy out of a council tax freeze that benefits the rich ahead of the poor and benefits the poorest not at all.

It didn't have to do that. It wasn't cudgeled into it by big, bad Westminster :rolleyes:

Is that your definition of a 'fairer Scotland'?

And on that basis, why should we believe their claims that 'Yes' means a fairer Scotland?

Where on the ballot paper is the option to vote for the SNP, or any other party?

I'm voting on whether I think Scotland should be an independent country

[Mibbes Aye]

Well yes, but it could (and probably should) have been more, don't you think? Politicians never narrow it down to the figures that really matter, do they - well, at least that's the way it seems to me? In fairness - both sides are probably just as guilty as each other at this practice. I'd be surprised if you find different figures though ...

What I find particularly worrying is, if Scotland is hoping to make a success of independence how is it going to do so if most of its industry is not Scottish owned? Who is going to generate the wealth and profit from it - or will a small slice of the pie (as you refer to) suffice to make that fairer society a possibility - I'm not convinced.

Whisky is one thing, and it's bad enough that the industry has been sold off - but apparently only a mere 6% of the oil industry is owned by Scottish companies - by comparison Norway owns 70%! Salmond never mentions that either, of course. Scotland's greatest and most valuable natural resource and almost none of it belongs to Scotland? Again: most of the revenues, most of the profits, most of the taxes will not be at the disposal of the Scottish Government/people.

One has to wonder where Scottish industry, banking, finance, investors, politicians - and - how can it be otherwise - the Scottish people were when the oil industry was sold off to anybody who wanted it. For some reason Scotland didn't want it, 6% certainly seems to suggest that this is so. Salmond and his SNP Yes proponents praise it (granted among other things) as Scotland's cornucopia - but although there is wealth to be had in Scottish waters, Scotland will be unable to access most of that wealth - that's crazy and sad! Norway has not only a sovereign wealth fund, it has a different philosophy to life in general. It invested for the long term and for the future of its people. The UK (and Scotland) opted for short-term profits (at the expense of its people it would seem) - a wrong move and one that cannot be reversed.

Seems to me that the slices of the pie are getting smaller ... which isn't to say there isn't any pie at all, of course:greengrin




Another point that the Yes camp seems to skip when making the comparisons to Norway:

The Norwegian government takes in significantly more tax revenue than the UK does, as a share of GDP.

Back of an envelope calculation, but if the UK taxed at the same share of GDP it would mean an extra £95 billion in taxation.

So if you pro rata it then you're saying Scotland would pay an extra £9 billion in tax?

Say it's income tax. That would equate to an extra £3700 a year in tax for every working person in Scotland.

That's not going to work.

[Mibbes Aye]

I admitted that it didn't. And then qualified it by saying you can't judge a party on one policy.

And then qualified it further by saying the SNP are not the only party at Holyrood.

And then asked if the Labour party or the Tories at Westminster have ever made any progress towards this fairer society you speak of?

At least you're honest.

If that's the case, then why have they imposed this policy on us for the last eight years while talking about a 'fairer Scotland'?

is that not breathtaking hypocrisy?

[Mibbes Aye]

Where on the ballot paper is the option to vote for the SNP, or any other party?

I'm voting on whether I think Scotland should be an independent country

And the party that gave you that vote wants you to vote 'Yes' and tells you a 'Yes' will lead to a fairer Scotland.

But when given the chance to make policy, they made their flagship policy that of giving the rich a better deal than the poor, and the poorest no deal at all.

Does that not diminish the credibility of their argument about a fairer Scotland?

[Mibbes Aye]

"it's the policy they define themselves by" ok so we should ignore all their other policies?

By that logic should we not judge new labour solely on the removal of Saddam Hussain in the Iraq war?

And the Tories on increasing ISA limits for people who have £15,000 of spare cash or the Bedroom Tax?

No, of course not. Why would we?

(Which makes your next two lines redundant)

[7 Hills]

And the party that gave you that vote wants you to vote 'Yes' and tells you a 'Yes' will lead to a fairer Scotland.

But when given the chance to make policy, they made their flagship policy that of giving the rich a better deal than the poor, and the poorest no deal at all.

Does that not diminish the credibility of their argument about a fairer Scotland?

Forgive me if I'm wrong - but doesn't a "freeze" on a tax benefit everyone who pays that tax, regardless of their payment percentage?

[7 Hills]

I would also like to know why the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland, who has won his position fairly in spite of a Labour / Lib Dem carve up formulated in London in the 1990s, is being forced to debate against Alistair Darling - who has no power WHATSOEVER to promise ANYTHING? Surely the Prime Minister, a member of the Conservative and UNIONIST party, should be making the case for the Empire - I mean *Union*? :wink:

[Stranraer]

I would also like to know why the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland, who has won his position fairly in spite of a Labour / Lib Dem carve up formulated in London in the 1990s, is being forced to debate against Alistair Darling - who has no power WHATSOEVER to promise ANYTHING? Surely the Prime Minister, a member of the Conservative and UNIONIST party, should be making the case for the Empire - I mean *Union*? :wink:

I'm quite happy to see the leader of the Yes campaign debate the leader of the No campaign. Don't get me wrong, David Cameron can preach from London all he wants about the "benefits" of the union but I don't know that there are many.

[Mibbes Aye]

Forgive me if I'm wrong - but doesn't a "freeze" on a tax benefit everyone who pays that tax, regardless of their payment percentage?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but have I said otherwise?

If you say you are trying to reduce inequality, shouldn't your policies avoid widening it?

[7 Hills]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but have I said otherwise?

If you say you are trying to reduce inequality, shouldn't your policies avoid widening it?

"My" policies? I am not an SNP member. This is a REFERENDUM, NOT a party political election. But it looks like you've reduced it to a tribalistic, football team argument. Yay you.

[Mibbes Aye]

"My" policies? I am not an SNP member. This is a REFERENDUM, NOT a party political election. But it looks like you've reduced it to a tribalistic, football team argument. Yay you.

Less of the capitals, less of the 'tribal, football' nonsense and read what I said and calm down a bit.

I said "...If you say you are trying to reduce inequality, shouldn't your policies avoid widening it?"

I've never seen you post any mention on here about the SNP gov trying to reduce inequality, nor anything that identifies you as an SNP supporter. I was using 'You' in terms of the SNP government, not aimed at you personally.

Dangers of the second person pronoun and whether it's read as singular or plural I guess :rolleyes:

Yay you too :greengrin

[johnbc70]

Is it correct that if it's a yes vote and Scotland keeps the pound we will still have the Bank of England (then a foreign bank) being responsible for setting interest rates and monetary policy. So Scotland which at this point is independent will be watching closely to the UK budget every year (a foreign government who have no duty of care to Scotland any more) as it will basically dictate our monetary policy and as such our economic policy. Not really independent is it?

[sauzee_4]

No, of course not. Why would we?

(Which makes your next two lines redundant)

But you are ignoring their other policies! Their stance on Gaza, their opposition to nuclear weapons, their proposal to triple lock pensions so that we don't have the '4th poorest pensioners in the EU.'

Are some of these policies not worth praise? And like Golden Fleece says I'm sitting here defending the SNP but there's no option on the ballot paper for them.

If you were a bookie who is going to produce the fairer society? Does ANYBODY at westminster look likely to? Really?

What is your solution, who should I vote for if we vote no?

About 10 questions in that post apologies!

[Bristolhibby]

Would you happen to have a link or point of reference to this stat? I have a poster on FB that copy's & pastes propoganda from all sorts of sources, some credible, some not. I've tried to intimate for a while now, regardless how much oil is under our waters, that a vast majority of the profit leaves our shores!

That's the same at the moment, but the tax revenue in an IS would be 100% to the Scottish exchequer.

I can by shares in an American plc, or an Australian plc.
J

[Bristolhibby]

Is it correct that if it's a yes vote and Scotland keeps the pound we will still have the Bank of England (then a foreign bank) being responsible for setting interest rates and monetary policy. So Scotland which at this point is independent will be watching closely to the UK budget every year (a foreign government who have no duty of care to Scotland any more) as it will basically dictate our monetary policy and as such our economic policy. Not really independent is it?

Ask the independent countries of Ireland, Greece, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Austria, San Marino, Monaco if they are independent?

J

[adhibs]

Is it correct that if it's a yes vote and Scotland keeps the pound we will still have the Bank of England (then a foreign bank) being responsible for setting interest rates and monetary policy. So Scotland which at this point is independent will be watching closely to the UK budget every year (a foreign government who have no duty of care to Scotland any more) as it will basically dictate our monetary policy and as such our economic policy. Not really independent is it?

Stuff about this a few pages back I think. The £ being pegged to the US $ dollar in the 70's and switzerland and norway having their currencies pegged to the euro being some examples. Seems to have worked out ok.

[Moulin Yarns]

[QUOTE=Golden Fleece;4135555]In that case, in the event of a no vote, you are saying that more jobs will be created in Scotland. WOW!!!

At this point I will repeat what Better Together claim on Scotch Whisky: QUOTE


Merely saying that Scotland is prospering whilst being in the UK, as your original post pointed out. I don't see the problem with that, seems a sensible enough point doesn't it? What would you rather me say 'doom and gloom, more jobs created in the UK'?

Not sure what the rest of your post has to do with my point, or me at all really, as I have already commented on the whisky misinformation by the No campaign. But I hope you feel better for getting it off your chest anyway?


No not at all, none of us can say what might or might not happen in an iS can we. Nothing to say these engineering jobs wouldn't be created In an iS, as far as I know. Just pointing out that 2500 new jobs are a good thing and its happened whilst being in the UK.


Talk about contradicting yourself.

In 2 consecutive posts, "Scotland is prospering in the UK" followed by "nobody can say what will happen in an independent Scotland"

If Scotland is prospering why are 20% of families in food poverty?

If Scotland is independent there is the opportunity to be more prosperous, if Scotland stays part of the UK there is no knowing if Scotland will prosper with the threats being made by the English population.

[PeeJay]

Stuff about this a few pages back I think. The £ being pegged to the US $ dollar in the 70's and switzerland and norway having their currencies pegged to the euro being some examples. Seems to have worked out ok.

Sorry, but your comparison with, e.g. Switzerand doesn't really hold water. The CHF is "pegged" to the euro (and the pound sterling I believe) by Switzerland only because Switzerland is protecting its own currency (which is effectively too strong). The "pegging" you refer too is nothing less than Switzerland deploying its financial resources to prop up the euro/pound to ensure that the CHF simply doesn't get too strong, thereby presenting problems for Swiss exports et al. This is a pro-active decision made by Switzerland, a strategy it controls and which it can stop/start when and if it chooses - and it is all executed with Swiss interests to the fore. Can you spot the difference:greengrin?

[johnbc70]

Ask the independent countries of Ireland, Greece, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Austria, San Marino, Monaco if they are independent?

J

Oh yea Greece and Spain, examples of economies that have done really well over the last few years....... Infact most European countries have moved to the right and that's due to the fact they have been tied up in the disaster that was the Euro and that rates and policy is set elsewhere which seems to be a feature of the SNP plans.

[JeMeSouviens]

Sorry, but your comparison with, e.g. Switzerand doesn't really hold water. The CHF is "pegged" to the euro (and the pound sterling I believe) by Switzerland only because Switzerland is protecting its own currency (which is effectively too strong). The "pegging" you refer too is nothing less than Switzerland deploying its financial resources to prop up the euro/pound to ensure that the CHF simply doesn't get too strong, thereby presenting problems for Swiss exports et al. This is a pro-active decision made by Switzerland, a strategy it controls and which it can stop/start when and if it chooses - and it is all executed with Swiss interests to the fore. Can you spot the difference:greengrin?

Why else do you think anyone pegs currencies other than to maintain what they perceive as a sensible exchange rate with their main trading partners? Switzerland pegs to the € (just the €, if you'd like to explain how they could peg against the £ and € while they float against each other, I'm all ears? :wink: ) because it relies on exports to Germany/France/Italy (and incoming EU tourists).

The automatic assumption that Scotland would have a currency weaker than rUK because we're too wee, poor, etc is typical Unionist inspired lazy thinking. A petro-pound in Scotland might well go through considerable periods of being uncomfortably strong, a la CHF, especially if the middle east carries on its current trajectory ...

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh yea Greece and Spain, examples of economies that have done really well over the last few years....... Infact most European countries have moved to the right and that's due to the fact they have been tied up in the disaster that was the Euro and that rates and policy is set elsewhere which seems to be a feature of the SNP plans.

The eurozone has hardly been a disaster for the northern countries operating sensible fiscal policies. In fact having a relatively weaker currency has been a bonus for German etc exports. The problems in Greece, Spain, etc are due to not having the sort of sensible limits suggested by Mr Carney of the BoE or by Messrs Stiglitz, Mirrlees etc of the SG's FCWG.

[JeMeSouviens]

Is it correct that if it's a yes vote and Scotland keeps the pound we will still have the Bank of England (then a foreign bank) being responsible for setting interest rates and monetary policy. So Scotland which at this point is independent will be watching closely to the UK budget every year (a foreign government who have no duty of care to Scotland any more) as it will basically dictate our monetary policy and as such our economic policy. Not really independent is it?

That's like saying it makes no difference driving a Merc or a reliant robin because they both have to stick to the speed limits.

If you think the BoE would ever choose or has ever chosen policy to help Scotland to the detriment of the city of London, you are seriously deluded. Duty of care my arse!

[CropleyWasGod]

Is it correct that if it's a yes vote and Scotland keeps the pound we will still have the Bank of England (then a foreign bank) being responsible for setting interest rates and monetary policy. So Scotland which at this point is independent will be watching closely to the UK budget every year (a foreign government who have no duty of care to Scotland any more) as it will basically dictate our monetary policy and as such our economic policy. Not really independent is it?

The UK is hardly economically independent either. The old adage "when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold" was never truer than in 2008.

That has long been the case, and won't change. The UK's economic policy has its roots in Washington, New York, Brussels, Frankfurt and the boardrooms of banks and multinationals throughout the world.

[JeMeSouviens]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but have I said otherwise?

If you say you are trying to reduce inequality, shouldn't your policies avoid widening it?

Wtf has this got to do with the referendum or indepedence?

If the electorate in Scotland doesn't like the council tax freeze they can remove the SNP from office.

If the electorate in Scotland doesn't like a welfare cap or didn't like the poll tax it can ... (in 12 words or less). :wink:

Wouldn't it be nice to have that level of democracy for everything in Scotland?

[Beefster]

Wtf has this got to do with the referendum or indepedence?

Half of the stuff on this thread isn't really linked to the referendum or independence other than in a very, very, very tenuous way.

[Moulin Yarns]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but have I said otherwise?

If you say you are trying to reduce inequality, shouldn't your policies avoid widening it?

As you are sounding like Alasdair Darling with his obsession about the pound, you are like a wee dug that won't let go of the Council tax.

so, here goes.

Council Tax is criticisedfor perceived unfairness in not taking into account the ability to pay. You (and others) point out that while the capital value of the property in which a person lives might give some indication of the relative wealth of the individual, it does not necessarily relate to current income.

Those on low incomes can apply for council tax benefits which can significantly (or totally) reduce the amount the applicant pays. This presumes, of course, that the system of council tax benefit is itself a satisfactory scheme. In particular, not everyone who is eligible to benefit will make a claim.

What you have failed to point out is, the tax isn't actually particularly proportionate even to property values. A band H property will pay at most three times as a band A, even though the value of the property may be ten or more times higher. All you keep saying is it is not fair on low incomes (who can get benefits)

While you claim Council tax is unfair, supporters point out that there is a significant means tested benefit regime in place which offers rebates to those on low incomes. This has the effect of making the tax more equitable.

It is also worth pointing out that the SNP, who you are claiming have harmed the poor through the Council Tax, were forced by the opposition parties at Holyrood to implement the Council Tax, in effect Plan B, rather than the SNP preferred taxation system of a local income tax, surprisingly enough, based on ones ability to pay.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your one man crusade against the Council Tax.

Read it and weep

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8536-will-the-council-tax-freeze-finally-catch-up-with-labour-in-cowdenbeath

Have you noticed the number of English Councils who have since adopted the same policy of Council Tax Freeze? Funny how something that, appparently, doesn't work is becoming rather popular.

[sauzee_4]

Oh yea Greece and Spain, examples of economies that have done really well over the last few years....... Infact most European countries have moved to the right and that's due to the fact they have been tied up in the disaster that was the Euro and that rates and policy is set elsewhere which seems to be a feature of the SNP plans.

you have picked two of those countries out when Bristolhibby mentioned 13.

The two you mention have struggled in part due to the Euro zone crisis. A currency union between countries as similar as Scotland and the rUK would be highly unlikely to have these problems, according to nearly every economist who has commented on the matter.

But again, like the whole SNP issue. The question is "Should Scotland be an independent country" not "Should Scotland have a currency union with the rUK forever and ever"

The choice of currency will be ours after a very short transition period.

[Beefster]

Have you noticed the number of English Councils who have since adopted the same policy of Council Tax Freeze? Funny how something that, appparently, doesn't work is becoming rather popular.

It's a vote winner. Plain and simple. A populist measure whether it's the SNP or someone else doing it.

[Beefster]

The choice of currency will be ours after a very short transition period.

I love how not knowing what currency we will use post-independence is now being painted as some sort of positive.

[PeeJay]

Why else do you think anyone pegs currencies other than to maintain what they perceive as a sensible exchange rate with their main trading partners? Switzerland pegs to the € (just the €, if you'd like to explain how they could peg against the £ and € while they float against each other, I'm all ears? :wink: ) because it relies on exports to Germany/France/Italy (and incoming EU tourists).

The automatic assumption that Scotland would have a currency weaker than rUK because we're too wee, poor, etc is typical Unionist inspired lazy thinking. A petro-pound in Scotland might well go through considerable periods of being uncomfortably strong, a la CHF, especially if the middle east carries on its current trajectory ...

Well, they are not actually "pegged" in any formal sense are they? The term is misleading. Switzerland does nothing more than independently prop up the pound and euro (or weaken it's own currency) - it does this by buying the currencies, something it can do because of its huge financial resources at its disposal - would Scotland be capable of doing this?

"Pegging" wasn't my term, I also had it in inverted commas. The comparison doesn't work because Scotland will be wholly at the mercy of the BoE - iScotland will have no say in any decisions made by the bank in London, whereas Switzerland is fully in control of Swiss decisions aimed at manipulating the rate of its own currency - this difference seems quite plain to me and to be an important one.

[Moulin Yarns]

I love how not knowing what currency we will use post-independence is now being painted as some sort of positive.

Well said Mr Darling :wink:

Read my lips, as a politician once said. Post Independence Scotland will use the Pound. :greengrin

What happens in the future is still up for debate, but, on the 25th of March 2016 Scotland will still be using the pound.

I can't understand this impression that everybody appears to have that everything will change overnight, remember decimilisation, that allowed a period of transition, so would the move to a different currency if that was deemed to be the route Scotland would go down.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's a vote winner. Plain and simple. A populist measure whether it's the SNP or someone else doing it.

Good, so would you like to tell Maybes Aye that so he can change the record.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well said Mr Darling :wink:

Read my lips, as a politician once said. Post Independence Scotland will use the Pound. :greengrin

What happens in the future is still up for debate, but, on the 25th of March 2016 Scotland will still be using the pound.

I can't understand this impression that everybody appears to have that everything will change overnight, remember decimilisation, that allowed a period of transition, so would the move to a different currency if that was deemed to be the route Scotland would go down.

This is the bit that is beginning to rip my knitting. Confirmed No-ers, or undecided, are using the "uncertainty over the currency" as an excuse to reject Independence. Whether that's to cover other, subconscious, fears or uncertainties (which may be well-founded), I am not sure. However, on the currency issue, Salmond couldn't be clearer IMO.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4135627]




Talk about contradicting yourself.

In 2 consecutive posts, "Scotland is prospering in the UK" followed by "nobody can say what will happen in an independent Scotland"

If Scotland is prospering why are 20% of families in food poverty?

If Scotland is independent there is the opportunity to be more prosperous, if Scotland stays part of the UK there is no knowing if Scotland will prosper with the threats being made by the English population.

I don't see how those two points contradict each other really?

My first point was commenting on a specific good news story you posted on here. One that shows Scotland prospering. I thought that was a good thing?

If I am wrong about my second point, then I apologise for my lack of clarevoyant ability, because I really cant predict the future.

How do these points contradict each other?

'Threats made by the English population', really? There is that persecution complex again, I thought it was the No campaign who were reliant on fear?

[Beefster]

Good, so would you like to tell Maybes Aye that so he can change the record.

MA has a point about the inconsistency between the SNP's post-independence promises and their action whilst currently in power IMHO. They've put vote-winning over doing the right thing. Why should we believe that they wouldn't do the same thing post-independence too?

[sauzee_4]

I love how not knowing what currency we will use post-independence is now being painted as some sort of positive.

I love how 'not using the pound' post-independence is being painted as some sort of economic disaster.

[sauzee_4]

MA has a point about the inconsistency between the SNP's post-independence promises and their action whilst currently in power IMHO. They've put vote-winning over doing the right thing. Why should we believe that they wouldn't do the same thing post-independence too?

If they did you'd have every right to boot them to f***, is that really so hard to get past?

Who on earth are you planning to bank on to deliver this fairer society at Westminster 2015?

Come on guys, solutions??

[sauzee_4]

Reading this thread we've had plenty of 'this won't work' 'that might not work' from the no camp. The one thing that they haven't done is given us any indication of how they would fix the serious problems that exist within the UK.

So please. You've asked us your questions, let us ask you a few.

How do we reverse the wealth gap that currently exists in the UK just now? Who do we vote for to do it?

Give us some solutions

[JeMeSouviens]

MA has a point about the inconsistency between the SNP's post-independence promises and their action whilst currently in power IMHO. They've put vote-winning over doing the right thing. Why should we believe that they wouldn't do the same thing post-independence too?

So you don't think anyone other than the SNP could ever win a post-independence election? That's just daft.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well, they are not actually "pegged" in any formal sense are they? The term is misleading. Switzerland does nothing more than independently prop up the pound and euro (or weaken it's own currency) - it does this by buying the currencies, something it can do because of its huge financial resources at its disposal - would Scotland be capable of doing this?

"Pegging" wasn't my term, I also had it in inverted commas. The comparison doesn't work because Scotland will be wholly at the mercy of the BoE - iScotland will have no say in any decisions made by the bank in London, whereas Switzerland is fully in control of Swiss decisions aimed at manipulating the rate of its own currency - this difference seems quite plain to me and to be an important one.

Weakening your own currency isn't hard, just fire up the presses. :wink: Strengthening it (not something the Swiss have to worry about) takes foreign currency reserves. If we're not sharing the BoE we will be entitled to some of its reserve but we could also use the £ sterling informally while building up a reserve. That puts us under tighter fiscal restriction but might not be a bad thing while establishing stability and a track record (that's why the Adam Smith institute are so keen on it). Of course, if we take on a lower share of servicing the UK's debt (which as UK gov has already stated will all belong to rUK even if we offer to service some of it) then we have more scope to borrow ourselves.

Your second paragraph is rubbish. The Swiss have to manipulate their currency because of decisions taken in the Eurozone, not in Berne. They are outside the CU of their major trading partners, they don't set rates for the ECB in the same way we wouldn't set rates for the BoE.

[Moulin Yarns]

[QUOTE=Golden Fleece;4136107]

'Threats made by the English population', really? There is that persecution complex again, I thought it was the No campaign who were reliant on fear?

The original story was in the Telegraph, which has now removed it from the internet, but basically it said that English voters want, regardelss of the referendum outcome, for Scotland to pay a financial penalty for holding the referendum.

but today's Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/english-resentment-increases-over-scots-freebies-1-3517631

a couple of days ago

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-english-backlash-warning-1-3514735

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes

Independent (sic)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html

Once you've read these articles come back and tell me who is using Fear and Persecution?

Living where you do you are missing the news as it affects Scotland, so you will have to rely on this thread to keep you right.

[Moulin Yarns]

MA has a point about the inconsistency between the SNP's post-independence promises and their action whilst currently in power IMHO. They've put vote-winning over doing the right thing. Why should we believe that they wouldn't do the same thing post-independence too?

AGAIN, this is NOT about the SNP. This is not about Salmond.

I have not voted SNP at the last 2 elections, and post Independence I don't think I would be voting SNP either, but I will be voting for the party that is more socially and environmentally aware. (Guess)

[PeeJay]

Weakening your own currency isn't hard, just fire up the presses. :wink: Strengthening it (not something the Swiss have to worry about) takes foreign currency reserves. If we're not sharing the BoE we will be entitled to some of its reserve but we could also use the £ sterling informally while building up a reserve. That puts us under tighter fiscal restriction but might not be a bad thing while establishing stability and a track record (that's why the Adam Smith institute are so keen on it). Of course, if we take on a lower share of servicing the UK's debt (which as UK gov has already stated will all belong to rUK even if we offer to service some of it) then we have more scope to borrow ourselves.

Your second paragraph is rubbish. The Swiss have to manipulate their currency because of decisions taken in the Eurozone, not in Berne. They are outside the CU of their major trading partners, they don't set rates for the ECB in the same way we wouldn't set rates for the BoE.

It's hardly "rubbish" is it? - You don't agree with it, but that's not a problem. Switzerland's problems are not caused by the so-called euro crisis alone - in case you haven't noticed :wink:, the crisis is actually a banking and financial crisis (2008) (it impacted on the euro zone, of course - but the euro zone is not the root of the problem) - Switzerland's currency is so strong because people from many areas (including outwith the euro zone) are transferring huge resources of money into a "safe haven". Anyway, I stand by my actual point that the Swiss make their own decisions and an iScotland (with the BoE) will not: there is no comparison IMO.

[Beefster]

So you don't think anyone other than the SNP could ever win a post-independence election? That's just daft.

So we can disregard all the promises about a fairer society, eliminating poverty, getting rid of nuclear weapons etc. No-one has a single clue what an independent Scotland will be like. Could be worse, could be better, could be pretty much of a muchness.

Incidentally, a lot of folk were rallying behind the White Paper, which is the SNP's vision. Again, a little bit inconsistent - "Look at the White Paper for the vision of post-independence Scotland", "Actually, don't listen to the SNP, they probably won't be in power".

[CropleyWasGod]

So we can disregard all the promises about a fairer society, eliminating poverty, getting rid of nuclear weapons etc. No-one has a single clue what an independent Scotland will be like. Could be worse, could be better, could be pretty much of a muchness.

Incidentally, a lot of folk were rallying behind the White Paper, which is the SNP's vision. Again, a little bit inconsistent - "Look at the White Paper for the vision of post-independence Scotland", "Actually, don't listen to the SNP, they probably won't be in power".

Those who rely on the White Paper are probably, in the main, SNP supporters. However, there are many who support independence who are not.

The White Paper is, as you say, a "vision". One view of what an iS will look like.

[Moulin Yarns]

So we can disregard all the promises about a fairer society, eliminating poverty, getting rid of nuclear weapons etc. No-one has a single clue what an independent Scotland will be like. Could be worse, could be better, could be pretty much of a muchness.

Incidentally, a lot of folk were rallying behind the White Paper, which is the SNP's vision. Again, a little bit inconsistent - "Look at the White Paper for the vision of post-independence Scotland", "Actually, don't listen to the SNP, they probably won't be in power".

As CWG says, not everybody supporting Independence is an SNP supporter. I know of Labour and Green supporters who are definate Yes.

Post independence? read my signature.

[Beefster]

Those who rely on the White Paper are probably, in the main, SNP supporters. However, there are many who support independence who are not.

The White Paper is, as you say, a "vision". One view of what an iS will look like.

Which is one of my issues with the entire situation. I'm being asked to vote on my family's future without knowing a single thing about the consequences.

[CropleyWasGod]

Which is one of my issues with the entire situation. I'm being asked to vote on my family's future without knowing a single thing about the consequences.

If it's any comfort, I can't see that there will be much of a difference to the living standards of the majority of people. I'm a cynical old get now, but successive and different Governments in the UK and Scotland have brought very little change to my life, good or bad.

I accept that people vote on the basis of lots of different reasons, all of them appropriate to them. For me, though, the referendum is not about personal circumstances. It's about the wider issues of economic and political accountability, and a fairer community as a whole.

[Moulin Yarns]

Which is one of my issues with the entire situation. I'm being asked to vote on my family's future without knowing a single thing about the consequences.

For the first time in my life I am seriously considering joining a political party.

see my signature, get involved and try to make a difference.


There is likely to be a 'peoples parliament' meeting for the next 18 months after independence to prepare the constitution. After the banking crash of 2008, ordinary people were co-opted onto a peoples parliament to rewrite their constitution to prevent the same thing happening again. Power to the people, as they say. Believe me, it will not be left to the politicians alone. There are too many campaign groups that have been mobilised towards the referendum.

Seriously, we (you and me and anybody else that wants) can have a say in our future for the first time ever.

[JimBHibees]

If it's any comfort, I can't see that there will be much of a difference to the living standards of the majority of people. I'm a cynical old get now, but successive and different Governments in the UK and Scotland have brought very little change to my life, good or bad.

I accept that people vote on the basis of lots of different reasons, all of them appropriate to them. For me, though, the referendum is not about personal circumstances. It's about the wider issues of economic and political accountability, and a fairer community as a whole.

Cracking post. Agree with that.

[JeMeSouviens]

Which is one of my issues with the entire situation. I'm being asked to vote on my family's future without knowing a single thing about the consequences.

Be honest though, you wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into this thread if you didn't fundamentally disagree with the concept of an independent Scotland. Which is fair enough, but don't try and dress it up as "I could be persuaded if it wasn't so poorly thought out."

You're being asked to vote on structure, then in 2016 (or 2015 and 2016 if No) you'll be asked to vote on policy. You won't find out the consequences for your family of any of these votes until after the event. In 2010 I voted Lib Dem because I think the SNP are irrelevant at Westminster, I fundamentally disagree with Conservatism and I thought Labour under Brown was failing badly. Look at the ****** conssquences of that! :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

Be honest though, you wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into this thread if you didn't fundamentally disagree with the concept of an independent Scotland. Which is fair enough, but don't try and dress it up as "I could be persuaded if it wasn't so poorly thought out."

You're being asked to vote on structure, then in 2016 (or 2015 and 2016 if No) you'll be asked to vote on policy. You won't find out the consequences for your family of any of these votes until after the event. In 2010 I voted Lib Dem because I think the SNP are irrelevant at Westminster, I fundamentally disagree with Conservatism and I thought Labour under Brown was failing badly. Look at the ****** conssquences of that! :rolleyes:

Thanks JMS, I've been trying to find out who to pin the blame on, now I know!!:wink:

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4136235]

The original story was in the Telegraph, which has now removed it from the internet, but basically it said that English voters want, regardelss of the referendum outcome, for Scotland to pay a financial penalty for holding the referendum.

but today's Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/english-resentment-increases-over-scots-freebies-1-3517631

a couple of days ago

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-english-backlash-warning-1-3514735

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes

Independent (sic)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html

Once you've read these articles come back and tell me who is using Fear and Persecution?

Living where you do you are missing the news as it affects Scotland, so you will have to rely on this thread to keep you right.

The first few lines of the first link sum it up for me, it is UKIP who are saying it. It serves them well to spout off nonsense of this nature doesn't it and it also serves the Yes campaign well? I've no doubt that some misinformed people believe this tripe about Scotland getting more than its fair share but I can tell you now, from my position down here, these stories are definitely not reflected in the views of the people I know and encounter.

Fear seems to be being used by both sides now doesn't it? But I am still perplexed by the persecution and victim stance, I just don't see it.

As I have said before, I feel there may be a backlash if the vote is Yes. I think people may feel a bit put out and betrayed and may not buy as many Scottish products for a while (no great shakes you might say?)? But I don't get the impression that it will be the case if the vote is No, I think the rest of the UK will be happy at that, IMHO.

I couldn't open the third and fourth link on my phone, so can't comment on them.

Going back to my previous post, so how do the two points I made contradict each other, I still can't work that out?

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks JMS, I've been trying to find out who to pin the blame on, now I know!!:wink:

:embarrass

[JeMeSouviens]

The first few lines of the first link sum it up for me, it is UKIP who are saying it. It serves them well to spout off nonsense of this nature doesn't it and it also serves the Yes campaign well? I've no doubt that some misinformed people believe this tripe about Scotland getting more than its fair share but I can tell you now, from my position down here, these stories are definitely not reflected in the views of the people I know and encounter.

Fear seems to be being used by both sides now doesn't it? But I am still perplexed by the persecution and victim stance, I just don't see it.

As I have said before, I feel there may be a backlash if the vote is Yes. I think people may feel a bit put out and betrayed and may not buy as many Scottish products for a while (no great shakes you might say?)? But I don't get the impression that it will be the case if the vote is No, I think the rest of the UK will be happy at that, IMHO.

I couldn't open the third and fourth link on my phone, so can't comment on them.

Going back to my previous post, so how do the two points I made contradict each other, I still can't work that out?


Arguably, we do get more than our fair share.

If you accept the UK as your country, then the oil extracted from its waters should be shared evenly and per-capita spending throughout should be even as possible.

It's only if you introduce the dastardly, treacherous, borderline Nazi concept of Scotland being a country in its own right that there's any kind of tension here.

If the Unionists recognise that the only way they can keep Scotland in the Union is by effectively bribing it to shut up about being a country, then maybe they should admit the game is up?

[Moulin Yarns]

The first few lines of the first link sum it up for me, it is UKIP who are saying it. It serves them well to spout off nonsense of this nature doesn't it and it also serves the Yes campaign well? I've no doubt that some misinformed people believe this tripe about Scotland getting more than its fair share but I can tell you now, from my position down here, these stories are definitely not reflected in the views of the people I know and encounter.

Fear seems to be being used by both sides now doesn't it? But I am still perplexed by the persecution and victim stance, I just don't see it.

As I have said before, I feel there may be a backlash if the vote is Yes. I think people may feel a bit put out and betrayed and may not buy as many Scottish products for a while (no great shakes you might say?)? But I don't get the impression that it will be the case if the vote is No, I think the rest of the UK will be happy at that, IMHO.

I couldn't open the third and fourth link on my phone, so can't comment on them.

Going back to my previous post, so how do the two points I made contradict each other, I still can't work that out?


The other links were more of the same. English want cuts to Scottish budgets regardless of the result.


Do your friends think the same as this?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html
Scottish independence: English people overwhelmingly want Scotland to stay in the UK

If so, ask them why? then ask them why Scots want independence. I would be interested to know.

[JeMeSouviens]

Scotland's leading historian, Tom Devine, explains his recent conversion to Yes, an interesting read.

https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733

[JeMeSouviens]

It's hardly "rubbish" is it? - You don't agree with it, but that's not a problem. Switzerland's problems are not caused by the so-called euro crisis alone - in case you haven't noticed :wink:, the crisis is actually a banking and financial crisis (2008) (it impacted on the euro zone, of course - but the euro zone is not the root of the problem) - Switzerland's currency is so strong because people from many areas (including outwith the euro zone) are transferring huge resources of money into a "safe haven". Anyway, I stand by my actual point that the Swiss make their own decisions and an iScotland (with the BoE) will not: there is no comparison IMO.

:confused:

Perhaps I misunderstood you? Are you talking about CU, sterlingisation or a new Scots £? I thought the latter, in which case to peg it requires a currency reserve but we have all the same freedom as CH to make our own monetary policy but all the same practical restrictions in respect to what rUK does as CH has to what the Eurozone does. If either of the former, then indeed our monetary policy is entirely determined in London (although we'd have a theoretical say in a CU) but talk of a peg is irrelevant, we'd be using the actual £ sterling, not something pegged to it.

[southfieldhibby]

Another point that the Yes camp seems to skip when making the comparisons to Norway:

The Norwegian government takes in significantly more tax revenue than the UK does, as a share of GDP.

Back of an envelope calculation, but if the UK taxed at the same share of GDP it would mean an extra £95 billion in taxation.

So if you pro rata it then you're saying Scotland would pay an extra £9 billion in tax?

Say it's income tax. That would equate to an extra £3700 a year in tax for every working person in Scotland.

That's not going to work.

If you introduce Norwegian levels of wages it might.

[marinello59]

Scotland's leading historian, Tom Devine, explains his recent conversion to Yes, an interesting read.

https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733

Thanks for pointing that out, a good list of positive reasons for voting Yes.

[GoldenEagle]

Scotland's leading historian, Tom Devine, explains his recent conversion to Yes, an interesting read.

https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733


:aok:

[Beefster]

Be honest though, you wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into this thread if you didn't fundamentally disagree with the concept of an independent Scotland. Which is fair enough, but don't try and dress it up as "I could be persuaded if it wasn't so poorly thought out."

Nothing worse than trying to tell me how I think or imply that I'm dressing anything up. I may be opinionated and abrupt but I definitely don't dress stuff up. I've been fairly consistent in my "I'm against it as things stand but could be persuaded if a compelling case was made" stance since this saga started but hey ho.

Incidentally, if you check, I don't actually put that much time and effort into this thread, other than a day or so here and there.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nothing worse than trying to tell me how I think or imply that I'm dressing anything up. I may be opinionated and abrupt but I definitely don't dress stuff up. I've been fairly consistent in my "I'm against it as things stand but could be persuaded if a compelling case was made" stance since this saga started but hey ho.

Incidentally, if you check, I don't actually put that much time and effort into this thread, other than a day or so here and there.

read Blossom by Lesley Riddoch. watch Referendumtv.com and follow scotlandseptember18.com for well presented info. last one is purely impartial info. referendum tv isdebates from both sides and Blossom is imho a good read and inspiration of what is possible to make Scotland flourish.

[southfieldhibby]

Nothing worse than trying to tell me how I think or imply that I'm dressing anything up. I may be opinionated and abrupt but I definitely don't dress stuff up. I've been fairly consistent in my "I'm against it as things stand but could be persuaded if a compelling case was made" stance since this saga started but hey ho.

Incidentally, if you check, I don't actually put that much time and effort into this thread, other than a day or so here and there.


The compelling case is out there.Listen to Sillars or Riddoch, Mckay or Harvie or MCwhirter.The £ or EU are sideshows, as is nukes or NATO or The NHS or HMRC.I'm surprised folk are being sidetracked by them.

[PeeJay]

:confused:

Perhaps I misunderstood you? Are you talking about CU, sterlingisation or a new Scots £? I thought the latter, in which case to peg it requires a currency reserve but we have all the same freedom as CH to make our own monetary policy but all the same practical restrictions in respect to what rUK does as CH has to what the Eurozone does. If either of the former, then indeed our monetary policy is entirely determined in London (although we'd have a theoretical say in a CU) but talk of a peg is irrelevant, we'd be using the actual £ sterling, not something pegged to it.

No, I was responding to a post (see below)that claimed the Swiss CHF was pegged (along with Norway), the inference then being that it would basically be OK if Scotland's currency was pegged. My umbrage was not at the point in general, but rather at the comparison, which is entirely based on a false premise in Switzerland's case. Switzerland's currency - despite what you (or the OP) may choose to believe - is not pegged to anything. Your "phobia" about the euro zone is also incorrect: the EZB/euro zone is not the deciding factor in Swiss monetary policy: the Swiss Central Bank decides policy. The comparison does not hold water. Not sure about Norway, must check that out ...

adhibs: OP: - (...The £ being pegged to the US $ dollar in the 70's and switzerland and norway having their currencies pegged to the euro being some examples. Seems to have worked out ok.)

[snooky]

If it's any comfort, I can't see that there will be much of a difference to the living standards of the majority of people. I'm a cynical old get now, but successive and different Governments in the UK and Scotland have brought very little change to my life, good or bad.

I accept that people vote on the basis of lots of different reasons, all of them appropriate to them. For me, though, the referendum is not about personal circumstances. It's about the wider issues of economic and political accountability, and a fairer community as a whole.

:top marks Absolutely spot on, CWG.

If it's YES and we fail, it will be because we failed ourselves and not because we let someone else fail for us.

[Mibbes Aye]

As you are sounding like Alasdair Darling with his obsession about the pound, you are like a wee dug that won't let go of the Council tax.

so, here goes.

Council Tax is criticisedfor perceived unfairness in not taking into account the ability to pay. You (and others) point out that while the capital value of the property in which a person lives might give some indication of the relative wealth of the individual, it does not necessarily relate to current income.

Those on low incomes can apply for council tax benefits which can significantly (or totally) reduce the amount the applicant pays. This presumes, of course, that the system of council tax benefit is itself a satisfactory scheme. In particular, not everyone who is eligible to benefit will make a claim.

What you have failed to point out is, the tax isn't actually particularly proportionate even to property values. A band H property will pay at most three times as a band A, even though the value of the property may be ten or more times higher. All you keep saying is it is not fair on low incomes (who can get benefits)

While you claim Council tax is unfair, supporters point out that there is a significant means tested benefit regime in place which offers rebates to those on low incomes. This has the effect of making the tax more equitable.

It is also worth pointing out that the SNP, who you are claiming have harmed the poor through the Council Tax, were forced by the opposition parties at Holyrood to implement the Council Tax, in effect Plan B, rather than the SNP preferred taxation system of a local income tax, surprisingly enough, based on ones ability to pay.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your one man crusade against the Council Tax.

Read it and weep

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8536-will-the-council-tax-freeze-finally-catch-up-with-labour-in-cowdenbeath

Have you noticed the number of English Councils who have since adopted the same policy of Council Tax Freeze? Funny how something that, appparently, doesn't work is becoming rather popular.

Good grief, have you actually read my posts? :greengrin

I'm not expressing an opinion on the council tax, I'm expressing an opinion on the council tax freeze........which makes most of your post redundant (although funnily enough I don't necessarily disagree with your critique of the council tax :wink:).

Maybe you want to come back with a defence of how the freeze contributes to a fairer, more equal Scotland?

[Mibbes Aye]

Wtf has this got to do with the referendum or indepedence?



I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The main party supporting 'Yes' says it wants a fairer Scotland and that a 'Yes' vote will make for a fairer Scotland.

Yet when it has been granted power its leading policy (after the referendum) has benefited the rich over the poor and benefited the poorest not at all, in fact has been a double whammy in terms of negative impact for the poorest.

If they wanted a fairer Scotland why would they do that?

Why should we trust them on how a fairer Scotland can be achieved?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's a vote winner. Plain and simple. A populist measure whether it's the SNP or someone else doing it.

:agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

If you introduce Norwegian levels of wages it might.

It's nothing to do with Norwegian wages.

If we want their standard of public spending and ringfencing of oil income, does it not make sense that we would need a similar level of tax/GDP? probably more in fact because I believe they retain a greater stake of their oil revenues than we do.

That means the extra £9bn I described. Divide that amongst the working population and that's c.£3700.

It gets worse. That's just a straight division, it includes part-time workers. Surely it's not fair to lump them with the same amount.

Which would lead to full-time workers paying more. How much more, you tell me - an extra £5000, £6000 in income tax?

That's implausible, surely. So where does the increased tax revenue come from?

[tcm1875]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The main party supporting 'Yes' says it wants a fairer Scotland and that a 'Yes' vote will make for a fairer Scotland.

Yet when it has been granted power its leading policy (after the referendum) has benefited the rich over the poor and benefited the poorest not at all, in fact has been a double whammy in terms of negative impact for the poorest.

If they wanted a fairer Scotland why would they do that?

Why should we trust them on how a fairer Scotland can be achieved?


In what way does it benefit the rich over the poor?

[marinello59]

In what way does it benefit the rich over the poor?

The poorer members of our society are much more likely to make use of the services which have been axed to pay for this freeze. It's a policy the Tories would be proud to have in their manifesto.

[Mibbes Aye]

In what way does it benefit the rich over the poor?

I'm glad you asked :greengrin

If you take the time to Google, there's a few different analyses of the impact of the freeze. The results are pretty consistent. To pick one though, Unison conducted their own research (they have declared as neutral in the referendum debate, I believe).

Their analysis was that householders in Band H (the most expensive band) financially benefited around three times as much as householders in Band A (the least expensive band).

That's right - those in the most expensive houses get a cash benefit three times the size of those in the cheapest houses.

It gets better though (by better I mean worse...).

People on low incomes may be entitled to Council Tax Reduction, which replaced Council Tax Benefit. This means they pay less council tax.

Around 25% of people in receipt of Council Tax Reduction are on such a low income that they get 100% relief on council tax, which means they don't pay it.

Which means that the poorest don't get any cash benefit at all from the freeze and people in the most expensive properties get the biggest cash benefit of all.

Then there's the double whammy.

The freeze is supposed to be subsidised by the Scottish Government but it hasn't kept pace with inflation meaning local authorities have faced a real terms cut in their budgets from the freeze

And as marinello59 has pointed out, the poorer in Scottish society are more dependent on local authority services than the better-off. they are paying the price for this twice over.

I agree with M59, it's a policy straight out of the Thatcher years playbook. A policy tapping into the selfish part of human nature, that benefits the better-off ahead of the poor and shifts the blame for any negative outcomes onto the local authorities.

And the party who have implemented it for the last eight years want us to believe them when they talk about a fairer Scotland :rolleyes:

[GoldenEagle]

I'm glad you asked :greengrin

If you take the time to Google, there's a few different analyses of the impact of the freeze. The results are pretty consistent. To pick one though, Unison conducted their own research (they have declared as neutral in the referendum debate, I believe).

Their analysis was that householders in Band H (the most expensive band) financially benefited around three times as much as householders in Band A (the least expensive band).

That's right - those in the most expensive houses get a cash benefit three times the size of those in the cheapest houses.

It gets better though (by better I mean worse...).

People on low incomes may be entitled to Council Tax Reduction, which replaced Council Tax Benefit. This means they pay less council tax.

Around 25% of people in receipt of Council Tax Reduction are on such a low income that they get 100% relief on council tax, which means they don't pay it.

Which means that the poorest don't get any cash benefit at all from the freeze and people in the most expensive properties get the biggest cash benefit of all.

Then there's the double whammy.

The freeze is supposed to be subsidised by the Scottish Government but it hasn't kept pace with inflation meaning local authorities have faced a real terms cut in their budgets from the freeze

And as marinello59 has pointed out, the poorer in Scottish society are more dependent on local authority services than the better-off. they are paying the price for this twice over.

I agree with M59, it's a policy straight out of the Thatcher years playbook. A policy tapping into the selfish part of human nature, that benefits the better-off ahead of the poor and shifts the blame for any negative outcomes onto the local authorities.

And the party who have implemented it for the last eight years want us to believe them when they talk about a fairer Scotland :rolleyes:

Cutting to the chase...because of this one policy (and they way that you've interpreted it) you don't think that there's much difference between the current Scottish Government and the way that the Tories rule?

I'd counter it and say vote Yes and then vote in whoever you believe has the best manifesto for the people of Scotland. Not the UK but the people of Scotland. You never know you might even see a "New New" Labour emerging again from the shadows to represent the people that they've seemingly forgotten about for the last 10 years.

[Stranraer]

Cutting to the chase...because of this one policy (and they way that you've interpreted it) you don't think that there's much difference between the current Scottish Government and the way that the Tories rule?

I'd counter it and say vote Yes and then vote in whoever you believe has the best manifesto for the people of Scotland. Not the UK but the people of Scotland. You never know you might even see a "New New" Labour emerging again from the shadows to represent the people that they've seemingly forgotten about for the last 10 years.

To be fair, Labour haven't been a real Labour party for a lot longer than 10 years. I think it dates back to the late 60's personally.

[GoldenEagle]

To be fair, Labour haven't been a real Labour party for a lot longer than 10 years. I think it dates back to the late 60's personally.


Age permits me to only go back 10-15 years :greengrin

[Stranraer]

Age permits me to only go back 10-15 years :greengrin

:aok: sorry:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Cutting to the chase...because of this one policy (and they way that you've interpreted it) you don't think that there's much difference between the current Scottish Government and the way that the Tories rule?



Oh please. That's such a misrepresentation of everything I've posted. You can do better than that, surely.

This is the flagship policy of the party who tells us they want a fairer Scotland and that a 'Yes' vote will give us a fairer Scotland.

Yet when they have had access to power, they've promoted inequality, an unfairer Scotland, through their main domestic policy.

Why should we trust them about what would make a fairer Scotland? Why?

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair, Labour haven't been a real Labour party for a lot longer than 10 years. I think it dates back to the late 60's personally.

The Labour party of Harold Wilson wouldn't have been a 'real' Labour party in the eyes of those who wrote the 1931 Labour party manifesto, I suspect.

It's all relative and there's no point getting hung up on old tropes otherwise you find yourself making arguments that no one is interested in anymore.

Arguably, that was so often the curse of the Left in the 20th century. Would be good if it could be avoided in the 21st century.

[Stranraer]

The Labour party of Harold Wilson wouldn't have been a 'real' Labour party in the eyes of those who wrote the 1931 Labour party manifesto, I suspect.

It's all relative and there's no point getting hung up on old tropes otherwise you find yourself making arguments that no one is interested in anymore.

Arguably, that was so often the curse of the Left in the 20th century. Would be good if it could be avoided in the 21st century.

What has been the curse of the left? I think plenty of people are still interested in things like social justice...

[Stranraer]

Oh please. That's such a misrepresentation of everything I've posted. You can do better than that, surely.

This is the flagship policy of the party who tells us they want a fairer Scotland and that a 'Yes' vote will give us a fairer Scotland.

Yet when they have had access to power, they've promoted inequality, an unfairer Scotland, through their main domestic policy.

Why should we trust them about what would make a fairer Scotland? Why?

Whose brain wave was it that this was the SNP's flagship policy. I would trust the SNP over the London parties any day of the week. They are the best of a bad bunch - hopefully post independence the SSP will gain momentum and have some representation in the Scottish parliament.

[Mibbes Aye]

What has been the curse of the left? I think plenty of people are still interested in things like social justice...

I think people are interested in social justice too.

What they aren't interested in is interminable in-fighting about the political equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and that's been the curse of so many leftist movements across the globe over the last hundred to hundred and fifty years or so.

But getting back to your point - if New Labour wasn't real Labour, then can you really argue real Labour was the Labour of the late 60s?

Because that was a Labour arguably far removed from the Labour of Clement Attlee.

In turn, very different from the Labour of Ramsay MacDonald.

Which was also arguably very different from the Labour of Keir Hardie.

So which one is real?

[tcm1875]

The poorer members of our society are much more likely to make use of the services which have been axed to pay for this freeze. It's a policy the Tories would be proud to have in their manifesto.

I've not had any services cut in my area that I'm aware of, so i would be interested which services have been cut.

[tcm1875]

I'm glad you asked :greengrin

If you take the time to Google, there's a few different analyses of the impact of the freeze. The results are pretty consistent. To pick one though, Unison conducted their own research (they have declared as neutral in the referendum debate, I believe).

Their analysis was that householders in Band H (the most expensive band) financially benefited around three times as much as householders in Band A (the least expensive band).

That's right - those in the most expensive houses get a cash benefit three times the size of those in the cheapest houses.

It gets better though (by better I mean worse...).

People on low incomes may be entitled to Council Tax Reduction, which replaced Council Tax Benefit. This means they pay less council tax.

Around 25% of people in receipt of Council Tax Reduction are on such a low income that they get 100% relief on council tax, which means they don't pay it.

Which means that the poorest don't get any cash benefit at all from the freeze and people in the most expensive properties get the biggest cash benefit of all.

Then there's the double whammy.

The freeze is supposed to be subsidised by the Scottish Government but it hasn't kept pace with inflation meaning local authorities have faced a real terms cut in their budgets from the freeze

And as marinello59 has pointed out, the poorer in Scottish society are more dependent on local authority services than the better-off. they are paying the price for this twice over.

I agree with M59, it's a policy straight out of the Thatcher years playbook. A policy tapping into the selfish part of human nature, that benefits the better-off ahead of the poor and shifts the blame for any negative outcomes onto the local authorities.

And the party who have implemented it for the last eight years want us to believe them when they talk about a fairer Scotland :rolleyes:


So the highest bands F, G and H is 12% of Scotland households and a large percentage of these appear to be in rural or remote areas. 25% don't pay anything leaving 63% who are getting a cash benefit from the freeze. I don't see how that's benefitting the rich more....

[over the line]

Arguably, we do get more than our fair share.

If you accept the UK as your country, then the oil extracted from its waters should be shared evenly and per-capita spending throughout should be even as possible.

It's only if you introduce the dastardly, treacherous, borderline Nazi concept of Scotland being a country in its own right that there's any kind of tension here.

If the Unionists recognise that the only way they can keep Scotland in the Union is by effectively bribing it to shut up about being a country, then maybe they should admit the game is up?

There are differences in the amount of government spending all over the UK. I have no doubt Merseyside has had well over the average share of money over the years, compared to a lot of other places in the UK (certainly under the last government anyway)? Bringing it even more local Birkenhead has had more government funding than Chester. Equally there will be areas of Scotland that get more funding than others. I also believe there will be parts of Scotland that don't get as well funded as certain parts of England. This will always be the case, even in an iS - rUK scenario.

I'm not so sure about the bribe theory personally, as I believe both Wales and NI get above the average share of the budget as well? Is the UK also bribing them and if so for what reason would you say?