Scottish Independence

[over the line]

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.

I will ask the question and get back to you.

The link is interesting, seems a lot more detailed and less sensational/scaremongerish (not a word I know) than some of the other articles. I have a bit to say on it and will do when I get back to you. But I will confirm that from down here, I do think the majority of people want Scotland to stay in the UK.

[Moulin Yarns]

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?

I apologise for missing out the word freeze, but the fact remains the Council tax itself is not a fair tax and the tax freeze was forced upon the SNP because the opposition parties at Holyrood voted down Plan A, Local Income Tax.


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:

You have repeated, ad infinitum, that the Council Tax Freeze is the flagship policy of the SNP. I find that strange when it does not appear anywhere on the home page of their website (see, I'm doing the research for you)

I have always been under the impression that the SNP Flagship Policy, from day one of the SNP is INDEPENDENCE. Can you disagree?

Now, lets get back to the Council Tax Freeze, and let me ask you a question. What would you replace the Council Tax Freeze? What would be a fairer system?

For what it is worth, I believe the Council Tax system is unfair because it is not vastly different to the older rateable value system by not taking into account peoples ability to pay.

Another critisism of the Council Tax I have is that the Council Tax only provides Local Government with between 22% and 25% of their funding. The other 75% to 78% comes from Central Government. In Scotland this is further complicated by the Scottish Government, and Welsh Assembly, receiving the majority of their funding by way of a block grant from the UK Government. That is going to change slightly in 2016 when Scotland will be able to raise more funds locally, which will result in an equivalent reduction in the block grant.

Where does the block grant come from? it comes from taxation, Income Tax, Duty on goods, like whisky and oil (and lots more) So, money raised through taxation in Scotland goes to Westminster, into a big central pot, and then an amount based on the Barnett Formula, is returned to Holyrood. For the past 30 years more money has been raised in Scotland than has been returned as a result of the block grant. That is a bit like handing your salary to your neighbour and him giving you some of it back, would you do that?

Now, I've mentioned that there will be changes in 2016, Holyrood will be able to raise some more funds locally,



The ability to raise or lower income tax by 10p in the pound. Any change is applied equally across all tax bands.
Other minor tax powers: control of stamp duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_duty) and landfill tax.
The ability to borrow money, up to £2.2 billion a year.


BUT, there will be no more money available than at present, because for every pound raised at Holyrood, a pound will be removed from the block grant, so is that really more fiscal power? Independence, on the other hand will provide



The ability to set our own rates of income tax
Full tax powers.
The ability to borrow money, any amount, not limited by Westminster.


So, rather than concentrate on one policy of the current Holyrood government that you disagree with, which was not the first choice, remember, local income tax (which is now being brought in in 2016 in a limited form) is what the SNP wanted to introduce 8 years ago but were blocked by LABOUR, Lib/Dems and conservatives, why not look at the positive impact of the negotiations between Holyrood and Westminster to bring about change for the better.

As I've said elsewhere, I am not an SNP supporter, but find myself defending them against the incessant barrage of critisism. The referendum is not about the SNP, they are only the party that has made the referendum possible. That says more about the failings of the 3 other main parties, in my opinion.

Prediction time.

Following the referendum, in the event of a yes vote, I expect the SNP to again win a majority at Holyrood, but following Independence the SNP will fade and Holyrood will return to consensus or coalition.

Following the referendum, in the event of a no vote, I expect the SNP to be returned to power at several elections and Independence to remain the flagship policy of the SNP. Westminster will still exercise power over Scottish finance and there will be a squeeze impose as a result of recalculations of the block grant, the Barnett Formula will probably be dismantled.

That is why I support Independence, not the SNP, not Alex Salmond, because I want a Scotland to be society where people have the power to make a difference.

PHEW, that was a lot for this time on a Saturday morning. bye.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ach, I couldnae resist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNCFR8SqioE


:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

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?

Keep hearing from you that this is " the Flagship Policy" of the SNP. Just because you've chosen to hang your flag on it doesn't mean it's their Standard. The primary policy of the SNP is and always was an independent Scotland.

You've chosen to pick one policy of many from the SNP and consistently tried to beat the YES campaign with it. As some have already mentioned, there is no SNP box to tick on the ballot paper, only Yes or No.

[Moulin Yarns]

Keep hearing from you that this is " the Flagship Policy" of the SNP. Just because you've chosen to hang your flag on it doesn't mean it's their Standard. The primary policy of the SNP is and always was an independent Scotland.

You've chosen to pick one policy of many from the SNP and consistently tried to beat the YES campaign with it. As some have already mentioned, there is no SNP box to tick on the ballot paper, only Yes or No.


see my post 2 above yours, I'm looking forward to the reply. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

see my post 2 above yours, I'm looking forward to the reply. :wink:

I'm economical with my use of words but we're basically saying the same thing. :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

I apologise for missing out the word freeze, but the fact remains the Council tax itself is not a fair tax and the tax freeze was forced upon the SNP because the opposition parties at Holyrood voted down Plan A, Local Income Tax.



You have repeated, ad infinitum, that the Council Tax Freeze is the flagship policy of the SNP. I find that strange when it does not appear anywhere on the home page of their website (see, I'm doing the research for you)

I have always been under the impression that the SNP Flagship Policy, from day one of the SNP is INDEPENDENCE. Can you disagree?

Now, lets get back to the Council Tax Freeze, and let me ask you a question. What would you replace the Council Tax Freeze? What would be a fairer system?

For what it is worth, I believe the Council Tax system is unfair because it is not vastly different to the older rateable value system by not taking into account peoples ability to pay.

Another critisism of the Council Tax I have is that the Council Tax only provides Local Government with between 22% and 25% of their funding. The other 75% to 78% comes from Central Government. In Scotland this is further complicated by the Scottish Government, and Welsh Assembly, receiving the majority of their funding by way of a block grant from the UK Government. That is going to change slightly in 2016 when Scotland will be able to raise more funds locally, which will result in an equivalent reduction in the block grant.

Where does the block grant come from? it comes from taxation, Income Tax, Duty on goods, like whisky and oil (and lots more) So, money raised through taxation in Scotland goes to Westminster, into a big central pot, and then an amount based on the Barnett Formula, is returned to Holyrood. For the past 30 years more money has been raised in Scotland than has been returned as a result of the block grant. That is a bit like handing your salary to your neighbour and him giving you some of it back, would you do that?

Now, I've mentioned that there will be changes in 2016, Holyrood will be able to raise some more funds locally,



The ability to raise or lower income tax by 10p in the pound. Any change is applied equally across all tax bands.
Other minor tax powers: control of stamp duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_duty) and landfill tax.
The ability to borrow money, up to £2.2 billion a year.


BUT, there will be no more money available than at present, because for every pound raised at Holyrood, a pound will be removed from the block grant, so is that really more fiscal power? Independence, on the other hand will provide



The ability to set our own rates of income tax
Full tax powers.
The ability to borrow money, any amount, not limited by Westminster.


So, rather than concentrate on one policy of the current Holyrood government that you disagree with, which was not the first choice, remember, local income tax (which is now being brought in in 2016 in a limited form) is what the SNP wanted to introduce 8 years ago but were blocked by LABOUR, Lib/Dems and conservatives, why not look at the positive impact of the negotiations between Holyrood and Westminster to bring about change for the better.

As I've said elsewhere, I am not an SNP supporter, but find myself defending them against the incessant barrage of critisism. The referendum is not about the SNP, they are only the party that has made the referendum possible. That says more about the failings of the 3 other main parties, in my opinion.

Prediction time.

Following the referendum, in the event of a yes vote, I expect the SNP to again win a majority at Holyrood, but following Independence the SNP will fade and Holyrood will return to consensus or coalition.

Following the referendum, in the event of a no vote, I expect the SNP to be returned to power at several elections and Independence to remain the flagship policy of the SNP. Westminster will still exercise power over Scottish finance and there will be a squeeze impose as a result of recalculations of the block grant, the Barnett Formula will probably be dismantled.

That is why I support Independence, not the SNP, not Alex Salmond, because I want a Scotland to be society where people have the power to make a difference.

PHEW, that was a lot for this time on a Saturday morning. bye.

Fantastic post.

[GoldenEagle]

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.

http://m.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-working-class-boost-for-yes-1-3515052

How does this work then as surely the 'poorer' people wouldn't have anything to do with an SNP led Yes campaign?

Yet, 2/3 have said they'll vote Yes.

[marinello59]

http://m.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-working-class-boost-for-yes-1-3515052

How does this work then as surely the 'poorer' people wouldn't have anything to do with an SNP led Yes campaign?

Yet, 2/3 have says they'll vote Yes.

It's well known that the poorer sections of society will vote Yes as they have much less to fear from change as they have less to lose. How that equates to a defence of SNP policy as you seem to be implying baffles me. There's a lot of people here saying this vote is not about supporting the SNP whilst slavishly defending SNP policy if anybody suggests that they get some things wrong.

[GoldenEagle]

It's well known that the poorer sections of society will vote Yes as they have much less to fear from change as they have less to lose. How that equates to a defence of SNP policy as you seem to be implying baffles me. There's a lot of people here saying this vote is not about supporting the SNP whilst slavishly defending SNP policy if anybody suggests that they get some things wrong.


But my point is that you've stated that the Council charge freeze has damaged the services to the poorest sections of society (not sure where that evidence is and debate a few posts up suggest that it wasn't even SNP policy) but here we have the people within that particular section overwhelmingly voting for more power to the elbow of the Scottish Government.


IMO it throws your opinion that this particular Scot Government policy is having a detrimental impact to the everyday lives of the people from the schemes out the window.

ps maybe us Hibby's have less to lose as well as it's currently 68% in favour of YES :)

[marinello59]

But my point is that you've stated that the Council charge freeze has damaged the services to the poorest sections of society (not sure where that evidence is and debate a few posts up suggest that it wasn't even SNP policy) but here we have the people within that particular section overwhelmingly voting for more power to the elbow of the Scottish Government.


IMO it throws your opinion that this particular Scot Government policy is having a detrimental impact to the everyday lives of the people from the schemes out the window.

ps maybe us Hibby's have less to lose as well as it's currently 68% in favour of YES :)

So in your world voting Yes IS a vote endorsing the flawed policies of the SNP. It certainly isn't in mine.

[GoldenEagle]

So in your world voting Yes IS a vote endorsing the flawed policies of the SNP. It certainly isn't in mine.

Your quoting again this flawed policy of council tax freezes which in your opinion hurts the less fortunate, I disagree that we've seen any material impact to services and it certainly doesn't appear to bother the 'poor'.

Absolutely some policies of every government in the world won't win universal approval but, and this is the crux of why I'm voting yes, I'd much much rather have those policies made by Scottish people in Scotland than anywhere else.

[marinello59]

Your quoting again this flawed policy of council tax freezes which in your opinion hurts the less fortunate, I disagree that we've seen any material impact to services and it certainly doesn't appear to bother the 'poor'.

Absolutely some policies of every government in the world won't win universal approval but, and this is the crux of why I'm voting yes, I'd much much rather have those policies made by Scottish people in Scotland than anywhere else.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point I made there. Voting Yes does not prove that SNP policy is being given the seal of approval. You are quite simply wrong on that score. If you want to drive potential Yes voters away though keep repeating that line.

[Betty Boop]

what would happen with the BBC if Scotland becomes independent ?

[steakbake]

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point I made there. Voting Yes does not prove that SNP policy is being given the seal of approval. You are quite simply wrong on that score. If you want to drive potential Yes voters away though keep repeating that line.

Agreed: Yes want to convince people that you can vote Yes and it's not endorsing the SNP. Yet at the same time, voting Yes is interpreted as being in favour of the SNP by some.

I'll vote Yes, for sure, but there are many areas where I disagree with the SNP.

[sauzee_4]

what would happen with the BBC if Scotland becomes independent ?

Not an expert on the topic. But a Scottish Broadcasting Service will be set up (like they have in Ireland and many other countries).

The BBC itself (it's property, buildings, chairs, equipment etc etc.) all get divided up during the negotiations depending on who wants what.

[MyJo]

what would happen with the BBC if Scotland becomes independent ?

Maybe we'll get rid of the TV Licence as well

[Gus]

Maybe we'll get rid of the TV Licence as well

I would vote yes if this was to happen

[judas]

Can someone please summarise why voting No would be good for Scotland? I am voting yes, but will need some kind of solace after the referendum.

[ronaldo7]

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.

FLAGSHIP
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/snps-flagship-free-childcare-policy-attacked-by-opponents-as-half-baked.24983020

FLAGSHIP
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10704087/Key-architect-behind-SNPs-flagship-education-policy-in-shock-resignation.html

FLAGSHIP
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/blow-justice-secretary-kenny-macaskill-3449151

FLAGSHIP
http://schoolsimprovement.net/snps-flagship-free-nursery-policy-attacked-by-opponents-as-half-baked/

I used to think there was only one Flagship in a task group as well:greengrin

As I said earlier, you need to take a manifesto in the round. The SNP have sold me a pup too, I thought their "Flagship" policy was Independence.:wink:

[GoldenEagle]

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point I made there. Voting Yes does not prove that SNP policy is being given the seal of approval. You are quite simply wrong on that score. If you want to drive potential Yes voters away though keep repeating that line.

And you've failed in every way to back up your previous claim that the council tax freeze is impacting the lives of the poor.

I dont think we're ever going to reach an agreement on this one and its a moot point IMO in the context of Scotland's right to decide how it governs itself.

[marinello59]

And you've failed in every way to back up your previous claim that the council tax freeze is impacting the lives of the poor.

I dont think we're ever going to reach an agreement on this one and its a moot point IMO in the context of Scotland's right to decide how it governs itself.

Still ignoring my point then? You are right we won't agree about it but your moot point post is utter nonsense . If you think voting Yes is actually an endorsement of SNP policy then you are truly deluded. Spread that message about and watch undecideds vote No. Party before country for you obviously.

[GoldenEagle]

Still ignoring my point then? You are right we won't agree about it but your moot point post is utter nonsense . If you think voting Yes is actually an endorsement of SNP policy then you are truly deluded. Spread that message about and watch undecideds vote No. Party before country for you obviously.

For the absolute avoidance of doubt voting YES is not an endorsement of every SNP policy. I'll probably return to a Labour vote for example in the event of a yes vote.

Again, for absolute clarity, I pointed out that the housing schemes of Scotland are hardly up in arms over your council tax freeze assessment.

Keep up the personal insults though.

[Stranraer]

Can someone please summarise why voting No would be good for Scotland? I am voting yes, but will need some kind of solace after the referendum.

I second that... I'm yet to hear even a positive reason for voting No - I think the result will be quite close.

[marinello59]

For the absolute avoidance of doubt voting YES is not an endorsement of every SNP policy. I'll probably return to a Labour vote for example in the event of a yes vote.

Again, for absolute clarity, I pointed out that the housing schemes of Scotland are hardly up in arms over your council tax freeze assessment.

Keep up the personal insults though.

What personal insults? :confused:

[ronaldo7]

13331

Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they?

[Stranraer]

13331

Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they?

No, they can't and those leaflets are absolute tripe.

[marinello59]

13331

Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they?

Let's be fair here, that's not a Better Together leaflet. It's been produced by an extreme right wing party who unfortunately have latched on to this. There's nutters on both sides, thankfully most people will ignore them.

[ronaldo7]

Let's be fair here, that's not a Better Together leaflet. It's been produced by an extreme right wing party who unfortunately have latched on to this. There's nutters on both sides, thankfully most people will ignore them.

I'm led to believe they are in fact part of the Official No campaign.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/scottish-referendum/register-of-campaigners-at-the-scottish-independence-referendum

[marinello59]

I'm led to believe they are in fact part of the Official No campaign.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/scottish-referendum/register-of-campaigners-at-the-scottish-independence-referendum

As anybody who wants to register with the electoral commission could be. Surely you are not going to taint the vast majority of decent (though mistaken) people who support a No vote by association with this mob. That would be no better than their leaflet.

[ronaldo7]

As anybody who wants to register with the electoral commission could be. Surely you are not going to taint the vast majority of decent (though mistaken) people who support a No vote by association with this mob. That would be no better than their leaflet.

I'm not tainting anyone or anything, I'm pointing out what's been handed out in the streets of Scotland by an Official No campaign group. I was gobsmacked when I read it. Even the OO have been relatively quiet on the subject recently. I'm sure their time will come.

I'm sure BT will be out in the papers/tv condemning it tomorrow:rolleyes:

[marinello59]

I'm not tainting anyone or anything, I'm pointing out what's been handed out in the streets of Scotland by an Official No campaign group. I was gobsmacked when I read it. Even the OO have been relatively quiet on the subject recently. I'm sure their time will come.

I'm sure BT will be out in the papers/tv condemning it tomorrow:rolleyes:

It's a horrible leaflet. Why describe it as an ''official'' leaflet though? It is nothing more than the rantings of the lunatic fringe and best ignored. Surely we ain't going to stoop to the level of tarnishing those who oppose our views as happy bedfellows of right wing nutters? Scotland is better than that. Isn't it?

[ronaldo7]

It's a horrible leaflet. Why describe it as an ''official'' leaflet though? It is nothing more than the rantings of the lunatic fringe and best ignored. Surely we ain't going to stoop to the level of tarnishing those who oppose our views as happy bedfellows of right wing nutters? Scotland is better than that. Isn't it?

It is Official. Or am I missing something here?

If Wings/Bella/Women for Indy/Wee Ginger Dug, had published anything as nasty as this I'd be on here highlighting it too.

These guys are an Official party operating on the streets of Scotland for a no vote. I'd rather we highlighted them now rather than pretend they weren't there.

I'm happy to debate with anyone from the No side and before this referendum I would never have envisaged the happy bedfellows being from the Labour and Tory parties.

[over the line]

13331

Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they?

The leaflet is by the britannica party, who are they?

Points 1 and six are so ridiculous, they must be either a wind up or counter propaganda!

I really don't know what point 5 means?


Who is responsible for these leaflets?

[marinello59]

It is Official. Or am I missing something here?

If Wings/Bella/Women for Indy/Wee Ginger Dug, had published anything as nasty as this I'd be on here highlighting it too.

These guys are an Official party operating on the streets of Scotland for a no vote. I'd rather we highlighted them now rather than pretend they weren't there.

I'm happy to debate with anyone from the No side and before this referendum I would never have envisaged the happy bedfellows being from the Labour and Tory parties.

Here's what you said.
''Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they? ''
Sorry, I read from that you were saying the Better Together campaign as a whole couldn't stoop any lower. Apologies if I misread that. Suggesting that a right wing English based group would be in any way representative of the decent people of Scotland who happen to have a different viewpoint from ourselves would be ridiculous and no better than the contents of that leaflet, so sorry. Thanks for clarifying that wasn't your intention.

[over the line]

The leaflet is by the britannica party, who are they?

Even I think this is OTT and even by my abrasive standards this is too much!

Points 1 and six are so ridiculous, they must be either a wind up or counter propaganda!

I really don't know what point 5 means.


Who is responsible for these leaflets?

Just googled the Britannica party and realised who they are! These are obviously narrow minded f*** wits and I am surprised they are even able to produce a leaflet!?!? Don't even recycle that leaflet, just burn it now!

That is nothing to do with the referendum, its just vile narrow minded bigotry! :mad:

[ronaldo7]

Here's what you said.
''Official No camp leaflets being handed out today. They just can't stoop any lower...Can they? ''
Sorry, I read from that you were saying the Better Together campaign as a whole couldn't stoop any lower. Apologies if I misread that. Suggesting that a right wing English based group would be in any way representative of the decent people of Scotland who happen to have a different viewpoint from ourselves would be ridiculous and no better than the contents of that leaflet, so sorry. Thanks for clarifying that wasn't your intention.

Deliberately never mention Better together...Just the Official No camp:aok:

[Beefster]

I'm led to believe they are in fact part of the Official No campaign.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/scottish-referendum/register-of-campaigners-at-the-scottish-independence-referendum


Deliberately never mention Better together...Just the Official No camp:aok:

You're "led to believe"? You're not Gerry McNee by any chance, are you?

Presumably you're now accepting responsibility for everything the English Democrats say about the referendum?

Personally, I don't think that it's just the mythical "Official No" campaign that keeps stooping to new lows.

[sauzee_4]

The leaflet is by the britannica party, who are they?

Points 1 and six are so ridiculous, they must be either a wind up or counter propaganda!

I really don't know what point 5 means?


Who is responsible for these leaflets?

Every single one of the points is ridiculous. Higher taxes?? How come?

[Future17]

As someone has already said, anyone (group or individual) can register with the Electoral Commission in relation to referendum campaigning; I'm not sure whether this makes them "official" or not, there could be (and I would venture there are) those who hold extreme views already registered on both sides.

Granted, there appear to be more extremists affiliated to "No", but leaflets like this one and events like the forthcoming Orange Lodge march in Edinburgh are more likely to encourage those who are undecided to vote "yes" than "no".

[sauzee_4]

Every single one of the points is ridiculous. Higher taxes?? How come?

Higher food prices? How come?
Stripped of protection? Are we too stupid to assemble a fu**ing army ourselves?
Danger of a one party state? Again away and take a cold shower.

I love how they bragged about a 'moderate democracy' what a bloody success the UK is

[over the line]

Every single one of the points is ridiculous. Higher taxes?? How come?

I didn't say that the other points weren't ridiculous did I? I said points 1 and 6, were SO ridiculous........etc.

I think post 3559 makes my feelings clear on this.

[ronaldo7]

You're "led to believe"? You're not Gerry McNee by any chance, are you?

Presumably you're now accepting responsibility for everything the English Democrats say about the referendum?

Personally, I don't think that it's just the mythical "Official No" campaign that keeps stooping to new lows.

1. No:na na:

2. Don't know anything about them, care to explain who they are and what they're saying.:dunno:

3. No such thing as a Mythical Official No campaign. It's there in black and white.:rules:

[Northernhibee]

Higher food prices? How come?
Stripped of protection? Are we too stupid to assemble a fu**ing army ourselves?
Danger of a one party state? Again away and take a cold shower.

I love how they bragged about a 'moderate democracy' what a bloody success the UK is

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.

"Are we too stupid to assemble an army ourselves"? If it were only as simple as sticking a few people together and putting them in a uniform.

"Danger of a one party state" - tens of thousands of people have stated their plans to move down south in the event of a yes vote. Chances are these aren't "Yes" voters and are sensible enough to see the damage that a yes vote would be done. This would be a massive boost to the SNP.

Also, as for "what a bloody success the UK is" - in terms of our economic impact for the size of us, we are a real success. We have stood together side by side twice in world wars and faught against fascism, we have provided universal healthcare to our citizens (which is NOT under threat in Scotland in the event of a no vote - it is a fully devolved issue), we have made huge contributions to the worlds of science, the arts, business and popular culture.

Just because you're voting yes doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we're alright.

[Stranraer]

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.

"Are we too stupid to assemble an army ourselves"? If it were only as simple as sticking a few people together and putting them in a uniform.

"Danger of a one party state" - tens of thousands of people have stated their plans to move down south in the event of a yes vote. Chances are these aren't "Yes" voters and are sensible enough to see the damage that a yes vote would be done. This would be a massive boost to the SNP.

Also, as for "what a bloody success the UK is" - in terms of our economic impact for the size of us, we are a real success. We have stood together side by side twice in world wars and faught against fascism, we have provided universal healthcare to our citizens (which is NOT under threat in Scotland in the event of a no vote - it is a fully devolved issue), we have made huge contributions to the worlds of science, the arts, business and popular culture.

Just because you're voting yes doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we're alright.

Oh please spare us that line - we heard it before the 2011 election it's absolute tripe and I know some Yes voters who will "move" before the 2015 election in the event of a No vote.

[judas]

I second that... I'm yet to hear even a positive reason for voting No - I think the result will be quite close.

Me too. But what makes you think it will be close? No has a strong lead (10% I think).

[speedy_gonzales]

Oh please spare us that line - we heard it before the 2011 election it's absolute tripe and I know some Yes voters who will "move" before the 2015 election in the event of a No vote.
Move where exactly and for why? I can understand a 'no' voter 'saying' they'd move down south in the event of a yes vote as they believe in the Union (or what will be left of it). Where would a 'yes' voter go if there was a No vote, and why?

[KdyHby]

Keep England clean, vote no:

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Nuclear-warheads-plan-cause-vast-lasting-damage/story-22794092-detail/story.html

[over the line]

Keep England clean, vote no:

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Nuclear-warheads-plan-cause-vast-lasting-damage/story-22794092-detail/story.html

Send them to Ellemere Port, we will have them! ;)

[Stranraer]

Move where exactly and for why? I can understand a 'no' voter 'saying' they'd move down south in the event of a yes vote as they believe in the Union (or what will be left of it). Where would a 'yes' voter go if there was a No vote, and why?

The Irish Republic maybe? More of a democracy thank the UK that's for sure.

[allmodcons]

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.

"Are we too stupid to assemble an army ourselves"? If it were only as simple as sticking a few people together and putting them in a uniform.

"Danger of a one party state" - tens of thousands of people have stated their plans to move down south in the event of a yes vote. Chances are these aren't "Yes" voters and are sensible enough to see the damage that a yes vote would be done. This would be a massive boost to the SNP.

Also, as for "what a bloody success the UK is" - in terms of our economic impact for the size of us, we are a real success. We have stood together side by side twice in world wars and faught against fascism, we have provided universal healthcare to our citizens (which is NOT under threat in Scotland in the event of a no vote - it is a fully devolved issue), we have made huge contributions to the worlds of science, the arts, business and popular culture.

Just because you're voting yes doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we're alright.

Almost everybody on this thread thinks this leaflet by, what is, a BNP offshoot is extreme and indeed rather offensive and embarrassing.

Except for you that is!!!

Are you happy to endorse the Brittannic Party?

If, as your post suggests you are (i.e. - you appear to support the content the leaflet) then I genuinely feel sorry you!

[bawheid]

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.

"Are we too stupid to assemble an army ourselves"? If it were only as simple as sticking a few people together and putting them in a uniform.

"Danger of a one party state" - tens of thousands of people have stated their plans to move down south in the event of a yes vote. Chances are these aren't "Yes" voters and are sensible enough to see the damage that a yes vote would be done. This would be a massive boost to the SNP.

Also, as for "what a bloody success the UK is" - in terms of our economic impact for the size of us, we are a real success. We have stood together side by side twice in world wars and faught against fascism, we have provided universal healthcare to our citizens (which is NOT under threat in Scotland in the event of a no vote - it is a fully devolved issue), we have made huge contributions to the worlds of science, the arts, business and popular culture.

Just because you're voting yes doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we're alright.

This is the most rubbish I've read since I saw the leaflet!

[sauzee_4]

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.

"Are we too stupid to assemble an army ourselves"? If it were only as simple as sticking a few people together and putting them in a uniform.

"Danger of a one party state" - tens of thousands of people have stated their plans to move down south in the event of a yes vote. Chances are these aren't "Yes" voters and are sensible enough to see the damage that a yes vote would be done. This would be a massive boost to the SNP.

Also, as for "what a bloody success the UK is" - in terms of our economic impact for the size of us, we are a real success. We have stood together side by side twice in world wars and faught against fascism, we have provided universal healthcare to our citizens (which is NOT under threat in Scotland in the event of a no vote - it is a fully devolved issue), we have made huge contributions to the worlds of science, the arts, business and popular culture.

Just because you're voting yes doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we're alright.

Our budget is under threat. Correct me

You'll need to run the food prices one by me again, supermarkets
operate across the whole of the British Isles currently and will do after a yes. In what way are 'costs shared' which wouldn't be after a yes vote?

On the army, are you backing up their assertion that we would be 'defenceless'?

And on a 'one party state' if you honestly believe that I don't know why I'm bothering to type this message :)

There are plenty yes voters who are not SNP. (33% of Labour voters for a start).

Success: 'in terms of our economic impact' I find this statement quite vague, but to be fair, the UK has had successes, but 1 million people using foodbanks whilst £150 billion gets spent on Nukes shows that we need to get our priorities straight.

[sauzee_4]

Move where exactly and for why? I can understand a 'no' voter 'saying' they'd move down south in the event of a yes vote as they believe in the Union (or what will be left of it). Where would a 'yes' voter go if there was a No vote, and why?

Well our budget looks like it could be cut by £4 billion and that cash distributed throughout the UK so that might be one reason?

Why would a 'no' voter move if it was yes?

Must be hell living in a social democracy.

[sauzee_4]

Keep England clean, vote no:

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Nuclear-warheads-plan-cause-vast-lasting-damage/story-22794092-detail/story.html

This will open up the whole nuclear weapons debate again which can only be a good thing

[Hibrandenburg]

Keep England clean, vote no:

http:www.westbriton.co.uk/Nuclear-warheads-plan-cause-vast-lasting-damage/story-22794092-detail/story.html

The hypocrisy is absolutely galling!

[speedy_gonzales]

Well our budget looks like it could be cut by £4 billion and that cash distributed throughout the UK so that might be one reason?

Why would a 'no' voter move if it was yes?

Must be hell living in a social democracy.
I don't think for one minute anyone will leave if the referendum doesn't go "their" way, I'm just saying I can understand if a die hard Unionist choose to move to England, for them that would be akin to maintaining the status quo. I just can't comprehend the reasons why a yes man would leave the country they felt so strongly for?
Regardless, both scenarios are a bit like biting ones nose off to spite your face!

[ronaldo7]

Alex Salmond nominates David Cameron for the Ice bucket challenge.


















































































13335

[Northernhibee]

The Irish Republic maybe? More of a democracy thank the UK that's for sure.

As it stands we get the chance to vote in our MSP, our MP and our MEP.

[Stranraer]

Alex Salmond nominates David Cameron for the Ice bucket challenge.


















































































13335

And he has rejected :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

As it stands we get the chance to vote in our MSP, our MP and our MEP.

Ireland - 4.6m people 11 MEPs
Scotland - 5.3m people 6 MEPs

[Moulin Yarns]

Ireland - 4.6m people 11 MEPs
Scotland - 5.3m people 6 MEPs

I can't check at the mo but I guess Ireland has about 4 Council votes in the EU, compared to our big fat zero

[Stranraer]

As it stands we get the chance to vote in our MSP, our MP and our MEP.

Yes I am aware of that but (and sorry to repeat it again) but we are governed by a party that we overwhelmingly rejected at the General election. I firmly believe whatever party the majority of Scots elect should be in control of Scotland.

[CapitalGreen]

I can't check at the mo but I guess Ireland has about 4 Council votes in the EU, compared to our big fat zero

7 votes actually!

[Moulin Yarns]

7 votes actually!

I did a post a while ago with comparison, look at other Commonwealth countries Malta and Cyprus

[MyJo]

[QUOTE=speedy_gonzales;4140220]I just can't comprehend the reasons why a yes man would leave the country they felt so strongly for?QUOTE]

Because if we're not independent then we could be looking forward to a Tory/UKIP coalition government at the next election no matter who we vote for in Scotland and when the referendum on the UK remaining in the EU comes around even if every single person in scotland voted no if enough of rUK say yes then that is what will happen.

That not even mentioning the possible repurcussions on our budgets and devolved powers from our decision to try and go independent. I dont believe for a minute that anyone in westminster is above "teaching the jocks a lesson" if there is enough of a demand from the voting public in rUK to do so

[Beefster]

Yes I am aware of that but (and sorry to repeat it again) but we are governed by a party that we overwhelmingly rejected at the General election. I firmly believe whatever party the majority of Scots elect should be in control of Scotland.

In the UK election, the UK gets the government it votes for.

In the Scottish election, Scotland gets the government it votes for.

The majority of East Lothian votes Labour in every single election but goes along with the rest of Scotland/the UK because that's how democracy works.

[Hibrandenburg]

In the UK election, the UK gets the government it votes for.

In the Scottish election, Scotland gets the government it votes for.

The majority of East Lothian votes Labour in every single election but goes along with the rest of Scotland/the UK because that's how democracy works.

That view makes perfect sense if you accept:

1. That Westminster will act with Scotland's interest at heart.

2. You consider yourself to be British first.

[Beefster]

That view makes perfect sense if you accept:

1. That Westminster will act with Scotland's interest at heart.

2. You consider yourself to be British first.

Why do you have to be British first? Are we back to the patriotic argument again? I'm Scottish first and British second.

[Stranraer]

In the UK election, the UK gets the government it votes for.

In the Scottish election, Scotland gets the government it votes for.

The majority of East Lothian votes Labour in every single election but goes along with the rest of Scotland/the UK because that's how democracy works.

That's how democracy works? Surely a true democracy elects it's own head of state and it's own government. The Scottish Gov. should have full control IMO.

[RyeSloan]

Yes I am aware of that but (and sorry to repeat it again) but we are governed by a party that we overwhelmingly rejected at the General election. I firmly believe whatever party the majority of Scots elect should be in control of Scotland.

Not entirely true...can't remember the exact figures (think I posted them here millions if pages ago) but something like 35% of votes were cast for the coalition parties in the last general...which compares to something like 45% for the SNP at the last Scottish.

Not an overwhelming difference and in Scotland we currently have a majority government that did not receive the majority of the votes.

I understand an iS government may well still reflect Scotland's wants better but it's wrong to suggest an iS Scotland will always result in the powers that be reflecting the majority of voters.

[Stranraer]

Not entirely true...can't remember the exact figures (think I posted them here millions if pages ago) but something like 35% of votes were cast for the coalition parties in the last general...which compares to something like 45% for the SNP at the last Scottish.

Not an overwhelming difference and in Scotland we currently have a majority government that did not receive the majority of the votes.

I understand an iS government may well still reflect Scotland's wants better but it's wrong to suggest an iS Scotland will always result in the powers that be reflecting the majority of voters.

The Conservative party contested 59 seats and held onto 1 (my constituency unfortunately) < that for me is rejection of them as a party.

[Stranraer]

And I truly believe independence can be a stepping stone to a Scottish republic.

[Hibrandenburg]

Why do you have to be British first? Are we back to the patriotic argument again? I'm Scottish first and British second.

I've said from the off that a person's perception of themselves will dictate to a great extent how they'll vote. It's like any decision we make, we weigh up on a conscious and sub conscious level what's best for us. How we perceive ourselves influences all our decisions.

The referendum is no different.

[Future17]

In the UK election, the UK gets the government it votes for.

In the Scottish election, Scotland gets the government it votes for.

The majority of East Lothian votes Labour in every single election but goes along with the rest of Scotland/the UK because that's how democracy works.

Of course it's how democracy works - the electorate gets the government the majority of the electorate votes for (not quite that simple, but near enough for the point in question).

The question is not whether we get the right government, it's whether we have the right electorate. If the majority of people in Scotland do not believe that the majority of people in the UK will deliver them the government they vote for, then independence is a possible solution.

[EH54]

I don't want the decisions for Scotland to be made 600 ( edit ) 300+ :) miles away where they don't have a clue what is happening up north. I don't want Scotland's voice to be constantly ignored when we say No thanks to WMD's when we say No thanks to the bedroom tax we say no thanks to the welfare cuts and no thanks to privatization of the Royal Mail ( list could go on ). If this was a democracy then the above would never have been imposed on Scotland when the people said No Thanks.

[EH54]

In a democracy don't you elect your head of state?

I'm not saying i'm for or against the royals just making a point

[RyeSloan]

The Conservative party contested 59 seats and held onto 1 (my constituency unfortunately) < that for me is rejection of them as a party.

But surely you need to look at the overall share of the vote to look at how representative the end result is.

Anyhoo I take yer point...the Conservative party is hardly top of the pops in Scotland!

[CropleyWasGod]

But surely you need to look at the overall share of the vote to look at how representative the end result is.

Anyhoo I take yer point...the Conservative party is hardly top of the pops in Scotland!

A couple of interesting points raised over the past few posts:-

1. I am a great fan of the PR-hybrid at Holyrood. It means, amongst other things, that Scottish Tory voters do have a voice in Parliament, one that reflects their popular support.*I'd rather that than the lone voice at Westminster.

2. the SNP's share of the vote at the last election was 45%. That's exactly the number I expect the Yes vote to be in the referendum. So, all those Labour voters that have shifted to Yes, will have been offset by SNP-voters who have changed their minds. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

A couple of interesting points raised over the past few posts:-

1. I am a great fan of the PR-hybrid at Holyrood. It means, amongst other things, that Scottish Tory voters do have a voice in Parliament, one that reflects their popular support.*I'd rather that than the lone voice at Westminster.

2. the SNP's share of the vote at the last election was 45%. That's exactly the number I expect the Yes vote to be in the referendum. So, all those Labour voters that have shifted to Yes, will have been offset by SNP-voters who have changed their minds. :greengrin

On the list vote, SNP+Green+Margo = 49.3% Not sure if there are any other independents or fringe parties I could add in? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't want the decisions for Scotland to be made 600 miles away where they don't have a clue what is happening up north. I don't want Scotland's voice to be constantly ignored when we say No thanks to WMD's when we say No thanks to the bedroom tax we say no thanks to the welfare cuts and no thanks to privatization of the Royal Mail ( list could go on ). If this was a democracy then the above would never have been imposed on Scotland when the people said No Thanks.

Decisions for Scotland are made in northern France? Who knew? :confused::greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

But surely you need to look at the overall share of the vote to look at how representative the end result is.

Anyhoo I take yer point...the Conservative party is hardly top of the pops in Scotland!

I did an analysis of % votes to seats many pages back.

[JeMeSouviens]

Higher food prices - as it stands, the cost of delivering food to supermarkets in Inverness and further north etc. is shared throughout the whole of the UK so it keeps costs down. In a smaller market it would be more volatile to increases of delivery charges further north.


I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Tesco is not an arm of the British state. :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

On the list vote, SNP+Green+Margo = 49.3% Not sure if there are any other independents or fringe parties I could add in? :wink:

As a numbers man, I am therefore intrigued by the opinion polls...... not that I usually rely on them. (see Kinnock, N, 1992 :greengrin)

Presumably, that 49% represents people who supported the independence-parties, but not necessarily independence itself. eg those who voted AGAINST Labour, or those for whom there was a local issue that was more important.

If, though, that 49% holds, the opinion polls are guff.....:cb

[EH54]

Decisions for Scotland are made in northern France? Who knew? :confused::greengrin


Geography was never my strong point :thumbsup:

[JeMeSouviens]

As a numbers man, I am therefore intrigued by the opinion polls...... not that I usually rely on them. (see Kinnock, N, 1992 :greengrin)

Presumably, that 49% represents people who supported the independence-parties, but not necessarily independence itself. eg those who voted AGAINST Labour, or those for whom there was a local issue that was more important.

If, though, that 49% holds, the opinion polls are guff.....:cb

It is intriguing, although 49% would be within statistical margin of error for quite a few polls now. Funny you should mention 1992, as we may be seeing "Shy Yes" in a way similar to "Shy Tory" back then. Not long until we find out.

[Just Alf]

This is a good read i think

http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/scottish-referendum-implications-for-europe-and-international-relationships/

[ronaldo7]

This is a good read i think:agree:

http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/scottish-referendum-implications-for-europe-and-international-relationships/

Most of which has been covered by the Yes team on the EU.:aok:

[Just Alf]

Most of which has been covered by the Yes team on the EU.:aok:

:agree:

[ronaldo7]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303345/Britains-debt-mountain-reaches-1-39TRILLION-equivalent-90-entire-economy-ONS-reveals.html

Who says it's not broke. Let's fix it, Let's get out while we can.

[sauzee_4]

In a democracy don't you elect your head of state?

I'm not saying i'm for or against the royals just making a point

Correct, and independence is a first step towards removing the monarchy. It certainly won't be happening if we remain in the UK

[Mibbes Aye]

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....

That's simply not true. The vast majority of the highest bands is in the central belt. By the time you add in the cities and big towns outwith the central belt it's well over 80%. That's not rural or remote. Regardless, I'm not sure what the relevance is of them being urban or rural.

I'm also not sure where you get the 25% figure from. 25% of Council Tax Reduction recipients pay nothing, not 25% of people eligible for Council Tax. Look, to be honest, we're winning the argument here and you don't need to use dodgy figures to try and seal the deal for us :wink: :greengrin.

The outcomes of the freeze are plain to see and not disputed - people in the richest band benefit far more from those in the lowest band, while those so poor that they get full Council Tax Reduction don't see any financial benefit at all.

[Mibbes Aye]

I apologise for missing out the word freeze, but the fact remains the Council tax itself is not a fair tax and the tax freeze was forced upon the SNP because the opposition parties at Holyrood voted down Plan A, Local Income Tax.


Did it actually go to a vote? From memory I thought the SNP abandoned it because they knew they wouldn't get it through.

Why was that? Oh yes - the sums didn't add up. There was a £770 million gap in their arithmetic, wasn't there?........

[southfieldhibby]

700,000 postal votes sent out. That's a quite interesting chunk of the electorate.

[Mibbes Aye]

You have repeated, ad infinitum, that the Council Tax Freeze is the flagship policy of the SNP. I find that strange when it does not appear anywhere on the home page of their website (see, I'm doing the research for you)




Keep hearing from you that this is " the Flagship Policy" of the SNP. Just because you've chosen to hang your flag on it doesn't mean it's their Standard. The primary policy of the SNP is and always was an independent Scotland.



Gentlemen, gentlemen, I notice neither of you are trying to defend the policy as contributing to a fairer Scotland :greengrin.

Parties campaign on their policies. At elections, they put their policies in a manifesto and try to secure a mandate.

Cast your mind back to the 2011 Holyrood elections. And to the 2012 local government elections.

What policy do you think the SNP put first in both those manifestoes?

What policy do you think they chose to lead with?

What policy did they decide, "This is the first thing we want people to see when they read our manifesto"?

Have you guessed yet? :greengrin

[marinello59]

700,000 postal votes sent out. That's a quite interesting chunk of the electorate.

And a good thing, it enables many more people to vote. I used to vote by proxy but a lot of people who were in the same situation as me simply didn't bother.

[Mibbes Aye]

And you've failed in every way to back up your previous claim that the council tax freeze is impacting the lives of the poor.

I dont think we're ever going to reach an agreement on this one and its a moot point IMO in the context of Scotland's right to decide how it governs itself.

I don't normally post like this but I genuinely find it embarrassing that anyone would try and contest the impact of the council tax freeze on the poor.

There's research out there by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Unison however, if you really need a second opinion - Google is your friend.

And don't forget that part of the quid pro quo around the freeze was that the Scottish Government removed the ringfencing around some of the funding that was targeted at those on low incomes and those with disabilities and care needs. Previously councils had to spend it on identified groups and provide evidence they were doing so. Removing ringfencing allowed them to discontinue that and use the money to make up for the shortfall from the freeze and from the demographic pressures of an ageing population. This gets back to the point made by m59 and me that it's tactics reminiscent of Thatcherism, responsibilising others for their decisions.

The Supporting People Fund of nearly £400 million was un-ringfenced by the Scottish Government. That was money earmarked for specific groups - women fleeing domestic violence, people in the community with acute mental health needs, frail elderly people in sheltered housing. You can Google information about how many councils were able to keep funding those services at the rate they were when ringfencing was still in place.

Make no mistake, this freeze impacts on the poor and the vulnerable and it adds insult to injury to them to suggest otherwise.

[Stranraer]

In a democracy don't you elect your head of state?

I'm not saying i'm for or against the royals just making a point

The monarchy is out of date, out of touch and undemocratic. It's about time we elected our head of state.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't normally post like this

No, you've hardly mentioned it. :rolleyes:

Ok, council tax freeze bad, we get it. Will happily vote for a party opposing it in the 2016 election to iScotland's first parliament. How's that?

Now, the NHS, is it safe with the Tories or not? :wink:

[Stranraer]

Watching the debate, I forgot how much of a turn-off Darling is, it's like watching paint dry.

[MyJo]

If the council tax freeze is so bad maybe we should be voting for a party that wants to abolish this and introduce a new council tax system based on a persons income so that its fairer for everyone.........if only there was a way for us to ensure that a policy like that could be implemented in scottish society by the scottish government without being overuled?

oh hang on.................

[bawheid]

Salmond's killing him on oil.

[Beefster]

a party that wants to abolish this and introduce a new council tax system based on a persons income

So income tax then?

[marinello59]

Salmond's killing him on oil.

Aye.
And he is coming out on top with the currency questions this time round as well.

[Stranraer]

Salmond is killing it, get it up ye Darling!

[tcm1875]

That's simply not true. The vast majority of the highest bands is in the central belt. By the time you add in the cities and big towns outwith the central belt it's well over 80%. That's not rural or remote. Regardless, I'm not sure what the relevance is of them being urban or rural.

I'm also not sure where you get the 25% figure from. 25% of Council Tax Reduction recipients pay nothing, not 25% of people eligible for Council Tax. Look, to be honest, we're winning the argument here and you don't need to use dodgy figures to try and seal the deal for us :wink: :greengrin.

The outcomes of the freeze are plain to see and not disputed - people in the richest band benefit far more from those in the lowest band, while those so poor that they get full Council Tax Reduction don't see any financial benefit at all.


The 25% is your figures of people who don't pay anything. The 12% is from the National Records of Scotland. A simple google is your friend search....... Page 33

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/household-estimates/he-10/households-dwellings-est-2010.pdf

[Hibs Class]

Aye.
And he is coming out on top with the currency questions this time round as well.

i don't think so. A mandate for a negotiating position is quite different to defining what the ultimate position would be. Hypothetically, in the event of a yes vote the rUK could hold a referendum on what the rUK negotiating position should be in currency negotiations. If rUK mandate is to avoid currency union at all costs then there is an impasse and something has to give. Salmond earned applause but did not add any clarity at all.

[bawheid]

Currency is all Darling's got and he knows it. Salmond has destroyed him on everything else and has held his own on this issue as well.

[NOLA]

salmonds still a knob though cannae stand the **** :trumpet:

[Pretty Boy]

salmonds still a knob though cannae stand the **** :trumpet:

Love him or loathe him, and i tend towards the latter, he's a very good politician.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not tbh.

[Hibs Class]

The cross examination is quite embarrassing on both sides. Suspect Salmond will be seen to have come out on top in that part, but IMHO everyone, regardless of voting intentions, deserves so much better than those displays of juvenile behaviour and disinformation.

[Canongatehibs]

Love him or loathe him, and i tend towards the latter, he's a very good politician.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not tbh.

Darling's doing my tits in! Im suddenly a YES man. If he thinks by him being more articulate than his rival will win over fans then he's sadly mistaken.

[Mibbes Aye]

The 25% is your figures of people who don't pay anything. The 12% is from the National Records of Scotland. A simple google is your friend search....... Page 33

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/household-estimates/he-10/households-dwellings-est-2010.pdf

You've read it wrong then. I never said 25% didn't pay anything, I said 25% of people entitled to the reduction got a 100% reduction i.e. didn't pay anything. That's quite different.

As for your 12% i'm not disagreeing with that. I was disagreeing with your point that they mostly lived in remote or rural areas. They don't. And I still don't see what the relevance is

[Canongatehibs]

Salmond is killing it, get it up ye Darling!

Darling's a sad old Westminster cronie. No thanks to the NO's!

[J-C]

i don't think so. A mandate for a negotiating position is quite different to defining what the ultimate position would be. Hypothetically, in the event of a yes vote the rUK could hold a referendum on what the rUK negotiating position should be in currency negotiations. If rUK mandate is to avoid currency union at all costs then there is an impasse and something has to give. Salmond earned applause but did not add any clarity at all.

Apart from saying in the end we'll still ahve the pound no matter what the outcome, seems pretty clear to me.

[Mibbes Aye]

No, you've hardly mentioned it. :rolleyes:

Ok, council tax freeze bad, we get it. Will happily vote for a party opposing it in the 2016 election to iScotland's first parliament. How's that?

Now, the NHS, is it safe with the Tories or not? :wink:

This isn't really about the freeze though. The freeze essentially illustrates a point.

The main party that wants us to vote 'Yes' says it wants a fairer Scotland. It says we can have a fairer Scotland through independence.

Yet when it has powers to tackle inequality it chooses to lead with a policy that promotes inequality.

Why should anyone believe them when it comes to what makes a fairer Scotland?

[J-C]

Salmond has wiped the floor with Darling, even pointing out that he was having a debate with a Labour politiion rather than anyone from the UK Governament.

[Hibs Class]

Apart from saying in the end we'll still ahve the pound no matter what the outcome, seems pretty clear to me.


It's the terms on which Scotland would have the pound that lacks clarity or agreement.

[Stranraer]

The point is nobody can stop an iScotland from using the pound, what part of that do the Unionists not understand?

[J-C]

You've read it wrong then. I never said 25% didn't pay anything, I said 25% of people entitled to the reduction got a 100% reduction i.e. didn't pay anything. That's quite different.

As for your 12% i'm not disagreeing with that. I was disagreeing with your point that they mostly lived in remote or rural areas. They don't. And I still don't see what the relevance is


So that's 3% who get 100% reduction but unless you know everyone's reasons for getting 100% reduction, it's a sweeping statement to make.

[J-C]

It's the terms on which Scotland would have the pound that lacks clarity or agreement.

No he said he'd take on our share on the UK debt, if that is not forthcoming, then we go it alone with the pound. Hundreds of independant countries have their own currency, what's the difference with Scotland.

[21.05.2016]

Salmond is an embarrasment and making this country a laughing stock!

[Hibs Class]

No he said he'd take on our share on the UK debt, if that is not forthcoming, then we go it alone with the pound. Hundreds of independant countries have their own currency, what's the difference with Scotland.

Salmond can say to the nth degree what he will be asking for. He cannot say with certainty what he would actually deliver in the event of a yes vote.

[Future17]

700,000 postal votes sent out. That's a quite interesting chunk of the electorate.

Works out at just under 17% of the electorate.


And a good thing, it enables many more people to vote. I used to vote by proxy but a lot of people who were in the same situation as me simply didn't bother.

:agree:

[J-C]

Salmond is an embarrasment and making this country a laughing stock!

And Darling isn't, constantly butting and finger pointing, I'm surprised Salmond hasn't stick one on him by now, the times he's looked at him when darling has wagged that index finger, pretty sure a few on here would've grabbed it by now and broke it.

[Mibbes Aye]

So that's 3% who get 100% reduction but unless you know everyone's reasons for getting 100% reduction, it's a sweeping statement to make.

:confused:

[J-C]

:confused:

Soz was beeing sarcy :greengrin the two of you were getting all mixed up with numbers, I just thought I'd add a few to the mix :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Soz was beeing sarcy :greengrin the two of you were getting all mixed up with numbers, I just thought I'd add a few to the mix :greengrin

:rolleyes: :greengrin

[Stranraer]

Salmond is an embarrasment and making this country a laughing stock!

Based on what?

[Canongatehibs]

Not a good evening for Darling and his untrustworthy brows.

[marinello59]

Salmond is an embarrasment and making this country a laughing stock!

I'm no fan but I thought he was very impressive tonight.

[Canongatehibs]

Salmond is an embarrasment and making this country a laughing stock!

And Darling wasn't? Quite simply, he was rolled over this evening. Admit it.

[over the line]

The cross examination is quite embarrassing on both sides. Suspect Salmond will be seen to have come out on top in that part, but IMHO everyone, regardless of voting intentions, deserves so much better than those displays of juvenile behaviour and disinformation.

Totally agree. My overriding feeling from tonight was one of annoyance. I don't really want either of those idiots making important decisions about the nation, what ever form that will take after the referendum. They spoke about people being engaged in politics by the referendum, well I for one was totally turned off by tonights nonsense!

[Stranraer]

Totally agree. My overriding feeling from tonight was one of annoyance. I don't really want either of those idiots making important decisions about the nation, what ever form that will take after the referendum. They spoke about people being engaged in politics by the referendum, well I for one was totally turned off by tonights nonsense!

Excellent post... So if Darling and Salmond are idiots who should be making important decisions on Scotland's behalf?

[JimBHibees]

Currency is all Darling's got and he knows it. Salmond has destroyed him on everything else and has held his own on this issue as well.

Completely agree. Absolutely owned him.

[Hiber-nation]

Hands down win for Salmond but the bickering, petty point scoring and talking over each other was an utter embarrassment

[JeMeSouviens]

Totally agree. My overriding feeling from tonight was one of annoyance. I don't really want either of those idiots making important decisions about the nation, what ever form that will take after the referendum. They spoke about people being engaged in politics by the referendum, well I for one was totally turned off by tonights nonsense!

Excellent. If No are saying it was all childish rubbish then Salmond must have won by the country mile of my (biased) perception. :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Totally agree. My overriding feeling from tonight was one of annoyance. I don't really want either of those idiots making important decisions about the nation, what ever form that will take after the referendum. They spoke about people being engaged in politics by the referendum, well I for one was totally turned off by tonights nonsense!

They were absolutely right on that point. I have never known people to be so charged politically. I even heard 10-year old girls arguing about it on the bus.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=

Good question 3M? I Don't know really, who do you think?

I was looking forward to tonight's debate (not having seen the first one) but I was very disappointed in the end. It was just point scoring against each other and not a sensible debate. I'm not sure why I am surprised and so disappointed really, as every time I accidentally watch or hear anything from parliament, I always think, what a buch of t****!

[Stranraer]

[QUOTE=

Good question 3M? I Don't know really, who do you think?

I was looking forward to tonight's debate (not having seen the first one) but I was very disappointed in the end. It was just point scoring against each other and not a sensible debate. I'm not sure why I am surprised and so disappointed really, as every time I accidentally watch or hear anything from parliament, I always think, what a buch of t****!

It wasn't from Parliament..?

[21.05.2016]

Salmond far more prepared this time but it's still an absolute 100% NO from me.

[over the line]

Excellent. If No are saying it was all childish rubbish then Salmond must have won by the country mile of my (biased) perception. :wink:

No doubt that Salmond had the better performance tonight. I just think they both looked daft and it was just a personal battle between the two of them. Two very good politicians (by which I mean slimy, self serving, liers) acting as politicians do. Don't know why I expected any different really?

[over the line]

[QUOTE=. 3M

I know it wasn't from parliament, what I meant was that it reminded me of the childish behavior that goes on in parliament.

[Moulin Yarns]

This isn't really about the freeze though. The freeze essentially illustrates a point.

The main party that wants us to vote 'Yes' says it wants a fairer Scotland. It says we can have a fairer Scotland through independence.

Yet when it has powers to tackle inequality it chooses to lead with a policy that promotes inequality.

Why should anyone believe them when it comes to what makes a fairer Scotland?

Vote Yes then you can vote in a government of unity. Simple

[ronaldo7]

Another shouty match tonight with Darling's finger under Salmond's nose, and Salmond going on walkabout.

Thought Salmond was better than last time, and got Darling on the run with Disabilities/Welfare/NHS.

Salmond gave a vision for the future whilst Darling had nothing.

[Mibbes Aye]

Vote Yes then you can vote in a government of unity. Simple

Aye, because that's how it works :greengrin

Honest question GF, and this isn't about point-scoring or being argumentative - are you a Green voter? Don't answer that if you don't want to, obviously.

I'm curious about the tension here - some on the Yes camp put great store in the economic benefits of oil, yet I would have thought that Greens would rather we moved as far away as possible from an economy that was significantly influenced by oil?

[Just Alf]

Was it just me or did Darling seem to work to a script on the currency thing?

He went in chasing that plan b answer then when he got his answer, "use £Sterling anyway", which he himself when pressed actually agreed could happen regardless of Westminsters thoughts on the matter, he then carried on as if it had never been mentioned? Heck, even in his closing speech (reading from his script I noticed) he talked as if none of the previous discussions had actually happened!

Is it just me? :confused:

[tcm1875]

You've read it wrong then. I never said 25% didn't pay anything, I said 25% of people entitled to the reduction got a 100% reduction i.e. didn't pay anything. That's quite different.

As for your 12% i'm not disagreeing with that. I was disagreeing with your point that they mostly lived in remote or rural areas. They don't. And I still don't see what the relevance is

I didn't read it wrong, your mistaken. 25% of people don't pay anything, whether that's due to a reduction or not they still don't pay anything.
You said something about my figures being dodgy and now your agreeing with them.
So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?

[The Baldmans Comb]

No doubt that Salmond had the better performance tonight. I just think they both looked daft and it was just a personal battle between the two of them. Two very good politicians (by which I mean slimy, self serving, liers) acting as politicians do. Don't know why I expected any different really?

Why should any of that give you any concern?

Darling is a back bench Labour MP with absolutely no power and Salmond is finished if there is a No vote and faces an election if a Yes vote.

You are voting on whether you want your life run by Scottish people from Edinburgh or by British people from London not on who is the best slimy liar.

My mum switched from No to Yes tonight and she hates Salmond with a vengeance but decided to switch for her grandkids....aww bless.

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't read it wrong, your mistaken. 25% of people don't pay anything, whether that's due to a reduction or not they still don't pay anything.
You said something about my figures being dodgy and now your agreeing with them.
So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?

It's not really difficult. The higher the band, the higher the cash benefit of the freeze. The more expensive your house, the bigger the reward.

And those who pay nothing, those deemed the poorest, get no cash benefit from a freeze.

And the impact is felt in council services, which affect the poorer more than the better-off.

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't read it wrong, your mistaken. 25% of people don't pay anything, whether that's due to a reduction or not they still don't pay anything.
You said something about my figures being dodgy and now your agreeing with them.
So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?

Really?

Really?

If 25% of those who are entitled to reduction don't pay anything at all and you are saying that 25% of all eligible payers don't pay anything then you are suggesting that 100% of us are entitled to council tax reduction.

I'm not convinced........

[The Harp Awakes]

Salmond far more prepared this time but it's still an absolute 100% NO from me.

I'm 100% yes and the reality is neither you or I would be swayed on the outcome of a TV debate. However, Salmond clearly won tonight's debate by a considerable margin and it's the effect that his performance and arguments may have on undecided voters that will matter.

[tcm1875]

Really?

Really?

If 25% of those who are entitled to reduction don't pay anything at all and you are saying that 25% of all eligible payers don't pay anything then you are suggesting that 100% of us are entitled to council tax reduction.

I'm not convinced........


See if you can dodge the question for the third time.

So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?

[Mibbes Aye]

See if you can dodge the question for the third time.

So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?

What dodging?

I wrote this in the post above the one you quoted, feel free to refute:

It's not really difficult. The higher the band, the higher the cash benefit of the freeze. The more expensive your house, the bigger the reward.

And those who pay nothing, those deemed the poorest, get no cash benefit from a freeze.

And the impact is felt in council services, which affect the poorer more than the better-off.

[tcm1875]

It's not really difficult. The higher the band, the higher the cash benefit of the freeze. The more expensive your house, the bigger the reward.

And those who pay nothing, those deemed the poorest, get no cash benefit from a freeze.

And the impact is felt in council services, which affect the poorer more than the better-off.

So those who get a "reduction" is 25%, your figures. Is that a percentage of households or population?
If it's households then 63% of households are seeing a cash benefit from the freeze. That's a massive amount of households outside the top 3 bands.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not really difficult. The higher the band, the higher the cash benefit of the freeze. The more expensive your house, the bigger the reward.

And those who pay nothing, those deemed the poorest, get no cash benefit from a freeze.

And the impact is felt in council services, which affect the poorer more than the better-off.


I didn't read it wrong, your mistaken. 25% of people don't pay anything, whether that's due to a reduction or not they still don't pay anything.
You said something about my figures being dodgy and now your agreeing with them.
So if only 12% of households(in Scotland)are in the 3 highest bands not just H, which you quoted, then how then does that benefit the rich more?


Really?

Really?

If 25% of those who are entitled to reduction don't pay anything at all and you are saying that 25% of all eligible payers don't pay anything then you are suggesting that 100% of us are entitled to council tax reduction.

I'm not convinced........


So those who get a "reduction" is 25%, your figures. Is that a percentage of households or population?
If it's households then 63% of households are seeing a cash benefit from the freeze. That's a massive amount of households outside the top 3 bands.

Who is dodging now? :greengrin

I said 25% of people who get Council Tax Reduction get the full amount off. They pay nothing. You turned that into 25% of 'people' (whatever that means) pay nothing. Where are you getting that from? It sounds a bit made-up........

I'm doubting you, but I'm open to being convinced :agree:

And for the sake of it, people in the very lowest council tax band see a slight cash benefit from the freeze. My point has always been that richer people see a bigger benefit. And the poorest get none at all.

And your 63% number doesn't make sense at all :confused:

We can simplify this though. it's a regressive tax freeze which benefits the rich ahead of the poor. I've not seen any refutal of that from you or anyone else.

Which begs the question, how does a tax that gives more money to rich people than poor people lead to a fairer Scotland?

And therefore why should we trust anything the SNP says about a fairer Scotland?

[sauzee_4]

Who is dodging now? :greengrin

I said 25% of people who get Council Tax Reduction get the full amount off. They pay nothing. You turned that into 25% of 'people' (whatever that means) pay nothing. Where are you getting that from? It sounds a bit made-up........

I'm doubting you, but I'm open to being convinced :agree:

And for the sake of it, people in the very lowest council tax band see a slight cash benefit from the freeze. My point has always been that richer people see a bigger benefit. And the poorest get none at all.

And your 63% number doesn't make sense at all :confused:

We can simplify this though. it's a regressive tax freeze which benefits the rich ahead of the poor. I've not seen any refutal of that from you or anyone else.

Which begs the question, how does a tax that gives more money to rich people than poor people lead to a fairer Scotland?

And therefore why should we trust anything the SNP says about a fairer Scotland?

Mibbes Aye, can you not see with your own eyes that regardless of your political persuasion, an iScotland will be a de-facto fairer country by the virtue of having a fairer voting system? And that it no longer spends money on Nuclear weapons which can be better spent elsewhere? And which will have finally rejected an ideology which it has never embraced (the Conservatives)?

[Hibrandenburg]

Was it just me or did Darling seem to work to a script on the currency thing?

He went in chasing that pl-an b answer then when he got his answer, "use £Sterling anyway", which he himself when pressed actually agreed could happen regardless of Westminsters thoughts on the matter, he then carried on as if it had never been mentioned? Heck, even in his closing speech (reading from his script I noticed) he talked as if none of the previous discussions had actually happened!

Is it just me? :confused:

Nope, I was thinking EXACTLY the same.

[Moulin Yarns]

Aye, because that's how it works :greengrin

Honest question GF, and this isn't about point-scoring or being argumentative - are you a Green voter? Don't answer that if you don't want to, obviously.

I'm curious about the tension here - some on the Yes camp put great store in the economic benefits of oil, yet I would have thought that Greens would rather we moved as far away as possible from an economy that was significantly influenced by oil?


Nah, I've got plenty of experience at the polling booth :wink:

Yes, I'm happy to come out as a supporter of Patrick Harvey. I used to be SNP, but following the information I have absorbed during the past 9 months I have moved to Green, after a failed flirtation with the Lib/Dems :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Another shouty match tonight with Darling's finger under Salmond's nose, and Salmond going on walkabout.

Thought Salmond was better than last time, and got Darling on the run with Disabilities/Welfare/NHS.

Salmond gave a vision for the future whilst Darling had nothing.

Salmond had at least worked out a strategy to answer on currency although I'm not sure anyone would be much more convinced by it. Having said that, Darling absolutely tested the law of diminishing returns to destruction.

Darling had a total mare on new powers, that particular plank of the BT case has more or less dissolved. The NHS and welfare had him on the back foot as well. Labour have got off pretty lightly through the campaign for joining Tories Together, think that is starting to change.

ICM snap poll - Salmond won 65 to 26 (71-29 ex DKs) and had the better arguments by 56 to 36.

Edit: should say also that on the actual Indy question, they got Y49, N51, but only a sample of 505, half the usual size.


(Thank **** Darling didn't bring up the Council Tax freeze, eh? :wink::greengrin)

[JeMeSouviens]

Mibbes Aye, can you not see with your own eyes that regardless of your political persuasion, an iScotland will be a de-facto fairer country by the virtue of having a fairer voting system? And that it no longer spends money on Nuclear weapons which can be better spent elsewhere? And which will have finally rejected an ideology which it has never embraced (the Conservatives)?

Hah! You say that with your Nationalist pipe dreams. We might have become a people at ease with ourselves, eliminate the democratic deficit, move towards a socially just society and rid ourselves of weapons of mass destruction but we'll still be scarred for all eternity by having lived through the iniquitous time of ...

THE COUNCIL TAX FREEZE!!!!!!

:grr::bitchy::boo hoo:

[marinello59]

Hah! You say that with your Nationalist pipe dreams. We might have become a people at ease with ourselves, eliminate the democratic deficit, move towards a socially just society and rid ourselves of weapons of mass destruction but we'll still be scarred for all eternity by having lived through the iniquitous time of ...

THE COUNCIL TAX FREEZE!!!!!!

:grr::bitchy::boo hoo:

A bit shoddy no? Mibbes Aye had argued his case respectfully and with evidence to back it up. Responding with ridicule hardly seems fair.
I agree with him that the council tax freeze is something that the Tory party would be proud to call their own. Wrapping it up in the saltire doesn't change things. I haven't seen anybody prodice a credible argument to disprove that.
The only way that we will get a fairer form of local government funding though is to vote Yes. Add
devolving more powers down to a local level ( unlikely under SNP but hopefully they will be out of power) and we will be well on the way to a fairer Scotland:
This vote is not about supporting the SNP and if we want to win it then that message has to be repeated loud and clear for the next three weeks.

[Alex Trager]

I understand to a certain extent that the level of debate is poor. But I really don't think that we would get any better anywhere else. Thing is it's a massively emotional thing and these guys are people.
If you look beyond the two of them asking each other questions, they were, in my opinion, offering up their side of the story well.

I would invite any that don't think the level of debate is any good, to go ahead and debate themselves.

It is a hard thing to do.

[JeMeSouviens]

A bit shoddy no? Mibbes Aye had argued his case respectfully and with evidence to back it up. Responding with ridicule hardly seems fair.
I agree with him that the council tax freeze is something that the Tory party would be proud to call their own. Wrapping it up in the saltire doesn't change things. I haven't seen anybody prodice a credible argument to disprove that.
The only way that we will get a fairer form of local government funding though is to vote Yes. Add
devolving more powers down to a local level ( unlikely under SNP but hopefully they will be out of power) and we will be well on the way to a fairer Scotland:
This vote is not about supporting the SNP and if we want to win it then that message has to be repeated loud and clear for the next three weeks.

A bit precious? It was intended to be a bit of ott leg pull. If I have misjudged the thickness of Mibbes Aye's skin and caused offence, I do apologise.

However, I've already stated I agree with MA's analysis of the issue but to use one ill-judged policy as (it would seem) the sole argument against Scottish independence does seem to me to be literally ridiculous. Presumably it's largely tribally inspired Nat-bashing?

I think for the most part, arguing about individual policies is a red herring. It's about getting the structure right. Bad policy will still be bad policy in a better structure but good policy in a better structure would be best of all.

The exception to this are policies like the poll tax, bedroom tax, trident which are good examples of bad policies that Scotland would not vote for but gets from the UK. For anyone who believes Scotland should be a real country, that's a democratic deficit. Banging on an on about a bad policy that Scotland *has* voted for seems, at best, somewhat tangential.

[marinello59]

A bit precious? It was intended to be a bit of ott leg pull. If I have misjudged the thickness of Mibbes Aye's skin and caused offence, I do apologise.

However, I've already stated I agree with MA's analysis of the issue but to use one ill-judged policy as (it would seem) the sole argument against Scottish independence does seem to me to be literally ridiculous. Presumably it's largely tribally inspired Nat-bashing?

I think for the most part, arguing about individual policies is a red herring. It's about getting the structure right. Bad policy will still be bad policy in a better structure but good policy in a better structure would be best of all.

The exception to this are policies like the poll tax, bedroom tax, trident which are good examples of bad policies that Scotland would not vote for but gets from the UK. For anyone who believes Scotland should be a real country, that's a democratic deficit. Banging on an on about a bad policy that Scotland *has* voted for seems, at best, somewhat tangential.

And there's where we agree 100%.

[Speedy]

The point is nobody can stop an iScotland from using the pound, what part of that do the Unionists not understand?

That's correct but nobody has said what that actually means.

Salmond kept side stepping the question on security.

He also talked about not having to take on liabilities if we are denied assets - that whole argument is mixed up. Nobody would be denying Scotland its assets at the point of break-up, they'd be denying Scotland access to foreign assets beyond that point. Completely different imo.


Unfortunately there was a lot of classic politics from both of them. Picking holes in each others comments rather than answering questions.

[Stranraer]

That's correct but nobody has said what that actually means.

Salmond kept side stepping the question on security.

He also talked about not having to take on liabilities if we are denied assets - that whole argument is mixed up. Nobody would be denying Scotland its assets at the point of break-up, they'd be denying Scotland access to foreign assets beyond that point. Completely different imo.


Unfortunately there was a lot of classic politics from both of them. Picking holes in each others comments rather than answering questions.

Well I like others on here think Darling was reading from a script. He and the No camp must know that the currency is the only thing they can possibly win this debate on. Labour offer no positive vision for the future of Scotland and to a point I think Salmond was right - he is sharing a platform with two political party's that he claims to have very little in common with. That's one thing, but the Labour party are busy trying to please middle England and win back votes only Tony Blair had by accepting that public spending cuts are inevitable. I'm not a fan of the Conservative party but at least they have been consistent. All the Labour mob have done is originally oppose the cuts then changed their mind when they see how little they are trusted with the economy.

[Fergus52]

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.

I think you'll find that the snp have released a few statements about the new oil finds

[marinello59]

I think you'll find that the snp have released a few statements about the new oil finds

Are you saying they have released information which wasn't already in the public domain? I doubt that very much. There was stuff on Facebook proving that the 'secret' oil finds were genuine by quoting newspaper reports about them. So secret that they were reported in the press already. Hilarious stuff.

[Speedy]

Well I like others on here think Darling was reading from a script. He and the No camp must know that the currency is the only thing they can possibly win this debate on. Labour offer no positive vision for the future of Scotland and to a point I think Salmond was right - he is sharing a platform with two political party's that he claims to have very little in common with. That's one thing, but the Labour party are busy trying to please middle England and win back votes only Tony Blair had by accepting that public spending cuts are inevitable. I'm not a fan of the Conservative party but at least they have been consistent. All the Labour mob have done is originally oppose the cuts then changed their mind when they see how little they are trusted with the economy.

I think he was too. They covered currency but going back to discuss it again at cross examination made him look like an idiot.

That doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about my previous post though...

[heretoday]

Cameron should be up here really. It doesn't look good. He's risking going down in history as the PM who presided over the break-up of the UK.

Mind you, I can't believe people would be so fickle as to make their minds up on the strength of a TV debate of poor quality.

Actually, I can.

[Moulin Yarns]

My wife had a very short discussion with a colleague at work who is voting no because she likes Boris Johnson (honest!) but, here is the thing, my wife mentioned the chance to get rid of Trident, to which she got the reply "what is that?"

Seriously, if that is

A) the reason for voting no, and

B) the level of knowledge that some people are basing their vote on

Then we ar well and truly f ucked

[CropleyWasGod]

My wife had a very short discussion with a colleague at work who is voting no because she likes Boris Johnson (honest!) but, here is the thing, my wife mentioned the chance to get rid of Trident, to which she got the reply "what is that?"

Seriously, if that is

A) the reason for voting no, and

B) the level of knowledge that some people are basing their vote on

Then we ar well and truly f ucked

Going to play Devil's Advocate here.

People vote for all sorts of reasons. The woman who asked Salmond last year if she would still be able to watch East Enders in an iS was roundly ridiculed. I had sympathy for her.... she's not interested in currency union, social justice or Trident. Enders is important in her life, and she's entitled to vote on that basis.

As is the woman who likes Boris. We might scoff at that, but it's a failing of all politicians if they don't reach out to ALL voters, not just Mondeo man, or the reasonable thinkers such as on this board.

One last point. For every Boris-lover, there will be a Braveheart-lover. :agree:

[Stranraer]

Cameron should be up here really. It doesn't look good. He's risking going down in history as the PM who presided over the break-up of the UK.

Mind you, I can't believe people would be so fickle as to make their minds up on the strength of a TV debate of poor quality.

Actually, I can.

If Cameron comes up here it will do the Yes campaign a lot of good. I suspect some people will be telling him to "go home" which is a shame.

[Stranraer]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here.

People vote for all sorts of reasons. The woman who asked Salmond last year if she would still be able to watch East Enders in an iS was roundly ridiculed. I had sympathy for her.... she's not interested in currency union, social justice or Trident. Enders is important on her life, and she's entitled to vote on that basis.

As is the woman who likes Boris. We might scoff at that, but it's a failing of all politicians if they don't reach out to ALL voters, not just Mondeo man, or the reasonable thinkers such as on this board.

One last point. For every Boris-lover, there will be a Braveheart-lover. :agree:

Very good post :top marks

[Speedy]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here.

People vote for all sorts of reasons. The woman who asked Salmond last year if she would still be able to watch East Enders in an iS was roundly ridiculed. I had sympathy for her.... she's not interested in currency union, social justice or Trident. Enders is important on her life, and she's entitled to vote on that basis.

As is the woman who likes Boris. We might scoff at that, but it's a failing of all politicians if they don't reach out to ALL voters, not just Mondeo man, or the reasonable thinkers such as on this board.

One last point. For every Boris-lover, there will be a Braveheart-lover. :agree:

Agreed.

Had a wee chuckle to myself when I saw this on facebook last night:

"Voting yes and not a **** is given

Can't deal with darlings eyebrows any more 🙈! Scotland is a *****hole but it's our *****hole!"

[Speedy]

If Cameron comes up here it will do the Yes campaign a lot of good. I suspect some people will be telling him to "go home" which is a shame.

Agree. The best thing Cameron can do for the better together campaign is say nothing.

Anything he says will be ripped apart and will do the yes campaign a big favour.

[Hibs Class]

Agree. The best thing Cameron can do for the better together campaign is say nothing.

Anything he says will be ripped apart and will do the yes campaign a big favour.

Agree, the yes campaign have been presenting a no vote as a vote for the tories. If Cameron was to come for a debate it would just be even more of the same.

[Just Alf]

That's correct but nobody has said what that actually means.

Salmond kept side stepping the question on security.

He also talked about not having to take on liabilities if we are denied assets - that whole argument is mixed up. Nobody would be denying Scotland its assets at the point of break-up, they'd be denying Scotland access to foreign assets beyond that point. Completely different imo.


Unfortunately there was a lot of classic politics from both of them. Picking holes in each others comments rather than answering questions.

Bit in bold.....

I'm a pretty simple person (shut it you lot, before you say anything! :greengrin ) but wouldn't mind seeing this discussed a bit more.

If my wife and I are splitting up, and she's keeping the house then surely I would get, say, 10% of its value if I've been paying a 10% share?

Now, just to complicate matters, it's in negative equity :rolleyes: , and she wants me to KEEP paying, if I take my 10% of payments away it's harder for her to keep up the payments after all .... in that scenario what do I get? at the moment it feels like Mrs rUK is keeping the house, not giving Mr Scotty my 10% of it and also want me to continue to pay the mortgage?

that about it? :confused:

[The Modfather]

Bit in bold.....

I'm a pretty simple person (shut it you lot, before you say anything! :greengrin ) but wouldn't mind seeing this discussed a bit more.

If my wife and I are splitting up, and she's keeping the house then surely I would get, say, 10% of its value if I've been paying a 10% share?

Now, just to complicate matters, it's in negative equity :rolleyes: , and she wants me to KEEP paying, if I take my 10% of payments away it's harder for her to keep up the payments after all .... in that scenario what do I get? at the moment it feels like Mrs rUK is keeping the house, not giving Mr Scotty my 10% of it and also want me to continue to pay the mortgage?

that about it? :confused:

Yeah, we've not to take our proportionate share of the assets we've helped to build up, just our proportionate share of the debt we were part of building up...

[CropleyWasGod]

Bit in bold.....

I'm a pretty simple person (shut it you lot, before you say anything! :greengrin ) but wouldn't mind seeing this discussed a bit more.

If my wife and I are splitting up, and she's keeping the house then surely I would get, say, 10% of its value if I've been paying a 10% share?

Now, just to complicate matters, it's in negative equity :rolleyes: , and she wants me to KEEP paying, if I take my 10% of payments away it's harder for her to keep up the payments after all .... in that scenario what do I get? at the moment it feels like Mrs rUK is keeping the house, not giving Mr Scotty my 10% of it and also want me to continue to pay the mortgage?

that about it? :confused:

She pays you 10% of the house's value. :agree:

[gillie]

If we get independece and keep the pound, we will be in a very difficult position whereas you have two separate countries with differing economic needs yet out interest rates would be set by an English bank based on the needs of the English economy, what's a good rate for England might not be a good rate for Scotland

[CropleyWasGod]

If we get independece and keep the pound, we will be in a very difficult position whereas you have two separate countries with differing economic needs yet out interest rates would be set by an English bank based on the needs of the English economy, what's a good rate for England might not be a good rate for Scotland

That would only be the case in a currency union. However, I can't see rUK actually going through with their threat not to have a union.

I also can't see a scenario where interest rates in rUK and iS will be very different. Let's not forget that UK rates are currently driven, in the main, by what is happening with the $ and the Euro. That will continue to be the case, in whatever set-up we're in.

[GlesgaeHibby]

That would only be the case in a currency union. However, I can't see rUK actually going through with their threat not to have a union.

I also can't see a scenario where interest rates in rUK and iS will be very different. Let's not forget that UK rates are currently driven, in the main, by what is happening with the $ and the Euro. That will continue to be the case, in whatever set-up we're in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLEc9akhHHw

Sturgeon explains why they wouldn't go through with the threat very well in this video.

[Speedy]

Yeah, we've not to take our proportionate share of the assets we've helped to build up, just our proportionate share of the debt we were part of building up...

How are we not getting a share of the assets?

[over the line]

Bit in bold.....

I'm a pretty simple person (shut it you lot, before you say anything! :greengrin ) but wouldn't mind seeing this discussed a bit more.

If my wife and I are splitting up, and she's keeping the house then surely I would get, say, 10% of its value if I've been paying a 10% share?

Now, just to complicate matters, it's in negative equity :rolleyes: , and she wants me to KEEP paying, if I take my 10% of payments away it's harder for her to keep up the payments after all .... in that scenario what do I get? at the moment it feels like Mrs rUK is keeping the house, not giving Mr Scotty my 10% of it and also want me to continue to pay the mortgage?

that about it? :confused:

I love a good analogy. :)

In this husband & wife scenario, the husband will be keeping the upstairs of the house and also the solar panels on the roof (that's the oil of course). So under those circumstances I think the husband would be expected to pay toward the mortgage?

[Moulin Yarns]

I love a good analogy. :)

In this husband & wife scenario, the husband will be keeping the upstairs of the house and also the solar panels on the roof (that's the oil of course). So under those circumstances I think the husband would be expected to pay toward the mortgage?

Unless the wife doesn't want to give the husband the house but wants him to keep paying the mortgage.

[over the line]

Unless the wife doesn't want to give the husband the house but wants him to keep paying the mortgage.

I think I need clarity with regards to what 'the house' is? It is obviously Scotland itself and all the fixtures and fitting. What else is it?

[Just Alf]

I think I need clarity with regards to what 'the house' is? It is obviously Scotland itself and all the fixtures and fitting. What else is it?

Ah! A question I can actually answer at thus time of night :agree:


The house in my wee scenario is UK's assets ... Ships, planes, government buildings (across the world), a bit of the Bank of England etc etc....

[over the line]

Ah! A question I can actually answer at thus time of night :agree:


The house in my wee scenario is UK's assets ... Ships, planes, government buildings (across the world), a bit of the Bank of England etc etc....

Right, think I've got it now.

So going back to the divorce analogy, rather than the house comparison, its more like negotiating for the car, the holiday caravan and access to the joint bank account, is that it?

Still leaves the problem of those pesky credit cards that are maxed out to f***! They are still in both his and her names aren't they?

[CropleyWasGod]

Right, think I've got it now.

So going back to the divorce analogy, rather than the house comparison, its more like negotiating for the car, the holiday caravan and access to the joint bank account, is that it?

Still leaves the problem of those pesky credit cards that are maxed out to f***! They are still in both his and her names aren't they?
And which the husband has offered to pay 10% of. After all, the wife bought a lot of shoes.

[Just Alf]

Right, think I've got it now.

So going back to the divorce analogy, rather than the house comparison, its more like negotiating for the car, the holiday caravan and access to the joint bank account, is that it?

Still leaves the problem of those pesky credit cards that are maxed out to f***! They are still in both his and her names aren't they?


And which the husband has offered to pay 10% of. After all, the wife bought a lot of shoes.


< expletive deleted! > do you guys know my actual wife!!!! :Ummm:

[over the line]

And which the husband has offered to pay 10% of. After all, the wife bought a lot of shoes.

I'm not getting involved in a woman buying shoes comparison again, I've already been in trouble on here for a similar remark! ;):)

But I think the husband spent a few quid on trainers and x box games as well? :)

I am pretty sure that in the event of an iS, it would pay its share of the debt anyway. I think this part of the debate is just politicians puffing their chests out and stamping their feet, for the audience. Got to be seen to be earning their money I suppose?

[over the line]

< expletive deleted! > do you guys know my actual wife!!!! :Ummm:

:D

[over the line]

Ah! A question I can actually answer at thus time of night :agree:


The house in my wee scenario is UK's assets ... Ships, planes, government buildings (across the world), a bit of the Bank of England etc etc....

How would an iS get part of the B of E, how would that work?

[Speedy]

Ah! A question I can actually answer at thus time of night :agree:


The house in my wee scenario is UK's assets ... Ships, planes, government buildings (across the world), a bit of the Bank of England etc etc....

Is there actually any talk/possibility of Scotland being denied those assets? I haven't seen any and don't understand how that would be possible.

It seems the discussion came from Scotland not having the UK assets to support it in the case of a financial emergency. That's correct though because Scotland would've received its share when it left.

Unless I'm missing something.

[over the line]

Unless the wife doesn't want to give the husband the house but wants him to keep paying the mortgage.

I know of plenty of divorces where this is exactly the case! ;):)

[steakbake]

what I want to know is what a tiny country like Scotland would do to hold back the Atlantic Ocean?

Everyone knows that if we split from the rest of the UK, the Iapetus sea would open up again. Without the landmass of the rest of the UK providing a breaker, it'd turn an independent Scotland into a waterworld where we'd have to use shells as currency and go about on boats which, due to the laws of the playground, we suddenly wouldn't be allowed to make.

Can't believe no one has picked up on this most obvious flaw in the separatist cause...

[Mibbes Aye]

Just out of curiousity, this argument about the assets and that :confused:

Scotland votes 'Yes' and expects to walk away with 10% of the UK government's assets....

Where's the democratic mandate for that? Alec Salmon repeatedly talked about the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people last night. But that's got to go both ways, surely?

Surely the people of the UK are entitled to a voice. The UK's assets are as much the property of someone in Plymouth as they are in Perth. As much the property of someone in Cardiff as they are in Cambuslang. As much the property of someone in Belfast as they are in Buckhaven.

The 'Yes' camp are suggesting this is a given. But if Scotland choose to walk out, who has asked the voters in Belfast, Cardiff and Plymouth whether they should give up 10% of the rUK assets?

We hear talk from the 'Yes' camp about shaping our own destiny. They seem a bit too happy to shape the destiny of England, Wales and Northern Ireland without bothering to ask their people. And that smacks of hypocrisy.

[Moulin Yarns]

what I want to know is what a tiny country like Scotland would do to hold back the Atlantic Ocean?

Everyone knows that if we split from the rest of the UK, the Iapetus sea would open up again. Without the landmass of the rest of the UK providing a breaker, it'd turn an independent Scotland into a waterworld where we'd have to use shells as currency and go about on boats which, due to the laws of the playground, we suddenly wouldn't be allowed to make.

Can't believe no one has picked up on this most obvious flaw in the separatist cause...

It is actually the opposite to that in geological terms. The land mass of the UK is slowly tilting, with the south of the UK going down and the north of Scotland rising slightly, so no problem there. :greengrin

It is a result of the ground being released from the weight and pressure of the last ice age.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Just out of curiousity, this argument about the assets and that :confused:

Scotland votes 'Yes' and expects to walk away with 10% of the UK government's assets....

Where's the democratic mandate for that? Alec Salmon repeatedly talked about the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people last night. But that's got to go both ways, surely?

Surely the people of the UK are entitled to a voice. The UK's assets are as much the property of someone in Plymouth as they are in Perth. As much the property of someone in Cardiff as they are in Cambuslang. As much the property of someone in Belfast as they are in Buckhaven.

The 'Yes' camp are suggesting this is a given. But if Scotland choose to walk out, who has asked the voters in Belfast, Cardiff and Plymouth whether they should give up 10% of the rUK assets?

We hear talk from the 'Yes' camp about shaping our own destiny. They seem a bit too happy to shape the destiny of England, Wales and Northern Ireland without bothering to ask their people. And that smacks of hypocrisy.

Thats what will happen during the negotiations after we vote yes. Salmond is asking for a mandate from his own country to begin these negotiations. Ofcourse the people of englandshire could say no, but then we can say things like take trident and be gone within six months, we can refuse to sell them any water, we could do lots of irrational things in return. However we don't want to do any of those things and in reality we wont need to because after we vote yes there will be a very different response coming from london.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It is actually the opposite to that in geological terms. The land mass of the UK is slowly tilting, with the south of the UK going down and the north of Scotland rising slightly, so no problem there. :greengrin

It is a result of the ground being released from the weight and pressure of the last ice age.

you mean eventually we might topple over??? :worried:

[steakbake]

It is actually the opposite to that in geological terms. The land mass of the UK is slowly tilting, with the south of the UK going down and the north of Scotland rising slightly, so no problem there. :greengrin

It is a result of the ground being released from the weight and pressure of the last ice age.

Ahhh but that's now. If people vote Yes, the normal observable laws of geology will no longer apply because Scotland would lose its place in the Royal Geological Society. We might also be thrown out of the national geographic and ordinance survey meaning people won't be allowed maps.

You also didn't answer my point about the shells and boats?

[Bristolhibby]

If we get independece and keep the pound, we will be in a very difficult position whereas you have two separate countries with differing economic needs yet out interest rates would be set by an English bank based on the needs of the English economy, what's a good rate for England might not be a good rate for Scotland

Like in the Eurozone, except us and rUK would be more like Germany and Holland rather than Germany and Greece.

J

[over the line]

Ahhh but that's now. If people vote Yes, the normal observable laws of geology will no longer apply because Scotland would lose its place in the Royal Geological Society. We might also be thrown out of the national geographic and ordinance survey meaning people won't be allowed maps.

You also didn't answer my point about the shells and boats?

Boats: Maybe if an iS told Norway how much it fancies it, they might lend it some boats? I believe they are quite good at building boats, as well as everything else it would seem. :)

Not sure what to do about the shells tbh. :confused:

[Bristolhibby]

Is there actually any talk/possibility of Scotland being denied those assets? I haven't seen any and don't understand how that would be possible.

It seems the discussion came from Scotland not having the UK assets to support it in the case of a financial emergency. That's correct though because Scotland would've received its share when it left.

Unless I'm missing something.

For me there are movable assets - ships, tanks, embassies, national art, treasures, museum artefacts.

There are also immovable assets government buildings located in England/Scotland, maritime borders, council buildings, etc.

We would be entitled to 10% of the former and 0% of the latter.

It gets a bit mucky when there are national projects that Scotland funded.

For example the Army college at Sandhurst. It is physically located in England, but part funded by Scotland and provides officer training for the UK army. I would assume that we would continue to train Scottish Officers (like many other countries do) in the short term until we decide to continue with the arrangement of funding 10% or set up our own school of officer training.

J

[over the line]

Just out of curiousity, this argument about the assets and that :confused:

Scotland votes 'Yes' and expects to walk away with 10% of the UK government's assets....

Where's the democratic mandate for that? Alec Salmon repeatedly talked about the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people last night. But that's got to go both ways, surely?

Surely the people of the UK are entitled to a voice. The UK's assets are as much the property of someone in Plymouth as they are in Perth. As much the property of someone in Cardiff as they are in Cambuslang. As much the property of someone in Belfast as they are in Buckhaven.

The 'Yes' camp are suggesting this is a given. But if Scotland choose to walk out, who has asked the voters in Belfast, Cardiff and Plymouth whether they should give up 10% of the rUK assets?

We hear talk from the 'Yes' camp about shaping our own destiny. They seem a bit too happy to shape the destiny of England, Wales and Northern Ireland without bothering to ask their people. And that smacks of hypocrisy.

With that in mind, who will be liable for the huge costs in breaking up the UK? As you rightly point out rUK do not have a say in the matter, but are they expected to shoulder any of the cost? I suspect they will.

[Hibrandenburg]

If we get independece and keep the pound, we will be in a very difficult position whereas you have two separate countries with differing economic needs yet out interest rates would be set by an English bank based on the needs of the English economy, what's a good rate for England might not be a good rate for Scotland

Exactly like it is now you mean?

[steakbake]

Exactly like it is now you mean?

:agree: Let's keep everything absolutely the same. It clearly works, or we wouldn't be asking the question.

[steakbake]

Boats: Maybe if an iS told Norway how much it fancies it, they might lend it some boats? I believe they are quite good at building boats, as well as everything else it would seem. :)

Not sure what to do about the shells tbh. :confused:

Borrowing from Norway won't work because we would disappear from maritime maps and would have to reapply to Bartholomew's for inclusion in future atlases and navigational charts. That can be a long process and it's taken over 100 years for it to get to the level of detail it is now.

Ironically, Bartholomew's started in Edinburgh, but I think we wouldn't be able to claim it as a shared asset, as it's now owned by HarperCollins.

[Just Alf]

Just out of curiousity, this argument about the assets and that :confused:

Scotland votes 'Yes' and expects to walk away with 10% of the UK government's assets....

Where's the democratic mandate for that? Alec Salmon repeatedly talked about the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people last night. But that's got to go both ways, surely?

Surely the people of the UK are entitled to a voice. The UK's assets are as much the property of someone in Plymouth as they are in Perth. As much the property of someone in Cardiff as they are in Cambuslang. As much the property of someone in Belfast as they are in Buckhaven.

The 'Yes' camp are suggesting this is a given. But if Scotland choose to walk out, who has asked the voters in Belfast, Cardiff and Plymouth whether they should give up 10% of the rUK assets?

We hear talk from the 'Yes' camp about shaping our own destiny. They seem a bit too happy to shape the destiny of England, Wales and Northern Ireland without bothering to ask their people. And that smacks of hypocrisy.


I guess that's what I'm wanting teased out...... I'm trying to say that Scotland should get what it's helped to pay for over the years, some of that has created a deficit of course so of course so in turn, if Scotland does get it's "10%" then it is surely incumbent on it to pay off the deficit that help finance it.... I think that's a given?

What I don't get (currently) is if rUK keep everything why should Scotland continue paying for it?

It's also a good point on the costs to split, I'm guessing that's been agreed when both Westminster and Holyrood signed up to allow the Scots to make a democratic choice? Deep down I actually think that if the UK had moved to a more federal government, a sort of "mini Europe" then we wouldn't be having any of this conversation.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ahhh but that's now. If people vote Yes, the normal observable laws of geology will no longer apply because Scotland would lose its place in the Royal Geological Society. We might also be thrown out of the national geographic and ordinance survey meaning people won't be allowed maps.

You also didn't answer my point about the shells and boats?

Dinnae Fash yersel, mon.

We've got oor ain. http://www.rsgs.org/ I work 5 minutes from it.

As for my previous post about the end of the ice age, I obviously meant the end of the Council Tax Freeze :greengrin

Regarding Shells and boats, I think we will be fine because we could all create offshore shell companies and float the currency in corracles.

[ronaldo7]

The guy who designed oor parliament was indeed a visionary. We can use the boats currently stored on the roof. Job done.

[sauzee_4]

Just out of curiousity, this argument about the assets and that :confused:

Scotland votes 'Yes' and expects to walk away with 10% of the UK government's assets....

Where's the democratic mandate for that? Alec Salmon repeatedly talked about the 'sovereign will' of the Scottish people last night. But that's got to go both ways, surely?

Surely the people of the UK are entitled to a voice. The UK's assets are as much the property of someone in Plymouth as they are in Perth. As much the property of someone in Cardiff as they are in Cambuslang. As much the property of someone in Belfast as they are in Buckhaven.

The 'Yes' camp are suggesting this is a given. But if Scotland choose to walk out, who has asked the voters in Belfast, Cardiff and Plymouth whether they should give up 10% of the rUK assets?

We hear talk from the 'Yes' camp about shaping our own destiny. They seem a bit too happy to shape the destiny of England, Wales and Northern Ireland without bothering to ask their people. And that smacks of hypocrisy.

Is that a serious question mibbes aye? 10% of it is ours, the rest is theirs is that unfair/difficult to understand?

[Beefster]

Exactly like it is now you mean?

To be blunt, that's mince (and the type of misinformation that's common in the debate). The B of E has an obligation to consider all parts of the UK when setting interest rates. If that wasn't the case, they'd have raised them by now.

Post-independence, the B of E will still set rates for the UK. They just won't give a second thought to Scotland any longer.

[Speedy]

For me there are movable assets - ships, tanks, embassies, national art, treasures, museum artefacts.

There are also immovable assets government buildings located in England/Scotland, maritime borders, council buildings, etc.

We would be entitled to 10% of the former and 0% of the latter.

It gets a bit mucky when there are national projects that Scotland funded.

For example the Army college at Sandhurst. It is physically located in England, but part funded by Scotland and provides officer training for the UK army. I would assume that we would continue to train Scottish Officers (like many other countries do) in the short term until we decide to continue with the arrangement of funding 10% or set up our own school of officer training.

J

Suppose that makes sense but obviously some of the immovable assets will be in Scotland.

Maybe over simplifying things but I'd have thought the UK would have a balance sheet and one way or another Scotland would get 10% (or whatever the % is) of that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Suppose that makes sense but obviously some of the immovable assets will be in Scotland.

Maybe over simplifying things but I'd have thought the UK would have a balance sheet and one way or another Scotland would get 10% (or whatever the % is) of that.

That's my view of what would happen in general terms.

However, the logistics will be a nightmare. Although the principle can be agreed with the 18 months, the practice will probably take years to implement.

[over the line]

That's my view of what would happen in general terms.

However, the logistics will be a nightmare. Although the principle can be agreed with the 18 months, the practice will probably take years to implement.

Has the Yes campaign given an estimated cost to the process of dividing up the assets and if so, who foots the bill?

[CropleyWasGod]

Has the Yes campaign given an estimated cost to the process of dividing up the assets and if so, who foots the bill?

That would be part of the negotiation process, I would have thought.... again, similar to the divorce scenario.

How much would it cost for a joiner to put up a partition in the UK Embassy in Brasilia and put a sign on it saying "Scotland"? :cb

[over the line]

That would be part of the negotiation process, I would have thought.... again, similar to the divorce scenario.

How much would it cost for a joiner to put up a partition in the UK Embassy in Brasilia and put a sign on it saying "Scotland"? :cb

I would think this would have huge leverage for rUK in any negotiations, as I can't imagine the citizens of rUK being keen on paying a single penny toward the start up of an iS, nor the patch up of the various parts of rUK affected. I think this 10% figure could be eroded quite quickly under these circumstances?

[CropleyWasGod]

I would think this would have huge leverage for rUK in any negotiations, as I can't imagine the citizens of rUK being keen on paying a single penny toward the start up of an iS, nor the patch up of the various parts of rUK affected. I think this 10% figure could be eroded quite quickly under these circumstances?

So, we have a stand off, with 2 extremes.

1. rUK "we're paying nothing towards the costs of the divorce"

2. iS "we're not taking on any of your debt ".

Given that there is a General Election next year, what do you think the rUK electorate would want their Government to do? Share in the costs, or take on all of the debt?

[Moulin Yarns]

I would think this would have huge leverage for rUK in any negotiations, as I can't imagine the citizens of rUK being keen on paying a single penny toward the start up of an iS, nor the patch up of the various parts of rUK affected. I think this 10% figure could be eroded quite quickly under these circumstances?

While it doesn't say much, the most salient part of the Edinburgh Agreement may well be this.

Paragraph 30 of the Memorandum of Agreement provides that ‘The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’

What that actually means is very much open to debate, but "in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom." suggests that both sides will try to be as even handed as possible, and, the whole "You can't use the pound/have a Currency Union - Aye we can 'cos it's ours anyway" argument, to my mind undermines the above.

On CWG's post, maybe nothing will be decided(made public) by the time of the 2015 election 8 months after the referendum.

[over the line]

So, we have a stand off, with 2 extremes.

1. rUK "we're paying nothing towards the costs of the divorce"

2. iS "we're not taking on any of your debt ".

Given that there is a General Election next year, what do you think the rUK electorate would want their Government to do? Share in the costs, or take on all of the debt?

I'm not so sure it would work like that though?

The cost of splitting the UK is likely to be looked at as being the responsibility of an iS, as the Yes voters want the split, where as rUK have had no say in it.

The debt accrued by the UK as it stands is undoubtedly a burden that is carried by its citizens and the countries that make up the union. An iS would be expected to pay the debt, as Scotland helped to accrue it? (I know none of us asked them to waste our money, nor did we tell the banks to give it away etc but you know what I mean?)I think not paying it would be too big a risk as well, as this would severely damage an iS's credibility with the banks.

IMHO.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not so sure it would work like that though?

The cost of splitting the UK is likely to be looked at as being the responsibility of an iS, as the Yes voters want the split, where as rUK have had no say in it.

The debt accrued by the UK as it stands is undoubtedly a burden that is carried by its citizens and the countries that make up the union. An iS would be expected to pay the debt, as Scotland helped to accrue it? (I know none of us asked them to waste our money, nor did we tell the banks to give it away etc but you know what I mean?)I think not paying it would be too big a risk as well, as this would severely damage an iS's credibility with the banks.

IMHO.

Don't agree.

If your partner leaves you, and wants a divorce, you will still be liable for some of the costs. Legal advice to you, the share of the costs of selling the house etc. You might not have wanted the separation, but the reality is that you will still have to pay for it.

I agree that iS would be liable for part of the debt, but not in a vacuum. It can't be expected to take on the debt, voluntarily, without something in return.

[over the line]

Don't agree.

If your partner leaves you, and wants a divorce, you will still be liable for some of the costs. Legal advice to you, the share of the costs of selling the house etc. You might not have wanted the separation, but the reality is that you will still have to pay for it.

I agree that iS would be liable for part of the debt, but not in a vacuum. It can't be expected to take on the debt, voluntarily, without something in return.

Yes possibly and I'm sure some agreement will be reached over the costs of the divorce (if it happens?). I just think it will be a huge bargaining chip for an rUK. I get the impression that the Yes campaign feel they hold all the aces when it comes to the negotiations, I'm not so sure that they do?

An iS can play off the 10% of the assets against the debt. But that still leaves the extra cost of the split to be settled.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes possibly and I'm sure some agreement will be reached over the costs of the divorce (if it happens?). I just think it will be a huge bargaining chip for an rUK. I get the impression that the Yes campaign feel they hold all the aces when it comes to the negotiations, I'm not so sure that they do?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not so sure it would work like that though?

The cost of splitting the UK is likely to be looked at as being the responsibility of an iS, as the Yes voters want the split, where as rUK have had no say in it.

The debt accrued by the UK as it stands is undoubtedly a burden that is carried by its citizens and the countries that make up the union. An iS would be expected to pay the debt, as Scotland helped to accrue it? (I know none of us asked them to waste our money, nor did we tell the banks to give it away etc but you know what I mean?)I think not paying it would be too big a risk as well, as this would severely damage an iS's credibility with the banks.

IMHO.

The UK has already stated that in the event of independence it will take on all the debt (it wants to be a continuator state with Scotland a successor rather than both being successors, so USSR/Russia/Ukraine rather than Czechoslovakia/Czech R/Slovakia). The Scottish gov says it will offer to service part of that debt (but not own it) as part of a negotiated settlement.

I'm not so sure the banks give a **** who's funding the payments, it's rUK's name on the bill.

[over the line]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million

Interesting article.

There is no doubt there would have to be huge negotiations over almost everything, in the event of an iS. I am not convinced that the Yes campaign are in anywhere near as strong a position as they are making out. I see it as rUK holding the vast majority of the aces. An iS would have to rely on the rUK for a lot of vital stuff, for a good few years and access to all of it will become part of the negotiations.

If the UK split at 8am tomorrow morning, a huge wall appeared along the Scottish border and each side just got on with their own business, I think its fair to say it would cause far less disruption to the rUK than it would to an iS. I think this puts rUK in the box seat for the negotiations and this is not reflected in the Yes campaign rhetoric.

[heretoday]

My wife had a very short discussion with a colleague at work who is voting no because she likes Boris Johnson (honest!) but, here is the thing, my wife mentioned the chance to get rid of Trident, to which she got the reply "what is that?"

Seriously, if that is

A) the reason for voting no, and

B) the level of knowledge that some people are basing their vote on

Then we ar well and truly f ucked

Well that just shows how silent and deadly a deterrent Trident is. Lots of folk don't know it's even there!

[sauzee_4]

Interesting article.

There is no doubt there would have to be huge negotiations over almost everything, in the event of an iS. I am not convinced that the Yes campaign are in anywhere near as strong a position as they are making out. I see it as rUK holding the vast majority of the aces. An iS would have to rely on the rUK for a lot of vital stuff, for a good few years and access to all of it will become part of the negotiations.

If the UK split at 8am tomorrow morning, a huge wall appeared along the Scottish border and each side just got on with their own business, I think its fair to say it would cause far less disruption to the rUK than it would to an iS. I think this puts rUK in the box seat for the negotiations and this is not reflected in the Yes campaign rhetoric.

What aces do the UK hold?

[sauzee_4]

I'm not so sure it would work like that though?

The cost of splitting the UK is likely to be looked at as being the responsibility of an iS, as the Yes voters want the split, where as rUK have had no say in it.

The debt accrued by the UK as it stands is undoubtedly a burden that is carried by its citizens and the countries that make up the union. An iS would be expected to pay the debt, as Scotland helped to accrue it? (I know none of us asked them to waste our money, nor did we tell the banks to give it away etc but you know what I mean?)I think not paying it would be too big a risk as well, as this would severely damage an iS's credibility with the banks.

IMHO.

When I first heard this argument I thought it was nonsense, and I'm sorry I still do (I've tried to see it from the other side).

The UK are fully legally responsible for repaying the debt.

If I have a credit card in my name, and my mrs leaves me, who's been spending money on the card every now and then, does she suffer a mark against her credit rating? The answer is no. Just like Scotland wouldn't.

Now if we look at the "money markets". Anybody who wishes to lend Scotland money wants to know one thing, will I get it back? And a country with no debt, 60% of the EU's oil reserves, a developed economy and a roaring export and tourist trade, would be a pretty decent bet to me.

The money markets know that the UK is responsible for the debt. Scotland wouldn't be defaulting on anything

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting article.

There is no doubt there would have to be huge negotiations over almost everything, in the event of an iS. I am not convinced that the Yes campaign are in anywhere near as strong a position as they are making out. I see it as rUK holding the vast majority of the aces. An iS would have to rely on the rUK for a lot of vital stuff, for a good few years and access to all of it will become part of the negotiations.

If the UK split at 8am tomorrow morning, a huge wall appeared along the Scottish border and each side just got on with their own business, I think its fair to say it would cause far less disruption to the rUK than it would to an iS. I think this puts rUK in the box seat for the negotiations and this is not reflected in the Yes campaign rhetoric.

rUK has a big hand, but iS holds the ace and king of trumps (Faslane and c. £100Bn of debt).

(I should probably say by Faslane, I mean allowing a generous timetable for removal, not offering continued hosting. Anyone who saw Andrew Neill's recent BBC documentary will know that the UK establishment's #1, 2 and 3 concerns are continuing as a nuclear power.)

[Moulin Yarns]

Here is a good take on the debate.

:worms:


Imagine Scotland was already independent and we were about to have a referendum on whether to join a union with the rest of the UK.
Could the Pro-union side convince us that getting together would be better when we were told what would happen to Scotland after such a union? Some bullet points from the campaign…
-Your main Parliament will move 600 miles away, and your MPs will be in a tiny minority & will therefore have limited ability to effect policy on your behalf
-Scotland will get a government it didn’t vote for.
-All of your oil and gas revenues will be handed over to the treasury in London.
-Even though not 1 inch of track will touch Scottish soil your taxpayers will contribute £4.2bn to the HS2 project.
-Your taxpayers will also subsidise the crossrail project to the tune of £4.2bn
-The biggest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe will be built on the river Clyde, just 30 miles from your largest city.
-Even though you only have 8.2% of the UK’s population you will contribute 9.9% of the UK’s total tax take yet will only receive 9.3% of that tax take back to spend in Scotland (you will lose £4.4bn per year to the UK treasury)
-You will devolve all of the economic levers you have used to shape your economy directly to London and will now only have control of 7% of your economy
-Even though 79% of your MP's voted against it we will privitise your publicly owned mail service
-Even though 91% of your MPs voted against the bedroom tax in your parliament, we will impose it.
-Even though 82% of your MP's believed that a VAT increase would be detrimental to your economy, we will impose a VAT increase.
-You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
-Now and again you’ll get dragged into an illegal foreign war.
-An austerity budget will be imposed from London cutting jobs and threatening vital public services even though 81% of your MP's voted against the cuts.
-The financial regulation system will be so weak and so lax that your whole economy will be brought to the brink of collapse.
-The most weak and vulnerable in society, instead of getting the protection and support they deserve will be interrogated and humiliated in an effort to get them off the meagre levels of support to which they are entitled.

Ask yourself, would you vote for such a package?
Would you vote for that union?

This is about democratic ownership, social responsibility and the fact that Scotland on its own will be economically stronger from day one of independence....."

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting article.

There is no doubt there would have to be huge negotiations over almost everything, in the event of an iS. I am not convinced that the Yes campaign are in anywhere near as strong a position as they are making out. I see it as rUK holding the vast majority of the aces. An iS would have to rely on the rUK for a lot of vital stuff, for a good few years and access to all of it will become part of the negotiations.

If the UK split at 8am tomorrow morning, a huge wall appeared along the Scottish border and each side just got on with their own business, I think its fair to say it would cause far less disruption to the rUK than it would to an iS. I think this puts rUK in the box seat for the negotiations and this is not reflected in the Yes campaign rhetoric.

Seriously? With an immediate 10% increase in its national debt?

[CropleyWasGod]

Well that just shows how silent and deadly a deterrent Trident is. Lots of folk don't know it's even there!

While it remains there, let's hope the Russians don't know either. :greengrin

[over the line]

When I first heard this argument I thought it was nonsense, and I'm sorry I still do (I've tried to see it from the other side).

The UK are fully legally responsible for repaying the debt.

If I have a credit card in my name, and my mrs leaves me, who's been spending money on the card every now and then, does she suffer a mark against her credit rating? The answer is no. Just like Scotland wouldn't.

Now if we look at the "money markets". Anybody who wishes to lend Scotland money wants to know one thing, will I get it back? And a country with no debt, 60% of the EU's oil reserves, a developed economy and a roaring export and tourist trade, would be a pretty decent bet to me.

The money markets know that the UK is responsible for the debt. Scotland wouldn't be defaulting on anything

But the credit card is in both names really isn't it? Just because someone changes their name does not absolve them of their responsibility to pay their debt. I think an iS would pay it anyway.

I think we have gone slightly off topic here though? My original point was more about who shoulders the cost of the split, if it happens?

[JeMeSouviens]

But the credit card is in both names really isn't it? Just because someone changes their name does not absolve them of their responsibility to pay their debt. I think an iS would pay it anyway.

I think we have gone slightly off topic here though? My original point was more about who shoulders the cost of the split, if it happens?

In this case, no.

If rUK wanted both itself and iS to be successor states that would be the case, but it doesn't, so it isn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

But the credit card is in both names really isn't it? Just because someone changes their name does not absolve them of their responsibility to pay their debt. I think an iS would pay it anyway.

I think we have gone slightly off topic here though? My original point was more about who shoulders the cost of the split, if it happens?

The spendthrift bitch with the credit card, of course.

:cb

[over the line]

rUK has a big hand, but iS holds the ace and king of trumps (Faslane and c. £100Bn of debt).

(I should probably say by Faslane, I mean allowing a generous timetable for removal, not offering continued hosting. Anyone who saw Andrew Neill's recent BBC documentary will know that the UK establishment's #1, 2 and 3 concerns are continuing as a nuclear power.)

Yes the debt may be a pretty good bargaining chip, for the "we want 10% of everything" negotiations. As I have said, I think an iS would shoulder its share of the debt, because overall it makes sense for it to do so. I also think an iS would get the 10% of everything it seeks. Not sure exactly how that will pan out in reality but I've no doubt a deal would be reached and rightly so.

I think the Faslane issue is a bit of a red herring? I mean what would an iS realistically do to Faslane if rUK didn't move the nukes in time? I don't see it being that much of a bargaining chip really. An iS doesn't want nukes, which is fair enough but its not like they could realistically say, "move them out today", could they?

It's right to say that the rUK does have a big hand though and I fear this has been ignored, or glossed over so far in the debate.

[CropleyWasGod]

Craig Murray makes his bid to become the next David Kelly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CIQ8VVn8AJA

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes the debt may be a pretty good bargaining chip, for the "we want 10% of everything" negotiations. As I have said, I think an iS would shoulder its share of the debt, because overall it makes sense for it to do so. I also think an iS would get the 10% of everything it seeks. Not sure exactly how that will pan out in reality but I've no doubt a deal would be reached and rightly so.

I think the Faslane issue is a bit of a red herring? I mean what would an iS realistically do to Faslane if rUK didn't move the nukes in time? I don't see it being that much of a bargaining chip really. An iS doesn't want nukes, which is fair enough but its not like they could realistically say, "move them out today", could they?

It's right to say that the rUK does have a big hand though and I fear this has been ignored, or glossed over so far in the debate.

The SNP don't expect the nukes to be moved right away. Estimates of the process range from 4-10 years.

[Bristolhibby]

Yes the debt may be a pretty good bargaining chip, for the "we want 10% of everything" negotiations. As I have said, I think an iS would shoulder its share of the debt, because overall it makes sense for it to do so. I also think an iS would get the 10% of everything it seeks. Not sure exactly how that will pan out in reality but I've no doubt a deal would be reached and rightly so.

I think the Faslane issue is a bit of a red herring? I mean what would an iS realistically do to Faslane if rUK didn't move the nukes in time? I don't see it being that much of a bargaining chip really. An iS doesn't want nukes, which is fair enough but its not like they could realistically say, "move them out today", could they?

It's right to say that the rUK does have a big hand though and I fear this has been ignored, or glossed over so far in the debate.

Why not? Re Faslane? It's Scottish territories after all. Don't under estimate the power of this.

UKs perception of itself is a flash big time Charlie. Charlie needs the fast car to bee seen as a big time "world player" (what ever that is).
We own the garage that allows him to have that flash car.

J

[steakbake]

The SNP don't expect the nukes to be moved right away. Estimates of the process range from 4-10 years.

Jeezo, 4-10 years to get some nukes to the south coast of England - god knows how long it would take us to get them to Moscow or Pyong Yang! It's enough to make a woman vote no...

[CropleyWasGod]

Jeezo, 4-10 years to get some nukes to the south coast of England - god knows how long it would take us to get them to Moscow or Pyong Yang! It's enough to make a woman vote no...

I'm sure Para Handy could get tempted out of retirement to tow them down to Barrow for £50.

[sauzee_4]

But the credit card is in both names really isn't it? Just because someone changes their name does not absolve them of their responsibility to pay their debt. I think an iS would pay it anyway.

I think we have gone slightly off topic here though? My original point was more about who shoulders the cost of the split, if it happens?

Yeah i just wanted to pick up on that point because it's been doing the rounds without being scrutinised imo.

The debt isn't in both of our names the UK Govt. has full legal responsibility for paying it. Scotland has no legal obligation to take any of it.

I do agree with you though that we will in the end

[snooky]

I'm sure Para Handy could get tempted out of retirement to tow them down to Barrow for £50.

And if he can't do it he'll can blame McFail :wink:

[over the line]

Why not? Re Faslane? It's Scottish territories after all. Don't under estimate the power of this.

UKs perception of itself is a flash big time Charlie. Charlie needs the fast car to bee seen as a big time "world player" (what ever that is).
We own the garage that allows him to have that flash car.

J

Yes fair enough but my point still stands, what would an iS realistically do if the nukes weren't removed in time? That's not a confrontational question, I'm just curious to know?

If an iS does want the nukes removing, I'm sure a realistic timetable would be agreed, as I don't really see that there is any alternative for either party really? I don't see it as that much of a bargaining chip really.

[over the line]

Yeah i just wanted to pick up on that point because it's been doing the rounds without being scrutinised imo.

The debt isn't in both of our names the UK Govt. has full legal responsibility for paying it. Scotland has no legal obligation to take any of it.

I do agree with you though that we will in the end

If an iS really wouldn't have any legal obligation to pay the debt, why is it even considering paying it? If the set up is as you suggest, its a bit like me moving house and before I leave the street I pay 10% of my neighbours mortgage for him. Why would I?

[over the line]

The SNP don't expect the nukes to be moved right away. Estimates of the process range from 4-10 years.

And that seems reasonable. If they are to be moved from an iS, then they almost certainly will be. It will take what ever length it takes, as I can't imagine an iS telling them to do a rush job with nuclear weapons etc. So it sounds like this deal is partially done already and its not something that can be done lightly, or messed about with anyway. So that is my point really, how is it an ace card for negotiating with?

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes fair enough but my point still stands, what would an iS realistically do if the nukes weren't removed in time? That's not a confrontational question, I'm just curious to know?

If an iS does want the nukes removing, I'm sure a realistic timetable would be agreed, as I don't really see that there is any alternative for either party really? I don't see it as that much of a bargaining chip really.
You ignored or missed my post. There is no "in time". The SNP haven't put a time limit on it.