Scottish Independence

[Mibbes Aye]

Johnson is yet another Eton/Oxford boy. Don't get me wrong, it would be inverted snobbery to suggest an Eton/Oxford boy shouldn't get to the top if he deserves it but we have an Eton/Oxford PM and the only 2 credible candidates to succeed him as leader of the "natural party of government" (as they like to style themselves) are Osbourne (Eton/Oxford) and Johnson (Eton/Oxford).

I mean, seriously?

Osborne didn't go to Eton.

He did go to a very posh school but it wasn't Eton.

[JimBHibees]

Jeanne Freeman putting Andrew Neil in his place.


http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/04/ttip-and-the-scottish-nhs/

Quite simply superb. Absolutely owned the combed over hoor meister

[Bristolhibby]

Osborne didn't go to Eton.

He did go to a very posh school but it wasn't Eton.

Just the £10,880 a year St. Paul's.

Man of the people.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Just the £10,880 a year St. Paul's.

Man of the people.

J

I'm not disagreeing, though as JMS says, you should be careful about being an inverted snob.

But the point is, once again, a Yesser make an argument that simply isn't backed up by the facts :wink: :greengrin

[CapitalGreen]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degre es

[Hibs Class]

Meanwhile 3 (yes, count them!) of Scotland's distinguished former Secretaries of State for Scotland (whose combined efforts against devolution turned it from a 50-50 in 79 to a landslide in 97) weigh in with a heart rending letter to all of us ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071132/Three-former-Scottish-Secretaries-warn-independence-would-lead-to-decades-of-pain-and-aggravation.html


Memo to BTNT: if you can't even let the current Tory PM loose on Scots for fear of losing votes, what the hell are you letting these 3 chumps above the parapet for? :confused:

Wasn't the current Tory PM in Scotland only last week? Have I missed something?


If you are referring to his refusal to do a TV debate then that's a different question, but it is obvious that it would quickly move from a yes/no debate to a Tory/Thatcher debate. All you have to do is listen to Salmond's repeated anti-Tory rhetoric to realise that a head to head would degenerate even faster than the Salmond/Darling debates.

[Stranraer]

Cameron wanted to host a "debate" with undecided voters on STV but it didn't go ahead.

[ronaldo7]

A letter to England. From our English friends:wink:

http://www.englishscotsforyes.org/a-letter-to-england/

[Mibbes Aye]

Wasn't the current Tory PM in Scotland only last week? Have I missed something?


If you are referring to his refusal to do a TV debate then that's a different question, but it is obvious that it would quickly move from a yes/no debate to a Tory/Thatcher debate. All you have to do is listen to Salmond's repeated anti-Tory rhetoric to realise that a head to head would degenerate even faster than the Salmond/Darling debates.

:agree:

Many Yes posters keep saying Yes is not about Salmond and the SNP.

But they're never slow to turn No into Thatcher and the Tories.

I think it's demeaning and insulting to Scottish voters.

But that chimes with the Yes approach - if you dare think No, then you're feart or stupid :rolleyes:

One question for the Yes camp. Why do women consistently poll 'No' in far higher numbers than men?

Does the Yes camp think they are more feart and stupid?

[JeMeSouviens]

Osborne didn't go to Eton.

He did go to a very posh school but it wasn't Eton.

That's me telt then! ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

Wasn't the current Tory PM in Scotland only last week? Have I missed something?


If you are referring to his refusal to do a TV debate then that's a different question, but it is obvious that it would quickly move from a yes/no debate to a Tory/Thatcher debate. All you have to do is listen to Salmond's repeated anti-Tory rhetoric to realise that a head to head would degenerate even faster than the Salmond/Darling debates.

I said he wasn't "let loose". He only appears (and rarely at that) in front of handpicked closed gatherings of Tories. To be fair, I think he wants to be involved but BTNT won't let him.

[Moulin Yarns]

Cameron wanted to host a "debate" with undecided voters on STV but it didn't go ahead.


Aye, but miss out the part where STV offered a debate, with Bernard Ponsonby AND the undecided voters and Cameron declined BEFORE offering the debate ONLY with undecided voters and you get some balance.

[Moulin Yarns]

:agree:

Many Yes posters keep saying Yes is not about Salmond and the SNP.

But they're never slow to turn No into Thatcher and the Tories.

I think it's demeaning and insulting to Scottish voters.

But that chimes with the Yes approach - if you dare think No, then you're feart or stupid :rolleyes:

One question for the Yes camp. Why do women consistently poll 'No' in far higher numbers than men?

Does the Yes camp think they are more feart and stupid?

REALLY???

As for women polling no in "Far Higher Numbers" can you provide a source?

In the latest poll, and I have checked, the OVER 64s are the only group where there is a BIG gap

[JeMeSouviens]

:agree:

Many Yes posters keep saying Yes is not about Salmond and the SNP.

But they're never slow to turn No into Thatcher and the Tories.

I think it's demeaning and insulting to Scottish voters.

But that chimes with the Yes approach - if you dare think No, then you're feart or stupid :rolleyes:

One question for the Yes camp. Why do women consistently poll 'No' in far higher numbers than men?

Does the Yes camp think they are more feart and stupid?

Not far higher but a bit higher. Tbh, I've no idea but one thing that is clear from polling is that a very clear majority of people who identify as Scots (regardless of their ethnicity or gender or country of birth) are planning Yes. I am thus heartened that we're not feart. I wouldn't say stupid either, just some are wrong about this. Hopefully not enough for No.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not far higher but a bit higher. Tbh, I've no idea but one thing that is clear from polling is that a very clear majority of people who identify as Scots (regardless of their ethnicity or gender or country of birth) are planning Yes. I am thus heartened that we're not feart. I wouldn't say stupid either, just some are wrong about this. Hopefully not enough for No.

Thanks and fair dos to you for not claiming to have a reason.

There's a thread about the ref on the PM board too and I posted this gender question several weeks ago but no one proffered a reason there either.

It's been higher for No consistently. Not by a million miles but comfortably more consistently.

Why does the Yes campaign not persuade women?

[Mibbes Aye]

REALLY???

As for women polling no in "Far Higher Numbers" can you provide a source?

In the latest poll, and I have checked, the OVER 64s are the only group where there is a BIG gap

Yes, REALLY :greengrin

We can both go back on this thread and find several posts saying that.

As for the polls, I've just done what anyone else who was interested would do - Google using 'referendum', 'polls' and 'women' or the like. Invariably you get the links to the various polling sites and within those, the gender breakdowns.

It has been mentioned broadly in the general debate by both sides, though maybe hasn't been given the attention it should admittedly, so I'm surprised you're querying it?

Same question to you, why does the Yes campaign not persuade women?

[CropleyWasGod]

Thanks and fair dos to you for not claiming to have a reason.

There's a thread about the ref on the PM board too and I posted this gender question several weeks ago but no one proffered a reason there either.

It's been higher for No consistently. Not by a million miles but comfortably more consistently.

Why does the Yes campaign not succeed as well with women?

I don't think you can just isolate "women" as such. The reasons are as various as women and their experiences and lifestyles.

A generation or two ago, when women traditionally were home-makers, it might have been easier to categorise them as a group on their own. Indeed, when I saw the BT video, I felt like I was watching a party political broadcast from the 70's. Things were so much "simpler" then. :cb

Maybe there are just more old women these days......:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't think you can just isolate "women" as such. The reasons are as various as women and their experiences and lifestyles.

A generation or two ago, when women traditionally were home-makers, it might have been easier to categorise them as a group on their own. Indeed, when I saw the BT video, I felt like I was watching a party political broadcast from the 70's. Things were so much "simpler" then. :cb

Maybe there are just more old women these days......:greengrin

Perhaps CWG, perhaps :greengrin

The polling difference seems significant enough to suggest there is something to explore though.

I was always intrigued by the dynamic between Salmond and his opponents. He seems to thrive on trying to be the 'alpha' male, throwing his weight around and adopting almost a bullying, hectoring style.

That arguably worked for him when up against an Iain Gray or the like. And it would sit favourably with a stereotypical perspective where males judged political success on who 'wins'.

It didn't work for him with the likes of Annabel Goldie though, he just couldn't employ the same style and whenever I saw them debate, she trumped him or saw him off, despite having to represent a party that was practically toxic in Scotland.

The flaw in having to defend nationalist ideology is that it isn't consensual, by definition. It depends on arguing that one thing is absolutely better than another thing, it's binary. The reality of people's lives, individually and as a society is much more complex than that and isn't going to be improved by the pattern on the flag fluttering over our civic buildings.

[JeMeSouviens]

Perhaps CWG, perhaps :greengrin

The polling difference seems significant enough to suggest there is something to explore though.

I was always intrigued by the dynamic between Salmond and his opponents. He seems to thrive on trying to be the 'alpha' male, throwing his weight around and adopting almost a bullying, hectoring style.

That arguably worked for him when up against an Iain Gray or the like. And it would sit favourably with a stereotypical perspective where males judged political success on who 'wins'.

It didn't work for him with the likes of Annabel Goldie though, he just couldn't employ the same style and whenever I saw them debate, she trumped him or saw him off, despite having to represent a party that was practically toxic in Scotland.

The flaw in having to defend nationalist ideology is that it isn't consensual, by definition. It depends on arguing that one thing is absolutely better than another thing, it's binary. The reality of people's lives, individually and as a society is much more complex than that and isn't going to be improved by the pattern on the flag fluttering over our civic buildings.

No, it's going to improve because of the power that will be brought to the civic buildings close to us. The nicer flags is just a bonus. ;-)

[CropleyWasGod]

Perhaps CWG, perhaps :greengrin

The polling difference seems significant enough to suggest there is something to explore though.

I was always intrigued by the dynamic between Salmond and his opponents. He seems to thrive on trying to be the 'alpha' male, throwing his weight around and adopting almost a bullying, hectoring style.

That arguably worked for him when up against an Iain Gray or the like. And it would sit favourably with a stereotypical perspective where males judged political success on who 'wins'.

It didn't work for him with the likes of Annabel Goldie though, he just couldn't employ the same style and whenever I saw them debate, she trumped him or saw him off, despite having to represent a party that was practically toxic in Scotland.

The flaw in having to defend nationalist ideology is that it isn't consensual, by definition. It depends on arguing that one thing is absolutely better than another thing, it's binary. The reality of people's lives, individually and as a society is much more complex than that and isn't going to be improved by the pattern on the flag fluttering over our civic buildings.

But that, for me, is one of the most fascinating things about the debate. It's not just about one thing. People are voting as they do for a whole range of reasons. Some selfish, some altruistic, some ideological, some for personal family reasons, some because of the East Enders issue. All of them are, IMO, valid.

As is the notion that people vote for one guy because they don't like the other guy. Superficial, sure, but it happens in elections.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't think you can just isolate "women" as such. The reasons are as various as women and their experiences and lifestyles.

A generation or two ago, when women traditionally were home-makers, it might have been easier to categorise them as a group on their own. Indeed, when I saw the BT video, I felt like I was watching a party political broadcast from the 70's. Things were so much "simpler" then. :cb

Maybe there are just more old women these days......:greengrin

Well women do live longer and older Scots are more likely to be Nos so that would account for a bit of the difference.

If there is a social desirability bias (shy yes) then I guess it might be more prevalent in women but that's just a guess.

[JeMeSouviens]

Btw, I absolutely don't think Scots are better than anyone else but I do think they are the best people to decide things for Scotland.

[Mibbes Aye]

No, it's going to improve because of the power that will be brought to the civic buildings close to us. The nicer flags is just a bonus. ;-)

:greengrin

Yet those buildings close to us already run our children's schools.

Those buildings run our hospitals too and decide what the NHS's priorities are.

Those buildings are responsible for the wellbeing of of our most vulnerable people - frail elderly, people with disabilities.

Those buildings ensure our newborn are registered and our dead are buried.

Those buildings ensure our streets are cleaned, the businesses and services in our communities are safe and regulated.

This is another flaw in the Yes argument. The important decisions already take place in Scotland, either in Edinburgh or in NHS Board and local authority headquarters.

These are the things that actually matter in our day-to-day life. I would rather focus on them than what flag is on our passport.

[Mibbes Aye]

But that, for me, is one of the most fascinating things about the debate. It's not just about one thing. People are voting as they do for a whole range of reasons. Some selfish, some altruistic, some ideological, some for personal family reasons, some because of the East Enders issue. All of them are, IMO, valid.

As is the notion that people vote for one guy because they don't like the other guy. Superficial, sure, but it happens in elections.

Good post and I agree with you.

It infuriates my inner pedant that there's this appeal to a romantic notion that's really just an artificial construct, and people buy into it.

Lesson to self, be more tolerant :greengrin

[Stranraer]

:greengrin

Yet those buildings close to us already run our children's schools.

Those buildings run our hospitals too and decide what the NHS's priorities are.

Those buildings are responsible for the wellbeing of of our most vulnerable people - frail elderly, people with disabilities.

Those buildings ensure our newborn are registered and our dead are buried.

Those buildings ensure our streets are cleaned, the businesses and services in our communities are safe and regulated.

This is another flaw in the Yes argument. The important decisions already take place in Scotland, either in Edinburgh or in NHS Board and local authority headquarters.

These are the things that actually matter in our day-to-day life. I would rather focus on them than what flag is on our passport.

We don't control our own health budget and that is massive for me considering what party runs the British gov.

[NAE NOOKIE]

:agree:

Many Yes posters keep saying Yes is not about Salmond and the SNP.

But they're never slow to turn No into Thatcher and the Tories.

I think it's demeaning and insulting to Scottish voters.

But that chimes with the Yes approach - if you dare think No, then you're feart or stupid :rolleyes:

One question for the Yes camp. Why do women consistently poll 'No' in far higher numbers than men?

Does the Yes camp think they are more feart and stupid?

Salmond is obviously a leading light on the Yes side. He is leader of the only party in the debate formed to campaign for independence and also coincidentally first minister of Scotland ...... but neither Salmond nor the SNP are all of the Yes side as you well know.

The Tories are a blinding example of the differences in attitude between Scotland and the UK ... in modern times Scotland has returned a pitiful number of Tory MPs but has had many Tory governments ... of these the Thatcher one was the most despised, its no surprise that they are used so much by Yes to advance their case. But no contains many Liberals and Socialists ...... George Galloway included, though not officially signed up. Whether that's demeaning or insulting depends on your point of view I suppose.

I would suggest that any view that no voters are "feart or stupid" is as much a product of the Better Together campaigns approach than anything Yes have done ........ Their every utterance is designed to show that an independent Scotland will fail in a financial and social calamity ...... the only aim is to make people fear change.

As for the female vote. According to the latest polls that gap is closing fast. At an utterly uneducated guess it may be that women are more cautious in their approach and take more time to weigh up change ..... both sides have indulged in stuff which I would guess females would find close to patronising ... of late the No camp more than the Yes side.

[Mibbes Aye]

We don't control our own health budget and that is massive for me considering what party runs the British gov.

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

We then devolve the spending to our NHS boards - areas like Lothian or Fife - though their spending is informed by the Scottish Government and what targets and priorities it sets for those boards.

The Scottish Government also has the ability, if it wants, to take a top-slice of that NHS budget and prioritise specific areas for local authorities and CHPs to spend on. Most notably it has done this around care of the elderly in recent years.

And finally, the Scottish Government has tax-raising powers it has chosen not to use but which it could use to bolster the NHS Scotland budget.

[Mibbes Aye]

Salmond is obviously a leading light on the Yes side. He is leader of the only party in the debate formed to campaign for independence and also coincidentally first minister of Scotland ...... but neither Salmond nor the SNP are all of the Yes side as you well know.

The Tories are a blinding example of the differences in attitude between Scotland and the UK ... in modern times Scotland has returned a pitiful number of Tory MPs but has had many Tory governments ... of these the Thatcher one was the most despised, its no surprise that they are used so much by Yes to advance their case. But no contains many Liberals and Socialists ...... George Galloway included, though not officially signed up. Whether that's demeaning or insulting depends on your point of view I suppose.

I would suggest that any view that no voters are "feart or stupid" is as much a product of the Better Together campaigns approach than anything Yes have done ........ Their every utterance is designed to show that an independent Scotland will fail in a financial and social calamity ...... the only aim is to make people fear change.

As for the female vote. According to the latest polls that gap is closing fast. At an utterly uneducated guess it may be that women are more cautious in their approach and take more time to weigh up change ..... both sides have indulged in stuff which I would guess females would find close to patronising ... of late the No camp more than the Yes side.

Read the thread.

It's only the Yes camp who are talking about no voters being feart, stupid or manipulated.

The No camp are either just asking for clarity on some basic points, or are challenging the basic premise of why we should get so worked up about a line on the map and a flag.

[Peevemor]

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

We then devolve the spending to our NHS boards - areas like Lothian or Fife - though their spending is informed by the Scottish Government and what targets and priorities it sets for those boards.

The Scottish Government also has the ability, if it wants, to take a top-slice of that NHS budget and prioritise specific areas for local authorities and CHPs to spend on. Most notably it has done this around care of the elderly in recent years.

And finally, the Scottish Government has tax-raising powers it has chosen not to use but which it could use to bolster the NHS Scotland budget.

OK. So the Westminster government will let American companies build private clinics (that'll be England's healthcare taken care of then). This enables them to cut NHS expenditure in England which, due to an established formula, will also reduce the NHS budget sent to Scotland. If Scotland wants to maintain the current level of healthcare, the Scots will have to pay more income tax.

Doesn't sound great to me but, hey, at least we'll have Trident.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Read the thread.

It's only the Yes camp who are talking about no voters being feart, stupid or manipulated.

The No camp are either just asking for clarity on some basic points, or are challenging the basic premise of why we should get so worked up about a line on the map and a flag.

You chose to bring it up ... the Yes camp are making the point that no's campaign is based on playing on people fears. Job losses, no EU membership, no NATO membership, no viable currency, no consular access abroad, no NHS, no BBC, etc, etc. All of this is echoed in the no supporting press ... that is playing on peoples fears and a hugely biased press could be classed as manipulative. As for stupid .... show me a direct example.

The no camp are given clarity .... they choose to ignore or dismiss any answer they get. The last part of your second paragraph is as dismissive and insulting of my wish to be part of a sovereign Scottish nation as anything I have experienced in the last year ... congratulations.

[ronaldo7]

Read the thread.

It's only the Yes camp who are talking about no voters being feart, stupid or manipulated.


The No camp are either just asking for clarity on some basic points, or are challenging the basic premise of why we should get so worked up about a line on the map and a flag.

Lord George Robertson seems to be doing a good job on his own.

http://www.scottishreview.net/TheCafe53B.shtml

[Mibbes Aye]

OK. So the Westminster government will let American companies build private clinics (that'll be England's healthcare taken care of then). This enables them to cut NHS expenditure in England which, due to an established formula, will also reduce the NHS budget sent to Scotland. If Scotland wants to maintain the current level of healthcare, the Scots will have to pay more income tax.

Doesn't sound great to me but, hey, at least we'll have Trident.

You don't have Trident :wink:

Even under the Tories, NHS expenditure has gone up (as has the settlement to Scotland).

There is a separate discussion about whether it keeps pace with the demand created by demographic pressure and that's a discussion that the nation should be having but it feels lost in the dogmatic climate we have just now.

Don't forget, the Scottish Government gives more than £100m to the private sector, to try and keep the targets it set the health boards.

The healthcare system in Scotland is arguably failing but it's not due to lack of money, it's due to money being placed in the wrong areas i.e too much focus on unnecessary hospital-based care, not enough on social care.

More Scottish income tax would be welcome but it would have to be on the basis of an acceptance, a social contract:

We who earn give some to those who are frail, vulnerable.

And we would also have to accept that the advancements of medical science mean that people live longer, often in ill health, and therefore the costs are likely to increase......

[Peevemor]

You don't have Trident :wink:


But Scotland's share of it's running costs are £163m per year, which could otherwise be spent on, erm, healthcare for example.


Even under the Tories, NHS expenditure has gone up (as has the settlement to Scotland).

Not in real terms (acccording to the NHS ombudsman).


There is a separate discussion about whether it keeps pace with the demand created by demographic pressure and that's a discussion that the nation should be having but it feels lost in the dogmatic climate we have just now.

Don't forget, the Scottish Government gives more than £100m to the private sector, to try and keep the targets it set the health boards.

The healthcare system in Scotland is arguably failing but it's not due to lack of money, it's due to money being placed in the wrong areas i.e too much focus on unnecessary hospital-based care, not enough on social care.

More Scottish income tax would be welcome but it would have to be on the basis of an acceptance, a social contract:

We who earn give some to those who are frail, vulnerable.

And we would also have to accept that the advancements of medical science mean that people live longer, often in ill health, and therefore the costs are likely to increase......


Woah, this is a huge subject that I'm not clued-in enough to debate. However, we have a situation where healthcare in England is going in a different direction to that in Scotland, but the respective budget in Scotland is based on that in England. Surely you can see how this could ultimately be problematic - and raising Scottish taxes shouldn't be the solution.

[Moulin Yarns]

:greengrin

Yet those buildings close to us already run our children's schools.

Those buildings run our hospitals too and decide what the NHS's priorities are.

Those buildings are responsible for the wellbeing of of our most vulnerable people - frail elderly, people with disabilities.

Those buildings ensure our newborn are registered and our dead are buried.

Those buildings ensure our streets are cleaned, the businesses and services in our communities are safe and regulated.

This is another flaw in the Yes argument. The important decisions already take place in Scotland, either in Edinburgh or in NHS Board and local authority headquarters.

These are the things that actually matter in our day-to-day life. I would rather focus on them than what flag is on our passport.

Other replies allude to it, but the one thing all these buildings don't do, is decide what Scotland's overall budget is, to allow those buildings then decide where it is spent. Scotland has the ability to raise tax by 3%, with Independence it will have full control of all tax raising powers, not the small percentage it does now, or the slightly less small percentage it will have in 2016.

Here is the choice, should Scotland be allowed to raise 8% of its budget, or have the ability to raise 100% of its budget. The buildings you mention would then be responsible to spend that as they decide, but the amount can either be decided in Westminster, or Holyrood.

[Just Alf]

A letter to England. From our English friends:wink:

http://www.englishscotsforyes.org/a-letter-to-england/

Interesting read.
I particularly liked this reply below
The 2nd part regarding the "NE Devolution Referendum" was especially eye opening, I'd been taken in by the media output that the NE folks had simply rejected the idea.... defo not so it seems


"Paul Younger September 2, 2014 | Reply
In two years living in Glasgow, in which we have met folk from all walks of life (and none!) we have experienced nothing but welcome, warmth and helpfulness. Even the odd drunken Ned that shouts abuse at any passer-by has so far never made reference to me being English. Although I’m a Geordie who never felt English in my life, the same is reported by family and friends with far more ‘southern’ English accents, I feared the Yes campaign would degenerate into ‘blood and soil’ nationalism, but it really hasn’t – not for a moment in my experience. This is all about bigger issues of who you feel represents you – and the string of London-centric UK governments we have endured have all perpetuated the alienating business of equating ‘national’ priorities with London priorities – just look at the spend on things like Crossrail etc If Geordies felt they could vote against that London-centrism I am sure they would, in a large majority. Scots are fortunate to have that chance.

(Historical footnote for those who might argue that Geordies had the chance in 2004 and blew it: don’t get me started on John Prescott’s disastrous hijacking of the erstwhile Campaign for a Northern Assembly (for which I was the first TV spokesperson)! The North East was never offered a vote on the PRINCIPLE of devolution: we were asked to vote for a very specific package of measures designed by Prescott (in total ignorance of the political culture of our region) that included abolishing both Durham and Northumberland County Councils, with the loss of 500 County Councillors, to be replaced by a hand-picked cabinet of New Labour ‘Yes Men’. Enough people worked for (or was in the family of someone who worked for) the two Councils to defeat that undemocratic proposal, even before you add in everyone else that resented yet another imposition by the Westminster “we know what’s best for you” squad. What we wanted was a yes / no vote on principle, followed by a constitutional convention to hammer out the details. Of course we were later punished for rejecting Prescottisation of the North East, with measures such as obstinate refusal to dual the A1, and eventual abolition of the District Councils in the two counties)."

[JeMeSouviens]

Good post and I agree with you.

It infuriates my inner pedant that there's this appeal to a romantic notion that's really just an artificial construct, and people buy into it.

Lesson to self, be more tolerant :greengrin

It's a construct that's been built over many centuries and contributed to by many waves of immigration. Artificial? Maybe, but as a species we are given to incorporating a tribal identity. "Imagine there's no countries" is fine as a trite line in a song but it doesn't really hold up very well in the real world. Britain is a far more recent and far less naturally arrived at construct than Scotland and moreover, not enough of our people buy into it.

If you want to sustain the British state in Scotland then you have to make people feel more British and less Scottish or, even in the event of a No, we'll just end up back where we are now in another 10 years or so. Imo, the Yes side has already won. Sure, its supporters will be temporarily despondent if the vote is lost, but the concept of independence is now an accepted mainstream idea. Either we get significant new powers and the jump is less next time or we don't, and the demand for them will grow.

Cameron and Darling's dream of a resounding 70% plus No seems unimaginable. I wonder how Iain Davidson's getting on with his bayonet. :wink:

[speedy_gonzales]

OK. So the Westminster government will let American companies build private clinics (that'll be England's healthcare taken care of then). This enables them to cut NHS expenditure in England which, due to an established formula, will also reduce the NHS budget sent to Scotland. If Scotland wants to maintain the current level of healthcare, the Scots will have to pay more income tax.

Doesn't sound great to me but, hey, at least we'll have Trident.
Whilst privatisation of the NHS may be a wet dream to a Tory, we can't give too much credit to Westminster. The privatisation of the NHS is being accelerated through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being pushed through by the EU, the same EU an Independent Scotland aims to join.
I'll be honest and thought NHS Scotland was in relatively safe hands, the weak point being the reliance on the Block Grant, but if we are to be forced to tender out healthcare to US companies then it doesn't matter how much money we have in the pot!

[Moulin Yarns]

Whilst privatisation of the NHS may be a wet dream to a Tory, we can't give too much credit to Westminster. The privatisation of the NHS is being accelerated through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being pushed through by the EU, the same EU an Independent Scotland aims to join.
I'll be honest and thought NHS Scotland was in relatively safe hands, the weak point being the reliance on the Block Grant, but if we are to be forced to tender out healthcare to US companies then it doesn't matter how much money we have in the pot!

I really wish folk would stop using the abbreviation because I am working on the ecological impact on TITP at its new venue*

Footnote: IMHO there not a snowballs chance in hell of it going ahead at the new venue next year (time is not on their side, and neither am I :greengrin )

[Mibbes Aye]

OK. So the Westminster government will let American companies build private clinics (that'll be England's healthcare taken care of then). This enables them to cut NHS expenditure in England which, due to an established formula, will also reduce the NHS budget sent to Scotland. If Scotland wants to maintain the current level of healthcare, the Scots will have to pay more income tax.

Doesn't sound great to me but, hey, at least we'll have Trident.

Is that really true Peevemor?

I've not heard the UK government say that they are scrapping universal health services free at the point of care.

What that means in practice is the money spent on purchasing health care is still being spent and if we stick to the policy above it will increase, due to demographic pressures.

But it suggests that more of that will be spent on purchasing health care for taxpayers from private providers.

I don't agree with that. But it doesn't mean the UK govt are reducing the budget, it just means they are allowing some of it to find its way into the profit columns of private sector companies.

[Mibbes Aye]

But Scotland's share of it's running costs are £163m per year, which could otherwise be spent on, erm, healthcare for example.



Not in real terms (acccording to the NHS ombudsman).



Woah, this is a huge subject that I'm not clued-in enough to debate. However, we have a situation where healthcare in England is going in a different direction to that in Scotland, but the respective budget in Scotland is based on that in England. Surely you can see how this could ultimately be problematic - and raising Scottish taxes shouldn't be the solution.


Which is typically honest of you Peevemor :aok:

I suppose the concern is that the soundbites and unsubstantiated claims dished out - and both sides are guilty, but from this thread I would suggest the Yes camp are worse - are pretty patronising and suggest a bit of contempt for the intellect of us voters.

[Mibbes Aye]

Other replies allude to it, but the one thing all these buildings don't do, is decide what Scotland's overall budget is, to allow those buildings then decide where it is spent. Scotland has the ability to raise tax by 3%, with Independence it will have full control of all tax raising powers, not the small percentage it does now, or the slightly less small percentage it will have in 2016.

Here is the choice, should Scotland be allowed to raise 8% of its budget, or have the ability to raise 100% of its budget. The buildings you mention would then be responsible to spend that as they decide, but the amount can either be decided in Westminster, or Holyrood.

And the main party pushing for independence has said it will give big business a tax break. What public services will be cut to pay for that?

The Yes camp shouldn't be talking about tax-raising powers when its policies are about tax-lowering.

Unfortunately this tax-lowering isn't being targeted at the poorest in our society, is it?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's a construct that's been built over many centuries and contributed to by many waves of immigration. Artificial? Maybe, but as a species we are given to incorporating a tribal identity. "Imagine there's no countries" is fine as a trite line in a song but it doesn't really hold up very well in the real world. Britain is a far more recent and far less naturally arrived at construct than Scotland and moreover, not enough of our people buy into it.

If you want to sustain the British state in Scotland then you have to make people feel more British and less Scottish or, even in the event of a No, we'll just end up back where we are now in another 10 years or so. Imo, the Yes side has already won. Sure, its supporters will be temporarily despondent if the vote is lost, but the concept of independence is now an accepted mainstream idea. Either we get significant new powers and the jump is less next time or we don't, and the demand for them will grow.

Cameron and Darling's dream of a resounding 70% plus No seems unimaginable. I wonder how Iain Davidson's getting on with his bayonet. :wink:

I don't think that's a correct analysis.

The construction of Britishness arose from a combination of factors over a couple of centuries - the impact of the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, the expansion of the British Empire and what was perceived as the existential threat of the Napoleonic wars.

The construction of a Scottish nation, on the geographical lines it is now, has to take account of the deep divisions between Highlands and Lowlands that simmered for centuries, erupted with the Jacobite Rebellion and the Clearances and which arguably still are felt culturally today.

We are talking broad timelines but by that analysis, there was a certain degree of concurrence between the two.

[ronaldo7]

When Govan closes the door on the Scottish Labour leader, it's getting serious.

This story was headlining on the Scotsman but has been removed for some reason:greengrin

Good old Archives.

https://archive.today/oi5Qd

[sauzee_4]

And the main party pushing for independence has said it will give big business a tax break. What public services will be cut to pay for that?

The Yes camp shouldn't be talking about tax-raising powers when its policies are about tax-lowering.

Unfortunately this tax-lowering isn't being targeted at the poorest in our society, is it?

Lowering Corporation Tax won't necessarily mean overall Government revenues are reduced. Without being an expert, the hope is that more businesses are attracted here, creating more jobs.

More jobs equals more people in work paying tax, again adding to revenues. And if you look at the other proposals being put forward, everyone who is working will be paid a living wage rather than a £6.31 poverty wage as is the case currently.

So the people at the bottom of the rung actually benefit twice 1.there's more jobs. 2. Those jobs are better paid.

And everyone else benefits too because less working people need to actually claim benefits. (From all the reading I've done on the topic a large percentage of people claiming benefits are also in work, work that barely pays the bills!)

[Mibbes Aye]

Lowering Corporation Tax won't necessarily mean overall Government revenues are reduced. Without being an expert, the hope is that more businesses are attracted here, creating more jobs.

More jobs equals more people in work paying tax, again adding to revenues. And if you look at the other proposals being put forward, everyone who is working will be paid a living wage rather than a £6.31 poverty wage as is the case currently.

So the people at the bottom of the rung actually benefit twice 1.there's more jobs. 2. Those jobs are better paid.

And everyone else benefits too because less working people need to actually claim benefits. (From all the reading I've done on the topic a large percentage of people claiming benefits are also in work, work that barely pays the bills!)

"The hope"

What businesses are we seeking to attract and what levels of corporation tax do we need to drop to to bring them here - can we actually match our competitors?

Why are we in a 'race to the bottom' if an independent Scotland is fairer and progressive?

i'm not expecting an answer s4, these are rhetorical questions that the SNP (and this is their policy) need to be answering.

[CropleyWasGod]

"The hope"

What businesses are we seeking to attract and what levels of corporation tax do we need to drop to to bring them here - can we actually match our competitors?

Why are we in a 'race to the bottom' if an independent Scotland is fairer and progressive?

i'm not expecting an answer s4, these are rhetorical questions that the SNP (and this is their policy) need to be answering.
The White Paper has us with a Corporation Tax rate 3p. lower than the UK. At current rates, that's 15% lower. Quite an incentive for businesses to move here.

As has been said, the advantage for the general population will be in job creation, which in itself brings additional income to the local population.

I've said it before on this thread that I'd be reluctant to see such a cut early on in an iS. However, one can see the logic.

[ronaldo7]

This has to be the best yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=dbW_AT64m8E&app=desktop

[DaveF]

This has to be the best yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=dbW_AT64m8E&app=desktop

Very clever :thumbsup:

[Mibbes Aye]

The White Paper has us with a Corporation Tax rate 3p. lower than the UK. At current rates, that's 15% lower. Quite an incentive for businesses to move here.

As has been said, the advantage for the general population will be in job creation, which in itself brings additional income to the local population.

I've said it before on this thread that I'd be reluctant to see such a cut early on in an iS. However, one can see the logic.

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to agree that tax incentives can stimulate growth.

But the risk is we get into a race to the bottom with other small countries (as opposed to rUK) on CT, whereas with the degree of socio-economic deprivation and the demographic pressures we have, we can't afford that.

Plus there's an element of trickledown economics here - we are subsidising increased profits for foreign shareholders to create jobs that are dependent on us not being undercut by CT by another nation, with no guarantees around re-investment in the Scottish economy. In fact if the scotch whisky industry is anything to go by, re-investment in Scotland is minimal.

[The Harp Awakes]

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

We then devolve the spending to our NHS boards - areas like Lothian or Fife - though their spending is informed by the Scottish Government and what targets and priorities it sets for those boards.

The Scottish Government also has the ability, if it wants, to take a top-slice of that NHS budget and prioritise specific areas for local authorities and CHPs to spend on. Most notably it has done this around care of the elderly in recent years.

And finally, the Scottish Government has tax-raising powers it has chosen not to use but which it could use to bolster the NHS Scotland budget.

And all very good and valid points you make, but what you miss is the bigger picture. Scotland does not set its TOTAL budget at present. Under Westminster rule we are lumbered with spending (our proportion of that is) that Scotland, if it were independent, would not make, e.g., billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction.

That is what independence is about. Taking control of your own finances and budget and decide what we want to spend it on, e.g., the NHS or nuclear submarines.

[Mibbes Aye]

And all very good and valid points you make, but what you miss is the bigger picture. Scotland does not set its TOTAL budget at present. Under Westminster rule we are lumbered with spending (our proportion of that is) that Scotland, if it were independent, would not make, e.g., billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction.

That is what independence is about. Taking control of your own finances and budget and decide what we want to spend it on, e.g., the NHS or nuclear submarines.

Love it :greengrin

NHS or nuclear subs!

Don't you think that the people employed in Faslane, around Faslane, the Scots who serve on those subs, who serve in the RN and the forces generally, might have a different view around the role of our subs?

And an inconvenient truth - there are various polls out there saying various things but it seems fair to say that anything between a sizeable minority and an actual majority of Scots want nuclear weapons - try Googling :greengrin

I've read many posts about a Yes vote tackling a 'democratic deficit'.

But what do you do if your voters (not your posters) actually want the nuclear umbrella?

People who want Yes don't have a mandate to say what a Yes vote would lead to.

I'll be voting No and we can be sure that a large part of the population will too. If it ends up being a Yes vote we will then move on to another series of decisions, which will shape our land.

How can Yes campaigners tell us what Yes will deliver when they have no idea what No voters would want in an independent Scotland (and make no mistake, it would be wide-ranging!)

[bawheid]

How can Yes campaigners tell us what Yes will deliver when they have no idea what No voters would want in an independent Scotland (and make no mistake, it would be wide-ranging!)

Absolutely. I just want to make sure we make all of these important decisions within Scotland, rather than having policies foisted upon us from a Westminster government we didn't vote for.

[Mibbes Aye]

Absolutely. I just want to make sure we make all of these important decisions within Scotland, rather than having policies foisted upon us from a Westminster government we didn't vote for.

That's fair enough, I think we do though.

If we go back on this sub-forum to a point from 2010, there were no shortage of threads about the Coalition and the policies they were unleashing.

There was bitter opposition to so much of what they were proposing. No shortage of posts from me, and I think I recall you too :greengrin.

There is an impact. Argument about whether the economic policy delayed growth, certainty about the shambles of welfare reform.

When it comes down to it though, the important decisions are made here IMO.

What goes on in our streets, whether it's them being cleaned, our bins being emptied, our streetlights working or our roads being maintained, it happens locally.

What goes on for our families, the schools our children go to, the A and E we hopefully don't have to visit, the care home that our elderly relatives may live in, it happens locally.

What goes on in terms of the very basics, the people who register our children's birth, the people who register our weddings and eventually our deaths, the police who enforce our law, the ambulances and fire crews who respond to our 999 calls, it happens locally.

The stuff that really matters, on a day-to-day basis for us, is decided in Scotland.

Some of it in Edinburgh, the rest in the NHS Board and council headquarters.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's fair enough, I think we do though.

If we go back on this sub-forum to a point from 2010, there were no shortage of threads about the Coalition and the policies they were unleashing.

There was bitter opposition to so much of what they were proposing. No shortage of posts from me, and I think I recall you too :greengrin.

There is an impact. Argument about whether the economic policy delayed growth, certainty about the shambles of welfare reform.

When it comes down to it though, the important decisions are made here IMO.

What goes on in our streets, whether it's them being cleaned, our bins being emptied, our streetlights working or our roads being maintained, it happens locally.

What goes on for our families, the schools our children go to, the A and E we hopefully don't have to visit, the care home that our elderly relatives may live in, it happens locally.

What goes on in terms of the very basics, the people who register our children's birth, the people who register our weddings and eventually our deaths, the police who enforce our law, the ambulances and fire crews who respond to our 999 calls, it happens locally.

The stuff that really matters, on a day-to-day basis for us, is decided in Scotland.

Some of it in Edinburgh, the rest in the NHS Board and council headquarters.
All of which begs the question which people, particularly the younger ones who are the establishment of tomorrow, are asking.......

On a day-to-day basis, what is the relevance of Westminster to Scots?

[Mibbes Aye]

All of which begs the question which people, particularly the younger ones who are the establishment of tomorrow, are asking.......

On a day-to-day basis, what is the relevance of Westminster to Scots?

I've posted this before but if we are serious about localism, and we should be, I question what is the relevance of Holyrood?

[The Harp Awakes]

Love it :greengrin

NHS or nuclear subs!

Don't you think that the people employed in Faslane, around Faslane, the Scots who serve on those subs, who serve in the RN and the forces generally, might have a different view around the role of our subs?

And an inconvenient truth - there are various polls out there saying various things but it seems fair to say that anything between a sizeable minority and an actual majority of Scots want nuclear weapons - try Googling :greengrin

I've read many posts about a Yes vote tackling a 'democratic deficit'.

But what do you do if your voters (not your posters) actually want the nuclear umbrella?

People who want Yes don't have a mandate to say what a Yes vote would lead to.

I'll be voting No and we can be sure that a large part of the population will too. If it ends up being a Yes vote we will then move on to another series of decisions, which will shape our land.

How can Yes campaigners tell us what Yes will deliver when they have no idea what No voters would want in an independent Scotland (and make no mistake, it would be wide-ranging!)

Scotland's annual share of the trident budget is £163m and £250m per annum if you include the trident replacement cost. In some areas of Glasgow the life expectancy is in the 50s akin to many 3rd world countries. Vote 'no' and this nonsense will continue .

[RyeSloan]

Scotland's annual share of the trident budget is £163m and £250m per annum if you include the trident replacement cost. In some areas of Glasgow the life expectancy is in the 50s akin to many 3rd world countries. Vote 'no' and this nonsense will continue .

And vote Yes for a longer better life if your Glaswegian?

[Mibbes Aye]

Scotland's annual share of the trident budget is £163m and £250m per annum if you include the trident replacement cost. In some areas of Glasgow the life expectancy is in the 50s akin to many 3rd world countries. Vote 'no' and this nonsense will continue .

Sorry, but vote Yes and this nonsense is probably not going to change much.

The life expectancy in Shettleston and the like is nothing new. Resources have been targeted for years at this and not addressed matters.

We (as in Scotland) spend £5bn a year on health and social care for older people. Our over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years. So if we have to keep doing the same we can anticipate spending £10bn.

£250m doesn't do much towards that.

More to the point, just because you don't want Trident, what do you do if your electorate does? What right have you got to take that £250m?

What happened to the 'sovereign will of the Scottish people'?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Love it :greengrin

NHS or nuclear subs!

Don't you think that the people employed in Faslane, around Faslane, the Scots who serve on those subs, who serve in the RN and the forces generally, might have a different view around the role of our subs?

And an inconvenient truth - there are various polls out there saying various things but it seems fair to say that anything between a sizeable minority and an actual majority of Scots want nuclear weapons - try Googling :greengrin

I've read many posts about a Yes vote tackling a 'democratic deficit'.

But what do you do if your voters (not your posters) actually want the nuclear umbrella?

People who want Yes don't have a mandate to say what a Yes vote would lead to.

I'll be voting No and we can be sure that a large part of the population will too. If it ends up being a Yes vote we will then move on to another series of decisions, which will shape our land.

How can Yes campaigners tell us what Yes will deliver when they have no idea what No voters would want in an independent Scotland (and make no mistake, it would be wide-ranging!)

I would imagine no voters want roughly the same as Yes voters. The debate is who is best able to deliver what folk want and how they are able to do it, though there is an emotional side to it for many as well.

As for Scotland's "nuclear umbrella", the only difference having nuclear weapons on the Clyde makes to Scotland in a defensive sense is that it makes that part of Scotland number one in the UK hit parade to be obliterated in a nuclear exchange.

Apart from that, the expense involved in having nuclear weapons for a small country like us would be ludicrous and beyond justification. In fact some sources say that the Americans view the UK's insanely expensive nuclear arsenal as nothing more than a vanity project and would rather we spent the money on conventional forces.

In any event ... If it is a Yes vote, how ridiculous would it be to have another countries nukes based on your territory.

[Mibbes Aye]

And vote Yes for a longer better life if your Glaswegian?

It's a fair point.

On the assumption that we really would have £250m to play with in an independent Scotland that wasn't part of the nuclear programme - and that's a massive, massive assumption.......notwithstanding all the transitional costs we might have to pay :rolleyes:

What would this £250m be spent on, that would improve the life chances of a 49 year-old Glaswegian?

Why is it being spent on Glaswegians when there are marginalised and vulnerable people in every other part of Scotland. Maybe it should, but who made that decision?

It's these casual, throwaway promises and statements of intention from Yessers, with no detail, no rigour, that completely undermine the case for separation.

[Mibbes Aye]

I would imagine no voters want roughly the same as Yes voters. The debate is who is best able to deliver what folk want and how they are able to do it, though there is an emotional side to it for many as well.

As for Scotland's "nuclear umbrella", the only difference having nuclear weapons on the Clyde makes to Scotland in a defensive sense is that it makes that part of Scotland number one in the UK hit parade to be obliterated in a nuclear exchange.

Apart from that, the expense involved in having nuclear weapons for a small country like us would be ludicrous and beyond justification. In fact some sources say that the Americans view the UK's insanely expensive nuclear arsenal as nothing more than a vanity project and would rather we spent the money on conventional forces.

In any event ... If it is a Yes vote, how ridiculous would it be to have another countries nukes based on your territory.

I like your first paragraph, I think you're right, the focus should be on the outcome and how to achieve it.

The point is though, that just because you might not want Trident doesn't mean everyone else does.

How do you deal with that?

[NAE NOOKIE]

I like your first paragraph, I think you're right, the focus should be on the outcome and how to achieve it.

The point is though, that just because you might not want Trident doesn't mean everyone else does.

How do you deal with that?

If it was a fact that a party was voted in who wanted to keep Trident on Scottish soil then I would live with it. But if that happened we would be the only country in history to vote to have another countries entire ICBM capability within our borders, making that country less of a target and us more of one. The Americans would look at Canada and go ......... hmmm I wonder.

If the argument is about jobs I understand, but I'm led to believe Yes have committed to basing Scotland's conventional forces in that area in an attempt to minimise the affect.

I am aware that No have rubbished that idea .... but if jobs are worth it at any cost then why stop at nukes .. there is a fortune to be made charging the industrial world premium rate to dump their nuclear, chemical and biological crap here as well.

Just in case you think its OK for the likes of me to play fast and loose with other peoples jobs. Until I was lucky enough to be offered early retirement I was a civil servant working for the UK government with no guarantee that my job would not be in danger following a Yes vote. It made no difference to my opinions and voting intentions, they were the same then as they are now.

[Lewis77]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbW_AT64m8E&feature=youtu.be


This is simply inspiring

[Moulin Yarns]

And the main party pushing for independence has said it will give big business a tax break. What public services will be cut to pay for that?

The Yes camp shouldn't be talking about tax-raising powers when its policies are about tax-lowering.

Unfortunately this tax-lowering isn't being targeted at the poorest in our society, is it?

The tax cut for business is, as you are well aware, designed to attract business, and therefore employment, which results in more tax revenue.

Nicola Sturgeon has indicated that if the SNP were in government after a YES vote then the top rate of Income Tax would rise to 50p

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to agree that tax incentives can stimulate growth.

But the risk is we get into a race to the bottom with other small countries (as opposed to rUK) on CT, whereas with the degree of socio-economic deprivation and the demographic pressures we have, we can't afford that.

Plus there's an element of trickledown economics here - we are subsidising increased profits for foreign shareholders to create jobs that are dependent on us not being undercut by CT by another nation, with no guarantees around re-investment in the Scottish economy. In fact if the scotch whisky industry is anything to go by, re-investment in Scotland is minimal.


In fact I live 1 mile from a Scottish owned distillery that is expanding, and has trebled in size in 12 years. Not to mention the new distilleries opening up in St Andrews, Glasgow and elsewhere. So another scare story debunked.

meanwhile in the £30 million games industry. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/09/05/scottish-independence-and-how-it-could-affect-the-games-industry/comment-page-2/

[Moulin Yarns]

Another good article from a journalist from outside Scotland

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-yes-vote-leaner-meaner-scotland

[Moulin Yarns]

Love it :greengrin

NHS or nuclear subs!

Don't you think that the people employed in Faslane, around Faslane, the Scots who serve on those subs, who serve in the RN and the forces generally, might have a different view around the role of our subs?

And an inconvenient truth - there are various polls out there saying various things but it seems fair to say that anything between a sizeable minority and an actual majority of Scots want nuclear weapons - try Googling :greengrin

I've read many posts about a Yes vote tackling a 'democratic deficit'.

But what do you do if your voters (not your posters) actually want the nuclear umbrella?

People who want Yes don't have a mandate to say what a Yes vote would lead to.

I'll be voting No and we can be sure that a large part of the population will too. If it ends up being a Yes vote we will then move on to another series of decisions, which will shape our land.

How can Yes campaigners tell us what Yes will deliver when they have no idea what No voters would want in an independent Scotland (and make no mistake, it would be wide-ranging!)

Faslane and Coulport employ 520 civilians, the rest of the 5200 are naval (FOI reply by MOD) so the majority go wherever the subs and WMD go. The base will then become the joint armed forces base, proposal are a combined force of 20,000. So, more people to spend in the local economy.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's fair enough, I think we do though.

If we go back on this sub-forum to a point from 2010, there were no shortage of threads about the Coalition and the policies they were unleashing.

There was bitter opposition to so much of what they were proposing. No shortage of posts from me, and I think I recall you too :greengrin.

There is an impact. Argument about whether the economic policy delayed growth, certainty about the shambles of welfare reform.

When it comes down to it though, the important decisions are made here IMO.

What goes on in our streets, whether it's them being cleaned, our bins being emptied, our streetlights working or our roads being maintained, it happens locally.

What goes on for our families, the schools our children go to, the A and E we hopefully don't have to visit, the care home that our elderly relatives may live in, it happens locally.

What goes on in terms of the very basics, the people who register our children's birth, the people who register our weddings and eventually our deaths, the police who enforce our law, the ambulances and fire crews who respond to our 999 calls, it happens locally.

The stuff that really matters, on a day-to-day basis for us, is decided in Scotland.

Some of it in Edinburgh, the rest in the NHS Board and council headquarters.

With the wee exception of what our total budget is, which remains at Westminster. Independence will change that to ensure every penny raised in Scotland stays in Scotland.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've posted this before but if we are serious about localism, and we should be, I question what is the relevance of Holyrood?


Go and Read Blossom, that will convince any sceptic that it is more possible in an Independent Scotland than in a disunited Kingdom

[Just Alf]

BT NOT scaremongering though.... Tesco are backing the claim up..... oh wait.....

Supermarket giant Tesco has played down claims its prices would rise in an independent Scotland.

It described the suggestion in a pro-Union Better Together campaign leaflet as "entirely speculative".

A spokesman for Tesco said the company was "neutral on the referendum" which was "a matter for the Scottish people."

But Labour's Jackie Ballie, speaking on behalf of Better Together, said a "Yes" vote would "cost families in Scotland dear".

The statement from the UK supermarket was made after pro-Union literature used Tesco prices in Ireland to suggest that shopping in Scotland could cost 16% more after a "Yes" vote.

In a letter to a customer who had inquired about the claim in the leaflet, Tesco said "I can confirm that this is not true", adding that it had "a great business in Scotland" and would "continue to offer the best prices whatever the outcome of the referendum".

Tesco said that higher labour and energy costs, along with government levies on certain products such as wine, pushed up some prices in Irish supermarkets.

But the company insisted that "some items of fresh produce, meats and other household items" were actually cheaper in Tesco's stores in Ireland than in its stores in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393

[Moulin Yarns]

A final word for the poster known as 'Mibbes Aye'

I know where you live :wink:


13422

[Sylar]

BT NOT scaremongering though.... Tesco are backing the claim up..... oh wait.....

Supermarket giant Tesco has played down claims its prices would rise in an independent Scotland.

It described the suggestion in a pro-Union Better Together campaign leaflet as "entirely speculative".

A spokesman for Tesco said the company was "neutral on the referendum" which was "a matter for the Scottish people."

But Labour's Jackie Ballie, speaking on behalf of Better Together, said a "Yes" vote would "cost families in Scotland dear".

The statement from the UK supermarket was made after pro-Union literature used Tesco prices in Ireland to suggest that shopping in Scotland could cost 16% more after a "Yes" vote.

In a letter to a customer who had inquired about the claim in the leaflet, Tesco said "I can confirm that this is not true", adding that it had "a great business in Scotland" and would "continue to offer the best prices whatever the outcome of the referendum".

Tesco said that higher labour and energy costs, along with government levies on certain products such as wine, pushed up some prices in Irish supermarkets.

But the company insisted that "some items of fresh produce, meats and other household items" were actually cheaper in Tesco's stores in Ireland than in its stores in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393

The comparison with the prices in the RoI is utterly ludicrous, unless the BT propagandists are going on the assumption that an iScotland will be using the Euro.

The reason prices are higher in Ireland are because of currency devaluation against the Sterling and as a result, Tesco passed on the additional cost to their customers.

Asda and Morrisons have both said they would need to review their prices in the instance of a Yes vote, with Morrisons saying 'it could go for or against' customers.

I remain in the 'No' camp but the BT campaigners aren't doing themselves any favours with the way they're finishing the campaign.

[Mibbes Aye]

In fact I live 1 mile from a Scottish owned distillery that is expanding, and has trebled in size in 12 years. Not to mention the new distilleries opening up in St Andrews, Glasgow and elsewhere. So another scare story debunked.

meanwhile in the £30 million games industry. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/09/05/scottish-independence-and-how-it-could-affect-the-games-industry/comment-page-2/

You've not though.

We are going round in circles a bit here but whisky was covered at length and about twenty pages ago and there was discussion about how only a tiny share of the profits is reinvested. Re-investment is minimal/

I'm glad that there's growth in the trade. There are new distilleries emerging, which offers employment. Not all of them are even owned by the multinationals. And maybe even some will re-invest in the Scottish economy.

But the truth is that the vast majority of the money made from Scotch whisky leaves our borders.

[Mibbes Aye]

Faslane and Coulport employ 520 civilians, the rest of the 5200 are naval (FOI reply by MOD) so the majority go wherever the subs and WMD go. The base will then become the joint armed forces base, proposal are a combined force of 20,000. So, more people to spend in the local economy.

But it's not an additional 20,000 people is it? It's people based in Rosyth, Glencorse, Leuchars, Dreghorn and the like just moving.

[Mibbes Aye]

With the wee exception of what our total budget is, which remains at Westminster. Independence will change that to ensure every penny raised in Scotland stays in Scotland.

This is just a personal thing but my eyes grate every time I see people in the Yes camp wording their sentences so that Westminster is portrayed as not ours.

It's as much mine and yours as it is someone in Manchester or Newcastle or Swansea or Derry or Truro or Margate.

There probably isn't a country on the planet where power and influence don't congregate around the capital and the main seat of government and this gets portrayed as centricism.

In an independent Scotland the people of Helmsdale and Hawick would have exactly the same complaints about Holyrood.

[Mibbes Aye]

Go and Read Blossom, that will convince any sceptic that it is more possible in an Independent Scotland than in a disunited Kingdom

This isn't about independence. Whether Holyrood is a devolved administration or an independent government, it feels hard to argue that it acts as a driver for localism.

In fact it's been heavily criticised for being too centralising, certainly during the SNP's time, but to be honest I think it's a likelihood whatever party holds the reins.

[Mibbes Aye]

A final word for the poster known as 'Mibbes Aye'

I know where you live :wink:


13422

He's a lot better-looking than me. Deffo.

[Moulin Yarns]

You've not though.

We are going round in circles a bit here but whisky was covered at length and about twenty pages ago and there was discussion about how only a tiny share of the profits is reinvested. Re-investment is minimal/

I'm glad that there's growth in the trade. There are new distilleries emerging, which offers employment. Not all of them are even owned by the multinationals. And maybe even some will re-invest in the Scottish economy.

But the truth is that the vast majority of the money made from Scotch whisky leaves our borders.


Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association.

A typical bottle of blended whisky (never drink it myself) £10.85
Excise duty to the treasury £6.66
VAT to the treasury £1.62
Total tax £8.28 or 76% of what it costs to buy. The producer gets £2.57

That looks like you are right, at the moment 76% of the cost of a bottle of whisky leaves our borders and fills the coffers of the UK treasury.

I believe that that 76% going to the Scottish treasury would be used for the benefit of Scotland and not to benefit the south east of England.

[Moulin Yarns]

This isn't about independence. Whether Holyrood is a devolved administration or an independent government, it feels hard to argue that it acts as a driver for localism.

In fact it's been heavily criticised for being too centralising, certainly during the SNP's time, but to be honest I think it's a likelihood whatever party holds the reins.

And we go round in circles yet again!

A vote fore independence is a vote to take control of our affairs, and there is no guarantee the SNP would be in power so WE, the people can drive change by voting for the policies that we want, which part offers a federal form of government? Vote for them. It isn't SNP, it isn't Conservative, it isn't even Labour. But there are parties that want to decentralise power away from Holyrood and Westminster.

[Mibbes Aye]

Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association.

A typical bottle of blended whisky (never drink it myself) £10.85
Excise duty to the treasury £6.66
VAT to the treasury £1.62
Total tax £8.28 or 76% of what it costs to buy. The producer gets £2.57

That looks like you are right, at the moment 76% of the cost of a bottle of whisky leaves our borders and fills the coffers of the UK treasury.

I believe that that 76% going to the Scottish treasury would be used for the benefit of Scotland and not to benefit the south east of England.

You know I was talking about the profits :greengrin

The tax take comes back to us and pays for public services. We've seen people argue that we make a net gain and people argue that we make a net loss. I would speculate it's not much either way.

The point is, this isn't new money - we already get it, or if we don't get it all, then you have to counter that with we won't get the share of tax income from smokers and drinkers down South etc etc.

And that's before the tax cuts to business in order to make Scotland the 'tiger economy' we are led to believe is waiting for us.

(You're right about blended whisky :greengrin)

[xyz23jc]

Jeanne Freeman putting Andrew Neil in his place.


http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/04/ttip-and-the-scottish-nhs/

Pleasing.

[Moulin Yarns]

But it's not an additional 20,000 people is it? It's people based in Rosyth, Glencorse, Leuchars, Dreghorn and the like just moving.

You haven't read the white paper then otherwise you would know that it is more than the existing non wmd staff. But then that wouldn't help your spurious argument.

[Beefster]

You haven't read the white paper then otherwise you would know that it is more than the existing non wmd staff. But then that wouldn't help your spurious argument.

I thought the White Paper was basically the SNP's manifesto for the first post-independence Scottish election?

[xyz23jc]

When Govan closes the door on the Scottish Labour leader, it's getting serious.

This story was headlining on the Scotsman but has been removed for some reason:greengrin

Good old Archives.

https://archive.today/oi5Qd

Even more pleasing.

[Hibrandenburg]

This is just a personal thing but my eyes grate every time I see people in the Yes camp wording their sentences so that Westminster is portrayed as not ours.

It's as much mine and yours as it is someone in Manchester or Newcastle or Swansea or Derry or Truro or Margate.

There probably isn't a country on the planet where power and influence don't congregate around the capital and the main seat of government and this gets portrayed as centricism.

In an independent Scotland the people of Helmsdale and Hawick would have exactly the same complaints about Holyrood.

Eh, Germany, US, Scotland, Australia.......

[Moulin Yarns]

I thought the White Paper was basically the SNP's manifesto for the first post-independence Scottish election?

It provides proposals on all sorts of things. Defense for example the first term of government would have 3500 armed forces, rising to 20,000 after 10 year. Ok, that is what the SNP want and could be different depending on the make up of the Parliament but you get the idea

[xyz23jc]

This has to be the best yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=dbW_AT64m8E&app=desktop

De primera clase! Kwality! Woohooo..... Go Scotland! Gonna send this worldwide! Thanks!

[xyz23jc]

And vote Yes for a longer better life if your Glaswegian?

Oh yes!

[xyz23jc]

A final word for the poster known as 'Mibbes Aye'

I know where you live :wink:


13422

Gie me his address! I already know where Willie Miller, Billy McNeil and Bertie Auld live! haha

[xyz23jc]

With the wee exception of what our total budget is, which remains at Westminster. Independence will change that to ensure every penny raised in Scotland stays in Scotland.

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Mibbes Aye]

You haven't read the white paper then otherwise you would know that it is more than the existing non wmd staff. But then that wouldn't help your spurious argument.

You're missing the point.

The 20,000 people you end up with, pumping money into the economy, are simply going to be 20,000 people who were already pumping money into the economy but just in a different part of Scotland.

It's not doing anything extra for the collective wealth of the nation.

[Moulin Yarns]

You're missing the point.

The 20,000 people you end up with, pumping money into the economy, are simply going to be 20,000 people who were already pumping money into the economy but just in a different part of Scotland.

It's not doing anything extra for the collective wealth of the nation.

Wrong, but don't worry. In 10 years time those currently employed by the army etc. won't all be and will be replaced by new soldiers.

[Mibbes Aye]

Eh, Germany, US, Scotland, Australia.......

Yeah, that's right. People never talk about Washington insiders and the Beltway. In US general elections, candidates who were state governors and the like never portray themselves as outside the Washington establishment to try and increase their vote :rolleyes: :greengrin

I don't think you can say that power doesn't congregate around Berlin but I acknowledge there is something slightly different with Germany's history (and I mean going back to the Hanseatic League but obviously also taking into account division and reunification).

As for Australia, the legislature, the judiciary and a large part of the executive are based there - feels like a cluster of power and influence to me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Wrong, but don't worry. In 10 years time those currently employed by the army etc. won't all be and will be replaced by new soldiers.

From where?

[CropleyWasGod]

You're missing the point.

The 20,000 people you end up with, pumping money into the economy, are simply going to be 20,000 people who were already pumping money into the economy but just in a different part of Scotland.

It's not doing anything extra for the collective wealth of the nation.

However, it is a good argument against those that say getting rid of Trident will be bad for the collective economy.

[Mibbes Aye]

However, it is a good argument against those that say getting rid of Trident will be bad for the collective economy.

Surely there's a net loss CWG?

I know in this scenario we are all making assumptions, shared hopefully.

If Trident goes we lose the infrastructure. There's a consequent financial hit to the economy, whatever size or scale.

We shift all our military resource to Faslane. Good for Faslane but it's lost elsewhere in the economy, so it's broadly neutral financially.

And this is before we get into how we develop and pay for miltary assets that you can't simply take 10% of, from the UK pile - a secure comms and IT system for example?

[Moulin Yarns]

From where?

Eh, school

[Mibbes Aye]

Eh, school

Okay, apart from the assumption that we will successfully recruit the numbers, again I think you are missing the point.

We talked about a hit to the economy if the subs and the infrastructure were to go.

There's a claim that things will be better because all armed forces will be based there.

That's not better though, it's just moving pieces on a chessboard.

Great for the greater Faslane area but these are people we have to assume are economically active, or would be, in the rest of Scotland.

So I struggle to see where the gain is?

[ronaldo7]

You're missing the point.

The 20,000 people you end up with, pumping money into the economy, are simply going to be 20,000 people who were already pumping money into the economy but just in a different part of Scotland.

It's not doing anything extra for the collective wealth of the nation.

Are you really sure about that. Do you know that every single one of the people working at Faslane are living in Scotland? Do you think that there may be some who live outside Scotland and only come here for their working hours?

[ronaldo7]

Okay, apart from the assumption that we will successfully recruit the numbers, again I think you are missing the point.

We talked about a hit to the economy if the subs and the infrastructure were to go.

There's a claim that things will be better because all armed forces will be based there.

That's not better though, it's just moving pieces on a chessboard.

Great for the greater Faslane area but these are people we have to assume are economically active, or would be, in the rest of Scotland.

So I struggle to see where the gain is?

Can you provide the evidence that someone from the Scottish Gov said it would be better?

They maybe said it would be off set but I can't remember someone from the YES camp saying BETTER:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Can you provide the evidence that someone from the Scottish Gov said it would be better?

They maybe said it would be off set but I can't remember someone from the YES camp saying BETTER:greengrin

I was referring to Golden Fleece :aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

Are you really sure about that. Do you know that every single one of the people working at Faslane are living in Scotland? Do you think that there may be some who live outside Scotland and only come here for their working hours?

I don't think that many people make the daily commute from Surrey or Hampshire, if that's what you mean?

It's a bit OTT to ask me if I know the personal circumstances of every employee at Faslane, isn't it?

[JeMeSouviens]

Breaking ... Yougov (Sun Times):

Y 51 (+4)
N 49 (-4)

****ing ****! :-)

[ronaldo7]

I don't think that many people make the daily commute from Surrey or Hampshire, if that's what you mean?

It's a bit OTT to ask me if I know the personal circumstances of every employee at Faslane, isn't it?

I know of 3 people who travel to work in Faslane for the week. They all live in England.:wink:

Auf Wiedersehen Pet.

[ronaldo7]

I was referring to Golden Fleece :aok:

I'm sure he will be able to say whether he actually said it would be "Better", then again Mibbes Naw:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm sure he will be able to say whether he actually said it would be "Better", then again Mibbes Naw:greengrin

It was something along the lines of "More people putting money into the local economy"

See ya :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I know of 3 people who travel to work in Faslane for the week. They all live in England.:wink:

Auf Wiedersehen Pet.

3 people eh?

That changes everything :agree:

:greengrin

[DaveF]

3 people eh?

That changes everything :agree:

:greengrin

To be fair, its 3 more than you came up with :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

It was something along the lines of "More people putting money into the local economy"

See ya :greengrin

So it wasn't really Better then. I was right when I said you should take it easy:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

3 people eh?

That changes everything :agree:

:greengrin

If little old me knows of 3 then I'm sure there are many more. Kind of puts your argument to bed of just moving people around Scotland though eh:aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

So it wasn't really Better then. I was right when I said you should take it easy:greengrin

Behave :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

If little old me knows of 3 then I'm sure there are many more. Kind of puts your argument of just moving people around Scotland though eh:aok:

No it doesn't.

The 'moving people around Scotland' refers to our armed forces post-Yes vote. They will be Scottish I assume?

The folk who work on or around the subs either follow the subs or have to seek different work.

[ronaldo7]

No it doesn't.

The 'moving people around Scotland' refers to our armed forces post-Yes vote. They will be Scottish I assume?

The folk who work on or around the subs either follow the subs or have to seek different work.

The Armed forces take people from all over the globe.:wink:

[The Harp Awakes]

Breaking ... Yougov (Sun Times):

Y 51 (+4)
N 49 (-4)

****ing ****! :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746369/We-ll-guards-Scottish-border-Ed-Miliband-reveals-incendiary-plan-new-poll-reveals-vote-knife-edge.html

Project Fear hs no limits apparently after the latest opinion poll putting yes ahead

[Mibbes Aye]

The Armed forces take people from all over the globe.:wink:


The British armed forces recruit from outwith the UK.

Will the Scottish Defence Force attract people in the same way?

How many foreign soldiers and sailors are we talking about here? I believe it's something like three and a half percent of the UK armed forces that are foreign nationals, the vast majority Gurkha and Fijian. I would suggest their ties are to what they perceive as Britain, not Scotland and they would continue to volunteer for a rUK armed forces rather than a Scottish one.

So basically, I can't agree with you on this one - I'm not pinning Faslane's economic wellbeing let alone an independent Scotland's economic wellbeing on the huge inward investment from the pay cheques of some foreign members of our Coastal Protection Flotilla :wink: :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

No it doesn't.

The 'moving people around Scotland' refers to our armed forces post-Yes vote. They will be Scottish I assume?

The folk who work on or around the subs either follow the subs or have to seek different work.

You missed the point. But I'm watching Frankie Boyle

[ronaldo7]

The British armed forces recruit from outwith the UK.

Will the Scottish Defence Force attract people in the same way?

How many foreign soldiers and sailors are we talking about here? I believe it's something like three and a half percent of the UK armed forces that are foreign nationals, the vast majority Gurkha and Fijian. I would suggest their ties are to what they perceive as Britain, not Scotland and they would continue to volunteer for a rUK armed forces rather than a Scottish one.

So basically, I can't agree with you on this one - I'm not pinning Faslane's economic wellbeing let alone an independent Scotland's economic wellbeing on the huge inward investment from the pay cheques of some foreign members of our Coastal Protection Flotilla :wink: :greengrin

I love how you're now looking after Faslane's economic wellbeing. Thanks for that. Who's the sitting Msp?

[ronaldo7]

We are about to be lied to again by the desperados.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/06/too-little-too-late/

[Just Alf]

The defence industry supports a large number of jobs in Scotland. How do you see these jobs being sustained, and made more rewarding, in the future and how do you see defence procurement being made to work better for Scotland? What assurances can be offered
to ease the uncertainties about the future of defence staff in Scotland?

YES SCOTLAND: The importance of Scotland’s defence industry as a source of skilled jobs
is widely recognised. In Scotland’s Future, the current Scottish Government commits to working with defence industries to support their continued growth and to meet Scotland’s own defence needs.
It outlines plans to support procurement of equipment and services in Scotland, where
consistent with European procurement rules; for policies to support R&D, innovation and design; to help small and medium enterprises in particular to expand their marketing efforts internationally; and to develop a clear role for each Government department and agency in areas such as licensing, accreditation and dual- use.

The budget for procurement envisaged is equivalent to or greater than the 14% allocated by Westminster in 2012-13, and with personnel numbers taking time to build up it will be possible to boost the proportion of the budget allocated to procurement in the early years after independence.

Support for the shipbuilding industry is considered a priority because of Scotland’s
obvious requirement to place significant focus on maritime defence capability.
The Government proposes to take forward the procurement
of four new frigates, preferably through joint procurement with the rest of the UK – two in the first term of an independent Parliament, with a future order to replace inherited Type 23s when they are retired from service.
Depending on the outcome of negotiations with rUK, further procurement needs may include offshore patrol vessels. Another priority will be maritime patrol aircraft

[NAE NOOKIE]

The British armed forces recruit from outwith the UK.

Will the Scottish Defence Force attract people in the same way?

How many foreign soldiers and sailors are we talking about here? I believe it's something like three and a half percent of the UK armed forces that are foreign nationals, the vast majority Gurkha and Fijian. I would suggest their ties are to what they perceive as Britain, not Scotland and they would continue to volunteer for a rUK armed forces rather than a Scottish one.

So basically, I can't agree with you on this one - I'm not pinning Faslane's economic wellbeing let alone an independent Scotland's economic wellbeing on the huge inward investment from the pay cheques of some foreign members of our Coastal Protection Flotilla :wink: :greengrin

If I was from Nepal or Fiji and I knew I had a choice what would I do? Get paid to become cannon fodder in Afganistan or Iraq. Freeze my ass off defending the last enclaves of empire like The Falklands. Or join the US/UK alliance in whatever this weeks war of choice is.

Or should I do a wee bit of peace keeping in Africa as part of Scotland's UN commitment. I don't think we will struggle getting sodjers from abroad if we want them.

[lord bunberry]

If I was from Nepal or Fiji and I knew I had a choice what would I do? Get paid to become cannon fodder in Afganistan or Iraq. Freeze my ass off defending the last enclaves of empire like The Falklands. Or join the US/UK alliance in whatever this weeks war of choice is.

Or should I do a wee bit of peace keeping in Africa as part of Scotland's UN commitment. I don't think we will struggle getting sodjers from abroad if we want them.

I get your point but I think it's a bit disrespectful to say our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are cannon fodder.

[steakbake]

I get your point but I think it's a bit disrespectful to say our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder is perhaps a heavy word, but both campaigns had flawed motives from the outset and have ultimately proved unsuccessful. The goal in Iraq was to destroy their WMD capacity. There were none. In Afghanistan, it was to end the threat posed by Al Qaida training camps and the Taliban: the Taliban are still there and the disasterous situation now facing Iraq and Syria has shown we haven't neutralised that problem.

Putting it perhaps less stark, we could say that an iScotland wouldn't be using the lives of its people to grandstand on the international stage in poorly thought out military adventures.

PS: peacekeeping in Africa or wherever would be no picnic either, but we would at least be there.

[marinello59]

Breaking ... Yougov (Sun Times):

Y 51 (+4)
N 49 (-4)

****ing ****! :-)

I think the momentum towards Yes will continue to grow. Happy days.

[Jones28]

A Sunday times poll I saw last night

Y 47%
N 45%
DK 8%

I think that shows how important that swing in undecided voters will be. With the momentum that is going with Yes, I think we might just about do it!

[JeMeSouviens]

To balance the optimism.

Panelbase (Yes Scotland):

Y 48 (n/c)
N 52 (n/c)

So Panelbase have swung only 2% to Y over the same period that Yougov has swung 12%.

Hmmmm.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I get your point but I think it's a bit disrespectful to say our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan are cannon fodder.

Steabake has answered for me, but I should do personally. Take my word for it I meant no disrespect to the brave men and women of the armed forces. The problem with especially Afghanistan is that our troops were a finger in the dyke .... the second it is removed it will be business as usual. I doubt there is a general or politician in the world who doesn't believe that.

That is what I meant by cannon fodder. What has been done to our soldiers in Afghanistan is the modern day equivalent of chucking thousands against the barbed wire and machine guns in WW1. In fact its worse, putting soldiers in a position where it is inevitable that their sacrifice in the long run will count for nothing.

The British in the 19th century got their fingers burned trying to control the Afghans, the Russians gave up and went home in the 20th century and now with the might of the world's greatest superpower beside us in a decade we have brought one small area under control and are now set to walk away .... leaving behind an Afghan army which will be infiltrated and nullified within a year.

[Moulin Yarns]

This for Maybees Aye who seems to want federalism.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save-the-union

But ask yourself this, how can they now offer something completely new, never before on offer, 10 days before the vote and after postal voters have already voted? This question has been asked directly to the Better Together website, and I will post their answer, if I get one.

My thoughts are the Yes side laid out its stall with the white paper, not everything in it I agree with, but the No side keeps making things up as they go along.

[Beefster]

My thoughts are the Yes side laid out its stall with the white paper, not everything in it I agree with, but the No side keeps making things up as they go along.

One of the key differences being that the White Paper is a wish list that just might be partially implemented if the SNP remain in power for any length of time. Just as (or more) likely is that Labour win the first post-independence election. I've been told often enough on here that the White Paper is basically an SNP manifesto and that the SNP will probably cease to exist post-independence.

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories, on the other hand, have to implement their promises if the result is no. One/two of them is/are going to be in power after the referendum and after the next UK general election. They won't get out of it by claiming it was all just a manifesto or that they would have done it if only they had won the election.

[Moulin Yarns]

Remember that DC vetoed devomax from the ballot paper. Now he is offering federalism 10 days before polling day and after postal votes have been cast. Must be illegal.

I would vote for a federal government in an independent Scotland, not for something cobbled together at the last minute because BT are looking like they might lose. A promise they can't keep.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Remember that DC vetoed devomax from the ballot paper. Now he is offering federalism 10 days before polling day and after postal votes have been cast. Must be illegal

Is completely illegal.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/all-over-the-place/

The new radical deal they will promise us now will be the same old deal dressed up. Desperation now.

[MyJo]

One of the key differences being that the White Paper is a wish list that just might be partially implemented if the SNP remain in power for any length of time. Just as (or more) likely is that Labour win the first post-independence election. I've been told often enough on here that the White Paper is basically an SNP manifesto and that the SNP will probably cease to exist post-independence.

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories, on the other hand, have to implement their promises if the result is no. One/two of them is/are going to be in power after the referendum and after the next UK general election. They won't get out of it by claiming it was all just a manifesto or that they would have done it if only they had won the election.

What promises?

[Moulin Yarns]

One thing that worries me is that, in the event of a yes, negotiations take place between the two governments. In 8 months time there is a general election and a possible change of UK government. Are there rules in place to protect the agreements up to then?

[lobster]

Will Hutton suggesting today in the Guardian/Observer the need for a federal option as part of some last ditch 'Statecraft'. By the sounds of that, at this stage in proceedings, they are now relying on witchcraft to save the union. Momentous times.

[Moulin Yarns]

I see the Westminster MP's are taking an 11% pay rise. Well done we will save even more with independence

[lobster]

One thing that worries me is that, in the event of a yes, negotiations take place between the two governments. In 8 months time there is a general election and a possible change of UK government. Are there rules in place to protect the agreements up to then?
International law. For what thats worth.

[Moulin Yarns]

Will Hutton suggesting today in the Guardian/Observer the need for a federal option as part of some last ditch 'Statecraft'. By the sounds of that, at this stage in proceedings, they are now relying on witchcraft to save the union. Momentous times.

Is that the illegal offer of federalism? I wish there was a way of actually declaring the referendum results as a technical win for yes just to see the blame game in BT

[NAE NOOKIE]

Remember that DC vetoed devomax from the ballot paper. Now he is offering federalism 10 days before polling day and after postal votes have been cast. Must be illegal.

I would vote for a federal government in an independent Scotland, not for something cobbled together at the last minute because BT are looking like they might lose. A promise they can't keep.

Having had a look at the Purdah rules it appears that what in effect is a new policy by the Government made up inside the 16 week period is indeed illegal .... I am no expert on legalese so stand to be corrected .... but if this is correct why the hell are Yes Scotland not all over it like a rash?

Its a baw hair away from ballot rigging in the context of the rules of UK elections is it not.

[lobster]

The last gasp offer of federalism as opposed to patriotism is now the last refuge of the scoundrel apparently

[Leith Green]

Can somebody help me understand this, are these polls to be believed? Or can they be skewed as some people are insinuating on other forums attributed to you gov, and online papers.. Some suggesting a 22 per cent swing has to be bull ****??

[7 Hills]

Having had a look at the Purdah rules it appears that what in effect is a new policy by the Government made up inside the 16 week period is indeed illegal .... I am no expert on legalese so stand to be corrected .... but if this is correct why the hell are Yes Scotland not all over it like a rash?

Its a baw hair away from ballot rigging in the context of the rules of UK elections is it not.

I read somewhere that they'll dodge the issue by publishing their proposed offers on behalf of the political parties rather than directly from the Government. If this is the case, to my mind, these extra "powers" can't be backed up as official policy by any of them and any promises that they make over the next few days are even more worthless than the usual political promises! And with the postal votes going in, voting has in effect begun so there's an argument that they shouldn't be able to make any offers in whatever guise.

It reeks of desperation. And I am loving it!

[Future17]

Having had a look at the Purdah rules it appears that what in effect is a new policy by the Government made up inside the 16 week period is indeed illegal .... I am no expert on legalese so stand to be corrected .... but if this is correct why the hell are Yes Scotland not all over it like a rash?

Its a baw hair away from ballot rigging in the context of the rules of UK elections is it not.

The UK Government is not covered by the purdah rules for the referendum, although they did state in the Edinburgh Agreement that they would obey them anyway.

I would imagine they'll position this as campaigning on behalf of the three parties (which is exempt from the rules under SIRA) rather than a statement of Government policy.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Can somebody help me understand this, are these polls to be believed? Or can they be skewed as some people are insinuating on other forums attributed to you gov, and online papers.. Some suggesting a 22 per cent swing has to be bull ****??

You can never fully trust polls .... it often depends who you ask and when you ask them and there has to be the chance that some will not answer honestly. I highly doubt ( encouraging though the poll is ) that Yes Scotland are sitting back patting each other on the back. There is a long way to go and no one but a fool would take their foot off the gas at this stage.

You are right that 22% seems a lot, but the BT campaign has been such a car crash that its not as outlandish as it seems. Actually, as things stand it might not be a bad tactic for Yes to sit back, say nothing, and let Better Together continue on their merry way, scaremongering, bullying, threatening and pleading.

Instead of putting folk off a Yes vote BT's campaign has been so negative and has tried so hard to persuade Scots that we couldn't possibly cope on our own, that in true Scottish style folk have begun to say ..... 'Oh ye bloody think so'

Hard to understand how a campaign so full of Scots and others who say that they and the UK understands Scotland can have misunderstood the character and attitudes of its target audience so badly. If you make us feel like useless beggars we will vote Yes regardless of the alleged consequences ....... There is no nation more willing to cut off its nose to spite its face than the Scots if they feel they are being belittled or bullied.

[Leith Green]

You can never fully trust polls .... it often depends who you ask and when you ask them and there has to be the chance that some will not answer honestly. I highly doubt ( encouraging though the poll is ) that Yes Scotland are sitting back patting each other on the back. There is a long way to go and no one but a fool would take their foot off the gas at this stage.

You are right that 22% seems a lot, but the BT campaign has been such a car crash that its not as outlandish as it seems. Actually, as things stand it might not be a bad tactic for Yes to sit back, say nothing, and let Better Together continue on their merry way, scaremongering, bullying, threatening and pleading.

Instead of putting folk off a Yes vote BT's campaign has been so negative and has tried so hard to persuade Scots that we couldn't possibly cope on our own, that in true Scottish style folk have begun to say ..... 'Oh ye bloody think so'

Hard to understand how a campaign so full of Scots and others who say that they and the UK understands Scotland can have misunderstood the character and attitudes of its target audience so badly. If you make us feel like useless beggars we will vote Yes regardless of the alleged consequences ....... There is no nation more willing to cut off its nose to spite its face than the Scots if they feel they are being belittled or bullied.


What some people were getting it was that you govs poll is flawed, in that anybody can register and that somehow the SNP have managed to encourage their voters to do just that. I dont understand enough about these polls to know wether thats likely, there was also some talk that the other poll by pollster is a SNP biased poll..

Suppose im wondering is this Nos clutching at straws or are these polls not worth a sook?

[steakbake]

yougov have consistently rated Yes as the lowest of all the polling agencies. they also weight the poll on the assumption that Yes voters are more vocal about it. so, for yes to be ahead is very significant. it's within margin of error as the other poll shows no being 2% ahead.

I think where we are is that it's too close to call and the next few days are vital.

[JeMeSouviens]

Can somebody help me understand this, are these polls to be believed? Or can they be skewed as some people are insinuating on other forums attributed to you gov, and online papers.. Some suggesting a 22 per cent swing has to be bull ****??

It's not a 22% swing. It's No blowing a 22% lead, which takes an 11% swing N to Y.

I think the pollsters are just trying to get it right but they have no previous data from an independence referendum to work from so they are all using different weightings and most have chopped and changed.

Fwiw, the last 4 yougovs have used identical methodology whereas panelbase recently added a weighting for euro election results. Survation, TNS and another Yougov will all come out this week. If they pick up the Yes swing then it's looking good.

[JeMeSouviens]

yougov have consistently rated Yes as the lowest of all the polling agencies. they also weight the poll on the assumption that Yes voters are more vocal about it. so, for yes to be ahead is very significant. it's within margin of error as the other poll shows no being 2% ahead.

I think where we are is that it's too close to call and the next few days are vital.

YG are among lower end but TNS and MORI also mostly big N leads. AFAIK nobody is weighting for shy yes or no. Agree with your last sentence.

[JeMeSouviens]

What some people were getting it was that you govs poll is flawed, in that anybody can register and that somehow the SNP have managed to encourage their voters to do just that. I dont understand enough about these polls to know wether thats likely, there was also some talk that the other poll by pollster is a SNP biased poll..

Suppose im wondering is this Nos clutching at straws or are these polls not worth a sook?

Peter Kellner, Yougov's president has done analysis going back to check that previous respondents have moved N to Y. No doubt he and Yougov believe this is real. Panelbase are widely mocked by BTNT as biased just because they have produced good results for Y including one poll last year with an allegedly leading question before the indyref one.

[steakbake]

YG are among lower end but TNS and MORI also mostly big N leads. AFAIK nobody is weighting for shy yes or no. Agree with your last sentence.

I don't think the last ditch bid with Devomax is going to go down as well as Osbourne hopes. Yes should capitalise by echoing the "they've had the powers all along"...

[Peevemor]

As I posted before, the last opinion poll before the 97 devolution referendum showed, on the question of whether should Scotland have a parliament showed

Y 63
N 25
DK 12

The result was

Y 75
N 25

Not the same question I know, and totally unscientific, but a similar swing would do me nicely thankyouverymuch! :greengrin:

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't think the last ditch bid with Devomax is going to go down as well as Osbourne hopes. Yes should capitalise by echoing the "they've had the powers all along"...

For it to work it needs to be pretty radical and somehow guaranteeable. Both things impossible so late, surely? Suspect we'll just get a rehash of what they've already said. Which might actually backfire.

[steakbake]

For it to work it needs to be pretty radical and somehow guaranteeable. Both things impossible so late, surely? Suspect we'll just get a rehash of what they've already said. Which might actually backfire.

Alistair Carmichael: "...these plans are nothing new - we.ve been proposing them all along..."

Cue theme tune from Rainbow.

[CropleyWasGod]

For it to work it needs to be pretty radical and somehow guaranteeable. Both things impossible so late, surely? Suspect we'll just get a rehash of what they've already said. Which might actually backfire.

What have they actually already said, though?

[The Harp Awakes]

I don't think the last ditch bid with Devomax is going to go down as well as Osbourne hopes. Yes should capitalise by echoing the "they've had the powers all along"...

What a plum. Stinks of desperation. The No campaign is about to disintegrate.

[danhibees1875]

I registered for a postal vote and still haven't received it yet.

Is anyone else in the same position? :confused:

[James.]

According to Rupert Murdoch, Salmond's private polls puts Yes at 54% and No at 46%.

Make of that what you will.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/polish-workers-told-by-no-activists-you-would-have-to-leave-an-indy-scotlan.25260906

YES campaigners have demanded an apology from Better Together amid claims that No activists warned Polish and other EU nationals that they would be forced to leave the country if Scotland became independent.

Lobbyists for independence say they became concerned after Poles contacted local Yes representatives to ask whether Scotland leaving the EU following a Yes vote would put their residency at risk. They said they had been doorstepped by No activists who suggested their automatic right to live in Scotland, protected by EU free movement of people laws, would be placed in jeopardy by independence.

Marek Soltysiak from Edinburgh said he was warned by No activists that a Yes vote would force Polish nationals out of Scotland as they would "no longer have the right to live here".

The scare tactics have been condemned by the pro-independence group Polish for Yes which has called on the No campaign to withdraw their claims and apologise for creating anxiety and fear among Polish families.

Soltysiak, who is also the director of the organisation, the Polish Community in Scotland, said: "Scotland is our home. We've lived and worked in Scotland for 10 years, our livelihood is here and we plan to spend the rest of our lives here. To suggest that we will all be deported following a Yes vote is patronising and insulting. I know many other families that have been intimidated by these lies."

European nationals have the right to live in Scotland through the freedom of movement regulations - one of the EU's core principles - which the UK Government has been critical of and is seeking to reform.

Membership of the EU has been one of the key flashpoints in the referendum debate. The Scottish Government says it could negotiate entry as an existing member state within 18 months of independence using Article 48 of the Treaties of the European Union.

Pro-Union voices insist the only available option to an independent Scotland would be applying for re-entry via Article 49 as a new member state, a process which could take years with no guarantee it would be approved.

Humza Yousaf, Minister for External Affairs, said: "Scotland will be part of the European Union and the freedom of movement between Scotland and all EU countries will continue. But, in addition to that, this government is committed to Scotland's European migrants.

"It's appalling that Project Fear has reached a new low in their campaign but for the avoidance of any doubt I can give a categorical commitment that our EU nationals will have the right to live in an independent Scotland."

Maciej Wiczynski of Polish for Yes said: "We won't be intimidated - it's abundantly clear that all the threats to our EU membership come from Westminster. Not only are they planning an EU referendum to drag us out of Europe, they're also trying to scrap freedom of movement laws - the very laws that allow us to be in Scotland in the first place."

Toni Giugliano, head of interest groups at Yes Scotland, said: "We're hearing reports of activists intimidating Polish nationals in this way all over Scotland and frankly it's the worst form of campaigning.

"They're deliberately creating anxiety and scaring people into voting No - scraping the very bottom of the barrel. It must stop now."

He added: "What a contrast between Yes and No. We have the broadest, most progressive movement Scotland has ever seen - from Polish for Yes to Scots-Asians for Yes - while on the No side they have rallies for Farage and the Orange Order."

However, Better Together rejected the claims. A spokesman for Better Together said: "We have no idea what they are talking about. If they have evidence of this going on, then let's see it."

[ronaldo7]

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/09/when-the-push-polling-has-to-stop/

[Future17]

I registered for a postal vote and still haven't received it yet.

Is anyone else in the same position? :confused:

When did you apply? It was after the first week in August, you should get yours by Thursday this week.

[JeMeSouviens]

What have they actually already said, though?

3 separate plans setting out the minimum each thinks they can get away with and a touch of joint waffle:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/lamont-davidson-and-rennie-more-power-for-scots-1-3444512

[Phil D. Rolls]

3 separate plans setting out the minimum each thinks they can get away with and a touch of joint waffle:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/lamont-davidson-and-rennie-more-power-for-scots-1-3444512

I quite like Ruth Davidson, the other three are *rse lickers of the highest order.

[RyeSloan]

Interesting to see the (rather delayed) reaction to a possible Yes vote....and the markets are already starting to react to the undoubted uncertainty it will create.

Whether or not you are Yes or No it would be wise to consider what the immediate ramifications of a Yes will be and if you believe they can be kept under control for the alleged 18 months negotiation period.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting to see the (rather delayed) reaction to a possible Yes vote....and the markets are already starting to react to the undoubted uncertainty it will create.

Whether or not you are Yes or No it would be wise to consider what the immediate ramifications of a Yes will be and if you believe they can be kept under control for the alleged 18 months negotiation period.

There are bound to be jitters, and there would be more over the next 18 months. However, the markets aren't daft and IMO sensible negotiations would settle them.

This is nothing compared to what they will say if and when the EU referendum kicks off :)

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting to see the (rather delayed) reaction to a possible Yes vote....and the markets are already starting to react to the undoubted uncertainty it will create.

Whether or not you are Yes or No it would be wise to consider what the immediate ramifications of a Yes will be and if you believe they can be kept under control for the alleged 18 months negotiation period.

The pound is down less than $0.02, FTSE off by about 1%. It's not exactly Black Wednesday. :rolleyes:

It's a considerable incentive for both sides to hammer out a deal quickly though. The detail of negotiation will take a while but there's no reason why the basic structure of a deal couldn't be arrived at fairly quickly. That's what the market will be looking for.

[WestEndHibee]

I registered for a postal vote and still haven't received it yet.

Is anyone else in the same position? :confused:

I think the next wave of postal votes are being sent out today so you should get it before thursday.

[WestEndHibee]

There are bound to be jitters, and there would be more over the next 18 months. However, the markets aren't daft and IMO sensible negotiations would settle them.

This is nothing compared to what they will say if and when the EU referendum kicks off :)

:agree: There was an interesting interview on radio 4 with the head of Aberdeen Asset Management who stated that the biggest risk to investment will be the EU referendum.

[CropleyWasGod]

Getting even sillier now.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746743/Scottish-sports-stars-face-Rio-2016-Olympic-ban-voters-independence-11-days-time-warns-Games-chief.html

The spirit of Comical Ali lives on.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Getting even sillier now.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746743/Scottish-sports-stars-face-Rio-2016-Olympic-ban-voters-independence-11-days-time-warns-Games-chief.html

The spirit of Comical Ali lives on.

I don't see the problem myself: A decent proportion of the athletes representing European countries at the Olympics were born in a different country anyway. I would imagine that Scottish athletes could still represent the UK a couple of months after independence. The British team could say no to that, but their current slavish pursuit of medals at all costs suggests they wouldn't.

If it turns out Scottish athletes couldn't compete I would genuinely feel very sorry for them. But is there a suggestion here that Scots should base how they vote on the basis of whether or not we would be able to take part in a sporting event. Especially one which will be repeated 4 years later which we certainly would be able to take part in? ....... do they think we are that shallow?

This of course points to a more interesting question. As someone ( like it or not ) who was born in the UK would I still be entitled to a British passport after Scotland leaves the UK?

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't see the problem myself: A decent proportion of the athletes representing European countries at the Olympics were born in a different country anyway. I would imagine that Scottish athletes could still represent the UK a couple of months after independence. The British team could say no to that, but their current slavish pursuit of medals at all costs suggests they wouldn't.

If it turns out Scottish athletes couldn't compete I would genuinely feel very sorry for them. But is there a suggestion here that Scots should base how they vote on the basis of whether or not we would be able to take part in a sporting event. Especially one which will be repeated 4 years later which we certainly would be able to take part in? ....... do they think we are that shallow?

This of course points to a more interesting question. As someone ( like it or not ) who was born in the UK would I still be entitled to a British passport after Scotland leaves the UK?

There's plenty of precedent to rubbish the story. The former Soviet countries in 92 for example.

On your last point, I think you probably would. It's your place of birth, after all. :)

[RyeSloan]

The pound is down less than $0.02, FTSE off by about 1%. It's not exactly Black Wednesday. :rolleyes: It's a considerable incentive for both sides to hammer out a deal quickly though. The detail of negotiation will take a while but there's no reason why the basic structure of a deal couldn't be arrived at fairly quickly. That's what the market will be looking for.

Wasn't suggesting it was black Wednesday just wondering if we think the politicians will be able to lead the market or of the market will lead the politicians...nothing drives negative sentiment more than uncertainty...

[NAE NOOKIE]

Wasn't suggesting it was black Wednesday just wondering if we think the politicians will be able to lead the market or of the market will lead the politicians...nothing drives negative sentiment more than uncertainty...

There is the mental thing. The same politicians who warn us about the dangers of independence support and champion a worldwide system which can lead to economies crashing and ordinary people brought to despair and ruin just because some 20 year old trader in Hong Kong kept pressing the gamble button, or because some Arab Sheik has let out that he can only afford a hundred million pound Yacht this year.

[CropleyWasGod]

They really are pulling them out today....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285559/scottish-independence-can-a-royal-baby-really-save-the-union/

"I'm leaving you!!!!"

"I'm pregnant............"

[Moulin Yarns]

They really are pulling them out today....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285559/scottish-independence-can-a-royal-baby-really-save-the-union/

"I'm leaving you!!!!"

"I'm pregnant............"

:top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

They really are pulling them out today....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285559/scottish-independence-can-a-royal-baby-really-save-the-union/

"I'm leaving you!!!!"

"I'm pregnant............"

"How do yo know its mine?"

[hibsbollah]

Krugman...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=1

[The Harp Awakes]

They really are pulling them out today....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285559/scottish-independence-can-a-royal-baby-really-save-the-union/

"I'm leaving you!!!!"

"I'm pregnant............"

:faf::faf::faf:

Every day is the 1 April it seems since the opinion poll put Yes in front at the weekend. The more you read stuff like this, it becomes clear that the Tory press South of the border are in a state of mass hysteria over the prospect of Scotland becoming independent.

[RyeSloan]

Krugman... http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=1

This is the key point for me:

In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.

I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.


This is Plan B is it not?

[RyeSloan]

There is the mental thing. The same politicians who warn us about the dangers of independence support and champion a worldwide system which can lead to economies crashing and ordinary people brought to despair and ruin just because some 20 year old trader in Hong Kong kept pressing the gamble button, or because some Arab Sheik has let out that he can only afford a hundred million pound Yacht this year.

It has very little to do with Hong Kong traders and Arab Sheiks. It has a lot to do with your currency partner, the interest rates within the currency zone (in or out of a currency union) and the flow of capital in or out of the country.

There is a risk that a Yes vote could see substantial (in the short term at least) capital outflow from Scotland as depositors move their money to the 'safer' part of the rUK...indeed you may see substantial outflows from all parts of the sterling zone and as we have seen with Russia recently such capital flight is severely damaging to the economy.

Like it or not a Yes vote will create a huge amount of uncertainty and that must have a negative impact...I'm not saying that can't or won't eventually be resolved but I'm not sure everyone understands the risks involved here. The debate around the independence concept has failed to address this issue (more fool the BT campaign for that) with rather bland assurances that political negotiations will sort everything out with the politicians giving the impression they will be able to control the fall out. I remain unconvinced of their abilities in this regard.

[xyz23jc]

This is the key point for me:

In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.

I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.


This is Plan B is it not?

Let it go, eh Alistair! Prepare to be boggled! I'm lovin' lovin' lovin' it......!

[xyz23jc]

Krugman...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=1

"Scotland becoming Spain without the sunshine...." Aw ma sides.....nae mair!

[allmodcons]

It has very little to do with Hong Kong traders and Arab Sheiks. It has a lot to do with your currency partner, the interest rates within the currency zone (in or out of a currency union) and the flow of capital in or out of the country.

There is a risk that a Yes vote could see substantial (in the short term at least) capital outflow from Scotland as depositors move their money to the 'safer' part of the rUK...indeed you may see substantial outflows from all parts of the sterling zone and as we have seen with Russia recently such capital flight is severely damaging to the economy.

Like it or not a Yes vote will create a huge amount of uncertainty and that must have a negative impact...I'm not saying that can't or won't eventually be resolved but I'm not sure everyone understands the risks involved here. The debate around the independence concept has failed to address this issue (more fool the BT campaign for that) with rather bland assurances that political negotiations will sort everything out with the politicians giving the impression they will be able to control the fall out. I remain unconvinced of their abilities in this regard.

Same old, same old tired lame arguments of a doomsday scenario in the event that Scots take a democratic decision on the central issues of sovereignty and governmental accountability.

The arguments have been gone over and over, time and time again and that is why there is a serious move to 'Yes'. When people weigh up the arguments they see the merits of an iScotland.

I seriously cannot be bothered getting into the huge difference between what is a Eurozone with 18 partners and a Sterling zone with 2 partners, suffice to say, the harsh reality for all Unionists on here and further afield is that economics (thankfully) will take over from political posturing if, as I sincerely hope they do, Scots vote 'Yes' next Thursday.

[hibsbollah]

Same old, same old tired lame arguments of a doomsday scenario in the event that Scots take a democratic decision on the central issues of sovereignty and governmental accountability.

The arguments have been gone over and over, time and time again and that is why there is a serious move to 'Yes'. When people weight up the arguments they see the merits of an iScotland.

I seriously cannot be bothered getting into the huge difference between what is a Eurozone with 18 partners and a Sterling zone with 2 partners, suffice to say, the harsh reality for all Unionists on here and further afield is that economics (thankfully) will take over from political posturing if, as I sincerely hope they do, Scots vote 'Yes' next Thursday.

I think the point of the piece is that Krugman (possibly the only economist to emerge with his reputation unscathed after 2008) isnt saying Scottish independence per se is a bad thing, he's saying that keeping your currency pegged to an alien one you have no control over is a recipe for the Spanish model of banking collapse. Personally Id be more likely to vote Yes if the campaign had been a bit braver about the currency and said 'no, we dont know all the ramifications of a new currency, but we're going to give it a try because its what we believe in'.

Krugman's specific argument isnt one ive seen put by the No side, so I don't think it qualifies as 'same old same old'.

[JeMeSouviens]

This is the key point for me:

In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.

I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.


This is Plan B is it not?

The Fiscal Commission Working Group (2 noble economists, not just one :wink:) backed Sterlingisation as a temporary measure. If that is Plan B then I hope that's how we approach it, Sterlingise with aim to move to own currency pegged to £ as soon as. That would actually be my Plan A.

[CapitalGreen]

This is the key point for me:

In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.

I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.


This is Plan B is it not?

Put this on the PM board but it was actually meant for here:

No inside info but the application of game theory suggests CU as the only logical outcome for both sides. Not doing so would results in higher borrowing costs for both sides which neither can afford.

As much as I respect Krugman as an economist, I respect Stiglitz more, who Krugman cites as a key influence incidentally, and he also believes that a CU is the only logical outcome. I also think it is wrong to compare the Eurozone CU with a CU of North and South Britain. The 2 unions would really be quite dissimilar.

10+ countries in EU compared to 2 - much easier to reach consensus.
Both economies are mature as is the sterling currency compared with a mix of mature & emerging economies in Europe.
Similar industry make-up between rUK and Scot whereas in Europe it industrial/finance in the north and service/agri in the South.
Both countries in UK strong trading partners, which would lead to correlation in economic performance.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the point of the piece is that Krugman (possibly the only economist to emerge with his reputation unscathed after 2008) isnt saying Scottish independence per se is a bad thing, he's saying that keeping your currency pegged to an alien one you have no control over is a recipe for the Spanish model of banking collapse. Personally Id be more likely to vote Yes if the campaign had been a bit braver about the currency and said 'no, we dont know all the ramifications of a new currency, but we're going to give it a try because its what we believe in'.

Its not a specific argument ive seen put by the No side.

No, he's not talking about a peg, he's talking about actually using another currency. If pegged, you still have the monetary controls (setting interest rates, printing money) for use in time of crisis, you can adjust your peg etc.

[JeMeSouviens]

Wow!

TNS/BMRB:

Y 50 (+8)
N 50 (-8)

The YouGov swing has backing. :cb Fieldwork for this one stretches back over a couple of weeks and polling is done face to face.

[RyeSloan]

Put this on the PM board but it was actually meant for here: No inside info but the application of game theory suggests CU as the only logical outcome for both sides. Not doing so would results in higher borrowing costs for both sides which neither can afford. As much as I respect Krugman as an economist, I respect Stiglitz more, who Krugman cites as a key influence incidentally, and he also believes that a CU is the only logical outcome. I also think it is wrong to compare the Eurozone CU with a CU of North and South Britain. The 2 unions would really be quite dissimilar. 10+ countries in EU compared to 2 - much easier to reach consensus. Both economies are mature as is the sterling currency compared with a mix of mature & emerging economies in Europe. Similar industry make-up between rUK and Scot whereas in Europe it industrial/finance in the north and service/agri in the South. Both countries in UK strong trading partners, which would lead to correlation in economic performance.

But surely there has to be some economic divergence, is that not one of the key reasons for independence (14th richest nation in the world and all that?)

I also think there is quite a difference between the Scots economy...the rather large public sector would be one obvious current difference.

[RyeSloan]

The Fiscal Commission Working Group (2 noble economists, not just one :wink:) backed Sterlingisation as a temporary measure. If that is Plan B then I hope that's how we approach it, Sterlingise with aim to move to own currency pegged to £ as soon as. That would actually be my Plan A.

Why move to our own currency then peg it?

[RyeSloan]

Same old, same old tired lame arguments of a doomsday scenario in the event that Scots take a democratic decision on the central issues of sovereignty and governmental accountability. The arguments have been gone over and over, time and time again and that is why there is a serious move to 'Yes'. When people weight up the arguments they see the merits of an iScotland. I seriously cannot be bothered getting into the huge difference between what is a Eurozone with 18 partners and a Sterling zone with 2 partners, suffice to say, the harsh reality for all Unionists on here and further afield is that economics (thankfully) will take over from political posturing if, as I sincerely hope they do, Scots vote 'Yes' next Thursday.

Hmm it's the economics taking over that is my concern!!

[hibsbollah]

No, he's not talking about a peg, he's talking about actually using another currency. If pegged, you still have the monetary controls (setting interest rates, printing money) for use in time of crisis, you can adjust your peg etc.

Okay, leaving aside the purity of the definition of 'peg', the implication of political control without fiscal and financial control for Scotland is clear and well made imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

Okay, leaving aside the purity of the definition of 'peg', the implication of political control without fiscal and financial control for Scotland is clear and well made imo.

The exchange rate as it stands.

http://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xpa1/v/t42.1790-2/10521807_933838129976784_1213602844_n.mp4?oh=4d6a5 8cf357b1d4fa8018dc7c3190c3a&oe=540FC363&__gda__=1410308376_a139bc4073f48a337cf8f1ff3fd52e0 2

[JeMeSouviens]

Why move to our own currency then peg it?

Peg to give rate predictability vs our largest market, our own currency for control if needed in crisis. The "best of both worlds". :faf:

[JeMeSouviens]

Irvine Welsh's journey to Yes:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/08/labour-pains-labour-of-love/

[JeMeSouviens]

So the fabulous new powers announcement was just the same absolutely minimal powers as before (way short of devo plus, and a world away from devo max) but this time with ... a (vague) timetable!

Can see that one halting the Yes surge in its tracks. :rolleyes:

[DaveF]

I smile when I read about Hibs fans, money and pegs :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Irvine Welsh's journey to Yes:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/08/labour-pains-labour-of-love/

That is an absolutely outstanding piece.

[xyz23jc]

[QUOTE=JeMeSouviens;4161773]Irvine Welsh's journey to Yes:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/08/labour-pains-labour-of-love/[/QUOTE

Truly Hibs class!

[Bristolhibby]

Irvine Welsh's journey to Yes:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/08/labour-pains-labour-of-love/

Great article. He talks so much sense.

J

[xyz23jc]

I smile when I read about Hibs fans, money and pegs :greengrin

Kwality!

[NAE NOOKIE]

It has very little to do with Hong Kong traders and Arab Sheiks. It has a lot to do with your currency partner, the interest rates within the currency zone (in or out of a currency union) and the flow of capital in or out of the country.

There is a risk that a Yes vote could see substantial (in the short term at least) capital outflow from Scotland as depositors move their money to the 'safer' part of the rUK...indeed you may see substantial outflows from all parts of the sterling zone and as we have seen with Russia recently such capital flight is severely damaging to the economy.

Like it or not a Yes vote will create a huge amount of uncertainty and that must have a negative impact...I'm not saying that can't or won't eventually be resolved but I'm not sure everyone understands the risks involved here. The debate around the independence concept has failed to address this issue (more fool the BT campaign for that) with rather bland assurances that political negotiations will sort everything out with the politicians giving the impression they will be able to control the fall out. I remain unconvinced of their abilities in this regard.

My example was simplistic and tongue in cheek as you are aware. But it is a fact that greed drives the folk who drive the worlds financial markets and governments have little or no control over that, much as they like to pretend they do.

The big Banks and Pension funds moving money out of Scotland and who knows jobs later is a possible consequence of a Yes vote. But Scotland will still have a banking sector which hopefully will grow post independence and we will be in a position to take our own measures to attract big business.

I am sure of one thing .......... Any institution in which I have money that moves its business out of Scotland after 2016 will no longer have my business and I would hope that any Scots, regardless of how they voted on the 18th of September will be the same.

[NAE NOOKIE]

They really are pulling them out today....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100285559/scottish-independence-can-a-royal-baby-really-save-the-union/

"I'm leaving you!!!!"

"I'm pregnant............"

At least its not some family living in a big house with more bedrooms than they need sucking a fortune out of the pubic purse.

[snooky]

It has very little to do with Hong Kong traders and Arab Sheiks. It has a lot to do with your currency partner, the interest rates within the currency zone (in or out of a currency union) and the flow of capital in or out of the country.

There is a risk that a Yes vote could see substantial (in the short term at least) capital outflow from Scotland as depositors move their money to the 'safer' part of the rUK...indeed you may see substantial outflows from all parts of the sterling zone and as we have seen with Russia recently such capital flight is severely damaging to the economy.

Like it or not a Yes vote will create a huge amount of uncertainty and that must have a negative impact...I'm not saying that can't or won't eventually be resolved but I'm not sure everyone understands the risks involved here. The debate around the independence concept has failed to address this issue (more fool the BT campaign for that) with rather bland assurances that political negotiations will sort everything out with the politicians giving the impression they will be able to control the fall out. I remain unconvinced of their abilities in this regard.

I'm first to admit that I'm a real dumbo when it comes to markets/stocks/finances/etc.
However this has me really baffled ...... WTF?
http://shaunynews.com/2014/09/08/scottish-pound-now-worth-more-than-the-english-pound/

[leither17]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=830896323611283

[marinello59]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=830896323611283

A funny bit of fitba banter. I bet we still get some taking that seriously though.

[marinello59]

So the fabulous new powers announcement was just the same absolutely minimal powers as before (way short of devo plus, and a world away from devo max) but this time with ... a (vague) timetable!

Can see that one halting the Yes surge in its tracks. :rolleyes:

It's as if 02 have taken over their campaign because I can see nothing different between this and being offered a hundred free texts several days after you have signed up with another mobile service provider.

[JeMeSouviens]

A funny bit of fitba banter. I bet we still get some taking that seriously though.

Class. :top marks

[CapitalGreen]

I'm first to admit that I'm a real dumbo when it comes to markets/stocks/finances/etc.
However this has me really baffled ...... WTF?
http://shaunynews.com/2014/09/08/scottish-pound-now-worth-more-than-the-english-pound/

That's nothing to do with financial markets, that's a board from a bureau de change. I've seen it in Spain before where it is more expensive to buy Euros in non-BOE Sterling.

[Moulin Yarns]

"Dear people of Scotland;
Respectfully, I’m the opposite of you. I’m English and grew up in the south east. I’m very Conservative ...– not just a voter – I’ve even been a Councillor. We’re worlds apart on values and on outlook.
Of course, it’s your decision and my opinion doesn’t matter. But if you asked me, I’d say: vote YES. What we need is an amicable and respectful separation from which a new, fairer friendship and partnership can emerge in which both our countries are finally, equal.
All I’ve seen from the “no” campaign is people trying to scare you for the sake of their own personal ambitions. Ed Miliband wants to scare you because he can’t win in England without you, and all he really wants is the keys to No 10. David Cameron wants to scare you because he doesn’t want to lose face. None of them really care about the Scottish people, from where I sit in the cosy south of England. At all.
The fact is though, they’re bluffing. Badly. With any separation there will, no doubt, be teething troubles and negotiations. But if the separation is the right thing to do, however difficult, a few years down the line, you look back and realise it was the right decision. You’ve moved on and your life is better. You can hold your head up high.
They’re bluffing about all of it – the currency, the jobs. Because the simple economic truth is that Britain is not going to do anything to damage the Scottish economy after independence that doesn’t also damage itself just as much. The Westminster politicians aren’t stupid. You’ll get the pound if you want it. You’ll keep the jobs and those you lose will be replaced by new investment because you’ll get to chart your own course.
What they’re not telling you is that most of us English folk would like to see it happen too. Like I said, I’m an English Conservative. Respectfully, our values and outlooks are very, very different. I understand that you don’t want your destinies ruled by English Conservatives in Westminster because you must be aware they don’t care about Scotland at all. Hopefully you’ll understand when I say: for England, most of us actually want a Conservative government. We don’t want Labour in power because of its Scottish MPs. That doesn’t reflect our true values any more than the current position reflects yours.
If you vote YES, Scotland will breathe free and will be, truly, Scotland. It’s ironic that the unintended consequence of this will be that England, too, will be able to go its own way. Your cousins across the border will actually be, well, a little grateful. It could be the start of something we badly need down here: better representation, more regionalism, more localism.
The campaign slogan for the NO vote is “Better Together”. But you can’t be together if one if you is not respected and has no rights, if one partner isn’t even recognised as an individual. Surely we’d really be better together if we were both truly ourselves: Scotland and England, equal but distinct, individual; true partners for the first time.
Like I said, my opinion doesn’t matter. I wish you all well.
Kind regards
Dr Chris Forester"

[JeMeSouviens]

Today's market news - £ down slightly vs $, up vs € and CHF. FTSE v slightly down, Lloyds up, Standard Life flat.

Panic over?

[JeMeSouviens]

"Dear people of Scotland;
Respectfully, I’m the opposite of you. I’m English and grew up in the south east. I’m very Conservative ...– not just a voter – I’ve even been a Councillor. We’re worlds apart on values and on outlook.
Of course, it’s your decision and my opinion doesn’t matter. But if you asked me, I’d say: vote YES. What we need is an amicable and respectful separation from which a new, fairer friendship and partnership can emerge in which both our countries are finally, equal.
All I’ve seen from the “no” campaign is people trying to scare you for the sake of their own personal ambitions. Ed Miliband wants to scare you because he can’t win in England without you, and all he really wants is the keys to No 10. David Cameron wants to scare you because he doesn’t want to lose face. None of them really care about the Scottish people, from where I sit in the cosy south of England. At all.
The fact is though, they’re bluffing. Badly. With any separation there will, no doubt, be teething troubles and negotiations. But if the separation is the right thing to do, however difficult, a few years down the line, you look back and realise it was the right decision. You’ve moved on and your life is better. You can hold your head up high.
They’re bluffing about all of it – the currency, the jobs. Because the simple economic truth is that Britain is not going to do anything to damage the Scottish economy after independence that doesn’t also damage itself just as much. The Westminster politicians aren’t stupid. You’ll get the pound if you want it. You’ll keep the jobs and those you lose will be replaced by new investment because you’ll get to chart your own course.
What they’re not telling you is that most of us English folk would like to see it happen too. Like I said, I’m an English Conservative. Respectfully, our values and outlooks are very, very different. I understand that you don’t want your destinies ruled by English Conservatives in Westminster because you must be aware they don’t care about Scotland at all. Hopefully you’ll understand when I say: for England, most of us actually want a Conservative government. We don’t want Labour in power because of its Scottish MPs. That doesn’t reflect our true values any more than the current position reflects yours.
If you vote YES, Scotland will breathe free and will be, truly, Scotland. It’s ironic that the unintended consequence of this will be that England, too, will be able to go its own way. Your cousins across the border will actually be, well, a little grateful. It could be the start of something we badly need down here: better representation, more regionalism, more localism.
The campaign slogan for the NO vote is “Better Together”. But you can’t be together if one if you is not respected and has no rights, if one partner isn’t even recognised as an individual. Surely we’d really be better together if we were both truly ourselves: Scotland and England, equal but distinct, individual; true partners for the first time.
Like I said, my opinion doesn’t matter. I wish you all well.
Kind regards
Dr Chris Forester"

I think most rUK folk really don't care, if they express a preference it's likely to be pretty marginal. Doubt many of them will even notice the consequences of independence.

[allmodcons]

I think the point of the piece is that Krugman (possibly the only economist to emerge with his reputation unscathed after 2008) isnt saying Scottish independence per se is a bad thing, he's saying that keeping your currency pegged to an alien one you have no control over is a recipe for the Spanish model of banking collapse. Personally Id be more likely to vote Yes if the campaign had been a bit braver about the currency and said 'no, we dont know all the ramifications of a new currency, but we're going to give it a try because its what we believe in'.

Krugman's specific argument isnt one ive seen put by the No side, so I don't think it qualifies as 'same old same old'.

Why do you think he chooses the Spanish model? Why not Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria or Finland?

He's supposed to be a top Economist, yet he chooses an EU country where the economy is completely divergent from the top Eurozone partner (i.e. - Germany). He might aswell have picked Greece just to add some more weight to the prospect of a doomsday scenario!!

How is it that countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria and Finland are able to prosper using a shared currency and shared Central Bank and, what's more, are we supposed to believe that beacuse they operate in this manner these countries are not Independent Sovereign States?

[NAE NOOKIE]

A funny bit of fitba banter. I bet we still get some taking that seriously though.

Help me oot Marinello ...... I can hear the "F Off Scotland" bit, but what was the rest? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Help me oot Marinello ...... I can hear the "F Off Scotland" bit, but what was the rest? :confused:

We're all voting Yes :greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

LOL from Kevin Bridges.

@kevinbridges86: The bold @George_Osborne 's plan to keep Scotland.. http://t.co/YOtHgTFpMX

[Moulin Yarns]

Breaking News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29125406

Better Together?

"Although the three leaders will all be in Scotland on Wednesday they will not travel together or appear together"

This seems apt

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

[Moulin Yarns]

The Spirit of Independence is in Perth today :thumbsup:



13433

[hibsbollah]

. lol consider hhhhyhhhhhhyyychhyyyy.y......you and;4162247]Why do you think he chooses the Spanish model? Why not Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria or Finland?

He's supposed to be a top Economist, yet he chooses an EU country where the economy is completely divergent from the top Eurozone partner (i.e. - Germany). He might aswell have picked Greece just to add some more weight to the prospect of a doomsday scenario!!

How is it that countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria and Finland are able to prosper using a shared currency and shared Central Bank and, what's more, are we supposed to believe that beacuse they operate in this manner these countries are not Independent Sovereign States?
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you read the whole piece but he specifically says that the events of the whole euro zone area, not just Spain, should act as a warning (the whole of southern europe, as well as countries like Netherlands and Finland, which by your comments you apparently think are epitomes of good governance, WERE also flagged up).

He also refers to the POSSIBLE good example of Canada as a divergent scenario, so I dont think chucking aspersions around about his bias are justified.

And yes, he's 'supposedly' a good economist, he won the Nobel Prize and even as a non economist I read some of his work at Uni.

[RyeSloan]

Why do you think he chooses the Spanish model? Why not Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria or Finland? He's supposed to be a top Economist, yet he chooses an EU country where the economy is completely divergent from the top Eurozone partner (i.e. - Germany). He might aswell have picked Greece just to add some more weight to the prospect of a doomsday scenario!! How is it that countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria and Finland are able to prosper using a shared currency and shared Central Bank and, what's more, are we supposed to believe that beacuse they operate in this manner these countries are not Independent Sovereign States?

He could have taken the Netherlands quite easily...their GDP rate over the last couple of years has been horrible. Finland is the same...in fact I don't think any of your selections come close to the UK rate of growth.

It's clear to most people that the Euro Zone has benefited only one country Germany. Which just happens to be the biggest economy and the one with the biggest influence on the ECB...funny that.

All euro countries now face deficit targets requirements and are being required to work together on deficit reduction and further financial integration in a rather desperate attempt to support the whole euro concept. Grinding austerity in countries like Spain and Portugal are the result, Italy has no growth what so ever..France the same. In fact the story is pretty consistent across the Euro Zone...lack of control over the currency they use has compounded and extended their difficulties with no end in sight (Draghi again getting creative to counter deflation only last week)....

Currency unions without fiscal co-ordination don't work, the evidence for that is pretty clear imho.

[WestEndHibee]

I'm not sure if you read the whole piece but he specifically says that the events of the whole euro zone area, not just Spain, should act as a warning (the whole of southern europe, as well as countries like Netherlands and Finland, which by your comments you apparently think are epitomes of good governance, WERE also flagged up).

He also refers to the POSSIBLE good example of Canada as a divergent scenario, so I dont think chucking aspersions around about his bias are justified.

And yes, he's 'supposedly' a good economist, he won the Nobel Prize and even as a non economist I read some of his work at Uni.

I see your Krugman and raise you the Stig(litz) who has publicly stated that a currency union rejection is pure bluff from Westminster and that the currency union if Scotland votes yes has all the ingredients to succeed. :greengrin

Either way it's all academic I studied 5 years of Economics and what I learned is that even the best economists have no idea how a real world scenario will turn out. They can give predictions based on rational theories but markets and people aren't rational and there are so many forces influencing an outcome that no-one can hope to take them all into account and so their is generally a very wide margin for error.

Don't get me wrong, these two guys are very very good economists and have moved the field onwards but don't take their predictions as even near certainties.

[JeMeSouviens]

He could have taken the Netherlands quite easily...their GDP rate over the last couple of years has been horrible. Finland is the same...in fact I don't think any of your selections come close to the UK rate of growth.

It's clear to most people that the Euro Zone has benefited only one country Germany. Which just happens to be the biggest economy and the one with the biggest influence on the ECB...funny that.

All euro countries now face deficit targets requirements and are being required to work together on deficit reduction and further financial integration in a rather desperate attempt to support the whole euro concept. Grinding austerity in countries like Spain and Portugal are the result, Italy has no growth what so ever..France the same. In fact the story is pretty consistent across the Euro Zone...lack of control over the currency they use has compounded and extended their difficulties with no end in sight (Draghi again getting creative to counter deflation only last week)....

Currency unions without fiscal co-ordination don't work, the evidence for that is pretty clear imho.

Finland vs Netherlands vs Spain vs UK vs Germany vs Iceland (for grins) vs Ireland

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/GB-NL-FI-DE-ES-IE-IS?display=graph

[Bristolhibby]

They are raising the Saltire over Downing Street now, FFS give me strength.

J

[WestEndHibee]

They are raising the Saltire over Downing Street now, FFS give me strength.

J

In the words of AngrySalmond "Are they surrendering?" :greengrin:flag:

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's as if 02 have taken over their campaign because I can see nothing different between this and being offered a hundred free texts several days after you have signed up with another mobile service provider.

Im phoning Better Together now to see if I can get a better deal on my broadband.

[Phil D. Rolls]

In the words of AngrySalmond "Are they surrendering?" :greengrin:flag:

The saltire is flying over Downing Street. Rejoice! Rejoice!

[JimBHibees]

They are raising the Saltire over Downing Street now, FFS give me strength.

J

Ed wants all of the UK to raise Saltires. Picture in the article in Liverpool. Absolute farce. Could they be anymore patronising.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29113547

[RyeSloan]

Finland vs Netherlands vs Spain vs UK vs Germany vs Iceland (for grins) vs Ireland http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/GB-NL-FI-DE-ES-IE-IS?display=graph



Not sure what your point is...in the 5 years since 2009 few if any of the countries you mentioned have a higher GDP...the euro zone is stuck in a low/no growth cycle that's surely beyond much discussion is it not?

[WestEndHibee]

The saltire is flying over Downing Street. Rejoice! Rejoice!

Anddddd inkeeping with much of BT's campaign it's off again... https://vine.co/v/Oz6OlOVQxwX

[Bristolhibby]

Anddddd inkeeping with much of BT's campaign it's off again... https://vine.co/v/Oz6OlOVQxwX

Brilliant!

J

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ed wants all of the UK to raise Saltires. Picture in the article in Liverpool. Absolute farce. Could they be anymore patronising.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29113547


Anddddd inkeeping with much of BT's campaign it's off again... https://vine.co/v/Oz6OlOVQxwX

:faf:

The hits just keep on coming.

[JeMeSouviens]

Not sure what your point is...in the 5 years since 2009 few if any of the countries you mentioned have a higher GDP...the euro zone is stuck in a low/no growth cycle that's surely beyond much discussion is it not?

Look at the graph. All bar Spain have higher GDP per capita than the UK (and have had in every year since 2008). The UK currently has growth and the Eurozone doesn't but looking at that graph, are you honestly confident that will continue?

[allmodcons]

He could have taken the Netherlands quite easily...their GDP rate over the last couple of years has been horrible. Finland is the same...in fact I don't think any of your selections come close to the UK rate of growth.

It's clear to most people that the Euro Zone has benefited only one country Germany. Which just happens to be the biggest economy and the one with the biggest influence on the ECB...funny that.

All euro countries now face deficit targets requirements and are being required to work together on deficit reduction and further financial integration in a rather desperate attempt to support the whole euro concept. Grinding austerity in countries like Spain and Portugal are the result, Italy has no growth what so ever..France the same. In fact the story is pretty consistent across the Euro Zone...lack of control over the currency they use has compounded and extended their difficulties with no end in sight (Draghi again getting creative to counter deflation only last week)....

Currency unions without fiscal co-ordination don't work, the evidence for that is pretty clear imho.


Finland vs Netherlands vs Spain vs UK vs Germany vs Iceland (for grins) vs Ireland

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/GB-NL-FI-DE-ES-IE-IS?display=graph

Have just got back in office. Was going to reply reference The Netherlands & Finland in terms of GDP per head, but would appear JMS has beaten me to it.

I still say Spain is a poor example or, in this case, a good example for painting a horrible picture of the future. Not unlike the Better Together leaflet telling us we would be worse off in an iScotland than Pakistan, but omitting to say that the figures they were quoting were total GDP rather than GDP per capita.

Anyway, for me the arguments have been won or lost by now and that is why more and more pepole are moving to 'Yes'.

IMO the 'undecideds' will vote on trust now and don't believe many will want to put their trust in the latest half-baked offer of a timetable for the implementation of new tax, spend and welfare proposals that are completely undefined.

This from the same people team who want a guarantee on everything post a 'Yes' vote and, much worse, this after a huge number of people have already sent away their postal vote!!!!

You couldn't make it up, they are in a complete state of panic and will now conive and lie all the way to polling day to try amd preserve their establishment status.

[JimBHibees]

Have just got back in office. Was going to reply reference The Netherlands & Finland in terms of GDP per head, but would appear JMS has beaten me to it.

I still say Spain is a poor example or, in this case, a good example for painting a horrible picture of the future. Not unlike the Better Together leaflet telling us we would be worse off in an iScotland than Pakistan, but omitting to say that the figures they were quoting were total GDP rather than GDP per capita.

Anyway, for me the arguments have been won or lost by now and that is why more and more pepole are moving to 'Yes'.

IMO the 'undecideds' will vote on trust now and don't believe many will want to put their trust in the latest half-baked offer of a timetable for the implementation of new tax, spend and welfare proposals that are completely undefined.

This from the same people team who want a guarantee on everything post a 'Yes' vote and, much worse, this after a huge number of people have already sent away their postal vote!!!!

You couldn't make it up, they are in a complete state of panic and will now conive and lie all the way to polling day to try amd preserve their establishment status.

Definitely.

[johnbc70]

If I am being honest the BT proposals have probably made me certain I am a No despite seriously considering a Yes only a week ago. So job done for them with me. Yes its probably panic and underhand but done the job and at this late stage that's what counts.

[marinello59]

They are raising the Saltire over Downing Street now, FFS give me strength.

J

They may as well throw patronising in to the mix along with bull****ting. The No campaign has nothing left.

[JimBHibees]

If I am being honest the BT proposals have probably made me certain I am a No despite seriously considering a Yes only a week ago. So job done for them with me. Yes its probably panic and underhand but done the job and at this late stage that's what counts.

And you think they are serious about this? It actually makes me distrust them even more the fact it has taken this long for them to come up with anything even though over 150k have already voted. The tories will never imo have any inclination to deliver any of this and Labour are just trying to save their skin.

in 79 last minute promises were reneged on big time looks like history may be repeating themselves. Hopefully more are sickened by this than actually buy it.

[RyeSloan]

Look at the graph. All bar Spain have higher GDP per capita than the UK (and have had in every year since 2008). The UK currently has growth and the Eurozone doesn't but looking at that graph, are you honestly confident that will continue?

Aye not disagreeing with that...I wasn't really discussing absolute GDP figures, there can be many reasons for divergence in those, but was looking at the impact it has had in those countries since the financial crisis.

Seems to me it is a big handicap for the countries you mentioned and not just Spain..they are struggling to get their economies to grow again as they are tied to the euro which in turn is effectively tied to Germany.

Amazing how many ways we can slice a cake tho and I suppose we may well find out over the next few years just what it all means!!

[RyeSloan]

And you think they are serious about this? It actually makes me distrust them even more the fact it has taken this long for them to come up with anything even though over 150k have already voted. The tories will never imo have any inclination to deliver any of this and Labour are just trying to save their skin. in 79 last minute promises were reneged on big time looks like history may be repeating themselves. Hopefully more are sickened by this than actually buy it.

Can only agree with this...I saw some commentary about 6 months ago that said No needed to come up with a joint plan for more powers to provide a viable alternative that people could vote No for...for them to wake up on Monday and realise that they still needed to do so is just embarrassing.

[johnbc70]

And you think they are serious about this? It actually makes me distrust them even more the fact it has taken this long for them to come up with anything even though over 150k have already voted. The tories will never imo have any inclination to deliver any of this and Labour are just trying to save their skin.

in 79 last minute promises were reneged on big time looks like history may be repeating themselves. Hopefully more are sickened by this than actually buy it.

Well they delivered on the Parliament and since 97 what have they promised but not delivered? I am talking about actual laws not things like 'social justice' etc

[JeMeSouviens]

And you think they are serious about this? It actually makes me distrust them even more the fact it has taken this long for them to come up with anything even though over 150k have already voted. The tories will never imo have any inclination to deliver any of this and Labour are just trying to save their skin.

in 79 last minute promises were reneged on big time looks like history may be repeating themselves. Hopefully more are sickened by this than actually buy it.

This is just a rehash of earlier announcements. There are 3 sketchy proposals for pretty minor further devolution which are all subject to change once Westminster gets its teeth into them, ie. they're going to be extremely minor before they get near being law.

Devo-max this most certainly is not!

[johnbc70]

Can only agree with this...I saw some commentary about 6 months ago that said No needed to come up with a joint plan for more powers to provide a viable alternative that people could vote No for...for them to wake up on Monday and realise that they still needed to do so is just embarrassing.

Yes its embarrassing and totally underhand, but looks like it may work. Totally understand why people are so outraged but I think they realised they were going to lose so had to do something.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is just a rehash of earlier announcements. There are 3 sketchy proposals for pretty minor further devolution which are all subject to change once Westminster gets its teeth into them, ie. they're going to be extremely minor before they get near being law.

Devo-max this most certainly is not!

Saw it described last night as Devo-nano.:cb

[JeMeSouviens]

Well they delivered on the Parliament and since 97 what have they promised but not delivered? I am talking about actual laws not things like 'social justice' etc

They set up the Calman Commission which reported in 2009 and produced a watered-down bill in 2012. Full discussion of that here (the author is very pro-devo, not a nat btw):

http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-scotland-bill-too-little-too-late/

Anybody who thinks present Barnett arrangements will survive long in a post-No world, should take special note of this para:


Then there’s the question of the block grant to Scotland. This will be reduced by an ‘appropriate’ amount, to allow for the new tax-raising powers. But the Command paper Strengthening Scotland’s Future doesn’t say how that will be done — what the ‘appropriate’ amount might be or how it would be calculated. The UK Government had the Calman report for 18 months before publishing the Bill, and in that time the Holtham Commission’s report set out four methods of doing so. All the Command paper says about this is that ‘the circumstances make a definitive statement on the correct reduction to the block grant inappropriate at this time’. The lack of clarity on this key issue is deeply worrying.

I imagine this is probably the key driver to devolve income tax. We get control over income tax in exchange for a reduction in the block grant. Great time to de-Barnettise if you're that way inclined and if you're really lucky you also get to blame the SNP in Holyrood who will have to do the actual cutting that flow from this.

[RyeSloan]

Yes its embarrassing and totally underhand, but looks like it may work. Totally understand why people are so outraged but I think they realised they were going to lose so had to do something.

Agree with this too! Politicians being underhand to save their skins...who would have thunk it!!

[JeMeSouviens]

Aye not disagreeing with that...I wasn't really discussing absolute GDP figures, there can be many reasons for divergence in those, but was looking at the impact it has had in those countries since the financial crisis.

Seems to me it is a big handicap for the countries you mentioned and not just Spain..they are struggling to get their economies to grow again as they are tied to the euro which in turn is effectively tied to Germany.

Amazing how many ways we can slice a cake tho and I suppose we may well find out over the next few years just what it all means!!

We need a couple of parallel universes, so both of us can say, "I told you so". :wink:

[snooky]

We need a couple of parallel universes, so both of us can say, "I told you so". :wink:

Please Sir! :hyper: Can I be in the 'YES' universe?

[DaveF]

If I am being honest the BT proposals have probably made me certain I am a No despite seriously considering a Yes only a week ago. So job done for them with me. Yes its probably panic and underhand but done the job and at this late stage that's what counts.

I doubt that was ever the case if you are now a certain No after that 'offer'.

[Moulin Yarns]

the reason for the pound dip. Not the referendum as such, more the fact the UK will lose north sea revenues


http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

[RyeSloan]

We need a couple of parallel universes, so both of us can say, "I told you so". :wink:

Is that 4 universes then ;-)

[johnbc70]

I doubt that was ever the case if you are now a certain No after that 'offer'.

I was always a strong No but I was dismayed by the so called 'campaign' of BT and felt it was so negative that I moved into the Yes camp the more I read about it. However your probably right I just needed a gentle nudge to bring me back to No and that what this has done.

[Bristolhibby]

If I am being honest the BT proposals have probably made me certain I am a No despite seriously considering a Yes only a week ago. So job done for them with me. Yes its probably panic and underhand but done the job and at this late stage that's what counts.

I don't get it, you are pretty much saying you are being hood-winked. You can see you are getting lied to, yet you will still vote no.

It's jam tomorrow mate. If these "powers" had any merit, why announce them (sort of) with 10 days to go? Why not have a Devo Max option on the ballot, all those years ago that Cameron vetoed?

This is too big an opportunity to believe the same old lies from a creaking bunch of Westminster career politicians.

J

[stoneyburn hibs]

Has anyone on here had the latest Yes pamphlet ? If so, what do you think of it ? I started delivering it in my area this afternoon and after giving it the once over I'm very impressed by its content. More so because even though it doesn't say it bluntly, it is very well worded to target the undecided vote.