Scottish Independence

[lucky]

Has there not been a couple? POAS was one I think...

I think you may be right on the POAS. But Aslef, GMB, USDAW, Community and the NUM have already back staying the UK. I'm told the PCS vote included a number of branches who support staying the in UK but voted tactically to ensure the Nats and Trots who we're convince of getting a Yes vote got beat

[green glory]

Apart from being a bit crap, they are also a barely concealed SNP front organisation, with a few patsies stuck on for cover. It isn't so hard to see the joins in the SNP strategy that you can't spot these 'spontaneous' grassroots organisations that spring up to make it look like everyone is in favour of separation.

I'm afraid your miles off the mark.

[ronaldo7]

Yeah that's right. And David Bowie is another example. It's all a conspiracy.

McGlashan is never far below the surface is he?

You're not even taking half believable pi5h. Danny Alexander, Michael Moore and Alasdair Carmichael - all Cabinet Ministers - have all been into it for months and months. As have the London SNP - Robertson and Hosie.

As for fear and negativity, take a look at Salmond's 'big speech' from Aberdeen. Pair wee sole, he's being bullied an' that. Oh aye, Salmond is that boy that gets picked on in the playground right enough. :rolleyes:

Aye you're right, forgot about the 3 stooges, Michael Moore got the sack, Alasdair Carmichael got his erse handed to him on a plate by Sturgeon, and what can we say about "Beaker". I believe it was his idea for a £10 Billion windfall tax in the 2011 Budget, such a parcel of rogues.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/alexander-urged-to-resign-after-boasting-oil-tax-grab-was-his-idea-1-1559984

[hibsbollah]

As ever, the most interesting political activity relating to our independence referendum is taking place south of the border. Everytime Cameron or Gideon opens his mouth, the yes campaign gets an almost immediate filip in the polls, as John Curtice was pointing out this week (currently narrowing at yea 37% nay 46%). Their advisors must know this, so the question is why are they continuing to do so? Is it conceivable that the Tories are secretly hoping for a Yes vote? Or is this just psephological conspiracy gone mad :greengrin (Labour won the english vote in '97 and formed a Govt without the help of the Scots Welsh or Nornirish, so it would be a risky calculation).

Anyway, until it gets more interesting/inspiring I'm still floating.

[ronaldo7]

Some positive reading in these numbers.:saltireflag

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

[Glory Lurker]

Anyway, until it gets more interesting/inspiring I'm still floating.

The thought of floating voters makes me feel that it's a shame that Paul the Octopus isn't still around, as he could have told us months in advance which side is going to win.

[NAE NOOKIE]

David Bowie has made some storming records and Sean Connery has made some some entertaining films.

I would no more allow their point of view to influence my opinion on the debate than I would decide to bank with Santander because Jessica Ennis does ads for them. Anybody who makes decisions based on the fact that a favourite actor or music star has that opinion shouldnt be allowed to vote.

[Beefster]

David Bowie has made some storming records and Sean Connery has made some some entertaining films.

I would no more allow their point of view to influence my opinion on the debate than I would decide to bank with Santander because Jessica Ennis does ads for them. Anybody who makes decisions based on the fact that a favourite actor or music star has that opinion shouldnt be allowed to vote.

I agree entirely but I add the folk who get agitated at celebrities offering an opinion, whether it be Sean Connery, David Bowie or John Barrowman, should be banned from voting too.

That's not a dig at you btw. It's a dig at the trumpets on Twitter, newspaper comment sections or newspaper opinion pieces that get their knickers in a twist.

[JimBHibees]

If you want some non partisan information on the EU. This link as posted by someone earlier today. Clearly Barroso was talking nonsense but somehow still managed to make the headlines!

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu

Quite incredible that his comments werent in anyway queried by Andrew Marr, staggering really.

BBC are to me a shambles. Neutral my erse.

[JimBHibees]

I'm not going to argue that an iScotland would not have got caught up in the banking crisis but, bottom line is, it DIDN'T happen to an iScotland Government it happend on the UK Government's watch when they, and they alone, were responsible for financial regulation in the UK.

No, no. It was a global crisis the Iron chancellor (no boom and bust) and the war criminal would never allow this to happen. :rolleyes:

[Northernhibee]

Just been to a 'pizza and politics' evening where Vince Cable was the guest speaker. Very compelling and intelligent arguments of why a no vote is the only way forward. Good evening.

[lucky]

For me, the choice is head v heart. I believe the economic argument has been won by the staying in the UK ( head) but there is bit of trying to do it differently and making Scotland a fairer place ( heart). But unfortunately there does not seem to be much "heart" in real social change

[lucky]

Both cabinets heading north to Aberdeenshire today, both going to talk about energy and oil both WASTING taxpayers money on these unnecessary joints away from their offices.

[ronaldo7]

It's all about Prosperity v Poverty for me.

The current situation of having an increasing number of people having to go to food banks whilst the bankers get richer is abhorrent. We as a country would do it differently from the London Government, and our people would definitely benefit from being Independent.

Whilst Cameron and his cronies take away benefits from the poor and disabled, they will never get my vote.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-food-bank-with-no-food.23509422

[Beefster]

It's all about Prosperity v Poverty for me.

The current situation of having an increasing number of people having to go to food banks whilst the bankers get richer is abhorrent. We as a country would do it differently from the London Government, and our people would definitely benefit from being Independent.

Whilst Cameron and his cronies take away benefits from the poor and disabled, they will never get my vote.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-food-bank-with-no-food.23509422

I've been trying to get someone to tell me this for ages. Can you explain how my family would be better off, how my son's future will be better and how poverty will be reduced under independence please?

The bit about Cameron is a bit silly, given that he's likely to be out of power before we became independent. I've been getting told for a long time how I shouldn't vote against independence because of Salmond.

[Future17]

Just been to a 'pizza and politics' evening where Vince Cable was the guest speaker. Very compelling and intelligent arguments of why a no vote is the only way forward. Good evening.

Which organisation hosted that? Was anybody there to put forward the argument for a "Yes" vote?


Both cabinets heading north to Aberdeenshire today, both going to talk about energy and oil both WASTING taxpayers money on these unnecessary joints away from their offices.

I presume you mean jaunts...or do you know something we don't? :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I've been trying to get someone to tell me this for ages. Can you explain how my family would be better off, how my son's future will be better and how poverty will be reduced under independence please?

The bit about Cameron is a bit silly, given that he's likely to be out of power before we became independent. I've been getting told for a long time how I shouldn't vote against independence because of Salmond.

Too many links to post, follow the money. Suffice to say that we currently put more cash into Westminster than we get back in pocket money. Given that other countries with oil can improve dramatically their infrastructure whilst having some of the best standards of living on earth. Why can't we.

The point on Cameron stands. Can you GUARANTEE he won't be there in 2016?

Can you GUARANTEE we will still be in the EU IN 2017?

Just one link. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economics-of-independence-presentation-video/

[southfieldhibby]

I've been trying to get someone to tell me this for ages. Can you explain how my family would be better off, how my son's future will be better and how poverty will be reduced under independence please?

The bit about Cameron is a bit silly, given that he's likely to be out of power before we became independent. I've been getting told for a long time how I shouldn't vote against independence because of Salmond.

I doubt I'd be better off in an independent Scotland, or anyone who lives a relatively reasonable lifestyle.A few quid either way won't make much difference to the chattering classes like us who debate these types of things from the office or home.

I do think that an indy Scotland could make life better for those forgotten souls in places like Easterhouse or Pilton who live in genuine poverty with a life expectancy we should all be ashamed of.

So if Scotland was indy and didn't contribute to ego trips like HS2 or renewing Trident, or were subjected to taxes like the bedroom tax or be guinea pigs for the poll tax or ***** billions on wars with no mandate or meaning or accept tax avoidance as cheeky instead of disgraceful I'd like to think we'd be able to help these folk I have nothing in common with except we share the same country.These folk are portrayed as benefit junkies, the blame for all our ills and the reason why Scotland can't cope without Westminster...too poor,too wee,too scared...the same media we lambasted as being the succulent lamb brigade are doing exactly the same thing to the most isolated section of our society...that's never going to change with Westminster, it could in iScotland.

[lucky]

Too many links to post, follow the money. Suffice to say that we currently put more cash into Westminster than we get back in pocket money. Given that other countries with oil can improve dramatically their infrastructure whilst having some of the best standards of living on earth. Why can't we.

The point on Cameron stands. Can you GUARANTEE he won't be there in 2016?

Can you GUARANTEE we will still be in the EU IN 2017?

Just one link. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economics-of-independence-presentation-video/

Again your argument has no independent support our than a Nat site. Can you guarantee that Scotland will be in the EU in 2017? Also are the SNP going to give us a referendum on whether Scotland should enter the EU?

[allmodcons]

Cheers AMC, I'm going to try to. Chilling out with the family and not a lot to do - apart from keeping my teeth in this of course!

The points you make above are all interesting ones and perhaps at another stage I can get into those one by one. Perhaps even agree on one or two of them.

However none of what you have posted addresses the points I have made. There are fundamental questions still unanswered. These are: There can't be a serious debate about independence if the starting point is to simply ignore and deny the facts about what it would mean for us in terms of higher taxation, lower public spending, currency uncertainty and debt and borrowing challenges for at least the medium term. We are 7 months from possibly voting for independence and we can't even say what our currency will be. That is just laughable.

Many of the points you raise would actually be made significantly worse in the short to medium term by independence. Tackling poverty for example is not compatible with cutting public spending. You can find the independent academic research here: http://niesr.ac.uk/research-theme/economics-scotland These aren't my interpretations - these are the findings of the analysis conducted by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

The FT article you link to discusses GDP per head of population - in other words it measures the size of an economy. You want to address national debt, inequality and underclass. Well the top three countries by GDP are United States, China and India - the UK is 8th. But the US is 62nd, China 54th and India 116th for income inequality out of 153 countries where the UK is 97th. In other words GDP as measured in the FT article tells us nothing about what is going on in an economy in terms of income equality, public expenditure, debt or employment - all those things which determine the quality of an economy rather than simply its size.

Tax, public spending and currency are absolutely central to what kind of a country we would live in. That Scotland could be a separate country is not debatable. What kind of a separate country is another matter altogether. Germany, Italy and Taiwan are countries in their own right, but so too are El Salvador, Syria and Ukraine.

There are two possible reasons for wanting to be a separate country - one is philosophical the other practical. Philosophically I am very comfortable with Scotland as a nation pooling its sovereignty with the other countries of the UK to our collective advantage. In practical terms I am completely opposed to a proposal to separate which all the evidence suggests would make our people worse off. What is the point of that?

You claim these are not your interpretations but you, like Business for Scotland, select those parts of the NIESR Report that best suit your argument. The NIESR Report makes a number of assumptions based on how Scotland’s fiscal position ‘might’ evolve in the next 50 years if we continue to pursue current UK Government policies. It does conclude that “Scotland faces a tougher long run fiscal challenge than the UK” but goes on to say that “Independence would also provide the opportunity to reform the tax and benefits system and address current weaknesses in the UK regime “.

The point I made in my previous post was that Westminster rule has not been working for Scotland for the last 40 years or so! FWIW, the NIESR Report also states that “The Scottish Government White Paper sets out a very laudable set of objectives for reforms to the tax and benefit system of an iScotland”. This, I presume, is the same White Paper that almost every Unionist decries. With regard to the ageing population, the Report concludes that an iScotland would be “slightly worse off” than the UK.

You’re correct to point out that debt and borrowing is a major issue, however, the debt and borrowing challenges an iScotland would face are the very same problems that the UK is facing. With regard to currency, unlike you, I am certain (yes certain) in my mind that an iScotland will be using the pound either as 1) part of a formal currency arrangement with rUK or 2) pegged to sterling with no national debt. I don’t buy your line about us defaulting on debt and being treated by the International Money Markets us as some kind of pariah state. How can an iScotland be accused of defaulting on debt where the UK has taken responsibility for the full debt obligation? International Money Markets will operate wherever they can make a profit, I doubt they will take some kind of moral stance, do you?

As to the FT article I quoted, I think a measure of GDP would be better based on GDP per capita where you’ll find many small European countries similar in size and stature to Scotland consistently make the top ten in the IMF rankings. You also choose some strange (i.e. – extreme) examples of the kind of iScotland we might live in? Why not choose a selection of small established European countries such as Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Switzerland? None of those you mention are comparable in size or stature to Scotland.

Philosophically, I too, am “comfortable with Scotland as a Nation pooling sovereignty” but only when it is in our interest to do so as an Independent Country similar to those referred to above. From what I’ve gleaned so far “all the evidence” does not suggest we would be worse off in an iScotland. As you know, this is (most probably) where the vote will be won or lost. As a committed Yes voter, I’m happy to concede that you, personally, are ahead of me with the economics (i.e. – I don’t agree with you, I just think you have a better grasp of the subject than me) :shhhsh!:. This, of course, does not mean that you are correct and I have to qualify this by saying that much of what you post appears tainted by what I can only describe as a ‘loathing of the SNP’. This is a common theme amongst pro Union supporters, where we often see anger towards the SNP replacing reasoned debate on Scotland’s future.

For me, the Yes campaign contention that positivity will prevail over the negativity of the No side appears to be having an impact. People are (rightly) fed up with Westminster! Self determination is about Scotland having as much control over all aspects of life as is practicable in a global economy. At the moment, we are less than 10% of a larger unit where, for the vast majority of my lifetime, we’ve been exposed to an unrepresentative UK Government implementing policies that do not concur with the civic life and aspirations of Scotland.

Even accepting your arguments I, as an individual, would be more than happy to ‘pay a premium’ in the short to medium term if, as I think it will, an iScotland gives my children and those (less fortunate) of their generation a fairer, more democratic country to live and work in in the future.

[JimBHibees]

I doubt I'd be better off in an independent Scotland, or anyone who lives a relatively reasonable lifestyle.A few quid either way won't make much difference to the chattering classes like us who debate these types of things from the office or home.

I do think that an indy Scotland could make life better for those forgotten souls in places like Easterhouse or Pilton who live in genuine poverty with a life expectancy we should all be ashamed of.

So if Scotland was indy and didn't contribute to ego trips like HS2 or renewing Trident, or were subjected to taxes like the bedroom tax or be guinea pigs for the poll tax or ***** billions on wars with no mandate or meaning or accept tax avoidance as cheeky instead of disgraceful I'd like to think we'd be able to help these folk I have nothing in common with except we share the same country.These folk are portrayed as benefit junkies, the blame for all our ills and the reason why Scotland can't cope without Westminster...too poor,too wee,too scared...the same media we lambasted as being the succulent lamb brigade are doing exactly the same thing to the most isolated section of our society...that's never going to change with Westminster, it could in iScotland.

Fantastic post. Agree with all of it. The UK government model has served us so well especially under a supposed Working class party for many years that the levels of deprivation, life expectancy and poverty in certain parts of Scotland are among the worst in Europe and many of the key opponents of Independence represent these very people blighted by this inequality. With the vast natural resources we have it is to me laughable to say we couldn't be a viable independent state.

[lucky]

Any separatists willing to defend the 3p cut in corporation tax? Big tax breaks for big business only reduces our tax take and our ability to provide our services

[southfieldhibby]

Any separatists willing to defend the 3p cut in corporation tax? Big tax breaks for big business only reduces our tax take and our ability to provide our services

Do you like being referred to as a unionist?Alot of No voters I know don't.what's the point in using names like separatists?

But to answer your question, I disagree with it and use my vote accordingly in the 1st GE of iScotland...because it's a proposal in the white paper delivered by a political party, not the Yes campaign.


do you, as a proponent of staying in the union, agree with the privatisation of The NHS and the knock on effect of Scotland being forced down a route they don't want to?

[CropleyWasGod]

Any separatists willing to defend the 3p cut in corporation tax? Big tax breaks for big business only reduces our tax take and our ability to provide our services

Not speaking as a separatist, but as a tax adviser.
Corporation Tax isn't just about big business. Thousands of one-person businesses pay Corporation Tax.
If a client came to me and said....should I set up in Carlisle or Dumfries, / Edinburgh or Newcastle. ..of course the tax bill will be a factor. On the larger scale, new factories or call centres would think twice about opening in the English Midlands if they could pay less tax in Lanarkshire.
New business brings new employment, which increases the Income Tax take and reduces the benefits spending.

[McSwanky]

Any separatists willing to defend the 3p cut in corporation tax? Big tax breaks for big business only reduces our tax take and our ability to provide our services

:na na:

That's an SNP policy, yes?

We're not voting for/against an eternal SNP administration here, we're voting on whether to become an independent country or not.

If the people don't like the policies, they won't vote for the party.

(And, as has been said before, it's highly likely the SNP would disintegrate after the unlikely event of 'Yes' winning.)

Or am I being daft?

[lucky]

Not speaking as a separatist, but as a tax adviser.
Corporation Tax isn't just about big business. Thousands of one-person businesses pay Corporation Tax.
If a client came to me and said....should I set up in Carlisle or Dumfries, / Edinburgh or Newcastle. ..of course the tax bill will be a factor. On the larger scale, new factories or call centres would think twice about opening in the English Midlands if they could pay less tax in Lanarkshire.
New business brings new employment, which increases the Income Tax take and reduces the benefits spending.

All that will lead to is a cut in corporation tax in the rUK, it's a race to the bottom and people suffer

[lucky]

:na na:

That's an SNP policy, yes?

We're not voting for/against an eternal SNP administration here, we're voting on whether to become an independent country or not.

If the people don't like the policies, they won't vote for the party.

(And, as has been said before, it's highly likely the SNP would disintegrate after the unlikely event of 'Yes' winning.)

Or am I being daft?
It's unlikely that the SNP will dissolve after independence if that was the case why produce their manifesto or the White paper as they call it. I agree this about Scotland's future not political parties but it is the political parties policies which will decide the direction of scotland

[lucky]

Do you like being referred to as a unionist?Alot of No voters I know don't.what's the point in using names like separatists?

But to answer your question, I disagree with it and use my vote accordingly in the 1st GE of iScotland...because it's a proposal in the white paper delivered by a political party, not the Yes campaign.


do you, as a proponent of staying in the union, agree with the privatisation of The NHS and the knock on effect of Scotland being forced down a route they don't want to?

I'm a devolutionist but a socialist who is against privatisation of any public services. I would nationalise the energy utilities, railways, Royal Mail. The NHS is a British national treasure which we should be supporting and demanding it stays in public hands

[southfieldhibby]

I'm a devolutionist but a socialist who is against privatisation of any public services. I would nationalise the energy utilities, railways, Royal Mail. The NHS is a British national treasure which we should be supporting and demanding it stays in public hands

Swap Devolutionist for Nationalist and I could have written that.But it leaves you in a bit of a quandry, does it not?A devolved Scotland would still require the Barnett formula and block grant to pay its way, and the current ( and future) Westminster parties continue to hive and privatise aspects of The NHS, directly affecting the block grant Scotland receives...do you not think there's a contradiction in there for you?

I'm all in for allofus1st and the common weal, along with stealing aspects of Germanic working laws re:unionist representation on company boards at companies with 500+ employees, I'm also fascinated about the potential Mondragon corp philosophy and co-ops with govt/union/worker 1/3 ownership models...none of which are remotely possible in either a devolved Scotland or post-no vote, wouldn't you agree?

[lucky]

No quandary, the Barnet formula guarantees us a fixed income with the support of the UK as a whole for other issues. The white paper is not offering us a socialist Scotland. I want a socialist UK but it's as far removed as a socialist Scotland is

[southfieldhibby]

No quandary, the Barnet formula guarantees us a fixed income with the support of the UK as a whole for other issues. The white paper is not offering us a socialist Scotland. I want a socialist UK but it's as far removed as a socialist Scotland is

No, The BF gives us a % of the monies spent in England/Wales on services, so as they privatise them down south, our % share drops and we are left to make choices we don't neccesarily want to make.

The UK won't be socialist any time soon, but you want to continue as part of a centre right country when independence will more than likely result in a centre left country?

[McSwanky]

It's unlikely that the SNP will dissolve after independence if that was the case why produce their manifesto or the White paper as they call it. I agree this about Scotland's future not political parties but it is the political parties policies which will decide the direction of scotland

That's where we disagree. The SNP is made up of people with all sorts of political ideals, only really united by their belief that Scotland should be in total charge of its own destiny.

If, and it's a big if, that goal is achieved, there would be no real reason for such a party to exist.

[southfieldhibby]

The SNP would win any GE election post yes but then fractures would develop...they managed to keep a lid on them a couple of years back at conference re:NATO.There's also a good few small 'c' conservatives,socialists and others in The SNP, all looking for one objective just now.

[marinello59]

I do think that an indy Scotland could make life better for those forgotten souls in places like Easterhouse or Pilton who live in genuine poverty with a life expectancy we should all be ashamed of.
.

This is part of the reason I will be voting Yes. We do have far too many forgotten people in our country. But we could have done much, much more to help make a fairer society under devolution than we have done which is to the eternal shame of both the Labour/Libdem and SNP administrations. The power to change things in places like Easterhouse and Pilton should be given to the people of Easterhouse and Pilton. Hopefully Independence will provide an impetus towards genuinely devolving power away from the centre and down to Scots to take real control of their everyday lives. Shifting the levers of power from Westminster to Edinburgh should just be the starting point.

[lucky]

This is part of the reason I will be voting Yes. We do have far too many forgotten people in our country. But we could have done much, much more to help make a fairer society under devolution than we have done which is to the eternal shame of both the Labour/Libdem and SNP administrations. The power to change things in places like Easterhouse and Pilton should be given to the people of Easterhouse and Pilton. Hopefully Independence will provide an impetus towards genuinely devolving power away from the centre and down to Scots to take real control of their everyday lives. Shifting the levers of power from Westminster to Edinburgh should just be the starting point.

You make a great point on power sharing, unfortunately the current administration seem to want to move power to Edinburgh but keep taking power from councils and local people. Even their previous flagship policy of a "local" income tax was all about Holyrood setting it not the local councils

[Future17]

You make a great point on power sharing, unfortunately the current administration seem to want to move power to Edinburgh but keep taking power from councils and local people. Even their previous flagship policy of a "local" income tax was all about Holyrood setting it not the local councils

But, to be fair, that isn't an anti-independence argument.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is part of the reason I will be voting Yes. We do have far too many forgotten people in our country. But we could have done much, much more to help make a fairer society under devolution than we have done which is to the eternal shame of both the Labour/Libdem and SNP administrations. The power to change things in places like Easterhouse and Pilton should be given to the people of Easterhouse and Pilton. Hopefully Independence will provide an impetus towards genuinely devolving power away from the centre and down to Scots to take real control of their everyday lives. Shifting the levers of power from Westminster to Edinburgh should just be the starting point.

Removing one of the levers would also be a good start, whether that's Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels. For a nation of 5 million people, it is ridiculous that we have 4 levels of government. England, with 10 times the population, has only 3.

[ronaldo7]

Again your argument has no independent support our than a Nat site. Can you guarantee that Scotland will be in the EU in 2017? Also are the SNP going to give us a referendum on whether Scotland should enter the EU?

Their will be NO Guarantees given by anyone in the run up to this referendum.

The people of Scotland will take all that's thrown at them, and then make their decision. I wonder what they will make of people who espouse socialist views being in bed with Cameron and co. Scotland has been left leaning for many a year. We have the chance to make a clean break, to prosper and make a fairer society, however we have some who are happy to take the small change handed to them by London. Each to their own.

The devastation meted out by Thatcher in the 80's will seem like small beer, to the cuts, cuts, cuts that will be winging their way to Scotland if we vote no.

You can continue with your Barnett formula, and see the money dwindle away to pay for a privatised Nhs, or High speed rail lines going to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

I would rather take the plunge for an Independent Scotland making it's way in the world, rather than going http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gApwpSWAhbQ:wink:

[Saorsa]

That's where we disagree. The SNP is made up of people with all sorts of political ideals, only really united by their belief that Scotland should be in total charge of its own destiny.

If, and it's a big if, that goal is achieved, there would be no real reason for such a party to exist.:agree:

When I was a member of the SNP I met different people with lots of differing views but all of whom shared one common goal, independence. I doubt as a party they will last long after a yes vote, there will be nae real need for one thing and secondly people will naturally gravitate towards a party which best represents their other political views.

[lucky]

Their will be NO Guarantees given by anyone in the run up to this referendum.

The people of Scotland will take all that's thrown at them, and then make their decision. I wonder what they will make of people who espouse socialist views being in bed with Cameron and co. Scotland has been left leaning for many a year. We have the chance to make a clean break, to prosper and make a fairer society, however we have some who are happy to take the small change handed to them by London. Each to their own.

The devastation meted out by Thatcher in the 80's will seem like small beer, to the cuts, cuts, cuts that will be winging their way to Scotland if we vote no.

You can continue with your Barnett formula, and see the money dwindle away to pay for a privatised Nhs, or High speed rail lines going to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

I would rather take the plunge for an Independent Scotland making it's way in the world, rather than going http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gApwpSWAhbQ:wink:

As rail is devolved to Scotland building high speed rail falls to the Scottish government. It's also myth that the SNP are centre left, no party of the left leaning would have a 3p cut in corporation tax a corner stone policy.

[RyeSloan]

As rail is devolved to Scotland building high speed rail falls to the Scottish government. It's also myth that the SNP are centre left, no party of the left leaning would have a 3p cut in corporation tax a corner stone policy.

Maybe even a left leaning party understands that a cut in corp tax could attract substantial business investment that would bring many more benefits compared to continuing with an outdated tax that encourages company debt over profit??

[ronaldo7]

As rail is devolved to Scotland building high speed rail falls to the Scottish government. It's also myth that the SNP are centre left, no party of the left leaning would have a 3p cut in corporation tax a corner stone policy.

I said Scotland was centre left. Please don't tell me you're going to disagree with that:wink:

As for Rail, we have to take small steps as our infrastructure is so far behind the south east of England. The Borders rail link is a start, and then the motorways in Scotland need upgrading. The A9 would be a priority in an indy Scotland.

Imagine what we could do if we didn't have to hand our money to Westminster to then have to wait on our pocket money.

[lucky]

I said Scotland was centre left. Please don't tell me you're going to disagree with that:wink:

As for Rail, we have to take small steps as our infrastructure is so far behind the south east of England. The Borders rail link is a start, and then the motorways in Scotland need upgrading. The A9 would be a priority in an indy Scotland.

Imagine what we could do if we didn't have to hand our money to Westminster to then have to wait on our pocket money.

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

[J-C]

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

We have for the past 15 years at least been giving to central government in London more than we actually get back, this is well documented. The money being taxation, oil revenue, whisky revenue etc etc etc.

[tcm1875]

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

Another couple of separatist web sites.... ;-)

http://scotlandowntwofeet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/can-independent-scotland-stand-on-its.html?m=1


http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/scotsforindependence/articles/biglie.html

[lucky]

We have for the past 15 years at least been giving to central government in London more than we actually get back, this is well documented. The money being taxation, oil revenue, whisky revenue etc etc etc.

Simply not true

[McSwanky]

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

As much as I'm sure everyone wishes it was, this isn't a black and white argument.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/will_an_independent_scotland_be_better_off-28889

As you probably already know, it can be interpreted differently depending on what assumptions you make. And, predictably, oil is the big factor.

It boils down to the fact that it depends how those hypothetical post-yes negotiations go as to whether Scotland would be better off or not.

[JeMeSouviens]

No quandary, the Barnet formula guarantees us a fixed income with the support of the UK as a whole for other issues. The white paper is not offering us a socialist Scotland. I want a socialist UK but it's as far removed as a socialist Scotland is

Wrong on 2 counts:

- There is no guarantee attached to Barnett. It has been the convention adopted by the Treasury since the 70s but has no legal status. There is significant pressure to replace or change it. If the pesky Nats get a kicking in the referendum, I would not bet against a Tory government making it considerably less Scotland-friendly quite quickly.

- The "Barnett squeeze" is steadily eroding the Scottish advantage year by year.

[JeMeSouviens]

This is part of the reason I will be voting Yes. We do have far too many forgotten people in our country. But we could have done much, much more to help make a fairer society under devolution than we have done which is to the eternal shame of both the Labour/Libdem and SNP administrations. The power to change things in places like Easterhouse and Pilton should be given to the people of Easterhouse and Pilton. Hopefully Independence will provide an impetus towards genuinely devolving power away from the centre and down to Scots to take real control of their everyday lives. Shifting the levers of power from Westminster to Edinburgh should just be the starting point.

Hear, hear. :agree:

[Just Alf]

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

Scotland "pays in" 9.9% of the UK wide tax income, the Barnett Formula gives us back 9.3% .... Dependant on the year you pick its a shortfall of between £4.5 - 6.5 billion per year.

On the HS2 thing it's another example of how things can be unequal.... As it stands we (plus NI, Wales and English regions) are subsidising London cross rail and also paying for HS2 etc.... However once HS2 reaches the border, Scotland alone picks up the tab.



Edit: numbers are from HMRC and Scottish Gov websites and were quoted by Danny Alexander and John Swinney yesterday at Holyrood.

[J-C]

Simply not true

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

[ronaldo7]

Please explain what money we hand to Westminster? Scotland gets a net gain rather than a loss.

It is an accepted fact that every year for 30 years Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head for the UK treasury than the rest of the UK. The latest figures taken from the Government Expenditure and revenue report Scotland (GERS) state that Scotland generated 9.9% of the UK’s tax revenue but received only 9.3% of spending. This equated last year to an amount of £824.00 extra revenue per person from Scotland versus the rest of the UK, all of which goes to the UK treasury.

Put simply, when the UK runs a surplus Scotland contributes more to the surplus, and when the UK runs a deficit Scotland has to pay more of the debt back than it is responsible for. Its a “lose/lose” situation for Scottish tax payers and especially for those in need of support from the state.

Oh, and do you agree that Scotland is centre left?

Just say YES:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Nice to see the Scots getting some cash for upgrades of our motorways. Well done the EIB

http://www.bei.org/projects/press/2014/2014-038-eib-agrees-gbp-175m-backing-to-upgrade-scotlands-core-motorway-network.htm

[RyeSloan]

Nice to see the Scots getting some cash for upgrades of our motorways. Well done the EIB http://www.bei.org/projects/press/2014/2014-038-eib-agrees-gbp-175m-backing-to-upgrade-scotlands-core-motorway-network.htm

Who pays back the loan? The EU as a whole or Scotland directly?

Farcical that the M8 is still incomplete and a mighty two lanes at that...and that's without considering the A9, Scotland's own death road.

[ronaldo7]

Who pays back the loan? The EU as a whole or Scotland directly?

Farcical that the M8 is still incomplete and a mighty two lanes at that...and that's without considering the A9, Scotland's own death road.

From previous link

Debt financing for the project is equally split between a direct loan from the European Investment Bank and a bond placement with international investors. The new Scottish scheme represents the first UK road project involving bond finance since the global financial crisis in 2008, and is the largest project to be financed through the Scottish Government’s Non-Profit Distributing model.

http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/our-work/funding-and-finance/non-profit-distributing/

http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/files/publications/Explanatory_Note_on_the_NPD_Model_(Updated_Decembe r_2011).pdf

[RyeSloan]

From previous the link Debt financing for the project is equally split between a direct loan from the European Investment Bank and a bond placement with international investors. The new Scottish scheme represents the first UK road project involving bond finance since the global financial crisis in 2008, and is the largest project to be financed through the Scottish Government’s Non-Profit Distributing model. http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/our-work/funding-and-finance/non-profit-distributing/ http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/files/publications/Explanatory_Note_on_the_NPD_Model_(Updated_Decembe r_2011).pdf

Yeah I get where the debt financing comes from but I don't get how, when, who repays that debt...A quick google search didn't enlighten me either tbh.

Assuming this is different to the EU structural fund which seems to grant the money (on a matched basis).

The EU sure has a lot of ways of spending its and others money!!

[J-C]

Who pays back the loan? The EU as a whole or Scotland directly?

Farcical that the M8 is still incomplete and a mighty two lanes at that...and that's without considering the A9, Scotland's own death road.

Ah the A9, the road Mr Salmond wanted to upgrade with the tram money but was outvoted in his 1st term of office due to him only having a minority control.

[PeeJay]

I'm a bit concerned about the fact there seems to be no plans for an elected 2nd house in the Parliament should independence become a reality: who is going to control the government and Parliament?

Lots of oil revenues and no proper "checks and balances" in the seat of power: isn't that a recipe for misuse?

[BroxburnHibee]

This should be fun :greengrin :greengrin :greengrin

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265285-nicola-sturgeon-and-johann-lamont-go-head-to-head-in-live-stv-debate/

[marinello59]

This should be fun :greengrin :greengrin :greengrin

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265285-nicola-sturgeon-and-johann-lamont-go-head-to-head-in-live-stv-debate/

.Hopefully they will bring the debate to a higher level then the mainly male politicians have managed so far. I like them both.

[BroxburnHibee]

.Hopefully they will bring the debate to a higher level then the mainly male politicians have managed so far. I like them both.

You seen any of the previous debates - last 2 were superb viewing. :greengrin

[lucky]

Looking forward to Johann really having a go at Nicola, might finally get some answers

[ronaldo7]

Inequality Britain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-simon-duffy/austerity-cuts_b_4802793.html?utm_hp_ref=tw&just_reloaded=1

[Mon Dieu4]

Looking forward to Johann really having a go at Nicola, might finally get some answers

You will never get answers off either side, better together will state we will be a third world country, yes campaign will claim the streets will be paved with gold

the truth will likely be in the middle and we will do just fine

Im voting yes out of personal preference but if i was an undecided voter then this nonsense would turn me right off

the better together lot instead of scare mongering need to tell us what they are going to do for Scotland

[LaMotta]

Pass me the Panadol i'm getting a headache :brickwall

[Mon Dieu4]

Waffle, waffle, waffle, shouty shouty, Lamont saying the word astonished a world record amount of times, the end

[LaMotta]

Waffle, waffle, waffle, shouty shouty, Lamont saying the word astonished a world record amount of times, the end

Lamont and Sturgeon shouting at each other at the same time with Rona whats her name shouting at them both to stop shouting :greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

Lamont has clearly decided not to answer a single thing

[Mon Dieu4]

Lamont and Sturgeon shouting at each other at the same time with Rona whats her name shouting at them both to stop shouting :greengrin

Im seriously in the wrong game, i could easily make up stuff,.shout and argue like a bairn for £65k a year!!

[ronaldo7]

Govan shipyard closing on your watch in your constituency, under your nose. OUCH!

[BroxburnHibee]

Govan shipyard closing on your watch in your constituency, under your nose. OUCH!

That was the standout comment tonight and Lamont blew it trying to score points on that one.

Doubt we've heard the last of that one.

[LaMotta]

Im seriously in the wrong game, i could easily make up stuff,.shout and argue like a bairn for £65k a year!!

Sturgeon gets £100k :cb

[ronaldo7]

Michael Moore :yw:

Anas Sarwar:yw:

Alisdair Carmichael:yw:

Johann Lamont:yw:


Nicola Sturgeon:not worth

[lucky]

Sturgeon shouted interrupted throughout but the worse performance goes to the woman who was meant to be chairing it. Personally thought that was awful viewing and reduced the political debate to a new low.

[lucky]

Michael Moore :yw:

Anas Sarwar:yw:

Alisdair Carmichael:yw:

Johann Lamont:yw:


Nicola Sturgeon:not worth

Your attempt at humour or debate is even worse than Scotland Tonight. You are coming across a oaf and extremely boring

[Mon Dieu4]

Sturgeon shouted interrupted throughout but the worse performance goes to the woman who was meant to be chairing it. Personally thought that was awful viewing and reduced the political debate to a new low.

She also clamped her when she asked for two things they would do for Scotland though, which is exactly my point, they need to start telling us why we should stay instead of trying to shoot down the other side

[ronaldo7]

Your attempt at humour or debate is even worse than Scotland Tonight. You are coming across a oaf and extremely boring

:dummytit:

[ronaldo7]

Sturgeon shouted interrupted throughout but the worse performance goes to the woman who was meant to be chairing it. Personally thought that was awful viewing and reduced the political debate to a new low.

That's the game...Blame the ref.

Never mind the leader of the opposition in Scotland who wouldn't answer 1 question.

Can you answer the question I posed to you earlier in the thread please, you seem to be avoiding it.

[7 Hills]

Looking forward to Johann really having a go at Nicola, might finally get some answers

Certainly never got any answers from Lamont.

[green glory]

'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.

Horrific.

[degenerated]

Sturgeon shouted interrupted throughout but the worse performance goes to the woman who was meant to be chairing it. Personally thought that was awful viewing and reduced the political debate to a new low.

The worst performance surely has to go to Lamont, without wishing to put too fine a point on it she came across as an idiot.

[Hiber-nation]

The worst performance surely has to go to Lamont, without wishing to put too fine a point on it she came across as an idiot.

:agree:

She is a complete and utter embarrassment, like a daft schemie wifey arguing across the fence from her neighbour, ranting incohrent nonsense.

[McSwanky]

I'm a bit concerned about the fact there seems to be no plans for an elected 2nd house in the Parliament should independence become a reality: who is going to control the government and Parliament?

Lots of oil revenues and no proper "checks and balances" in the seat of power: isn't that a recipe for misuse?

As opposed to an unelected bunch of Lords? I know what I'd choose.

[Just Alf]

'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.

Horrific.

Is this a joke I'm not getting? Didn't see it last night

I'm either having a serious whoosh moment, or, if it's true how can anyone defend that? Surely it totally blows a hole in the Better Together argument that they are not denigrating the Scottish electorate??? :confused:

[lucky]

The worst performance surely has to go to Lamont, without wishing to put too fine a point on it she came across as an idiot.

Amazed at the lack of criticism on here of Sturgeon and her constant interrupting. Clearly opposite views on the debate see and here different things.

[PeeJay]

As opposed to an unelected bunch of Lords? I know what I'd choose.

An unelected House of Lords is NOT the only option out here ... are you saying a single chamber with no checks and balances is an acceptable path to choose in an independent Scotland?

[JeMeSouviens]

.Hopefully they will bring the debate to a higher level then the mainly male politicians have managed so far. I like them both.

I actually thought Annabel Goldie vs Fiona Hyslop was a semi-reasonable debate. The thing about Goldie (and some of the other older Scots tories) is that you get the sense she genuinely is a committed Unionist by conviction. With most of the Lib/Labs I can't shake the feeling that they couldn't give a f about anything other than Nat bashing and their future career prospects at Westminster.

[green glory]

Is this a joke I'm not getting? Didn't see it last night I'm either having a serious whoosh moment, or, if it's true how can anyone defend that? Surely it totally blows a hole in the Better Together argument that they are not denigrating the Scottish electorate??? :confused:

Here's the clip. Scottish cringe personified.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w&feature=youtu.be

[Alex Trager]

Amazed at the lack of criticism on here of Sturgeon and her constant interrupting. Clearly opposite views on the debate see and here different things.

Interrupting is one thing. Both were at it.

The thing with Lamont was no answers. She quite literally shot herself in the head with a few comments.

The one about Scottish voters.

And the one when she asked sturgeon to comment on the lack of jobs forthcoming around the Clyde. Completely forgetting that is happening now. And we are not independent.

Or the question she avoided about the alternative for Scotland.

[green glory]

Interrupting is one thing. Both were at it. The thing with Lamont was no answers. She quite literally shot herself in the head with a few comments. The one about Scottish voters. And the one when she asked sturgeon to comment on the lack of jobs forthcoming around the Clyde. Completely forgetting that is happening now. And we are not independent. Or the question she avoided about the alternative for Scotland.

And her incomprehensible answer on Trident.

[marinello59]

Amazed at the lack of criticism on here of Sturgeon and her constant interrupting. Clearly opposite views on the debate see and here different things.

That's the nature of these things though, both sides will cheer on their own 'champions' and relish every petty point scored as a victory. It's thoroughly depressing.
Anybody change their minds after watching this?

[degenerated]

That's the nature of these things though, both sides will cheer on their own 'champions' and relish every petty point scored as a victory. It's thoroughly depressing.
Anybody change their minds after watching this?

Whilst I am likely to vote yes for many reasons i am far from a fan of the snp or Nicola sturgeon. But I thought she handled "arguing" with a complete halfwit reasonably well.

Lamont should be absolutely shame faced about that performance.

[marinello59]

:agree:

She is a complete and utter embarrassment, like a daft schemie wifey arguing across the fence from her neighbour, ranting incohrent nonsense.

A working class woman who not only has the brass neck to make it to the top in a male dominated party but she talks with a working class accent. Shameful.

[marinello59]

Whilst I am likely to vote yes for many reasons i am far from a fan of the snp or Nicola sturgeon. But I thought she handled "arguing" with a complete halfwit reasonably well.

Lamont should be absolutely shame faced about that performance.

You could have bet your mortgage beforehand that Sturgeon would give a much more polished performance than her opponent. I wouldn't dismiss Lamont as a halfwit though, you don't lead the nest of vipers she heads without having something about you. She simply isn't suited to the current media age where substance is secondary to sound bite.

[johnbc70]

I thought that so called debate last night was embarrassing, both should be embarrassed if that is the quality of debate we are getting regarding the most important decision that the Scottish people have to make in centuries.

[Geo_1875]

You could have bet your mortgage beforehand that Sturgeon would give a much more polished performance than her opponent. I wouldn't dismiss Lamont as a halfwit though, you don't lead the nest of vipers she heads without having something about you. She simply isn't suited to the current media age where substance is secondary to sound bite.

Lamont is only the latest in a line of sacrifices Scottish Labour have made in the face of the SNP leadership's high quality debating skills. The bigger names don't want to face Salmond (or Sturgeon) at FMQs. Once the referendum is out of the way they will step forward when there is less at stake.

[CropleyWasGod]

Lamont is only the latest in a line of sacrifices Scottish Labour have made in the face of the SNP leadership's high quality debating skills. The bigger names don't want to face Salmond (or Sturgeon) at FMQs. Once the referendum is out of the way they will step forward when there is less at stake.

In the event of a yes vote, I would hope that the "A teams" of all parties would be involved in the Parliament. At the moment, the best politicians from the unionist parties go to Westminster. If they were relocated to Holyrood, that could only improve the standard of debate and political thinking.

[Beefster]

As opposed to an unelected bunch of Lords? I know what I'd choose.

It's better to have an unelected bunch of Lords, even in an independent Scotland, than to allow a single parliament, dominated by one party, to have carte blanche to do whatever they like.


A working class woman who not only has the brass neck to make it to the top in a male dominated party but she talks with a working class accent. Shameful.

That was my first thought too.

[Sergio sledge]

I thought that so called debate last night was embarrassing, both should be embarrassed if that is the quality of debate we are getting regarding the most important decision that the Scottish people have to make in centuries.

I'm in the undecided camp and can't believe I wasted my time on that last night. A combination of two politicians who didn't want to let the other have any time to speak or make points, a poor show format and a weak chair meant that the entire "debate" was just a shouting match. They didn't debate the issues as much as throwing personal insults at each other and trying to point score with cheap quips. Each of them were as guilty as the other. I've seen better political debates in secondary schools than I saw last night.

The show needed to be more like the debates we used to have in school where each side gets a couple of minutes to answer a question, without interruption, then they each get a couple of minutes to respond to the others answer, without interruption, before they have a wee bit of a free for all before moving on to another issue.

Sturgeon was more polished than Lamont, but she struggled when pushed on the currency question, resorting to just asserting that we WILL have a currency union, no alternative, no plans, just that it WILL happen, completely ignoring the possibility that it might not.

Lamont struggled when Sturgeon attacked her on the shipyards issue, which could have been quite easily fended off by Lamont if she had had a bit more composure.

This appears to be what this refurendum is boiling down to, infantile debates and personal attacks on each other by two senior politicians when the country has to make a massive decision in a few months. Sadly, the fervent supporters of each side will lap it all up. One side will claim victory and sneer all over twitter at the other, while the other side does exactly the same thing, taking snippets of what was said out of context, posting them as videos on youtube and circulating them round social media to whip up their supporters into a frenzy over the outrage of what was said.

[McSwanky]

An unelected House of Lords is NOT the only option out here ... are you saying a single chamber with no checks and balances is an acceptable path to choose in an independent Scotland?

Yup. Costs less for starters. More effective decision making for another.

BTW, I'm not saying that the House of Lords is "the only option out here", but we're certainly stuck with it if we stay in the UK.

Commons: "Let's reform the House of Lords."
Lords: "Nah, you're alright, we're doing fine thanks."


It's better to have an unelected bunch of Lords, even in an independent Scotland, than to allow a single parliament, dominated by one party, to have carte blanche to do whatever they like.

You mean a parliament elected by the people of Scotland get to make some decisions without having to check with some other random dudes first? If a Scottish parliament is dominated by one party, it's only because the people voted for it.

There are plenty of unicameral systems around the world, and enough of them in 'mainstream' countries to suggest that it's a system that isn't particularly outlandish. These pesky Scandinavians seem to be doing ok with their carte blanche. :wink:

[southfieldhibby]

Amazed at the lack of criticism on here of Sturgeon and her constant interrupting. Clearly opposite views on the debate see and here different things.


A working class woman who not only has the brass neck to make it to the top in a male dominated party but she talks with a working class accent. Shameful.

I hope they both wake up cringing this morning.Neither side 'won' that last night but I wasn't impressed by the 'genetically programmed' statement...absolute shocker.

I do have sympathy with Lamont when it comes to presentation,though.She simply can't compete with the more 'polished' Sturgeon...that's not to say she's not a good politician,though.

And you can see she's also desperate to say she want rid of Trident as fast as the SNP do, but she's blocked by Westminster by doing so...after any yes victory I'd expect her and her party to say so.

[PeeJay]

Yup. Costs less for starters. More effective decision making for another.

These pesky Scandinavians seem to be doing ok with their carte blanche. :wink:

a) I've no doubt it can "make decisions" - the question remains however, where are the checks and balances to determine how "effective" those decisions may be? Mistakes made now, may well prove to be extremely costly later on ...


b) Well yes, but there are of course other examples to consider - like any former Soviet country, the PRC, Cuba or any communist dictatorship really - Ukraine is a particularly topical example perhaps ... is it a risk worth taking?

[McSwanky]

a) I've no doubt it can "make decisions" - the question remains however, where are the checks and balances to determine how "effective" those decisions may be? Mistakes made now, may well prove to be extremely costly later on ...


b) Well yes, but there are of course other examples to consider - like any former Soviet country, the PRC, Cuba or any communist dictatorship really - Ukraine is a particularly topical example perhaps ... is it a risk worth taking?

Can you detail some of the effective checks and balances that the Lords have made in the last say 20 years? I'm genuinely interested as I have never been able to see any benefit from having the Lords at all. Elected Upper House maybe, but not what we are currently subjected to.

Believe it or not, I am willing to be persuaded, I feel like I must be missing something big when folks are saying they'd rather have the Lords than a unicameral system.

[southfieldhibby]

I'm a big fan of bicameral politics, but with two elected houses...maybe local councillors elected by each local council?...sit for two years?

[speedy_gonzales]

'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.

Horrific.


Is this a joke I'm not getting? Didn't see it last night

I'm either having a serious whoosh moment, or, if it's true how can anyone defend that? Surely it totally blows a hole in the Better Together argument that they are not denigrating the Scottish electorate??? :confused:

Although that statement was made, it has to be read with context.
Some bickering over bedroom tax, the question would an independent Scotland have imposed such a tax (due to possible introduction of a constitution?) 'it could be introduced anywhere if people thought it was a good idea', then Ms Lamont whilst being interrupted blurted that one out followed by 'we choose the world we live in and we have to win the political argument'.

If I was to be Devils advocate I'd suggest Johann was trying to say we are not born knowing the answers but we decide what is best for the country by democratic purpose? Just my opinion!

[PeeJay]

Can you detail some of the effective checks and balances that the Lords have made in the last say 20 years? I'm genuinely interested as I have never been able to see any benefit from having the Lords at all. Elected Upper House maybe, but not what we are currently subjected to.

Believe it or not, I am willing to be persuaded, I feel like I must be missing something big when folks are saying they'd rather have the Lords than a unicameral system.

Well, now I didn't quite say that. I am not advocating an unelected House of Lords for an independent Scotland - however, a second elected chamber is something Scotland should consider, if it decides to become independent. Scotland - by opting for independence - does not have to follow the path taken by the UK. Legislation would then be subject to greater scrutinisation and ultimately approval or rejection in a second (elected?) house - a single chamber is surely open to misuse, particularly where vast sums of money are on the table ...

BTW - Germany has an excellent system up and running: no unelected Lords here... and we're doing OK, of course it's a republic - my preferred choice for the UK, rather than separation.

[The Baldmans Comb]

'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.

Horrific.

Beyond horrific but in its way also rather honest as by definition if you are a British Unionist then you dont want Scottish people to have the power to make Scottish decisions for Scottish problems.

Easy win for Sturgeon yet again against rather hopeless oppostion.

[Just Alf]

Although that statement was made, it has to be read with context.
Some bickering over bedroom tax, the question would an independent Scotland have imposed such a tax (due to possible introduction of a constitution?) 'it could be introduced anywhere if people thought it was a good idea', then Ms Lamont whilst being interrupted blurted that one out followed by 'we choose the world we live in and we have to win the political argument'.

If I was to be Devils advocate I'd suggest Johann was trying to say we are not born knowing the answers but we decide what is best for the country by democratic purpose? Just my opinion!

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

High horse duly returned to its stable :D

[Hibrandenburg]

Beyond horrific but in its way rather honest as by definition if you are a British Unionist then you dont want Scottish people to have the power to make Scottish decisions for Scottish problems.

Easy win for Sturgeon yet again against rather hopeless oppostion.

Agreed, not a ko but clear points win.

[lucky]

In the event of a yes vote, I would hope that the "A teams" of all parties would be involved in the Parliament. At the moment, the best politicians from the unionist parties go to Westminster. If they were relocated to Holyrood, that could only improve the standard of debate and political thinking.

I actually agree with this but not all mps are of a better standard than msps

[McSwanky]

Well, now I didn't quite say that. I am not advocating an unelected House of Lords for an independent Scotland - however, a second elected chamber is something Scotland should consider, if it decides to become independent. Scotland - by opting for independence - does not have to follow the path taken by the UK. Legislation would then be subject to greater scrutinisation and ultimately approval or rejection in a second (elected?) house - a single chamber is surely open to misuse, particularly where vast sums of money are on the table ...

BTW - Germany has an excellent system up and running: no unelected Lords here... and we're doing OK, of course it's a republic - my preferred choice for the UK, rather than separation.


Sorry, that bit wasn't aimed at you - another poster had clearly stated that he/she would prefer the Lords to a unicameral system earlier in the thread.

For what it's worth, I think we kind of agree to a certain extent. I don't think bicameralism (is that even a word?) is a bad thing per se, but my main point is that if we stay in the UK, we get the Lords. By leaving the UK we lose that archaic, outdated house of unelected individuals.

In my opinion, a unicameral system is superior to the one we currently have in the UK.

Rant time...

I find it bizarre that in a supposedly democratic country, we still have a group of people who essentially answer to nobody who have a pretty big say in how the country is run. And we as a people seem to be entirely indifferent to this. Why the sensationalist tabloids haven't been all over this like a cheap suit is beyond me, because in my opinion it's a bloody outrage. Suppose it doesn't suit their agenda.

[Hibercelona]

Last night was a joke from both sides of the arguement, but Lamont's comments were simply outrageous.

To suggest that the Scottish people don't have what it takes to make the big political decisions for their own country is down right insulting and shameful.

[marinello59]

Last night was a joke from both sides of the arguement, but Lamont's comments were simply outrageous.

To suggest that the Scottish people don't have what it takes to make the big political decisions for their own country is down right insulting and shameful.



After reading Speedy Gonzales comments (post 855 above) I have just sat and watched the whole thing again. He's right, that's not what she was actually trying to say. At worst it was a gaffe, no fair minded person could really believe that one of our leading female politicians would hold a view such as that. Sturgeon certainly didn't pick up on it. As the guys at the end said, we learnt nothing worthwhile last night that we didn't already know. Surely nobody could still argue that a Salmond/Cameron debate would have any merit after watching that nonsense.

[Hiber-nation]

A working class woman who not only has the brass neck to make it to the top in a male dominated party but she talks with a working class accent. Shameful.

You know what I mean. I'm not a died in the wool SNP man, only voted for them last time round after being sickened by Labour but it was nothing to do with her accent, just her lack of any reasonable argument and her awful attitude. Sturgeon wasn't good either but there was only 1 winner. I don't follow who's "in vogue" with Scottish Labour these days but I wonder why the likes of Susan Deacon and Angus McKay aren't in the running for party leader in Scotland. No doubt there's a very good reason.

[Phil D. Rolls]

After reading Speedy Gonzales comments (post 855 above) I have just sat and watched the whole thing again. He's right, that's not what she was actually trying to say. At worst it was a gaffe, no fair minded person could really believe that one of our leading female politicians would hold a view such as that. Sturgeon certainly didn't pick up on it. As the guys at the end said, we learnt nothing worthwhile last night that we didn't already know. Surely nobody could still argue that a Salmond/Cameron debate would have any merit after watching that nonsense.

The No campaigns focus on the reality/ negatives of independence, are suggesting it will be hard for us to do it right - at the very least. It's an angle of the debate that needs to be talked about IMO.

[marinello59]

The No campaigns focus on the reality/ negatives of independence, are suggesting it will be hard for us to do it right - at the very least. It's an angle of the debate that needs to be talked about IMO.

They are suggesting (wrongly :greengrin) that we are better off in the UK, not that we are incapable of doing it right, aren't they? I don't think anybody has argued that we couldn't do it. Have they? Anybody that tried to seriously argue that would quite rightly be pilloried.

[marinello59]

You know what I mean. I'm not a died in the wool SNP man, only voted for them last time round after being sickened by Labour but it was nothing to do with her accent, just her lack of any reasonable argument and her awful attitude. Sturgeon wasn't good either but there was only 1 winner. I don't follow who's "in vogue" with Scottish Labour these days but I wonder why the likes of Susan Deacon and Angus McKay aren't in the running for party leader in Scotland. No doubt there's a very good reason.

There were no winners last night. I have sat through it all again today and both women let themselves down badly. Lamont was certainly nowhere near as bad as some have said on here and Sturgeon underperformed, I expected better. The first section of the programme wasn't too bad with both women making their points reasonably. The second section was dreadful stuff from both of them.

[.Sean.]

Myself and a work colleague are trying to get into this. Between us our political knowledge is roughly zero. We started talking about money obviously, wondering if we'd end up better or worse off etc. He then made a point, what would happen with banks? For instance if you have a loan, or a mortgage, and you're paying it back to an English-based bank? We had loads of wee nagging points, such as I'm with TSB, would I still bank with them if Scotland won independence or would new banks spring up? And where would any 'new banks' get money from? Are there answers to questions like this or is it a case of wait and see?


As you can probably gather, we're not even novices at this game and some serious homework is required!

[allmodcons]

Have to say I thought the 'debate' last night was a complete shambles.

IMO the format where they are allowed to question each other and the 'chair takes a back seat' just doesn't work.

[allmodcons]

There were no winners last night. I have sat through it all again today and both women let themselves down badly. Lamont was certainly nowhere near as bad as some have said on here and Sturgeon underperformed, I expected better. The first section of the programme wasn't too bad with both women making their points reasonably. The second section was dreadful stuff from both of them.

Agree 100%.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Myself and a work colleague are trying to get into this. Between us our political knowledge is roughly zero. We started talking about money obviously, wondering if we'd end up better or worse off etc. He then made a point, what would happen with banks? For instance if you have a loan, or a mortgage, and you're paying it back to an English-based bank? We had loads of wee nagging points, such as I'm with TSB, would I still bank with them if Scotland won independence or would new banks spring up? And where would any 'new banks' get money from? Are there answers to questions like this or is it a case of wait and see?


As you can probably gather, we're not even novices at this game and some serious homework is required!

Everything would carry on exactly as before just as happens in every other European country.

Swiss people bank with Swiss banks or they bank with German or French banks. Danish people bank with Danish banks or German banks or Scandinavian banks.

At the moment my mortgage,savings and current account are with Banco Santander at the West End which is of course technically a Spanish bank.

Banks in truth are all international these days and just set up 100% subsidiaries in whatever country they choose.

Tens of millions of people in small european countries manage their banking arrangements perfectly well and Scotland would be no different.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

[degenerated]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

I seem to remember the likes of Paul Daniels and Jim Davidson saying they'd leave the uk if labour got into power in 97. Sadly they are both still here.

[Just Alf]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

I read their comments.

They basically say that they'll consider leaving if it's a yes and the new government decides to bring in legislation etc that's detrimental to the financial sector. Why would any government DO that?

You could argue that the currency is the issue, but then it's either Sterling (one way or another), so no change or a Scottish pound/Euro in that case I'm sure Standard Life could try to talk to another bank that already works across international boundaries to find out how it's done .... Oh wait..... :cb

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15490249

Daylight robbery if we vote No. :wink:

[Beefster]

I read their comments.

They basically say that they'll consider leaving if it's a yes and the new government decides to bring in legislation etc that's detrimental to the financial sector. Why would any government DO that?

You could argue that the currency is the issue, but then it's either Sterling (one way or another), so no change or a Scottish pound/Euro in that case I'm sure Standard Life could try to talk to another bank that already works across international boundaries to find out how it's done .... Oh wait..... :cb

Standard Life will be looking for a currency and regulatory union with tax probably included in that too. If the SNP government can manage to get a currency union, can they afford to say no to the rest and lose thousands of jobs? Independence, huh?

I remember when the Hearts fans kept dismissing all the warnings and bad news under Romanov. They were roundly mocked by everyone. Now no-one is claiming that independence means going tits up, but all the bad news (currency union, EU membership, companies possibly leaving and so on) just gets dismissed out of hand by the SNP/Yes campaign. It's one of the reasons (although by no means the only one) that the debate has been woeful.

PS The No campaign has been crap too before someone makes that point in response.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

Scottish Widows and Standard Life said exactly the same thing pre devolution and around every time there is a general election so I think we might have been here before.Yawn Yawn.

Companys update Business Continuity Plans all the time with the operative words all the time being "Consider if".

Businesses work in the most friendly tax and financial regulatory enviroment they can find and what Scottish government is going to upset this.

"Consider if" Corporation tax in Scotland was set at 15% then Standard Life would think of relocating jobs back to Scotland from England and Ireland.

That's not the headline you are going to get though.

[southfieldhibby]

Standard Life will be looking for a currency and regulatory union with tax probably included in that too. If the SNP government can manage to get a currency union, can they afford to say no to the rest and lose thousands of jobs? Independence, huh?

I remember when the Hearts fans kept dismissing all the warnings and bad news under Romanov. They were roundly mocked by everyone. Now no-one is claiming that independence means going tits up, but all the bad news (currency union, EU membership, companies possibly leaving and so on) just gets dismissed out of hand by the SNP/Yes campaign. It's one of the reasons (although by no means the only one) that the debate has been woeful.

PS The No campaign has been crap too before someone makes that point in response.

to pick up this point, do you genuinely think we'd not be an EU member nation post yes?

[Beefster]

to pick up this point, do you genuinely think we'd not be an EU member nation post yes?

I genuinely think that it won't be as simple as the SNP would have us believe.

[Geo_1875]

I genuinely think that it won't be as simple as the SNP would have us believe.

They've never claimed it would be simple but they appear to be the only ones open to negotiation. I don't believe that the Coalition parties can simply say no without any consideration. They may feel that way but they cannot put their personal feelings before the good of their country. And as for the EU, we ARE in it and don't plan on leaving it. They have no precedent so again there must be negotiation. Barrosso may not be happy about it but he has his own agenda.

[Beefster]

They've never claimed it would be simple but they appear to be the only ones open to negotiation. I don't believe that the Coalition parties can simply say no without any consideration. They may feel that way but they cannot put their personal feelings before the good of their country. And as for the EU, we ARE in it and don't plan on leaving it. They have no precedent so again there must be negotiation. Barrosso may not be happy about it but he has his own agenda.

When Mrs Beefster and I are planning to take a risk or do something has a chance of multiple outcomes, we tend to plan for all them. We don't pick the one that we hope will happen and just convince ourselves that everything is going to be alright.

How about the SNP/Yes campaign coming out and saying "This scenario is our ideal option but, in the event of another scenario unfolding, here is how we see it unfolding and what we will do...."? If the SNP spelled out what they would do in all the scenarios that they don't want, they would probably convince a lot more of the country.

Folk can pretend it won't happen all they like but, at the moment, the prospect has been raised of Scotland becoming independent without Sterling, EU membership and major employers moving operations out of the country. Yet, not a single campaigner has said "Well, in that scenario....".

[easty]

I genuinely think that it won't be as simple as the SNP would have us believe.

I'm undecided on which way I'll vote at the moment. Would love for Scotland to be independent but wouldn't vote for it unless it would be for the better. On this issue though, I don't think it'll be as difficult as the Better Together campaign would have us believe.

[allmodcons]

When Mrs Beefster and I are planning to take a risk or do something has a chance of multiple outcomes, we tend to plan for all them. We don't pick the one that we hope will happen and just convince ourselves that everything is going to be alright.

How about the SNP/Yes campaign coming out and saying "This scenario is our ideal option but, in the event of another scenario unfolding, here is how we see it unfolding and what we will do...."? If the SNP spelled out what they would do in all the scenarios that they don't want, they would probably convince a lot more of the country.

Folk can pretend it won't happen all they like but, at the moment, the prospect has been raised of Scotland becoming independent without Sterling, EU membership and major employers moving operations out of the country. Yet, not a single campaigner has said "Well, in that scenario....".


I'm always intrigued as to how the pro Union camp wants 100% clarity on issues that they themselves are desperately trying to 'muddy' because they think that by creating uncertainty they strengthen their case.

Putting the Independence Referendum to one side, can I ask what clarity we have with regard to the UK in the EU? At the present time, as I understand it, we are to be offered an in/out referendum after the next UK General Election. Where's the certainty - will we be in or out of the EU after the next UK General Election? Who knows?

[J-C]

I'm always intrigued as to how the pro Union camp wants 100% clarity on issues that they themselves are desperately trying to 'muddy' because they think that by creating uncertainty they strengthen their case.

Putting the Independence Referendum to one side, can I ask what clarity we have with regard to the UK in the EU? At the present time, as I understand it, we are to be offered an in/out referendum after the next UK General Election. Where's the certainty - will we be in or out of the EU after the next UK General Election? Who knows?


This bit always makes me laugh, we have Cameron and his cronies saying we should stick together etc etc then in the same breathe they're quite happy to leave a Union which was voted for by the people of GB. So it's ok for us to leave Europe but it's not ok for us Scots to leave the union of the UK, very hypocritical.

[Betty Boop]

Why don't the SNP tell us what their alternative to a currency union is ? Its a simple question which most folk I've spoke to would like answered.

[Sergio sledge]

This bit always makes me laugh, we have Cameron and his cronies saying we should stick together etc etc then in the same breathe they're quite happy to leave a Union which was voted for by the people of GB. So it's ok for us to leave Europe but it's not ok for us Scots to leave the union of the UK, very hypocritical.

Can you not turn that around and say that the SNP are being hypocritical too in that they want to leave the UK but become an EU member state? Both sides are hypocritical on this whole issue IMHO.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm undecided on which way I'll vote at the moment. Would love for Scotland to be independent but wouldn't vote for it unless it would be for the better. On this issue though, I don't think it'll be as difficult as the Better Together campaign would have us believe.

I think people in general are far too hung up on the short term. For almost all of us, I expect it to make very little difference in the short term whether we vote yes or no.

Remember all the dire Unionist warnings about millions of jobs disappearing and the economy collapsing if we voted for devolution? In reality, there was very little change at first.

If we vote yes, we will gradually diverge from the rest of the UK over time and when things come up where there is a genuinely marked difference in opinion between Scotland and the rest of the UK (eg. trident replacement) we will get to make our own choice.

Independence is for life, not just for Christmas.

[Alex Trager]

Why don't the SNP tell us what their alternative to a currency union is ? Its a simple question which most folk I've spoke to would like answered.

I am a yes man but this is a serious thing for me. They need to offer alternatives. It's so simple. They are making it extremely difficult

[southfieldhibby]

I genuinely think that it won't be as simple as the SNP would have us believe.

How is it not simple?Will we be EU citizens post yes?Will The EU remove us?Will all EU citizens be forcibly removed from Scotland post yes?Would a net contributor to the pot be denied membership?Would net beneficiaries of our contributions veto us joining?

Every single question is met with a reply that shows Scotland will be welcomed into The EU with open arms.

I'd not join the EU btw, but can't see the logic in the scare stories.

[J-C]

Can you not turn that around and say that the SNP are being hypocritical too in that they want to leave the UK but become an EU member state? Both sides are hypocritical on this whole issue IMHO.


Difference being the Scottish people had NO say in the merging of the parliaments in 1707, they rioted in all the main cities in Scotland when it happened, that tells you how they felt at the time. Being a part of the EU is for monetary issues as it makes perfect sense but SNP and many others believe leaving the UK government would also be beneficial money wise to Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

I am a yes man but this is a serious thing for me. They need to offer alternatives. It's so simple. They are making it extremely difficult

Well, there only are 3 other alternatives!

1. Our own currency free floating.
2. Our own currency pegged against Sterling or the Euro.
3. Join the Euro.

The Euro can probably be ruled out on political grounds ("who wants to be in crisis like Greece, Spain etc"?) although I'm not convinced it would actually be a bad thing economically. The Euro states running responsible budgets seem to be doing quite nicely thank you very much.

In terms of making a choice, it might be unwise to be (or appear to be) bounced into a hasty choice at the point of Osborne's gun. The Scottish government has taken the sensible step of setting up a Fiscal commission to examine this matter (4 professors of economics including 2 nobel prize winners so you'd like to think their expertise might slightly outrank Danny Alexander :wink:). Having done that, it does seem equally sensible to let them mull things over and then listen to them.

Their latest statement here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00443982.pdf

[Alex Trager]

Well, there only are 3 other alternatives!

1. Our own currency free floating.
2. Our own currency pegged against Sterling or the Euro.
3. Join the Euro.

The Euro can probably be ruled out on political grounds ("who wants to be in crisis like Greece, Spain etc"?) although I'm not convinced it would actually be a bad thing economically. The Euro states running responsible budgets seem to be doing quite nicely thank you very much.

In terms of making a choice, it might be unwise to be (or appear to be) bounced into a hasty choice at the point of Osborne's gun. The Scottish government has taken the sensible step of setting up a Fiscal commission to examine this matter (4 professors of economics including 2 nobel prize winners so you'd like to think their expertise might slightly outrank Danny Alexander :wink:). Having done that, it does seem equally sensible to let them mull things over and then listen to them.

Their latest statement here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00443982.pdf

Here is your answer Betty boop

[PeeJay]

Scottish Widows and Standard Life said exactly the same thing pre devolution and around every time there is a general election so I think we might have been here before.Yawn Yawn.


Seems to me that the uncertainty regarding the currency union and regulatory practices is what is driving SL's current projected contingency plans: this is a factor that wasn't on the table previously surely? Therefore your comparisons don't quite hold up, particularly if you recall your own reference to a "friendly business environment". From SL's point-of-view this could be a serious problem. Seems most of the SL clients are also outwith Scotland, so again, from a business point of view, Scotland may not be the prime issue here either?

Salmond's spurious claim elsewhere that an independent Scotland could "regulate" the banks/financial institutions thereby avoiding the problems that arose in the FC of 2008 also seem to me to be "pie in the sky" thinking on his part ... bank relocation to the City would circumvents that ploy I would think.

Surely, Salmond and the SNP should have considered, discussed and arrived at workable solutions beforehand with the banking sector and industry, etc. regarding the major problems that are now coming up thick and fast? Why do I get the impression Salmond and the SNP are winging it? The EU situation is another worrying example of an issue that should have been resolved in advance so that the electorate in Scotland can make an informed decision based on facts not on presumption and supposition.

Some may feel that there is a case for independence (I'm not convinced myself), but I feel that the SNP leadership/party is out of its depth here - can the Scottish electorate feel confident about voting for independence when the proponents of the secession seem to be being outmaneuvered with ease in all the major issues?

[allmodcons]

Here is the actual statement (courtesy of WoS) from Standard Life as it appaers on their website. There's nothing like a good piece of spin to 'up the ante'.

27 February 2014
Scottish referendumOn 18 September 2014 a referendum will be held to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. In recent months some of our customers have been in touch with us to ask what impact this would have on their savings and investments with Standard Life.
Our key priority is to continue serving the needs of our 4 million UK customers, wherever they reside and regardless of any constitutional change. The same applies to our customers in other parts of the world.
As a business we have a long-standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote, but we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our customers and other stakeholders and to take whatever action may be necessary to protect their interests.
In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK.

[Geo_1875]

Can you not turn that around and say that the SNP are being hypocritical too in that they want to leave the UK but become an EU member state? Both sides are hypocritical on this whole issue IMHO.

I think you'll find that the SNP want Scotland to become independent and remain in the EU.

[Hibrandenburg]

Just watching sky news and the one sided reporting on the Standard Life announcement is infuriating. We got to hear Darling and Lamont but the FM's reply was cut off after he opened his mouth. I'm really not one for conspiracy theories but this is blatant.

[Geo_1875]

Just watching sky news and the one sided reporting on the Standard Life announcement is infuriating. We got to hear Darling and Lamont but the FM's reply was cut off after he opened his mouth. I'm really not one for conspiracy theories but this is blatant.

As with the print reports where they publish a shock horror headline and a first paragraph which contain none of the facts of the story below. Completely one-sided reporting but no less than expected.

[Gus]

Seems to me that the uncertainty regarding the currency union and regulatory practices is what is driving SL's current projected contingency plans: this is a factor that wasn't on the table previously surely? Therefore your comparisons don't quite hold up, particularly if you recall your own reference to a "friendly business environment". From SL's point-of-view this could be a serious problem. Seems most of the SL clients are also outwith Scotland, so again, from a business point of view, Scotland may not be the prime issue here either?

Salmond's spurious claim elsewhere that an independent Scotland could "regulate" the banks/financial institutions thereby avoiding the problems that arose in the FC of 2008 also seem to me to be "pie in the sky" thinking on his part ... bank relocation to the City would circumvents that ploy I would think.

Surely, Salmond and the SNP should have considered, discussed and arrived at workable solutions beforehand with the banking sector and industry, etc. regarding the major problems that are now coming up thick and fast? Why do I get the impression Salmond and the SNP are winging it? The EU situation is another worrying example of an issue that should have been resolved in advance so that the electorate in Scotland can make an informed decision based on facts not on presumption and supposition.

Some may feel that there is a case for independence (I'm not convinced myself), but I feel that the SNP leadership/party is out of its depth here - can the Scottish electorate feel confident about voting for independence when the proponents of the secession seem to be being outmaneuvered with ease in all the major issues?




:top markspost with sense with no blinkers on....unlike some on here.

[green glory]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution. Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place. :bye:

This is the thing though. As much as the BBC spin it as the above, the actual statement from Standard Life says nothing of the sort.

[Geo_1875]

:top markspost with sense with no blinkers on....unlike some on here.

And yet it's the most one-sided "argument" I've seen posted on here.

Who's got their blinkers on?

[ronaldo7]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

Bateman's comments on SL

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/

[Beefster]

Bateman's comments on SL

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/

Folk are dismissing Barroso, Osbourne, Lamont and Alexander. Jings, even John Barrowman and David Bowie got it tight.

Obviously, Derek Bateman should be listened to.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Seems to me that the uncertainty regarding the currency union and regulatory practices is what is driving SL's current projected contingency plans: this is a factor that wasn't on the table previously surely? Therefore your comparisons don't quite hold up, particularly if you recall your own reference to a "friendly business environment". From SL's point-of-view this could be a serious problem. Seems most of the SL clients are also outwith Scotland, so again, from a business point of view, Scotland may not be the prime issue here either?

Salmond's spurious claim elsewhere that an independent Scotland could "regulate" the banks/financial institutions thereby avoiding the problems that arose in the FC of 2008 also seem to me to be "pie in the sky" thinking on his part ... bank relocation to the City would circumvents that ploy I would think.

Surely, Salmond and the SNP should have considered, discussed and arrived at workable solutions beforehand with the banking sector and industry, etc. regarding the major problems that are now coming up thick and fast? Why do I get the impression Salmond and the SNP are winging it? The EU situation is another worrying example of an issue that should have been resolved in advance so that the electorate in Scotland can make an informed decision based on facts not on presumption and supposition.

Some may feel that there is a case for independence (I'm not convinced myself), but I feel that the SNP leadership/party is out of its depth here - can the Scottish electorate feel confident about voting for independence when the proponents of the secession seem to be being outmaneuvered with ease in all the major issues?



Independence is about having the power to make the choices that can affect peoples lives for better (or worse) hence aren't you inadvertently making the case for Independence here by highlighting the fact that none of these issues have been or ever can be decided in advance. :agree:

It would be quite wonderful if the Scottish government could you give you clarity and certainty you require in order to allow you to make an informed choice on all matters relating to currency financial regulation and membership of the European Union.

Unfortunately they cant as Scotland only has a regional parliament or ''Parish cooncil'' as Tony Blair once described it has not remotely got the power to make financial arrangements and agreements with the banking and finance industry or to open serious negotiations with the EU.

The Scottish Government can only set out a roadmap as set out in the 2014 White Paper or through Holyrood committees or through the 'Fiscal Commission' and put forward what they think is in the best interests of the people of the Scotland which is a formal currency Union with the rest of the UK within the European Union.

Politics is a rough and tough game and it is right for the UK Conservative and Lib Dem government supported by the Labour party to put forward there position that this isn't going to happen.

This creates the doubt and uncertainty which is there second major weapon after fear of course and a perfectly legitimate tactic as after all the Scottish Government propose a land of milk and honey.:agree:

I fully expect the Scottish government to come forward with another currency plan pre the referendum and equally for the UK government to post their objections as that is how politics work and so on and back and forward.

Similarly the EU will be batted back and forward as will North Sea Oil though Scotland must be the only country in the whole wide world where this is somehow seen as a 'volatile liability' which they wouldn't be able to manage. Norwegians must just giggle:wink:

I am long convinced on the financial benefits of Independence and my only question is what would happen in practice post a Yes vote and whether it is really serious to think that all parties will stick to their rigid positions whether it is in London, Edinburgh or Brussels.

I am convinced they wont and sensible normal negotiations would take place as it did with all the other small European nations and Scotland would then take its rightful place as a democratic European nation with the power to make Scottish decisions for Scottish problems because if you don't control your own life then others will just do it for you.:greengrin


My vote will be Yes based on a lot of solid facts, some judgement and a wee bit of hope though I fully respect others who come to a different conclusion as long as it is on a positive criteria rather than through fear and uncertainty.

[JimBHibees]

'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.

Horrific.

Please tell me she didnt say that. Dear oh dear, we are obviously too thick to be independent. :rolleyes:

[marinello59]

Please tell me she didnt say that. Dear oh dear, we are obviously too thick to be independent. :rolleyes:

You should have kept reading through the thread. See post 855 but probably best that you watch the actual debate again and you will then get the point Lamont was trying to make.

[marinello59]

Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.

Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.

:bye:

Only they said nothing of the sort. It's a total non-story being spun out of all recognition by the media. I'm even questioning the out of balance reporting on this one.

[Gus]

Only they said nothing of the sort. It's a total non-story being spun out of all recognition by the media. I'm even questioning the out of balance reporting on this one.

Spot on. Yes people bed wetting about it and the No people saying everyone will follow SL's lead....of what is undecided

[RyeSloan]

Standard life is but one company in one industry but they make a very good point.

Just how will financial regulation work...a lot if Scotland's finance industry is aligned to supporting UK regulated products, if we leave the union then we leave that regulation behind. What will replace it? Will it be saleable across the border? How will people's money be protected? And on and on and on.

Again we have no answers apart from wait and see...this is a huge company employing thousands upon thousands of people saying they are making contingency plans to move their business and the answer is a shrug and more accusations of scaremongering from the media. Weird.

[Beefster]

Putting the Independence Referendum to one side, can I ask what clarity we have with regard to the UK in the EU? At the present time, as I understand it, we are to be offered an in/out referendum after the next UK General Election. Where's the certainty - will we be in or out of the EU after the next UK General Election? Who knows?

As I understand it, the UK, in the unlikely event that it elects a Tory Government in 2015, will have given them a mandate to renegotiate the terms of our membership. The UK will be asked to vote in an in/out referendum with the new terms known.

That's democracy. I don't want to leave Europe any more than I want to leave the UK but there's no uncertainty about what is being offered. Vote Tory, get a renegotiation and then a referendum. When the referendum is held, the options will be properly defined.

The SNP probably would have been better doing the same thing (vowing to use an election win as a mandate to negotiate before the referendum) but they probably suspected it would harm their election results.

[ronaldo7]

Folk are dismissing Barroso, Osbourne, Lamont and Alexander. Jings, even John Barrowman and David Bowie got it tight.

Obviously, Derek Bateman should be listened to.

You take it or leave it, S'up to you.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Folk are dismissing Barroso, Osbourne, Lamont and Alexander. Jings, even John Barrowman and David Bowie got it tight.

Obviously, Derek Bateman should be listened to.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

It was a very well argued and incisive piece of work and is exactly the sort of reasoned thoughtful argument that should be analysed and digested.

[ronaldo7]

More on SL

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/standard-life-deserve-common-sense-discussions/

[Beefster]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

It was a very well argued and incisive piece of work and is exactly the sort of reasoned thoughtful argument that should be analysed and digested.

I didn't bring it to your attention but I'll bring this to it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[The Baldmans Comb]

I didn't bring it to your attention but I'll bring this to it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Yes you did as I had no idea Derek Batemans piece existed until you alerted me to it in your earlier post.

Thanks to you as I was able to expand my knowledge of both the history and background of Standard Life and the inner workings of the BBC from one of their ex news reporters and a man who I have a lot of respect for based on his Lockerbie interviews.

I was then able to share this find with a few hundred people via social media.

I am afraid I don't see the remote significance of your Wikepedia link to the debate.

Would you care to elaborate on your reasons?

[Just Alf]

Lying in bed thinking about this last night ( I know! I know!... :rolleyes: )

The other "spin" could easily have been, "If the Scottish People vote Yes, Standard Life will insist on Westminster entering currency negotiations"

Good, now I can get some sleep :wink:

[Beefster]

The other "spin" could easily have been, "If the Scottish People vote Yes, Standard Life will insist on Westminster entering currency negotiations

Or...

"Standard Life in shock threat to Westminster - "Allow a currency, regulatory and tax union with an independent Scotland or we'll move thousands of jobs to your country"".

[Just Alf]

Or...

"Standard Life in shock threat to Westminster - "Allow a currency, regulatory and tax union with an independent Scotland or we'll move thousands of jobs to your country"".

Aye, there is that..... :D

[allmodcons]

Only they said nothing of the sort. It's a total non-story being spun out of all recognition by the media. I'm even questioning the out of balance reporting on this one.

:shocked: I've been telling you this for ages :wink:.

[allmodcons]

As I understand it, the UK, in the unlikely event that it elects a Tory Government in 2015, will have given them a mandate to renegotiate the terms of our membership. The UK will be asked to vote in an in/out referendum with the new terms known.

That's democracy. I don't want to leave Europe any more than I want to leave the UK but there's no uncertainty about what is being offered. Vote Tory, get a renegotiation and then a referendum. When the referendum is held, the options will be properly defined.

The SNP probably would have been better doing the same thing (vowing to use an election win as a mandate to negotiate before the referendum) but they probably suspected it would harm their election results.

The Scottish Electorate gave the SNP a mandate on a vote for Independence did they not? Are you trying to claim that this was not contained in the 2011 SNP Scottish Election manifesto?

Are you also seriously suggesting that there is no uncertainty (now) as to the UK's position in the EU?

I suppose that the other member states of the EU will simply rollover and have their tummy tickled by the UK and agree with the conditions requested by the UK Government of the day. You use the term renegotiation (i.e. - changing treaties, etc) yet Unionists keep telling us that 'change leads to uncertainty' and that 'uncertainity is bad business' etc, etc.

I don't happen to think that change is a bad thing but I do find it amusing how, when it comes to the UK and the EU, you try to dress it up as renegotiation.

[allmodcons]

Yes you did as I had no idea Derek Batemans piece existed until you alerted me to it in your earlier post.

Thanks to you as I was able to expand my knowledge of both the history and background of Standard Life and the inner workings of the BBC from one of their ex news reporters and a man who I have a lot of respect for based on his Lockerbie interviews.

I was then able to share this find with a few hundred people via social media.

I am afraid I don't see the remote significance of your Wikepedia link to the debate.

Would you care to elaborate on your reasons?

You should know by now that it's simply not acceptable to read or, even worse, commend anything that appears in a pro Nationalist website or blog.

You should, instead, be reading and digesting pieces in balanced, fair minded newspapers like the Daily Mail, Express or the Telegraph.

[marinello59]

:shocked: I've been telling you this for ages :wink:.

:greengrin
I said on this one.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It seems to me Standard Life walk into this situation every time there is a vote that will affect Scotland. Whether its a general election, or a referendum, they always seem to manage to give the wrong end of the stick. You'd think they'd know better by now.

It's time someone asked them for more details. What will it cost you to move your important staff to England? Do they want to go? Can you recruit high calibre staff for less in Cheshire, or Halifax, or Manchester? Won't the upheaval affect your continuity, and what are you going to do with more empty buildings in Edinburgh?

These are things the media should be asking about, rather than going for the tired headline that they seize on every time. Fact is, Standard Life's managers are more than likely happy to stay in Edinburgh, and if an English Company was trying to take them over, they would have strong arguments why the business should stay here.

It seems to me that business plays the Scottish card when it is to their advantage. Maybe it's time to show a bit more support for the assets they play up at other times. Scottish Uncle Toms, happy to use Scotland as a marketing tool, but not prepared to take responsibility for the society that makes them what they are.

And another thing, stop kidding on you have no interest in politics. It's not so long ago you were sending out memos to staff telling them how to vote. You're not as faceless as you think.

[tcm1875]

It seems to me Standard Life walk into this situation every time there is a vote that will affect Scotland. Whether its a general election, or a referendum, they always seem to manage to give the wrong end of the stick. You'd think they'd know better by now.

It's time someone asked them for more details. What will it cost you to move your important staff to England? Do they want to go? Can you recruit high calibre staff for less in Cheshire, or Halifax, or Manchester? Won't the upheaval affect your continuity, and what are you going to do with more empty buildings in Edinburgh?

These are things the media should be asking about, rather than going for the tired headline that they seize on every time. Fact is, Standard Life's managers are more than likely happy to stay in Edinburgh, and if an English Company was trying to take them over, they would have strong arguments why the business should stay here.

It seems to me that business plays the Scottish card when it is to their advantage. Maybe it's time to show a bit more support for the assets they play up at other times. Scottish Uncle Toms, happy to use Scotland as a marketing tool, but not prepared to take responsibility for the society that makes them what they are.

And another thing, stop kidding on you have no interest in politics. It's not so long ago you were sending out memos to staff telling them how to vote. You're not as faceless as you think.


Could this be why?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/02/tories-campaign-against-scottish-independence-shock/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Beefster]

The Scottish Electorate gave the SNP a mandate on a vote for Independence did they not? Are you trying to claim that this was not contained in the 2011 SNP Scottish Election manifesto?

Are you also seriously suggesting that there is no uncertainty (now) as to the UK's position in the EU?

I suppose that the other member states of the EU will simply rollover and have their tummy tickled by the UK and agree with the conditions requested by the UK Government of the day. You use the term renegotiation (i.e. - changing treaties, etc) yet Unionists keep telling us that 'change leads to uncertainty' and that 'uncertainity is bad business' etc, etc.

I don't happen to think that change is a bad thing but I do find it amusing how, when it comes to the UK and the EU, you try to dress it up as renegotiation.

In order:

No. I'm saying that it would have been better if the SNP had said "Vote for us in the Scottish elections, if we get in, we'll negotiate a settlement with the rest of the UK and then hold an independence referendum with the two choices fully defined".

Not really. I'm saying that the electorate isn't being asked to make a choice about whether we stay in or leave the EU without defined options.

I doubt Europe will roll over. However, if it's being taken as a certainty that the EU will welcome Scotland with open arms, you can be fairly sure that they would be pretty keen to keep the UK.

It's a renegotiation of the membership terms. A decision would need to be taken whether to stay or leave after the terms of the renegotation are finalised. If the UK exits the EU then that isn't a renegotiation.

In Scotland, we're currently being asked to choose between the status quo or an ill-defined (if at all) notion of what an independent Scotland would look like. If the SNP had used their election win as a mandate to negotiate the terms of UK exit and then presented two well-defined options (i.e. status quo or this agreement on the future state of an independent Scotland) then they probably would have more people on board (all IMHO).

[allmodcons]

:greengrin
I said on this one.

Still shocked.

[The Baldmans Comb]

You should know by now that it's simply not acceptable to read or, even worse, commend anything that appears in a pro Nationalist website or blog.

You should, instead, be reading and digesting pieces in balanced, fair minded newspapers like the Daily Mail, Express or the Telegraph.

I actually quite like and even respect these "newspapers" as they are to ludicrous for anyone to remotely take serious and they are very honest in their utter contempt for Scotland.

The people I dont respect are the BBC particularly BBC Scotlandshire as being inherently British Unionist is fair enough as London controls their purse strings but they certainly payback their paymasters tenfold.

Yesterday was a good example as who would know that Standard and Poors gave an Independent Scotland a AAA credit rating something you would expect to be worth a headline story.

That's the tactic highlight the negatives and bury the positives.

I shouldn't be to critical though as I happily withold my licence fee and there is nothing they can do about.

[Beefster]

It seems to me Standard Life walk into this situation every time there is a vote that will affect Scotland. Whether its a general election, or a referendum, they always seem to manage to give the wrong end of the stick. You'd think they'd know better by now.

It's time someone asked them for more details. What will it cost you to move your important staff to England? Do they want to go? Can you recruit high calibre staff for less in Cheshire, or Halifax, or Manchester? Won't the upheaval affect your continuity, and what are you going to do with more empty buildings in Edinburgh?

These are things the media should be asking about, rather than going for the tired headline that they seize on every time. Fact is, Standard Life's managers are more than likely happy to stay in Edinburgh, and if an English Company was trying to take them over, they would have strong arguments why the business should stay here.

It seems to me that business plays the Scottish card when it is to their advantage. Maybe it's time to show a bit more support for the assets they play up at other times. Scottish Uncle Toms, happy to use Scotland as a marketing tool, but not prepared to take responsibility for the society that makes them what they are.

And another thing, stop kidding on you have no interest in politics. It's not so long ago you were sending out memos to staff telling them how to vote. You're not as faceless as you think.

I don't think there would be much comparison in the short-term costs of moving operations and selling buildings to the permanent costs of 90% of their business being in a country with different tax, currency and regulatory regimes.

I always get the impression that Standard Life are one of these Edinburgh life assurance companies who, despite their size, still have a paternalistic attitude that was seemingly common amongst the likes of Standard Life, Scottish Provident, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Life etc in the 50's/60's. I think it's part of their DNA to 'look after and guide/tell the staff what to do'.

[allmodcons]

In order:

No. I'm saying that it would have been better if the SNP had said "Vote for us in the Scottish elections, if we get in, we'll negotiate a settlement with the rest of the UK and then hold an independence referendum with the two choices fully defined".

Not really. I'm saying that the electorate isn't being asked to make a choice about whether we stay in or leave the EU without defined options.

That's because, at this stage, nobody knows what terms will asked of the EU. Make no mistake, there is uncertainty (right now) over the UK's future in the EU.

I doubt Europe will roll over. However, if it's being taken as a certainty that the EU will welcome Scotland with open arms, you can be fairly sure that they would be pretty keen to keep the UK.

These are 2 entirely different scenarios. An iScotland would not be looking to renegotiate treaties. IMO we would be more than happy obtaining EU membership as it stands.

It's a renegotiation of the membership terms. A decision would need to be taken whether to stay or leave after the terms of the renegotation are finalised. If the UK exits the EU then that isn't a renegotiation.

AS I've said, at this stage, nobody but nobody knows what agreement the EU and the UK will come to prior to the in/out referendum on EU membership. I doubt the EU will be happy to accept all of the treaty changes requested by the UK.

In Scotland, we're currently being asked to choose between the status quo or an ill-defined (if at all) notion of what an independent Scotland would look like. If the SNP had used their election win as a mandate to negotiate the terms of UK exit and then presented two well-defined options (i.e. status quo or this agreement on the future state of an independent Scotland) then they probably would have more people on board (all IMHO).



For me this is what we have, I accept you are on the other side of the fence but, accepting your argument, what makes you think the 2 parties would be more willing (or indeed able) to provide definitive answers to the questions being asked around currency and the EU. Don't you think we'd still be watching political posturing by both sides and then still have to take a vote based our best judgement.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think there would be much comparison in the short-term costs of moving operations and selling buildings to the permanent costs of 90% of their business being in a country with different tax, currency and regulatory regimes.

I always get the impression that Standard Life are one of these Edinburgh life assurance companies who, despite their size, still have a paternalistic attitude that was seemingly common amongst the likes of Standard Life, Scottish Provident, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Life etc in the 50's/60's. I think it's part of their DNA to 'look after and guide/tell the staff what to do'.

These are all things that could be explored if our media wanted to discuss the matter, rather than act as sensationalist gossip sheets. I'm starting to think that even financial journalists don't understand finance.

This thing about moving is interesting though. One of the arguments that Scottish Life companies used to use for retaining head office functions here was that we had a more experienced labour pool. Areas like Manchester didn't have as many actuaries, or physicians, or experienced admin. staff to justify relocating jobs there.

Presumably that has now changed, or SL is prepared to take the gamble that they can carry staff with them to England.

Likewise, they anticipate a big market for empty Insurance Company head offices. Because if they go, what's left of the Scottish life companies will go with them. They already have one white elephant down at Tanfield. Presumably they will have more success shifting that temple to corporate greed at Lothian Road.

Then we come to the matter of Scottish firms that are already owned by English companies. You'd have thought Lloyds TSB would hardly bother with the hassle of trading from Scotland. What with all the uncertainty, theyd have a cast iron excuse for shutting down their provincial subsidiary Scottish Widows.

At the very least, relocation plans would surely be at an advanced stage by now. Yet they, and the Prudential, to name but two, continue to source a lot of back office functions at Dalkeith Road, and in Stirling.

You're right about a paternalistic attitude. But it was also patronising. It's an old way of thinking, that basically ordinary Scots shouldn't think for themselves. Rather they should don their forelocks to their employers, because they were the experts on these matters.

I think Standard Life don't like change. In fact I think their whole corporate ethos has always been risk averse. I question whether the people running that firm have what it takes to compete in the modern financial world. I definitely question their motives in constantly letting this relocation nonsense enter the political debate.

[One Day Soon]

Bateman's comments on SL

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/


Just discovered his blog after another poster linked to it a few pages back. I love it. Quality seething stuff and the bitterness just drips from every paragraph.

These awful and endless Referendum 'debates' would be much more entertaining if both sides let their very late night brigade get torn into one another. Either that or have a sane fact based discussion for a change.....

[Phil D. Rolls]

Could this be why?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/02/tories-campaign-against-scottish-independence-shock/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I think it's for the MsM to be asking how SL can pretend to be neutral, when members of their board also contribute their expertise to a Tory led think tank.

SL knowingly (or not if you believe their bleating) put their head over the parapet. The fact that they haven't attracted fire from the media, shows you how successful their "grey man" strategy is. They are just too boring to interview.

[Beefster]

For me this is what we have, I accept you are on the other side of the fence but, accepting your argument, what makes you think the 2 parties would be more willing (or indeed able) to provide definitive answers to the questions being asked around currency and the EU. Don't you think we'd still be watching political posturing by both sides and then still have to take a vote based our best judgement.

I agree with you about no-one knowing if, in 10 years time, the UK will be the EU and, if they are, the nature of that membership. I was only talking about the choice the electorate is faced with. Even if the SNP had negotiated with Westminster before the referendum, there would have still been a vast amount of uncertainty. Just less than there is now.

You may well be right about a negotiation pre-referendum too. The EU negotiations will be coming from a completely different angle (i.e. The UK wants to stay but on different terms) than the Scottish ones.

[ronaldo7]

Just discovered his blog after another poster linked to it a few pages back. I love it. Quality seething stuff and the bitterness just drips from every paragraph.

These awful and endless Referendum 'debates' would be much more entertaining if both sides let their very late night brigade get torn into one another. Either that or have a sane fact based discussion for a change.....

Glad you liked it. More of that kind out there if that's your fancy:aok:

[JimBHibees]

I actually quite like and even respect these "newspapers" as they are to ludicrous for anyone to remotely take serious and they are very honest in their utter contempt for Scotland.

The people I dont respect are the BBC particularly BBC Scotlandshire as being inherently British Unionist is fair enough as London controls their purse strings but they certainly payback their paymasters tenfold.

Yesterday was a good example as who would know that Standard and Poors gave an Independent Scotland a AAA credit rating something you would expect to be worth a headline story.

That's the tactic highlight the negatives and bury the positives.

I shouldn't be to critical though as I happily withold my licence fee and there is nothing they can do about.

Completey agree without fail about 3 or 4 times a week the slot just before the hour and half hour on the BBC Breakfast show is a negative anti-independence line. Neutral my erse.

[Hibbyradge]

Ah, the beauty of a full and frank debate.

Has anyone been persuaded by the arguments presented so far?

[One Day Soon]

Regarding all this chip on the shoulder whining about the supposed pro-UK bias of the BBC, how do you explain away that BBC Scotland is currently leading with the news story on the BA boss saying that independence could be good for his company?

[One Day Soon]

Ah, the beauty of a full and frank debate.

Has anyone been persuaded by the arguments presented so far?


I have found the elected politicians and their lackeys in the two campaigns the least persuasive of all those contributing to the 'debate'.

So far I think the NIESR in depth academic and economist reports have been the most persuasive and evidence based. They make pretty grim reading for the SNP/Yes campaign.

As stated earlier in this thread the commitment I would prize most at this point from both sides would be the promise to shut up on the subject for at least a decade once this is over in September, whichever way it goes. I'd be interested to know what posters from the two sides have to say about that.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Regarding all this chip on the shoulder whining about the supposed pro-UK bias of the BBC, how do you explain away that BBC Scotland is currently leading with the news story on the BA boss saying that independence could be good for his company?

I would say it proves exactly the point I was making as a AAA rating for an Independent Scotland from a ratings agency such as Standard and Poors is a very significant conclusion to reach whereas an airline company boosting it's profits is rather superfluous drivel.

"Scottish wealth levels would qualify for our highest economic assessment alongside UK (AAA) Ireland (BBB) and New Zealand (AA+)" and the report goes onto say this analysis excludes North Sea Oil though acknowledges that any new country still faces significant challenges.

One of these stories is headlined and the other completely ignored.

What do you think is the more worthy as a TV lead story and try not to be offensive as it rather detracts from intelligent adult debate.

[Beefster]

I would say it proves exactly the point I was making as a AAA rating for an Independent Scotland from a ratings agency such as Standard and Poors is a very significant conclusion to reach whereas an airline company boosting it's profits is rather superfluous drivel.

"Scottish wealth levels would qualify for our highest economic assessment alongside UK (AAA) Ireland (BBB) and New Zealand (AA+)" and the report goes onto say this analysis excludes North Sea Oil though acknowledges that any new country still faces significant challenges.

One of these stories is headlined and the other completely ignored.

What do you think is the more worthy as a TV lead story and try not to be offensive as it rather detracts from intelligent adult debate.

What story do you think is of more interest to viewers - a story about an agency most people having heard of concluding something most people either don't know or don't understand or a story about the CEO of one of the world's largest airlines saying independence wouldn't be a problem?

I'm not sure you can use two pro-independence stories and their reporting to demonstrate a bias.

[johnbc70]

BA have only come out and said it would be a good thing as the SNP have said they would abolish Air Tax Duty, thus increasing their profits. If the SNP said they were increasing the tax we would have heard what a bad thing independence was.

[The Baldmans Comb]

What story do you think is of more interest to viewers - a story about an agency most people having heard of concluding something most people either don't know or don't understand or a story about the CEO of one of the world's largest airlines saying independence wouldn't be a problem?

I'm not sure you can use two pro-independence stories and their reporting to demonstrate a bias.

Is this a trick question?

Undoubtedly the story of most interest to viewers would be poonds shillings and pence one and having the utmost confidence that their country is financially very secure if they vote Yes.

Triple AAA rating isn't a very difficult concept to grasp and I would say the vast majority of people who have been to Skool would understand instantly the implications.

Abolishing air passenger duty and boosting British Airways profits I am sure is of great importance to all BA shareholders but utterly irrelevant to the vast population of Scotland.

[One Day Soon]

I would say it proves exactly the point I was making as a AAA rating for an Independent Scotland from a ratings agency such as Standard and Poors is a very significant conclusion to reach whereas an airline company boosting it's profits is rather superfluous drivel.

"Scottish wealth levels would qualify for our highest economic assessment alongside UK (AAA) Ireland (BBB) and New Zealand (AA+)" and the report goes onto say this analysis excludes North Sea Oil though acknowledges that any new country still faces significant challenges.

One of these stories is headlined and the other completely ignored.

What do you think is the more worthy as a TV lead story and try not to be offensive as it rather detracts from intelligent adult debate.


No, it really doesn't. Go google 'Standard and Poor's and 'subprime' or 'banking collapse'.

They have been - and are - the subject of lawsuits, compensation claims and investigation by various agencies for being complicit in the global financial collapse which we are still dealing with today. They are widely regarded along with the other big two ratings agencies as being unreliable and a core problem in the failure to accurately assess and rate risk and debt.

You should be grateful that the story wasn't given greater prominence since an endorsement from them is rather like a tobacco company giving you an assurance on health.

So to answer your question, I think that in campaigning terms an organisation as British and as prominent as British Airways saying that an independent Scotland would be good for their business is a significantly stronger story for the Yes camp than the jokers who helped give us global toxic debt offering their somewhat dubious views on, er, Scottish debt.

But since that doesn't fit the obsessive narrative of 'it's a Unionist media conspiracy organised to do us down' we find that separatists need to try to rationalise it away. It isn't entirely clear whether the SNP/Yes chip on the shoulder about media coverage is a result of paranoia, desperation or anticipatory angst but it certainly "detracts from intelligent adult debate".

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ah, the beauty of a full and frank debate.

Has anyone been persuaded by the arguments presented so far?

No further forward. :confused:

[One Day Soon]

What story do you think is of more interest to viewers - a story about an agency most people having heard of concluding something most people either don't know or don't understand or a story about the CEO of one of the world's largest airlines saying independence wouldn't be a problem?

I'm not sure you can use two pro-independence stories and their reporting to demonstrate a bias.

You should know better Beefster. You need to brush up on your FACTS in this 'debate'.

1. The world will come to an end if we have independence.
2. The world will come to an end if we stay in the UK.
3. There's a giant media conspiracy against independence across every television, radio, newspaper and internet outlet.

These are the FACTS.

Am I doing his right?

[Phil D. Rolls]

You should know better Beefster. You need to brush up on your FACTS in this 'debate'.

1. The world will come to an end if we have independence.
2. The world will come to an end if we stay in the UK.
3. There's a giant media conspiracy against independence across every television, radio, newspaper and internet outlet.

These are the FACTS.

Am I doing his right?

It helps if you back it up with an expert witness, or make counter arguments by quoting his/her arch rival.

Then you go on Facebook, show the same picture as your oppo has posted, but say it means the exact opposite of their assertion.

Celebrity endorsements are ill advised, on the whole.

[Beefster]

Is this a trick question?

Undoubtedly the story of most interest to viewers would be poonds shillings and pence one and having the utmost confidence that their country is financially very secure if they vote Yes.

Triple AAA rating isn't a very difficult concept to grasp and I would say the vast majority of people who have been to Skool would understand instantly the implications.

Abolishing air passenger duty and boosting British Airways profits I am sure is of great importance to all BA shareholders but utterly irrelevant to the vast population of Scotland.

I didn't say folk couldn't understand the concepts.

Fair enough though. The reporting of the BA story over the S&P one was obviously a clear indication of the BBC's anti-independence agenda.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is this a trick question?

Undoubtedly the story of most interest to viewers would be poonds shillings and pence one and having the utmost confidence that their country is financially very secure if they vote Yes.

Triple AAA rating isn't a very difficult concept to grasp and I would say the vast majority of people who have been to Skool would understand instantly the implications.

Abolishing air passenger duty and boosting British Airways profits I am sure is of great importance to all BA shareholders but utterly irrelevant to the vast population of Scotland.

Not necessarily.

Businesses tend to pass price hikes (particularly those forced on them) on to customers, and that has been the case with APD. If they reflect the reduction in APD in their fares from and to Scotland, it can only be good for their passenger numbers, and for the airports generally.

[The Baldmans Comb]

No, it really doesn't. Go google 'Standard and Poor's and 'subprime' or 'banking collapse'.

They have been - and are - the subject of lawsuits, compensation claims and investigation by various agencies for being complicit in the global financial collapse which we are still dealing with today. They are widely regarded along with the other big two ratings agencies as being unreliable and a core problem in the failure to accurately assess and rate risk and debt.

You should be grateful that the story wasn't given greater prominence since an endorsement from them is rather like a tobacco company giving you an assurance on health.

So to answer your question, I think that in campaigning terms an organisation as British and as prominent as British Airways saying that an independent Scotland would be good for their business is a significantly stronger story for the Yes camp than the jokers who helped give us global toxic debt offering their somewhat dubious views on, er, Scottish debt.

But since that doesn't fit the obsessive narrative of 'it's a Unionist media conspiracy organised to do us down' we find that separatists need to try to rationalise it away. It isn't entirely clear whether the SNP/Yes chip on the shoulder about media coverage is a result of paranoia, desperation or anticipatory angst but it certainly "detracts from intelligent adult debate".

I am afraid your argument that Standard and Poors might be getting sued ''Cos they didnae predict the banking crisis so we cannae trust there rating of Scotland as a prospective AAA economy'' doesn't seem particularity credible.

Standard and Poors are an independent ratings agency who employ 12,000 people worldwide and have a USA Turnover of $3 Billion and wouldn't care if Salmond wants to be the next King of China or Cameron wants to install himself in Edinburgh castle.:greengrin

They churn numbers independent of political interference and the numbers churned were a very positive endorsement for Scottish Independence with certain reservations as no one would pretend it is going to be a land of milk and honey.

Scotland to S&P or to the other ratings agencies such as Fitch's or Moodys are just another simple fee earner for their city clients and will be one of the easiest economys to financially model given the wealth and quality of the data available. A staff of 3 could reach a reportable conclusion in less than a week.

We will have to agree to disagree though I do have the lingering suspicion that had Standard & Poors concluded DDD- instead of prospective AAA that as a British Unionist you would have been cheering and maybe sneering all the way to the rooftops :agree:

[One Day Soon]

I am afraid your argument that Standard and Poors might be getting sued ''Cos they didnae predict the banking crisis so we cannae trust there rating of Scotland as a prospective AAA economy'' doesn't seem particularity credible.

Clearly you haven't bothered to examine any of what I was discussing but why let facts get in the way of spin? There's no "might be getting sued" about it. They have been torn a new one repeatedly by a wide variety of bodies resulting in massive settlements.

Hilariously one of the key critics of this company is the SNP's favourite economic guru Professor Joseph Stiglitz. You will find his view of S&P here: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/22/ratings-agencies-conflict-of-interest

This is what it says - Joseph Stiglitz has identified rating agencies as one of the "key culprits" of the financial crisis. "They were the party that performed the alchemy that converted the securities from F-rated to A-rated. The banks could not have done what they did without the complicity of the rating agencies." It goes on to let us know of this gem of financial probity and trust:

"Internal S&P emails from 2006 appear to show that the agency was well aware of the risks of rating CDOs. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters. :o)," one S&P employee said in an email which was presented as evidence during a US government investigation into the financial crisis last year. Another email warned that "this is like another banking crisis potentially looming!!"

By the way, when you use quotation marks they are for the purpose of quoting - verbatim - what has been said or written. Not for applying your own interpretation and then putting those words into someone else's mouth. Doing that debases discussion to the point of manipulation. Feel free however to throw my own actual words back against me.

Standard and Poors are an independent ratings agency who employ 12,000 people worldwide and have a USA Turnover of $3 Billion and wouldn't care if Salmond wants to be the next King of China or Cameron wants to install himself in Edinburgh castle.:greengrin

Enron employed 20,000 staff and turned over in excess of £100 billion just before it went bust. If you think S&P wouldn't have an eye on a future market for business in a separate Scotland then I hope you are not in a position of influence within the SNP.

They churn numbers independent of political interference and the numbers churned were a very positive endorsement for Scottish Independence with certain reservations as no one would pretend it is going to be a land of milk and honey.

Oh they churn numbers independently do they? Here is what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission set up by Congress and the President had to say about how and why they got credit ratings catastrophically wrong: "flawed computer models, the pressure from financial firms that paid for the ratings, the relentless drive for market share, the lack of resources to do the job despite record profits, and the absence of meaningful public oversight." Wiki alone will point you in the direction of a tsunami of evidence as to how compromised these agencies are.

Scotland to S&P or to the other ratings agencies such as Fitch's or Moodys are just another simple fee earner for their city clients and will be one of the easiest economys to financially model given the wealth and quality of the data available. A staff of 3 could reach a reportable conclusion in less than a week.

No, Scotland is actually one of the trickier economies to model precisely because there is not a complete set of data available. The man reason they haven't touched oil in the S&P assessment will likely be because the information on where revenues from North Sea oil and gas production goes is pretty sketchy. The Scottish Government's own assumptions on this in their work on GINI and GDP make some very dodgy assumptions about the proportion of oil and gas related revenue that can be set against the Scottish economy and GDP, as the recently published National Institute for Economic and Social Reearch reports showed.

If you genuinely think "A staff of 3 could reach a reportable conclusion in less than a week" you must be either very easily pleased or very anxious to validate what you regard as good news. Senior economists have been wrestling with this stuff for many, many months to try and get an accurate picture on the Scottish economy and they still have to use large elements of guesswork and assumption.

We will have to agree to disagree though I do have the lingering suspicion that had Standard & Poors concluded DDD- instead of prospective AAA that as a British Unionist you would have been cheering and maybe sneering all the way to the rooftops :agree:


British Unionist, cheering and sneering huh? What happened to "try not to be offensive as it rather detracts from intelligent adult debate."?

There would be nothing for any patriotic Scot to cheer in a DDD rating. Your willingness to insinuate that I would think or feel that way says a lot more about your intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your rather narrow separatist view of Scottishness than anything else.

[Hibrandenburg]

Just reading all the scare stories makes me laugh.

Norway don't have the pound, they don't have the Euro, they don't have any currency union whatsoever, they're not a member of the European Union and there's no major insurance company providing masses of jobs for them. They also do not have the same industrial or agricultural export history or infrastructure that Scotland enjoys.

But guess what? They're doing quite nicely thank you.

[ronaldo7]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lets-throw-a-surprise-party/

Nice Melanie, the thing is though, that we scots don't hate the English, we have family who are English. It's about self determination hen, when you get that, you might learn a bit about the Scots.

Thanks for the extra votes.

[ronaldo7]

It's building...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UabZV94is

[ronaldo7]

The Procos fight back.

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265739-independence-proclaimers-slam-johann-lamont-over-letter-to-america-riff/

[ronaldo7]

Former Scottish Labour Chairman to vote yes, for a fairer, more equal and prosperous Scotland.:aok:

"I will now be voting Yes because I think it is the only way forward for anyone who wants to see a fairer, more equal and more prosperous Scotland.

"I will be joining with many old comrades in Labour for Independence to encourage the 800,000-plus Scots who voted Labour in the 2010 general election to vote Yes on September 18."

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265822-former-scottish-labour-chairman-announces-support-for-independence/

[Saorsa]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lets-throw-a-surprise-party/

Nice Melanie, the thing is though, that we scots don't hate the English, we have family who are English. It's about self determination hen, when you get that, you might learn a bit about the Scots.

Thanks for the extra votes.:agree:

If I hadnae already made up my mind how I was going tae vote, people like her are exactly the sort that would help make it up for me, I'm sure they will for a lot of others too.

So bash on hen :aok:

[johnbc70]

Just reading all the scare stories makes me laugh.

Norway don't have the pound, they don't have the Euro, they don't have any currency union whatsoever, they're not a member of the European Union and there's no major insurance company providing masses of jobs for them. They also do not have the same industrial or agricultural export history or infrastructure that Scotland enjoys.

But guess what? They're doing quite nicely thank you.

They are yes, but they have a £447BN (yes billion) Oil fund that they set up many many years ago. That works out of savings of around £70,000 per person in Norway so they can afford a lot of things we just could never get close to. We could never get anywhere near that amount.

[Hibrandenburg]

They are yes, but they have a £447BN (yes billion) Oil fund that they set up many many years ago. That works out of savings of around £70,000 per person in Norway so they can afford a lot of things we just could never get close to. We could never get anywhere near that amount.

All the more reason to feel aggrieved about being lied to and cheated back at the last referendum..

[lucky]

Former Scottish Labour Chairman to vote yes, for a fairer, more equal and prosperous Scotland.:aok:

"I will now be voting Yes because I think it is the only way forward for anyone who wants to see a fairer, more equal and more prosperous Scotland.

"I will be joining with many old comrades in Labour for Independence to encourage the 800,000-plus Scots who voted Labour in the 2010 general election to vote Yes on September 18."

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265822-former-scottish-labour-chairman-announces-support-for-independence/

I've known Bob Thompson for all my life, it does not surprise me at all he has come down this way. He is a socialist first and foremost and believes Scotland has a chance to become a socialist utopia if independence happens. Sadly this will not be the case, all that is on offer is moving the capitalist system from Westminster to Holyrood. I would rather fight for a fairer more just UK than turn my back on comrades south of the border

[Future17]

I've known Bob Thompson for all my life, it does not surprise me at all he has come down this way. He is a socialist first and foremost and believes Scotland has a chance to become a socialist utopia if independence happens. Sadly this will not be the case, all that is on offer is moving the capitalist system from Westminster to Holyrood. I would rather fight for a fairer more just UK than turn my back on comrades south of the border

Would a fairer, more just Scotland not be easier to achieve than on a UK-level and then act as a beacon and example for the former-UK nations?

[tcm1875]

Would a fairer, more just Scotland not be easier to achieve than on a UK-level and then act as a beacon and example for the former-UK nations?

Exactly, various governments at Westminster have had their chance time and time again to make a difference. Time for change.....

[JimBHibees]

All the more reason to feel aggrieved about being lied to and cheated back at the last referendum..

Aint that the truth.

[green glory]

Just a thought. Would be good to see a fresh poll every month on the subject. Might give us an idea if people's opinions are changing.

[JimBHibees]

British Unionist, cheering and sneering huh? What happened to "try not to be offensive as it rather detracts from intelligent adult debate."?

There would be nothing for any patriotic Scot to cheer in a DDD rating. Your willingness to insinuate that I would think or feel that way says a lot more about your intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your rather narrow separatist view of Scottishness than anything else.

Of course you could also use the same arguments you are using against S&P against the last Labour government. They didnt judge what was being created or in Labour's case properly regulate the banks properly and didnt see the explosion they were creating themselves.

To me an internationally renowned ratings agency indicating an independent Scotland would be triple AAA rated is a hugely positive story for Independence IMO.

[RyeSloan]

Just a thought. Would be good to see a fresh poll every month on the subject. Might give us an idea if people's opinions are changing.

Well not a .net poll but the latest MORI poll has the gap pretty much static. 55% no and 29% yes.

The Yes campaign needs to step it up to close the gap I would say.

[green glory]

Well not a .net poll but the latest MORI poll has the gap pretty much static. 55% no and 29% yes. The Yes campaign needs to step it up to close the gap I would say.

Apologies I meant a new .net poll.

[jonty]

The only thing that's swaying me at the moment is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have this vote.
The bickering and nonsense so far has been embarrassing, although I must admit the worst has come from the pro-unionists. They don't half talk *****.
Case in point - yon MP from Lancaster who stated he didn't want to have to have his passport to visit Scotland, nor change sides on the road and have to drive on the right. (Ok it was in the daily ****** and posted online)

[green glory]

The only thing that's swaying me at the moment is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have this vote. The bickering and nonsense so far has been embarrassing, although I must admit the worst has come from the pro-unionists. They don't half talk *****. Case in point - yon MP from Lancaster who stated he didn't want to have to have his passport to visit Scotland, nor change sides on the road and have to drive on the right. (Ok it was in the daily ****** and posted online)

I agree, party politicians will always bicker and it deflects people from what's important.

The example you gave about the Lancaster MP is an example of someone deliberately trying to muddle the debate.

The BBC today cover the story that there are now 870,000 out of 5m Scots in poverty. These are the things which matter whatever view you take on independence.

Westminster has had its chance. Time for a new approach.

[Beefster]

I agree, party politicians will always bicker and it deflects people from what's important.

The example you gave about the Lancaster MP is an example of someone deliberately trying to muddle the debate.

The BBC today cover the story that there are now 870,000 out of 5m Scots in poverty. These are the things which matter whatever view you take on independence.

Westminster has had its chance. Time for a new approach.

Doesn't the Scottish Government take any responsibility for that? It has certain powers that could have an impact (specifically related to childcare, employment and wages) but has chosen not to use them for whatever reason.

[marinello59]

Doesn't the Scottish Government take any responsibility for that? It has certain powers that could have an impact (specifically related to childcare, employment and wages) but has chosen not to use them for whatever reason.

Millionaires get free prescriptions though. :agree:

[jonty]

Millionaires get free prescriptions though. :agree:

I read somewhere (I know) that it costs the more down south to run the scheme to charge for prescriptions than it does in Scotland to give it away.
Yes, I know there's more people down south. If anything it shows how much it costs to run these schemes.

I should really stop reading the internet.

[marinello59]

I read somewhere (I know) that it costs the more down south to run the scheme to charge for prescriptions than it does in Scotland to give it away.
Yes, I know there's more people down south. If anything it shows how much it costs to run these schemes.

I should really stop reading the internet.

Yet the NHS down south claims that removing charges will leave them with a funding shortfall whilst the SNP were happy to trumpet that they were funding this for Scotland. Go figure, the truth is probably in the middle somewhere.
My point was really that all of our devolved Governments could have done much, much more to combat poverty but have shamefully failed to do so. Independence alone won't do anything to change that. But what it should do and I believe will do, is provide an impetus for change. Shifting the levers of power to Edinburgh will only be the start. (I think I may have said this already. :greengrin)

[JeMeSouviens]

Doesn't the Scottish Government take any responsibility for that? It has certain powers that could have an impact (specifically related to childcare, employment and wages) but has chosen not to use them for whatever reason.

The Scottish government is a participant in the current devolution under the union scheme though (albeit presently an unwilling one). The vote is not about which party governs, it's about the structure under which they govern.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well not a .net poll but the latest MORI poll has the gap pretty much static. 55% no and 29% yes.

The Yes campaign needs to step it up to close the gap I would say.

MORI have become the pro-union outlier*. Current poll averages (exc don't knows) put yes in the low 40s. An upturn from the autumn of around 3% but currently not closing the gap fast enough.

* informed speculation that they are applying weightings for party affiliation that more closely resemble westminster voting intention than holyrood compared to other pollsters.

[--------]

Kenneth Roy on Standard Life and some of its execs in The Scottish Review:

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy148A.shtml?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8427-313792-What+you+should+know+about+the+company+threatening +to+quit+Scotland

As if I were surprised .... :rolleyes:

[steakbake]

Millionaires get free prescriptions though. :agree:

And winter fuel allowance! No wonder the country is in the financial state it is with the kind of cash bribes being dished out when the Reds were in power.

[RyeSloan]

And winter fuel allowance! No wonder the country is in the financial state it is with the kind of cash bribes being dished out when the Reds were in power.

Not just labour but all political parties have happily been splashing out cash on all sorts of promises they can't afford...hence why the state has grown and grown.

Pensioners in particular are a favourite area for unaffordable largesse. Just look at Cameron's recent triple lock guarantee...promising more money that simply isn't there!

There are examples everywhere...the SNP's proposed policy on nursery care is another great example. Why should I pay through taxation for nursery care that then allows both parents to work? I'm directly subsidising their life choices.

Quite how you stop politicians giving spending promises to large swathes of the population to buy votes I have no idea...it's a rather painful weakness if our current version of democracy. And once you give a certain section of society a government benefit you automatically create a vested interest that will campaign vigorously and loudly if you try and take it away. Look at the outcry over the recent 'austerity' when in reality government was continuing to spend and spend and spend money they didn't have....it's now got so silly that they are printing their own billions to continue this nonsense yet still we carry on regardless.

[steakbake]

Not just labour but all political parties have happily been splashing out cash on all sorts of promises they can't afford...hence why the state has grown and grown.

Pensioners in particular are a favourite area for unaffordable largesse. Just look at Cameron's recent triple lock guarantee...promising more money that simply isn't there!

There are examples everywhere...the SNP's proposed policy on nursery care is another great example. Why should I pay through taxation for nursery care that then allows both parents to work? I'm directly subsidising their life choices.

Quite how you stop politicians giving spending promises to large swathes of the population to buy votes I have no idea...it's a rather painful weakness if our current version of democracy. And once you give a certain section of society a government benefit you automatically create a vested interest that will campaign vigorously and loudly if you try and take it away. Look at the outcry over the recent 'austerity' when in reality government was continuing to spend and spend and spend money they didn't have....it's now got so silly that they are printing their own billions to continue this nonsense yet still we carry on regardless.

Quite agree - supporting people's lifestyle choices is a particular bugbear of mine. I have no kids, probably won't yet the tax and NI I pay is routinely dished out to support folks in taking care of their responsibilities.

That said, if a party came out with a single person's tax benefit to subsidise my lifestyle choice, I wouldn't altogether be displeased. Council Tax discount - fine, but really in the greater scheme of things, I think that's only reasonable.

Season ticket tax relief would be pretty good. Pie vouchers would also be quality.

[Alex Trager]

Quite agree - supporting people's lifestyle choices is a particular bugbear of mine. I have no kids, probably won't yet the tax and NI I pay is routinely dished out to support folks in taking care of their responsibilities.

That said, if a party came out with a single person's tax benefit to subsidise my lifestyle choice, I wouldn't altogether be displeased. Council Tax discount - fine, but really in the greater scheme of things, I think that's only reasonable.

Season ticket tax relief would be pretty good. Pie vouchers would also be quality.

Decent pies would be even better

[Mon Dieu4]

Millionaires get free prescriptions though. :agree:

I think the free prescription idea is great for those who need it but i can afford to pay for mine and always feel a bit guilty when i get it for nothing

[hibsbollah]

I think the free prescription idea is great for those who need it but i can afford to pay for mine and always feel a bit guilty when i get it for nothing

:agree: Me too. Mrs Bollah gives a fiver to a charity every time she gets a free prescription up here because she feels guilty. I don't do it but she's a better person than me. In general terms I like it when the cost of something broadly equates to it's value. When you say that medicines are free to everyone, it raises a lot of questions about how society values medicine as a concept (as well as the making diazepam a more economic option than white cider for your discerning jakie).

Free prescriptions for the well off shouldn't be an economic priority.

[Beefster]

Kenneth Roy on Standard Life and some of its execs in The Scottish Review:

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy148A.shtml?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8427-313792-What+you+should+know+about+the+company+threatening +to+quit+Scotland

As if I were surprised .... :rolleyes:

As, I think, ODS or lucky said earlier on this thread, there is a tendency in the independence debate to play the man and not the ball.

PS Not you. Whoever wrote the article.

[RyeSloan]

:agree: Me too. Mrs Bollah gives a fiver to a charity every time she gets a free prescription up here because she feels guilty. I don't do it but she's a better person than me. In general terms I like it when the cost of something broadly equates to it's value. When you say that medicines are free to everyone, it raises a lot of questions about how society values medicine as a concept (as well as the making diazepam a more economic option than white cider for your discerning jakie). Free prescriptions for the well off shouldn't be an economic priority.

Yet medicines are not free to everyone...they cost around £1.2bn in Scotland. Yet none if that cost is borne directly by the users. Amazing really.

I like the concept of government discounted pies and season tickets for the fitba...considering cross Scotland bus travel is 'free' to anyone and everyone based on nothing but their age or indeed at the opposite end of the scale the government is going to feed people of significantly lesser age for free as well I see no reason why we can't put an age qualification discount on my football spend....it is after all encouraging me to get out the house, exercise (that climb up the east is a workout out and a half) and provide me with social interaction...just a few of the many benefits to justify free football I would say :-)

[southfieldhibby]

There are examples everywhere...the SNP's proposed policy on nursery care is another great example. Why should I pay through taxation for nursery care that then allows both parents to work? I'm directly subsidising their life choices.



but we need folk to have kids and we also need those same folk back in work...how else would we fund todays pension issues and the pension issues when those wee babies become tax payers?I've seen it argued those that decide to not have kids should always pay more as they've chosen not to contribute to society going forward...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yet the NHS down south claims that removing charges will leave them with a funding shortfall whilst the SNP were happy to trumpet that they were funding this for Scotland. Go figure, the truth is probably in the middle somewhere.
My point was really that all of our devolved Governments could have done much, much more to combat poverty but have shamefully failed to do so. Independence alone won't do anything to change that. But what it should do and I believe will do, is provide an impetus for change. Shifting the levers of power to Edinburgh will only be the start. (I think I may have said this already. :greengrin)

Surely you need to control the distribution of wealth through taxation and benefits to have any real impact on poverty?



but we need folk to have kids and we also need those same folk back in work...how else would we fund todays pension issues and the pension issues when those wee babies become tax payers?I've seen it argued those that decide to not have kids should always pay more as they've chosen not to contribute to society going forward...

Will nobody think of our children?


What's to stop people having kids and living off one wage?

[Hibrandenburg]

Will nobody think of our children?


What's to stop people having kids and living off one wage?

Equal rights for women. But that's another discussion completely.

[lucky]

Prescibitions are not free, we all contribute to the cost of the NHS through various taxes through out our lives. The NHS was set up to give free universal care at the point of need. Like wise child care improvements for working parents. Both good SNP policies but we don't need independence for them.

Whilst some argue this is not about political parties it is. We are being given a choice of staying in the UK with all its pluses and minuses or take a gamble on independence.

The future set out in the white paper does not answer enough questions for the gambled to be taken. The separatist argument has been weaken by not having a plan B on the currency. To respond by saying we are having a currency union or we won't take a share of the debt is not credible. If that threat was carried through the rUK would refuse a share of the assets. The SNP defense policy in a iScotland is based on getting a share of the ships, aircraft and equipment. So what happens if there's no deal? Never mind all the other agencies that Salmond is proposing we share.

[Geo_1875]

Equal rights for women. But that's another discussion completely.

They have the equal right to go to work and leave their partner at home.

[Geo_1875]

Prescibitions are not free, we all contribute to the cost of the NHS through various taxes through out our lives. The NHS was set up to give free universal care at the point of need. Like wise child care improvements for working parents. Both good SNP policies but we don't need independence for them.

Whilst some argue this is not about political parties it is. We are being given a choice of staying in the UK with all its pluses and minuses or take a gamble on independence.

The future set out in the white paper does not answer enough questions for the gambled to be taken. The separatist argument has been weaken by not having a plan B on the currency. To respond by saying we are having a currency union or we won't take a share of the debt is not credible. If that threat was carried through the rUK would refuse a share of the assets. The SNP defense policy in a iScotland is based on getting a share of the ships, aircraft and equipment. So what happens if there's no deal? Never mind all the other agencies that Salmond is proposing we share.

Do you really think the rUK would leave a defenceless independent Scotland on it's Northern border. They will do whatever is in their own best interest including currency union.

[Beefster]

Do you really think the rUK would leave a defenceless independent Scotland on it's Northern border. They will do whatever is in their own best interest including currency union.

This plan for independence is awesome. Absolutely nothing is going to go against us and we're going to get every single concession that we demand, even when other countries/organisations say otherwise.

On another note, I haven't seen Citigroup's analysis mentioned on this thread. I realise that, by raising inconvienent analysis from reputable sources, I run the risk of being accused of delighting in bad news for the Yes campaign or being unpatriotic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26489307

[Hibrandenburg]

They have the equal right to go to work and leave their partner at home.

Correct, but the movement to grant equal pay has over the last few decades led to the average man's wage being devalued in worth to that of what women earned rather than women's pay being increased to that of men. As a consequence many more families have to have both parents in employment to cover the cost of living.

[yeezus.]

Interesting stuff from George Galloway on Scottish independence, he even answered my question! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26352451

[lucky]

Do you really think the rUK would leave a defenceless independent Scotland on it's Northern border. They will do whatever is in their own best interest including currency union.

Yes, why would the rUK protect another country who has defaulted on their share of debt because they can't get their own way on everything

[allmodcons]

This plan for independence is awesome. Absolutely nothing is going to go against us and we're going to get every single concession that we demand, even when other countries/organisations say otherwise.

On another note, I haven't seen Citigroup's analysis mentioned on this thread. I realise that, by raising inconvienent analysis from reputable sources, I run the risk of being accused of delighting in bad news for the Yes campaign or being unpatriotic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26489307

Nobody, excepting you, is suggesting an iScotland will 'get every single concession they demand'.

Reputable sources - Citigroup being the same bank that had to bailed out to the tune of $300 billion by the US Federal Reserve.

Sorry, but you really need to lose this 'chip on shoulder' nonsense about being branded unpatriotic.


Yes, why would the rUK protect another country who has defaulted on their share of debt because they can't get their own way on everything

You need to explain how an iScotland can default on debt when the debt obligation (as already accepted by the UK Government) has been taken on by the UK.

[ronaldo7]

Interesting stuff from George Galloway on Scottish independence, he even answered my question! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26352451

Nice to hear from wee dode the MP for Bradford West:rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

Prescibitions are not free, we all contribute to the cost of the NHS through various taxes through out our lives. The NHS was set up to give free universal care at the point of need. Like wise child care improvements for working parents. Both good SNP policies but we don't need independence for them.

Whilst some argue this is not about political parties it is. We are being given a choice of staying in the UK with all its pluses and minuses or take a gamble on independence.

The future set out in the white paper does not answer enough questions for the gambled to be taken. The separatist argument has been weaken by not having a plan B on the currency. To respond by saying we are having a currency union or we won't take a share of the debt is not credible. If that threat was carried through the rUK would refuse a share of the assets. The SNP defense policy in a iScotland is based on getting a share of the ships, aircraft and equipment. So what happens if there's no deal? Never mind all the other agencies that Salmond is proposing we share.

Thank god the NHS is devolved. We would be on the road to privatisation along with Englandshire if we'd not got Devolution.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/paul-evans/race-to-privatise-englands-nhs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/privatisation-agenda-drives-tory-policy-on-nhs-says-andy-burnham-9052640.html

Imagine what we could do with all the levers of power in our own hands.

[Beefster]

Reputable sources - Citigroup being the same bank that had to bailed out to the tune of $300 billion by the US Federal Reserve.

Sorry, but you really need to lose this 'chip on shoulder' nonsense about being branded unpatriotic.

Another example of "play the man, not the ball". Does this bailout invalidate any analysis that the bank carries out from that point on? In recent times, Standard Life and Citigroup have been dismissed by nationalists when their views were inconvenient. However, S&P's history wasn't an issue when their analysis could be used by nationalists. A cynic might suggest some hypocrisy.

Given I (and others) have had the "unpatriotic" or "not real Scots" accusation thrown about countless times on here, I'll disagree with you that it's nonsense.

The discussion on here started with some decent debate on the merits or otherwise of independence. That was a long time ago though.

[allmodcons]

Another example of "play the man, not the ball". Does this bailout invalidate any analysis that the bank carries out from that point on? In recent times, Standard Life and Citigroup have been dismissed by nationalists when their views were inconvenient. However, S&P's history wasn't an issue when their analysis could be used by nationalists. A cynic might suggest some hypocrisy.

Funny how an article in today's Herald kind of supports the point I made yesterday.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/memo-to-danny-alexander-the-very-things-that-make-london-rich-make-us-poor.23633041

"Being lectured on public responsibility by banks is like being lectured on childcare by paedophiles.''

Given I (and others) have had the "unpatriotic" or "not real Scots" accusation thrown about countless times on here, I'll disagree with you that it's nonsense.

The discussion on here started with some decent debate on the merits or otherwise of independence. That was a long time ago though.

Are you suggesting that the thread does not meet your own high standard of what constitutes a high level online debate?
There are numerous excellent posts (from both sides) in this thread.

[lucky]

QUOTE=ronaldo7;3926383]Thank god the NHS is devolved. We would be on the road to privatisation along with Englandshire if we'd not got Devolution.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/paul-evans/race-to-privatise-englands-nhs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/privatisation-agenda-drives-tory-policy-on-nhs-says-andy-burnham-9052640.html

Imagine what we could do with all the levers of power in our own hands.[/QUOTE]

You defeat your own argument by implying the NHS is safe in Scotland under a devolved Government

[lucky]

Nice to hear from wee dode the MP for Bradford West:rolleyes:

He is also a SCOT. But I thought the separatists were wanting to have debate with cameron and wee Eck. Surely your not going against wee Ecks wishes by not listening to MPs outside Scotland.

[lucky]

Nobody, excepting you, is suggesting an iScotland will 'get every single concession they demand'.

Reputable sources - Citigroup being the same bank that had to bailed out to the tune of $300 billion by the US Federal Reserve.

Sorry, but you really need to lose this 'chip on shoulder' nonsense about being branded unpatriotic.



You need to explain how an iScotland can default on debt when the debt obligation (as already accepted by the UK Government) has been taken on by the UK.

It is very clear, why has Swinney being saying that unless we can use the pound then iScoland won't take its share of the debt?. Clearly he is also the view that iScotland will walk away from its responsibilities. As a nation Scotland help run up these debts with the necessary spending on services and bailing out RBS and BoS. For any new independent country to try and stay/ apply for EU, NATO membership whilst reneging on its responsibilities is laughable