Scottish Independence

[green glory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm no fan of the current UK government but stuff like this is just beyond parody.

The Royal Mail was privatised and the biggest beneficiary was Gideon Osborne's best man.

The licenses for fracking across the UK are being issued. Gideon Osborne's father in law's business interests include fracking.

ATOS has given the Conservative Party £1.3m in donations, has received £3bn in contracts and are ruling people fit to work who are terminally ill.

Around £1.5bn in NHS contracts have been awarded to Conservative Party donors from Lansdowne Partners to Circle Health. The NHS is in the process of being dismembered and privatised south of the border, with Tory donors the main beneficiaries.

I think it's fair to stay they're stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Royal Mail was privatised and the biggest beneficiary was Gideon Osborne's best man.

The licenses for fracking across the UK are being issued. Gideon Osborne's father in law's business interests include fracking.

ATOS has given the Conservative Party £1.3m in donations, has received £3bn in contracts and are ruling people fit to work who are terminally ill.

Around £1.5bn in NHS contracts have been awarded to Conservative Party donors from Lansdowne Partners to Circle Health. The NHS is in the process of being dismembered and privatised south of the border, with Tory donors the main beneficiaries.

I think it's fair to stay they're stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

There probably are valid complaints/concerns/questions in there. It's the likes of "stealing from the poor to give to the rich", "the biggest beneficiary..." etc rhetoric that I object to.

I could pick holes in all of your claims whether they are based on an element of truth but exaggerated, ignore subsequent events (e.g., Atos) or how you could likely find any government decision that will benefit someone associated with a politician.

Politicians are gits. That's not unique to Westminster, the Tories or a consequence of being in the UK. FFS, Salmond's been caught sucking up to Murdoch and Trump at times.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Debate then!

What currency do you think an iScotland will adopt post a Yes vote if not the pound sterling in one of the two formats suggested in my earlier post?

I have no idea and don't really care. IMHO the currency is a side issue. The main thing (for me) is the SNP's response to the affair. Rather than say "Well, we think a currency union will happen because it's for the best. However, if it doesn't, here's what we propose", they've just stuck their fingers in their ears and refusing to explain the alternatives to the population. For me, it just raises questions about the other stuff being promised.

Folk won't believe this but I was open to being persuaded (and may still be). I don't really see that big an issue with the UK in its current state (or further devolution) so need to be convinced about why my family, community, society (in that order) will be better off. However, I won't vote for some abstract notion of what might happen. I'm a details man whether I'm planning something, voting for something or whatever.

With the greatest of respect to fellow posters, I'm not going to be convinced by anyone on here. It needs to be those probably going to be running an independent Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, they're fundamentally failing at that.

[sauzee_4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no idea and don't really care. IMHO the currency is a side issue. The main thing (for me) is the SNP's response to the affair. Rather than say "Well, we think a currency union will happen because it's for the best. However, if it doesn't, here's what we propose", they've just stuck their fingers in their ears and refusing to explain the alternatives to the population. For me, it just raises questions about the other stuff being promised.

Folk won't believe this but I was open to being persuaded (and may still be). I don't really see that big an issue with the UK in its current state (or further devolution) so need to be convinced about why my family, community, society (in that order) will be better off. However, I won't vote for some abstract notion of what might happen. I'm a details man whether I'm planning something, voting for something or whatever.

With the greatest of respect to fellow posters, I'm not going to be convinced by anyone on here. It needs to be those probably going to be running an independent Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, they're fundamentally failing at that.

You have my respect for putting your opinion across, an honest debate is the only way we'll come to the right answers.

My comments about taking from the poor and giving to the rich you surely can't dispute that is historically what the Tories have done more so than any other party?

I realise every policy benefits someone and I don't mean they're "stealing", I mean they've consistently implemented policies which favour the rich over the working classes.

I know you've said we can't persuade you, fine, but I'm going to try anyway

You've asked how will your family be better off, well.. for 30 years we have paid in more to the UK treasury than we've received back, £64 billion more (£12,075 for every man, woman and child) This video gives you some great financials based on GERS figures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60

I would love to hear your opinion on it

[Just Alf]

The currency issue isn't a deal breaker for me. Ideally I'd prefer one of the SNP's options c or d, the 1st 2 of an agreed union or alternatively using sterling regardless I'm less happy about.

[Just Alf]

Just to be clear c, I think was a pegged currency and d was floating? ...... On phone so can't link back to the commission report where it's laid out.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no idea and don't really care. IMHO the currency is a side issue. The main thing (for me) is the SNP's response to the affair. Rather than say "Well, we think a currency union will happen because it's for the best. However, if it doesn't, here's what we propose", they've just stuck their fingers in their ears and refusing to explain the alternatives to the population. For me, it just raises questions about the other stuff being promised.

Folk won't believe this but I was open to being persuaded (and may still be). I don't really see that big an issue with the UK in its current state (or further devolution) so need to be convinced about why my family, community, society (in that order) will be better off. However, I won't vote for some abstract notion of what might happen. I'm a details man whether I'm planning something, voting for something or whatever.

With the greatest of respect to fellow posters, I'm not going to be convinced by anyone on here. It needs to be those probably going to be running an independent Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, they're fundamentally failing at that.

This has been available for a year. Seems it's not the Scottish Government who have their fingers in their ears. They have continually set out their position. If the Uk Government don't want to pre negotiate then what are they supposed to do.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00420804.pdf

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the Uk Government don't want to pre negotiate then what are they supposed to do.

Come up with a plan B.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Come up with a plan B.

Have you read the document? Plan a b c and d.

As the Uk Government are sticking their fingers in their ears and don't want to Pre negotiate, we'll just have to wait for the result.

[ronaldo7]

Decent piece from the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ats?CMP=twt_gu

[allmodcons]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Of his greed? I am pretty sure the evidence is easily found with a quick Google if you care to see it.
I'll summarise though. During his time at Westminster MP's were entitled to claim up to £400 a month for food, no questions asked. Which Salmond duly did. Including a couple of months whilst the Parliament was in recess. Given that he was also a MSP at the time his attendance down there was minimal making his claims all the more remarkable. He didn't break the rules but any reasonable person would surely consider his actions on the greedy side. Don't you?
Or how about his Westminster 'redundancy ' package? Over 60k of taxpayers money claimed in order to ease himself back in to ordinary life after serving as an elected politician. Only he was continuing to serve as an elected politician at Holyrood. He didn't break any rules there either and claimed that it would be remarkable if anybody didn't accept that money. Well it would have been if they weren't going to carry on in another Parliament. I reckon that's greedy too. Salmond being the clever political animal that he is though sought to lessen any disapproval at accepting all that tax payers money by donating half of it to charity. Very commendable expect the charity was named after his late Mother and the money was all dispersed in his own North East power base. I would guess that every MSP would love to have over 20K of taxpayers money to do good works in their own constituency.
I don't care if it Labour/Tory/LibDem or SNP, every single one of them has members who have dipped their snouts in to the public trough.

I can use Google perfectly well thanks. A search shows that this is the only claim of substance against Salmond.
I have copied and pasted the claim against Salmond made by the Telegraph. Salmond himself said he did not come out of the expenses scandal 'whiter than whiter', but to link the claim against Salmond to the Maria Miller case?

Claim: Scotland's first minister voted on only six days in the Commons in the financial year 2007/8 yet claimed £1,751.50 for food - over a third of the maximum permitted annual amount, the Sunday Telegraph said.

Mr Salmond, who is MP for Banff and Buchan as well as MSP for Gordon, also claimed £800 for August and September 2005, when Parliament was in recess, the paper added. It said he claimed £3,200, the maximum food allowance, for eight months in 2005/6. In the same year he received £54.75 for towels, £540 for bed linen, £650.40 in curtains and £1,093 for a bed. Authorities also docked £9 from his claim for a stay at a hotel in London in July 2005 because he had included drinks from hotel room mini bar.


Response: Mr Salmond said his overall claims were £9,000 below the limit of the Additional Cost Allowance. He said he had furnished a rented flat in London in 2005 with a "job lot" of used furniture at a cost of just over £2,000, "which must be a record low figure for the House of Commons". The £9 drinks were deducted from his reimbursement because, even though they were non-alcoholic, they were not specified as such, Mr Salmond added. He said he had placed his expenses for the financial year 2007/8 on the Scottish National Party's website and would do so with the 2008/9 data as soon as it was available. Mr Salmond said that, during 2007/08, he was in London for around 30 days - and said the correct figure for the food allowance was £1,391.50, which equated to £40 per day. He added that he still had a rented flat in London for the first nine months of the year. In terms of 2005/06, Mr Salmond said MPs still went to London during recess, and pointed out that bills incurred during the parliamentary session, such as Commons dining facilities, often fell during that period.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rant? You asked for evidence of the mans greed that you could easily have found yourself. My point is that an Independent Scotland will not magically make greedy politicians disappear.

IMO the second part of your post was a rant. A clear case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can use Google perfectly well thanks. A search shows that this is the only claim of substance against Salmond.
I have copied and pasted the claim against Salmond made by the Telegraph. Salmond himself said he did not come out of the expenses scandal 'whiter than whiter', but to link the claim against Salmond to the Maria Miller case?

Claim: Scotland's first minister voted on only six days in the Commons in the financial year 2007/8 yet claimed £1,751.50 for food - over a third of the maximum permitted annual amount, the Sunday Telegraph said.

Mr Salmond, who is MP for Banff and Buchan as well as MSP for Gordon, also claimed £800 for August and September 2005, when Parliament was in recess, the paper added. It said he claimed £3,200, the maximum food allowance, for eight months in 2005/6. In the same year he received £54.75 for towels, £540 for bed linen, £650.40 in curtains and £1,093 for a bed. Authorities also docked £9 from his claim for a stay at a hotel in London in July 2005 because he had included drinks from hotel room mini bar.


Response: Mr Salmond said his overall claims were £9,000 below the limit of the Additional Cost Allowance. He said he had furnished a rented flat in London in 2005 with a "job lot" of used furniture at a cost of just over £2,000, "which must be a record low figure for the House of Commons". The £9 drinks were deducted from his reimbursement because, even though they were non-alcoholic, they were not specified as such, Mr Salmond added. He said he had placed his expenses for the financial year 2007/8 on the Scottish National Party's website and would do so with the 2008/9 data as soon as it was available. Mr Salmond said that, during 2007/08, he was in London for around 30 days - and said the correct figure for the food allowance was £1,391.50, which equated to £40 per day. He added that he still had a rented flat in London for the first nine months of the year. In terms of 2005/06, Mr Salmond said MPs still went to London during recess, and pointed out that bills incurred during the parliamentary session, such as Commons dining facilities, often fell during that period.



IMO the second part of your post was a rant. A clear case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

A rant if said about your beloved leader perhaps. Fair comment if said about anybody else I suspect. That's a cop out really isn't it. How was he damned if he didn't take the money in the first place?

A nice wee spin on things there though. If he spent 30 days in total in London should we assume that 20 of those days were during the recess as he claimed he ate his way through £800 worth of food then? I know, you will spin it out further to defend him because you can't see beyond party lines.
I'm with Beefster, most of them are total gits. An Independent Scotland won't cure politicians of greed but at least we will have them on a tighter leash.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This has been available for a year. Seems it's not the Scottish Government who have their fingers in their ears. They have continually set out their position. If the Uk Government don't want to pre negotiate then what are they supposed to do.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00420804.pdf

Thanks R7, that's the one i was thinking of.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A rant if said about your beloved leader perhaps. Fair comment if said about anybody else I suspect. That's a cop out really isn't it. How was he damned if he didn't take the money in the first place?

A nice wee spin on things there though. If he spent 30 days in total in London should we assume that 20 of those days were during the recess as he claimed he ate his way through £800 worth of food then? I know, you will spin it out further to defend him because you can't see beyond party lines.
I'm with Beefster, most of them are total gits. An Independent Scotland won't cure politicians of greed but at least we will have them on a tighter leash.

You sure about this? It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but how tight will that leash really be (if at all) in a parliament with a single chamber? What checks and balances does that really offer, how easy will it be to circumvent any effective oversight, I wonder - particularly where an independent Scotland and its politicians have access to so much wealth? Who will have them "on the leash" exactly?

[sauzee_4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You sure about this? It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but how tight will that leash really be (if at all) in a parliament with a single chamber? What checks and balances does that really offer, how easy will it be to circumvent any effective oversight, I wonder - particularly where an independent Scotland and its politicians have access to so much wealth? Who will have them "on the leash" exactly?

Don't really understand your point. If a politician upsets the Scottish electorate they are likely to be out.

Or far more likely to be out than a UK minister upsetting the Scottish electorate.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't really understand your point. If a politician upsets the Scottish electorate they are likely to be out.

Or far more likely to be out than a UK minister upsetting the Scottish electorate.

The Scottish electorate may be changing from a parliamentary system with a second chamber (partly elected) to one with a single chamber (less oversight?) - how is it on a tighter leash? Seems to me the promise of a nation with a great deal of wealth at its disposal is open to possible corruption by those in power, particularly if they are "left to themselves" - Other resource-rich nations have parliaments too with electorates, yet the corruption levels are extraordinarily high in some particularly topical examples, with little opportunity for the electorate to effectively alter things in its favour through the ballot box: why will it be different in Scotland? Is corruption not an issue - have I been away too long?

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't really understand your point. If a politician upsets the Scottish electorate they are likely to be out.

Or far more likely to be out than a UK minister upsetting the Scottish electorate.

Eh? How does that work? If a UK minister, let's say Nick Clegg, upsets the Scottish/UK electorate, everyone relies on his constituents doing the right thing at the next opportunity. It'll be exactly the same in an independent Scotland.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You sure about this? It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but how tight will that leash really be (if at all) in a parliament with a single chamber? What checks and balances does that really offer, how easy will it be to circumvent any effective oversight, I wonder - particularly where an independent Scotland and its politicians have access to so much wealth? Who will have them "on the leash" exactly?

The electorate.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The electorate.

The same lot that voted them in, you mean? OK, but is that on its own enough, I wonder? How much money can I (e.g. as a corrupt politician) embezzle before the "the electorate "twigs" what's actually going on? Who's going to inform the electorate anyway? A lot of "oil money" can flow far too quickly into the wrong hands before the electorate gets around to pulling on that leash, surely ...

[sauzee_4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Scottish electorate may be changing from a parliamentary system with a second chamber (partly elected) to one with a single chamber (less oversight?) - how is it on a tighter leash? Seems to me the promise of a nation with a great deal of wealth at its disposal is open to possible corruption by those in power, particularly if they are "left to themselves" - Other resource-rich nations have parliaments too with electorates, yet the corruption levels are extraordinarily high in some particularly topical examples, with little opportunity for the electorate to effectively alter things in its favour through the ballot box: why will it be different in Scotland? Is corruption not an issue - have I been away too long?

I'm sorry you lost me with the "second chamber" chat but I've done my reading and I assume you mean the house of Lords.

Are we not able to set up a system ourselves which does a similar job to the Lords? (Excuse my ignorance)

Eh? How does that work? If a UK minister, let's say Nick Clegg, upsets the Scottish/UK electorate, everyone relies on his constituents doing the right thing at the next opportunity. It'll be exactly the same in an independent Scotland.

Nick Clegg can upset the Scottish electorate all he wants and still be voted into power if the rest of the UK decide they like him.

Alex Salmond can upset the Scottish electorate after September the 18th and get emptied as a result.

[sauzee_4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Eh? How does that work? If a UK minister, let's say Nick Clegg, upsets the Scottish/UK electorate, everyone relies on his constituents doing the right thing at the next opportunity. It'll be exactly the same in an independent Scotland.

Have you watched my video and decided that your family will be better off yet?

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nick Clegg can upset the Scottish electorate all he wants and still be voted into power if the rest of the UK decide they like him.

Alex Salmond can upset the Scottish electorate after September the 18th and get emptied as a result.

Any politician will only be voted out if they upset their constituents. Salmond might upset East Lothian and Shetland in an independent Scotland, neither of whom voted for him, and still remain an MSP.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have you watched my video and decided that your family will be better off yet?

No! As I said earlier, I'd need the case made by a meaningful subset of the Scottish population. I wouldn't make my decision based on Standard Life's or Barrhead Travel's statements so a business man from a lobbying group isn't going to make any difference.

[sauzee_4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any politician will only be voted out if they upset their constituents. Salmond might upset East Lothian and Shetland in an independent Scotland, neither of whom voted for him, and still remain an MSP.



No! As I said earlier, I'd need the case made by a meaningful subset of the Scottish population. I wouldn't make my decision based on Standard Life's or Barrhead Travel's statements so a business man from a lobbying group isn't going to make any difference.

All he does is run through the GERS figures which clearly show Scotland pays more into the UK than it gets out.

On your first point, it's better to have some people in Scotland unhappy with the government than all of us (current situation). In the situation you describe a majority of Scots would be a happy bunch as they'd just got the government they'd voted for, or they'd only have to wait a few years to get rid.

Obviously we'd never get a situation where everyone is happy (just like any democracy) but more Scots would be happy with a government which reflects our own ideals which are quite clearly different to those in the South East and Middle England.

The only other question is, are we capable? and I think the figures published by GERS prove beyond doubt we are.

[ronaldo7]

For the Grandchildren.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/90acb1a8-c...c0.html#slide0

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only other question is, are we capable? and I think the figures published by GERS prove beyond doubt we are.

I've never doubted the figures published in the GERS reports, and on the face of it Scotland puts in more than it takes out, but what it doesn't, and can't accurately portray, is any financial (direct or indirect) benefit Scotland gains from being part of the current union.
Anyone who thinks that Scotland will carry on with the same financial figures post independence is dreaming, they may well be better and they may well be worse but with our domestic financials changing to reflect our left of centre leanings, and our international appeal changing also I doubt very much that an independent Scotland accounts would reflect the current GERS reports.

[southfieldhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've never doubted the figures published in the GERS reports, and on the face of it Scotland puts in more than it takes out, but what it doesn't, and can't accurately portray, is any financial (direct or indirect) benefit Scotland gains from being part of the current union.
Anyone who thinks that Scotland will carry on with the same financial figures post independence is dreaming, they may well be better and they may well be worse but with our domestic financials changing to reflect our left of centre leanings, and our international appeal changing also I doubt very much that an independent Scotland accounts would reflect the current GERS reports.

In a + or - way?And how so?

[speedy_gonzales]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In a + or - way?And how so?

I honestly don't know but I'm fairly certain it won't be the same! It could be a lot better, we could stand out from the UK shadows,,, OR,,,we may not carry the same clout by not being part of a larger trading union.

[jonty]

Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences have issued this: Enlightening the Constitutional Debate
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...The%20Book.pdf

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences have issued this: Enlightening the Constitutional Debate
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...The%20Book.pdf

Thanks for the link, jonty. I suspect that it will be more revealing that the entire political debate to date.

[jonty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks for the link, jonty. I suspect that it will be more revealing that the entire political debate to date.

It's being touted as an educational resource, so I'm hoping there's some substance to it, rather than the scaremongering and political oneupmanship that's going on.