Scottish Independence

[JeMeSouviens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JeMeSouviens]

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

Good post and I agree with you.

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

Lesson to self, be more tolerant

[Stranraer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NAE NOOKIE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

Read the thread.

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

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

[Peevemor]

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

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

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

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

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

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

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

[NAE NOOKIE]

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

Read the thread.

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

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

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

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

[ronaldo7]

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

Read the thread.

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


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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

You don't have Trident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peevemor]

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

You don't have Trident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Just Alf]

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

A letter to England. From our English friends

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

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


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

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

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Good post and I agree with you.

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

Lesson to self, be more tolerant

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

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

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

[speedy_gonzales]

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

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

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

Is that really true Peevemor?

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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



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



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

Which is typically honest of you Peevemor

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ronaldo7]

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

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

Good old Archives.

https://archive.today/oi5Qd

[sauzee_4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

"The hope"

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

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

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

[CropleyWasGod]

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

"The hope"

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ronaldo7]

This has to be the best yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...8E&app=desktop

[DaveF]

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

This has to be the best yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...8E&app=desktop

Very clever

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Harp Awakes]

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

We do control our own health budget.

We are part of a nation that sets that budget.

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

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

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

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

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