Scottish Independence

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

Love it

NHS or nuclear subs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bawheid]

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

[The Harp Awakes]

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

Love it

NHS or nuclear subs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RyeSloan]

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

£250m doesn't do much towards that.

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

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

[NAE NOOKIE]

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

Love it

NHS or nuclear subs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

It's a fair point.

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you deal with that?

[NAE NOOKIE]

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

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

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

How do you deal with that?

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

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

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

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

[Lewis77]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbW_...ature=youtu.be


This is simply inspiring

[Moulin Yarns]

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?

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

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

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

meanwhile in the £30 million games industry. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/09/...omment-page-2/

[Moulin Yarns]

Another good article from a journalist from outside Scotland

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...eaner-scotland

[Moulin Yarns]

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

Love it

NHS or nuclear subs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

[Just Alf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-29087393

[Moulin Yarns]

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

I know where you live


WP_20140904_003.jpg

[Sylar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-29087393

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

meanwhile in the £30 million games industry. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/09/...omment-page-2/

You've not though.

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

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

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

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

I know where you live


WP_20140904_003.jpg

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

You've not though.

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

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

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

Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association.

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

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

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

And we go round in circles yet again!

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

[Mibbes Aye]

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

Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association.

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

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

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

You know I was talking about the profits

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

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

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

(You're right about blended whisky )