Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 384 total)
  • This Scottish Business
  • athgray
    Free Member

    Winston. I will vote No, however if the party in power in Scotland wished to have a nuclear deterent then we do part own Trident. Wont happen though. The SNP seems to be taking a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach to foreign nuclear subs in our waters. We won’t dirty our hands with these ‘abhorrant weapons on our shores,, but don’t if you do.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I’m just against being part of this UK

    Then vote no. We won’t always have this govt. This vote is for centuries, not just the next few Westminster elections.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    big_n_daft
    Free Member

    Bencooper- retribution from Westminster is already underway, with a significant re-trenching of public service jobs back into the (much more expensive) SE.

    which ones?

    If Scotland votes No and thus stays in the union, we will be severally punished for our insolence in daring to challenge the status quo.

    really, have you tried telling that to the shipyard workers in Portsmouth? Where will the Type 26 frigates be built if there is a “no” vote?

    the decision to leave the Union is a decision for those eligible to vote in Scotland (over 16, resident and be a British, Irish, other European Union or qualifying Commonwealth citizen. Qualifying Commonwealth citizens are those who have leave to enter or remain in the UK or do not require such leave and finally the odd expat), there are pro’s and con’s to either option.

    but please stop the rUK are out to get us tripe, most people are in three camps “hope you stick with the union”, “what’s all the fuss about” or “are you still here?”. Bemused apathy seems to be the order of the day and I don’t see hordes of expats heading home to vote for independence either.

    balfa
    Free Member

    I generally agree with Northwind’s setiments about apathy for Westminster politics in Scotland. I struggle to think of anything particularily positive to come out of the last few UK goverments. Mainly war mongering and running up large debts. The prospect of future alternating Labour and Conservative goverments leaves little to be desired. I struggle to see significant changes in UK politics for some time to come. The current swing to the right and anti EU vibe does not help matters. I would like to think that UK politics will progress and become more forward looking but I simply cannot imagine it at this time and that is the crux of the issue for myself.

    Disclaimer: I’ve never voted SNP and no plans to change this.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I struggle to see significant changes in UK politics for some time to come

    What about in 200 years’ time?

    mogrim
    Full Member

    I struggle to think of anything particularily positive to come out of the last few UK goverments. Mainly war mongering and running up large debts

    I’ll give you the war-mongering bit, but the rest stands true for most of the governments in Europe as well – has Belgium managed to form a government yet? How about those lovely far-right parties in Denmark? Berlusconi? The Greeks, Portuguese and Spanish? What makes you think Scotland would be any different, at least once things have settled down post-independence?

    gordimhor
    Full Member

    Scotland is used to forming governments in the years since devolution. coalitions of various types.SNP were the first party to win a majority of seats.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    athgray – Member
    …What if the Yes vote win then lose an election to a party that would wish to retain Trident. Unlikely, but you never know.

    That’s perfectly fine, it’s democracy.

    The point is that we will have a Scottish govt with sole responsibility for policy. The composition of that govt will change from election to election, and so will policies.

    The referendum isn’t voting for Alex Salmond or the SNP, it’s a vote to have a govt concerned solely with Scottish issues and not having to compromise because of the needs of other parts of the current UK.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    but please stop the rUK are out to get us tripe

    The All-Party Parliamentary Taxation Group released a report on Monday called “Achieving Autonomy – what the independence referendum means for Scotland’s fiscal future.”

    The report includes a recommendation that, in the event of a No vote, The Barnett Formula “must” be scrapped and replaced with a new funding mechanism based on the findings of the Holtham Commission, whose chair Gerald Holtham has made clear that adopting the Commission’s findings would see Scotland’s budget cut by “as much as £4 billion” a year.

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/nov/devastating-report-economic-cost-no-vote

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Gerald Holtham co-wrote an article in the Financial Times in 2010, headlined: “Scotland is taking more than its share of funds”

    In the article he wrote:

    “Our study looked at the needs-based formulas used in England (and analogous criteria used in Scotland and Wales) to assess whether Barnett allocates resources fairly and consistently. It does not. An assessment consistent with those used to distribute health, local government and educational spending around England could eventually result in Scotland getting as much as £4bn less than it currently does.”

    As an independent country won’t Scotland get nothing? Is it a choice between £4Bn less or nothing? That’s not a flippant question, I’d like to know the answer.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    That doesn’t take into account the fact that Scotland contributes more per head than England – and more than we get back via the current system. So Scotland would be subsidising the rest of the UK by even more.

    In addition, with independence we wouldn’t be spending money on stuff we don’t want – like £100bn on Trident, £50bn on HS2, etc.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Ok I see, but a new formula would be negotiable. It depends whether the recommendation is taken up and it is just that, a recommendation.

    And independence will cost too, new infrastructure, IT systems, administration, redundancies/redeploment.

    To be honest, I understand numbers, systems etc but politicians hide the facts for their own agendas, making getting to the truth hard. Coming from a technical/scientific background it’s quite frustrating

    piemonster
    Full Member
    grum
    Free Member

    That doesn’t take into account the fact that Scotland contributes more per head than England – and more than we get back via the current system.

    You’ve claimed this before, do you have any evidence?

    bencooper
    Free Member

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

    Here you go – as you’d expect it depends a lot on how you divide up the numbers.

    wrecker
    Free Member

    That doesn’t take into account the fact that Scotland contributes more per head than England – and more than we get back via the current system.

    I suppose the trick is to try and ensure it stays that way. No more big government civil service, no more Trident related industry and decreased trade with rUK on top of a large debt to service from the outset and some start up costs; health service, defence etc etc.
    I’ve no idea if they can do it, mind you neither does anyone else. Only one way to find out!

    bencooper
    Free Member

    Taking oil out of the equation, GDP per head is much of a muchness:

    grum
    Free Member

    From your link:

    While Mr Salmond’s maths adds up, we’ve seen that Scottish contributions to tax revenues can be viewed as greater or smaller than the UK average, depending upon what assumptions we make about how oil revenues would be allocated between Scotland and the UK in the event of a ‘yes’ vote.

    So it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that ‘Scotland contributes more per head than England’.

    It’s annoying when the No campaign makes hyperbolic claims about things like how England subsidises Scotland, so let’s not do the same thing on the other side eh?

    bencooper
    Free Member

    As I said, it depends on the oil.

    We can argue about how the oil profits should be historically divided up, but after independence there’s no argument – they’d all be ours.

    grum
    Free Member

    As I said, it depends on the oil.

    You didn’t say that when you said this:

    That doesn’t take into account the fact that Scotland contributes more per head than England – and more than we get back via the current system. So Scotland would be subsidising the rest of the UK by even more.

    It’s a provocative, tenuous claim worthy of a Tory politician talking about benefit cheats.

    In reality the amounts going either way are not really significant anyway. As I’ve said before I’m broadly supportive of independence but we could do without bluster on both sides.

    wrecker
    Free Member

    We can argue about how the oil profits should be historically divided up, but after independence there’s no argument – they’d all be ours.

    Well 95% anyway, and about 55% of the gas too. Assuming median line is used.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    It’s a provocative, tenuous claim worthy of a Tory politician talking about benefit cheats.

    Okay, would a better way of putting it be that the rest of the UK would be taking even more of our oil profits? Along with the CAP payments which should be ours.

    grum
    Free Member

    Well they’re not ‘your’ oil profits are they. They belong to the UK of which Scotland is a part – we share them. What my or may not happen to them in the future IF Scotland votes for Independence is open to debate.

    I would probably agree that Scotland should get the lion’s share but I imagine a fair bit of UK taxpayer money has gone into developing those oilfields.

    Describing it as the rest of the UK ‘taking even more of our oil profits’ is a very Tory way of looking at things TBH – thought that kind of grasping, selfish attitude was what you were trying to get away from with independence?

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    Okay, would a better way of putting it be that the rest of the UK would be taking even more of our oil profits? Along with the CAP payments which should be ours.

    This is where I struggle with the whole debate about Scottish subsidies/revenues.

    Any money made from the oil is not Scottish, it is for the whole of the UK. Should rural Northumberland be left to suffer as it has no heavy industry and generates little GDP? Should everyone who lives in Grampian be driving big cars and living in luxury like some oil rich Arab state?

    The argument is bollocks. When you get independence the Central Belt and Grampian will be supporting the rest of the Country, that’s not fair now is it?

    Why should you give that money to people have less in other parts of the country? Because that is how a society works.

    I accept it’s not perfect and if you can make it so with a Yes vote I wish you well and will probably move back north of the Border if you do.

    grum
    Free Member

    winston_dog put it better than I did.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    winston_dog – Member

    By that you mean continue to allow a foreign power to base their weapons on your soil? The UK always been good at that.

    No matter what, the UK will be unable to base nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland, unless they leave NATO (or manage to get NATO to change a key principle)

    molgrips – Member

    Then vote no. We won’t always have this govt. This vote is for centuries, not just the next few Westminster elections.

    Oh, so you know it’s just the “next few”? It’s already been more than that, and are the times a-changing? I see nothing to suggest we’re turning a corner, the only real developments in national politics in the last few years have been the Lib Dems selling their souls and their bums, and the rise of the further right.

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    No matter what, the UK will be unable to base nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland, unless they leave NATO (or manage to get NATO to change a key principle)

    How much do you want to bet?

    The only place that can operate the Trident Fleet in the UK is Faslane and Coulport. It will take several years for this to change and I struggle to think of anywhere else that is as perfect in the UK. Maybe Milford Haven may be a 2nd choice, that would take years to get ready.

    The UK’s Trident Fleet are a major component of NATO’s weaponry, they will fudge something to allow them to still use the facilities, changing a few words in an agreement so it follows the rules but not the spirit of the Non-Proliferation treaty.

    Even if you vote Yes, then I bet you that there will still be Trident Submarines in Scotland for years. Besides think of all those jobs? Helensburgh and the surrounding area would be a ghost town. Like Dunoon after the US left the Holy Loch.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    So what? You don’t increase economic growth by employing people at taxpayers’ expense in an unproductive subsidy junkie sector like defence.

    One point that irks me – Salmond wants the BoE to be the lender of last resort to any failed Scottish banks in the future.
    So UK taxpayers will be expected to bail out the failures of foreign banking businesses? Not happy about that thought.

    Being a lender of last resort and bailing out banks are two separate things. It’s the difference between debt and equity.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    It should go without saying that Trident won’t leave on the day of independence, nobody expects that. It’s a referendum not a magic wand.

    Yes, it’ll be a terrible blow for those areas that support the nuclear machine. No such thing as a free lunch- but should we keep unnecessary facilities going just to keep jobs? At the end of the day these are all funded entirely from the public purse, nothing will be taken away from the area that wasn’t given first. So yes highly sympathetic to those who’ll lose out but we have better things to spend money on. Whether in the UK or not. It’s just that the UK government seems to like having a nuclear willy to wave, regardless of cost or dare I say it morality, while the scottish government don’t.

    It’s another issue where rather than being about pro or anti independence, it’s about being pro the politics of scotland rather than the politics of the UK.

    bigjim
    Full Member

    Well 95% anyway, and about 55% of the gas too. Assuming median line is used.

    Yes indeed. People have been brainwashed into thinking all the O&G is Scottish, but it isn’t, and wouldn’t be.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255485/Infrast_Off.pdf

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Whatever is decided, I’d be able to accept that is Scotland’s decision and that is the way forward, regardless of it matching with what I voted for.

    How many people would be able to do that? Or is it going to end up getting nasty? (not on here, I mean riots, protests, violence…..)

    Northwind
    Full Member

    bigjim – Member

    Yes indeed. People have been brainwashed into thinking all the O&G is Scottish

    Do you think so? Everything I’ve seen makes it absolutely clear that we have the right to the huge majority of the oil but not all. Gas doesn’t get mentioned much at all. People talk carelessly about “our oil” but that doesn’t extend to thinking that every last drop is ours- just 19/20ths of it.

    You know what, you can keep that 20th, we can afford it. Though I’m sure No campaigners would like you to believe that the 5% we don’t get is somehow more important than the 95% we do.

    wrecker
    Free Member

    we can afford it.

    For now maybe, estimates are 30-40 year reserves. Flow peaked 15 years ago now.

    grum
    Free Member

    It makes me a bit sad to see otherwise intelligent, sensible, liberal people nationalistically crowing about ‘our oil’.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    wrecker – Member

    For now maybe, estimates are 30-40 year reserves. Flow peaked 15 years ago now.

    At which point we can still afford 5% of nothing. But Scotland’s economy is not all oil, as discussed at some length in this thread we have a rough economic parity with the UK even without it.

    Kit
    Free Member

    It makes me a bit sad to see otherwise intelligent, sensible, liberal people nationalistically crowing about ‘our oil’.

    Particularly the faint sulphurous whiff of hypocrisy of aiming to supply 100% of our energy with renewables while making piles of cash selling oil. But then that’s a knee-jerk assessment and I’m sure the SNPScottish Government will make it all clear how the two goals sit side-by-side in the white paper (currently reading).

    /stirring

    wrecker
    Free Member

    we have a rough economic parity with the UK even without it.

    But are more dependent on public sector jobs and support for public sector industries like defence. It’ll take a big government to retain 580,000 employees (not including the support jobs).

    gordimhor
    Full Member

    Those public sector jobs aren’t being retained anyway. 25000( full time equivalent) post have been lost in the last 4 years with deeper cuts to come in the next 4 years

    oldnpastit
    Full Member

    Why is it that the snp want to divvy up oil based on geography but national debt based on population?

Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 384 total)

The topic ‘This Scottish Business’ is closed to new replies.