Forum search & shortcuts

Finally, the SNP st...
 

[Closed] Finally, the SNP start talking about real issues....

Posts: 0
Free Member
 

@Northwind - not trolling at all. We are living in a world where countries need scale to survive, I'm not at all sure an independent Scotland would be granted membership of the EU and outside it they would screwed.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 4:17 pm
Posts: 4155
Free Member
 

Read the indie article this morn, there are indeed some interesting points raised.

Reminded me of this Rothchild quote...

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 4:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

We are living in a world where countries need scale to survive

Looking at Scandinavia and the Nordics, they seem to be doing pretty well.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm not at all sure an independent Scotland would be granted membership of the EU and outside it they would screwed.

Like Norway?


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:00 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

franksinatra - Member
I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films....

Braveheart is not one of my favourite films. I will be voting for independence. Why - because I think it will give my kids a better future.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:12 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Like Norway?

If those beer prices ever made it to Scotland............... 😯


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:15 pm
 br
Posts: 18125
Free Member
 

What the 'yes' campaign need a few examples of how they'd make Scotland a better place to be for its citizens, because this is actually all that matters. And also to be honest of where they think we'll have problems.

And what anyone who doesn't live in Scotland thinks, is irrelevent - they don't live here.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:29 pm
Posts: 14485
Free Member
 

they don't live here

Not Scotland, but they might live in the UK. Which will be somewhat effected by it all.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:35 pm
Posts: 8
Free Member
 

B r , totally agree with your comment. At the moment, I just don't see enough talk that convinces me that the independence sought by the snp is worth it.

At the moment I think as a scot, we have enough of an identity nationally and internationally, that makes us differentiated and independent people.

As per the original post, the hurdles to overcome and the as far as I can see, the lack of evidence to convince me they are worth jumping over , makes me think no at the moment.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 5:57 pm
Posts: 43956
Full Member
 

fisha - you need to ask yourself this... Are you happy with the way the UK is currently being run and the direction in which it is travelling. If so, that's great. Stick with it and vote No. If you're not happy, then ask yourself what chance there is of it changing. If you can foresee a better future within the UK, then again vote No.


 
Posted : 24/04/2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 8
Free Member
 

sr,

I'll likely never be happy with the way the country is run. 🙂 I think at the moment I fall into the latter half of your post.

but its not so much that I see a better future by being in the uk, more that I'm not convinced that a yes for independence would [i]by default[/i] create a better scotland, which is the impression I get from the incessant 'it will be better...' that is put forward by the SNP.

I want to be told: 'it will be better ... because of / and this is why ...' but I feel at the moment that such follow up isnt there, instead I feel its:

UK Bloke: 'Alex, you'll need to fully apply to the EU from scratch...(or some similar, reasonable question)'

Alex: 'Yer arse man, we're Scots, pure braw n that. us gallus independent jocks will get in the EU bae bother pal.'

UK Bloke:'but seriously Alex, how will you overcome EU issues?'

Alex: 'Look see fellow daily record/sun reading Scotlanders (pointing to uk bloke), see how this shandy drinking fool mocks our independence cause ... he knows nothing... freeeeeedooom .... 'mon the scots....'

Daily [s]Rangers[/s] Record reader in ned voice: 'haaaaaaw haaaaaaw maaan, Alex's puure put the malky to that dobba maaaan, whiut a daftie maaaan, courtney-versace ... gonnae look after the wean whilst ah go n get ma script? ... pure hope the polis dinnae see me ... bet ahve got a warrant fur me no paying that fine maaaann. That Alex's the business ... says i'll get mare pay in ma giro ... ah'll vote aye man nae bother like fur independence'

----------------

and so the questions still remain unanswered.

me? cynical? 🙂


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 12:04 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Scottish votes haven't decided the outcome of a Westminster election since at least the War

Have you checked that with Nick Clegg?

2010 without Scotland:
Conservative, 305
Labour, 217
LibDem, 46
Others, 23
Total, 591
Conservative majority, 19

unfortunately you can't check with Wilson or Heath

Feb 1974 without Scotland:
Conservative, 275
Labour, 261
Liberal, 11
Others, 17
Total, 564

Oct 1974 without Scotland:
Conservative, 260
Labour, 278
Liberal, 10
Others, 16
Total, 564

are you suggesting that Wilson might have formed a government when not the leader of the largest party, or managed 5 years with a minority government?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 12:51 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm not Scottish so my personal view is probably unimportant but a cursory of the key questions is quite interesting - there are precious few answers to questions such as:

- Can the 1.2m workers in the private sector in Scotland support the remaining 4m population including the roles in the public sector, the young, old, sick and unemployed?

- What are the additional direct costs of independence e.g. picking up a share of the bank bailout / RBS bailout costs, adding an extra layer of civil service roles etc?

- What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in....

- Are comparisons with the Scandinavian countries wishful thinking or good bell weathers for a future independent state?

- What are the costs of delayed entry to the EU if as seems to be the case automatic entry is not possible?

- If it goes wrong, what's the plan B, and assuming plan B needs support from south of the border, what will happen if this support isn't forthcoming?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 7:52 am
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

- What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in....

I thought this had been shown to largely be a myth?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 7:56 am
Posts: 14485
Free Member
 

- What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in....

I think this is bollocks, is it not?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 7:58 am
Posts: 43956
Full Member
 

[quote=piemonster ]- What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in....

I think this is bollocks, is it not?
As is most of the rest of that post. I don't blame the poster (robdixon) for that. It's more to do with the amount of dis-information that has been around for so long.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 8:05 am
Posts: 12089
Full Member
 

- What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in..

IMO the fact there's still debate over whether or not Scotland makes more than it receives means the question is still open. It's unlikely to be "significantly more", though: if it were, the debate would have been won by now.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:12 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Scotland gives more to the exchequer than it receives - £9.6bn vs. £9.3bn or something like that.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:15 am
 br
Posts: 18125
Free Member
 

[i]Not Scotland, but they might live in the UK. Which will be somewhat effected by it all.

[/i]

But it's the Scots voting to stay/leave, not the rest of the UK voting to keep or get rid of them - therefore the view of the rest of the UK IS irrelevent.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:19 am
Posts: 7626
Full Member
 

What's the additional cost to Scottish tax payers of picking up all of the social and welfare costs when at the moment Scotland receives significantly more out than it pays in....

In 2012 Scotland raised 9.6% of UK revenue, received 9.3% of spending and has 8.6% of the population.

Unemployment in Scotland is below the UK average

So the additional cost will be zero


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:27 am
Posts: 14485
Free Member
 

br: You appear to be viewing it purely as a matter of effecting the outcome for Scotland. Which is fair enough.

I'm viewing it more as to the overall effects of the Unions dynamics. Scottish Independence would effect more than just the Scots. In this context the opinions of those outside Scotland do matter.

There are consequences to actions, and they'll need to be addressed.

The choice of whether independence happens is a matter for those who live there.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:27 am
Posts: 2006
Free Member
 

But it's the Scots voting to stay/leave, not the rest of the UK voting to keep or get rid of them
-

Actually it's the people on the electoral roll in Scotland who get to vote, so that includes resident foriegn nationals. It doesn't include a number of notable Scots nationalists 😉

therefore the view of the rest of the UK IS irrelevent.

the rest of the country can't self determine to be be without you?

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander 😉


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:32 am
Posts: 3854
Full Member
 

It seems to me that successful long term Scots independence really depends on whether more North Sea oil is found (there are some interesting discoveries coming along) and this gives Scotland a chance to build up a National Wealth Fund like Norway (which you would do now if you hadn't been part of the UK). This would give the backing to make Scotland prosper, give big infrastructure funds, develope large scale long term carbon free energy etc..

Without this money, Scotland is essential a small and not very prosperous country (for instance the local area where I live the combined property value is greater than the whole of Glasgow [url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29afc54a-6c80-11e2-b73a-00144feab49a.html#axzz2RSiSvLJs ]FT article[/url] which is obscene BTW) I've lived there and travelled all over, really like it but I feel that independence would be an oil gamble.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:35 am
Posts: 14485
Free Member
 

Or perhaps a windy gamble

To be fair, most economic policies for future prosperity look like "gambles" to me.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 9:40 am
Posts: 7626
Full Member
 

Without this money, Scotland is essential a small and not very prosperous country (for instance the local area where I live the combined property value is greater than the whole of Glasgow FT article which is obscene BTW)

I'm not really sure what a property bubble supported by banking bonuses and rich foreign [s]gangsters[/s] emigres has to do with Scotland's prosperity.

UK GDP per Capita $38,589. Scotland GDP per capita $43,492.

Without London, England would be completely screwed. Without England Scotland will be okay


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 10:13 am
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

Without London, England would be completely screwed.

IIRC London is subsidised by the rest of the country.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 1:09 pm
Posts: 43956
Full Member
 

London and the SE of England are the only parts of the UK (other than Scotland) that run "at a profit". They support the rest. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 2:51 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

How are those figures even calculated? If Sainsburys makes more all over the UK but it gets reported to the revenue from its Holborn office, does that mean London gets the credit?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 57418
Full Member
 

Bollocks! You're not telling me Blackpool isn't profitable!


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 43956
Full Member
 

Alex Salmond once claimed that Scotland would be the 5th richest (GDP per capita) country in the world. This claim has since been debunked by independent analysts. It would, in fact, only be the 15th.....


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Has anyone looked into the "Company HQ" effect? By that I mean lots of companies have their head office in London, but the actual work is done elsewhere - so the money appears to be made in London when it isn't.

Edit: What Konabunny just said 😉


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 2:53 pm
 br
Posts: 18125
Free Member
 

[i]Actually it's the people on the electoral roll in Scotland who get to vote, so that includes resident foriegn nationals. It doesn't include a number of notable Scots nationalists [/i]

Yes I realise that, as I remind my fellow 'Scots' - then they say I'm an Englishman, and I tell them there is no such thing as English, Welsh, Scots etc as we all share the same passport.

As I live here and am on the roll, I'll be voting.

[i]Without this money, Scotland is essential a small and not very prosperous country (for instance the local area where I live the combined property value is greater than the whole of Glasgow FT article which is obscene BTW) I've lived there and travelled all over, really like it but I feel that independence would be an oil gamble. [/i]

No, without it we'd have to do/try something else.

Poach jobs from England? Here's an idea, on independence we could get rid of Employers NI in Scotland, saving business upwards of 10% of their payroll costs.

Or set our corporation tax at 10% for companies where x% of jobs are based here etc etc.

And we could be more social, as the Scandic's are - which would suit the more 'left-leaning' current voting suggests we are.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:01 pm
Posts: 57418
Full Member
 

Thats sounding dangerously like Alex's famous 'arc of prosperity' speech. Which turned out to be entirely credible. 😆


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:09 pm
Posts: 7279
Free Member
 

Company HQ effect is tiny, I wrote this some time ago on here to illustrate:

London & SE Corporation Tax/Total Corporation Tax tax is 35.46%, London & SE Total Tax/Total tax is 33.3% so Corporation Tax seem to be allocated in more or less the same proportion as other taxes. Corporation Tax is also a pretty small part of the total tax take - 7%


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

scotroutes - Member
Alex Salmond once claimed ..... This claim has since been debunked by independent analysts.

A first, I wonder?


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:21 pm
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

Company HQ effect is tiny

Yeah, I mean none of these companies pay much corporation tax anyway. 😉

I thought the thing about London being subsidised was more that so many government jobs/contracts etc are based in London, and London soaks up a disproportionately large amount of money spent on things like transport infrastructure, for example. Could be wrong though.

You're not telling me Blackpool isn't profitable!

Stag and hen parties - it's the future of our economy.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

You're not telling me Blackpool isn't profitable!

It is if you open a pound shop off licence tattooist


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:25 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I find this concentration on the financial implications a bit depressing and pointless. Politicians on both sides will represent/misrepresent the economic situation to suit their own argument. And the electorate are then left to decide, purely illogically, on whom they believe.

You don't divorce your wife (or husband) purely on the basis that you will be a few pounds a week better off. Equally Scotland shouldn't decide to leave the UK purely on the basis of whether we will be a few pounds better or worse off.

I will be voting NO because I am very happy to be Scottish and British.
I would like to see a refocussing of all like minded UK citizens on a clearer and better identity for the UK/Britain.
English people have long had a very confused view of England/Britain (often not seeming to know the difference!)which antagonises the rest of the UK. I would like to see English people being proud to be English AND British (and knowing what the difference is) and I think long term we all need to develop a stronger sense of Britishness (without embracing UKIP).


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 3:40 pm
Posts: 66124
Full Member
 

London does get certain "centre of it all" benefits- company hq effect isn't massive but company and government centralisation is pretty significant- lots of high earners in the City, staff in the finance departments lots of civil servants, government and ngos drawn together in/around westminster... All of these paid for nationally but acting locally. Wealth gets drawn to administrative centres. Edinburgh gets it too on a smaller scale

robdixon - Member

- What are the additional direct costs of independence e.g. picking up a share of the bank bailout / RBS bailout costs.

Scotland has already picked up a share of the bank bailout costs, what with being part of the UK.

aracer - Member

are you suggesting that Wilson might have formed a government when not the leader of the largest party, or managed 5 years with a minority government?

Any response to this anyone? I've seen the "never since the war" argument many times, first time I've seem it contradicted.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 4:48 pm
 hels
Posts: 971
Free Member
 

I'm against the whole idea of independence on totally personal and probably emotional and possibly irrational grounds, which is as logical as most of the grounds I have heard for being pro independence.

1. The SNP are a bunch of racists. It's subtle, but it's there. That whole thread of "Scottishness" that runs through their policies is a very white protestant highland view of Scotland. They said it couldn't happen in Germany.

2. I have a flat in Edinburgh I am sitting on intending to sell when the market improves. If independence is voted in and the big companies go back to London, all the South of England folk who live up here will sell their property and head back to the Home Counties. Property prices will plummet.

As I say, it's a rational as some tartan clad idea of "a better life for my kids".


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 5:01 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The SNP are a bunch of racists

Thats a pretty heft claim 😯


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 5:06 pm
Posts: 7279
Free Member
 

Labour had a majority of 4 with 319 seats in Oct 74 out of 634 (excl Speaker) including 41 out of 71 seats in Scotland. Tories has 276 incl. 16 Scots. Excluding Scotland, 278 Labour seats vs 563 total is no overall majority by 7. but they would have been the largest party by 18 seats.


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 5:34 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

and a comparison to the Nazi Germany 🙄

Yes perhaps they will burn your flat down whilst purging the nation of non picts .. WOW what an odd argument and you lived up to the non rational bit


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 5:48 pm
Posts: 496
Full Member
 

2. I have a flat in Edinburgh I am sitting on intending to sell when the market improves. If independence is voted in and the big companies go back to London, all the South of England folk who live up here will sell their property and head back to the Home Counties. Property prices will plummet.

Ah, "sitting on", terribly nice of you old bean, quick sell it before independence or Big Eck will give you a shilling for it when you tootle off to the home counties with your mates. 🙄


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 6:32 pm
Posts: 66124
Full Member
 

hels - Member

1. The SNP are a bunch of racists. It's subtle, but it's there

Well if you don't like it you can **** off back where you came from!

(disclaimer- not serious. I need Hels to stay in scotland and make mountain bike races)


 
Posted : 25/04/2013 7:11 pm
Page 3 / 4