Forum menu
The breakup of the UK is probably the biggest thing to happen politically in the last 100 years at least. You think it's beneath the dignity of the Prime Minister to debate on it?
Of course everyone can pick and choose who they debate with. Darling said he'd debate Salmond "any time, any place". Now he's changed his mind about that.
And I'm really not outraged in the slightest. More amused at Better Together - it takes a certain talent to shoot yourself in the foot so many times.
AS and CMD are both the leaders of their respective countries and the yes no positions. It is not unreasonable that they have a debate
Farage is a loon who hates one union [ not enough to not be an MP there or take their money] and loves another so much that he will go to a foreign land to tell them to stay in the union and not die by irony or embarrassment 😉
CMD is not choosing who he will debate he is refusing to debate. it is not the same thing.
You are comparing chalk and cheese here in terms of the people and the scenario.
He's being set up to fail.
Spot on Ben. In his position, I would feel v uncomfortable, perhaps that is why he not doing a great job. He knows he holds all the aces but he is losing the tactical skirmishes. He was out-of-his depth in the financial crisis and looks the same here. I expect that G Brown is quite happy to see that, which is a shame given the seriousness of the issue at hand.
AS will always seek to frame the debate around Westminster/English Tories. CMD is tactically correct to avoid that. As compelling as that argument is for most Scots, it is the not central to this debate. Even if it was, AS is proposing letting the same people control economic policy anyway but that elephant is looking tired by now.
Of course everyone can pick and choose who they debate with. Darling said he'd debate Salmond "any time, any place". Now he's changed his mind about that.
So what's wrong with July 16 ? Why is that unacceptable ? Cut out the bullshit and explain exactly why July 16 is unacceptable.
You've been banging on about this debate over two pages, so it's clearly very important to you, how about you now explain why July 16 is unacceptable ?
Go on, don't be shy, this debate is 'so important' I think we all deserve an explanation as to why Salmond won't debate on July 16.
Let's just assume Darling was lying when he said "any time, any place", so there's no need to keep whingeing about it and we can move on. So why can't the debate be staged on July 16, isn't the debate that important after all, is whingeing and playing silly games far more important ?
AS never said yes to it [ he sent an invite to Dave] and, this will be a shock, but it is for political reasons that he is doing this.... I know imagine.
He prefers to debate nearer the vote to sway the crucial undecided rather than when the vote is some way
Its not hard to find the reasons tbh - you are free to find them noble or ignoble
So what's wrong with July 16 ? Why is that unacceptable ? Cut out the bullshit and explain exactly why July 16 is unacceptable.
Because it's right in the middle of the biggest sporting event ever held in Scotland, there are a few distractions.
And of course Salmond would like to get the biggest audience for the debate, he doesn't want to be competing for air time with the rhythmic gymnastics.
He was willing to compromise if the debate was with the Prime Minister, but if it's going to be with a backbench MP then he's less inclined to be accomodating.
Because it's right in the middle of the biggest sporting event ever held in Scotland, there are a few distractions.
23 July to 3 August?
he's less inclined to be accomodating
Head of the No campaign
I still don't get why Alex is allowed to pick and choose how accommodating he is, while Dave isn't
Maybe he's got better things to do, like running the country, picking the fluff out his belly button, something like that?
Heres a lesson Alex, the Prime minister of the country doesn't have to jump when you tell him to!
Ooh, look, there's the faux-outrage bus going past the window again!
It was supposed to be a faux-outrage tram but, you know...Scotland.
bencooper - MemberI know, that weird delusion where I can read and understand the words of a newspaper article
You seem to only be able to understand the words that you want to.
Now which of these statements, from your source, do you disagree with?
Salmond agreed to a debate with Darling.
The date was set, Salmond pulled out.
Another date has been agreed to by BT, Salmond is yet to agree to it.
These are all from your source Ben.
Which date has Darling pulled out of?
Darling said he'd debate Salmond "any time, any place". Now he's changed his mind about that.
Again, which time and place has Darling pulled out of?
You keep asserting that he has changed his mind, so give me a specific date and location for the debate that he has pulled out of.
Because it's right in the middle of the biggest sporting event ever held in Scotland, there are a few distractions.
No it isn't. July 16 is a week before the Commonwealth Games. That's not the reason - try to think of another one.
It's amazing that despite creating such a fuss about this debate you haven't yet thought up a reason why it can't be on July 16.
Although you, me, and everyone else, knows the real reason - because Salmond wants to play silly games. And he wants to call the shots, bully, and dictate - another reason why people should vote No in September.
12 August is far more important, surely?
Salmond agreed to a debate with Darling.
Yup.
The date was set, Salmond pulled out.
Nope. Salmond offered to debate Cameron on the 16th or Darling at a later date. Salmond didn't pull out of anything.
No it isn't. July 16 is a week before the Commonwealth Games. That's not the reason - try to think of another one.
Still right in the middle of the media build-up, not the best time to do it.
Although you, me, and everyone else, knows the real reason - because Salmond wants to play silly games. And he wants to call the shots, bully, and dictate - another reason why people should vote No in September.
Ah, another try at comparing Salmond to a dictator - it's been ages since we had one of those 😉
I'm not a SNP supporter. I'd probably never vote for Salmond again. Voting No because you don't like Salmond is one of the more stupid reasons for voting No.
No one would position votes or debates around symbolic moments, dates or events Ben, would they!?! C 😉
Nope. Salmond offered to debate Cameron on the 16th or Darling at a later date. Salmond didn't pull out of anything.
The date was set by STV, the hosts of the debate.
You seem to only be able to understand the words that you want to.
When it comes to losing the argument, your refusal to answer simple questions trumps my tendancy to be abusive, hands down.
I'm not even sure why you continue to post on this thread Ben.
There is nothing to debate with you, because you have already stated that you have closed your mind to debate.
It was you afterall, that said they would still vote YES even if it was detrimental to Scotland.
🙄
Of course Salmond wants to have the debate at the best time for him - he's probably the best political operator in the UK, of course he's manipulating it.
But that still doesn't alter the fact that Darling said "any place, any time" then pulled out. That was a bad move.
Better Together's aim is to avoid having any debates, which they'd lose, while trying to make it look as if the lack of debates isn't their fault.
Worth putting this in context
A couple of years ago, OFCOM found STV to be in breach of the broadcasting code over sponsorship, because they had been altering content and scheduling of programmes at the behest of the Scottish Government...
There is nothing to debate with you, because you have already stated that you have closed your mind to debate.
😀
I'd love to hear some intelligent debate around voting No, but that's not happening on this thread. I've heard some really good speakers for the No side, the author Ken Macleod has some really good things to say. He hasn't convinced me yet, but made me think. This thread is just light entertainment.
It was you afterall, that said they would still vote YES even if it was detrimental to Scotland.
When did I say that? I'm sure I had caveats like if it was detrimental in the short term or something.
But that still doesn't alter the fact that Darling said "any place, any time" then pulled out. That was a bad move.
[b]AT WHAT DATE AND LOCATION WAS THE DEBATE THAT DARLING PULLED OUT OF?
YES I AM SHOUTING. IF I WAS IN THE SAME ROOM AS YOU IMAGINE I WAS DOING IT RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.[/b]
🙂
Still right in the middle of the media build-up, not the best time to do it.
😆
On the previous page you said : [i]"The breakup of the UK is probably the biggest thing to happen politically in the last 100 years at least". [/i]
But now you are claiming that Scots will be too distracted the by Commonwealth Games, which will be held a week later, to be bothered watching their First Minister debate the issue !
So according to you Scots attach even less importance to Scottish independence than Cameron.
bencooper - MemberOf course Salmond wants to have the debate at the best time for him - he's probably the best political operator in the UK
I think I just physically felt the effects of Ben's swoon for dear leader all the way down here in sunny Cambridgeshire. 😆
I'm off to chase some skirt, see y'all later.
Still right in the middle of the media build-up, not the best time to do it.
What better time than when a fair amount of foreign media are in town and when Scotland is at the centre of attention?
Still, I suppose they could debate it on a wet Thursday in a village hall in Easter Ross...
sbob - Member
I'm off to chase some skirt, see y'all later.
Isn't it referred to as a kilt?
Nope, I'm not a big fan of him - he's far too keen on big business for my liking.
However liking is not the same as admiring. He took a fringe party, got it into power in Scotland (in a system designed to prevent that) and is now a bawhair away from getting independence.
Salmond agreed to a debate with Darling.
The date was set, Salmond pulled out.
This is just not true he never agreed so he could not pull out he has always wanted a debate with CMD and he refuses to have this debate.....still lets all call AS names eh for wanting to select the date of a debate with someone else as that is far far worse ...i do so admire principles stances ....if i keep looking someone will have one 😉
From STV
Our position is that an invitation has gone to Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond to debate on 16th July and until we've heard back from all parties we don't want to speculate on how or when or anything.The first minister has replied with a note that they've sent to David Cameron and they're waiting to hear back from Downing Street before coming back to STV. Our position is that the 16th July is the date we've proposed to both sides and it has been [proposed] to Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond.
Of course Salmond wants to have the debate at the best time for him
I am not sure why this is a debate anymore than CMS refusal is. Of course he does only an idiot would not want to do it when it best suited them - see daves refusal
They are politicians they make decisions for political reasons, some of these decisions stink.
Salmond wants to play silly games. And he wants to call the shots, bully, and dictate - another reason why people should vote No in September.
Awesome - What about CMD who wont even debate as it is down to Scotland but will keep making unchallenged statements? This debate is so partisan its ridiculous, and from you Ernie , I expect better [ together 😉 ]
Salmond wants to play silly games. And he wants to call the shots, bully, and dictate - another reason why people should vote No in September.Awesome
What would be really awesome would be if the nats could think of one credible reason why the debate between Salmond and Darling shouldn't be on July 16.
But of course you can't.
Ben after giving the issue much thought comes up with the excuse that it will be in the middle of the Commonwealth Games, even though it won't be.
And you come up with the excuse that Salmond wants the debate nearer polling day, conveniently ignoring the fact that Salmond has said that he would very happy to have the debate on July 16 with Cameron.
So since we've run out of excuses the conclusion must be that Salmond is playing games, even Ben concedes that Salmond is "manipulating".
Simple question: who pulled out of the debate?
All the articles I've read say "Better Together walk out" or variations on that.
It's funny seeing people argue the opposite, though.
Another simple question : what's wrong with July 16 ?
Funny how you can't answer that one.
Again you're confusing me with someone who works in the Yes campaign 😉
What's wrong with the 16th is that Salmond never offered to debate Darling on the 16th.
Edit: Salmond has accepted STV's suggestion of a debate on the 5th of August. So will Darling ("any place, any time") accept that?
But of course you can't
Not sure why i became a "nat" Is it ernie name calling day rather than ernie making insightful comments?
To be clear almost all my comments have been yes no shit that is what politicians do [ Ben gets enough shit without me joining in but he is no where near impartial if that helps] Personally I can see little difference between CMD refusal and AS wanting to debate nearer the election date [ is that a reason yet?*] Perhaps you could explain why only one deserves your venom and name calling- the principle behind this view?
Its interesting how both sides only want to talk of the other when their side** is doing basically the same thing
* the article i linked to explained but yes think it will more likely sway the floating voters - why ask a questions if you dont read the answers and links?
But that date is far from convenient for Salmond: as this blog reported last month, he and his strategists want to stage the debates far closer to polling day – ideally just before about one million of Scotland's 4m voters start to receive their postal votes on 25 August, at a point when the final campaign is in full swingGo too early – in July, and the debate will be competing for an audience already depleted by the school holidays with the 2014 Glasgow games, the First World War commemorations in early August and the final stages of the world cup.
Go too late, you miss influencing those crucial postal votes – these are the committed electors who are far more likely to take part but conversely to have made up their minds; you may be talking to an increasingly weary and committed electorate and you also have too little time to fix any disasters from the debate.
And for the yes campaign, still lagging behind in the polls, timing is critical: Salmond may be a divisive character for many voters, but he is rightly famous for his sharp debating skills and his ease on a stage. He is an asset which his team needs to play very cleverly indeed.
** I apologise for claiming CMD is your side but you get my point.
Ben gets enough shit without me joining in but he is no where near impartial if that helps
Yup, and I don't claim to be, I'm not the BBC 🙂
If you listen to some that does not stop you working for the BBC 😉
Is it ernie name calling day rather than ernie making insightful comments?
I stopped reading after that. I had already ignored your comment in your previous post : "This debate is so partisan its ridiculous, and from you Ernie , I expect better".
You always end up attacking someone on a personal level. You accuse others of resorting to personal insults and yet throughout this thread you yourself have resorted to personal insults, you just can't help yourself.
I generally ignore your posts and thought that it was probably a mistake to give a lengthy response to your comment, I was right.
I generally ignore your posts and thought that it was probably a mistake to give a lengthy response to your comment, I was right.
Wisdom comes to us all in time, Ernie!! 😉
There's a word for it...........
There is a report post button for both you and THM if you think I am overstepping the mark with my “personal comments” which mean disagreeing with you and challenging you when you are fast and lose with facts. I have heard nothing from moderators and only those reluctant to reply/defend themselves have complained on the forum so far.
Easier to attack me than explain why AS is different from CMD or for THM to defend the claim that AS has only done all this to "get power" innit.
FWIW the original comment was a compliment [ it not well written ] in that you are one of the most insightful commentators on STW and that comment/analysis was not what I would expect from you. It was not meant as an insult in general just on that one post
Why do we need a televised debate about independence between two individuals? I understand the need for debates between political party leaders in the run up to an election because it gives the electorate a chance to judge their debating styles, gauge their personalities, and to decide who they want to run the country. With the case of Scottish Independence though people are not voting for Alec Salmond or the SNP so a one on one debate does not make as much sense. Maybe a panel of members from both sides would be more appropriate?
I can't help but feel that this television debate is distracting from the fact that a lot of questions about independence have yet to be answered.
I agree - but that kind of debate is too intellectual for TV probably. The BBC's debate at the Hydro with 12,000 schoolkids is equally daft.
Well there's a surprise...
Well there's a surprise...
What's a surprise ?
That the Orange Lodge is unionist ?
That, according to your link : [i]It is understood the cross-party pro-Union organisation "firmly rejected" a written request by the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland asking to join their campaign.[/i]?
Or that you have been forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel as you abandon all attempts to provide a carefully thought out and compelling argument in favour of Scottish 'independence' ?
To be honest I don't find any of those three things surprising.
We've gone though the debate thing right at the start of the thread. It's too easy for AS to manipulate a debate into a Scotland v England argument if it's the PM.
Or that you have been forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel as you abandon all attempts to provide a carefully thought out and compelling argument in favour of Scottish 'independence' ?
I didn't know that's what you wanted. I can give you lots of good reasons if you're actually interested.
It's too easy for AS to manipulate a debate into a Scotland v England argument if it's the PM.
True and there no point blaming AS for trying or CMD for declining.
Double Post
I didn't know that's what you wanted. I can give you lots of good reasons if you're actually interested.
I am very interested, although a link to an article which clearly states all the tangible advantages of independence would probably be easier.
And by tangible I mean just that, not for example the suggestion that Scots will be ruled by a different bunch of politicians. I'd like to hear about real stuff which will provide real benefits to real people, and which can only be achieved through independence, and which will outweigh any likely negatives.
At the end of the day CMD has always said that he would not debate the issue with AS, so he is being consistent. The articles are a bit hazy, but I suspect that all parties are right and are spinning it their way. STV issued the invite to darling and AS, As thought it was going to CMD and sent it to him, Darling said yes, Salmond said only CMD, Darling said 'sod off' then, etc!
CMD does (and will continue to) snipe from the sidelines - in same manner that AS tries to create and Scotland v England arguement. Neither are right. If CMD turns up to get involved he will lose far more than he will gain - and his advisor's will keep him a long way from that. He does have an opinion, and as the leader of the UK (not England - there is no English Leader) I would expect him to have one. And not surprisingly it is for the union. AS (as expected) is trying to explore all avenues to swing the don't knows and convert the No's. Nothing wrong there.
C'mon Ernie, be fair - Ben has got a day job. AS has had a lifetime to do what you asking and has failed so far. Harsh to expect Ben to pick up the pieces even given his valient efforts on this thread.
There is no answer as we know. AS still wants rUK to set Econ policy for him around which he will tax less and spend more. Too much 80/-????
AS couldn't give a toss - he just wants more power!!! 😉 Otherwise he would have already put a credible set of answers to the basic questions that we and others have posed. It's embarrassing, really.......
I'd like to hear about real stuff which will provide real benefits to real people, and which can only be achieved through independence, and which will outweigh any likely negatives
Okay, a quick one because I have a four-year-old lying on my arm:
If we don't have to contribute to the twin white elephants of Trident and HS2, we'll have billions more to spend on schools, hospitals and other things that will help real people.
Ben that is two things you mentioned
Your worse than AS at this truth telling 😛
sadmadalan dont be bringing a rational and balanced opinion to this thread.
I agree with all you said but really you need to become massively partisan , stick to it for 170 pages and then say the other side have failed.
I dont think failing to convince the most entrenched voters [ no or yes for balance]is a failure the real issue is which side convince the undecided.The vote will let us know that one. Nothing would convince you or ben to change your views.
So Ben, how much smaller will the total defence budget be? Ball park so that we can gauge how much extra billions will be available?
If you can tell him/us exactly what tridents replacement will be, the cost and soctlands share we will be able to answer. You do know what this figure is ?
Its not his fault UK cannot give this figure so no one can say what the saving will be. Why are you asking? Does this lack of certainty over the exact amount negate his point that it will be a saving?
This is why you ignore me as you have no reply.
Despite this lack of knowledge the point is still true that it will be a saving.
If we don't have to contribute to the twin white elephants of Trident and HS2, we'll have billions more to spend on schools, hospitals and other things that will help real people.
Do you know how much it is going to cost to run Scotland as an independent country? It could end up swallowing any savings made on Trident and HS2. The fact that you don't even have solid figures for setting up all of the institutions needed to run an independent country does not really help. I find it very worrying that this late into the debate a yes vote is still a leap of faith due to the number of unanswered questions.
Ben, ignore the trolling. AS has given (at least an indicated) answer to that......so how much lower will defence spending be? I guess quite a lot given the spending wish list?
Well bearing in mind the proposal for a HS3 yesterday across the North of England,we can safely assume it will be a few hundred million more.
You can't run a country based on guesses THM.
Ben, ignore the trolling.
Dont ben as he cannot answer the question and he know what i have said is true
Have you reported me yet as it is against the rules to troll?
Click the report button then and let someone decide if you tell the truth or not 🙄
Given I am still posting, after pages and pages of this claim, the truth of your claim is clear for all to see.
AS has given (at least an indicated) answer to that
Ah right so you have taken to believing AS figures now have you 😉
I know that. Equally you can't run it if you don't understand what a currency is!! But people seem happy to swallow that!!
But the defence answer is there......
Well I do think that a nuclear weapon free Scotland written into the constitution is very attractive. As is not wasting billions on Trident.
But firstly like THM I'm not convinced that this will automatically translate into a lower defence budget, specially as the Nats now want full NATO membership - an alliance which incidentally relies heavily on the nuclear "deterrent". It would be more convincing if an independent Scotland was non-aligned and neutral. Ireland for example has the lowest defence budget of any EU country.
And has the total Scottish contribution to Trident replacement actually been quantified ?
And finally, attractive as nuclear weapon free Scotland might be it doesn't imo outweigh the negative consequences of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK. For me working class unity is paramount, divisions into smaller entities with the same political and economic model does not represent a step forward imo.
Scottish independence is a distraction imo, instead of pursuing a meaningless emotional agenda it would be better to focus on building a more truly democratic society. And no, I don't mean abolishing the House of Lords, I'm talking about real stuff which affects real people.
Why do we need a televised debate about independence between two individuals?
For independence, press the red button now.
Conventional defence spending per head of population will be about the same as now, if the SNP's policies are followed - but the money that's currently spent south of the border will be spent in Scotland*. But there won't be any nuclear spending - that's estimated at £100bn over 30 years.
*It's something like Scotland contributes 9% of the defence budget, but 7% of defence spending is in Scotland.
Do you know how much it is going to cost to run Scotland as an independent country?
The educated estimate is in the order of £200M start-up costs. Ongoing running costs? Why would they be higher? Most other countries of a comparable size don't have high running costs - in fact often lower because a smaller country is easier to manage, you don't need so many layers of bureaucracy.
Ben the current spending is 3 billion the projected spending will be 2. 5 billion so it will reduce by 1/2 billion - page 75- 78 of white paper.
A number of points
1. 3 billion is what scotland spends on defence currently within the UK
2. the white paper claims that the £2.5 billion is more than is currently spent in scotland so they can spend less and get more money internally - theoretically possible but i do not know if this is true or false.
I wont comment on the nuclear bit for fear of "trolling".
Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take) but a different type of spend. So that is subtedly but importantly different from freeing up a shed load of money for alternative uses such as schools and hospitals (the usual cliche). Now even with the estimated slight saving (countered by cuts in corporate tax* etc) we have according to the IFS a worse fiscal position going forward than before. And yet, as if by [s]BS[/s] magic Alex is capable of all this extra spending. It's amazing......
* dear Gordie was using this as a reason for arguing yesterday against income inequality since IHO this policy is mainly putting money into the hands of corp including those nasty utliity companies (slightly twisted argument for effect).
NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence
Meh - NATO has 28 countries and only 4 of them spend in excess of 2% of GDP on defence.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-nato-members-increase-defence-spending
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52044.htm
Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take) but a different type of spend. So that is subtedly but importantly different from freeing up a shed load of money for alternative uses such as schools and hospitals (the usual cliche).
No - because we won't be paying for Trident, it's not a flat position overall (and as Junkyard says I got the numbers wrong according to the white paper). It's saving us around £9bn over 30 years, our share of replacing Trident.
Then there's HS2 - not paying towards that saves us a few £bn more. Not contributing to Crossrail saves a few hundred million - probably enough to cover the start-up costs. Etc.
Thank you KB, I stand corrected. Another International org with fudged membership!!
Cheers Ben, the iFS must be smoking something then!! True it's not a flat position but I think you will find that defence spending will be largely a mirage. It's a reallocation more than a major reduction - not necessarily a bad thing. Still about 1.6-1.8% of GDP on defence, so no small amount. It will be interesting to see what you get for your money.
On a more general note, I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting. Why should real people not care about such things as democratic representation, or living in a WMD-free country?
The whole history of the Labour Party, started in Scotland, is of ordinary working-class people having high ideals and thinking about more than money. Such people cared about bigger things than what would benefit them personally.
Although of course living in a more fair and democratic society benefits almost everyone.
Cheers Ben, the iFS must be smoking something then!! True it's not a flat position but I think you will find that defence spending will be lately a mirage. It's a reallocation more than a major reduction - not necessarily a bad thing.
You're still missing the difference between conventional and nuclear spending. Conventional military spending will stay the same or drop a bit (depends on the policies of the particular government at the time), but nuclear spending is outside that. The £100bn to be spent on Trident is on top of conventional military spending.
I should think it'd be obvious that not building a fleet of incredibly sophisticated submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads is cheaper than building them.
That's what the polls day thoug Ben isn't it. Bribed by a few extra £s in the pocket.
(Ps don't forget (sssshhhhh) don't ask, don't tell. Keep it quiet though, it's nice to pretend that there are not nukes)
That's what the polls day thoug Ben isn't it. Bribed by a few extra £s in the pocket.
For some people, yes. We'll see how many - and of course it's not true anyway, we don't know the cost of staying in the UK. Though we do know some things - the Barnett formula is likely to be scrapped, and there's a lot more austerity to come, so staying in the UK could well be very bad for the £'s in people's pockets.
(Ps don't forget (sssshhhhh) don't ask, don't tell. Keep it quiet though, it's nice to pretend that there are not nukes)
You can't hide the existence of the things, it's just not possible. Secret underground sub pens, like the Nazis built? Just can't be done.
Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take)
You said AS had given a figure so you must know what it is [ignoring the fact I gave it]
Why have you made a statement based on an answer, from Ben, that you knew was incorrect when the source document was cited?
F see me after class.
Meanwhile, in a bunker under Holyrood, a wind turbine driven Babbage Analytical Engine is churning oot BitPoonds.
You can make your own. Plans here:
[img] 
[/img]
(Just bringing this thread back to the currency question 🙂 )
Thank you KB, I stand corrected. Another International org with fudged membership!!
It's okay, though, because iScotland is going to become a significantly more equitable, peaceful and wealthy country by pursuing radical social change. It's going to dissolve the armed forces, denuclearize, disengage from NATO and demilitarize its foreign policy. The money that's saved on unproductive military spending and the subsidy junkie arms industry can instead be used to reduce poverty at home and assist development and regional stability abroad.
Oh, no, sorry, it's just going to be as samey as possible with a different brand and extra tartan.
Way ahead of you 😉
[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4153/4949209583_fc8ac00f5a_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/cycleologist/4949209583/ ]Curta Dismantled[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/cycleologist/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr
KB - ooh, so cynical. Why do you think Scotland can't do better? The UK is one of the most unequal developed countries, can't we aspire to do something about that?
Having a government that's more representative and democratic has to help.
Why do you think Scotland can't do better?
Why do think Scotland can do better? After all Scots have been deeply involved in the UK politics for many years and they have not changed the UK to becoming a utopian paradise. Why will independence bring that? Is the thought that because Scots are in charge there will be a radical change in land ownership rules, minimum wage, enhanced benefits, etc. This may be wanted by [u]some[/u] of the Scottish population, but it is not going to happen. Independence will bring a country which will be more left wing than the UK, but only by a small bit.
A very " small bit" except for one bloke and his cronies who will have more power!!! The savings on trident can be spent on remedial economic and geopolitical revision classes. God knows, he needs them (unless he is being deliberately "economical" with the truth). My money is on the latter!
Have a good day. Mustn't get distracted today!!
(Ps KB serious thanks, the IFS claims that 2% was a requirement, so the extra perspective was useful)
Though we do know some things - the Barnett formula is likely to be scrapped, and there's a lot more austerity to come, so staying in the UK could well be very bad for the £'s in people's pockets
As you implied it is Barnett that allows Scotland to sustain its current levels of public spending. Following a 'No' this may be scrapped, it is likely that it will be revised but the the only thing that we do "know" is that a 'Yes' will mean no Barnett.
Given a Yes vote, assume that you put all of the HS2 and Trident money into a pot (lets be generous and estimate Trident @ £500m/yr and HS2 @ a one off cost of £5b), what else does Scotland need to put into that pot to get to the £12b/yr Barnett bonus?
Why do think Scotland can do better?
Nice way of avoiding the question.
After all Scots have been deeply involved in the UK politics for many years and they have not changed the UK to becoming a utopian paradise. Why will independence bring that? Is the thought that because Scots are in charge there will be a radical change in land ownership rules, minimum wage, enhanced benefits, etc.
How about the fact that not being governed from London, by a government who will take the effect on London of any new policies over and above anything else means that the policies coming out of iScotland might represent us a bit better?
what else does Scotland need to put into that pot to get to the £12b/yr Barnett bonus?
Where have you got 12bn from? I've seen 4 cast around a few times, but never 12. Even then, you need to compare income with a or scrapped Barnett with the income of iScotland, not the current Scotland.
Where have you got 12bn from?
GERS, £12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.
Even then, you need to compare income with a or scrapped Barnett with the income of iScotland, not the current Scotland
Agreed, so what proposals have the Yes campaign put forward which will increase the income of iScotland to compensate for the loss of Barnett? All I can see promised is lower tax rates and increased public spending.
bencooper - MemberI think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting. Why should real people not care about such things as democratic representation, or living in a WMD-free country?
The whole history of the Labour Party, started in Scotland, is of ordinary working-class people having high ideals and thinking about more than money. Such people cared about bigger things than what would benefit them personally.
Who has suggested that "that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets" ? I can't see where anyone has done that - can you link to the post ?
Why don't people care about "living in a WMD-free country" you ask. I don't know, they obviously should. The evidence however suggests the opposite, ie, they like living in a nuclear armed country.
The single biggest reason for the formation of the SDP in 1981 was the Labour Party's election manifesto commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, this resulted in a crushing defeat for Labour in the 1983 general election.
There is no evidence that things have changed and that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a vote winner today - CND's protests and marches are far and few between these days.
Nor am I aware that the House of Lords is one of the major causes of dissatisfaction among people, ranking along side public transport, the EU, house prices, etc.
In the circles which you frequent Ben people might well complain bitterly about the House of Lords but most people don't, because they are fully aware that if the House of Lords was abolished next week it would not cause their lives to change by one iota.
Being in touch with reality isn't "a little insulting" as you claim. I too am an idealist, but I do nevertheless recognise the distinction between my ideals and actual reality. It's clear from this thread that you don't.
Although to be fair that can be said about nats generally. As I have repeatedly said the nationalist 'argument' is based largely on faith, hope, and wishful thinking.
GERS, £12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.
Ah, yes, last year, looking back at the 4 before that though and Scotland raised more than it spent. The GERS figures are often critised by both sides as not being very reliable due to the fact that a lot of figures can't really be calculated properly and there's no agreed set of accounting principles. I take all the GERS figures with a pinch of salt.