[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Ah, yes, last year, looking back at the 4 before that though and Scotland raised more than it spent

Really?

Table E.4: Net Fiscal Balance: Scotland 2008-09 to 2012-13 (£ million) - Including North Sea revenue (geographical share)

2008-09 -4,091
2009-10 -14,354
2010-11 -12,322
2011-12 -8,554
2012-13 -12,058

KB - ooh, so cynical. Why do you think Scotland can't do better?

Really?

Sorry, I meant when compared with the UK as a whole, rather than outright. Not enough coffee this morning.

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 some 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.

FWIW i do think it is a bit of fudge wanting to keep the queen and various other unionist paraphernalia but most folk are conservative[ non political sense] in nature and resist/dislike radical change. I am sure over time this will fade.

£12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.

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.

They're proposing as much continuity as possible with the present situation under independence.

Is that personal? Would it only be personal if I said it or if I objected to it/said it was insulting?

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called irrational, dreaming, stupid, insane or delusional 😀

I find it encouraging - it means people prefer to insult me than answer the arguments.

If I thought that voting Yes would improve the lives of the people of Scotland it would be an easy decision. But the Yes campaign sound more and more like used-car salesmen, or those guys who try to get you to change electricity supplier, citing a serious of predictions and suppositions couched as facts. Some are rational and sensible, some are barking mad. None have swayed me.

30 year anniversary of the French secret service agents bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour next year, yet another reminder of how helpless a small country can be. NZ had to apologise to the French for damaging their nice shiny bomb with those Greenpeace activists.

bencooper - Member

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called...

Don't forget mental. 🙂

I find it encouraging - it means people prefer to insult me than answer the arguments.

Or it could mean that you are mental. 🙂
There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion (or the Denis Norden defence). You can't argue against that, but then there is no need, because it's so obviously silly a position to hold.

bencooper - Member

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called irrational, dreaming, stupid, insane or delusional

That's very interesting but it doesn't answer my question, which was :

[i]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 ?[/i]

If you are going to accuse people of being "a little insulting" as you did here with : [i]I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting,[/i] then you really ought to back it up with some evidence, no ?

So why are you ignoring it, was it something you just made up ? There's nothing wrong with making stuff up of course but it doesn't lay the basis for a worthwhile and constructive debate. So it's really a bit of a waste of time.......just like the nats 'argument' for independence I guess 🙂

I don't think anyone here has said that - but there is a lot of discussion on here and wider around money. The big arguments, especially from the No side, have been around currency, pensions, etc.

There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion (or the Denis Norden defence). You can't argue against that, but then there is no need, because it's so obviously silly a position to hold.

Ha, and you're doing it again, calling something "obviously silly" without actually discussing it.

So tell me, what's obviously silly about wanting to replace a broken political system? Or do you think the Westminster system is fine?

You say faith and emotion like those are bad things - I think it's great that people are getting passionate about politics again, instead of passively thinking that things are bad and there's nothing they can do about it. I think it's wonderful to see village halls filling up with people wanting to discuss how to make the country better.

The No side like to portray themselves as the sensible, grown-up voice of reason. Problem is that argument only works if people think you're sensible and trustworthy. Pronouncements about how bad it could get under independence just aren't being believed, even by No supporters.

But there is no substance to any of it.

Vote for me!
I'll lower taxes!
I'll raise public spending!
All will be well!

Just don't ask me how that's actually going to happen because I haven't got a ****ing clue!

It's stuff like this Ben:

The educated estimate is in the order of £200M start-up costs.

You say it's educated because you agree with it, but that estimate comes from a YES supporter, who hasn't included figures like the billion pounds it would cost to pay for the IT systems to look after taxation and welfare because he sees it as "an investment".

£200 million to set up Scotland as an independent country?
It's cost you close to a billion to build a small stretch of tramway FFS.

Vote Yes, by all means Ben, but pull your head out of the sand first.

😆 @sbob skilfully played there for the humour

There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion

You say it's educated because you agree with it, but that estimate comes from a YES supporter

It comes from Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics, he's not a Yes supporter in the slightest.

In fact it's the same Prof Dunleavy who's figures the government completely misunderstood and inflated by 12 times to get their discredited estimate.

I don't think anyone here has said that - but there is a lot of discussion on here and wider around money. The big arguments, especially from the No side, have been around currency, pensions, etc.

Fair enough. Obviously how much money they have in their pocket is important to people, and why wouldn't it be ?

The economic arguments are hugely important as they effect the lives of ordinary people, and for that reason should be fairly central to the debate on Scottish independence. It would quite unacceptable to avoid them imo.

But that really is not the same as saying "that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets".

Many countries have become independent from UK rule over the last 200 years or so.

Perhaps those folk who are so vigorously telling us why Scotland could/should not be independent could point out one that is desperate to get back under the yoke?

The Dunleavy '200 million' report is here

Sbob is bang on with his comment about not including things that are inconvenient - for example the '200 million' is under the assumption that iS will be allowed to continue using rUK's HMRC, DWP and DVLA facilities for another five years

He goes on to suggest that [i]"Initially many Scottish embassies might sit in UK or other EU countries’ embassies." [/i] - therefore doesn't include them in the setup costs 🙄

And yes, the billion plus quid on new computers and software is listed as a 'long term investment' rather than a 'set up' cost, brilliant!

Now, you can make up your own mind as to Dunleavys political allegiance, but I'd be keen to point you to comments like:

[i]"London ministers could take a hard line that apparently cares little or nothing for the future welfare of Scottish citizens (as perhaps with their declared stance on monetary union).[/i]

😆

You cannot do much in government for £200m, never spend a pound when two will do.

epicyclo - Member

Many countries have become independent from UK rule over the last 200 years or so.

Perhaps those folk who are so vigorously telling us why Scotland could/should not be independent could point out one that is desperate to get back under the yoke?

It must be over 150 pages ago the last time someone suggested that Scotland is the last remaining colony of the British Empire, so well done for bringing up again.

It particularly amuses me as Scots, proportionate to the population of Great Britain, contributed more to the creation of the British Empire, in terms of providing soldiers, politicians/statesmen, industrialists, etc, and therefore also the repressive nature of the British Empire, than the English.

BTW you get extra points for use the term "under the yoke", it really conjures up an image of living under tyrannical English rule.

"In a leaked Scottish cabinet memo, the finance secretary, John Swinney, estimated the costs of a new Scottish tax authority alone at £650m. The Institute of Chartered Accounts Scotland had put those costs at £750m, while other experts suggested a new welfare system would cost £560m"[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million ]Link[/url]

£200 million is not what he said, in fact he said "The initial startup costs of Scottish independence could be as little as £200m but the final tally would be decided in a "poker game" of post-referendum negotiations". So it could end up being considerably more.

It particularly amuses me as Scots, proportionate to the population of Great Britain, contributed more to the creation of the British Empire, in terms of providing soldiers, politicians/statesmen, industrialists, etc, and therefore also the repressive nature of the British Empire, than the English.

.

bencooper - Member

It comes from Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics, he's not a Yes supporter in the slightest.

Well you would like to believe he is impartial, he tells you want you want to hear.

In fact it's the same Prof Dunleavy who's figures the government completely misunderstood and inflated by 12 times to get their discredited estimate.

I'm well aware who he his, now why haven't you commented on the vast costs that for some strange reason he is not including in his £200 million figure?
Selective reading again Ben?
Do you honestly believe in the £200 million figure?

ernie_lynch - Member
It must be over 150 pages ago the last time someone suggested that Scotland is the last remaining colony of the British Empire...

Excellent way of not answering the question. The independence campaign is about our future, not the past, although that provides many good reasons for wanting control over our own affairs.

Surely a man of your great erudition should be able to come up with at least one country wanting to come back into the fold.

Surely a man of your....

I don't make ridiculous comparisons between Scotland possibly wanting to separate itself from the rest of Great Britain and colonies being granted independence from the British - which includes the Scots.

Nor do I make silly comments suggesting that Scots are living 'under the yoke'.

I leave all that nonsense to you.

ernie_lynch - Member
I don't make ridiculous comparisons between Scotland...

I take it that means you don't know of any countries wishing to surrender their independence and return to British rule then?

Epicyclo I can name a country that is willing to surrender it's independence, it is called Scotland. The majority of Scots are still not interested in independence and look set to show their support for the union by voting no according to pretty much every poll.

I take it that means you don't know of any countries wishing to surrender their independence and return to British rule then?

You can take it that I don't go along with your ridiculous suggestion that Scotland is under "British rule".

The living "under the yoke" comment is perfectly valid for some periods of Scottish history. However the best oppressors were the Scots themselves.

Same is true of English history. Remember the days of living under the Norman yoke, or the Danish yoke, or the Roman yoke ?

I did think we were talking about the present though, ie 2014.

Beat around the bushes as much as you like, but no-one has yet come up with a country that is willing to go back from independence to being ruled by the UK.

No matter how often you say it Scotland isn't ruled by the UK anymore than London is ruled by the UK.

Offering up Scotland as some sort of British colony is emotive bollocks which some nats have resorted to because they lack the ability to make a coherent case for so-called Scottish independence.

epicyclo - Member

Beat around the bushes as much as you like, but no-one has yet come up with a country that is willing to go back from independence to being ruled by the UK.

Remember when the British Empire marched into Scotland and forced you into UK rule?
No! You don't!
Your comparison is ridiculous.

ernie_lynch - Member
No matter how often you say it Scotland isn't ruled by the UK anymore than London is ruled by the UK...

Ah well, there's only 83 days left...

Nice flag redesign btw. 🙂

ernie_lynch - Member

No matter how often you say it Scotland isn't ruled by the UK anymore than London is ruled by the UK.

You're right- since neither Wales or Northern Ireland voted for the current government either, all 3 are ruled by England.

Glad we cleared that up.

Northwind - Member

Glad we cleared that up.

Nothing to clear up, we've always known this was about a minority of Scots not liking the English.

Oh good grief

Ps.
Dear Northwind, et al,
I am very sorry that you do not feel British.

xxx
sbob.

I am very sorry you could not use reason to argue against the facts so you made up some shit about him not liking the english

Are facts about our electoral system anti english ?

sbob - Member

I am very sorry that you do not feel British.

I feel British, and Scottish, and European. I'll still feel British post-independence.

You're right- since neither Wales or Northern Ireland voted for the current government either, all 3 are ruled by England.

And London.

London with its population bigger than that of Scotland's didn't vote for the current government either, so it must mean that it is "ruled by England", as you put it.......it's under the British "yoke" :rolls eyes:

Have you guys who come out with this silly emotive nonsense not figured out that it might not be enough to win the vote in September ?

Increasingly it looks like that the majority of Scots remain unconvinced about the virtues of separating from the rest of the UK, do you really think that talk about being ruled by the English really helps ?

Or is it a case of at this late stage trying any tactic in the hope that it might possibly work ?

So what part of it is wrong? Easy to call something "silly nonsense" but I can't help but notice you've not actually attempted to refute it.

Junkyard, this:

You're right- since neither Wales or Northern Ireland voted for the current government either, all 3 are ruled by England.

is bollocks, it isn't a fact.
What other motive than anti-Englishness would explain this false statement?
Do enlighten me...

Ernie is spot on. Plenty of Scots do not hold the view that we are ruled by other people. I suppose what needs dispelled is the myth that yes voters are somehow heralding a socialist cause against the rest of us not quite "Scottish enough Scots", supportive of a Tory 'regime'.

Before you all dig out those Che Guevara t-shirts again, some have mentioned the rise of the foodbanks as an example of a social injustice, hence the need for independence. I saw a program recently that outlined the plight of a family from Hull using a foodbank. How does Scottish independence help them? All I can think of is that perhaps with our own national broadcaster and press we don't need to hear about Hull, then can carry on in ignorant bliss. Power to us brothers.

Also I reckon Trident is not a big issue on its own. People will vote yes regardless of any political parties stance on it. If SNP ever change their stance on nuclear weapons I don't see many brothers giving up the good fight to freedom. I do understand though that this issue allows some to feel an unfounded sense of moral superiority.

I know their are Scots on both sides of the debate with poor geography skills, however since this the yes side raise the issue, I will say there will be significant numbers of yes voters that could not point to faslane on a map.

Easy to call something "silly nonsense"

Very easy, especially when people try to suggest that Scotland is some sort of colony under the yoke of the English.

it isn't a fact.
What other motive than anti-Englishness would explain this false statement?
Do enlighten me

dispelled is the myth that yes voters are somehow heralding a socialist cause against the rest of us not quite "Scottish enough Scots", supportive of a Tory 'regime'.

does a picture help?
[img] [/img]

do you really think that talk about being ruled by the English really helps ?

Yes, it seems to be the only card that wee eck has left to play. And the polls suggest that he has some success with it especially when he adds the word Tory to it. Given that most if not all of the other major arguments (to the extent that they even exist beyond the realms of fantasy) have been squashed already, I would expect the ruled by the English card will become a regular one played over the remainder. Time for mass screenings of face painted antipodeans......

Map shows how unrepresentative all those years of Labour government were, doesn't it...

Given that yet another body reaches the obvious conclusion...

The study concluded: “Any future independent Scottish government would need to further consolidate its fiscal position, meaning either an increase in taxes, a reduction in government spending or a combination of these two measures.”

...yS might as well play the ruled by English card for all it's worth. It's a better argument than the rest of the guff.

[quote=Junkyard ]does a picture help?

Indeed it does. Just look at all those orange bits at the top which will be ruled by the central belt.

Map shows how unrepresentative all those years of Labour government were, doesn't it...

Not really. It shows just how unrepresentative of Tory support a political map can be.

That is a political map of the UK after the last general election. In that election the Tories received 36% of the vote and failed to secure a majority in Parliament, they were however able to form a government thanks to all those Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs.

However looking at the map you could mistakenly believe that support for the Tories in the UK was solid and overwhelming, in contrast with actual reality. Which of course is why Junkyard posted it.

EDIT: I posted it to prove that NW point was correct as we cannot really debate this I am relived to see you did not go down the personal route nor make a spurious reason for why I posted it.
the clearest point would be that almost all the Blue is in England bar 4 so it is obvious that NW point is correct
If you remove those 11 seats [ scots lib dems] they still have 353 seats so No ernie it would not be true to say that. you can even remove the scot tory one as well if you want and they still have a majority. Pfft facts eh

BTW do you have a reference for your claim re the Scots role in the empire as we would not want to attempt to mislead now 🙄

aracer well we have not done that angle before ...its like deja vu all over again.

It proves NW was correct and not anti english

Ninfan those really are blue tinged glasses you wear 😉

What conclusion do you reach?

A different one to you.
Firstly, no-one voted for a coalition government.
Secondly, it doesn't matter where Westminster is located geographically, it houses MPs from England, Scotland and Wales.
By golly, we even had a Scottish Prime minister not that long ago!
So no, you are not ruled by England.

Unless you harbour anti-British, anti-English feelings in which case I could quite understand that point of view.

JY. Plenty of people think the way I describe. As an aside, how do you think Scottish independence helps a family in Hull using a foodbank??

[quote=Junkyard ]aracer well we have not done that angle before ...its like deja vu all over again.

Just like we've not had the "ruled by the English" before, eh?

athgray - Member

JY. Plenty of people think the way I describe. As an aside, how do you think Scottish independence helps a family in Hull using a foodbank??

It's unimportant.
Much like wanting democracy but only as long as you get the result you want.

If you remove those 11 seats [ scots lib dems]....

So you mean that contrary to the impression that the map you posted gives most of Scotland [i]isn't[/i] Liberal Democrat ?

That map is misleading ?!!!

[img] [/img]

I saw a program recently that outlined the plight of a family from Hull using a foodbank. How does Scottish independence help them?

1) Why does it have to be radical?
2) If the UK leaves the EU does anyone expect radical change from that?
Should we not bother discussing it then?
3) It is a proposal to be independent it is not a proposal to become a radical socialist utopia free of inequity with equal opportunities for all.

2) if the only proposal were to leave the EU but keep everything else the same, then no, that's not worth talking about either.

3) well, correct - unfortunately some nationalists see independence as an achievement n itself. It shouldn't be - it should be a tool that unlocks some other more important goal - like, reducing inequity, poverty and conflict.

States should exist to serve their populations and facilitate good governance. There has not been an articulation of what significant changes should and could be made with the new tool of independence or why those changes could not be made under the status quo - just an assertion that there will be an improvement even though everything will stay the same.

Ultimately this is a problem with the SNP being the Tartan Tories - they think they can only sell independence on a "don't scare the horses" platform - "don't worry, independence won't mean that iScotland will nationalize your second bedroom and force you to speak Lallans to your dog". But if you push a small c conservative platform then you don't end up with significant changes (so why bother ?) and you don't have any technocratic/pragmatic arguments in favour of change (so you can only appeal to sentiment).

Time for mass screenings of face painted antipodeans......

A different one to you.

So no, you are not ruled by England.

Unless you harbour anti-British, anti-English feelings in which case I could quite understand that point of view.

JY. Plenty of people think the way I describe. As an aside, how do you think Scottish independence helps a family in Hull using a foodbank??

Ernie is it really your claim tha I have used a map of the election result by constituency to misrepresent the election result. Is that you being humorous? The map proves NW point which is all it was meant to do hence you are left doing this desperate stuff. Ignore the figures if you wish but it undeniably proves that england decided we got Tories and not the regions/areas NW mentioned.

KB thanks you for your post and explanation. I understand your view, Cheers.

Who do I answer JY or gordimhor?
JY watch what you copy and paste. The first part was a statement, not a question.

I know but I included it as you had directed it to me and it seemed pointless to abridge - I may have got a little cut and paste happy even by my standards 😳

Ignore us both is my best advice 😉

I know I should but I can't.

Gordimhor, that is what saddens me. Can Scots not find the same way out of the same old claptrap as a struggling family using a foodbank in Hull? 😥 I hope we can.

Loads of waffle, but still no countries that want to come back under UK rule.

"Loads of waffle" says the man who makes a comparison between former colonies of the British Empire and Scotland today, and talks about being "under the yoke" 😆

<sigh> I've resisted, but this is for you, epicyclo:

[img] [/img]

Very clever, playing the man with a straw man. 🙂

Still not answered the question though...

After all, the bulk of this thread seems to be how little benefit there is going to be for Scotland in being independent.

I thought you learned negative chaps could provide some evidence of another country that used to be under the British umbrella where independence has failed so badly that they want to rescind their independence and come back under British rule.

It would be instructive.

[quote=epicyclo ]Still not answered the question though...

The completely irrelevant strawman question?

Oh go on then, if you really insist, I believe there are some people who think Zimbabwe was better before independence than it is now, though they're probably wrong.

After all, the bulk of this thread seems to be how little benefit there is going to be for Scotland in being independent.

Well if the nats have failed to make their case on this thread then that's really their fault and no one else's.

You can't expect to hold anyone else responsible for that.

I thought you learned negative chaps could provide some evidence of another country that used to be under the British umbrella where independence has failed so badly that they want to rescind their independence and come back under British rule.

How many colonies had full representation at Westminster with their own locally elected politicians?

The overwhelming of the Scottish electorate by the English electorate is purely a numbers game.

In fact it's the same Prof Dunleavy who's figures the government completely misunderstood and inflated by 12 times to get their discredited estimate.

The same Patrick Dunleavy who said;

“Scotland’s voters can be relatively sure that total transition costs over a decade will lie in a restricted range, from 0.4 of one per cent of GDP (£600 million), up to a maximum of 1.1 per cent (£1,500 milion). This is a step forward in debate and I am grateful to Iain for helping to bring it out.”

Ignoring his obvious maths issues. Is it really such a step forward in the debate from the original position of the UK Government document which stated;

“…shows that the costs of institutional restructuring in the event of independence could range from 0.4 per cent to 1 per cent of the new country’s GDP. 1 per cent of Scottish GDP in 2012-13 is equivalent to £1.5 billion”

And

“Given these estimates, £1.5 billion is likely to be a favourable estimate of the total costs of setting up new institutions.”

Yep, he’s done a good job discrediting those figures!

piemonster - Member
How many colonies had full representation at Westminster with their own locally elected politicians?...

The question has nothing to do with what the current situation of Scotland in the UK govt.

It's about whether any country was prepared to give up its independence to return to UK rule.

konabunny - Member
That would be a great question IF any ex-colony was sufficiently democratic enough...

That's a joke, right? Perhaps an Australian, Canadian, Indian, or ****stani may like to comment if they would prefer Westminster to take over the running of their country.

But it does raise a point. Are there even underground popular movements in undemocratic former colonies to get them back under UK rule?

82 days to go...

It's about whether any country was prepared to give up its independence to return to UK rule.

I know you think that if you keep repeating it it will eventually become true but Scotland isn't ruled by the UK.

Neither is Greater Manchester, Cornwall, the West Midlands, Teesside, Yorkshire, or any other geographical region of the UK.

Scotland is a geographical region of the UK.

We know that making a comparison with former British colonies and talking about living "under the yoke" suits your agenda of suggesting that the people of Scotland live under UK tyranny, but your comparison is still false no matter how many times you make it.

You keep repeating your non-answer.

But let's bite. What tyranny? This is a referendum for independence with the terms agreed between the participants, not a patriotic war.

And whether you like it or not, Scotland is a country.

And you keep repeating your silly comparison.

It's about whether any country was prepared to give up its independence to return to UK rule.

Wrong question perhaps? We have a first here....

An (possibly new) independent country wanting to immediately return economic power to the "country/countries" that it has just gained independence from. Shouldn't we be asking how many precedents for this we can name?

That's some strong stuff being smoked up there. Forget Glastonbury, Holyrood is obviously the place to go to get off your head.

ernie_lynch - Member
And you keep repeating your silly comparison.

Well you keep repeating how bad independence is going to be for Scotland.

I was hoping you could come up with an example for me to examine so I could be enlightened as to how bad independence was.

I thought with your deep interest in politics you could at least come up with one country.

So let's broaden the scope.

Regardless of who the original ruling country was, in how many of the countries that have become independent since, say 1945, are the people seeking to return to control under their previous ruler?

We're all agog to see all these examples of failed independence.

Actually, the comparison with the colonies is an interesting one - because many of the colonies weren't called that at all, they were dominions. For example the Dominion of Canada had its own parliament with powers to make legislation, though it could be overruled by Westminster but that rarely happened. Sound familiar?

it is not the best worded question [ it is a false comparison] you will ever see but the point is , as far as I am aware that no former colony has asked to return after gaining independence...only the ex russian ones do that sort of thing 😉

Scotland is not dominated by the uk as it is part of the UK
The UK is dominated by england , who therefore dominate the other union members. Given it england is about 87% of the UK this is largely inevitable.
Regions of england are not like countries in the Union ,that is also a false comparison to make.
Its obvious, unless we have North korea or china style elections, that some areas wont get who they voted for. This happens in democracy. This does not negate the fact the england decides which govt the UK gets as the misleading map of the election result shows. Many people would consider another country deciding who your govt is to be undemocratic. some think this is not a good enough reason.

6k almost missed it