Scotland Indyref 2

Fight Club

Nah, its the comedy store.

[i]Can any of you tell me which 14.8 billion of that we will not fund in year 1 of independence? What about year 2, 3 or 4?[/I]

The real problem (from a financial perspective) is that we don't really know the income/expenditure of any single country within the EU so consequently all that can be done is a pro-rata of UK-based numbers.

Scotland could be better/worse off than the £14.8bn 'gap'.

Also there are certain costs that wouldn't need to be pro-rata'd, and policy would dictate this, ie:
defence costs - all we really need is fishery protection, air-sea rescue and a (very small) standing army
foreign office - partner up with an existing small country and share limited embassy and UN costs
etc etc

And if/when we're independent, if we can't afford it, we can't do it.

[quote=b r ]The real problem (from a financial perspective) is that we don't really know the income/expenditure of any single country within the EU so consequently all that can be done is a pro-rata of UK-based numbers.

Eh? A lot of that is devolved and they have exact figures, even for stuff which isn't devolved they have fairly accurate figures for Scotland specific spending - it's not done on a pro-rata basis at all, they know that more is spent on some things in Scotland than the pro-rata amount!

Are you suggesting the Scottish government's figures are wrong or just indulging in wishful thinking?

And if/when we're independent, if we can't afford it, we can't do it.

Hence the question - which of those things aren't you going to do?

BTW the things you think you don't need to do are a very small part of the spending, nowhere near the gap

[i]BTW the things you think you don't need to do are a very small part of the spending, nowhere near the gap [/I]

Reining in the double-double of pension increases and not paying for the heating of pensioners living in Spain will save us a few quid 🙂

And then we can lower Employers NI which'll get us a load of jobs from rUK along with been a part of the EU to keep the corporations happy.

An awful lot of savings to be made Aracer. Defense, not paying for westminster and whitehall, not paying for overseas wars, not paying for hinkley and the other nukes, and a lot of goverenment expenditure is pro rata divided to scotland and much is basically guess work.

I love the idea oil is a declining industry - they are not making any more oil. the less we take out now the more we have for the future. Sure it will be hard to get to but long term oil prices are only going to go one way.

So how do other small countries on the edge of europe survive? Slovenia? Denmark?

dont forget pension savings as you all die younger 😉

Yup - that as well.

thing is it will be a long transition unless its a hard exit and if its a hard exit its mainly in scotlands interests as if Westminster play hardball so will holyrood and if Scotland ends up with none of the asserts we take none of the debt - which has only been run up in England!

If we're going to speculate about possible futures I wonder what effect the breaking of the currency union the treasury predicted. I mean George Osbourne must have done some work on it before the sermon on the pound.

I love the idea oil is a declining industry - they are not making any more oil. the less we take out now the more we have for the future. Sure it will be hard to get to but long term oil prices are only going to go one way.

Hmmm, loads of fields in the North Sea are about to start being decommissioned, e.g. Brents. There is no guarantee that prices will go up a lot now that fracking can act like a swing producer. That is also coupled with more green tech coming online. Leaving it in the ground for the future isn't an option if the field is small and the current infrastructure is in place, you may as well make as much as you can now and get one with it.

Are you suggesting the Scottish government's figures are wrong or just indulging in wishful thinking?

Are you new here?

They keep all the plus items and get rid of the minus ones - remember things like "we have no deficit"! It's comical other than the fact that it has real impact on people's lives. But don't blame angry nats, after all WoS is a key source of intelligence (sic).

[quote=tjagain ]An awful lot of savings to be made Aracer.

All the things you mention are a pretty small part of the pie - even if you completely remove defence and pro-rata the [b]entire[/b] cost of Hinkley that's still less than half the gap.

So how do other small countries on the edge of europe survive? Slovenia? Denmark?

I've no idea, I've not checked their figures, but they appear to have a rather smaller deficit than Scotland does.

BTW which of the costs do you think are pro-rataed rather than there being Scotland specific figures - any of those big chunks; social, health, education?

I can't remember what the yS view was on NATO and honouring the level of defence spending. Or does that go in the minus therefore ignore column?

So just by removing scotlands share of defense and hinkley half the gap is gone? Pretty easy to sort the rest as well. Whats Scotlands pro rata share of westminster and whitehall? Do your defense figures include the costs of the wars in the middle east - a million quid a missile ain't it?

Nice to know we can invade unopposed with a a girl guides regiment if ever we want Scotland back.

That's removing the entirety of defence, including foreign wars and presumably lots of stuff you'd want to keep, and I guess you missed that I was pro-rataing the lifetime cost of Hinkley into a single year in order for it to make any difference. The cost of running Westminster doesn't even seem to appear in those figures, I presume it is too small - a quick google suggests the pro-rata cost to you is ~£50m a year so pretty much irrelevant.

But you would get buried under a mountain of deep fried mars bars and woad

That seems a bit unfair on the poor girl guides

Oh I don't know - they might become assimilated

teamhurtmore - Member

Are you suggesting the Scottish government's figures are wrong or just indulging in wishful thinking?

Are you new here?

They keep all the plus items and get rid of the minus ones

You would be the flip side to that coin. [s]But all because the bloody jocks don't know their place eh?[/s] Because you care about the people of Scotland so much...Remind me again why you kept accusing Junkyard of trolling you on the Indy thread?

Good afternoon duckie, did you a have a point to make or merely doing what you accuse Jambas of?

There are sensible Scots who dont need to make things up every time and then there are the WoS brigade who do. This thread is an excellent example.

Who are these bloody "somethings" (careful, could be false accused there) that you (do not) refer to? I prefer not to tarr everyone with the same brush -especially as the majority understand the issues and what is in their best interest? Canny folk - at least 55% of them.

Isn't everyone just arguing about the same issues as in 2012-4, Scots and associated residents already voted on that.

Yes and No - the same lies are being spouted true but with even less foundation. The last time we heard such stuff was Brexshit, but fortunately the Scots are more sensible than that.

There is however a hard core who wish to retain single market status with an area where they have relatively less business but depart from it with an area which is key to their trade and economic interests. They do make it up.

[quote=5thElefant ]Nice to know we can invade unopposed with a a girl guides regiment if ever we want Scotland back.

Iceland hasn't had a standing army since 1869.

Hpw do you fight sitting down - in a tank I guess?

[quote=jambalaya ]Isn't everyone just arguing about the same issues as in 2012-4, Scots and associated residents already voted on that.

Except the United Kingdom I voted to remain a part of will not exist in a couple of years come next March. The game has changed.

And if you still don't get it Jamba, this sums it up perfectly

[img] [/img]

I remember before the original ref some of the Scottish people I work with saying that they would be able to cut military funding. When the first person said, "For sure, the English will be around to protect you..." they all said we need to have a military so that can't be said...

Yes and the fact that Iceland doesn't have an army meant the UK and USA effectively invaded during WW2 and set up their own camps there unopposed.

I can't imagine Scotland being invaded but it was just a jibe by one of the guys to say you would never be equal outside the union unless you wasted all your money on a military...

Edit: With all the nationalist chest building that was going on in the room it was quite amusing..

You could always become a free rider? 😉

teamhurtmore - Member

Good afternoon duckie, did you a have a point to make or merely doing what you accuse Jambas of?

Well you are correct duckie.

Indeed the flip side of the WOS crowd. The factual side v the BS side. Which would do you want to be on?

Pages and pages of posts from yS Scotland supporters that rarely hold up to basic scrutiny, with one poster excelling in this regard. In this case, Jambas turned out to be quite correct in his observation ^.

Its nice that some people have looked at my question about the bits of government spending that wont happen under independence, but I don't really get some of the answers?

Hinckley is a red herring as the annual cost is relatively small.
Defence is £3Bn.
Any more?

Bear in mind again that these are the Scottish Governments own figures.

If you think making Scotland into Greece is worth it for independence then make and defend that position, but don't try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with lies like those in 2014.

[img] [/img]

More economic sense here on [url= http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/ ]this blog[/url]

PS Its probably worth adding that the SNP said that the startup costs of a whole independent Scotland could be about £200million, about a year before claiming that just setting up a separate tax system for their new post referendum powers would cost about £1.6 billion.

I'm going to have to start keeping my new irony meter switched off when listening to political news in Scotland. Its getting expensive.

I'm going to have to start keeping my new irony meter switched off when listening to political news in Scotland. Its getting expensive.

C'mon its amusing the way folk want to make fools of themselves - its the beauty of free speech.

Angus MacNeil is not alone BTW!!

It's worth noting that these performances don't just the keep less-than-fully-intellectually-engaged Yes voters amused and well misinformed - they also ensure opponents spend their time and energy debunking myths instead of engaging in substantive and constructive debate; it takes a lot less time to make up nonsense than it does to robustly disprove it.

The SNP/Trump/Brexshit strategies in a nutshell - look out for talk of negativity, its a give away.

BoardinBob - Member
And if you still don't get it Jamba, this sums it up perfectly[IMG] [/IMG]

FTFY

[img] [/img]

Nice to know we can invade unopposed with a a girl guides regiment if ever we want Scotland back.

[img] [/img]

That looks a bit like what some people used to call the United Kingdom Ninfan except someone seems to have eaten a large part of the mull of Kintyre and Skye has vanished all together

except someone seems to have eaten a large part of the mull of Kintyre and Skye has vanished all together

Have you forgotten? Westminster removed them from the map to help keep all those secret West coast oil reserves under wraps

On the contrary ninfan . The mull of Kintyre is still there, you just have to peer through the mist rolling in from the sea. Next you 'll be telling me tony blair realigned the border between Scotland and England in the north sea, just before the Scottish parliament opened.

[i]The cost of running Westminster doesn't even seem to appear in those figures, I presume it is too small - a quick google suggests the pro-rata cost to you is ~£50m a year so pretty much irrelevant. [/I]

We'll save £50m just not having to cover the cost of the MP's, so I'm sure there'll be more.

Just as I have every confidence England's economy will adjust to cope with Brexit, there will be winners and losers, so will Scotland's to cope with Scoxit.

A period of adjustment is a small price to pay for self-determination. Shame you lot will still be still saddled with the real problem though - an entrenched undemocratic ruling elite.

A period of adjustment is a small price to pay for self-determination. Shame you lot will still be still saddled with the real problem though - an entrenched undemocratic ruling elite.

Sounds v like the lament of folk living in Shetland and Orkney saddled with an entrenched ruling elite of the central belt

Joking aside ninfan's chart is the only one that matters, in a national referendum the nation voted Leave.
Boarding you had two years to argue the scenario of a Brexit. 2012-4 was the time to discuss that. The ship has saiked and the Fat Lady is clearing her throat

err.... my nation voted remain

teamhurtmore - Member
Sounds v like the lament of folk living in Shetland and Orkney saddled with an entrenched ruling elite of the central belt

Really, there's a House of Lords in Scotland? Permanently in power and not having to face re-election every few years?

Damn, you'd think I'd have noticed...

Oh, it's the HoL again. Remind me what direct effect the existence of the HoL has had on your life?

[quote=b r ]We'll save £50m just not having to cover the cost of the MP's, so I'm sure there'll be more.

Your MPs cost almost £1m each? 😯 No wonder you're upset, the English ones are a lot cheaper than that.

Typical selfish Scotlandshire, want another referendum when we are still waiting for the "Free Yorkshire" (it better be cheap) vote. If them northern Britains actually had anything about em an SNP weren't just keeping themselves in power with promises of "Freeeeeedom", they'd declare UDI.

I bet MPs don't cost much less than £1m pa, if you add up all their costs and the costs associated with them.

Sure, if you include all the costs of running parliament including the HoL, the total cost of your MPs is ~£50m as I mentioned before.

You could always try getting some facts to support your arguments rather than just speculating. It's not that hard to find out the total cost of running Westminster. Though I suppose the facts probably don't support the argument you're trying to make.

Damn, you'd think I'd have noticed...

You only have to open your eyes, but bravo for the swerve. Strachan would have been proud of that.

But lets consider

1. How many local authorities are there in Scoltand? How many of them voted YES? How many NOs had a higher percentage NO that the highsst Yes (Dundee)?

2. How representative are the current cabinet in Scoltand? Of the ten ministers how many come from one University (not Oxford this time)? Which one is it?

3. How do those in the Notth - lets say the Islands - feel about the Central Belt representing their interests?

Is Scotland really that different - scale aside?

How much have the Scottish Mps cost to date including their palace?

If the posters above who have argued that Scottish MPs have no control over any levers of relevance to the country and the economy are correct, then Scottish MPs would be very expensive indeed. Some might argue a folly......

I worked it out because I was curious - universities of the Scottish cabinet:

Nicola Sturgeon: Glasgow
John Swinney: Edinburgh
Derek Mackay: Glasgow - did not finish
Shona Robison: Glasgow
Roseanna Cunningham: Edinburgh & Aberdeen
Fiona Hyslop: Glasgow
Angela Constance: Glasgow
Michael Mathewson: Open University (and QM College, Edinburgh)
Keith Brown: Dundee
Fergus Ewing: Glasgow

mt - Member
...If them northern Britains actually had anything about em an SNP weren't just keeping themselves in power with promises of "Freeeeeedom", they'd declare UDI.

There's a growing movement outwith the SNP for just that. It's probably the SNP's biggest problem, trying to convince the more radical independence movements to keep their powder dry.

aracer - Member
Oh, it's the HoL again. Remind me what direct effect the existence of the HoL has had on your life?

Perhaps you could also explain why that should be growing when the govt intends reducing the number of elected members in the lower house to save money.

I think it is wrong that the unelected HoL can remove powers from the Scottish Parliament without debate or consultation.
http://www.scottishenergynews.com/lords-axe-holyroods-power-over-scottish-renewables/

Remind me of the democratic benefits of having an unelected upper house that consists of aristos, Church of England bishops, and appointed members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4616356.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7666022.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34631156

And one can only imagine how you'll change your tune and be jumping up and down cheering them on if they try and block Brexit too 😉

it's the HoL again. Remind me what direct effect the existence of the HoL has had on your life?

You usually make much better points than this

I think we all know the HoL is the least powerful of the two chambers but it is indefinable - not least because of the method by which they are appointed. A credible argument can be made for independent - like say judges are- with expertise , being a check or balance on the power of the govt, but the H o L is not that thing. Its archaic and was outdated 200 years ago never mind now.

[quote=gordimhor ]I think it is wrong that the unelected HoL can remove powers from the Scottish Parliament without debate or consultation.
http://www.scottishenergynews.com/lords-axe-holyroods-power-over-scottish-renewables/
br />

It wasn't a unilateral thing - that amendment was added before the bill even made it to the HoC, so the HoL "removed powers" in just the same way as civil servants "make laws" by drafting bills. I'm struggling to see what is undemocratic about something which was voted on 3 times in the HoC.

In a more general sense JY - yes the HoL is undemocratic, but we have a good recent example of the power of democracy to improve our country 🙄 I'd suggest that in general the HoL provides a useful service of improving the laws made by the HoC - I'm not sure that the lack of democracy is terribly important here, it's just about generating the right laws for governing the country. TBH I'm kind of cynical about democracy always providing the right answers when the people elected to the HoC are all politicians...

I agree with your last point, but that's an argument for improving the selection of peers, not for getting rid of the whole thing.

It doesn't really matter if it ws the commons or the lords - its still undemocratic to remove powers from Holyrood and this in particular stinks - its part of a series of action to attempt to make scotland reliant on england for energy and to prevent scotland becoming a world player in alternative energy.

Typical selfish Scotlandshire, want another referendum when we are still waiting for the [s]"Free Yorkshire"[/s] [b] rhyddid i Yr Hed Ogledd[/b] (it [b]still[/b] better be cheap) vote

FIFY

So Shetland has the right to be unhappy with being governed by the central belt, but the Nation of Scotland doesn't have the right to be unhappy about being governed by Westminster 😆 Since "the truth is out there"© Alistair Carmichael's majority in 2010 in a seat with 33,000 registered voters was 9928. In 2015, before the inquiry, it was down to 817. That would suggest the islands would like stronger links with the mainland,in a seat held by the Liberals since 1950. Obviously none of these are "canny" Scots and "somebody" will be along soon to explain again all about how it is all anti-english sentiment or swallowing SNP lies....again... 🙄

we are still waiting for the "Free Yorkshire" (it better be cheap) vote.

I'd suggest that in general the HoL provides a useful service of improving the laws made by the HoC

I'm not sure that the lack of democracy is terribly important here,

I can see no way that anythign matters more in a democracy than decisions are democratic. They are unelected, unaccountable and often out of touch with the real world and not all reflective of wider society

TO not see a problem with this is strange

its really not about how effective they are its about the fact they are unelected and they have more power than my one vote and often just due to birthright or belonging to the correct religion or kissing the right arses politically- both parties do this. Lord archer, Lord Mandy of smarm etc

I'm kind of cynical about democracy always providing the right answers

Neither will always be "correct" but one is at least the will of the people.
Its indefensible because of how its members are appointed not because of what it does or how it does it- though much of that is outdated as well.

I would imagine a PR style system with longer terms would give independence and provide a check on a govt who get elected on less than 40% of the popular vote and then has a mandate to be an "elected dictatorship"

aracer - Member
...I agree with your last point, but that's an argument for improving the selection of peers, not for getting rid of the whole thing.

I'm astounded anyone really believes that.

ninfan - Member
And one can only imagine how you'll change your tune and be jumping up and down cheering them on if they try and block Brexit too

Not at all. England voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, so an undemocratic body blocking it is wrong.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, so the answer is to dissolve the Union, so Scotland's democratic will can also be implemented.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain,

Scotland didn't vote for anything, because Scotland isn't a state or a member of the EU

The UK Voted to leave

ninfan - Member
'Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain,'
Scotland didn't vote for anything, because Scotland isn't a state...

Dream on.

The Empire needs people like you.

its pointless clearly scotland voted to remain and clearly the decision is one for the entire UK who voted differently from Scotland. You are both correct and the views are not mutually exclusive- though ninfan has an agenda- mainly to make himself look daft as he argues against anything and everything-

Clearly this is a source of friction between the Uk govt and the Scottish govt and no one knows how it will end

Its hard to see how the rUK will just ignore a vote to leave the UK even if it is not legally binding

Clearly this is a source of friction between the Uk govt and the Scottish govt and no one knows how it will end

Here's a reminder as to how these things normally work out

duckman - Member
So Shetland has the right to be unhappy with being governed by the central belt, but the Nation of Scotland doesn't have the right to be unhappy about being governed by Westminster

Woooossshhhh

ninfan - Member
Here's a reminder as to how these things normally work out

Actually it's not. That was not Scotland versus England.

It was an attempt to restore the Stuart monarchy. Many of the clans abstained or supported the govt side.

However abstaining or supporting the govt side did not save them from what came afterwards, the deliberate destruction of our culture and language. Lesson learned.

Woooossshhhh

Commons/Lords/Westminster/Holyrood - all discussed for 2 years and voted on in 2014, 55 v 45

The EU Referendum was a UK one, regional analysis is an interesting academic excersize. Or possibly it's not interesting. It is however academic with no democratic or constitutional impact

However abstaining or supporting the govt side did not save them from what came afterwards, the deliberate destruction of our culture and language.

Yes the The Abolition of Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1747 was a shocking act of cultural vandalism

the answer is to dissolve the Union, so [s] Scotland's [/s] [b]Yr Hen Ogledd 's[/b] democratic will can also be implemented.

FIFY

JY; while being unable to refute the point...Strange Teamhavermore must have missed that, just as he ignored Ben's list of cabinet ministers Universities. thought he was bringing truth as a counter to the YS BS. Well he said that's what he was doing anyway! Well

JY; while being unable to refute the point...

You didnt make a point, you missed one

ust as he ignored Ben's list of cabinet ministers Universities.

No Ben made my point for me - although I make it 7/10 went to Glasgow.

thought he was bringing truth as a counter to the YS BS. Well he said that's what he was doing anyway! Well

So what do we know? All you are arguing is to replace one unrepresentative elite with another. The yes vote is highly concentrated geographically and even then is not as conclusive (ie % of voters saying yes) as many other areas of Scotland. In Dundee, the hotbed of nationalism the vote was only 57% (IIRC) below the level many (even nats in here) believe is a sensible threshold for votes of this importance.

The University question was simple. Replace an Oxford-elite with a Glasgow version (and some other ancients) - so a narrowly focused background and groupthink mentality, exactly the same accusation that is levelled at W'minster, albeit a budget version in this case.

And we know how the Islanders feel about the dominance of representation by the Central Belt.

So the argument about representation and avoiding elites and a fairer more representative governments is largely hogwash. You merely replace one elite with another - the story of history - but in the meantime throw away the benefits of being part of one of the most successful economic and political unions in history.

That is barking mad.

So Shetland has the right to be unhappy with being governed by the central belt, but the Nation of Scotland doesn't have the right to be unhappy about being governed by Westminster

I am in favour of devolving power where appropriate and as much as possible as I said in the previous indy comedy. Its the inconsistency in your attempt at a point that I reject. Equally there are areas where it makes sense to give up some "sovereignty" to enjoy the benefits of interdependence. There are two groups of lunatics who want toe take positions of balance and throw them away on that basis of illogical arguments. So far, only one has succeeded in delivering such folly.

What do we know about how the Islanders feel;that they are turning to the SNP? That what is happening, how does that fit your narrative? Since you frequently claim it is anti English sentiment that is a main driver of the Indy movement, why the sudden upswing?

Wow, another spectacular miss.