Osbourne says no to currency union.

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 BS 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:

(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]
Curta Dismantled[/url] by 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 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.

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 – Member

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.

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.