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?

Because no-one significant is proposing anything better. They’re proposing as much continuity as possible with the present situation under independence. You don’t get different outcomes by repeating the same behaviours.

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.

Why does it have to be radical?
If the UK leaves the EU does anyone expect radical change from that?
Should we not bother discussing it then?
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.

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.

Is this % greater or smaller than the UK as a whole – the country [ uk] is running a deficit currently so it is no surprise scotland is as well,

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

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

Indeed it will still be a western capitalist state but with a govt they voted for. I still do not understand why folk insist it must be radical [ though I wish it was].

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 :

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 ?

If you are going to accuse people of being “a little insulting” as you did here with : I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to “real people” is money in their pockets a little insulting, 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 **** 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

there are, even if some or all of them are weak.
Many of the no arguments are just the same level of faith
Take the EU – it seems pretty clear there will be a UK [ or it is at least quite likely] vote so there may be change. Barnet is going.Devo max has been hinted at etc. We cannot be sure what voting no means any more than we can with yes.
TBH when you have to pick which politicians and economists to believe surely we can all agree it is just the roll of a dice 😉

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

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2014/06/Transitioning-to-a-new-Scottish-state-PD-ebook.pdf

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 “Initially many Scottish embassies might sit in UK or other EU countries’ embassies.” – 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:

“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).

😆

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”Link

£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.

Have you a source/reference or paper for this claim that they contributed more in all those areas?

.

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.