Osbourne says no to currency union.

No one took our country absolutely. Show me one post where I said this. But you are wanting to have arguments about how a countries GDP is divvied up. I’ll reckon that’ll happen more fairly in and IS. There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That’s a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening. So bye bye.

Even if Scotland’s GDP does end up a little less well a good example I heard is:

If GDP is 20 pound and the are 10 people, 1 has 11 pound and the rest have 1 pound each.

I’d rather have a Gdp of 18 pound with 10 people having 1.8 each.

Now that kind of parity isn’t going to happen in an IS but at least we can reverse the UK trend, if we wish and choose the correct government. Not guaranteed, yes. But what is?.

ninfan – Member
We want our country back.
Its not yours anymore – you gave it away, remember?

technically not true. A clue is in the union bit of the name.

Foreign diplomats now think independence is likely:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/scotland-likely-choose-independence-foreign-diplomats

There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That’s a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening.

And it will continue in a separate Scotland. Growing income inequality is a product of neoliberal economic policies and there is no evidence that a separate Scotland would abandon such policies. Indeed the SNP, Labour, the LibDems, and the Tories, are all committed to the neoliberal model. So there will not be any fundamental change of direction which is precisely what would be required.

In case of the SNP, who are the most likely to set the agenda, they have specifically said that a separate Scotland not be at a “tax disadvantage” with England, Wales, and N. Ireland. In other words a separate Scotland would have low taxation, specifically a corporation tax rate 3% lower than England, Wales, and N. Ireland, and no 50% top rate.

Now I know that the SNP like New Labour believe that the way to tackle poverty is by increasing social spending, but you can’t increase social spending if you are actually cutting the government’s main source of revenue, ie, taxes, instead of increasing them. So cuts in social spending will inevitably follow.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won’t push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept “competitive” and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

New Labour claimed to be socialist but vehemently denied having any socialist policies, which of course they didn’t have. Don’t get fooled again.

Ernie even under Westminster rule. the Scottish government has shown itself to be more to the left than Westminster. If the proxy labour party gets in they will destroy that.

Btw I don’t think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state, i want it to be at the more socially driven side of capitalism. Yes its not guaranteed. But it’s sure as **** never going to happen under Westminster.

It’s already a race to the bottom. Rising living costs and stagnant wages tell us that. Recovery my arse, we’re treading water at best.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won’t push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept “competitive” and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

+1

Scotland is already in direct competition with the other parts of the uk for jobs and investment. The only difference independence will make to that is that we will be able to develop our own economic policies.

I don’t think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state

I didn’t think you did. Like New Labour you want socialism but without any socialist policies 🙂

Yes its not guaranteed.

No it is guaranteed. If you cut taxes then you cut social spending – that is a certainty.

And according to Alex Salmond if Scotland votes Yes in September then Scotland will have its corporation tax set by Westminster – without any input from Scotland of course.

Because if some right-wing Tory government decides to slash corporation tax then Scotland will have to do exactly the same.

If Scotland wishes to increase corporation tax to fund social spending then it will have to hope that Labour gets elected in Westminster and increases corporation tax in England, Wales, and N. Ireland.

Independence my arse.

Ernie you are still taking the short term view. Independence is for a wee bit longer than that ye know.

Btw your argument apply to the UK on a European and world scale as well. No country lives in a vacuum and have to take into account of what their neighbours do. Doesn’t mean they aren’t independent of each other.

Edit: Ye know that after a yes vote scotland and england can still work together.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? We get to choose a government which represents us.

Btw there is one thing about independence that cannot be denied, and that is that it has engaged a vast audience that was very disinterested in politics. If that could be continued post independence the whole political make up of scotland will change.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? We get to choose a government which represents us.

Yes I know that people in Scotland get to choose a government which represents them. I’ve even seen the website.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of “independence” ?

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of “independence” ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Ernie. You clearly can’t be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

piemonster – Member

To be honest, the No camp doesn’t need to make the case. You can just look out the window and that’s what you’ll get.

That’s not true though is it? There’s no assurance that what we have today is what we’ll get tomorrow. The Barnett formula might change, devolved powers might be recalled (this has already happened btw, in case anyone thinks it’s scaremongering), the “greenest government ever” might introduce new policies that damage the scottish renewables industry (oh no wait that’s already happened too), just to scratch the surface.

piemonster – Member

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of “independence” ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

So basically an “independent” Scotland will be exactly the same as now except that Scotland will no longer a direct input into financial matters which effect it, such City of London regulation and corporation tax.

Yeah that doesn’t very compelling. If I lived in Scotland I would vote no.

And it’s very strange that everyone in Scotland will actually have their say in September, is it not ? After all the yes campaign claim the views of the Scottish people are totally ignored and that’s why a yes vote is apparently vital.

So who’s idea was it to have a referendum in September then – the Westminster government presumably, since they call all the shots.

Or perhaps they don’t ?

seosamh77 – Member

Ernie. You clearly can’t be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don’t hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of “independence”.

duckman – Member

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don’t hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of “independence”.there plenty out there if you want to look. The no campaign is getting skelped up and down the country in debates. You should watch a few I’m not about to regurgitate them for ye.

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

yip that’s democracy. Difference is that when a majority here clearly want something well we’ll not get the Tories.

sbob – Member

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

Your straw man is showing. Of course not everyone will get the government they vote for, but an independent scotland will get the government it votes for, which as we all know has been the case for the minority of the last 50 years, including right now. 16.7% of Scots got the government they voted for, which is excellently democratic. (*)

Trying to draw some link between the 2 ideas let alone suggest they’re “exactly the same” is really just admitting you don’t have an actual argument to counter the point with. And no wonder.

(* No, the lib dem voters did not get the government they voted for)

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

There’s a big difference between how the Westminster system works and how the Scottish parliament works. Westminster has a first-past-the-post system which effectively means that only a relatively small number of floating voters in a few marginal constituencies decide the whole thing. Holyrood has a semi-PR system which means that it more accurately represents what most people vote for.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn’t have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn’t have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Whilst in theory I’m in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven’t been all bad.

Another compelling argument is that the better together parties the lib ddems, labour and even the Tories will be able to have a clean break from their London puppeteers and will actually develop into something more suited to Scotland.

Politics in Scotland will not remain the same as Ernie suggests, all the parties will fundamentally change their power structures.

I reckon even the SNP will fracture over time. New parties will likely emerge.

Democracy with be given a massive kick up the arse. That’s why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless. Policies will be reviewed massively.

WTF?

That’ll be the NHS that’s already separate in Scotland? The NHS that is rapidly being dismantled south of the border?

And “Stakeholder Engagement Manager”?

Northwind – Member

Your straw man is showing.

It’s not a strawman it’s just that some people don’t have a very good grasp of what democracy is.
I personally think this is one of the very good reasons for Scotland to attain independence, but I am still of the opinion that a split in the union will be bad for the UK and worse for Scotland.

Only time will tell, and it’s not like it’s my decision! 😆

Whilst in theory I’m in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven’t been all bad.

Someone on Radio 4 this morning said, without a trace of irony, that the UK could never become a dictatorship because the Queen kept a check on the Prime Minister.

I’m sure some lords are perfectly decent people, and sometimes make good decisions, but the principle is all wrong.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn’t have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

And yet the EU, which the Yes campaign says is indispensable to an “independent” Scotland, is stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Ones which totally unlike the unelected political cronies in Upper Chamber actually have real power which can thwart the democratic will of an electorate.

So in the logic of the Yes campaign ……..unelected political cronies with no power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very bad indeed, intolerable in fact.

And unelected political cronies with real power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very good indeed, to be welcomed with open arms in fact.

I’m impressed…. the supporters of the Yes campaign appear to be consistently illogical across a wide range of issues.

That’s why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.

Yeah I’m really playing the “party politics game” 🙄

ernie_lynch – Member
That’s why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.
Yeah I’m really playing the “party politics game”

you are. Why you banging on about tax rates etc. That’s party politics. No one here can telling you the tax rates the first holyrood gov would impose without referring to individual party policy.

Noticeable you ignored the rest of my post.

sbob – Member

It’s not a strawman it’s just that some people don’t have a very good grasp of what democracy is.

Oh, we understand very well. Democracy is when your neighbour decides what you have for tea. Every so often, your neighbour wants the same thing you do, and it feels like you’re making your own decisions.

Why you banging on about tax rates etc.

Oh I see, mentioning awkward stuff like ‘economic policies’ is talking “party politics” is it ? And that’s not acceptable when discussing Scottish independence ?

So how come when Alex Salmond is asked to talk about what an independent Scotland would mean he keeps banging on about tax rates etc. ?

I know you don’t want to talk about the nuts and bolts of Scottish independence because it clearly doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny, preferring instead to rely on meaningless emotive words and phrases, but you are beginning to sound really desperate if you start castigating someone for having the audacity to want to look at the detail behind Scottish independence.

.

Noticeable you ignored the rest of my post.

I wasn’t interested in the rest of your post. I was interested in the bit where you accused me of playing “the party politics game”.

It clearly stands up when everyone on every side says we could go it alone. You’re the only one saying we can’t.

Alex Salmond can talk about it because he’s the leader of the SNP you know a political party. Its his job to talk party politics and think ahead.

He isn’t the leader of the yes campaign. He presented a view which he openly admits is a view that will only see the light of day if they get voted in in 2016.

The views of the other parties cannot be clear at this point. See the bit of my post that disinterested you for explanation of why that is.

bencooper – Member

I’m sure some lords are perfectly decent people, and sometimes make good decisions, but the principle is all wrong.

Let’s just both be happy we’ve found something we can completely agree on! 🙂

……. everyone on every side says we could go it alone. You’re the only one saying we can’t.

Of course you can go it alone…….I never said you couldn’t. Where on earth did you get that from ? 😀

If Scotland votes Yes “independence” will be extremely easy to achieve – why wouldn’t it be ffs ?

I have serious doubts that it would be beneficial though, but I’m hardly the only one saying that – apparently about half of Scots agree with me. In fact more agree with me than disagree with me.

I dunno you’re the one that tells us nothing stands up to scrutiny.

We’ve already done this one.

Q: What’s the difference between Scotland and Shetland?
A: Scotland sometimes gets the government it votes for.

12.1% is presumably even more excellently democratic.

Yes Shetland. Get the government you voted for.

aracer – Member

We’ve already done this one.

Yup, to exactly the same reductio ad absurdum conclusion.

But let’s stick with it. The 62% of voters in Orkney and Shetland who voted lib dem would be happier with the likely scottish governments than UK ones (*). Forget about party lines, they’ve got more in common with scottish labour and the SNP than they have with the tories. (which is why the tories are 4th in the constituency, and falling.)

So post-independence, Orkney and Shetland still get something more compatible with what they vote for. Just like the rest of Scotland, more than half the time, for more than half a century, they don’t just get a party they didn’t vote for, they get a party that’s as far from what they voted for as you can get in the UK.

(* No, the Shetlander lib dem voters did not get the government they voted for)

Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn’t. You mentioned Europe as an example of control being taken from us I can pretty much guarantee Scottish MEP’s will for example, protect our fishing quotas rather than trade them off as was Westminster policy for many years. Can’t be any worse than HS2 being of “national importance” or the bedroom tax that we get from being a department of Westminster PLC recently. I suspect if you lived up here and had a say,your opinion would be rather different.