Viewing 40 posts - 7,441 through 7,480 (of 7,504 total)
  • Scotland Indyref 2
  • tjagain
    Full Member

    So, would you agree that the FM suffers from the same untruths as the PM?

    Not to the same extent

    I think Sturgeon a capable politician and a leader far above any other UK politician. Apart from anything else she actually looks like she believes what she says and is prepared to both admit mistakes and accept blame. However I find her and the SNP in general too centralizing and too much control freakery and they are poor on environmental issues

    As for policies – I suggest the SNP website a good place to look

    I expect the SNP to fall apart fairly quickly after independence. All political parties are a broad church but the SNP is far broader than most from the Socialism of Mhari Black to the tartan tory of Fergus Ewing so I don’t expect the SNP to hold power for long afterwards

    Post independence we will have a government that reflects the wishes of the people of Scotland. One that believes in close links with our neighbours, one that believes in redistribution of wealth. One that follows a greenish line ( important to me and not well understood by the SNP) I expect coalitions of the centre left and greens to be our main governments seeing as over 80% of the scots electorate vote for socuial democratic parties ( if labour can still be considered such) Thats good enough for me.

    voting for independence and wanting independence is not the same thing as wanting an SNP government

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I expect the SNP to fall apart fairly quickly after independence

    Makes you wonder why they’d be in a hurry for a referendum eh?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Cynic 🙂

    If they don’t have one ( or some other vote) soon Sturgeon will be out on her ear and the party will split.

    As Tony Benn said all political careers end in failure but do you think Sturgeon would rather her political epitaph to be ” She failed to get independence split the party and wasted the chance” or ” she succesfully got independence”

    I just do not buy the idea that she is deliberately dragging her feet for selfish reasons. It makes no sense at all

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Benz

    If you want some already enacted p9olicies that make folkslives better there are a few

    Free prescriptions

    End to bridge tolls

    End to hospital parking charges where they are able to do so

    Free University education

    bedroom tax alleviation

    Bringing assessment for illhealth benefits back in house and thus reducing the number of spurious refusals

    bettter ( what little they can do) protection for refugees

    land reform act including facilitating and financing community buyouts

    Just a few off the top of my head

    poly
    Free Member

    Do you really think Brown was looking after Scotland or making policy to suit England. He as chancellor and POM saddled us with absurd policy that no one north of the border wanted. See ERI for a prime example

    Whether the policy was good for Scotland or not wasn’t the objection, you were suggesting Scots get no say and have had no ability to set policy for 20 years – that was planely absurd.  By the same argument no U.K. politician has been able to influence U.K. policy because clearly their policies are stupid and not in the UKs best interests!

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Indeed as I accepted it was hyberbolic and poorly written

    What I should have said is that Scots MPs and the scots government are unable to alter UK government policy if that policy acts against the interests of Scotland.

    There is so much UK government policy from both labour and tory that acts against the interests of Scotland and there is nothing we can do about it.

    One example – the rigged electricity “market” with the access charges. This stifles our renewable electricty generation.

    Or the big one – brexit. Scotland voted against brexit and had it imposed upon us

    Now the latest following the court decision.

    Scotland is treated as subservient to the rest of the UK. the UK union is supposed to be a union of equals and voluntary. Its obvious now its neither. If you have no way of leaving its not voluntary and if you can have policies imposed from the undemocratic Westminster government against the wishes of the democratically elected Scots parliament its not a partnership of equals

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Or you can take the response to covid.

    Holyrood recognised the need to lockdown earlier than westminster but was unable to do so because they have no access to the funds needed. That cost lives

    spooky211
    Free Member

    TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions? I’m all for free prescriptions for seriously poorly folk but a load of people take the mick, paracetamol on prescription for example…its 50p for a pack! Need moisturiser for your newborn? Get it on prescription. Would be curious to find out how much it costs the NHS.

    poly
    Free Member

    What I should have said is that Scots MPs and the scots government are unable to alter UK government policy if that policy acts against the interests of Scotland.

    but that is still hyperbole – they have the power, they may elect not to do so, but that is how democracy works – what you want is a Scottish right of veto over any policy affecting Scotland.  Thats not consistent with how the 1706/1707 acts of Union were agreed.

    There is so much UK government policy from both labour and tory that acts against the interests of Scotland and there is nothing we can do about it.

    I think there is – the same as politicians in the midlands who don’t like a particular policy affecting them – they have to appeal to the wider political landscape and explain why bad for the midlands is bad for the country, Scotland needs to explain why bad for Scotland is bad for the whole of the UK. There is short sightedness on all sides.  It’s not infeasible that at the next Westminster election Scottish MPs will  hold the balance of power.

    Scotland is treated as subservient to the rest of the UK. the UK union is supposed to be a union of equals and voluntary. Its obvious now its neither. If you have no way of leaving its not voluntary and if you can have policies imposed from the undemocratic Westminster government against the wishes of the democratically elected Scots parliament its not a partnership of equals

    where does this notion of partnership of equals come from?  It’s not in the 1706/1707 acts, there is no “termination clause” in the partnership. Short sighted? Or the strength that held the Union together for so long.

    you see – whilst I am pro-Indy, a positive and successful independence needs overwhelming public support because not everything will be great.  We don’t have that public support at the moment and so I think Westminster is probably doing us a favour – we all know a 52-48 vote either way is chaos.  Rather than fighting with WM over if and when – they really need to be addressing the issues half the population have with the proposal.  I would have been happy if the SC had said another referendum was within the powers of the SP but I would be happier to see negotiations between the parties at Westminster that might allow a referendum but also cover the “what if it’s NO again” scenario – how do we fix the U.K. political landscape for a world where Scotland will then have twice voted to stay.

    the rhetoric that Scotland doesn’t have democracy or is an oppressed state might sit well with the Indy camp – but they are not the people you need to convince.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Scotland needs to explain why bad for Scotland is bad for the whole of the UK.

    WRT the electricity market I think both the SG and industry lobby groups have been doing that but falling on deaf ears.

    I agree though that the rhetoric used isn’t convincing anyone that needs to be.

    BoardinBob
    Full Member

    spooky211
    Free Member
    TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions? I’m all for free prescriptions for seriously poorly folk but a load of people take the mick, paracetamol on prescription for example…its 50p for a pack! Need moisturiser for your newborn? Get it on prescription. Would be curious to find out how much it costs the NHS.

    Ask and ye shall receive, although the data is only up to 2015/16.

    £10.7 million spent on paracetamol, which is 0.97% of total prescription spend

    https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Prescribing-and-Medicines/Publications/2016-07-12/PCA_2016.xlsx

    BoardinBob
    Full Member

    Thats not consistent with how the 1706/1707 acts of Union were agreed

    Yes, because nothing has changed since 1706/07

    That’s as shallow an argument as American’s using the “right to bear arms” to justify their gun obsession despite the fact that was from a time when muskets were cutting edge technology

    poly
    Free Member

    TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions? I’m all for free prescriptions for seriously poorly folk but a load of people take the mick, paracetamol on prescription for example…its 50p for a pack! Need moisturiser for your newborn? Get it on prescription. Would be curious to find out how much it costs the NHS.

    I’m sure the information on the cost of NHS prescriptions before and after the free prescriptions will be in the public domain (the very poorest were eligible to free prescriptions before if they were also smart enough to jump through the paperwork hoops – often the poorest are least able to do so). What is much harder is quantifying the indirect benefits of free prescriptions.  Yes it means a middle class mummy can get skin moisturiser for her new born, but it also means not just the very poorest can but the struggling low paid.  Is that stops a baby getting cracked skin and that cracked skin getting infected and that baby ending up on IV antibiotics or a mother who is on in work benefits (and so is skint, but probably wouldn’t qualify for free prescription in England) gets a better nights sleep because her baby’s skin is looked after, and so places less demand on post natal mental health services, or social work that is a good thing.  It also means that people with chronic conditions get free prescriptions- before some conditions qualified and others did not, type 1 diabetic – you got everything free; “ordinary” asthmatic – you didn’t even get your inhaler free (but children would).

    now if you are popping enough paracetemol to be a burden on the system* you probably need to see a healthcare professional about the underlying cause.  A Dr or Pharmacist is more likely to help solve the underlying issue (or at least make sure you understand proper dosing and avoid accidental paracetemol toxicity – costing nhs many thousands) than the Tesco counter staff.

    * there may still be anomalies in the price paid for dispensing a free prescription for paracetamol compared to the cost of the tablets – that is not a flaw if free prescriptions it’s a flaw of how we manage prescription dispensing.  But keep in mind that those ridiculous profits make it worthwhile keeping local pharmacies open when other shops on the high street are in mass decline!

    kennyp
    Free Member

    Benz

    If you want some already enacted p9olicies that make folkslives better there are a few

    Free prescriptions

    End to bridge tolls

    End to hospital parking charges where they are able to do so

    Free University education

    bedroom tax alleviation

    Bringing assessment for illhealth benefits back in house and thus reducing the number of spurious refusals

    bettter ( what little they can do) protection for refugees

    land reform act including facilitating and financing community buyouts

    Just a few off the top of my head

    Very true, and interestingly all done while being part of the UK.

    poly
    Free Member

    Yes, because nothing has changed since 1706/07

    That’s as shallow an argument as American’s using the “right to bear arms” to justify their gun obsession despite the fact that was from a time when muskets were cutting edge technology

    Not a bad analogy.  Both democratic systems have a way to change the rules.  In the case of the US, “All” you need to do is get the required number of states to support the amendment and you could have a 28th amendment that revokes or ammends the 2nd amendment.  Similarly, Westminster can (and did in 2014) make decisions that could lead to the repeal of the 1706/07 acts) but you have to convince enough people at Westminster that it’s the right thing to do.  Both are democratic processes for changing the rules.  Neither are trivial by design – but both do have a democratic process to achieve them, people suggesting there is not are just unhappy because their vote is not the one winning in the process at this moment in time.

    benz
    Free Member

    TJ,

    Thanks – got it.

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-stronger-economy-independence-summary/

    Not quite sure how the transition from current to future green supporting continued employment is going to be done. Aspirational is fine, but to persuade folks, there needs to be detail providing a clear and tangible personal benefit v the status quo. Brexit has created chaos and negative impacts on many and I am struggling to understand why Independance would not introduce more of the same and potentially compound such.

    I concede that the SNP led SG have enacted a number of positive things, albeit these may be supported by higher taxes paid by some and I’m sure that their application is no different than similar deployments by other Govt’s which ultimately serve to try to win votes.

    My obvious preference would be to try to collaboratively resolve the fundamental issues impacting the population for the good of the majority and the door to this may be more open if there was less rhetoric about ‘leaving’?

    poly
    Free Member

    @benz

    I was born in Scotland and have lived and worked in Scotland most of my adult life.

    However, I – like others – are challenged by – presumably ultra – nationalists who, at every turn, seek to create division, demonise others ‘The English’, accuse those of us who are happy being part of the UK as “Not a real Scot” or “A traitor”. Additionally a FM who claims to talk on behalf of all Scots – when she patently does not.

    This given current and recent events related to division completely turns me off.

    However, I also acknowledge the challenges the UK has as a whole – a political system which requires reform, recent blatant lies, corruption, etc.

    Surely recognition of the fundamental issues facing the country and trying to build positive alliances to deal with those is hugely more positive than yet more division.

    Plus the current UK and Scottish governments really need to show me a real path to stability, meaningful employment and as much prosperity as it is possible for as many as possible.

    Bits of me agree with you, certainly, in 2014 I would have been very open to a much improved political system for the whole of the UK.  The reality is no political party with any weight has proposed or offered that. The two main parties “like” the status quo which gives them the best chance of power.  For whatever reason, the Lib Dems have failed to get across a message around political reform that has engaged the public.  If another party had the balls to say Brexit was a sham, the political balance in the UK is messed up, the lords* is broken, (and monarchy is medieval BS), here is our vision for a way to do things differently (probably a federal UK more closely aligned to Europe [not necessarily full EU membership], and likely a written constitution) then I would certainly be all ears.  There is absolutely no sign of that coming from any party of note which tells me that those parties don’t share my concerns and if I want to live in a society that is based on values of honesty, integrity, genuine social mobility, with positive freedoms and alliances I used to enjoy as an EU citizen I can’t really do that in the UK.  The only choices seriously being suggested are more of the same or Indy.  It may be too late to back peddle on the damage that has been done, although if anyone even credibly tried it would undoubtedly slow the Indy momentum.  I don’t recognise the unhelpful comments about “not a real scot” or “a traitor” as being normal language or discussion points from anyone credible – they seem like the sort of thing that comes up on social media, and you will only see those comments if you engage with the muppets linked to them.  Its entirely possible to avoid.  Opposing a plan because a tiny minority of its supporters are vitreolic nutters is a pretty poor reason – especially since fans of the status quo aren’t all pleasant and positive either.

    * FWIW I’ve never met anyone who thought the HOL was a logical system for a second chamber but I think it actually does a useful job of curtailing the craziness of HOC party democracy.  I’m actually not even opposed to the idea of the second chamber being appointed rather than elected but its bloated and full of people who are there for all the wrong reasons.

    irc
    Full Member

    tjagain
    Full Member

    IRC – thats the limitations of the scots tax raising powers and its not an additional band / complication or cost

    Yes it is. Derek (Laffer) MacKay brought in a Scottish 19% tax band for roughly the first £2K of taxable income. So in Scotland the low paid save 1% of £2000 compared to England. Which lets the SNP boast about the lower paid paying less tax. Technically true but not by enough to buy a takeway curry for 2 people. So complication for political reasons. If you are going to fiddle with tax bands to help the low paid at least make it enough to be worthwhile.

    So Scotland has a (marginally) more complicated income tax system so the SNP could play politics.

    Might mean voters on £30k-£43k paying more though and that is a lot of voters.

    gordimhor
    Full Member

    I’m pretty sure that there are not enough reverse brexit votes in England to win a GE. I would love to be proven wrong. I think there are arse holes on both sides of the debate in Scotland. As a long tìme supporter of Independence I find some of the indy supporters with their various comments about “real Scot” etc are actually doing damage to the indy cause.
    We all do it we all get angry or tweet or speak out in haste and regret it later. Some do it all the time, those are the arse holes

    molgrips
    Full Member

    I was thinking earlier about the Supreme Court judgement. People are framing it as England preventing Scotland from leaving. But it’s actually not that, not quite. The UK reserved judgement on things affecting the whole UK during the devolution process, and losing nearly half its territory clearly affects the UK. Many Scots seem to view the Westminster government as if it were the English government.

    We have Scottish, Welsh and NI governments but not an English government, and I think this was a massive blunder. It reinforces Anglocentricism in the Union* and fosters this kind of divisive argument. If there were a UK-wide govt and a separate English one on a par with the others, it would be a completely different situation. We would have needed a proper constitution as well, which would also have helped.

    * Not that it’s much of a union. I mean ironically given the context the union with Scotland was the only one with any political agreement on both sides. Wales simply got conquered, annexed, oppressed, exploited and then left to rot.

    poly
    Free Member

    irc – I thought (but maybe remembering wrong) that it was a “softener” to make the higher rates and lower thresholds in Scotland more palettable.  IIRC it was a bigger saving when it started?  And I think last time it was reviewed the estimate was 1:10 Scot’s pay more than they would in England.  Ability to set corporation tax, inheritance tax and capital gains would make a big difference to the levers of ecconomic power.  There was a plan for local income tax too but it’s disappeared – I think it hit a Westminster blocker because they would not pay Council Tax benefit if it wasn’t a classic council tax.  Even better if they could set welfare including pensions – that would test the political rhetoric!

    I’m pretty sure that there are not enough reverse brexit votes in England to win a GE. I would love to be proven wrong.

    whilst nobody os campaigning for it it’s unlikely to gain attention.  It needs someone brave enough to stand up and say “this is not what people voted for”.  I would suggest that its possible to do that in a way that respects the vote to leave the EU – and keep a lot of people except the Farage fans happy by joining EEA/EFTA.

    irc
    Full Member

    @poly.

    No it has always been a trivial circa £20 a year saving for anyone earning less than £24k. Above £24k the 21p rate starts clawing it back.

    https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/scotland-to-introduce-new-starter-income-tax-rate-of-19.html

    tjagain
    Full Member

    The UK reserved judgement on things affecting the whole UK during the devolution process, and losing nearly half its territory clearly affects the UK.

    You really might want to rephrase that Molgrips

    Whose territory?

    dissonance
    Full Member

    Whose territory?

    The UK. There is a hint in the name. Its not England.

    molgrips
    Full Member

    You really might want to rephrase that Molgrips

    Whose territory?

    No it’s fine. The UK would lose nearly half it’s territory in the event of Scottish independence. Scotland currently being part of the UK, of course.

    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    The UK. There is a hint in the name. Its not England.

    Lets be honest shall we. It is England, or rather London, and its ruling class which for centuries has considered itself as the only ones who matter, and the ‘provinces’ only fit to be told what to do.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Well thats made your position clear molgrips. You see Scotland as a region and a subservient one at that. thats really offensive and wrong in law.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    TJ, how much money do you reckon gets wasted on free prescriptions?

    none because
    1) very few folk paid for prescriptions anyway
    2) by making them free for everyone it simplifies administration thus saving costs
    3) this prevents illhealth because under a system of charging for prescriptions people who are not eligible for free prescription under the old system but who have multiple medications the cost of prescriptions could be high enough to mean they didn’t fill some prescription thus leading to further illhealth at a cost to society

    tjagain
    Full Member

    but that is still hyperbole – they have the power, they may elect not to do so, but that is how democracy works – what you want is a Scottish right of veto over any policy affecting Scotland.

    A bit like how the EU works?

    timba
    Free Member

    Is the free prescriptions policy targetting Scottish health issues? Mortality figures have dropped, but healthy life expectancy has decreased (to 2021 at least) https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2022/life-expectancy-continues-to-fall-in-scotland
    It’s a similar situation with education. A first degree course with tuition funded by the Scottish taxpayer, but PISA scores for Scottish 15-year olds have been declining for 15 years in reading, maths and science. PISA isn’t a rounded assessment but it’s one that the Scottish Government use https://www.gov.scot/publications/programme-international-student-assessment-pisa-2018-highlights-scotlands-results/
    Unfortunately, while Indyref 2 is at the forefront of many people’s minds, the SNP is not the party that you’d want in charge.

    timba
    Free Member

    I think Sturgeon a capable politician and a leader far above any other UK politician. Apart from anything else she actually looks like she believes what she says and is prepared to both admit mistakes and accept blame

    Like she has over CalMac/Ferguson Marine Ltd? “Wheel out the Deputy First Minister…”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63066317

    onehundredthidiot
    Full Member

    @timba overall she’s a capable politician and first minister.
    Otherwise it’s a tit for tat, good/bad arguement. Which is what is exactly wrong with politics.
    Doing ok at running the country, ah but what about this one thing which is not directly in your remit but you have oversight of?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Unfortunately, while Indyref 2 is at the forefront of many people’s minds, the SNP is not the party that you’d want in charge.

    More capable than any other political party but I agree its a low bar

    One thing to make clear. Independence is not about having an SNP government. Its about having a government we elect.

    The independence movement is far more than the SNP

    timba
    Free Member

    The independence movement is far more than the SNP

    Absolutely. There don’t seem to be too many options to the SNP just now and on current form they aren’t going to improve an independent Scotland

    tjagain
    Full Member

    timba
    Free Member

    Doing ok at running the country

    See education and health. Standards have dropped ever since the SNP came to power in 2007
    To be clear, if Scotland wants independence then, as with our former commonwealth countries, they should have it but be careful what you wish for with the SNP in charge

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Education and health are IIRC around 3/4 of the spending controlled by holyrood. given increased demand and cuts to the scottish government budgets because of cuts imposed by westminster something has to give

    also Scottish NHS admin spend is half of Englands per capita because Scotland does not have the fake internal market.

    Has the Scots government under the SNP been more or less competent than the government of the UK under the tories?

    And finally once again. A vote for independence is not a vote for an SNP government

    timba
    Free Member

    And finally once again. A vote for independence is not a vote for an SNP government

    I understand that.
    In September 2014 the date for Scottish Independence was set for 24th March 2016, roughly 18 months, and FM Alex Salmond announced that his DFM Nicola Sturgeon would lead negotiation talks
    That precedent is that something similar would happen in the future, I stick by “There don’t seem to be too many options to the SNP just now…” and “be careful what you wish for with the SNP in charge”

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Thats because the other political parties operating in Scotland ( apart from the greens) are refusing to take part. they could put their 2 bobs worth in but will not.

    poly
    Free Member

    Absolutely. There don’t seem to be too many options to the SNP just now and on current form they aren’t going to improve an independent Scotland

    are you assuming that the “unionist” parties withdraw from Scotland if there is Indy and we are just left with snp?  I would expect that they finally find their voice, no longer cow towing to their U.K. party and together with the inevitable split in the SNP you have a collection of parties to pick from without one policy meaning you get domination by one.  The irony being that such a paradigm could actually mean that the successor to the Conservative and Unionist Party actually manages to become a significant power in Scotland: wouldn’t it be ironic if Indy could be the route for Tories to actually get elected to power in Scotland!

Viewing 40 posts - 7,441 through 7,480 (of 7,504 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.