If Scotland becomes independent

[Denny Crane]

What it means is that your Taxes will go up loads,

 

all the big companies will move their offices south of the border and we, as a county will be fecked.

 

As for the oil.. companies such as BP, Shell etc.. have already paid the UK for the right to take oil out of the ground. They paid billions for drilling rights in certain sectors in the north sea.

 

They pay a tax on their profits as well.

 

I have no idea what the SNP are meaning by oil money as we would not have that, it would still belong to shell/BP ect as they have already paid for it.

 

----

 

Council tax will have to increase to pay for the postal system. at the moment a stamp costs the same.. Most of the people are located south of england and it is cheaper to get a letter from London to Birmingham than it is from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.. Based on cost per unit etc... The cost of sending something from Orkeny will force a rise in these prices.

 

It will also lead to road repairs / street lighting all costing more. Due to the population per square mile being a lot lower than that of the UK as a whole. Not to mention that we would have to raise our own army etc...

 

As you can tell I am not a fan of this and I think I might get out of scotland if it was to go independent. I think the taxes that will have to be raised on the big companies and richer individuals will also force them out of Scotland.

 

We can still be Scottish without having to have independence and as far as I am concerned the SNP is using peoples emotions as a vote winner (i.e. we hate the english etc etc..) rather than doing it for the good of the country.

 

Remember Salmond saying that Scotland could be like Iceland... well they are fecked now..

 

He also talks about being like Norway.. They pay 60% tax, and a pint costs ?10.... No Thank you... (PS Norway actually owns the companies that drill there NorskHydro and Statoil...)

 

Only an Idiot would vote for independence.

 

Since many big companies are presently locating in Scotland, despite all the tosh about the referendum creating insecurity, that argument is nonsense.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/293203-oil-and-gas-investment-reaches-record-high/

 

Oil companies, like any international companies, pay their tax in the capitol of the country in which they operate. That would change from London to Edinburgh.

 

Council tax doesn't pay for the postal system, that's the business of the national postal service: the Post Office. A Scottish Post Office could, no doubt, be subsidised, if necessary, from the increased taxation gathered by a SCOTTISH Central Government (remember, 8.4% of the UK population, but we pay 9.6% of the tax)(to London at the moment).

 

Road repairs in towns are ALREADY paid for by councils, and outside of towns by the Scottish Government. No change there.

 

Military spending in Scotland is, at the moment, well under what we would be entitled to proportionate to the tax we pay. Between 2002-08 the under spend in Scotland has totalled a mammoth ?5.622 billion

( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/761vw24.htm ). And we wouldn't have to pay for bloody Trident!

 

Iceland recorded a growth rate last year of 5.7% and, unlike some not a million miles away, are prosecuting the politicians and bankers responsible for the ****-ups.

 

Finally, yes Norway IS expensive. Strangely enough, Norwegian wages are high to compensate. Strangely enough, the standard of living in Norway is higher than here, Strangely enough, Norway has a gigantic Oil Fund to protect its citizens and is one of the biggest foreign investors per capita in the world.

[Denny Crane]

Presumably an independent Scotland will bin the council tax and go with the SNP's local income tax plan.

 

 

So, me, living a modest lifestyle, alone, in a small 1 bed flat would end up paying more than a large family of workshy jakies.

 

 

Thanks, but no thanks

 

Who is to say though that the SNP would be in power after the first post-independence Scottish General Election?

[Boris]

I remember working it out when it was mooted a few years ago. I'd be worse off under local income tax than council tax.

 

A fairer tax would be one per head/per person. Then eveyone is equal

 

Like a poll tax?

 

Top wummery Boaby! ;-)

[southside1874]

I don't feel that strongly about it either way. If the majority of folk want independence then I'll go for it.

 

I do see arguments for and against and they are all quite unbelievable. First of all, the cosy folk with the union will soon become uncosy when the oil runs out as the need to "keep" Scotland will not be the same as before. When "europe" drop Greece and Portugal because they are a drain on finances, we should look at the same thing when our oil runs dry.

 

We won't need a large army or navy when we become independent as we won't be at war with so many folk and won't need to defend ourselves to the extent that the USA do. Norway and Sweden don't have large defense budgets.

 

The UK government want to push for an early referendum because we are not quite ready for it just now.

 

The recent new laws being imposed regarding sectarianism are being pushed through at an alarming rate and to the annoyance of a huge number of the population is because this has always been a huge factor why Scotland has never embraced independence.

 

The SNP think that 2014 is the optimum date for a referendum, they think that their policies will influence the vote to their benefit in that time. After 300 years of "union" then we should surely allow the SNP 2 years to turn things around and try to embrace their policy. Is it empire and imperialism that won't allow the natives to decide??

[Guest]

Like a poll tax?

 

Top wummery Boaby! ;-)

 

 

Great idea Boris. I can see why you picked the Mayor of London for your user name

 

 

 

 

 

By the way I missed out on the whole WUM thing so I've no idea what it means

[Big D]

Presumably an independent Scotland will bin the council tax and go with the SNP's local income tax plan.

 

 

Yes. But with a local income tax underpinned by the public gains of a reform of land value taxation. If the SNP form Scotland's first government for 307 years, the membership will force radical reform of land taxation. This means personal taxation for local services will be cushioned to the benefit of the lower resourced in our society.

Aw naw, the rich are going to sell their land because it's not making them enough money. As long as its making a profit, regardless of the reduction of that profit, the rich will remain to contribute commensurately to the well being of their fellow Scots.

[southside1874]

Lived down south for 10 years now and I tell you - you have no idea how good you have it in Scotland at the moment.

 

Independence will mean breaking up the Union. Scotland will then have to use the Euro as their currency, that is if your application to join the European Union is accepted.

 

You can say goodbye to free NHS with a working population of 2.5 millionish and having more heads per household on out of work benefits than the rest of the UK, who is going to pay for it?

 

You can say goodbye to your more favourable education costs too.

 

I dont think Salmon (sic) has thought it through.

 

Then there is the question of the wording of your referendum.

 

Imo it should 1 question with a choice of Yes or No.

 

But Salmon knows he wil lose if this was the case.

 

On the whole referendums can be a bit hit and miss considering who is in power and as previously said the wording of the question.

 

We have it good like if we didn't then we would want independence sooner rather than later, like when the oil runs out. I don't think that it should be a yes/no referendum. I think we should be able to raise our own taxes but be within the UK if that was the choice of the voter. I'll say something, in 20 or 30 years time when this oil goes, England will vote away from the UK and it will not be our choice. The only reason the UK has Scotland is because of the benefits financially. Us Scots are idiots to think otherwise.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yes. But with a local income tax underpinned by the public gains of a reform of land value taxation. If the SNP form Scotland's first government for 307 years, the membership will force radical reform of land taxation. This means personal taxation for local services will be cushioned to the benefit of the lower resourced in our society.

Aw naw, the rich are going to sell their land because it's not making them enough money. As long as its making a profit, regardless of the reduction of that profit, the rich will remain to contribute commensurately to the well being of their fellow Scots.

Curious about this LVT as it is needed throughout the UK. Are there different rates for different land use? Is there different incentives for developing Brown field sites or developing in areas with high unemployment?

 

It is not a panacea by any means but bigger taxes on property and land help stop runaway booms in illiquid assets.

[Big D]

Curious about this LVT as it is needed throughout the UK. Are there different rates for different land use? Is there different incentives for developing Brown field sites or developing in areas with high unemployment?

 

It is not a panacea by any means but bigger taxes on property and land help stop runaway booms in illiquid assets.

Early stages Geoff, but a lot of the work done by guys like Andy Wightman has underpinned the case for the economic multiplier of community ownership outweighing those of the absentee landlord. It suggests that there is potential government revenue to be measured and decided against private profiteering. The fact that community buyout programmes have regenerated economically stagnant communities in the Islands, Highlands, Borders and Galloway with indigenous resettlement (and population growth and inherent sustainability) based on tourism, technology, energy and farming suggests wholesale reform across Scotland would allow investment based on the capital values of public assets. There is a lot of work to be done, especially with the Crown Estates. The potential is significant. Expect to see the Con/Lib/Lab Tories squirm over this one in the next 30 months as their London funding is threatened by common human sense.

[Doctor FinnBarr]

Great idea Boris. I can see why you picked the Mayor of London for your user name

 

 

 

 

 

By the way I missed out on the whole WUM thing so I've no idea what it means

 

 

WUM=Wind Up Merchant

 

[Problem Officer?]

It will never happen it's a terrible idea A the man leading the campaign is a prick with a chip on his shoulder. Salmond knows he can stir up support for the idea by saying England have messed over Scotland which is nonsense. London has messed over the north of England and the rest of Britain just as much, not England London.

 

In 10 years the country would be on it's knees people keep saying there is oil no there isn't it is running out fast.there's no solid foundation for Scotland to be independent, and why would you want to break up the union which has 300 years of history. We work better together at the end of the day we are all from great britain.

 

 

There is still up to 50 years left of North Sea oil. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024205/North-Sea-oil-half-century.html

 

By the end of this 50 year period, if the entire planet hasn't come up with new ways of getting by without oil, it won't just be Scotland which will be in trouble, it will be everyone.

 

And there is plenty of soild foundation for Scotland to be independent if you actually took the time out to read about it.

 

Feel free to dwell on history if you want, but a sensible person will look towards the future.

[southside1874]

Early stages Geoff, but a lot of the work done by guys like Andy Wightman has underpinned the case for the economic multiplier of community ownership outweighing those of the absentee landlord. It suggests that there is potential government revenue to be measured and decided against private profiteering. The fact that community buyout programmes have regenerated economically stagnant communities in the Islands, Highlands, Borders and Galloway with indigenous resettlement (and population growth and inherent sustainability) based on tourism, technology, energy and farming suggests wholesale reform across Scotland would allow investment based on the capital values of public assets. There is a lot of work to be done, especially with the Crown Estates. The potential is significant. Expect to see the Con/Lib/Lab Tories squirm over this one in the next 30 months as their London funding is threatened by common human sense.

 

This is what a devolved parliament was supposed to do initially. The problem we have in Scotland is a devolved parliament was seen as one side of the divide imposing their opinion over the other side of the divide. What side of this divide you sat on had major effects on getting anything done as the eventual beneficiaries was analysed to death. This is why we have this major enforcement regarding sectarianism and the reason why it appears to be enforced in a strange way is so it encourages the folk that its aimed at to participate. Its not by coincidence that the weegies have escaped the punishment, but the punishments and offences fit their crimes.

[Problem Officer?]

I think the whole independence thing is all too Braveheart by the SNP , and be honest, is there any real need for it?

 

Is that why most Americans think it was ENGLAND rather than BRITAIN that fought in both World Wars.

 

Just an example, ken?

[Big D]

This is what a devolved parliament was supposed to do initially. The problem we have in Scotland is a devolved parliament was seen as one side of the divide imposing their opinion over the other side of the divide. What side of this divide you sat on had major effects on getting anything done as the eventual beneficiaries was analysed to death. This is why we have this major enforcement regarding sectarianism and the reason why it appears to be enforced in a strange way is so it encourages the folk that its aimed at to participate. Its not by coincidence that the weegies have escaped the punishment, but the punishments and offences fit their crimes.

You have quoted me as a reply to my points. Can't quite understand how your reply related to my post. Can you explain?

[Problem Officer?]

I wonder where Scotland would be today if we were already independent in the '80s when the North Sea oil was first discovered.

 

Loaded like Norway I would think.

[Problem Officer?]

I've yet to be told a good reason for Independence.

 

Personally I have, and I'm sure you would as well if you looked it up.

 

However, after countless pages on various forums and acticles I've still to hear of a good reason to say in the union - a union led by a Torie snakes.

[Big D]

I wonder where Scotland would be today if we were already independent in the '80s when the North Sea oil was first discovered.

 

Loaded like Norway I would think.

Nope, we would be rebuilding our country after the destructive 30 years war with the U.K. (See South Sudan). But Scots would definately know the benefits of Independence for their future so we wouldn't be having this semantic political arguement about the benefits of independence to all Scots.

[Problem Officer?]

Anyone who hankers after independence is a complete and utter buffoon.

 

I keep seeing unionists say this but it's just said without any explanation.

 

Desperation, perhaps?

[Dunks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5udgzGhkvT4

 

Some facts and figures

[Problem Officer?]

Nope, we would be rebuilding our country after the destructive 30 years war with the U.K. (See South Sudan). But Scots would definately know the benefits of Independence for their future so we wouldn't be having this semantic political arguement about the benefits of independence to all Scots.

 

You're comparing Sudan, a third world, corrupt, and illiterate country, do a developed nation like Scotland/Britain?

[Rocco_Jambo]

I'm certainly not a Unionist however would consider myself very much yet to be convinced as to the case for independence. However, Salmond's idea to put the age of voting down to 16 in the hope that this may boost the chances of success is laughable and really undermines the credibility of the proposed referendum.

[Problem Officer?]

I'm certainly not a Unionist however would consider myself very much yet to be convinced as to the case for independence. However, Salmond's idea to put the age of voting down to 16 in the hope that this may boost the chances of success is laughable and really undermines the credibility of the proposed referendum.

 

Why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds who are in employment and contribute to the economy be denied the right to vote?

[Big D]

You're comparing Sudan, a third world, corrupt, and illiterate country, do a developed nation like Scotland/Britain?

Bravo, a great example of irony. Is there a JKB irony award? You must win.

[Zibi]

I think the point he was making is WHY did the SNP say before the election we are going to wait till 2014 to have the referendum - why didn't they say if we win lets have it within the first year of our governance?

 

People need to stop quoting the current Tory government as a reason to go for independence. Once we go for independence there won't be any going back - you won't be able to just turn around in 3 years time if Labour get back into Westminster and say "now that Cameron's gone can we join back into the Union, please?". All the Labour supporters up here need to stop being so immature and short sighted.

Sorry shouldn't have used the Tories as a reason for independence. The fundamental point is that whether it is Labour or the Tories in power they are both out of touch with Scotland and Scotland's needs would be much better served by us taking responsibility for our own destiny.

[Big D]

I'm certainly not a Unionist however would consider myself very much yet to be convinced as to the case for independence. However, Salmond's idea to put the age of voting down to 16 in the hope that this may boost the chances of success is laughable and really undermines the credibility of the proposed referendum.

At what age are you competent to decide your future? 16? 17? 18? 80? 85? 90? 95? The reduction of the age of consent has been SNP (and Lib/Dem) policy for many years. And if it hasn't been Con/Lab Tory policy then shame on them for their elitism and fear driving their policy.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds who are in employment and contribute to the economy be denied the right to vote?

 

Why stop there. Why shouldn't 13 and 14 year olds with a paper round who contribute to the economy be able to vote? It's been 18 for how long? To change it because they are more likely to vote yes is a bit ridiculous.

[Problem Officer?]

Bravo, a great example of irony. Is there a JKB irony award? You must win.

 

Ahh, a typical response from somebody who was talking shite.

[Problem Officer?]

Why stop there. Why shouldn't 13 and 14 year olds with a paper round who contribute to the economy be able to vote? It's been 18 for how long? To change it because they are more likely to vote yes is a bit ridiculous.

 

Tedious post.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Feck me George Gideon Blackadder Osbourne is the man to lead the defence of the Union ,all the supporters of Independence will

have to do is put a leaflet out with his mug on it .

[southside1874]

You have quoted me as a reply to my points. Can't quite understand how your reply related to my post. Can you explain?

 

Devolution was supposed to take power to the outer areas like the borders and highlands and tap into this energy commercially. It never quite worked out because of the mentality of us Scots. The SNP have actually embraced this with their new laws regarding sectarianism. These outlying areas have not totally embraced devolution because of the divide and how they use it for their own means. Celtic fans may glorify the break up of the union as something that benefits their means thus creating an agenda that will take us from the basic principle. The SNP are not pushing these laws for any other reason but they see them as barriers to what will benefit Scotland and not Ireland or Northern Irish folk. The agenda for Scottish independence will be hijacked by what appears to be the majority of folk for their own political and sectarian gains that have nothing to do with the question in hand.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Tedious post.

 

Chortle chortle, you sound like a shrewd one. The established and agreed voting rights for decades has been 18 or over please say why it should now change other than to manipulate the voting? If they are saying 16 why? Your reply was quite obviously very poor as being in employment and contributing towards the economy does not begin at 16? If you want to just reply you're stumped then that's okay.

[2NaFish]

I'm certainly not a Unionist however would consider myself very much yet to be convinced as to the case for independence. However, Salmond's idea to put the age of voting down to 16 in the hope that this may boost the chances of success is laughable and really undermines the credibility of the proposed referendum.

 

its already the case in parts of the UK and has been an snp policy for years. For future reference, the "aint broke, don't fix it" line might not wash in an independence debate.

[Big D]

Ahh, a typical response from somebody who was talking shite.

You said that the two Sudan's were 3rd world countries. Since the collapse of the second world (the communist USSR) that is a redundant concept. You suggested the two Sudans are corrupt and illiterate. If you fail to see the irony of your statement in regards to Westminster government and U.K. educational standards then you have my sympathy. We all have a duty to help our fellow Scots. I have no reason to believe that two countries (the Sudans) who have agreed an amicable settlement of independence (including oil revenue appropriation) are more intelligent and savvy than the brits. Yet the brits seem to have a problem with this basic fundamental human right of self determination. It's enshringed in international law and embraced without question by over 120 newly independent countries since world war 2, and of course by their former masters (and if you miss the irony of masters, you have my help whenever you recognise you need it).

[Problem Officer?]

Chortle chortle, you sound like a shrewd one. The established and agreed voting rights for decades has been 18 or over please say why it should now change other than to manipulate the voting? If they are saying 16 why? Your reply was quite obviously very poor as being in employment and contributing towards the economy does not begin at 16? If you want to just reply you're stumped then that's okay.

 

It's strange how both Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems have said before they would support lowering the voting age to 16.

 

Not now though when it doesn't suit them.

[Rocco_Jambo]

its already the case in parts of the UK and has been an snp policy for years. For future reference, the "aint broke, don't fix it" line might not wash in an independence debate.

 

It might not, but if you are expecting to change the voting age from what is the established age and has been for a number of years then I would expect a better reason than 'why not' to not begin thinking that it is just a ploy to get as many votes as possible. It doesn't matter if it's been policy for years.

[Cobblers]

Regardless of the independence argument I have real reservations about 16 and 17 yr olds having the right to vote. I certainly don't believe the first time to test this change should be on such an important decision.

[Problem Officer?]

Regardless of the independence argument I have real reservations about 16 and 17 yr olds having the right to vote. I certainly don't believe the first time to test this change should be on such an important decision.

 

But one could also argue that such an important decision merits a larger input from more people.

 

(I'm not 16 or 17 before anyone mentions it by the way. )

[systemx]

Why stop there. Why shouldn't 13 and 14 year olds with a paper round who contribute to the economy be able to vote? It's been 18 for how long? To change it because they are more likely to vote yes is a bit ridiculous.

 

 

I agree with your point.Where I live there are lots of 14 & 15 year olds with families of their own and quite a few of that age in the supply industry.Give them the vote I say.

 

 

On a lighter note what would happen if Unionists(the majority) were to boycott an illegal Nat referendum.Would the Great Chieftan accept ant subsequent vote as valid?Just wondering likes ee ken.

[Cobblers]

But one could also argue that such an important decision merits a larger input from more people.

 

(I'm not 16 or 17 before anyone mentions it by the way. )

 

Well lets start at trying to find a measure that makes all the existing eligible voters use their right to vote.

 

There may well be a case for extending voting rights to younger people (although I'm not necessarily convinced) but to do it for the first time on such an emotive and important subject is in my opinion dangerous.

[Ulysses]

All true but you also have to factor it into the UK balance of payments. Scotland, in theory, could have a trade surplus....

 

What real difference would this make? In the case of the whisky industry (only one part of the UK has a whiskey industry, as you well know :'> ) the economic contribution it makes is partly in the form of wages, paid to the people employed in the industry, partly in the form of profits, paid to the shareholders, and partly in the form of taxes, paid to the Government. Re-classifying the exports from the UK to Scotland would look good on a report, but the wages and dividends would get paid to the same people who get them now, while there might be some small gain by way of Excise Duty (depending on what reverts to Scotland in the current set-up) and Corporation Tax. So although Scotland's trade figures might look impressive, the only practical benefit would be a relatively minor positive adjustment to Government revenues.

[Dunks]

Chortle chortle, you sound like a shrewd one. The established and agreed voting rights for decades has been 18 or over please say why it should now change other than to manipulate the voting? If they are saying 16 why? Your reply was quite obviously very poor as being in employment and contributing towards the economy does not begin at 16? If you want to just reply you're stumped then that's okay.

 

What if the majority of 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote against independence?

[Rocco_Jambo]

What id the majority of 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote against independence?

 

I'm not going to answer that question. As I've said I'm not totally against independence just remain unconvinced by the advantages if there are any of it. However I think the idea of allowing this for the first time is very concerning and is pretty much a strategic move by the SNP due to them being the most likely to have their heads turned on a wave of nationalistic fervour on the anniversary of Bannockburn?

 

If they want to say why 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote for the first time then I will happily listen to their reasons for this.

[Problem Officer?]

If Scotland would be so much worse off being independent, then why do we continue to generate more money than we spend each year?

[Rick Grimes]

You are almost right in that. If a referendum is held and the question on the voting card is do you want Independence, and the voting options are Yes or No, No would win by an absolute landslide. It is not a case of not confident they would win, it is that they know, 100%, they would lose.

 

If the SNP thought the Scottish people would vote for Independence the format of the ballot paper wouldn't bother them in the slightest, nor would the date the referendum is held. If life for Scottish people is really so horrendous as part of the UK, and would really become so joyous after Independence why would the one party interested in obtaining Independence be so intent on deferring that referendum for 3 years rather than have it now. Surely it would make more sense to get out sooner rather than later if it is so terrible at the moment. Trouble is you, like the SNP, would struggle to find any statistic that shows more than 25-28% of people would vote in favour of Independence.

 

They haven't got a clue what state this country would be in if Independence was achieved but have tried to create an image of what they think it would be like, in the hope people would fall for the charm of it. The nearer the date gets the more questions people will ask, and the more questions they ask the less likely they are to be convinced, because the answers won't be forthcoming.

 

 

Prepare to be surprised - you will get your Yes/No on the independence question. The argument is about whether the ballot is in a multi-question format, i.e. will there be an additional question regarding Devo Max if the first answer sees us staying in the Union.

 

I seriously doubt we'll see a landslide on the first question as well. It will be very close run & I'm not predicting the outcome now. The SNP, and the rest of the parties, know this fine well. The reason they want it on the ballot is because it widens the debate & is a validly held viewpoint on where we go from here for many people.

 

It also gives the SNP something to hold onto in the event of losing on the first question as I'm convinced that a second question Devo Max option would be won in the event of the first losing. No-one can be sure yet what the result of the independence vote will be, its just good politics for the SNP to line themselves up a consolation prize.

[systemx]

What if the majority of 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote against independence?

 

 

It has happened before .Harold wilson reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 thinking that younger voters would vote Labour,at the next election Labour lost .

 

The call for 17/18 year olds to vote in any referendum smacks more of desperation than extending the franchise from a normally confident FM.He could of cousre dispel this theory by extending the vote to this age group to this years council elections.Oor Eck like all other Nats havent given this a thought.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If Scotland would be so much worse off being independent, then why do we continue to generate more money than we spend each year?

Are you arguing Scotland has a budget surplus?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What real difference would this make? In the case of the whisky industry (only one part of the UK has a whiskey industry, as you well know :'> ) the economic contribution it makes is partly in the form of wages, paid to the people employed in the industry, partly in the form of profits, paid to the shareholders, and partly in the form of taxes, paid to the Government. Re-classifying the exports from the UK to Scotland would look good on a report, but the wages and dividends would get paid to the same people who get them now, while there might be some small gain by way of Excise Duty (depending on what reverts to Scotland in the current set-up) and Corporation Tax. So although Scotland's trade figures might look impressive, the only practical benefit would be a relatively minor positive adjustment to Government revenues.

The trade figures looking impressive would add credibility to a formative independent Scots government with international markets. They don't care about political settlements, they want assurance that the debt the government issue will be repaid/won't be inflated away in value.

[southside1874]

It might not, but if you are expecting to change the voting age from what is the established age and has been for a number of years then I would expect a better reason than 'why not' to not begin thinking that it is just a ploy to get as many votes as possible. It doesn't matter if it's been policy for years.

 

I find the whole political shambles a joke and don't vote. The current figures that do vote are well below 50%. If any politician can do anything to increase the amount of folk who are actually bothered, then its a good idea. Personally I think politics are actually rigged. Finance runs this world just now and if anyone thinks that their vote makes any difference to how these global companies want us to operate then they are stark raving loonies. We will endure a tory government for years and until we need to invest money into the economy then we won't see labour for a long time. Labour gave up because they couldn't impose the austerity measures required and they put an idiot in charge so we wouldn't vote. Its like some sort of big brother/I'm in the jungle/I can sing and dance voting system.

 

Their is the fact that Scotland becoming independent would have a huge bearing on world policy as the GDP of England would be greatly reduced and its seat on the world stage both financially and militarily slashed. I think that the SNP will come across great resistance. Its not that I think that the UK and USA global policy stinks but I do think the forward vision of the Scots will lead us to a new world order like it did 300 years ago with its vision and thought that changed the world then. Its renaissance worked then as it will work now. As Scotland had a major influence on the world 300 years ago it can also have a major influence on this now. As we didn't have a choice due to finance 300 years ago, we can wait and not have a choice in the future due to finance. Or we can make this choice for ourselves.

[Beverley]

Are you arguing Scotland has a budget surplus?

 

yes, we do

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/23103654

 

its from june of last year to be fair though

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

yes, we do

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/23103654

 

its from june of last year to be fair though

So let's not be misleading here. What this is saying in essence is that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK. The UK still has a ridiculously high deficit of circa 11% of GDP. Scotland's deficit on a per capita basis would be lower (assuming debts are distributed per capita) but there would still be a deficit that would need funded by selling government debt etc