Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jambos are go!]

Yep England and Wales and liberal approach seems to differ from the NI and Scottish approach. Imagine if NI or Scotland had any mineral wealth and you wanted to exploit this wealth? Imagine if Wales and Northern England showed so much resistance? Would they therefore divide these areas by promoting a religious divide?

 

If anyone thats thinks that Scotland should belong to England/the UK then by the same principle they should believe that Ireland should be united. A united Ireland would surely benefit all concerned.

 

I dont remember Thatcher or the SNP fermenting religious division when North Sea Oil revenues were are their peak.

 

I dont think Ireland should have been divided just as I think the UK should not be divided because it benefits all concerned. But we are were we are in Ireland and even a pro unionist like myself will have to come to terms with a Yes victory in the Referendum. And Nationalists will have to come to terms with a No victory that will sweep away conspiracy theories that have abounded since 1707 and provide total legitimacy to the Union

[JamboX2]

Wait, what?

 

The question I posed to you was why do you think Presbyterians wanted a full scale independent Ireland, inspired by the nascent United States, and then within two generations had become staunchly anti Home Rule? The point is while the 1798 rebellion actually did bring together Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, it translated itself from that ideal into sectarian killing (see, for example, the battle of Vinegar Hill).

 

The key point here is that Ireland was a nation run by a clique under the Empire in the 18th and early 19th centuries. There was no established church which reflected the majority. The Church of Ireland (the Anglican church in Ireland) was the only faith one could be in if you wished to achieve high office, and at one point own land. The settlement of the borderers (espeically the reivers, the absolute fanatical border lords who caused a lot of havoc on the Union of Crowns and before then) was the settlement of Presbyterian Scots. Who were just as much prosecuted by the Irish authorities as the catholics and had common cause in early uprisings in the 18th Century. It was never a divide and rule thing, and to think it suits the British Government to have to invest billions into Northern Irish security or the devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland in combating the issue purely to keep the Union together is a nonsensical argument, and frankly scaremongering.

 

Sectarianism in Scotland was caused by the huge immigration of Irish labourers in the 19th Century, which built upon the latent anti-catholicism, which existed in the west of Scotland and central belt areas, dating back to Culloden and before then too, back as far as the reformation. The idea that independence will kill off, as you seemed to suggest, this social ill, just by the sake of not being in the Union is nonsense. It's one of Scotland's many ills that's related to her main problems, a very conservative establishment (in Scotland) manifested in the police, the churches and the Scottish Government in dealing with this primarily as a criminal matter. Where in fact its a social one. Limit the scope and remit of the Catholic church and the Kirk in Scottish schooling, as in a total separation of faith schools in the public sector of Scotland (ie privatise them or close them), make moves against poverty (as ever poverty breads naivety and fear between groups) and push to eliminate ignorance by improving schools and job prospects in these areas and you'll see it go. The constitutional position of Scotland will do little to it. As will the constitutional position in Ireland and Northern Ireland. What makes us think that a United Ireland will help with the UVF type nutters? It'll inflame their opinions. Northern Ireland's future is looking increasingly like some quasi-independent state working by and large with the UK and Ireland 50/50 on differing cross border maters.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

The key point here is that Ireland was a nation run by a clique under the Empire in the 18th and early 19th centuries. There was no established church which reflected the majority. The Church of Ireland (the Anglican church in Ireland) was the only faith one could be in if you wished to achieve high office, and at one point own land. The settlement of the borderers (espeically the reivers, the absolute fanatical border lords who caused a lot of havoc on the Union of Crowns and before then) was the settlement of Presbyterian Scots. Who were just as much prosecuted by the Irish authorities as the catholics and had common cause in early uprisings in the 18th Century. It was never a divide and rule thing, and to think it suits the British Government to have to invest billions into Northern Irish security or the devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland in combating the issue purely to keep the Union together is a nonsensical argument, and frankly scaremongering.

 

Sectarianism in Scotland was caused by the huge immigration of Irish labourers in the 19th Century, which built upon the latent anti-catholicism, which existed in the west of Scotland and central belt areas, dating back to Culloden and before then too, back as far as the reformation. The idea that independence will kill off, as you seemed to suggest, this social ill, just by the sake of not being in the Union is nonsense. It's one of Scotland's many ills that's related to her main problems, a very conservative establishment (in Scotland) manifested in the police, the churches and the Scottish Government in dealing with this primarily as a criminal matter. Where in fact its a social one. Limit the scope and remit of the Catholic church and the Kirk in Scottish schooling, as in a total separation of faith schools in the public sector of Scotland (ie privatise them or close them), make moves against poverty (as ever poverty breads naivety and fear between groups) and push to eliminate ignorance by improving schools and job prospects in these areas and you'll see it go. The constitutional position of Scotland will do little to it. As will the constitutional position in Ireland and Northern Ireland. What makes us think that a United Ireland will help with the UVF type nutters? It'll inflame their opinions. Northern Ireland's future is looking increasingly like some quasi-independent state working by and large with the UK and Ireland 50/50 on differing cross border maters.

I think you meant to quote Southside

[JamboX2]

I think you meant to quote Southside

 

Indeed I did! Do apologise there!

[Alba gu Brath]

The new Legatum Prosperity Index has just been published for 2012. Once again, wee nations come out on top. Even Ireland has displaced the US to come in at #10. The UK is at 13. It makes good reading and it ranks 'prosperity' according to many different factors.

 

We should be up there too.

 

http://www.prosperity.com/

 

[davemclaren]

I dont remember Thatcher or the SNP fermenting religious division when North Sea Oil revenues were are their peak.

 

I dont think Ireland should have been divided just as I think the UK should not be divided because it benefits all concerned. But we are were we are in Ireland and even a pro unionist like myself will have to come to terms with a Yes victory in the Referendum. And Nationalists will have to come to terms with a No victory that will sweep away conspiracy theories that have abounded since 1707 and provide total legitimacy to the Union

 

A Yes vote does not close the issue for ever but it will certainly close it for 20 to 30 years.

[Coco]

The new Legatum Prosperity Index has just been published for 2012. Once again, wee nations come out on top. Even Ireland has displaced the US to come in at #10. The UK is at 13. It makes good reading and it ranks 'prosperity' according to many different factors.

 

We should be up there too.

 

http://www.prosperity.com/

 

 

What do you think independence would do to make the very minor shift in placing in this series from 13 into the top 10?

 

Is a series which places Japan and South Korea as mildly more prosperous than Malta reliable as a guide to anything?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I tell you what. There would need to be a major cultural shift in education for Scotland to aim towards Australia in the No2 position.

[Alba gu Brath]

What do you think independence would do to make the very minor shift in placing in this series from 13 into the top 10?

 

Is a series which places Japan and South Korea as mildly more prosperous than Malta reliable as a guide to anything?

 

You tell me. I take it you've read it?

 

Suffice to say that economic/ monetary wealth is not the only yardstick. Like with men and their tadgers, it's not how big your stick is but what you do with it. And Scotland could do a lot more with what we have.

[Coco]

You tell me. I take it you've read it?

 

Suffice to say that economic/ monetary wealth is not the only yardstick. Like with men and their tadgers, it's not how big your stick is but what you do with it. And Scotland could do a lot more with what we have.

 

Yes i have. I found it mildly interesting.

 

According to them the key factor to move higher within the top 50 countries is Entrepreneurship. Is that what you believe will propel an independent Scotland higher than the UK in this ranking? What evidence is there of that? Or is it something else which is going to see Scotland be more prosperous on this scale than the UK?

[JamboX2]

2001 days of Mr Salmomd as First Minister today. As Newsnight Scotland via his biographer David Torrance said, the polls for independence still sit at around a third for. An interesting point was brought up, what radical positive benefits has he delivered? Tuition fees were already gone by 2007, free personal care came under Henry McLeish...the two beacons of devolution if you will. Is he too timid to use the power he has? Surely 2001 days of nationalist government should've led to a bigger rise for independence? I remember Jim Sillars saying he should've used the office as more of an instrument to achieve independence than he has. Dunno what i think myself but an interesting point.

[davemclaren]

2001 days of Mr Salmomd as First Minister today. As Newsnight Scotland via his biographer David Torrance said, the polls for independence still sit at around a third for. An interesting point was brought up, what radical positive benefits has he delivered? Tuition fees were already gone by 2007, free personal care came under Henry McLeish...the two beacons of devolution if you will. Is he too timid to use the power he has? Surely 2001 days of nationalist government should've led to a bigger rise for independence? I remember Jim Sillars saying he should've used the office as more of an instrument to achieve independence than he has. Dunno what i think myself but an interesting point.

 

Not sure how he could have used the office any more as an instrument to achieve indeopendence to be honest. Free prescription charges springs to mind.

[Boris]

2001 days of Mr Salmomd as First Minister today. As Newsnight Scotland via his biographer David Torrance said, the polls for independence still sit at around a third for. An interesting point was brought up, what radical positive benefits has he delivered? Tuition fees were already gone by 2007, free personal care came under Henry McLeish...the two beacons of devolution if you will. Is he too timid to use the power he has? Surely 2001 days of nationalist government should've led to a bigger rise for independence? I remember Jim Sillars saying he should've used the office as more of an instrument to achieve independence than he has. Dunno what i think myself but an interesting point.

 

Arguably, power was very limited in his first term as the SNP were the a minority Government.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Arguably, power was very limited in his first term as the SNP were the a minority Government.

 

True, but thats what Sillars was getting at. Say i cant do anything cause of unionists, and equate that to the union.

 

Personally I'm glad that he never. But it's an interesting point to note the difference in approach between the SNP gradualists and the radicalists.

[southside1874]

I tell you what. There would need to be a major cultural shift in education for Scotland to aim towards Australia in the No2 position.??

 

The only way Scotland can have a cultural shift if it is in control of its culture. It's the old school unionist Australians who move that country forward? I don't think so......

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The only way Scotland can have a cultural shift if it is in control of its culture. It's the old school unionist Australians who move that country forward? I don't think so......

 

What do you mean by "unionist Australians?"

[dobmisterdobster]

What do you mean by "unionist Australians?"

I think he means loyalist.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

I think he means loyalist.

That makes no sense either.

[RodHull]

Ireland is prosperous? That is madness. I had work over there and it's anything but prosperous. Pictures like that is dangerous shit designed for idiots to believe. Canada and Australia are small nations?

 

 

 

 

 

I like to think if you take away the Union it takes us out of this nonsense and we can move past it and get on with being a normal society.

 

Are you serious? You can't be.

Edited November 8, 2012 by RodHull

[Don Draper]

Nice timeline graphic on the process by national collective.com:

 

[JamboX2]

Nice timeline graphic on the process by national collective.com:

 

 

Technically it wouldn't be the last UK election. They'll still exist. It'd be the last UK election to where Scotland wasn't involved. If YES wins the day, the last election of the UK Scotland would've been part of would be 2010. We as Scots wont get a vote in 2015 if we go for YES, what'd be the point?

 

 

Plus the point that 2016 Scotland would be up and running isn't technically true. Some experts think it'd be a decade before Scotland was totally on her own two feet. The setting up of her own benefits system, defence forces, telecommunications regulations, postal services, domestic regulatory systems, foreign representatives and the other elements of government which have never existed in Scotland. It's as you say a process. But for a good decade we'd still be a quasi independent nation, reliant on others whilst we set ourselves up. It's why the negotiation process, to discern what will actually happen if YES wins should have begun. Fact it hasn't is just leaving it all for a later date.

Edited November 8, 2012 by JamboX2

[JamboInSouthsea]

Technically it wouldn't be the last UK election. They'll still exist. It'd be the last UK election to where Scotland wasn't involved. If YES wins the day, the last election of the UK Scotland would've been part of would be 2010. We as Scots wont get a vote in 2015 if we go for YES, what'd be the point?

 

 

Plus the point that 2016 Scotland would be up and running isn't technically true. Some experts think it'd be a decade before Scotland was totally on her own two feet. The setting up of her own benefits system, defence forces, telecommunications regulations, postal services, domestic regulatory systems, foreign representatives and the other elements of government which have never existed in Scotland. It's as you say a process. But for a good decade we'd still be a quasi independent nation, reliant on others whilst we set ourselves up. It's why the negotiation process, to discern what will actually happen if YES wins should have begun. Fact it hasn't is just leaving it all for a later date.

 

As a matter of interest, I have no idea myself, but how long did it take say the Baltic states or other eastern european countries/eastern bloc to do the same after splitting/gaining independance from USSR/Soviet Pact?

 

Do they have their own embassies or do they share? Do they have armies, can they cope?

 

I am not making a comparison, as such, between them and us but how long do these things actually take...anybody?

 

Obviously the World's economy is in slump but do the people in those countries 'feel' happier alone rather than with Big Brother, would they rejoin the 'pact' if it were put to the vote or do they belive they are better off governing themselves?

Edited November 9, 2012 by JamboInSouthsea

[Don Draper]

http://news.stv.tv/politics/199694-independent-scotland-would-slowly-and-surely-return-to-the-uk/

 

Staggering statement. What a complete roaster Darling is.

[Coco]

http://news.stv.tv/p...turn-to-the-uk/

 

Staggering statement. What a complete roaster Darling is.

 

You don't even need to know the theory about optimum currency areas ... just look at what is happening in the Euro-zone or even in the ERM era. He's right about political or fiscal union being necessary to maintain currency zones - unless one part of the zone becomes completely dependent on the central area for monetary and other policy.

 

The SNP policy here is half baked and really poor. In independence I would strongly favour a separate own currency. Sterling zone or Euro zone would likely be very bad news for Scotland.

[southside1874]

Technically it wouldn't be the last UK election. They'll still exist. It'd be the last UK election to where Scotland wasn't involved. If YES wins the day, the last election of the UK Scotland would've been part of would be 2010. We as Scots wont get a vote in 2015 if we go for YES, what'd be the point?

 

 

Plus the point that 2016 Scotland would be up and running isn't technically true. Some experts think it'd be a decade before Scotland was totally on her own two feet. The setting up of her own benefits system, defence forces, telecommunications regulations, postal services, domestic regulatory systems, foreign representatives and the other elements of government which have never existed in Scotland. It's as you say a process. But for a good decade we'd still be a quasi independent nation, reliant on others whilst we set ourselves up. It's why the negotiation process, to discern what will actually happen if YES wins should have begun. Fact it hasn't is just leaving it all for a later date.

 

I'm not sure we should waste a lot of time and effort until we know the outcome of the referendum. There is no point in starting these negotiations until we know the results.

[southside1874]

You don't even need to know the theory about optimum currency areas ... just look at what is happening in the Euro-zone or even in the ERM era. He's right about political or fiscal union being necessary to maintain currency zones - unless one part of the zone becomes completely dependent on the central area for monetary and other policy.

 

The SNP policy here is half baked and really poor. In independence I would strongly favour a separate own currency. Sterling zone or Euro zone would likely be very bad news for Scotland.

 

this.

[JamboX2]

 

 

I'm not sure we should waste a lot of time and effort until we know the outcome of the referendum. There is no point in starting these negotiations until we know the results.

 

Then all we are voting on is what we feel ourselves to be. If we dont know how the governance of an independent Scotland is going to look then we cant really diacern if its better or worse.

[JamboX2]

 

 

As a matter of interest, I have no idea myself, but how long did it take say the Baltic states or other eastern european countries/eastern bloc to do the same after splitting/gaining independance from USSR/Soviet Pact?

 

Do they have their own embassies or do they share? Do they have armies, can they cope?

 

I am not making a comparison, as such, between them and us but how long do these things actually take...anybody?

 

Obviously the World's economy is in slump but do the people in those countries 'feel' happier alone rather than with Big Brother, would they rejoin the 'pact' if it were put to the vote or do they belive they are better off governing themselves?

 

In no way am i saying we couldnt cope. Butbwhen you look at the history of the Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states etc, it took a good decade to establish themselves. In the Ukraine for example they believed the Russians would leave, yet Sevastapol os still a Russian enclave for her fleet, around Lithuania is the enclave of Kaliningrad. Who is to say that the UK wont request and negotiate that Faslane remain British in return for financial aid for one? It wont be a year or 2, but a decade of progress to untangle our union. Scotland has no indigenous regulators in banking and finance, no central bank, no defence force HQ, no indigenous telecoms system, no domestic welfare system. Nothing close. This wont take a year. But a decade of hard graft to make us independent truly. Till theb we would be as reliant on the UK as we are right now.

[southside1874]

Then all we are voting on is what we feel ourselves to be. If we dont know how the governance of an independent Scotland is going to look then we cant really diacern if its better or worse.

 

Nobody can give you anything my friend. You take it. If you have to concern yourself about how an Independent Scotland will be then you are quite happy with the status quo. I'm not, I think Scotland has a different mentality. I think Scotland has had it's larger neighbour imposing hardship on it. I think Scotland fought its corner so that it's larger neighbour couldn't physically swallow it up and its larger neighbour went for imposing economic despair. I remember going down to England as a youngster and getting 90p for a Scottish pound. I remember reading about creating hardship so Scots would fill the empire and fill the army.

 

I have no grievance with the English, I would rather my fellow countrymen and women stood on their own. I don't want to live on handouts. I want some pride. If you feel that you want financial guarantees before you want independence, then i understand this. I don't know how you can look to the status quo for financial security after the recent financial crisis but I understand your concerns. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if Westminster pulled this financial handout they give to Scotland because of any potential austerity measures.

 

However, if you think that someone else can bring you financial stability then so be it.

[southside1874]

In no way am i saying we couldnt cope. Butbwhen you look at the history of the Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states etc, it took a good decade to establish themselves. In the Ukraine for example they believed the Russians would leave, yet Sevastapol os still a Russian enclave for her fleet, around Lithuania is the enclave of Kaliningrad. Who is to say that the UK wont request and negotiate that Faslane remain British in return for financial aid for one? It wont be a year or 2, but a decade of progress to untangle our union. Scotland has no indigenous regulators in banking and finance, no central bank, no defence force HQ, no indigenous telecoms system, no domestic welfare system. Nothing close. This wont take a year. But a decade of hard graft to make us independent truly. Till theb we would be as reliant on the UK as we are right now.

 

It's just my opinion but see everything you think Scotland doesn't have and the UK does have? Just take a look at the foreign investment and just who owns what!!! Scotland has a much better domestic welfare system than the rest of the UK. It provides free pills from the chemist, free care for the old and free education for the population. We have a terrible infrastructure that is now being addressed and we don't really need a major army/navy because we wont be aggressors. We won't need to go to war to protect the fragile pound and dollar. Just how have the financial regulators served us just now? No, it wont take a year to get things right, but do you feel good about it moving in the right direction?

[JamboX2]

 

 

Nobody can give you anything my friend. You take it. If you have to concern yourself about how an Independent Scotland will be then you are quite happy with the status quo. I'm not, I think Scotland has a different mentality. I think Scotland has had it's larger neighbour imposing hardship on it. I think Scotland fought its corner so that it's larger neighbour couldn't physically swallow it up and its larger neighbour went for imposing economic despair. I remember going down to England as a youngster and getting 90p for a Scottish pound. I remember reading about creating hardship so Scots would fill the empire and fill the army.

 

I have no grievance with the English, I would rather my fellow countrymen and women stood on their own. I don't want to live on handouts. I want some pride. If you feel that you want financial guarantees before you want independence, then i understand this. I don't know how you can look to the status quo for financial security after the recent financial crisis but I understand your concerns. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if Westminster pulled this financial handout they give to Scotland because of any potential austerity measures.

 

However, if you think that someone else can bring you financial stability then so be it.

 

I think you've summed up my feelings as to why i am not a fan of independence. I include the English, Welsh and Northern Irish as my fellow country men. Im a Scot yes but thats as much a difference in my eyes as someone coming from Bristol or Aberdeen or Derry etc. I view it as the Scots being in solidarity with the Welsh and English and Northern Irish.

I genuinely think nationalism in the modern integrated world is outmoded. It is essentially an idea that places one type of people above others in their concerns. It matters not a jot to me where someone suffers from lack of opportunity or poverty, be it Manchester or Swansea or Glasgow, it exists. The broader the shoulders in the UK the greater the resources we have to mobilise against that.

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

It's just my opinion but see everything you think Scotland doesn't have and the UK does have? Just take a look at the foreign investment and just who owns what!!! Scotland has a much better domestic welfare system than the rest of the UK. It provides free pills from the chemist, free care for the old and free education for the population. We have a terrible infrastructure that is now being addressed and we don't really need a major army/navy because we wont be aggressors. We won't need to go to war to protect the fragile pound and dollar. Just how have the financial regulators served us just now? No, it wont take a year to get things right, but do you feel good about it moving in the right direction?

 

Those are all priorities. There are pills you cant get in Scotland or Wales that you can get in England due to free prescriptions for all. Personally i think its a greater cause of social justice that those who can pay should. I do agree free personal care for the elderly is great, that free bus passes are grand too. But remember the caveats. If you are capital rich, ie own your own house, you will be required to pay for much of your elderly care.

 

There's a huge question about funding in Scotland. Its priorities. Should we rob the college budget to pay the uni one? Do we fund a wasteful council tax freeze whilst our schools feel the pinch and we lose more and more nhs nurses?

 

Obviously an independent scotland wont need a big defence force. But it'll still cost hundreds of millions if not billions to establish logistical/intelligence/headquarters/equipment for these forces.

 

I want a strong devolution settlement, within the Union as i think we do well together and better than if we stood alone. I mean if we are to go along pooling sovereignty in tge EU, whats the issue in pooling within the UK?

 

[southside1874]

I think you've summed up my feelings as to why i am not a fan of independence. I include the English, Welsh and Northern Irish as my fellow country men. Im a Scot yes but thats as much a difference in my eyes as someone coming from Bristol or Aberdeen or Derry etc. I view it as the Scots being in solidarity with the Welsh and English and Northern Irish.

I genuinely think nationalism in the modern integrated world is outmoded. It is essentially an idea that places one type of people above others in their concerns. It matters not a jot to me where someone suffers from lack of opportunity or poverty, be it Manchester or Swansea or Glasgow, it exists. The broader the shoulders in the UK the greater the resources we have to mobilise against that.

 

I like to think I'm a citizen of the world mate. I don't see me as any different from folk you get throughout the world. It does matter to me about someone who suffers from lack of opportunity. Lack of opportunity leads to poverty. I wouldn't say that your principle is wrong but it's different from mine and it takes all sorts to make a nation. Your shoulders shouldn't be that broad that it forgets about the body that holds these shoulders. Scotland is traditionally a very conservative country but it's outlook within the UK is socialist because it is far from the power base and the rewards that go with being close to the central power. Scottish Conservatives are misguided when they think about unionism. Scotland would become very conservative in its outlook because of the wealth produced and our lack of tolerance. It is currently only socialist because of the poverty created. Conservative and unionism just don't go together in a natural environment.

[southside1874]

Those are all priorities. There are pills you cant get in Scotland or Wales that you can get in England due to free prescriptions for all. Personally i think its a greater cause of social justice that those who can pay should. I do agree free personal care for the elderly is great, that free bus passes are grand too. But remember the caveats. If you are capital rich, ie own your own house, you will be required to pay for much of your elderly care.

 

There's a huge question about funding in Scotland. Its priorities. Should we rob the college budget to pay the uni one? Do we fund a wasteful council tax freeze whilst our schools feel the pinch and we lose more and more nhs nurses?

 

Obviously an independent scotland wont need a big defence force. But it'll still cost hundreds of millions if not billions to establish logistical/intelligence/headquarters/equipment for these forces.

 

I want a strong devolution settlement, within the Union as i think we do well together and better than if we stood alone. I mean if we are to go along pooling sovereignty in tge EU, whats the issue in pooling within the UK?

You seem to think Scotland has created most of the things that you think debatable here? It's not Scotland who create a council tax freeze. Thats a Westminster directive to create poverty mate. Scotland can and will, if given the opportunity, invest in it's people.

[Boris]

 

 

Personally i think its a greater cause of social justice that those who can pay should.

 

Easiest way to do this is via income tax, IMO.

[JamboX2]

You seem to think Scotland has created most of the things that you think debatable here? It's not Scotland who create a council tax freeze. Thats a Westminster directive to create poverty mate. Scotland can and will, if given the opportunity, invest in it's people.

 

Council Tax is a Westminster invention yes.

 

It is however a devolved tax. The Scotgish Government froze it at the height of the good times in 2007 (Salmonds central pledge was to freeze it then abolish it - no progress) which was 4 years before Westminster offered a similar policy in England. So its totally in the governments power to both un freeze it and reform it. Why no action? 2 elections they campaigned here and still no change.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Easiest way to do this is via income tax, IMO.

 

Yeh but it then isnt specifically set aside for the purpose you want. General poy for a myriad of services. Hypothecating taxes (tying to services and policies) would actually have a hreater effect. Best thing about the prescription fee was it funded buying expensive drugs we cant now afford. Or the removal of the endowment tax has meant the college budget gets robbed for the uni one. Its not really good enough imo.

[southside1874]

Council Tax is a Westminster invention yes.

 

It is however a devolved tax. The Scotgish Government froze it at the height of the good times in 2007 (Salmonds central pledge was to freeze it then abolish it - no progress) which was 4 years before Westminster offered a similar policy in England. So its totally in the governments power to both un freeze it and reform it. Why no action? 2 elections they campaigned here and still no change.

 

Since when did MSPs get the power to adjust any taxes? I could be wrong but a directive from westminster to freeze council tax may override anything we want up here. That just may be one of the reasons why folk want independence??

[southside1874]

Easiest way to do this is via income tax, IMO.

 

How central government and how local government raise taxes should be kept apart IMO.

[JamboX2]

Since when did MSPs get the power to adjust any taxes? I could be wrong but a directive from westminster to freeze council tax may override anything we want up here. That just may be one of the reasons why folk want independence??

 

Scottish Parliament and Government have power over;

Business Rates

Council Tax (and associated Local Government tax)

At the moment Income tax variation by 3p (to be increased to 10p under the 2012 Act)

Areas like landfill tax is also devolved and certain land levys and taxes.

 

So they have total control of those above, except income tax which they can only vary.

 

In the 2012 Scotland Act, they'll get a host of new taxes; http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/news-calman.htm - all these are being devolved.

 

So Taxation is being devolved. They can do what ever they want with local taxation, the freeze in Scotland came years before the freeze in England and Wales. As its devolved. So we do have control, limited and I want expanded control, and its their decisions on this which impact their spending. So cuts in Scotland aren't only the fault of the UK government. We have a very narrow and black and white view of power in Scotland, we need a more grey and federal view. It'd kill nationalism, or weaken it.

[systemx]

Another day at Holyrood and Liar Salmond caught out again along with his chum and bully Russell.They just cant help themselves.

[number-16]

The coverage of the Catalan election is interesting. Especially the coverage from countries that have their own independence movements.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

 

 

Since when did MSPs get the power to adjust any taxes? I could be wrong but a directive from westminster to freeze council tax may override anything we want up here. That just may be one of the reasons why folk want independence??

 

I think this post kind off underlines why opinions on independence are pointless unless you know the facts.

[lauriesrank]

(the Godwins law was hilarious BTW) In real terms however, independence is not an option, what it is though, is a right! For too long we have had to suffer at the hands of oppressors, whether they be in suits or rags, it doesn't matter. Scotland should be itself, no ifs or buts! Economically of course it'll be difficult, defence too, but I say if we are truly Scottish (and I know that most Scots were Irish) then we should demand our rights as a nation to say no more to outside influence

[Radge21]

Uk national debt in 2014 estimated to be ?1.4 Trillion.

Will Salmond want to pick up our share if he gets independence.

Scotland did not have enough money to save our own RBS.

One business could have sunk our best wee bigoted country in the world.

If the UK had not stepped in.

#bettertogether

[number-16]

Uk national debt in 2014 estimated to be ?1.4 Trillion.

Will Salmond want to pick up our share if he gets independence.

Scotland did not have enough money to save our own RBS.

One business could have sunk our best wee bigoted country in the world.

If the UK had not stepped in.

#bettertogether

 

Why wouldn't we pick up our share? And why mention Salmond? This is Scotland's referendum, not his.

 

RBS also received bailouts from the US and Australia. This was because those bailouts protected American and Australian jobs. Given that RBS employs around 90% of it's UK workforce in England surely, had Scotland been independent at the time, it would have been in rUK's interest to also bail out RBS. It was a global business that required a global bailout. It would likely only have particularly affected Scotland if they'd followed the Irish in guaranteeing all savings.

 

That said; who's to say when we would have become independent beforehand. We might well have had an oil fund large enough to cover the bailout ourselves or proper banking regulation or a number of other measures. It's hard to predict 'what ifs' at times.

 

Describing the country as wee and bigoted certainly doesn't help the Better Together argument btw.

[dobmisterdobster]

 

I think this post kind off underlines why opinions on independence are pointless unless you know the facts.

 

Actually MSPs will not have those powers until around 2016.

[dobmisterdobster]

I hope you know that the Scotland Bill returns some powers to Westminster and also cuts the block grant.

 

Giving with one hand, taking away with the other.

[Coco]

Still no concrete view on whether Scotland would have to take the Euro and be run by Brussels (or adopt Sterling dependency and be run by London )

 

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/scotland-will-be-made-to-reapply-for-eu-membership-after-independence-says-eu-chief-1-2680064

[JamboX2]

 

 

Actually MSPs will not have those powers until around 2016.

 

There have been tax powers in Scotland since 1998. With exveption of the Council Tax and Business rates (which were local authority powers anyway) they've not been used. In fact John Swinney told HMRC to close the office for tge scottish tax varying powers a couple of years ago as he had no plans to use them. You are right in that expansion of those powers is due for 2016. And no doubt should a new devolution settlement be agreed, extended again for 2018/20.