Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[TheMaganator]

John Swinney was interviewed this morning on the radio and said several times that the 'start up' figures issued by Alexander et al were wrong and misleading.

 

A number of times the interviewer invited Mr Swinney to settle the argument and present the accurate figures.

 

He jumped and squirmed and ducked the answer.

 

I am getting thoroughly sick of both sides in this argument. There are risks for both sides, please be honest and acknowledge them. There are questions where the answers will not be known until after the referendum, please be honest and acknowledge this, do not say it all will be great, or will all be awful. Give us your best interpretation of what is likely to happen, not the most extreme outcome.

 

Pathetic campaign from both sides so far. I have always felt that this decision was too important for the short term views of all politicians who can't see further than the next election.

 

Pitiful!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10860195/SNP-disarray-over-claims-UK-dividend-worth-1400-to-every-Scot.html

 

 

Here is a rather scathing report of the SNP and how they have handled matters today. A bit of a car crash interview by all accounts.

 

But tbf it sounds as if Alexander hasn't covered himself in glory with these figures - which I don't think are lies - I think he has just over-egged the pudding somewhat.

 

A bit of a shambles from both sides:

 

"In a car-crash radio interview preceding the press conference, John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Minister, was repeatedly challenged to say how much it cost to create the infrastructure of a separate Scotland but could not.

Barely two hours later, Mr Salmond announced at the press conference the figure was ?250 million.

However, this cost did not feature in his document and contradicted a leaked report by Mr Swinney, which said the cost of a new Scottish tax agency alone would be between ?575 million and ?625 million"

[Patrick Bateman]

As I've said before, this debate is actually very simple; do you want decisions that affect Scotland to be made by a parliament that is fully accountable to Scotland, or do you want them to remain at a parliament which isn't accountable to Scotland. The 100% at Holyrood versus 9% at Westminster argument, as I've previously stated. That's the only thing guaranteed by either Yes or a No vote. It's not even in dispute, so the next question is whether you think a government that is accountable to Scotland would perform better or worse than one that isn't. Given we have 300 years of evidence from Westminster, and can look at comparatives from similarly sized/resourced independent nations across Europe, the choice should be pretty straightforward.

[JamboGraham]

 

As I've said before, this debate is actually very simple; do you want decisions that affect Scotland to be made by a parliament that is fully accountable to Scotland, or do you want them to remain at a parliament which isn't accountable to Scotland.

 

OK, but no one appears to be campaigning on this level.

 

Also, your argument is perhaps a slight too simplistic. Should it not be, 'do you want decisions that affect Scotland to be made by a parliament that is only accountable to Scotland, or do you want them to remain at a parliament that is accountable to the UK, including Scotland'.

[TheMaganator]

As I've said before, this debate is actually very simple; do you want decisions that affect Scotland to be made by a parliament that is fully accountable to Scotland, or do you want them to remain at a parliament which isn't accountable to Scotland. The 100% at Holyrood versus 9% at Westminster argument, as I've previously stated. That's the only thing guaranteed by either Yes or a No vote. It's not even in dispute, so the next question is whether you think a government that is accountable to Scotland would perform better or worse than one that isn't. Given we have 300 years of evidence from Westminster, and can look at comparatives from similarly sized/resourced independent nations across Europe, the choice should be pretty straightforward.

Except it's not that simple at all as it ignores the fact that we have a devolved parliament within the UK set up.

 

It's also odd that I've never encountered a Yes voter who is anti EU or, for that matter, anti currency union.

 

EDIT: should you not add in a 'whatever the cost' to your simple question?

Edited May 28, 2014 by TheMaganator

[Patrick Bateman]

OK, but no one appears to be campaigning on this level.

 

Also, your argument is perhaps a slight too simplistic. Should it not be, 'do you want decisions that affect Scotland to be made by a parliament that is only accountable to Scotland, or do you want them to remain at a parliament that is accountable to the UK, including Scotland'.

 

I expect the campaign to move towards this way later on, because it's very difficult to counter.

 

I also don't see how my second point is oversimplifying anything, really. Westminster is not accountable to Scotland, because Scotland makes up 59 out of 650 seats. This obviously means there are 591 other MPs who represent different parts, who all have very different needs to cater for. Again, this set up has presided over the situation we see now; a UK debt at ?1.3 trillion, *still* involved in a 13 year occupation of Afghanistan, with an economy that depends on a casino banking culture in The City to the detriment of everywhere else and so on, yet the political debate is fixated on some falsities about immigrants.

 

Now, I realise some will insist that a Yes vote will mean Old Etonians will just become Old Loretto/Mechiston, etc, but that just doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all. Besides, even if we were to vote for a government that turned out to be unpopular, for the first time, Scotland could vote them out. And, as i've said repeatedly, this extends beyond the Labour/Tory etc party political divide; we'll have politicians whose PARAMOUNT consideration is Scotland. Decisions that are better for Scotland will flow from this. I mean, would a Scottish Government spend its time suppressing oil wealth or trying to scrap the Human Rights act, for example?

[The Comedian]

 

Except it's not that simple at all as it ignores the fact that we have a devolved parliament within the UK set up.

 

It's also odd that I've never encountered a Yes voter who is anti EU or, for that matter, anti currency union.

 

EDIT: should you not add in a 'whatever the cost' to your simple question?

 

Me. That's if you consider reading my drivel on here a encounter.

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by The Comedian

[TheMaganator]

The Scottish Government just spend a lot of time trying to abolish corroboration. That was of benefit to nobody. Not even the female vote it was patronisingly trying to curry favour with.

 

But let's ignore that because Scottish politicians will always be right & will never waste the taxpayers time & money, right?

 

I forget - where were the PM & chancellor from that took us into Afghan?

[JamboGraham]

 

.

 

I also don't see how my second point is oversimplifying anything, really. Westminster is not accountable to Scotland, because Scotland makes up 59 out of 650 seats. This obviously means there are 591 other MPs who represent different parts, who all have very different needs to cater for. Again, this set up has presided over the situation we see now; a UK debt at ?1.3 trillion, *still* involved in a 13 year occupation of Afghanistan, with an economy that depends on a casino banking culture in The City to the detriment of everywhere else and so on, yet the political debate is fixated on some falsities about immigrants.

 

It is over simplifying as your point makes the assumption that Scotland is already a separate entity within the wider United Kingdom which of course it isn't.

[Patrick Bateman]

Except it's not that simple at all as it ignores the fact that we have a devolved parliament within the UK set up.

 

It's also odd that I've never encountered a Yes voter who is anti EU or, for that matter, anti currency union.

 

EDIT: should you not add in a 'whatever the cost' to your simple question?

 

We've been over this, but Westminster decides on the economy, welfare and military policy (amongst other things) - Westminster decides what Holyrood can spend. Is that really preferable to a fully accountable Holyrood?

 

I've said before, I'm not particularly keen on a currency union, I'd rather we established our own currency. But rejecting independence because I don't fully approve of one policy is like turning down your dream home because you don't like the wallpaper.

 

As for your last point; the 'costs' - Given we have a great deal of infrastructure in place, I don't see what the problem is. Are you suggesting we couldn't afford to set up a tax office? Given that nobody, even on the no side, would (at least publicly) claim that Scotland couldn't be independent, isn't that a little hollow/short term? Who's to say that Scotland couldn't do a better job than Westminster? Remember, the same arguments against independence were used against devolution; I don't think anyone would serious say that devolution failed; in fact, a majority want more powers.

 

As I've said before, if Westminster was good at managing these things at a UK level, this debate simply wouldn't be happening.

[Patrick Bateman]

It is over simplifying as your point makes the assumption that Scotland is already a separate entity within the wider United Kingdom which of course it isn't.

 

It's a matter of semantics, not a simplification of anything. Scotland cannot be a 'separate entity within the wider UK' - Although we do have our own 'separate' legal system, healthcare and parliament. And I don't know anyone who'd give that up. By logical extension, I can't imagine people deciding independence was a mistake, and this is backed up by the fact that, since 1945, 150 states have becoming independent, and not a single one has reversed that decision. No country has a 'Separation' Day where they lament the choices they made; to me it's unreasonable that Scotland would be any different to them.

[Cade]

Both sides are asking the other side to look 20 years into the future and predict what the state of affairs will be at that time.....and they are basing the voting choices we all have to make on those wild predictions.

 

More short-term, the SNP have repeatedly asked Westminster to enter into negotiations so they can present actual figures to the people of Scotland.

Westminster have refused to discuss anything until after the referendum and then go screaming to the press that the SNP have no detailed plans.

 

Instead of speculating and scaremongering, we should look at things we know will happen. The UK is drifting further and fuhrer further to the right, with more and more money being siphoned offshore and into the pockets of the already ludicrously rich.

SNP plans detail land reform, eviction of nuclear weapons and the continuation of things such as free home care and higher education.

 

Vote on what we know, not what might happen at some random point in the future.

[jambos are go!]

I don't really know what you want me to add tbh. I think Darling and Alexander have played on the fears tbh and most people swallow it. I stand by pretty much everything I've posted on this thread. Some of it might seem pish to you and sometimes I post in frustration but I 100% believe that it's fear that makes people not want to go indy whether that be currency fears, defence fears, fears that the SNP are nazis etc etc etc and Darling and Alexander among others have played on it repeatedly. Some of the garbage I've listened to from people who will vote No is truly laughable but by the same token I've listened to complete nonsense from Yes supporters too. Darling has compared Scotland to a tinpot South American economy and Alexander practically screams we're skint from every pore and we need English taxpayers money and I find it degrading personally. If you believe they aren't making us look like a bunch of no good ungrateful spongeing torn faced disasters then that's your prerogative.

 

It's ok to disagree with me mate I'm fine with it.

 

[modedit]

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

It's a matter of semantics, not a simplification of anything. Scotland cannot be a 'separate entity within the wider UK' - Although we do have our own 'separate' legal system, healthcare and parliament. And I don't know anyone who'd give that up. By logical extension, I can't imagine people deciding independence was a mistake, and this is backed up by the fact that, since 1945, 150 states have becoming independent, and not a single one has reversed that decision. No country has a 'Separation' Day where they lament the choices they made; to me it's unreasonable that Scotland would be any different to them.

 

I agree that I don't know anyone who would give up our legal system, healthcare or parliament. That is not what the people of Scotland are being asked to consider though, we already have all of these.

 

I cannot agree that it is a matter of semantics with regard to Westminster not being accountable to voters in Scotland.

[Patrick Bateman]

I agree that I don't know anyone who would give up our legal system, healthcare or parliament. That is not what the people of Scotland are being asked to consider though, we already have all of these.

 

I cannot agree that it is a matter of semantics with regard to Westminster not being accountable to voters in Scotland.

 

Yes, we already make decisions over them and do them well; again, by logical extension, we would be just as, if not more, than capable of making those decisions still reserved to Westminster.

 

As I've said; Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs at Westminster; that constitutes 9% of the total available seats. That means every single seat can fall to one party, and for an entirely different party to govern our spending, foreign policy and welfare decisions. That isn't accountability by any definition, semantic or otherwise.

[JamboGraham]

 

As I've said; Scotland has 59 out of 650 MPs at Westminster; that constitutes 9% of the total available seats. That means every single seat can fall to one party, and for an entirely different party to govern our spending, foreign policy and welfare decisions. That isn't accountability by any definition, semantic or otherwise.

 

But it is democracy, based on 8.1% of the population. If we take the five most recent Westminster parliament terms the winning party in Scotland has governed the United Kingdom for three of these terms.

[Patrick Bateman]

But it is democracy, based on 8.1% of the population. If we take the five most recent Westminster parliament terms the winning party in Scotland has governed the United Kingdom for three of these terms.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a democracy; I said it wasn't accountable to Scotland, and it's not, by your own example. Besides, Scotland's votes have only changed 3 elections since WW2. I want Scotland to get the government it votes for every single time; that's accountability.

 

[curriehearts]

 

Unfortunately, a lot of Yes supporters don't see it that way - and when the realities are brought to their notice they either get defensive or else deflect.

 

As regards your remark about "the UK financial challenge", the reality is that the "independent Scotland financial challenge" would be every bit as severe, and there is a real probability it would be worse - so adding to the problem by engaging in the kind of fantasy economic and budgetary policies favoured by some Yes supporters is not wise.

 

Yup - financial challenges whichever way a voter looks.

Would it be financially worse for Scotland? Shorter - term (a few years) will not be any better than UK financial position as markets etc will be grading Scotland. Medium to longer term - well that is the real question for me. I believe it will be become better as financial history and credibility is gained and policies/ focus is geared towards generating the businesses that are much required here.

Where does that leave voters who want it all now? Well they need to manage their hopes and dreams but no money tap will be turned on shorter-term.

Of course, going hand in hand with this is Danny's version of 'we are all doomed' as the oil eventually will run out. Well Danny, if that is the case, what are you doing about it to rebalance the economy? I have seen nothing to tell me that you have an idea because working of the 80:20 rule, Scotland doesn't come into your Treasury calculations. If a No vote does materialise, then I'm damned if I know what is round the corner for the Scottish economy.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If you want to discuss economics in the long term then a look at Monbiot's article in the Grauniad might offer food for thought, irrespective of Scotland's future political outlook.

[curriehearts]

 

 

But tbf it sounds as if Alexander hasn't covered himself in glory with these figures - which I don't think are lies - I think he has just over-egged the pudding somewhat.

 

]"

 

Listened to Radio Scotland this evening and they interviewed the professor.

He was very scathing of the Treasury. Said they were totally wrong with their numbers, full of 23yo and 24yo staff who never had the experience and didn't believe anyone in the Treasury had read his report.

 

I am not sure if they lied either but what they have done is open themselves up to a lack of integrity in their numbers.

[curriehearts]

If you want to discuss economics in the long term then a look at Monbiot's article in the Grauniad might offer food for thought, irrespective of Scotland's future political outlook.

 

Ok. Not read the word Grauniad for a while. That made me smile.....I stopped buying it when they got the spelling correct :-)

[JamboGraham]

 

I didn't say it wasn't a democracy; I said it wasn't accountable to Scotland, and it's not, by your own example. Besides, Scotland's votes have only changed 3 elections since WW2. I want Scotland to get the government it votes for every single time; that's accountability.

 

But these elections were for the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part. Therefore the elected government is accountable to all the people of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

 

My argument is based on the fact that whilst Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom then the UK government is accountable to the people of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

 

 

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Listened to Radio Scotland this evening and they interviewed the professor.

He was very scathing of the Treasury. Said they were totally wrong with their numbers, full of 23yo and 24yo staff who never had the experience and didn't believe anyone in the Treasury had read his report.

 

I am not sure if they lied either but what they have done is open themselves up to a lack of integrity in their numbers.

True. But Swinney was asked 11 times how much the set up costs would be & he couldn't answer.

 

Anyway - today won't affect anyone. It'll confuse people but won't change anyone's mind. A pretty poor day for the debate tbh.

[Gizmo]

True. But Swinney was asked 11 times how much the set up costs would be & he couldn't answer.

 

Anyway - today won't affect anyone. It'll confuse people but won't change anyone's mind. A pretty poor day for the debate tbh.

 

You would say that but social media is buzzing with indignation at what is seen as undeniable evidence of outright lying by Better Together.

 

?150 million the good Professor said... Over-egging that would be what, maybe ?300 million, a 100% mark up.

 

You cannot possibly claim inflating ?150 million to ?2.7 BILLION as "over - egging".

 

It's either deliberate, deceitful and preposterous exaggeration or it is utter incompetence. It won't be forgotten.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

You would say that but social media is buzzing with indignation at what is seen as undeniable evidence of outright lying by Better Together.

 

?150 million the good Professor said... Over-egging that would be what, maybe ?300 million, a 100% mark up.

 

You cannot possibly claim inflating ?150 million to ?2.7 BILLION as "over - egging".

 

It's either deliberate, deceitful and preposterous exaggeration or it is utter incompetence. It won't be forgotten.

Right - but Salmond estimated ?250m today.

 

Swinney's own internal papers estimated ?650m just to set up a new tax system.

 

So is that deceit or utter incompetence?

 

EDIT: funny how the Treasury is Better Together but Yes Scotland isn't the SNP...

EDIT: it was ?150m per department. The treasury said we'll need X departments and simply multiplied ?150m by that number. Not quite as sinister as is being peddled.

Edited May 28, 2014 by TheMaganator

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

I forget - where were the PM & chancellor from that took us into Afghan?

 

Are Austrian politicians anti-Semitic?

[GrimUpNorth]

I don't really know what you want me to add tbh. I think Darling and Alexander have played on the fears tbh and most people swallow it. I stand by pretty much everything I've posted on this thread. Some of it might seem pish to you and sometimes I post in frustration but I 100% believe that it's fear that makes people not want to go indy whether that be currency fears, defence fears, fears that the SNP are nazis etc etc etc and Darling and Alexander among others have played on it repeatedly. Some of the garbage I've listened to from people who will vote No is truly laughable but by the same token I've listened to complete nonsense from Yes supporters too. Darling has compared Scotland to a tinpot South American economy and Alexander practically screams we're skint from every pore and we need English taxpayers money and I find it degrading personally. If you believe they aren't making us look like a bunch of no good ungrateful spongeing torn faced disasters then that's your prerogative.

 

It's ok to disagree with me mate I'm fine with it.

 

Ignoring your complete hypocrisy on talking Scotland down and negativity, Darling said nothing of the sort, he compared Salmond to acting like a generallisimo from a tin-pot South American dictatorship re debt. It was slightly tongue in cheek after Salmond used the same language about the BBC a few years ago.

 

Ironic you keep peddling that lie though considering the rest of your post.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

You would say that but social media is buzzing with indignation at what is seen as undeniable evidence of outright lying by Better Together.

 

?150 million the good Professor said... Over-egging that would be what, maybe ?300 million, a 100% mark up.

 

You cannot possibly claim inflating ?150 million to ?2.7 BILLION as "over - egging".

 

It's either deliberate, deceitful and preposterous exaggeration or it is utter incompetence. It won't be forgotten.

No, he said ?15m to set up a department. BT then said there's 180 departments, times ?15m equals billions. Of course some departments will cost more and some less, some already exist and some will not be needed. I don't think a few billion to set up a new countries structures is excessive to be honest. ?250M on the other hand is a joke, unless you want unpaid volunteers operating from caravans. Whatever the estimated cost, the trams, the parliament itself and many other projects across the UK suggest it will cost a lot more than people think.

[ToYouToMe]

Whatever it costs I will pay more tax to achieve it. Anything is better than the status quo.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Swinneys figures are clearly wrong. They are based on a set of assumptions which may or may not happen, but the problem is they assume in the No case, no growth at all, whilst under Independence the growth will happen. That is a ridiculous assumption. If you want to do the calculation correctly, you make an assumption of growth for the No case (i.e. not zero) and one for the Yes case, and then you subtract the two.

 

Swinney needs to be honest - assuming zero growth for the No case is celarly biased and has no foundation. Its yet another example of trying to fool the non-thinking masses.

[jambo1185]

I didn't say it wasn't a democracy; I said it wasn't accountable to Scotland, and it's not, by your own example. Besides, Scotland's votes have only changed 3 elections since WW2. I want Scotland to get the government it votes for every single time; that's accountability.

 

 

Seems a little odd to keep in all the results prior to 1970 given that the Tories were consistently polling around 40% of total Scottish vote at that time, so clearly Scotland wasn't wanting, or needing, to be "saved" then.

 

Remember, even in the 2010 General Election the Tories were only 3% behind the SNP on total Scottish vote share, but won 5 less seats. FPTP hurts the Tories more in Scotland that it does anywhere else as their support base is of a good size, but too spread across the country to be able to pick up seats nowadays.

 

And, of course, accordingly to that graphic Scotland "saved the UK from the Tories" twice.

Edited May 29, 2014 by jambo1185

[jambo1185]

Sorry, can't edit my post again, but another thing that strikes meas odd is that isn't that poster effectively telling people to vote Labour rather than vote for independence?

 

Seeing as in a Westminster election Labour are the only ones who can beat the Tories, if people stopped voting SNP and Lib Dem and Labour picked up those seats, perhaps Scotland could "save" the UK then.

 

In fact, I'm sure I've seen Labour campaigning on almost exactly these lines up here before.

 

And I suppose strictly it's 3 times, taking out our results in 2010 leaves a Tory majority rather than a coalition. But in practice most probably don't notice the difference.

Edited May 29, 2014 by jambo1185

[Boris]

Sorry, can't edit my post again, but another thing that strikes meas odd is that isn't that poster effectively telling people to vote Labour rather than vote for independence?

 

Seeing as in a Westminster election Labour are the only ones who can beat the Tories, if people stopped voting SNP and Lib Dem and Labour picked up those seats, perhaps Scotland could "save" the UK then.

 

In fact, I'm sure I've seen Labour campaigning on almost exactly these lines up here before.

 

And I suppose strictly it's 3 times, taking out our results in 2010 leaves a Tory majority rather than a coalition. But in practice most probably don't notice the difference.

 

To me the poster is saying that despite what some sections of the NO campaign are saying (i.e. the Labour Party!) the effect of Scotland's elected representatives at Westminster is at best marginal. Labour is trying to appeal to those on the left not too abandon their comrades in rUK. But it's a false message as it doesn't really matter. Ironic as well, given that the Labour Party abandoned the comrades in the whole UK a long, long time ago.

[flecktimus]

No, he said ?15m to set up a department. BT then said there's 180 departments, times ?15m equals billions. Of course some departments will cost more and some less, some already exist and some will not be needed. I don't think a few billion to set up a new countries structures is excessive to be honest. ?250M on the other hand is a joke, unless you want unpaid volunteers operating from caravans. Whatever the estimated cost, the trams, the parliament itself and many other projects across the UK suggest it will cost a lot more than people think.

 

LSE dont think so

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/images/stories/audio/dunleavy.mp3

[flecktimus]

Quite an interesting little blog about the nukes from an American policy makers point of view.

 

[jambos are go!]

Quite an interesting little blog about the nukes from an American policy makers point of view.

 

This is an opinion from someone who has no credentials other than he claims to take an interest in and apparently does some 'policy' work without explaining what it is or who for. To try and suggest it is more than that is incorrect .IMO. Edited May 29, 2014 by jambos are go!

[Boris]

This is an opinion from someone who has no credentials other than he claims to take an interest in and apparently does some 'policy' work without explaining what it is or who for. To try and suggest it is more than that is incorrect .IMO.

 

It did set out some current examples of NATO countries that do not allow nukes on their territory, therefore the assertion that an independent Scotland could not join NATO unless it accepted nukes on its territory is complete bollocks (and has been know as such since it was first mooted by NO supporters, however it hasn't stopped it being trotted out on a regular basis).

[Coco]

The current hot topic is the different interpretations of estimates on the costs of setting up institutions in an independent Scotland (once again with a solely public sector focus). For me these sorts of costs are immaterial really - in terms of constitutional time they are balancing items in the accounts.

 

But am intrigued about the process here. Saw a bit of FMQs at lunchtime - and despite being asked clear questions by both the Conservatives and LIberal Democrats about the Scottish Government's own estimates (apparently having been carried out at civil service expense), Salmond preferred to bluster about the UK Treasury figures and how they have been disowned by their academic writers. The Presiding Officers were completely unconcerned about the failure to answer the questions - just like at Westminster PMQs. And the second issue - what have the SNP/Scottish Government got to be worried about by publishing their own estimates of these costs? Obviously it would take resource to set up institutions - and the public would be well aware of that - why hide this?

[Boris]

The current hot topic is the different interpretations of estimates on the costs of setting up institutions in an independent Scotland (once again with a solely public sector focus). For me these sorts of costs are immaterial really - in terms of constitutional time they are balancing items in the accounts.

 

But am intrigued about the process here. Saw a bit of FMQs at lunchtime - and despite being asked clear questions by both the Conservatives and LIberal Democrats about the Scottish Government's own estimates (apparently having been carried out at civil service expense), Salmond preferred to bluster about the UK Treasury figures and how they have been disowned by their academic writers. The Presiding Officers were completely unconcerned about the failure to answer the questions - just like at Westminster PMQs. And the second issue - what have the SNP/Scottish Government got to be worried about by publishing their own estimates of these costs? Obviously it would take resource to set up institutions - and the public would be well aware of that - why hide this?

 

I agree, however no costs can be set in stone, hence the reluctance perhaps? Also, I understand Salmond has said that one issue would be the "divorce" settlement i.e. what Scotland gets, or doesn't, and this would naturally affect any costings.

 

I guess no one wants to be a hostage to fortune.

[Patrick Bateman]

To me the poster is saying that despite what some sections of the NO campaign are saying (i.e. the Labour Party!) the effect of Scotland's elected representatives at Westminster is at best marginal. Labour is trying to appeal to those on the left not too abandon their comrades in rUK. But it's a false message as it doesn't really matter. Ironic as well, given that the Labour Party abandoned the comrades in the whole UK a long, long time ago.

 

Bingo. All this talk of a 'seat at the top table' and the god-awful 'punching above our weight' chat is extinguished by the reality - The City of London has 73 MPs, whilst the Country of Scotland has 59 MPs. I'd bet there's a lot more collusion going on in terms of spending on infrastructure projects and so on, and that's not to say I blame them, they're accountable to their voters, but Scotland can, should, and will do better than this.

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

The City of London has 73 MPs, whilst the Country of Scotland has 59 MPs. I'd bet there's a lot more collusion going on in terms of spending on infrastructure projects and so on, and that's not to say I blame them, they're accountable to their voters, but Scotland can, should, and will do better than this.

 

Now I am confused...London voted for Labour in the last General Election, with the most seats and the highest share of popular vote. A very similar situation to Scotland. How are the London MP's accountable to their voters but the Scottish MP's aren't?

 

London gets 1 MP for every 114k citizens, we get 1 MP for every 90k citizens. I would like to think that our politicians are just as capable of collusion as any from London, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

 

[Gizmo]

Right - but Salmond estimated ?250m today.

 

Swinney's own internal papers estimated ?650m just to set up a new tax system.

 

So is that deceit or utter incompetence?

 

EDIT: funny how the Treasury is Better Together but Yes Scotland isn't the SNP...

EDIT: it was ?150m per department. The treasury said we'll need X departments and simply multiplied ?150m by that number. Not quite as sinister as is being peddled.

 

15m per department not 150m. And the Treasury exaggerated the number of depts (Westminster has 24) to 180. One could almost think our maths-failure of a Chancellor himself attempted the calculations!

 

Even if Swinney's figures are correct, that is STILL a 400% exaggeration. Why do you think they keep doing this Magnator, why do they keep lying and distorting only to be caught out again and again? Yesterday that Professor, today Great Ormond Street Hospital.

 

Undecided voters must keep scratching their heads wondering why, if the case for the Union is so strong, all they get is lies, exaggerations and distorted figures. The penny will drop soon enough.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Gizmo

[TheMaganator]

 

 

15m per department not 150m. And the Treasury exaggerated the number of depts (Westminster has 24) to 180. One could almost think our maths-failure of a Chancellor himself attempted the calculations!

 

Even if Swinney's figures are correct, that is STILL a 400% exaggeration. Why do you think they keep doing this Magnator, why do they keep lying and distorting only to be caught out again and again? Yesterday that Professor, today Great Ormond Street Hospital.

 

Undecided voters must keep scratching their heads wondering why, if the case for the Union is so strong, all they get is lies, exaggerations and distorted figures. The penny will drop soon enough.

You say this as if the SNP have never told a porky or exaggerated anything.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinney-refuses-thirteen-times-3618528

 

Here's the full transcript of the Swinney interview. His Michael Howard moment.

[Guest Trapper John]

15m per department not 150m. And the Treasury exaggerated the number of depts (Westminster has 24) to 180. One could almost think our maths-failure of a Chancellor himself attempted the calculations!

 

Even if Swinney's figures are correct, that is STILL a 400% exaggeration. Why do you think they keep doing this Magnator, why do they keep lying and distorting only to be caught out again and again? Yesterday that Professor, today Great Ormond Street Hospital.

 

Undecided voters must keep scratching their heads wondering why, if the case for the Union is so strong, all they get is lies, exaggerations and distorted figures. The penny will drop soon enough.

 

Gizmo, I think the penny dropped long ago and there'll be a comfortable win for No. It's what happens after that that bothers me in that I just hope something is done to heal all the division this whole thing has caused.

[Patrick Bateman]

 

 

Gizmo, I think the penny dropped long ago and there'll be a comfortable win for No. It's what happens after that that bothers me in that I just hope something is done to heal all the division this whole thing has caused.

 

What penny would that be?

[jambo1185]

 

Now I am confused...London voted for Labour in the last General Election, with the most seats and the highest share of popular vote. A very similar situation to Scotland. How are the London MP's accountable to their voters but the Scottish MP's aren't?

 

London gets 1 MP for every 114k citizens, we get 1 MP for every 90k citizens. I would like to think that our politicians are just as capable of collusion as any from London, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Good post.

[Alba gu Brath]

The EU want us. Que sorpresa. I'm cool with that.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27623271

 

No EU member state would have "a material interest" in an independent Scotland being outside the European Union, according to a new report.

The report, by the European Policy Centre think tank, also argued that the situation could cause "a legal nightmare" for other member states.

 

Interesting how the NO side has gone from 'Scotland not getting into the EU' to us 'losing special deals'. I guess we stand to lose both if we let a right-wing England take us out after Ukip get their referendum.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/scotland-wealth-alex-salmond-study

Fiddling and exaggerating figures. That's terrible. I await the Yes voters seethe...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Has anyone got an opinion of their own other than shite newspaper articles being fed to them by policy groups with agendas?

[jambos are go!]

Has anyone got an opinion of their own other than shite newspaper articles being fed to them by policy groups with agendas?

That's depressingly true. Particularly when significant events occur and posters say nowt for ages till the party line is fed to them. I'm in no such loops BTW.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

One side fiddling and exaggerating figures; the other side fiddling and exaggerating figures.

 

I, for one, am not astonished.