Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jack D and coke]

 

I just read that. Powerful stuff. So true.

Some horrific points. Unemployed not only being hounded, but not given any real chance to be employed in these places!

Onset of winter must be frightening!

No = more of the same or worse to come

Yes = at least a chance to make a change

Hard to believe these places exist in our society when there is so much obscene wealth. What can really be done for those areas though? I appreciate they need help and I'm all for it but what can any government really do apart from give them handouts? It's the arsehole end of nowhere and it all just seems futile, their industries have long gone. Can't they be encouraged to move nearer the bigger towns or cities? It must be terrible being caught in that trap but surely they must know they can't stay where they are? There is frankly nothing there and I'm very sympathetic to their plight.

[JamboX2]

 

I was watching that. It was good.

 

Who's that labour girl? Kenzie? Bit of a babe. She may pip Marra for my top labour totty

 

Kezia Dugdale. Edinburgh regional MSP and shadow education secretary. She's got her work cut our for her and needs to step up to take on Russell.

 

Russell is increasingly becoming the SNPs answer to Gove. Bit of a blowhard and bullish arse.

 

Good debate. Either way 2014 goes the political choice in education to come is universal childcare and better vocational education vs free university tuition. She was right to pin that down imo.

[JamboX2]

 

Hard to believe these places exist in our society when there is so much obscene wealth. What can really be done for those areas though? I appreciate they need help and I'm all for it but what can any government really do apart from give them handouts? It's the arsehole end of nowhere and it all just seems futile, their industries have long gone. Can't they be encouraged to move nearer the bigger towns or cities? It must be terrible being caught in that trap but surely they must know they can't stay where they are? There is frankly nothing there and I'm very sympathetic to their plight.

 

Good education, good transport links and a local focus in terms of job creation. Sad as it is there are people lost to work. Totally unable to. An active employment and industrial policy is needed. That means more money for colleges and vocational skills at high school. Which may mean less for unis. But the former is a better gateway to jobs and higher education if underskilled.

[jack D and coke]

 

Good education, good transport links and a local focus in terms of job creation. Sad as it is there are people lost to work. Totally unable to. An active employment and industrial policy is needed. That means more money for colleges and vocational skills at high school. Which may mean less for unis. But the former is a better gateway to jobs and higher education if underskilled.

Education yes but transport links to a one horse town? There's little enough money going round in government purses these days without wasting money on that surely? It must surely make sense to try and move these families or encourage them to move nearer civilisation? I don't meant to sound heartless but what else can be done within reason?

[JamboX2]

 

Education yes but transport links to a one horse town? There's little enough money going round in government purses these days without wasting money on that surely? It must surely make sense to try and move these families or encourage them to move nearer civilisation? I don't meant to sound heartless but what else can be done within reason?

 

Then how do people get to jobs? Sadly the days of rolling out of bed and down the pit are gone. People need transport links to get to places of work. Scottish public transport is a neglected area of concern. Its that or the "on your bike" Tebbit-ism which shattered working communities in the 1980s.

Edited October 28, 2013 by JamboX2

[jack D and coke]

 

Then how do people get to jobs? Sadly the days of rolling out of bed and down the pit are gone. People need transport links to get to places of work. Scottish public transport is a neglected area of concern. Its that or the "on your bike" Tebbit-ism which shattered working communities in the 1980s.

Totally appreciate what your saying but how can it be justified or cost effective to build transport links to these small villages these days? Surely in the long term they should be looking to encourage them to move nearer the bigger towns or cities to make finding work a bit less impossible. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic cos I'm not it must be terrible living with no hope of work.

[Patrick Bateman]

Davidson, unsurprisingly, struggled tonight. He said that Strathclyde Council were 'more radical than the Scottish Government' from which, one can infer that the more local the politics, the more radical or equitable it can be. I don't know what was radical about a Labour council evicting people who were in Tory Poll Tax arrears though.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Davidson, unsurprisingly, struggled tonight. He said that Strathclyde Council were 'more radical than the Scottish Government' from which, one can infer that the more local the politics, the more radical or equitable it can be. I don't know what was radical about a Labour council evicting people who were in Tory Poll Tax arrears though.

Oh come on. Remember the water referendum?

[JamboX2]

Davidson, unsurprisingly, struggled tonight. He said that Strathclyde Council were 'more radical than the Scottish Government' from which, one can infer that the more local the politics, the more radical or equitable it can be. I don't know what was radical about a Labour council evicting people who were in Tory Poll Tax arrears though.

 

Rifkind, Laing and Forsyth all note if they had their time again then they'd have done away with the Regional Councils in Scotland in the early days of Thatcher. Rifkind is on record in the Commons as saying that SRC had half Scotlands population and as a result made his job near impossible at times as it acted as a centreleft bulwark and centre of protest.

[reaths17]

Totally appreciate what your saying but how can it be justified or cost effective to build transport links to these small villages these days? Surely in the long term they should be looking to encourage them to move nearer the bigger towns or cities to make finding work a bit less impossible. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic cos I'm not it must be terrible living with no hope of work.

 

have you not just shattered the whole concept of independence.

 

i'm led to believe that it's all about scottish voices with local insights giving us the message and not a distant westminster that is isolated from what life is like in scotland so shouldn't be making decisions on it.

 

your now saying that if your not where it's happening then you have to move or become isolated.

[loveofthegame]

Interested to hear what the Pro-Indy's have to say on the independent expert think-tanks that have today categorically stated huge cuts or tax rises would be required on Independence?!

[jack D and coke]

Interested to hear what the Pro-Indy's have to say on the independent expert think-tanks that have today categorically stated huge cuts or tax rises would be required on Independence?!

Isn't it just basically the same as what we're looking at by remaining in the union? The Barnett formula is up for debate and looks certain to be scrapped removing at least ?7billion from our block grant plus the austerity cuts that will only intensify under a Central UK government. It's one thing that really bugs me in that Scotland will be facing a defecit which probably yes we will but the UK as a whole will be looking at a much bigger one percentage wise. So Scotland defecit=very bad but bigger UK defecit=safe and good??? I'm not sure how they come to this conclusion.

[jack D and coke]

 

have you not just shattered the whole concept of independence.

 

i'm led to believe that it's all about scottish voices with local insights giving us the message and not a distant westminster that is isolated from what life is like in scotland so shouldn't be making decisions on it.

 

your now saying that if your not where it's happening then you have to move or become isolated.

Well as much as I appreciate Jambo x2's opinion of education and better transport links how can you justify spending that on a one horse town? There is no big industry now that employs entire towns and villages and it's just a fact of life. It wouldn't matter who was in power you can't keep throwing good money after bad. I'm all for doing everything possible to help but after it becomes clear that all your doing is pouring money down a drain surely it would make sense to give these people some financial incentive to shift closer to somewhere where finding work might be a bit easier. Councils offer money to people to downsize all the time why not offer them money to move into a better connected town or city? Maybe I'm viewing this as very simplistic but I can't see many alternatives.

[Patrick Bateman]

Interested to hear what the Pro-Indy's have to say on the independent expert think-tanks that have today categorically stated huge cuts or tax rises would be required on Independence?!

 

Do you have any links to articles, please? If you're referring to the IFS, I wonder what their recommendations for the UK Government would be. Funny how this story should emerge the day after that Panelbase poll (which sadly, nobody seems to want to discuss) shows the importance of the economy in this debate. It should also be noted that there's a huge gap between tax owed to HMRC and that actually collected. That's something I'd want an independent Scotland to address forensically. On independence, we won't be contributing to HS2, a project which offers limited benefits here, nor will we be contributing to the fourth highest military budget in the world. We can choose to spend that money on projects and policies that will benefit people here.

 

Folk will have noticed that a lot of the No campaign's myths have been slowly chipped away. The started off by saying that devolution would kill the independence movement stone dead. Then they said Scotland couldn't afford to be independent. We've since had pretty much every high profile saying of course Scotland 'could' survive and even prosper, just that it would be difficult. We're now being subjected to near daily scare stories; the EU won't want us, we'll have to pay roaming charges, there will be border guards, tax will go up, spending will go down, criminals can just flee to England without repercussions, and so on. Each and every one of these stories can or has been dismissed by facts. As I've said before, you'd have to wonder how any country out with the UK can survive given the incredible number of apparently impossible problems posed to independent countries. I'd prefer to face these challenges with a parliament that represents Scotland, rather than have a brand of austerity imposed by one that doesn't.

[reaths17]

Well as much as I appreciate Jambo x2's opinion of education and better transport links how can you justify spending that on a one horse town? There is no big industry now that employs entire towns and villages and it's just a fact of life. It wouldn't matter who was in power you can't keep throwing good money after bad. I'm all for doing everything possible to help but after it becomes clear that all your doing is pouring money down a drain surely it would make sense to give these people some financial incentive to shift closer to somewhere where finding work might be a bit easier. Councils offer money to people to downsize all the time why not offer them money to move into a better connected town or city? Maybe I'm viewing this as very simplistic but I can't see many alternatives.

 

you have now marginalised an area. as the indy crowd will tell you, it's a big problem for scotland that we are marginalised in westminster, and ruled by a party we didn't vote for who no nothing of the local problems and do nothing to change this. if with independence we now marginalise everything thats not sitting in the central belt are we not as westminster. if this is the case, then theres no point in this whooha lets just leave things alone.

 

on the other hand instead of giving independence to everything or marginalising/isolating small communities we support them and as jamboX2 has been saying all along, give more input to local councils to deal with the specific problems of these areas and keep the diversity scotland has. the trouble with that is "devolution" is that very thing within the union, with a little more tinkering we wouldn't need "independence"

 

until we get something more than the scottish puss on the decision makers, from the yes campaign i cant see any chance for independence, or indeed any need for it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by reaths17

[loveofthegame]

Do you have any links to articles, please? If you're referring to the IFS, I wonder what their recommendations for the UK Government would be. Funny how this story should emerge the day after that Panelbase poll (which sadly, nobody seems to want to discuss) shows the importance of the economy in this debate. It should also be noted that there's a huge gap between tax owed to HMRC and that actually collected. That's something I'd want an independent Scotland to address forensically. On independence, we won't be contributing to HS2, a project which offers limited benefits here, nor will we be contributing to the fourth highest military budget in the world. We can choose to spend that money on projects and policies that will benefit people here.

 

Folk will have noticed that a lot of the No campaign's myths have been slowly chipped away. The started off by saying that devolution would kill the independence movement stone dead. Then they said Scotland couldn't afford to be independent. We've since had pretty much every high profile saying of course Scotland 'could' survive and even prosper, just that it would be difficult. We're now being subjected to near daily scare stories; the EU won't want us, we'll have to pay roaming charges, there will be border guards, tax will go up, spending will go down, criminals can just flee to England without repercussions, and so on. Each and every one of these stories can or has been dismissed by facts. As I've said before, you'd have to wonder how any country out with the UK can survive given the incredible number of apparently impossible problems posed to independent countries. I'd prefer to face these challenges with a parliament that represents Scotland, rather than have a brand of austerity imposed by one that doesn't.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independent-scotland-faces-deep-financial-cuts-1-3162124

 

This is where I read it. I have tried everything to avoid this thread - I was just interested in what the Yes supporters responses would be to these reports.

 

Like most, I have no real knowledge of politics or independence. However, the risks and inherent uncertainties mean I will be voting No in a years time.

 

I have a good job, on a decent salary which will support me and my family in the future. I am more than happy with the status quo if i'm being honest.

[Patrick Bateman]

Like most, I have no real knowledge of politics or independence. However, the risks and inherent uncertainties mean I will be voting No in a years time.

 

If you have no knowledge of politics or independence, how can you make an assertion about the risks and uncertainties? I'm also curious as to what you think those risks and uncertainties are, and why you think they can't be overcome.

[reaths17]

"nor will we be contributing to the fourth highest military budget in the world"

 

that will be a lot of comfort to the thousands of people who work in the military, who work in supplying the military, electronics, engineering, etc. i'm pretty sure that these jobs will get moved to a part of the union that supports the union their supplying. must be summit like 5000 in the old ferranti's alone, nevermind silicone valley, central belt, fife etc

[Boris]

"nor will we be contributing to the fourth highest military budget in the world"

 

that will be a lot of comfort to the thousands of people who work in the military, who work in supplying the military, electronics, engineering, etc. i'm pretty sure that these jobs will get moved to a part of the union that supports the union their supplying. must be summit like 5000 in the old ferranti's alone, nevermind silicone valley, central belt, fife etc

 

Not really. The skills base is there and any Scottish military will need a certain level of supplies. There is always the export market too.

[reaths17]

Not really. The skills base is there and any Scottish military will need a certain level of supplies. There is always the export market too.

 

wiil the rights to this not technology not move along with the knowledge and we would become an importer. i cant see whats left of the union letting an outside country loose with their top secret equipment and with independence surely another countries secrets act would have little impact here, hardly treason when it's not your own country.

 

i'm pretty damned sure the skill base is sitting south as well. were there not summit near 20k working in all the factories ferranti's had in edinburgh once apon a time, they've managed to relocate that work

Edited October 29, 2013 by reaths17

[The Comedian]

The rUK seem keen on leaving their nukes here, though. Annexe it!

[jack D and coke]

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independent-scotland-faces-deep-financial-cuts-1-3162124

 

Like most, I have no real knowledge of politics or independence. However, the risks and inherent uncertainties mean I will be voting No in a years time.

You are exactly the person these little snippets of fear are designed for. I mean no offence mate but because you don't pay much attention your seeing little bits here and there that are all scary and worrying and because you don't delve a little deeper your already a no. Scotland will sink without trace, the UK won't let us use sterling, the EU won't want us, we'll become targets for terrorists, the oil is actually a burden, nuclear bombs are good for jobs blah blah blah when it's all a load of pish. IMO anyway and I've read loads of stuff that confirms we'd generally be ok and as a county have lots to offer. I just have different concerns over who might govern us. By all means I'd you look into the debate and feel you wish to remain part of the UK i don't think too many people would have a big problem with that but don't be put off by the scare stories alone, that's really all they are.

[loveofthegame]

If you have no knowledge of politics or independence, how can you make an assertion about the risks and uncertainties? I'm also curious as to what you think those risks and uncertainties are, and why you think they can't be overcome.

 

As I said mate, the status quo is just fine by me in my life - I'm not prepared to risk "upsetting" that on the off chance that in 10-20 years time things "might" be better (I still struggle to believe that they will be).

[reaths17]

" I just have different concerns over who might govern us "

 

 

it's not just who but also how we are governed. to get nothing more than this same form of governmental system for the huge upheavil/cost this will be isn't worth it. increase devolution a scottish face on your useless capitalistic politician only interested in keep their own pockets lined really isn't up to much.

[loveofthegame]

You are exactly the person these little snippets of fear are designed for. I mean no offence mate but because you don't pay much attention your seeing little bits here and there that are all scary and worrying and because you don't delve a little deeper your already a no. Scotland will sink without trace, the UK won't let us use sterling, the EU won't want us, we'll become targets for terrorists, the oil is actually a burden, nuclear bombs are good for jobs blah blah blah when it's all a load of pish. IMO anyway and I've read loads of stuff that confirms we'd generally be ok and as a county have lots to offer. I just have different concerns over who might govern us. By all means I'd you look into the debate and feel you wish to remain part of the UK i don't think too many people would have a big problem with that but don't be put off by the scare stories alone, that's really all they are.

 

You are probably bang on mate but the Yes campaign have done absolutely zilch thus far to allay these fears.

 

I respect your opinion and you have clearly looked into it far more extensively than I have - however, as I keep saying, it will take some steadfast guarantees of a "better place" to live for me and my family post-Independence for me to vote Yes and I don't believe these guarantees are possible.

[systemx]

 

Davidson, unsurprisingly, struggled tonight. He said that Strathclyde Council were 'more radical than the Scottish Government' from which, one can infer that the more local the politics, the more radical or equitable it can be. I don't know what was radical about a Labour council evicting people who were in Tory Poll Tax arrears though.

Since when were Regional councils responsible for Council Tax.Sorry to point out your wee mistake you nearly got away with it.

[TheMaganator]

You are exactly the person these little snippets of fear are designed for. I mean no offence mate but because you don't pay much attention your seeing little bits here and there that are all scary and worrying and because you don't delve a little deeper your already a no. Scotland will sink without trace, the UK won't let us use sterling, the EU won't want us, we'll become targets for terrorists, the oil is actually a burden, nuclear bombs are good for jobs blah blah blah when it's all a load of pish. IMO anyway and I've read loads of stuff that confirms we'd generally be ok and as a county have lots to offer. I just have different concerns over who might govern us. By all means I'd you look into the debate and feel you wish to remain part of the UK i don't think too many people would have a big problem with that but don't be put off by the scare stories alone, that's really all they are.

 

What you and others merely dismiss are scare stories are actually issues that need to be considered.

 

It is utterly, utterly foolish not to examine what potential risks there are with becoming independent. That does not make them scare stories - that is a term coined by the SNP to allow them to completely dismiss issues we may face.

 

Senior figures have said we'd likely not be able to have a currency union (completely different from using Sterling, BTW). Not a scare story - an issue to consider.

 

Senior figures in the EU have said we wouldn't just get automatic membership of the EU. Not a scare story - an issue to consider (though you'd think those that oppose 'rule from London' would also oppose rule from Brussels - though they don't seem to. How strange)

 

Trident and Faslane are good for the local economies they support - not a lie or a scare story.

 

I may be wrong but I don't think that anyone credible has said that oil would be a burden - they may have said we may get lumbered with decomissioning costs - or that basing an economy on a finite and volatile resource isn't a great idea but that is different.

 

We wouldn't be targets for terrorism any more than any other western country - but going it alone would have implications for local defence. Not a scare story, or something we couldn't solve in time but something to consider. MI5/MI6 have had decades to get them where they are now. Have we paid for our proportion of that? Yes. Does that mean we will get a seamless transition - no, of course not (the same goes for the military BTW)

 

So, everything that you have dismissed as a scare story is not that. It is something that everyone should consider. Sure, there are counter arguments to all of the issues that you and I have mentioned - but that is what debate means.

 

To dismiss everything as a scare story smacks of being patronising and not having given things proper thought.

 

Could we overcome all of these issues? Maybe, probably. How long do you think that may take and what happens in the meantime? I for one think it'll be at least a decade before everything is ironed out and all of the road bumps (and to say there will be none cannot be considered to be sensible) have been overcome.

 

You may disagree - I'm sure all Yes voters will. But please give us some credit for not merely being brainwashed by media outlets because the very same could be said for those who spend their times visiting nationalist websites and forums.

[Pans Jambo]

Why would the EU NOT want a country with the biggest oil and gas deposits in Europe and the largest fishing area?

 

Are we worse than Portugal or Greece or Ireland?

 

Automatic membership is nonsense I know but let's be real here, a relatively short negotiation period and it will be sorted.

 

Anyway, don't your know there's a big UKIP movement down south and there will probably be a referendum which will more than likely see the UK leave the EU in any case? If we are still "better together" when that happens then we in Scotland won't have the choice.

 

In EU or out, only a Yes vote will allow us the choice because London & the Home Counties will decide EU membership if there is a NO vote.

 

And that is a scare story that you should believe!

[TheMaganator]

Why would the EU NOT want a country with the biggest oil and gas deposits in Europe and the largest fishing area?

 

Are we worse than Portugal or Greece or Ireland?

 

Automatic membership is nonsense I know but let's be real here, a relatively short negotiation period and it will be sorted.

 

Anyway, don't your know there's a big UKIP movement down south and there will probably be a referendum which will more than likely see the UK leave the EU in any case? If we are still "better together" when that happens then we in Scotland won't have the choice.

 

In EU or out, only a Yes vote will allow us the choice because London & the Home Counties will decide EU membership if there is a NO vote.

 

And that is a scare story that you should believe!

It probably would - but would that mean joining the Euro? What else wouldwe have to agree to? I am not sure how long it would take to 'get us in' - I am not so sure it would be a short negotiation. You can be sure that Spain and others may have something to say about it though - given the political movements in Europe.

 

I am well aware of UKIP and their gaining popularity. There will almost certainly be a referendum on it - to say that it is likely the UK would vote to leave is a bit of a nonsense - unless there is credible polling on it that I have missed.

 

Salmond has said that he will not give us an EU referendum. It is not a labour policy either - so where is this 'in or out choice' coming from in an independent Scotland? The Tories? I wont hold my breat for a Tory majority in an independent Scottish parliament.

Edited October 29, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Patrick Bateman]

As I said mate, the status quo is just fine by me in my life - I'm not prepared to risk "upsetting" that on the off chance that in 10-20 years time things "might" be better (I still struggle to believe that they will be).

 

I recommend you give the debate and White Paper, once released, a chance. You've said yourself that you haven't paid that much attention to the debate. I realise you might see change as creating 'uncertainty' but the future is always uncertain, so surely it's better having a greater level of control over how decisions are made.

 

Since when were Regional councils responsible for Council Tax.Sorry to point out your wee mistake you nearly got away with it.

 

Did I say they were? No. Did they have to use Sheriff Officers to evict people? Besides, you seem to have missed my point entirely; Davidson himself claims to be a 'socialist' then also admits that the more local the government, the more radical policies can be, yet supports a union that facilitates right wing hegemony. He just removed the union flag rug from underneath his own feet. That's not surprising, the man's a boorish muppet.

 

It probably would - but would that mean joining the Euro? What else wouldwe have to agree to? I am not sure how long it would take to 'get us in' - I am not so sure it would be a short negotiation. You can be sure that Spain and others may have something to say about it though - given the political movements in Europe.

 

I am well aware of UKIP and their gaining popularity. There will almost certainly be a referendum on it - to say that it is likely the UK would vote to leave is a bit of a nonsense - unless there is credible polling on it that I have missed.

 

Salmond has said that he will not give us an EU referendum. It is not a labour policy either - so where is this 'in or out choice' coming from in an independent Scotland? The Tories? I wont hold my breat for a Tory majority in an independent Scottish parliament.

 

Care to explain why Spain would want to lose access to vast swathes of Scottish fishing grounds? Given that Catalan independence will be dealt with before 2016, this won't be an issue. Say Scotland votes Yes, do you think Spain would veto Scotland's EU membership because it'll give 'credibility' to Catalan independence? The two aren't connected. Catalan independence is more likely than Scottish independence, at least in the short term.

 

People who criticise the EU miss the point of its creation. It was created to keep the peace in Europe after WW2, and we're now in, I think, the longest period of uninterrupted peace (at least between member states) in Europe in history. I'm not saying that things would collapse without the EU, but it's worth remembering.

[The Comedian]

 

 

You are probably bang on mate but the Yes campaign have done absolutely zilch thus far to allay these fears.

 

I respect your opinion and you have clearly looked into it far more extensively than I have - however, as I keep saying, it will take some steadfast guarantees of a "better place" to live for me and my family post-Independence for me to vote Yes and I don't believe these guarantees are possible.

 

Why is your starting position in the debate set to No? Has the No camp given you cast iron guarantees on what Scotland will look like should we vote no?

 

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I have to say, Wings Over Scotland is one of the best media outlets for this debate. They've seemingly exposed some very, very odd practices from Auntie Beeb. http://wingsoverscotland.com/identity-parade/#more-43333

[Coco]

Interested to hear what the Pro-Indy's have to say on the independent expert think-tanks that have today categorically stated huge cuts or tax rises would be required on Independence?!

 

Scotland on the GERS figures for a year or two ago was running an enormous deficit (which from memory was ?7bn or so, equivalent to the entire spending on education - or equivalent to a 100% increase in everyone in the country's income tax). This was the period that the SNP have been styling as when Scotland was paying in more than it was getting out - a ?7bn deficit! And though there is a slight improvement in the economy it is unlikely that the tax take will be rising anything like enough to close that significantly. So the think tanks are right that there would be a huge deficit to fund, unless there were 1) massive cuts in expenditure or 2) a massive increase in the oil price.

 

This is a crucial issue for the early years of post-independence because a brand new Treasury would be trying to borrow perhaps ?4-5bn per year - on an untried tax base. Who is going to lend that Treasury the money? It would seem likely that a higher risk premium will be required than UK borrowing - i.e. a higher interest rate. The position is also affected by what seems likely to be a situation where the new Scotland is taking the rest of the UK's monetary policy prescription.

 

Talk of higher welfare spending and oil funds in the early years is very unlikely to be borne out. Would appear likely that there would be huge cuts in the early years (plus higher taxes).

 

In the longer term of course the economy would adjust, there would likely be a currency event to destroy the soft/hard currency union, Scotland to create its own currency etc. But there is little doubt that the early years would be 'difficult'.

[JamboX2]

Do you have any links to articles, please? If you're referring to the IFS, I wonder what their recommendations for the UK Government would be. Funny how this story should emerge the day after that Panelbase poll (which sadly, nobody seems to want to discuss) shows the importance of the economy in this debate. It should also be noted that there's a huge gap between tax owed to HMRC and that actually collected. That's something I'd want an independent Scotland to address forensically. On independence, we won't be contributing to HS2, a project which offers limited benefits here, nor will we be contributing to the fourth highest military budget in the world. We can choose to spend that money on projects and policies that will benefit people here.

 

I thought that Poll was interesting. Again it showed a different result than that of the other polling companies. I reckon it will get closer as the year rolls on. I reckon that was to be expected. I'd also reckon that the idea that Holyrood running more things is the most attractive idea of independence and is the gaping shot whole in the foot of the Better Together campaign not offering further devolution as a policy in combat to independence, as regardless polls all show the middle ground is the most popular - in the UK with more devolution. How both camps play on that position will be very interesting.

 

The SNP administration, and the Greens, want to see HS2 extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow (I use them as they are pro-Yes parties and help to shape Yes Scotland's position). So at what point do we willingly offer money to such a beneficial project? - I do wholeheartedly back a high speed line between Scotland's southern cities and the cities of England and beyond to France, it just makes sense. Do we merely offer the funds to make it to Northumberland and Cumbria or do we help invest in more come a Yes-vote? Afterall such a move would need to be a mutual agreement and funding would need to be forthcoming from both sides. That's a challenge of independence. As for defence, we've seen this be respent on 100s of things from childcare to pensions. Now I think Scotland would need an Irish style defence force, a few patrol ships and a few regiments of glorified riot police would do the trick if we wish to go for the neutral nation outwith NATO but in the EU. However, NATO commitment would entail a substantially more costly defence force and one able of projecting power abroad, as is the NATO way. So that'll cost a lot more to set up, might be cheaper than current contributions now, but initial set up costs of an independent defence force - independent intelligence, signas, logistics, airforce, navy, army and general staff and traininig college - will be substantial.

 

Folk will have noticed that a lot of the No campaign's myths have been slowly chipped away. The started off by saying that devolution would kill the independence movement stone dead. Then they said Scotland couldn't afford to be independent. We've since had pretty much every high profile saying of course Scotland 'could' survive and even prosper, just that it would be difficult. We're now being subjected to near daily scare stories; the EU won't want us, we'll have to pay roaming charges, there will be border guards, tax will go up, spending will go down, criminals can just flee to England without repercussions, and so on. Each and every one of these stories can or has been dismissed by facts. As I've said before, you'd have to wonder how any country out with the UK can survive given the incredible number of apparently impossible problems posed to independent countries. I'd prefer to face these challenges with a parliament that represents Scotland, rather than have a brand of austerity imposed by one that doesn't.

 

Firstly - What Lord Robertson said on his own behest does not match what everyone else at the time thought. In fact the likes of Dewar, McLeish, McConnell, Alexander, Brown et al, all thought it a ridiculous statement. Brown was actually fearful that devolution would embolden nationalism, and due to wiser heads prevailing in Salmond and Sturgeon over Sillars, Neil and Russell in their opposition days they did capitalise on it.

 

Secondly - All those issues (excepting the roaming charges) are challenges. Taxes will rise and fall, but it has to be remembered that you can't save all cash from the oil fields without it affecting domestic spending priorities. Fwiw I actually think a middle road here, if we choose to build an oil fund, that's our choice, but it must be remembered Norweigian tax rates are higher in VAT and income tax to compensate for saving an oil fund, as that's current assets being saved for tomorrow. If we choose that then good. It's responsible, but it must be remembered we will need to raise an amount from other taxes to cover that saving.

 

The EU accession process will be drawn out. It's not a nimble beast. It's cumbersome. We may be members as Scots via our part in the United Kingdom, however there is much to be decided. As I've pointed to already on this thread, we must look to the Finish and Swedish examples, nations of close integration pre-accession, and with a western economic system and many adopted EU laws, took years to agree membership terms. There will be factions within the EU with vested interests who'll make it tough and make us give up a generous rebate or our opt out from Schengen. These are all negotiation points, especially when 2 key members of the EU are worried about separatist movements within their nations. That's merely national interest. Should we join Shengen then there will be border controls. Like Ireland now there will need to be co-ordination on immigration policy, the UK government will not tolerate an "easy back door" to England, as with English voters immigration is a much greater vote decider based on them bearing the brunt of it due to a proximity to the continent.

 

These are challenges. All nations face challenges. Independence wont be easy or easier than now. Different forces - global, EU and British Isles - will impact and force an independent Scottish government's hand at times. We are big and grown up enough to deal with that. But we need to grown up enough to realise that Scotland wont be given a free hand in all things. The EU will tie us in terms of what support and backing we can give our companies - state aid is frowned upon by the EU. A currency union with the UK will tie us to the interests of the Bank of England and City of London as the ? will be more inclined to back the City line without Scotland being a component of the UK and the City gaining more power as a result. Defence policy will need to meet our NATO commitments and foreign policy will have to be close to the current pro-Western line. If we are happy to acknowledge that regardless of what the outcome of the vote is next year we will be affected by the external and our supranational memberships then making a decision on this becomes merely deciding how much scope and power you want to see Scotland have in relation to our external commitments.

Edited October 29, 2013 by JamboX2

[TheMaganator]

I have to say, Wings Over Scotland is one of the best media outlets for this debate. They've seemingly exposed some very, very odd practices from Auntie Beeb. http://wingsoverscotland.com/identity-parade/#more-43333

Best media outlets?

That story reeks of paranoia, real Celtic conspiracy stuff.

 

It is merely a site for a man that lives in Bath & hates Britain.

 

Have you ever seen anyone challenge him? A friend of mine did a blog on the positive case for the Union & his treatment there was appalling.

 

Debate? Fine, so ling as you agree with him.

 

The best media outlet for the Yes camp is by a boy called Tickel - lallandspeatwarrior is his site.

 

Balanced, intelligent stuff. Almost the exact opposite of Rev Stu.

[Coco]

HS2 mentioned above ... the (overoptimistic I'll write whatever the clients want consultants) benefit cost ratio is 2.3:1. ?2.30 return on ?1 spent.

 

Borders Railway benefit cost ratio provided by the leech consultants is 0.5:1 i.e. of every ?1 spent 50p is burnt/wasted.

 

Is Holyrood really better at making decisions?!

[JamboX2]

HS2 mentioned above ... the (overoptimistic I'll write whatever the clients want consultants) benefit cost ratio is 2.3:1. ?2.30 return on ?1 spent.

 

Borders Railway benefit cost ratio provided by the leech consultants is 0.5:1 i.e. of every ?1 spent 50p is burnt/wasted.

 

Is Holyrood really better at making decisions?!

 

No it's not. Any political decision making body will make a lot of high profile messes. Edinburgh - Trams. Holyrood - Borders Rail Link (although I back that I use it as you used it). Westminster - NHS computer systems. The EU - made a pretty mess of the CAP and all those grain mountains in France.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Re post-independence defence forces: it's not a binary case between a few ships and small battalions vs a small but large enough force to deploy abroad. If Scotland does become independent, there will certainly be a lot of cooperation with Denmark, Norway, Iceland and (if they achieve more autonomy) the Faeroe Islands on defence; specifically looking North to the Arctic region.

 

The Arctic is the next big region that will feel the effects of globalisation. The receding ice caps and sheets will enable a much shorter shipping route between the Far East and Europe. This is big business. The natural resources of the Arctic will also be taken advantage of (indeed Russia has already started; a goal driven by Vladimir Putin himself). Greenland's government may be seduced by the prospect of FDI by American companies and the wealth they'll bring to the island's tiny population. There is also, of course, North Sea oil that needs looking after and shared fishing areas that need patrolled, shared, and conservation regulations enforced.

 

What we should see is a balance being struck. A small defence force, but large enough to participate in patrolling missions with other proximal states in the North Sea and beyond in the North.

 

More domestically I would like to see a lot of integration between an independent Scottish defence force and the emergency services i.e. between an air force and mountain rescue; a navy and the coastguard; and the army and wider emergency response units in the events of, for example, flooding. Sharing resources, expertise, and manpower should ensure that all these different services provide value for money.

[JamboX2]

 

Did I say they were? No. Did they have to use Sheriff Officers to evict people? Besides, you seem to have missed my point entirely; Davidson himself claims to be a 'socialist' then also admits that the more local the government, the more radical policies can be, yet supports a union that facilitates right wing hegemony. He just removed the union flag rug from underneath his own feet. That's not surprising, the man's a boorish muppet.

 

He believes Local Government is better at making more radical decisions if empowered. I agree there too. Holyrood may well become as centralised and unresponsive either way after 2014, in fact the SNP administration have shown great zeal in centralising public services and how they are run. So it's a mix here to me. Westminster has too much power in the UK. Holyrood has increasingly too much from Scottish communities.

 

Care to explain why Spain would want to lose access to vast swathes of Scottish fishing grounds? Given that Catalan independence will be dealt with before 2016, this won't be an issue. Say Scotland votes Yes, do you think Spain would veto Scotland's EU membership because it'll give 'credibility' to Catalan independence? The two aren't connected. Catalan independence is more likely than Scottish independence, at least in the short term.

 

People who criticise the EU miss the point of its creation. It was created to keep the peace in Europe after WW2, and we're now in, I think, the longest period of uninterrupted peace (at least between member states) in Europe in history. I'm not saying that things would collapse without the EU, but it's worth remembering.

 

The EU was set up to facilitate trade between the Benelux, France and Germany and to challeneg economic power outwith Europe as a collective. The UN was formed in the wake of WW2 to keep the peace, and has largely failed. Whilst it has helped maintain a peace, it has at times done so at the benefit of Germany, France and us, over smaller EU nations.

[JamboX2]

Re post-independence defence forces: it's not a binary case between a few ships and small battalions vs a small but large enough force to deploy abroad. If Scotland does become independent, there will certainly be a lot of cooperation with Denmark, Norway, Iceland and (if they achieve more autonomy) the Faeroe Islands on defence; specifically looking North to the Arctic region.

 

The Arctic is the next big region that will feel the effects of globalisation. The receding ice caps and sheets will enable a much shorter shipping route between the Far East and Europe. This is big business. The natural resources of the Arctic will also be taken advantage of (indeed Russia has already started; a goal driven by Vladimir Putin himself). Greenland's government may be seduced by the prospect of FDI by American companies and the wealth they'll bring to the island's tiny population. There is also, of course, North Sea oil that needs looking after and shared fishing areas that need patrolled, shared, and conservation regulations enforced.

 

What we should see is a balance being struck. A small defence force, but large enough to participate in patrolling missions with other proximal states in the North Sea and beyond in the North.

 

More domestically I would like to see a lot of integration between an independent Scottish defence force and the emergency services i.e. between an air force and mountain rescue; a navy and the coastguard; and the army and wider emergency response units in the events of, for example, flooding. Sharing resources, expertise, and manpower should ensure that all these different services provide value for money.

 

The balance there is hard to strike. The Irish for example have limited armed forces. Ones which are primarily responsible for supporting the civilian police and security services. What many in Yes are talking about is the more a Danish style force capable of operations abroad in line with NATO.

 

I agree that the Artic will be key in the coming years. However, I reckon that'll mean we need a high defence budget to be able to have patrol aircraft, a capable navy and some form of fast jet air force. That'll be a good few billion ? a year rather than the Irish model of little for little.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Danish defence spending in 2012 was $4,220,000,000. That's about ?2,630,000,000.

 

Scottish GDP was ?127,000,000,000 in 2012. So to spend as much as Denmark on defence would be about 2.07% of Scottish GDP (assuming that GDP is around the same level post-independence). Very manageable.

 

This is very dependent on economic performance and fiscal outlook post-independence, so this is all ifs and buts.

 

EDIT: disclaimer - those were basically pack of a fag packet calculations. Estimating a defence budget is complicated, and prone to change according to collective performance of the defence force after an initial budget is set.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Iago

[systemx]

Mr PatBat you implied that Ian Davidson was a member of aLabour council that evicted people because of council tax arrears.I pointed out that regional councils didnt have responsibility for housing.You were wrong and compound it by asking if they used sherriff officers to evict people.The simple answer is no.Regionsl Councils had no locus in the Council Tax.Just helping you out with historical facts.

Oh and I dont give a monkeys about Dsvidson

[Alba gu Brath]

John Curtis has some interesting views on the Wings Poll and what it says about the 17% undecideds:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/which-way-might-the-dont-knows-go-evidence-from-the-wings-poll/

 

 

Their instincts seem more to lie with the Yes side than with No. Asked what they would prefer ?if all other things were equal and it was purely a mater of preference?, as many as 42% say they would ?like Scotland to be an independent country? while only 20% indicate that they ?prefer it to remain in the UK?. No less than 63% agree that ?the Scottish people would make a success of an independent country?, while just 3% disagree. Meanwhile, as many as 34% claim that they are more in favour of independence now than they were 15 months ago (albeit evidently not enough to say they would vote Yes), while only 7% say they are less in favour.At the same time those who have yet to make up their mind seem more favourably disposed to those who are advocating independence than they are to those are arguing the case for the Union. As many as 51% think that Alex Salmond has ?been acting with the best interests of the people of Scotland at heart?, while only 18% feel he has not.

 

At 41% and 15% respectively the equivalent figures for Nicola Sturgeon are also clearly positive. In contrast, David Cameron emerges with a negative balance of 5% to 60%, Alistair Darling with one of 16% to 33% and Johann Lamont, 7% to 28%.

 

The SNP?s top duo evidently have a credibility in the eyes of undecided voters that no unionist politician currently enjoys. That could well prove invaluable in the Yes side?s efforts to win them over.

 

 

No wonder we see so little of Yohann Lament and Alastair Darling. The PR gurus will be keeping them hidden, especially as Labour's dodgy dealings in Falkirk threaten to re-surface. Lamont has hardly been seen since that erupted.

[TheMaganator]

John Curtis has some interesting views on the Wings Poll and what it says about the 17% undecideds:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/which-way-might-the-dont-knows-go-evidence-from-the-wings-poll/

 

 

 

 

No wonder we see so little of Yohann Lament and Alastair Darling. The PR gurus will be keeping them hidden, especially as Labour's dodgy dealings in Falkirk threaten to re-surface. Lamont has hardly been seen since that erupted.

I'm not sure what to make of these panel base polls.

 

They're the only company that shows hope for the Yes camp. The last one was routinely discredited because of attempted mass Yes sign ups -to the point where Panel Base stopped new sign ups.

 

I went to a Curtis lecture where he said quite categorically that in referendums the majority of undecideds come down on the side of the status quo.

 

I'll wait until I see a more mainstream poll from a better source before I pay too much attention.

[JamboX2]

John Curtis has some interesting views on the Wings Poll and what it says about the 17% undecideds:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/which-way-might-the-dont-knows-go-evidence-from-the-wings-poll/

 

 

 

 

No wonder we see so little of Yohann Lament and Alastair Darling. The PR gurus will be keeping them hidden, especially as Labour's dodgy dealings in Falkirk threaten to re-surface. Lamont has hardly been seen since that erupted.

 

Thought this had little to do with politicians?

[Pans Jambo]

 

HS2 mentioned above ... the (overoptimistic I'll write whatever the clients want consultants) benefit cost ratio is 2.3:1. ?2.30 return on ?1 spent.

 

Borders Railway benefit cost ratio provided by the leech consultants is 0.5:1 i.e. of every ?1 spent 50p is burnt/wasted.

 

Is Holyrood really better at making decisions?!

 

HS2 will cost tens of ?Billions and will (eventually) terminate at Leeds which is nowhere near anywhere in Scotland however; as part of the UK we will no doubt have to contribute a few ?Billion to the project and get absolutely Zero benefit from it. In fact, there will be a negative impact on places like Dundee & Aberdeen.

Brilliant eh?

 

As for the new borders rail line is concerned, surely this will attract inward investment to the Galashiels area and help the commute to & from the capital as well as help with tourism etc. it will also help the rural towns that will have stops along its route for the same reasons.

 

To answer your question....Yes, Holyrood is better at making decisions as they make for the benefit of the people in this country!

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

HS2 will cost tens of ?Billions and will (eventually) terminate at Leeds which is nowhere near anywhere in Scotland however; as part of the UK we will no doubt have to contribute a few ?Billion to the project and get absolutely Zero benefit from it. In fact, there will be a negative impact on places like Dundee & Aberdeen.

Brilliant eh?

 

As for the new borders rail line is concerned, surely this will attract inward investment to the Galashiels area and help the commute to & from the capital as well as help with tourism etc. it will also help the rural towns that will have stops along its route for the same reasons.

 

To answer your question....Yes, Holyrood is better at making decisions as they make for the benefit of the people in this country!

 

That'll be why Her Majesty's Scottish Government has been backing HS2 since Lord Adonis, former SoS for Transport, began planning it and its uptake by his successors - Hammond, Greening and Patrick McLoughlin. In fact Keith Brown Minister for Transport at Holyrood has welcomed talks between DfT in London and his Transport Scotland body on expanding the line to Glasgow and Edinburgh "sooner than expected". Dont let a constitutional spat get in the way of multi-billion 25 year development do politicians.

[JamboX2]

 

I'm not sure what to make of these panel base polls.

 

They're the only company that shows hope for the Yes camp. The last one was routinely discredited because of attempted mass Yes sign ups -to the point where Panel Base stopped new sign ups.

 

I went to a Curtis lecture where he said quite categorically that in referendums the majority of undecideds come down on the side of the status quo.

 

I'll wait until I see a more mainstream poll from a better source before I pay too much attention.

 

What Alba gu Brath didnt quote was the 3 following paragraphs. That being:

 

1. Salmond and Sturgeon have failed to creat a narrative to attract these undecideds.

 

2. These people are not attracted to either side particularly by an overarching vision of how Scotland will be better or different.

 

3. These voters will vote on economics and what appears to be the safer choice. Yet the poll itself barely touched on that area - Curtis says that about the poll.

 

In short: dont get your hopes on the Yes side based on this poll. For the nos, watch out they might be gaining.

Edited October 29, 2013 by JamboX2

[jack D and coke]

 

What you and others merely dismiss are scare stories are actually issues that need to be considered.

 

It is utterly, utterly foolish not to examine what potential risks there are with becoming independent. That does not make them scare stories - that is a term coined by the SNP to allow them to completely dismiss issues we may face.

 

Senior figures have said we'd likely not be able to have a currency union (completely different from using Sterling, BTW). Not a scare story - an issue to consider.

 

Senior figures in the EU have said we wouldn't just get automatic membership of the EU. Not a scare story - an issue to consider (though you'd think those that oppose 'rule from London' would also oppose rule from Brussels - though they don't seem to. How strange)

 

Trident and Faslane are good for the local economies they support - not a lie or a scare story.

 

I may be wrong but I don't think that anyone credible has said that oil would be a burden - they may have said we may get lumbered with decomissioning costs - or that basing an economy on a finite and volatile resource isn't a great idea but that is different.

 

We wouldn't be targets for terrorism any more than any other western country - but going it alone would have implications for local defence. Not a scare story, or something we couldn't solve in time but something to consider. MI5/MI6 have had decades to get them where they are now. Have we paid for our proportion of that? Yes. Does that mean we will get a seamless transition - no, of course not (the same goes for the military BTW)

 

So, everything that you have dismissed as a scare story is not that. It is something that everyone should consider. Sure, there are counter arguments to all of the issues that you and I have mentioned - but that is what debate means.

 

To dismiss everything as a scare story smacks of being patronising and not having given things proper thought.

 

Could we overcome all of these issues? Maybe, probably. How long do you think that may take and what happens in the meantime? I for one think it'll be at least a decade before everything is ironed out and all of the road bumps (and to say there will be none cannot be considered to be sensible) have been overcome.

 

You may disagree - I'm sure all Yes voters will. But please give us some credit for not merely being brainwashed by media outlets because the very same could be said for those who spend their times visiting nationalist websites and forums.

Yes they do need to be addressed but do they really need such dramatic headlines and fearful write ups? Because of these I've spoken to people who actually believe we'll be in serious danger of al queda attacks and have passport borders have no currency nobody will trade with us blah blah it's complete and utter nonsense and has been truly depressing that so many of our own people believe we will be almost cut adrift from the rest of the world and sink into almost abject poverty run by a nazi government of far right nationalists. People's stupidity cannot be underestimated here and they're falling for it hook line and sinker. Now I agree that the Yes campaign have also failed and considering they are probably up against their dream opponents from all sides they can't swing the momentum towards them. Yes are the biggest disappointments to me.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

That'll be why Her Majesty's Scottish Government has been backing HS2 since Lord Adonis, former SoS for Transport, began planning it and its uptake by his successors - Hammond, Greening and Patrick McLoughlin. In fact Keith Brown Minister for Transport at Holyrood has welcomed talks between DfT in London and his Transport Scotland body on expanding the line to Glasgow and Edinburgh "sooner than expected". Dont let a constitutional spat get in the way of multi-billion 25 year development do politicians.

You seriously believe the HS2 will come anywhere near Scotland in the next 25 years?