Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jack D and coke]

Couple of interesting articles I've read this morning. People looking for certainties of a no vote should read this one...

http://m.scotsman.com/news/eddie-barnes-the-numbers-game-of-public-finances-1-3163689

And Scottish viewers are being short changed by the BBC...

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/arts-and-culture/8257-scots-licence-payers-short-changed-by-bbc-says-tv-chief

[Nookie Bear]

Couple of interesting articles I've read this morning. People looking for certainties of a no vote should read this one...

http://m.scotsman.co...ances-1-3163689

And Scottish viewers are being short changed by the BBC...

http://www.newsnetsc...c-says-tv-chief

 

Just a quick comment on the BBC thing: the article states that the budget received from the BBC for Scottish programming falls short of the amount ploughed in by Scots.

 

This suggests that Scots are unable to watch and enjoy BBC programmes unless they are funded specifically by BBC Scotland, no? This is clearly not the case.

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's an interesting documentary from PressTV. I've linked it to the part with some... interesting views from Rangers fans. Wow.

 

[jack D and coke]

 

Just a quick comment on the BBC thing: the article states that the budget received from the BBC for Scottish programming falls short of the amount ploughed in by Scots.

 

This suggests that Scots are unable to watch and enjoy BBC programmes unless they are funded specifically by BBC Scotland, no? This is clearly not the case.

The fees collected amount to around ?320m and BBC Scotland gets a budget of around ?80m for programming up here. The rest is supposedly spunked on maintaining the beeb. Opinions vary on whether that's good or bad.

[Nookie Bear]

The fees collected amount to around ?320m and BBC Scotland gets a budget of around ?80m for programming up here. The rest is supposedly spunked on maintaining the beeb. Opinions vary on whether that's good or bad.

 

Yes, there is a discrepancy but a good chunk of the ?240m shortfall goes towards programmes and channels that appeal to Scots, regardless of where they were made or produced.

 

The BBC wasting money is nothing new and needs sorted but I doubt a BBC Scotland in a post-YES world would be perfect either.

[JamboInSouthsea]

Here's an interesting documentary from PressTV. I've linked it to the part with some... interesting views from Rangers fans. Wow.

 

 

Interesting isn't the word I'd use...tho' exactly what I dunno...scary!!

Edited October 30, 2013 by JamboInSouthsea

[Patrick Bateman]

Interesting isn't the word I'd use...tho' exactly what I dunno...scary!!

 

They clearly demonstrate their ignorance and 'canny dae it' mindset which better together generate. I particularly enjoyed the ned aggressively questioning the reporter as to why he doesn't love the queen, because she 'brings in twenty million a year and without that, the economy would be ruined'. I mean seriously, how can anyone be simultaneously so stupid, yet so insistent that they're right?

[Pans Jambo]

 

Here's an interesting documentary from PressTV. I've linked it to the part with some... interesting views from Rangers fans. Wow.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N1l3F6n8i-A#t=549

Rangers fans really are knuckle draggers eh! Mind you, the bearded guy in the royal mile with his face painted shouting freedom is equally embarrassing.

And "lakes"????

 

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

They clearly demonstrate their ignorance and 'canny dae it' mindset which better together generate. I particularly enjoyed the ned aggressively questioning the reporter as to why he doesn't love the queen, because she 'brings in twenty million a year and without that, the economy would be ruined'. I mean seriously, how can anyone be simultaneously so stupid, yet so insistent that they're right?

Haha, aye ?20 million would finish off Scotland eh?

[Patrick Bateman]

Rangers fans really are knuckle draggers eh! Mind you, the bearded guy in the royal mile with his face painted shouting freedom is equally embarrassing.

And "lakes"????

 

I was also cringing at the Celtic fan who said they believe in independence because of Braveheart. But at least they aren't hate filled bigots, I suppose. Hopefully that tribalism can be eradicated with education. I wonder where that reporter did his research though, because I don't remember Forfar being a Premierleague team...

[jack D and coke]

 

They clearly demonstrate their ignorance and 'canny dae it' mindset which better together generate. I particularly enjoyed the ned aggressively questioning the reporter as to why he doesn't love the queen, because she 'brings in twenty million a year and without that, the economy would be ruined'. I mean seriously, how can anyone be simultaneously so stupid, yet so insistent that they're right?

It's not just these knuckle draggers I have mates who are in really good jobs and who I originally considered intelligent come away with some of the biggest drivel you've ever heard over the referendum and potential independence. This is a referendum that will sadly be decided on pig ignorance and incredible stupidity. I'm more disappointed in the Yes campaign for failing miserably to ignite people's interest.

[Patrick Bateman]

It's not just these knuckle draggers I have mates who are in really good jobs and who I originally considered intelligent come away with some of the biggest drivel you've ever heard over the referendum and potential independence. This is a referendum that will sadly be decided on pig ignorance and incredible stupidity. I'm more disappointed in the Yes campaign for failing miserably to ignite people's interest.

 

I've met numerous people like that too. After making blind/ignorant assertions, I'm left with no other alternative than to correct them.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Patrick Bateman

[TheMaganator]

The SNP have been caught out telling porkies again.

Glaring issues facing our pensions.

Scaremongering, no doubt:

 

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/the-facts-on-pensions-the-snp-didnt-want-you-to-see

 

[Patrick Bateman]

The SNP have been caught out telling porkies again.

Glaring issues facing our pensions.

Scaremongering, no doubt:

 

http://www.bettertog...want-you-to-see

 

Looks to me like we're in a substantially better position than the rest of the UK. I don't see your point and merely asserting that Yes Scotland are lying doesn't seem to stack up here.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Looks to me like we're in a substantially better position than the rest of the UK. I don't see your point and merely asserting that Yes Scotland are lying doesn't seem to stack up here.

But but but Yes Scotland aren't just the SNP.

 

The post was about the SNP lying, again. Is this now the fourth time recently they've been caught out about pretty important things that relate to independence.

[Pans Jambo]

 

The SNP have been caught out telling porkies again.

Glaring issues facing our pensions.

Scaremongering, no doubt:

 

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/the-facts-on-pensions-the-snp-didnt-want-you-to-see

Wouldn't believe anything the Condems tell us (sorry, better together).

Anyway, even if it's remotely true, we can always use the billions saved from HS2 & useless nuclear submarines & foreign wars to plug the gaps eh!

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Wouldn't believe anything the Condems tell us (sorry, better together).

Anyway, even if it's remotely true, we can always use the billions saved from HS2 & useless nuclear submarines & foreign wars to plug the gaps eh!

2nd person to jump to the defence & 2nd person ti completely ignore the lie told by Sturgeon.

[Pans Jambo]

Who is telling us it's a lie? Is it someone who themselves lie quite a lot?

 

Trust. That's it.

 

I would not trust a word that lot tell me for example:

The mobile phone charges will go up if we get independence. Nonsense.

We won't be able to watch Eastenders. Laughable!

Michael Moore said there maybe a need for border posts (same as there is in NI/Ireland eh Michael).

Embassies won't promote Whisky anymore (they charge a whack for this)

Scotland is critical to the UK's AAA status (they said that about a week before it was downgraded).

 

I would believe that lot more if I read it in The Sun.

 

 

[jack D and coke]

Who is telling us it's a lie? Is it someone who themselves lie quite a lot?

 

Trust. That's it.

 

I would not trust a word that lot tell me for example:

The mobile phone charges will go up if we get independence. Nonsense.

We won't be able to watch Eastenders. Laughable!

Michael Moore said there maybe a need for border posts (same as there is in NI/Ireland eh Michael).

Embassies won't promote Whisky anymore (they charge a whack for this)

Scotland is critical to the UK's AAA status (they said that about a week before it was downgraded).

 

I would believe that lot more if I read it in The Sun.

We won't be in the EU

In fact they don't want us we'll be international pariahs

We can't use sterling

We're going to become terrorists targets for everyone

Nobody will trade with us

The oil is running out and the price is extremely volatile

The bank bailouts would've sank us

Nuclear bombs are good

Oil is bad

Passport control at the borders

We're too small

We're too stupid

We need England or we're nothing

 

Have I missed anything?

Better together are an utter disgrace and should hang their heads in shame. Scotland haters is maybe more apt.

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

We won't be in the EU

In fact they don't want us we'll be international pariahs

We can't use sterling

We're going to become terrorists targets for everyone

Nobody will trade with us

The oil is running out and the price is extremely volatile

The bank bailouts would've sank us

Nuclear bombs are good

Oil is bad

Passport control at the borders

We're too small

We're too stupid

We need England or we're nothing

 

Have I missed anything?

Better together are an utter disgrace and should hang their heads in shame. Scotland haters is maybe more apt.

 

Nobody sane and worth listening too has said that. The issue people raise is a lot of the for Indy-Scotland means starting from scratch which brings challenges. If folk vote Yes we work to overcome them. Simples. Instead of looking to black & white look to the grey. Yes we'll have oil, but with that is volatile prices and decommissioning costs. Yes we will try for EU/NATO membership, but negotiation and COMPROMISE will occur. Yes the crash hurt Scotland. So what? It hurt the globe.

 

If Yes got on the offensive and stopped acting in a reflective and defensive manner this debate would become worth a damn to a lot more folk.

Edited October 31, 2013 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

 

 

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

 

Nope. But the Scottish Government back HS2 abd the cost. So somethings up.

[Pans Jambo]

To be honest, I'm fed up with the oil argument.

 

Would it not be much better is scotland had no oil whatsoever?

 

It's been coming out the North Sea for about 40 years now and it's probably got about the same to go with them investing heavily in new technologies to drill even deeper and finding new deposits etc.

 

I wish it would just go away, volatile oil prices might make an independent Scotland a barren wasteland.........wouldn't it?

[flecktimus]

http://yesscotland.net/news/small-countries-top-global-prosperity-rankings-again

 

Interesting report on small nations prosperity rankings

[Pans Jambo]

Just read a very interesting article on Betternation.org from an ex-Labour party activist who has now changed to the Greens (see below)

 

 

My name is Pauline Ward. I used to be a fervent Labour Party activist, and for just over two years I was a Labour Party employee, as a full-time researcher in the Scottish Parliament (2007-2010). This is the story of the political journey I made to Green politics and to the cause of Scottish independence.

A couple of years ago, while I was working for a charity, I started studying economics and sociology and history with the Open University (I was a scientist originally). It opened my eyes in many ways, at a time when I was enjoying the intellectual freedom of no longer being a Labour employee. It made me think about what a nation is. I learned about the way the nation states we find in Europe today were mostly born in the nineteenth century, as the manifestation of the shifting allegiances of ordinary people who had rejected the old royal rulers and ties of religion. The borders of the new nation states crystallised around the nations which people felt willing to defend with their lives. And this made me realise how I felt about the idea of Scotland having full fiscal autonomy: basically, that would not be enough for me, because I wanted the people of Scotland and the leaders they alone elected to have the final say on when and whether Scottish service men and women would be sent to fight in any war.

I had been opposed to the Iraq war. In fact, I?d actually exiled myself from the Labour Party for two years in protest over it, something which was very hard for me, given the party was like a second family to me. And at the time I did not see Iraq as a UK war imposed on Scotland ? indeed, the polls told a different story. Rather, it was a war predicated on paper-thin excuses, driven through in spite of vehement opposition right across the UK, and at great political cost to Tony Blair and Labour as it turned out. But looking back now, I see that the parties elected in Scotland were more opposed to the war than those in the rest of the UK. And if Scotland had already been independent, whichever party was in power, I believe we would have sat that one out, because I don?t think our parties had an appetite for it.

And then in January 2012 Johann Lamont, my former colleague, a very intelligent woman, a nice person, newly-elected as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, started calling publicly for the referendum to be held early. Get it over and done with. I was disappointed. I had voted for Johann to be leader because I knew she would put the emphasis that I wanted on economic equality for people living in poverty and for women. But I had also felt reassured by the noises she?d made in the media about the independence debate during the leadership campaign: she had promised to be accepting and respectful of the decision if the Scottish people wanted independence. Johann had sounded like she understood that the SNP had a point. So I wasn?t expecting what seemed like a point-scoring exercise: it just seemed to me that she was calling for an early vote because of the polls showing a likely No vote, and because she wanted to rub the SNP?s noses in it; this didn?t feel like a more respectful, accepting debate. And I started to feel very uncomfortable about the idea of continuing to pay membership dues into this Labour Party that was going to spend the next two years primarily arguing bloody-mindedly against something I believed in. Johann had been in that Parliament at lot longer than me, listening to the nationalists quite often winning the argument: if Scotland was independent, we could make our own decisions about all sorts of things; we had more than enough resources to maintain levels of public services and so on. The sky would not fall in.

In my two years working in the Parliament, I didn?t think too much about the independence question. My job was to support the Labour MSPs, on behalf of the taxpayer, to help them put forward the priorities they?d been elected to put forward. Which primarily meant social justice, and by that I mean combatting poverty and its pernicious effects. They were decent people, just human beings, these politicians ? the 46 MSPs I worked for were genuinely there to try and make things better. But they were blinkered. I didn?t think too much about independence, and neither did they. When Labour For Indy appeared recently, I knew full well they would get no comfort from the MSPs because they are on automatic pilot as far as the constitution is concerned. They?ve painted themselves into an anti-SNP corner. I was instructed and trained in saying white whenever the SNP said black. And I think the Labour MSPs are a bit unrepresentative of the Party membership in that sense. If you were thinking about standing for Holyrood on a Labour rosette over the past couple of elections, you probably wouldn?t do it if you had strong doubts about the Union. So it?s a Unionist rump that remains in Holyrood. Maybe among Labour Councillors and other members we will hear more pro-independence voices as the referendum gets nearer. I hope so.

I think that in their hearts the vast majority of the supporters of social justice in Scotland want to vote for freedom from Tory rule. That is a crucially important argument for me. Scotland consistently votes for more left-wing parties and politicians than the rest of the UK. But we keep on getting Tory governments that we never voted for. It?s happened in 8 out of the 18 Westminster elections that have taken place since 1945.

The Union means that Scotland is ruled by Tories and LibDems right now. It means austerity. It means humiliating, badly-designed, badly-administered, downright cruel Work Capability Assessments for so many people with disabilities and diseases. It means the cruel Bedroom Tax forcing families out of their homes when there are no homes of the ?correct? size for them. It means our supermarkets and other businesses using Workfare to grind work out of our jobseekers unpaid-for, a brazen slap in the face of the minimum wage, a shameful contribution to cheaper grocery bills for the well-off. Every little helps. It means a real-terms cut to child benefit and families being fed out of food banks, and widespread in-work poverty.

Why can?t we have an economy that works for everybody? Why can?t we have a country where work pays? Where all companies are not just expected but required to pay their taxes. And this is where studying economics comes in. Because I learned that there?s no reason we can?t have these things. We can choose governments that will re-wire the economy to do these things. But UK Labour seem to have lost the belief in themselves to make radical change to benefit the people at the bottom. Why is that? I think it?s because they need votes in the wealthy South East of England to get into power in Westminster. They can?t afford to have a politics that?s fully focussed on the kind of widespread poverty we have in Scotland.

I?m from Clydebank (and on my mum?s side from a wee farm outside a petit village in France, and I grew up in Milngavie and Bearsden, and went to school in Maryhill). My grandfather and my great grandfather worked in the shipyards as engineers, back in the day when not all engineers had a degree. And when the German bombers came, in the Clydebank Blitz, our family was huddling together in the close, not knowing if they would make it through to see the next day, and not knowing whether their dad, my (great) grampa would be coming home from the yard ever again. I think successive Westminster governments abandoned people living in poverty in communities like Clydebank, and parts of Leith where I live now. The Union has not served them well.

So I joined the Green Party. Here is a party that?s willing to make those radical changes to the economy to bring a better quality of life for everybody. Here are people who?ve read The Spirit Level and like me were delighted to find in its pages the evidence for what we?d been working for all along. It turns out societies where there?s greater equality of economic opportunity (e.g. Japan and the Scandinavian countries, compared to the UK and USA) are better off economically as well as healthier and happier. Here are people who not only accept that climate change is real but accept some responsibility and are trying to do something effective to stop it. The Greens are willing to stand up to businesses when they need to, to force them to take responsibility for their impact on the environment, among other things, they accept that there are both advantages and disadvantages to Scottish independence, and they understand and respect that all members will make their own judgment about that. And I?ve never looked back. I?ve been a Scottish Green Party member for a year and a half now, and I?m very proud to be Green. I don?t think I?ll be tempted to go back, although I?ll always reserve the right to switch my vote on principle; I want politicians to earn it.

So, to round this off, I would say that learning a bit more about how our country works (both from my studies and from being inside the Parliament, seeing change happen) made me realise how plastic our world is. Our politics, our economy, our ideas of what fairness is, these are all subject to fundamental change. They?ve always been changing, and in our digital-age-democracy they can and do change quicker than ever, because each of us has so much more freedom and power to communicate and therefore to influence. And I?ve lost my fear of Scottish independence. My history taught me that one of the things that kept us in the UK for so long was the vast range of economic opportunities the Empire offered, both in trade and in work in the colonies. That no longer applies, thank goodness. And my history taught me that powerful elites always ran the UK and made the rules to suit themselves. And they haven?t given up power willingly, it?s had to be wrestled from them.

If you look around the world, you?ll see a great number of countries which used to be joined to the UK, as colonies or dominions. Not a single one of them is clamouring to get back in. Each of them is different, sure. But ask yourself when was the last time you heard anyone from Australia, or New Zealand, or the Republic of Ireland, or Jamaica, or Trinidad & Tobago or the USA or India, Pakistan or North or South Sudan, or Kenya wishing they could be part of the UK, wishing they could join us in a currency union, or asking David Cameron to command their armed forces.

What all this boils down to is that I think independence will give our children the best possible future. A future where there?s more dignity and respect for people in different circumstances and from different backgrounds, and where everybody feels they have a say, and a stake, and a chance to make the best life for themselves. That?s why I?m voting Yes

[Patrick Bateman]

Another must read article from Wings Over Scotland, I'd be intrigued to see a rebuttal here, because the facts and figures are, seemingly, accounted for.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/spending-20-to-save-a-tenner/

[Coco]

Another must read article from Wings Over Scotland, I'd be intrigued to see a rebuttal here, because the facts and figures are, seemingly, accounted for.

 

http://wingsoverscot...-save-a-tenner/

 

A new Scottish Treasury is completely untried in terms of even raising the current levels of taxation (there may be dynamic changes to corporate behaviour following independence) and completely untried in terms of borrowing money, particularly when taking monetary policy from another country. This is not the case for the UK. The idea that there is low hanging fruit of ?2.8bn in uncollected tax which is easy to recoup is also untested. It is likely that the cost of borrowing - risk premium - on Scottish borrowing would be higher too.

 

It is possible that the OBR's forecasts for oil prices are right. They are as likely to be wrong as any other forecaster or group of forecasters.

 

The infrastructure spending referred to is little different from the picture in 2011-12 where spending per head in Scotland was higher than in the rest of the UK. So for example the money that the SNP have wasted on the tram line is in those calculations - was that paid for by Scots or by the English?

 

It refers to saving on some UK civil service costs - but then refers to economic multipliers on new Scottish civil service jobs! UK civil service bad, Scottish civil service good!

[flecktimus]

A new Scottish Treasury is completely untried in terms of even raising the current levels of taxation (there may be dynamic changes to corporate behaviour following independence) and completely untried in terms of borrowing money, particularly when taking monetary policy from another country. This is not the case for the UK. The idea that there is low hanging fruit of ?2.8bn in uncollected tax which is easy to recoup is also untested. It is likely that the cost of borrowing - risk premium - on Scottish borrowing would be higher too.

 

It is possible that the OBR's forecasts for oil prices are right. They are as likely to be wrong as any other forecaster or group of forecasters.

 

The infrastructure spending referred to is little different from the picture in 2011-12 where spending per head in Scotland was higher than in the rest of the UK. So for example the money that the SNP have wasted on the tram line is in those calculations - was that paid for by Scots or by the English?

 

It refers to saving on some UK civil service costs - but then refers to economic multipliers on new Scottish civil service jobs! UK civil service bad, Scottish civil service good!

 

Come on Coco ,you have been all over the tram threads like a rash and know fine it wasn't the SNP that gave the trams to Edinburgh.

Edited October 31, 2013 by flecktimus

[Coco]

Come on Coco ,you have been all over the tram threads like a rash and know fine it wasn't the SNP that gave the trams to Edinburgh.

 

The spending has been under the SNP (as an aside it will be interesting if they manage to summon the courage to have the promised public inquiry to see why John Swinney did not follow his own criteria in terms of positive benefit cost ratio, 'whole scheme' and other milestone metrics for dishing out all the cash). The point is that there was infrastructure spending in Scotland in 2011-12 - is that spending by the English or by the Scots? The claim is that we will all have extra cash because 'we' the Scots won't be spending on HS2.

[jack D and coke]

I was of the assumption that the Trams and the new forth crossing are being paid for out of the Scottish block grant? ie no English tax payers money was used?

[Das Root]

The SNP have been caught out telling porkies again.

Glaring issues facing our pensions.

Scaremongering, no doubt:

 

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/the-facts-on-pensions-the-snp-didnt-want-you-to-see

 

 

Pretty much just says Better Together would rather you died early

[Das Root]

 

2nd person to jump to the defence & 2nd person ti completely ignore the lie told by Sturgeon.

 

 

How did that Dunfermline flier go again for Labour? 100% god's honest guvnor of course...

[JamboX2]

Pretty much just says Better Together would rather you died early

 

No it's not. That kind of flippancy (and yes you may be joking) derails debates on the sustainability of the promises being made. Simply, where is the cash coming from? We have promises for more childcare, more tax freezes, an oil fund, a ?2.5 billion defence budget, no tax rises, renationalising Scottish postal services, more infrastructure funding, not much more borrowing and many more promises on spending have been made. We have an increasing aged population, quite a high level of old to young is developing in Scotland. It's not really feasible not to look at raising pension ages. Fact is we are reaching a point that cheap borrowing for government to expand services and provisions without tax rises or savings from elsewhere. So be more nordic, and pay for better services in tax, or dont and have cuts and privatisations. It's a simple choice. One the Yes camp is denying is needed, and one the SNP wont engage in despite John Swinney saying he was up for that debate when Campbell Christie's Commission said was necessary and inevitable. It's lying to us as the people and is frankly delusion politics.

 

I was of the assumption that the Trams and the new forth crossing are being paid for out of the Scottish block grant? ie no English tax payers money was used?

 

The Scottish Block Grant by it's own design is created out of general UK taxation. It's not a case that Scottish tax payers money is hypothecated to the fund. Same with Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, no it's not the case.

 

 

If you look around the world, you?ll see a great number of countries which used to be joined to the UK, as colonies or dominions. Not a single one of them is clamouring to get back in. Each of them is different, sure. But ask yourself when was the last time you heard anyone from Australia, or New Zealand, or the Republic of Ireland, or Jamaica, or Trinidad & Tobago or the USA or India, Pakistan or North or South Sudan, or Kenya wishing they could be part of the UK, wishing they could join us in a currency union, or asking David Cameron to command their armed forces.

What all this boils down to is that I think independence will give our children the best possible future. A future where there?s more dignity and respect for people in different circumstances and from different backgrounds, and where everybody feels they have a say, and a stake, and a chance to make the best life for themselves. That?s why I?m voting Yes

 

See there's two issues here;

 

1. The Scottish position in the UK is no where near comparable to India, Kenya or Ghana, not even comparable to New Zealand or Canada. And certainly not like Ireland. The position in Scotland is one whereby that which was considered at the time a democratically elected chamber - a chamber elected by those deemed to be peers of those elected - voted to join the Union. It was not like the colonies which were either land grabs or subjugating locals by war. Nor was it like the self-governing dominions, so remote that the idea of full governance from Westminster was possible was wrong and unfeasible. Nor is it like Ireland where the subjugation and persecution of the catholic majority, and presbyterian minority, created the tensions within which fueled the nationalism there. It's totally different. Scotland wasn't a mere component, but a real player and partner of the new state. The old addage that Scotland made Britain and Britain made Scotland is incredibly apt. Britain brought modernisation to our legal system, to our way of governance, to our institutions, our trade, our armies and our way of doing things. The position of Scotland and it's relationship with the wider UK is one of a Partnership with England. Unlike Ireland, and Wales, we joined a Union on these isles by consent of our Parliament. Not subjugation. I reject comparisons of our position to those of colonies becuase I feel it demeans our status as free citizens, able to choose this position by referendum.

 

2. As for the bit in bold.... so currency union is bad for all the others, but good for Scotland? That's the disconnect in this debate which is the gaping whole in the Yes narrative - FULL CONTROL yet not over currency and the macroeconomics of our own nation. I accept that in a political and economic union that we have now we have a common currency. It makes sense in one nation like the UK to have that. Two nations, with two divergent policies in the economic and fiscal areas of control each will have is not feasible as a position for an independent nation which can last and be beneficial. In fact the Yes message would have much more resonance if they said total control will create a new nation which suits us, our economy and our people - yet we get: lets keep a currency which instead of focused on balance between resource and finance will be on a competition between the interests of two sovereign nations and their economic assets. The blogger is right, no sovereign nation would accept that, so why should we?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Sorry, why is it not feasible to raise the pension age?

[jambos are go!]

On the STV news last night( still available on the Iplayer) we had people caring for the elderly and disabled calling for and end to the council tax freeze because charges were being increased for these essential services because councils had no option. Then we had Big Eck bragging about this populist policy which hits the 'have nots' harder than the 'haves'. As part of the Council Tax freeze IIRC ring fencing of spending on important areas of Council spending were removed and we have seen increases in charges across the board for council service. So the council tax freeze has led to what is in fact a replacement tax on council services that impacts the most vulnerable. You should note these regressive policies from the prime political arm of the YEs campaign if you have a social consience or support the idea of more equality in Scotland. Like Lamont.

[Pans Jambo]

No it's not. That kind of flippancy (and yes you may be joking) derails debates on the sustainability of the promises being made. Simply, where is the cash coming from? We have promises for more childcare, more tax freezes, an oil fund, a ?2.5 billion defence budget, no tax rises, renationalising Scottish postal services, more infrastructure funding, not much more borrowing and many more promises on spending have been made. We have an increasing aged population, quite a high level of old to young is developing in Scotland. It's not really feasible not to look at raising pension ages. Fact is we are reaching a point that cheap borrowing for government to expand services and provisions without tax rises or savings from elsewhere. So be more nordic, and pay for better services in tax, or dont and have cuts and privatisations. It's a simple choice. One the Yes camp is denying is needed, and one the SNP wont engage in despite John Swinney saying he was up for that debate when Campbell Christie's Commission said was necessary and inevitable. It's lying to us as the people and is frankly delusion politics.

 

 

 

The Scottish Block Grant by it's own design is created out of general UK taxation. It's not a case that Scottish tax payers money is hypothecated to the fund. Same with Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, no it's not the case.

 

 

 

See there's two issues here;

 

1. The Scottish position in the UK is no where near comparable to India, Kenya or Ghana, not even comparable to New Zealand or Canada. And certainly not like Ireland. The position in Scotland is one whereby that which was considered at the time a democratically elected chamber - a chamber elected by those deemed to be peers of those elected - voted to join the Union. It was not like the colonies which were either land grabs or subjugating locals by war. Nor was it like the self-governing dominions, so remote that the idea of full governance from Westminster was possible was wrong and unfeasible. Nor is it like Ireland where the subjugation and persecution of the catholic majority, and presbyterian minority, created the tensions within which fueled the nationalism there. It's totally different. Scotland wasn't a mere component, but a real player and partner of the new state. The old addage that Scotland made Britain and Britain made Scotland is incredibly apt. Britain brought modernisation to our legal system, to our way of governance, to our institutions, our trade, our armies and our way of doing things. The position of Scotland and it's relationship with the wider UK is one of a Partnership with England. Unlike Ireland, and Wales, we joined a Union on these isles by consent of our Parliament. Not subjugation. I reject comparisons of our position to those of colonies becuase I feel it demeans our status as free citizens, able to choose this position by referendum.

 

2. As for the bit in bold.... so currency union is bad for all the others, but good for Scotland? That's the disconnect in this debate which is the gaping whole in the Yes narrative - FULL CONTROL yet not over currency and the macroeconomics of our own nation. I accept that in a political and economic union that we have now we have a common currency. It makes sense in one nation like the UK to have that. Two nations, with two divergent policies in the economic and fiscal areas of control each will have is not feasible as a position for an independent nation which can last and be beneficial. In fact the Yes message would have much more resonance if they said total control will create a new nation which suits us, our economy and our people - yet we get: lets keep a currency which instead of focused on balance between resource and finance will be on a competition between the interests of two sovereign nations and their economic assets. The blogger is right, no sovereign nation would accept that, so why should we?

 

Your first point hold Zero water. When the union was signed 307 years ago four fifths of Scottish people opposed it (Yes, 80%). There was rioting in the streets and that is well documented. It was the "nobles" and well to do who signed it to save their own bank balances. It had nothing to do with the majority.

 

Your second point does hold some water as I think the SNP are wrong about keeping Sterling as (personally) I would just join the Euro and be done with it. It may seem that the Euro is in decline but I think it has had its worst times and looks like it's beginning to level out however; the Pound Sterling (in my view) is doomed long term as we (the UK) will have over ?1.5 Trillion of debt in the next few years and I can only see interest rates etc going the wrong way and as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, I dont want to be part of that.

I would think that after a YES vote & the dust has settled, Scotland can vote for whatever currency it chooses. Perhaps the Scottish pound will be making a comeback!

[Pans Jambo]

On the STV news last night( still available on the Iplayer) we had people caring for the elderly and disabled calling for and end to the council tax freeze because charges were being increased for these essential services because councils had no option. Then we had Big Eck bragging about this populist policy which hits the 'have nots' harder than the 'haves'. As part of the Council Tax freeze IIRC ring fencing of spending on important areas of Council spending were removed and we have seen increases in charges across the board for council service. So the council tax freeze has led to what is in fact a replacement tax on council services that impacts the most vulnerable. You should note these regressive policies from the prime political arm of the YEs campaign if you have a social consience or support the idea of more equality in Scotland. Like Lamont.

 

Recent Panelbase Opinion Poll shows:

 

And it reveals that a massive 82 per cent of people in Scotland back the continuation of our council tax freeze ? including 75 per cent of Labour voters

[jambos are go!]

Recent Panelbase Opinion Poll shows:

 

And it reveals that a massive 82 per cent of people in Scotland back the continuation of our council tax freeze ? including 75 per cent of Labour voters

 

Notwithstanding its from the discredited Panelbase System its not surprising folk don't want increased taxes. Labour also proposed a shorter freeze in their manifesto. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its disgusting that folk with expensive homes get their council tax frozen whilst the vulnerable will just get frozen this winter. And I would remind folk that most mortgage holders will be benefiting massively from low interest rates perhaps to the extent of hundreds of ponds a month. Lamont is right on reviewing spending priorities to tackle inequalities. The YES campaign through its prime political arm, the SNP, are not right - they are just on the right.

[JamboX2]

Your first point hold Zero water. When the union was signed 307 years ago four fifths of Scottish people opposed it (Yes, 80%). There was rioting in the streets and that is well documented. It was the "nobles" and well to do who signed it to save their own bank balances. It had nothing to do with the majority.

 

Do you have a link on to verify this picture? What I meant from it was that by the standards of the day and the system of parliamentary governance in it's purist form, the union was democratic. Those who were eligible to elect the members voted these men in. These men then voted by majority to join union. You cannot compare decision of the 18th century on democracy with those of the 21st. It's not comparable. In it's context a democratic decision created union.

 

Your second point does hold some water as I think the SNP are wrong about keeping Sterling as (personally) I would just join the Euro and be done with it. It may seem that the Euro is in decline but I think it has had its worst times and looks like it's beginning to level out however; the Pound Sterling (in my view) is doomed long term as we (the UK) will have over ?1.5 Trillion of debt in the next few years and I can only see interest rates etc going the wrong way and as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, I dont want to be part of that.

I would think that after a YES vote & the dust has settled, Scotland can vote for whatever currency it chooses. Perhaps the Scottish pound will be making a comeback!

 

If independent I would want macroeconomic independence and our own currency. Not one designed to benefit the City of London at our expense, nor one designed to fuel the German and French economies over the interests of smaller memebers. If Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Sweden can, why can't we?

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Notwithstanding its from the discredited Panelbase System its not surprising folk don't want increased taxes. Labour also proposed a shorter freeze in their manifesto. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its disgusting that folk with expensive homes get their council tax frozen whilst the vulnerable will just get frozen this winter. And I would remind folk that most mortgage holders will be benefiting massively from low interest rates perhaps to the extent of hundreds of ponds a month. Lamont is right on reviewing spending priorities to tackle inequalities. The YES campaign through its prime political arm, the SNP, are not right - they are just on the right.

Why is it discredited & by whom?

Also, I and most of my family & friends benefit from low interest rates and so does every one else with a mortgage.

When the interest rates start to creep up what do you think will happen? Less money to go round, mortgage arrears and repossessions. That won't be great for the economy. It's tough to get by as it is & I don't think wanting the rates to go up benefits anyone unless you are extrely lucky enough to be a big saver.

Lamont isn't right about anything except her politics (being on the right).

[JamboX2]

Why is it discredited & by whom?

Also, I and most of my family & friends benefit from low interest rates and so does every one else with a mortgage.

When the interest rates start to creep up what do you think will happen? Less money to go round, mortgage arrears and repossessions. That won't be great for the economy. It's tough to get by as it is & I don't think wanting the rates to go up benefits anyone unless you are extrely lucky enough to be a big saver.

Lamont isn't right about anything except her politics (being on the right).

 

Depends on your position economically. A lot of centre-left economists - Hutton and Stiglitz for example - have said low interest rates may make borrowing cheap but it'll allow the government to make attempts to grow the economy through false booms - like the mortgage guarantee scheme - and not a long, stable economic recovery. In fact one of the major route faults of the British, and Scottish economy, is home ownership. If we rented more, had good rent controls and a competitive rental market, we like our European neighbours, would be less indebted and have more disposable income. It's not all wages and jobs, it's what you do with them. Thatcher may have helped every Brit own their home, but a home-owning democracy is largely indebted and uses homes as a comodity, not a social good. It pollutes housing and planning policy with a focus on "cheap" housing to buy and few social and affordable rental properties.

 

Secondly, Lamont is not on the right. If anything she is on the left. Her belief is that people paying more tax - ie unfreezing the council tax - gives her money raised from the richer middle and upper classes to spend on targeted services on the poorest. If anything Salmond's view - a council tax freeze, centrally run local government, a proposal to cut corporation tax and univeral benefits for all instead of targeted and better benefits for the poor than the wealthy, is a lot more like the centre-right of Europe than the centre-left of Britain. In fact he has argued, and made these changes in areas he has control, a lot of targeted benefits and anti-poverty devices (ie the fuel poverty levy) be taken away and replaced by funding from general taxation. That means anti-poverty measures come into competition with other priorities. For an example of this in Scotland, in order to pay for the council tax freeze (which benefits the average Band A household by ?60 per year to the Band H by ?670 per year in disposable income after bills and tax) has seen anti-poverty measures cut by ?1bn as they are now funded "generally" and not by targeted means. That is a big price to pay so folk in 5 bedroom houses in Morningside and the Grange can have a tax freeze.

[Pans Jambo]

Just read an interesting point.

 

Just for interest, if this debate was about Scotland JOINING the UK, what would the benefits/terms be?

 

Scotland will pay more to the into the UK pot than it Receives

The new parliament will be 400 miles away

Scottish politicians will be greatly outnumbered at the new parliament thus ensuring no Scottish MP will have any real voice

All Scottish oil & gas revenues will be surrendered to the new UK Government

The largest stockpile of WMD's in Europe will be stored a few miles from Scotland's most populated area

Foreign policy will be decided not by Scotland, but by the UK government

It matters not a jot who Scotland votes for in a general election because the UK parliament will ultimately be decided by the voters from the south-east & Middle England.

Taxation will be decided by the parliament 400 miles away

Scotland most poor & vulnerable will be assessed to ascertain if the meagre benefits they receive are required.

Scotland's armed forces will be greatly reduced and amalgamated into the UK's & bases will be closed

Scots will be forced into any illegal wars in foreign lands should the UK government see fit

If you are a millionaire, the UK government will ensure that you pay the absolute minimum tax possible.

The UK government will build a super fast high speed rail system that will go from London as far north as Leeds but Scotland will contribute to the cost.

The UK will (by 2016) ensure that Scotland will be part of ?1.5 Trillion of debt that our great grandchildren will still be paying.

But....

You can control Scottish Law & the education system.

 

Would anyone seriously vote for that?????

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Depends on your position economically. A lot of centre-left economists - Hutton and Stiglitz for example - have said low interest rates may make borrowing cheap but it'll allow the government to make attempts to grow the economy through false booms - like the mortgage guarantee scheme - and not a long, stable economic recovery. In fact one of the major route faults of the British, and Scottish economy, is home ownership. If we rented more, had good rent controls and a competitive rental market, we like our European neighbours, would be less indebted and have more disposable income. It's not all wages and jobs, it's what you do with them. Thatcher may have helped every Brit own their home, but a home-owning democracy is largely indebted and uses homes as a comodity, not a social good. It pollutes housing and planning policy with a focus on "cheap" housing to buy and few social and affordable rental properties.

 

Secondly, Lamont is not on the right. If anything she is on the left. Her belief is that people paying more tax - ie unfreezing the council tax - gives her money raised from the richer middle and upper classes to spend on targeted services on the poorest. If anything Salmond's view - a council tax freeze, centrally run local government, a proposal to cut corporation tax and univeral benefits for all instead of targeted and better benefits for the poor than the wealthy, is a lot more like the centre-right of Europe than the centre-left of Britain. In fact he has argued, and made these changes in areas he has control, a lot of targeted benefits and anti-poverty devices (ie the fuel poverty levy) be taken away and replaced by funding from general taxation. That means anti-poverty measures come into competition with other priorities. For an example of this in Scotland, in order to pay for the council tax freeze (which benefits the average Band A household by ?60 per year to the Band H by ?670 per year in disposable income after bills and tax) has seen anti-poverty measures cut by ?1bn as they are now funded "generally" and not by targeted means. That is a big price to pay so folk in 5 bedroom houses in Morningside and the Grange can have a tax freeze.

 

But there are no homes to rent because Maggie sold them all & the Blair didn't replace them. I would jump at the chance myself!

 

I agree there are folks in Morningside & the Grange that benefit greatly from the Council Tax freeze but they are few compared to the hundreds of thousands that live in modest or poor accommodation and do benefit from it (the masses).

 

If 100,000 rich folk benefit then millions of middle/working class benefit also. It government policies like the bedroom tax we should be talking about.

[redm]

Been working my way steadily through this thread and it is, by far, the best debate I've seen on the subject. Incredible work!

Especially from Bateman and JamboX2.

 

I'm not quite finished reading the whole thing yet but I'm genuinely really grateful for this information.

I decided a while ago that I'd be voting yes (pending review of any suitably awful info to come) but I still had so many questions about different things, the majority of which have been covered here in one way or another. Can't believe it took me this long to open and read it. Thanks loads.

 

My position is quite simple. I'm sick to the back teeth of Westminster and I don't think I've ever felt more alienated from the body making decisions on behalf of the UK people. I've never felt less represented by them, probably because they just aren't representing me. Their actions over the last year/18 months in particular were pretty much the final nail in the coffin as far as that goes. I want us to take responsibility for making these decisions by ourselves. I'm not worried about the majority of repercussions or complexities, nothing worth having was ever easy. And nor am I worried about the 'what ifs' - mostly anyway - because I don't think we can do much worse. If we make mistakes, at least they'll be our own mistakes.

 

But more than that, I see no reason why we shouldn't do this. I was having a chat with Scandinavian colleagues about the independence debate and when I said that I didn't know how it would go, they looked at me in utter disbelief. Independence is just a given for so many other people, I think we've forgotten that independence is normal. I've gone from feeling anxious about the idea and wondering why we should do it to feeling really very positive. Why shouldn't we? I have every faith in the ability of the Scottish people to do what needs to be done, change what needs to change, manage the transition, navigate through difficulties and ultimately make a success of an independent Scotland. It depresses me a wee bit that so many people seem fearful about that.

 

It's not about breaking away from England or the UK for me. Not in an emotional sense. They'll still be right next door and you can't avoid having a cooperative relationship of some description when you share an island this small. I genuinely can't imagine there being much of a change in terms of how we relate to the rest of them. As people mention, we have history together for starters. We have friends and family who live on either side of the border. We had history before the Union, we have the history throughout it and this is simply a new chapter. We'll just be making our own decisions.

 

I'm waiting on the White Paper to be published and if there are any horrors in there then I might find myself changing position but I don't know what they could tell me that would be so awful that I'd change my mind now. I appreciate that they can't give the level of intricate detail that many are asking for, I understand perfectly well that it's an impractical request at this stage, but I know it'll give more information than we have currently. It'll give us the foundations.

 

On a slightly different note, it might just be that I've started to pay more attention and attend debates/Q&As in recent months and will be more engaged with the subject, but I feel like there's an interesting shift. People's Chimp alluded to it some pages ago and I totally agree that it feels like there's an increasing discontent which might be leading to folk who were previously NO shifting slightly towards a 'tell me more/convince me' sort of position. It's almost like people are waiting to be persuaded and that's so encouraging, people who might not normally get into politics seem to be feeling an increasing sense of responsibility for this decision and that has to be a good thing.

 

I also don't think we'll get another chance. This is it. And I don't want to wake up in a country full of people with regrets on the day after the referendum. I hope we don't.

 

Right, I'm away back to continue reading. And thanks again to the contributors.

Edited November 2, 2013 by redm

[jambos are go!]

But there are no homes to rent because Maggie sold them all & the Blair didn't replace them. I would jump at the chance myself!

 

I agree there are folks in Morningside & the Grange that benefit greatly from the Council Tax freeze but they are few compared to the hundreds of thousands that live in modest or poor accommodation and do benefit from it (the masses).

 

If 100,000 rich folk benefit then millions of middle/working class benefit also. It government policies like the bedroom tax we should be talking about.

 

The end of the council tax freeze would produce increased revenue progressively through the bands. and their would not be this debate if it only raised a pittance. A Billion pounds has been taken out of anti poverty measures as alluded to by JamboX2 above and redirected to populist policies by the prime political arm of the YES campaign, the SNP. Now if we cant agree that that is disgraceful then we are looking at social justice differently. Its also a bit rich for YES supporters coming on this thread moaning about inequality in Scotland when the prime political arm of their campaign supports such regressive policies.

 

If we turn to the bedroom tax YES supporters have a majority at Holyrood already have the powers to alleviate its impact completely in Scotland but choose not to do so as highlighted many times. Ending the Council Freeze could help tackle that and do much more.

[JamboX2]

But there are no homes to rent because Maggie sold them all & the Blair didn't replace them. I would jump at the chance myself!

 

I agree there are folks in Morningside & the Grange that benefit greatly from the Council Tax freeze but they are few compared to the hundreds of thousands that live in modest or poor accommodation and do benefit from it (the masses).

 

If 100,000 rich folk benefit then millions of middle/working class benefit also. It government policies like the bedroom tax we should be talking about.

 

It's then what you view as a better use of tax payers money. A subsidy which greatly benefits the well off in comparison to the poorest - it's hard to deny the ?590 disconnect across the bands which means in terms of spendable cash lets the well off get ?670 per year and the poorest only ?60 per year. Breaking that down to weekly amounts it's ?1.15 a week for the family living in a Band A house (the poorest) compared to ?12.88 (for the best off). That's not poverty preventing good honest socialism, that's giving the well off their money back and maintaning poverty.

 

The council tax actually protected people on lowest bands from even paying in most cases. Now they do pay, not through tax however, but by the services they rely on being cut by the Scottish Government and Local Government to help fund a freeze which proportionally helps the well off more than the poorest. The wealthiest get a big cash boost to help them in times of higher inflation, and poor folk get around ?1 a week to help them out while food, energy and other costs rise.

 

Child centres, anti-poverty policies, Libraries (which act as council info centres), local sports facilities, health centres, rises to charges for elderly care, reduced housing services and much much more have been cut to help keep a thoroughly regressive policy hamering the poorest. It's the same in England, Wales and NI. In full - Council Tax is a crap form of tax that can never really be effective as it relies on a revaluing of a persons house, however Local Income Tax fails to tackle those with low income and rich assets (wealthy retirees), and the freeze is a cut by another name if not properly funded. It's a crap system, but this freeze is unsustainable and compounding, not helping raise folk out of poverty.

 

A change to this can be made NOW. Not after 2016. NOW we can use the powers of devolution to amend this and make it better and fairer. It's a failure of successive Scottish governments to find the "Scottish solution" to this. And because it's a tricky political issue I doubt will be solved after independence. Why? Because politicians are careerists these days. It's more about their careers and governments than the good of the people they serve. I doubt that'll change in an independent Scotland. Therefore I doubt that there'll be much in the way of radical change which may need to affect some to benefit others.

 

Edit: I reckon a Green-Liberal Government would actually result in real change to a liberal, localised and progressive Scotand, and that Labour in Scotland should move to a more localist and liberal organisation while holding to its leftist roots to affect radical reform and counter an increasingly centrist-populist, light-right, one nation and statist SNP. Sadly the former is unlikely, the hope lies in Labour reforming.

Edited November 2, 2013 by JamboX2

[Ulysses]

As suggested earlier in the thread, we have posted a poll to test voting intentions among JKB members.

 

The poll will be open until Thursday night. It's on a locked and stickied thread, so as to keep the debate and discussion on this thread. Here's a link:

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/134460-scottish-independence-referendum-jkb-voting-intentions-november-2013/

 

The intention is to carry out a poll like this a few times between now and the date of the vote to see if any trends emerge.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

 

The poll will be open until Thursday night. It's on a locked and stickied thread, so as to keep the debate and discussion on this thread. Here's a link:

 

http://www.hmfckickb...-november-2013/

I can't see a way of voting in the poll you just posted. Wondering if you can't vote on a locked thread?

 

Edit: I see it's unlocked now. Ironically all I was doing was voting that I can't vote.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Kalamazoo Jambo

[Ulysses]

I can't see a way of voting in the poll you just posted. Wondering if you can't vote on a locked thread?

 

Yep. Opened now.

 

[Ulysses]

Previous JKB polls on the subject have suggested a 3 to 1 majority in favour of independence - although my recollection might well be off.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this one goes.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I voted intend not to vote because I am not sure if I have a vote or not since I was on the last General Election register in the UK. I may not be but that's just to cover it.

 

Anyway, even if I still lived in Scotland I would abstain on principle as I'm not Scottish.