View Full Version : Overkill on Independence Discussion
KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
29-Aug-12, 13:22
Ok sorry there's a lot of threads going on SNPism and Scottish Independence but in layman's terms what EXACTLY will it mean for us everyday Scottish Citizens?
Personally as patriotic as I am to Bonnie Scotland I just can't see our economy being able to stand on its own two feet???
Personally as patriotic as I am to Bonnie Scotland I just can't see our economy being able to stand on its own two feet???
So by making that statement you are in fact saying that we have been subsidised by the UK for all the past years and we dont pay our way in the UK?
So, as a patriotic Scot are you happy to be subsidised? Knowing that we are the "Poor Man" of the UK suits you does it? Would you not like the chance to try and stand on our own two feet and prove to the World that we are a prosperous proud Nation?
This will be our only chance and yes, there is a lot of stuff still to thrash out but I am convinced that we can do it, I am sure the rest of the UK population don't want to subsidise us and could even despise us for having to do so and I dont want to be subsidised by anyone either, I would sooner work hard to make sure we can stand on our own.
C3.........:eek:
Ok sorry there's a lot of threads going on SNPism and Scottish Independence but in layman's terms what EXACTLY will it mean for us everyday Scottish Citizens?
We have 8% of the population of the UK to support an area that is 40% of the UK. You will be paying extra in tax to support our services to go about its business as we currently receive more money from Westminster than we pay in tax to pay for it.
weezer 316
29-Aug-12, 14:51
Your a cynical man corrie....
Its not subsidised. Its a union. You pool your resources. Does a working husband subsidise his wife who is at home looking after the kids? Or is it a union that pools rewards and risks and workloads??
Its really stupid childish arguments like this that get to me. There is a case to be made for independence but you are far to busy making noises about patriotism and pride than actually aking the bloody case!! By your own admission there is alot to be thrashed out yet all we get out of you and most like you is utterly useless dribble like this.
At least squidge makes a fist of answering decently on the other thread, which I have to reply to bu havent ahd a chance yet.
etaylor1988
29-Aug-12, 15:21
Your a cynical man corrie....
Its not subsidised. Its a union. You pool your resources. Does a working husband subsidise his wife who is at home looking after the kids? Or is it a union that pools rewards and risks and workloads??
Hate to burst your bubble weezer, but the Westminster Government themselves call it a subsidy. Scotland makes up around 8% of the UK as a whole and in 2009 if memory serves, we paid 9.4% of all UK TAX. In 2010 with an 8% population we paid around 10.3% of all UK TAX. Figures for 2011 and 2012 i do not have, but going by this the Scottish share of UK TAX seems to be going up. OIL - Yes, it will eventually run out, after more than 100 years and £1 trillion still to go. With renewables now coming into their own in Scotland and the recent experiments with offshore tidal power in Orkney, i am confident that by the time the oil does run out, Scotland will more than be able to support itself and sell off excess to the rUK and the rest of Europe.
In terms of monetary issues, the UK Government has itself stated than Scotland CAN afford to go independent. A simple search of this through google will throw up some results. Yes, a lot more issues have to be thrashed out which is why the referendum isn't until 2014. Such a decision can not and will not be made on the whims of an - English government, yes English, as they do nothing for Scotland - This referendum WILL be run by the people of Scotland and the people intending to vote, not dictated to from 600-700 miles away.
I hate to rain on the parade, but what WILL guarantee silence on the subject of percentages owed/allocated/due/owing, is the small matter of the National Debt. Any move towards Independence would require disposal of 8/9/10% of the assets of the Union to enrich the coffers of the newly formed Nation of Scotland. It would also require the Nation of Scotland to absorb the same share of the National Debt of the Union. ]
Here are the figures at the end of last month:-
Public sector net debt was £1,032.4 billion at the end of July 2012, equivalent to 65.7% of GDP
Source: Office National Statistics publications[1] (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/index.html?pageSize=50&newquery=public+sector+debt&sortBy=pubdate&sortDirection=DESCENDING&content-type=publicationContentTypes&pubdateRangeType=) (page updated July 25th, 2012)
If all financial sector intervention is included (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds), the Net debt was £2311.6 billion (147.3 per cent of GDP. This is known as the unadjusted measure of public sector net debt.
Please note that the 8/9/10% of National Debt would amount to about £208 billion (taking the median 9% figure).
Bear in mind that borrowing this amount from the Royal Bank of Scotland is a) unlikely, and b) falls into the same loony category as a man who is overdrawn writing a cheque to put in his own bank account.
We have 8% of the population of the UK to support an area that is 40% of the UK....
Or in more realistic terms we have a population density of 65 people per sq km compared to Englands 383 people per sq km & the UK as a whole has 246 people per sq km....
So... yes... we do have a lower population density than the rest of the UK, but when you consider that countries like The USA (32 people per sq km), Australia (3 people per sq km), Canada (4 people per sq km), Norway (15 people per sq km), etc... Are all doing OK as far as I know, you can safely say that low population density has very little to do with the wealth of a nation.
In 2010 with an 8% population we paid around 10.3% of all UK TAX. Figures for 2011 and 2012 i do not have, but going by this the Scottish share of UK TAX seems to be going up.
Can you define exactly what you mean by "ALL UK TAX"? What do you mean PAYE? Corporation tax?
Also can you give us some figures for expenditure by % population of the UK on things such as roads? I'd be willing to bet Scotland get's a lot more than 8% spent on it......
Please note that the 8/9/10% of National Debt would amount to about £208 billion (taking the median 9% figure).
£208 Billion debt?
But the massive oil revenues amount for £12 Billion a year (and falling)............
Well spotted, theone! Income from oil £12Bn a year, percentage of National Debt outstanding £208Bn. Net result, unhappiness. And then some!
Or in more realistic terms we have a population density of 65 people per sq km compared to Englands 383 people per sq km & the UK as a whole has 246 people per sq km....
So... yes... we do have a lower population density than the rest of the UK, but when you consider that countries like The USA (32 people per sq km), Australia (3 people per sq km), Canada (4 people per sq km), Norway (15 people per sq km), etc... Are all doing OK as far as I know, you can safely say that low population density has very little to do with the wealth of a nation.
Yes but we are comparing oranges with pears, some of those countries have quasi-autonomous or completely wild regions that are self sufficient and may even shutdown completely during the winter months (Ice road truckers not withstanding) can't see many of us happy to do without our Xmas shopping trip to snecky. :D
Yes but we are comparing oranges with pears...
Nothing wrong with that if you are say comparing the vitamin C content... Pears have 4mg/100g compared to 53mg/100g for Oranges
Here we are comparing how population density effects wealth & if you look at the figures then it is clear that the wealth of a nation has little to do with population density, that is only one small factor, not the overriding factor as your post would have us believe.
If it was true then Singapore with its population density of 6483 people per sq km would be the richest country in the world.
ps. I'd quite happily do without my Xmas shopping trip to snecky... http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
Nothing wrong with that if you are say comparing the vitamin C content... Pears have 4mg/100g compared to 53mg/100g for Oranges
Here we are comparing how population density effects wealth & if you look at the figures then it is clear that the wealth of a nation has little to do with population density, that is only one small factor, not the overriding factor as your post would have us believe.
If it was true then Singapore with its population density of 6483 people per sq km would be the richest country in the world.
ps. I'd quite happily do without my Xmas shopping trip to snecky... http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
Well it is the third richest.
Well it is the third richest.
OK... Should have researched that one first... My point still stands though, it is only one small factor of many.
OK... Should have researched that one first... My point still stands though, it is only one small factor of many.
Yes population density is one factor that affects wealth, so why put a nation at an immediate disadvantage that needs to be surmounted when all other things being equal?
Then there is the point about geography, why create 3 former partners (of political union) into neighbours and potentially acrimonious neighbours who will look after their own interests first, one being much bigger and much closer to where all the economic action is taking place?
I'm convinced all this independence stuff is politics of the heart rather than the head.
Then there is the point about geography, why create 3 former partners (of political union) into neighbours and potentially acrimonious neighbours who will look after their own interests first, one being much bigger and much closer to where all the economic action is taking place?
I'm convinced all this independence stuff is politics of the heart rather than the head.
My politics is of the head... My heart tells me that the Union should be beneficial economically on the whole, but my head tells me that any potential economic benefit of staying in the union is outweighed by the social benefits of being ruled from Edinburugh rather than the current situation of being ruled from Westminster by the current & potentially future Conservative government. it is my belief (& I admit that I might be wrong, only time will tell) that an Independent Scotland will never be as Right Wing as England & we will never have to endure an as Right Wing agenda of the English Conservative party. Yes, the Scottish Tories may grow in strength, but I believe that will only happen if they are separated from the English Tories & are allowed to develop their own identity separately from the English Tories & more in line with the values of the Scottish people.
So... In summary... No economic argument is going to sway me short of full bankruptcy if Scotland gains independence, if you want to change my mind concentrate on the social aspects of the debate.
So... In summary... No economic argument is going to sway me short of full bankruptcy if Scotland gains independence, if you want to change my mind concentrate on the social aspects of the debate.
Well there are lots to have a go at. Take the proposal to break up the BBC for example. Alex Salmond dictating to us what programmes he approves of to be shown to Scottish audiences because they aren't Scottish enough and then climbs down on suggesting Eastenders will be shown. He knows full well that the very unscottish soap is watched by thousands if not millions of potential Yes2indie voters.
Then there is prejudice right at the heart of tuition fees by making English students pay and yet free to all other nationalities.
Well there are lots to have a go at. Take the proposal to break up the BBC for example. Alex Salmond dictating to us what programmes he approves of to be shown to Scottish audiences because they aren't Scottish enough and then climbs down on suggesting Eastenders will be shown. He knows full well that the very unscottish soap is watched by thousands if not millions of potential Yes2indie voters.
Then there is prejudice right at the heart of tuition fees by making English students pay and yet free to all other nationalities.
Will we even be entitled to the BBC if we are independent?
Alex Salmond dictating to us what programmes he approves of to be shown to Scottish audiences because they aren't Scottish enough...
Would that not be an issue for the first Scottish Government, isn't this referendum about Independence, not an election for a Government?
Besides... Isn't part of the BBC remit that they should be independent from political influence?
Alex Salmond is doing the Yes campaign no favours by assuming that him & his policies will have an automatic right to lead an Independent Scotland... Personally I think that he would get elected but doubt he'd last a full term.
Will we even be entitled to the BBC if we are independent?
One option would be that BBC Scotland would be separated off along with its share of assets & keep 100% of the licence fee & then have to buy in English proggies... (they might even get outbid by STV & Eastenders could end up on e other side... lol)
KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
29-Aug-12, 20:44
But on a day to day business level - what will happen to the NHS - will the Scottish taxes fund a purely Scottish NHS?
What will happen to Universities - will English students still get funded places at our Universities? for example?
Are we going to have to pay more or less corporation and Income Tax? VAT?
back of beyond
29-Aug-12, 22:10
yer asking the wrong people here keep on trucking as only the want to be politiciens and gubshites are replying on here and not answering yer question:lol: i will wait and see what is on ee news to make my mind up :eek: eather yes or no we will get screwed over by the folk in power so there:confused
secrets in symmetry
29-Aug-12, 23:15
If you want the case for secessionism, you should ask a unionist, or at least a skeptic. To this day, I have never encountered a secessionist who had the ability to analyse (let alone model) the Scottish economy a year after the secession takes place!
As an example, you just have to look at this forum. The secessionists quote numbers until they're blue in the face (after which they take the huff and disappear), but they don't seem to understand them, and they can't do anything with them. I supposed they've been sufficiently well brainwashed by their fellow secessionists and their secessionist literature that they'll believe anything they're told.
Most of the secessionists can't even apply simple arithmetic to their own numbers in order to arrive at some sort of prediction - or even a conclusion lol! One of the more tediously vociferous secessionists can't even do simple arithmetic, never mind interpret the results correctly!
Then there are the gullible bleeding heart secessionists who genuinely believe secession will lead to a softer, gentler, fairer society. They tend to have no knowledge of numbers whatsoever, so they tend to ignore them altogether lol!
Finally, there are the "we've got oil and wind/marine energy" secessionists. These have more of a case. Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.
Part one
The economy is so much more than the pound in your pocket. It is a massive subject and as far as Independence goes it is a complex and terribly conflicted area to try to understand. Each side gives a point of view which they support through the use of experts and academics; Professor this of that; Minister this of that. They wheel out the experts to support their views on every percentage rise or fall, every dip or double dip, every GDP figure and austerity or growth measure that goes across the table or appears in the papers. It’s a bit like an old fashioned pantomime joke – “Oh yes it is” roars the Yes campaign and “Oh no it isn’t” roars the No campaign. And as with the old panto joke there are villains and good guys on both sides. The difference is that the economy isn’t actually funny, it is serious and complicated. The good guys are not always easily discernible and the bad guys don’t wear silly hats and have pointy noses or hiss a lot. In a panto its clear who is right and who is wrong – the economy isn’t that transparent and so, it is almost impossible to know definitively which way is the right way.
There also appears to be a serious sneer around the economic debate, we see here that posters sneer at people as unable to understand the economy and yet offer nothing in the way of explaining why those making an effort are wrong - unless it is a simple arithmetic mistake - in which case it is cheered to the rafters. Could it be that it is their own blind faith in the Unionist point of view which means that they cannot accept any deviation from that point of view as having relevance? They argue that others have no knowledge of numbers or an inabilty to undertand them and yet offer no numbers in their explanations. And so we have an argument that goes "We beleive x" and the counter argument goes " thats just stupid, you are stupid and we will laugh at you HAHAHAHAHA" when really it should go " No you are wrong because this and this and this prove it so".
Of course you might be ideologically committed to an Independent Scotland or the continuation of the Union. If you are an ideologist then you will have no need for an economic argument – you will just know. There are many people who would vote for independence regardless. If the powers that be knocked on their door and said "You can have an Independent Scotland but you will have to be taxed at 95% of your income for the rest of your life” his response would be “Where do I sign?”. However, I am different. I am not a Nationalist of the heart. Not for me the ‘Freeeeeedooom!’ of Braveheart or the unquestionable loyalty to the Queen, either of which have been sneered at by both sides of the argument over the last few months. I am, however, not happy with the Status Quo. (I always write that with capital letters – it took me ages to figure out why. Status Quo are… well… Status Quo! It’s hard to write that phrase without thinking about Francis, Rick and the guys rocking all over the world but I digress – not difficult to do when you are writing about the economy!) So I’m not happy with the way society is right now. I want a fairer society where everyone is valued and children can have the best chance of reaching their full potential – a society where government policies focus on people, rather than money. I see a desperate need for change and I believe that an Independent Scotland offers us the best chance of changing the society we live in, and that ‘opportunity for change’ is the driver for my own decision making.
The way it works right now as I understand it, is this – revenue collected in Scotland goes to the UK treasury and they then give Scotland an amount back in a block grant calculated using the Barnett Formula. Scotland then uses this block grant to pay for the stuff Scotland needs to pay for. This grant is calculated to reflect the priorities of the UK government and not those of the Scottish Government, and thus is ever reducing as the UK government continues its deficit reduction plans. Scotland has severely limited borrowing capabilities just now and few tax raising powers and so remains reliant on the amount that the UK government allocates to us to fund any initiatives that the Scottish Government decides are necessary. This may change with the Scotland Act (2012) but it is no where near enough.
It seems to be that Scotland contributes more than its share to the Revenue of the UK. The arguments that Scotland isn’t financially viable as an independent nation – that it is too poor, too wee and too stupid to survive – are starting to disappear from the newspapers and the mouths of politicians although we keep seeing it here from our armchair tories and virtual chancellors! Even David Cameron acknowledges that Scotland could go it alone, although you might have to dig a bit to find it. Boris Johnson suggested otherwise recently on the Channel four News but does anyone take Boris’s views on Independence seriously? There are issues which still raise their heads as unaffordable – defence for one – although despite Philip Hammond's sabre rattling last January, the SNP’s U-turn on NATO and their ideas for defence in Scotland have had a broadly positive reception. Welfare and pensions are another area where disagreement is rife but once again it’s hard to know who is right and who is wrong as both sides wheel out their "experts" to support their point of view.
It looks like the idea that we will be spending Euros is dead in the water – the economic crisis in Europe and the instability of the euro within very different economies has been clearly demonstrated in the last year. The idea that Scotland would take on the Euro at such a time is a nonstarter. The pound is a different matter. There are sound financial reasons for an Independent Scotland to keep the pound. There are plenty of unionists arguing that we cannot be truly Independent and still keep the pound but it seems to me that we don’t have to keep it forever. At some point I would expect that Scotland will move to its own currency but that needs to be when the time is right for Scotland and not because our hand is forced by sneering economists, pushing a unionist agenda. The other unionist argument trotted out regularly is that an Independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the banks. I don’t like these ‘what if’ arguments because they go nowhere. If we use the same ‘What if’ approach then IF Scotland had been Independent we could argue that the banks wouldn’t have failed in the first place because an Independent Scotland would have proper scrutiny in place to ensure that the problems besetting the banks wouldn’t arise. However, if we answer their point seriously then as RBS has 90% of its operations in England it seems we would have been required to fund 10% of the bail out which experts suggest we most likely would have been able to afford. Again there are those who argue both ways and both have experts which support their arguments.
Part Two
And then there is oil. If you read the reports, there is between 1 day and a million years’ worth of oil sitting beneath the North Sea. Some would almost have us believe that the oil will run out the day after Scotland becomes Independent, plunging Scotland into an economic decline which will see us all homeless and toothless, queuing for bread and burning our furniture to keep warm. I know the oil will run out. I am sure that all those people who are cleverer than me know it too. What I don’t understand, is why people think that the economy will stand still, that industry will not change. If we look at industry over the last fifty years then we can see that there is little resemblance between today’s industrial landscape and that of our fathers or grandfathers. The opening ceremony of the Olympics highlighted some of the many changes and so we can expect and indeed, we should strive to change the landscape over the next fifty years. Whether it is renewables, or another digital or scientific revolution or a return to heavier industry, an Independent Scotland can work to ensure that we are prepared for the demise of the oil industry so that well before it runs out Scotland no longer needs oil.
There are a whole lot of other issues – welfare for example – and the health service, social care and defence. The economics around these complex issues cannot be decided until after the referendum. Whenever people try to pin politicians down over policies for after independence they fail to understand (or choose to ignore) that we will have no policy decisions for an Independent Scotland until the people of Scotland vote for the party that will lead the country into Independence. Lots of parties and people have ideas and policies which will eventually appear in their manifestos. The Scottish Green Party website details key points on the economy although it is short on detail. Parties in waiting – like the Scottish Democratic Alliance have also got a section on their economic policies with a bit more detail. The Unionist parties will refuse to discuss any policies for an Independent Scotland unless and until there is a YES Vote. So we are left with quite a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘what ifs’. In fact that is all there seems to be – maybe and what if.
I did, however, find one unassailable fact about the economy. In all my endeavours to understand the economy, in my attempts to comprehend the finer details of the economics of independence, I only found one thing that is true whichever way you look at it. It is one argument that even I can follow and, perhaps the only truth we need if we are to vote Yes. It is this – In an Independent Scotland the revenue raised in Scotland will be spent on Scottish priorities decided by a Scottish Government. That is it.
Taxes collected, borrowing and revenue from any other source will be kept in Scotland and spent on the needs of and independent Scotland. Whoever wins the election for the government to lead Scotland into independence will get to implement their manifesto. The priorities of the Scottish government will be, in fact, decided by the people of Scotland through their vote and so the Scottish government will reflect the views of the Scottish electorate. This is actually a bit of a change from what is happening today. Today we have a Tory led government in Westminster when we only have one elected Tory MP in Scotland. The priorities of this UK government are not those voted for by the Scottish electorate and yet, we have to fund them through our taxes – trident, the high speed rail link from London to Birmingham and so on. In an Independent Scotland, the money we have would be spent by our own elected government. That is what is important, that is the one thing – the only thing – that makes change possible. It doesn’t matter whether we use the pound and are therefore tied into the Bank of England’s rules; it doesn’t matter whether the oil runs out or not. In an Independent Scotland whatever money we need can be raised from taxes, borrowing and other avenues and that money will be spent on Scottish Priorities. Surely that is the economic point of Independence – that what we have, we spend on doing the best we can for Scotland’s people, in a way that we are unable to do as part of the Union.
And so there you have it. Not much substance and too many answers on both sides but that’s the economy for you – or rather that’s the economy for ME. There is only one truth we can extract from all the millions of posts, arguments, pieces of paper circulating on the subject of the economy. If Scotland is Independent then the money raised in Scotland will be spent in Scotland on Scottish priorities. Surely that’s something worth voting for.
I did, however, find one unassailable fact about the economy. In all my endeavours to understand the economy, in my attempts to comprehend the finer details of the economics of independence, I only found one thing that is true whichever way you look at it. It is one argument that even I can follow and, perhaps the only truth we need if we are to vote Yes. It is this – In an Independent Scotland the revenue raised in Scotland will be spent on Scottish priorities decided by a Scottish Government. That is it.
OK How about foreign aid? Will revenue which is raised in an independent Scotland be spent on foreign aid? If not, why isn't it a priority? If it is, then why is it a priority?
Presumably if Scotland is going to be richer country than the UK like Salmond says then an independent country should be more generous, no?
rob murray
30-Aug-12, 13:31
Squidge, many people hold what they would describe as varying views / ideologies on "economics" ie how to grow an economy, or even if an economy can be grown / saved etc policies and timings.
People the world over hold differing opinions on the above ( just check out postings on the org for example ) and when applied to politics, politicians will hold, in a lot of cases, diametrically opposite views on economics or political economy...so the prevailing political wind ( of those of a particular political persuasation ) is focused around the age of austerity, how cuts in services, coupled with low interest rates can seemingly ( in the long run ) revive an economy. My point is that this view is not based on proven economic rational, its a political view quite different from an economic scientific perspective. The best book I have read, recently, is called End this Depression now, see link below, why dont you get a copy, as the writer, a nobel prize winner, explains complex economic theories in a very readable way and outlines how the current crisis / depression can be cured / put to bed over a short period of time. ( after all how long is the long run....in the long run we are all dead ! ) Judging by your posts you will enjoy the book immensely !!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/03/paul-krugman-cassandra-economist-crisis
OK How about foreign aid? Will revenue which is raised in an independent Scotland be spent on foreign aid? If not, why isn't it a priority? If it is, then why is it a priority?
Presumably if Scotland is going to be richer country than the UK like Salmond says then an independent country should be more generous, no?
You want that Answer Rheg - you find it - the two posts I made above outline my conclusions about the economy - you make your own conclusions. You want to know answers then you do what I do and thats go and find them. Im not interested in looking for your answers for you.
Rob - you know - you pays your taxes and you make your vote. I choose MY political beliefs and make my own decisions and there are thousands of different opinions and I thank goodness for that. The only thing that saddens me is that otherwise clever, intelligent and articulate people waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge by offering us THEIR answers so that we can have a sensible debate and not a pile of negative, name calling poo.
rob murray
30-Aug-12, 14:40
You want that Answer Rheg - you find it - the two posts I made above outline my conclusions about the economy - you make your own conclusions. You want to know answers then you do what I do and thats go and find them. Im not interested in looking for your answers for you.
Rob - you know - you pays your taxes and you make your vote. I choose MY political beliefs and make my own decisions and there are thousands of different opinions and I thank goodness for that. The only thing that saddens me is that otherwise clever, intelligent and articulate people waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge by offering us THEIR answers so that we can have a sensible debate and not a pile of negative, name calling poo.
Squidge, I dont get your reply at all ! what do you mean by "clever, intelligent and articulate people, waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge" who are you refering to, org posters or who ? Sensible debate and not a pile of name calling poo ??? Whats that all about ? Krugman offers ( in the opinion of many ) very sensible, researched and increasingly accepted views on economic policy. An independant Scotland will have to manage an economy, and economics sits at the heart of the debate.
Squidge, I dont get your reply at all ! what do you mean by "clever, intelligent and articulate people, waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge" who are you refering to, org posters or who ? Sensible debate and not a pile of name calling poo ??? Whats that all about ? Krugman offers ( in the opinion of many ) very sensible, researched and increasingly accepted views on economic policy. An independant Scotland will have to manage an economy, and economics sits at the heart of the debate.
Sorry Rob - you are absolutely right that economics sits at the heart of the debate. As for my first comment I perhaps should have added It saddens me that on this forum some otherwise clever, intelligent and articulate people waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge by offering us THEIR answers so that we can have a sensible debate and not a pile of negative, name calling poo.
rob murray
30-Aug-12, 14:50
Sorry Rob - you are absolutely right that economics sits at the heart of the debate. As for my first comment I perhaps should have added It saddens me that on this forum some otherwise clever, intelligent and articulate people waste their time with inane and childish name calling and dont offer us the benefit or their knowledge by offering us THEIR answers so that we can have a sensible debate and not a pile of negative, name calling poo.
Ok fine, thats the org though, but as I see it, people who indulge in name calling etc are by definition stupid or are at the wind up, which, if Im being honest completely turns me off posting etc, so when I find the wind ups / name calling getting to me, I usually breaks away from the org as I suspect do quite a lot of people.
I went and had coffee yesterday and a better nights sleep and spent my time with some positive people doing uplifting things and felt better so ....here I am :)
You want that Answer Rheg - you find it - the two posts I made above outline my conclusions about the economy - you make your own conclusions. You want to know answers then you do what I do and thats go and find them. Im not interested in looking for your answers for you.
Well I didn't really want you to sidestep my question, what do you think should happen in an independent Scotland with respect to foreign aid? If Scotland is going to be richer per capita then more should be spent. You said that fairness and equality are high up on your priorities so surely it would jar against your principles if you found out that Salmond's vision (which is essentially what you are promoting) sees that Scotland should cut back on foreign aid and concentrate on spending on 'Scotland's priorities'.
It is your blog, so why don't you defend what you say in it?
But on a day to day business level - what will happen to the NHS - will the Scottish taxes fund a purely Scottish NHS?
What will happen to Universities - will English students still get funded places at our Universities? for example?
Are we going to have to pay more or less corporation and Income Tax? VAT?
Any guess as to what will happen on a day to day business level would rather depend on what a Scottish Government which has not yet been elected decides is the way to go......so perm any of dozens of scenarios....one or two of them might be right. Thing is that what income we have will be being used for the benefit of Scotland and the Scots..and we will have the abilty to adjust our own economic situation to achieve the best possible results for Scotland........not something we can do at the moment as the UK economy is run from Westminster for the benefit of the Square Mile and the South of England.
We already fund the Scottish NHS out of our pocket money.that's what devolution is about......which is why we have free prescriptions and those South of the Border don't.
Do English students get funded places at our Universities now? I thought the Westminster Government for England didn't do subsidising English students to study outside England, except in the EU hegemony.
We'd certainly save on the cost of Trident.....and the cost of the next war started for the sake of armament manufacturers' profits and the cost of refurbishing The Houses of Parliament....which is looking at starting, cost-wise, at around seven times the cost of building Holyrood from scratch. We'd maybe even have the will to legislate death on all legal, but immoral tax avoidance schemes, clamp down on tax evasion and be able to stop trashing the disabled to pay for the rich people's perks.
Glad you mentioned Holyrood. It's certainly up there with Edinburgh trams and the Royal Bank of Scotland as headline reasons for allowing Scottish politicians and senior business figures to run an economy. In this case, the economy of Brigadoon.
Fed up of hearing about fairer this and fairer that. I'm assuming it will be achieved by some kind of super mega wellfare system that the tax payers will be asked to foot the bill for. Backed up by a major expansion of the public sector. 'Hot news' we can't afford what we have already.
I pay my taxes and vote for them not to be squandered.
Well I didn't really want you to sidestep my question, what do you think should happen in an independent Scotland with respect to foreign aid? If Scotland is going to be richer per capita then more should be spent. You said that fairness and equality are high up on your priorities so surely it would jar against your principles if you found out that Salmond's vision (which is essentially what you are promoting) sees that Scotland should cut back on foreign aid and concentrate on spending on 'Scotland's priorities'.
It is your blog, so why don't you defend what you say in it?
Oh I see what you are saying Rheg -that because I said money can be spend in Scotland by a Scottish Government on Scottish Priorities then I must mean that foreign aid is not one of MY priorities. It is for the Scottish Parties to decide what the priorities are for foreign aid but I would be very disappointed in any party which doesn’t include foreign aid in their manifesto. In fact most parties do have this in their plans.
The Scottish Democratic Alliance say “It is in the interests of wealthy nations like Scotland to help others which are poorer, or in serious need. This can cover emergency assistance by Scottish civilian and military forces in the event of natural disasters and similar events. It also means regular development cooperation, of a kind which
can benefit both giver and recipient in more than one sense. Scotland has a wide range of valuable skills and experience which can be used for this purpose,
and should lose no time in bringing its foreign aid programme up to the OECD standard of 0.7 per cent of GNI”
The SNP said in their manifesto in 2010 that they “will press the UK government to meet its international obligations including acontinued commitment to meet the UN target of 0.7% of national wealth devoted tooverseas development. The SNP believes international development must be apriority. As the Scottish Government since 2007, we doubled Scotland’s international aid budget and are building strong links with developing nations such as Malawi.Scotland can be proud of its place in the world. Scottish troops have served inoperations around the globe with distinction. Scottish aid and aid workers haveoffered a vital lifeline to some of the poorest people in need. And we are now buildinglinks with some of the nations most threatened by global warming”
Just now foreign aid is largely made on the basis of political and strategic considerations – by that I mean that the US tends to offer aid to those countries who assist or agree with their priorities in the middle east. Uk – former colonies and so on. The UK has signed up to the UN agreement to spend 0.7% GNI on foreign aid and is currently missing those targets as far as I can see and some say we have missed the aid targets for the last 40 years or so. OECD figures show UK 6th globally as % of ODA/GNI, UK aid is 0.56% of GNI. This compares to 1.02% for Sweden, 1% for Norway, 0.99% for Luxembourg, 0.86% for Denmark and 0.75% for the Netherlands. So there is no reason why Scotland shouldn’t take its place in the world and I am sure that you know from reading my previous posts that I favour an outward looking Independent Scotland. If Scotland is a member of the EU then it will have foreign aid obligations to meet as part of its membership and whichever party is governing Scotland will need to take that forward.
So maybe Scotland would not offer aid to India but to smaller countries facing problems due to the impact of Global Warming, If Scotland continues to develop alternative sources of energy then it may be to those countries who are energy poor that Scotland’s foreign aid will be offered. Again the same premis applies – an independent Scotland would be able to decide its own foreign aid priorities and those would form part of their manifesto to be voted on by the Scottish Electorate.
Fed up of hearing about fairer this and fairer that. I'm assuming it will be achieved by some kind of super mega wellfare system that the tax payers will be asked to foot the bill for. Backed up by a major expansion of the public sector. 'Hot news' we can't afford what we have already.
I pay my taxes and vote for them not to be squandered.
They are being squandered as we speak Ducati - £100 million to pay ATOS to assess peoples fitness to work and then a further £50 million to pay for the appeals cos they mess it up. The government has doctors and had civil servants who could already have done this if they had tightened up the system without spending a fortune to a private company which allows it to make money out of the misery of the sick and disabled.
The Private companies being paid millions to operate training or job search programmes for the unemployed also do so to make money. Some of them have shown they do not have the best intentions for their clients at heart – they are simply interested in the balance sheet. An Independent Scotland should not – indeed must not – allow multi-national rich companies to make money out of the misery of others – to use the unemployed for cheap unpaid labour and dash hopes when real jobs don’t materialise. This is immoral and deceitful. In actual fact DWP spent a significat amount of money to train advisers in Jobcentres to SVQ level 3 in adult guidance only to throw it away with Jobcentre plus and the governements obsession with private companies being able to do it better - so you have perfectly well able and trained advisers sitting there whilst private companies are paid a fortune to do a worse job. - There are your taxes being squandered yet again!
I make no suggestion for a super mega welfare state Ducati and you know that I am sure. Nowhere do I suggest that benefits need to be increased across the board. There is one benefit I would increase though and that is the carer's allowance - carers save the country millions of pounds and are often amongst the poorest. Of course there must also be a plan for people who cheat the system and who try to duck their responsibilities – there have to be penalties for those who refuse to engage with the world of work and will not take the help that is offered. Fraud detection must be robust and we should remove the incentives to commit fraud that are endemic in the Welfare system just now – why do two single people get less benefit than a couple? It simply encourages people to lie about living together and then this goes on and on. We need to remember however that The truth is that only around 3% of those people claiming benefits are getting more than they are entitled to through fraud or error. Benefit recipients are not to blame for the state of the economy.
Once again the argument has to be that an independent Scotland would give us the opportunity to develop a new welfare system. We could look to europe and scandinavia to see how they run their systems and take what we feel benefits Scotland, add it to anything we want to keep from the existing sytem or we could completely design a new system which is fairer to the tax payer and the person on benefits.
Glad you mentioned Holyrood. It's certainly up there with Edinburgh trams and the Royal Bank of Scotland as headline reasons for allowing Scottish politicians and senior business figures to run an economy. In this case, the economy of Brigadoon.
Funnily enough, Holyrood was another example of our Union Dividend, along with The Dome, Afghanistan, Iraq, Trident, The London Olympics, the Banking Crisis, the dearth of Social Housing, the crap roads North of the Central Belt, the lack of decent Sports facilities in Scotland, the reducing levels of Barnett to help Westminster pay for all of the foregoing etc .....as in we had no say in any of it. The new building was a decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland pretty much made before the Devolution Bill even got passed...and it was voted on by the UK Parliament...not a Scottish one. The SNP were against a new building, btw.......as were most of the Scottish population..just as the SNP were against the Edinburgh Trams, which were a brainfart by the Scottish Branch of UK Nulabour but with the SNP being a minority Government at the time they were outvoted......so, again..a dividend directly laid at the door of Scottish Unionist politicians.
Certainly makes one wonder about the mindset of Scottish Unionist politicians who appear to think that the taxpayer has bottomless pockets......rather like their Westminster counterparts do.
pinotnoir
31-Aug-12, 01:36
Squidge, many people hold what they would describe as varying views / ideologies on "economics" ie how to grow an economy, or even if an economy can be grown / saved etc policies and timings.
People the world over hold differing opinions on the above ( just check out postings on the org for example ) and when applied to politics, politicians will hold, in a lot of cases, diametrically opposite views on economics or political economy...so the prevailing political wind ( of those of a particular political persuasation ) is focused around the age of austerity, how cuts in services, coupled with low interest rates can seemingly ( in the long run ) revive an economy. My point is that this view is not based on proven economic rational, its a political view quite different from an economic scientific perspective. The best book I have read, recently, is called End this Depression now, see link below, why dont you get a copy, as the writer, a nobel prize winner, explains complex economic theories in a very readable way and outlines how the current crisis / depression can be cured / put to bed over a short period of time. ( after all how long is the long run....in the long run we are all dead ! ) Judging by your posts you will enjoy the book immensely !!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/03/paul-krugman-cassandra-economist-crisis
Watch the author, Paul Krugman, destroy the austerity argument...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk
rob murray
31-Aug-12, 09:18
Watch the author, Paul Krugman, destroy the austerity argument...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk
Exactly, there is ultimatley no arguement, either in economic or moral terms for so called austerity cuts and Krugman is merely re interating policies, largey based on the work of J M Keyenes which pulled the US and ultimatley the UK out of the great depression of the 30's ie proven policies. If there are any doubters out there...ask yourelf one simple question....
1 The US economy stood at over 10% unemployement rates in 1940, the UK by 1939 had sorta come out the worst of a severe depression ( but still with high rates of unemployment ) both countries were "cash strapped", the uS had a bankning crisis on its hands as well ( deja vu ) according to convetional wisdom....wars cost money...so where was the money found to fight and win the war ( creating full employment over the course ) and in the US 's case emerging as the world super power in 1945, when so called "conventional classical economic theory" had it, that especially in the US's case, the war time economic boom should have resulted in high inflation followed by rising rates of high unemployment....yet this never happened.
Not that Im advocating a war to get the economy moving...who funded the second world war ....private investors ? or governments...and if a war can be funded surely this proves the case that governments can "intervene" in an economy to get things moving. I now await the hysteria attacks from the austerity brigade lol lol
I'm not an economist......:lol: But don't you think that if the grubbiement could get loadsa cash and make themselves very popular er...they would?
rob murray
31-Aug-12, 10:41
I'm not an economist......:lol: But don't you think that if the grubbiement could get loadsa cash and make themselves very popular er...they would?
a They dont need to be very popular, just popular enough to retain power
b They dont "get loadsa cash" the economy is flat, they flick switches...quantative easing they call it....they create "money"
c How much of this newly created money is hitting the real economy : very very little : why...because the banks are keeping it to bolster their balance sheets, even at the lowest interest rates in decades, firms arent borrowing money to upgrade plant etc...why..... because they have no confidence in the economy because " consumer demand ( our spending ) is fragile to say the least, and why is it fragile..because people arent spending a. they dont have it b. they wont risk spending ( even using credit ) c consumers are not confident with the economic outlook hence the extreme caution....so the problem is how do we get people spending ( ie increasing demand for goods and services which in turn will kick start industry ) ...if firms wont spend on capital projects then the only alternative is government..or not as the case is !
I would also add that they do find money to spend on things
We have the Olympics, we havethe plan for the new rail link, the money they spent on the bank bail outs, the money they are spending on replacing trident. the money spent on reducing the highest rates of tax. They are not emptying the penny jar to pay the milkman just yet.
It is about priorities - the tory led government are focusing on the austerity measures not because that is the only way to improve the economy but because it is the only way to reduce the deficit which also helps with their priorities for a welfare and public sector cuts and privatisation. Those are well established tory party principles and their deficit reduction plan is based on those principles. When the chips are down the Conservatives will work to promote themselves to their core voters and so we will see immigration and europe featuring highly - we have already seen David Cameron speak positively about the possibility of a referendum on Europe. The conservatives are talking about a further 10bn in welfare cuts including excluding the under 25s from housing benefit - i read one commentator who was broadly sympathetic to David Cameron say that it was throwing red meat to the Tory right wingers. This is politicking and is about core tory values not about defecit reduction.
So if we had a government with different priorites then their priorities would change and we shoudl find we have enough cash to do some of the things we need to do. The difficulty in Westminster is finding a party with different priorities - The Lib Dems have got lost inside the Tories, and the LAbour Party is almost undistinguishable from the tories at times. It may actually be independence for Scotland which forces the Uk Labour party to look at itself and move back to a being a party focused on social democracy.
rob murray
31-Aug-12, 13:28
I would also add that they do find money to spend on things
We have the Olympics, we havethe plan for the new rail link, the money they spent on the bank bail outs, the money they are spending on replacing trident. the money spent on reducing the highest rates of tax. They are not emptying the penny jar to pay the milkman just yet.
It is about priorities - the tory led government are focusing on the austerity measures not because that is the only way to improve the economy but because it is the only way to reduce the economy which also helps with their priorities for a welfare and public sector cuts and privatisation. Those are well established tory party principles and their deficit reduction plan is based on those principles. When the chips are down the Conservatives will work to promote themselves to their core voters and so we will see immigration and europe featuring highly - we have already seen David Cameron speak positively about the possibility of a referendum on Europe. The conservatives are talking about a further 10bn in welfare cuts including excluding the under 25s from housing benefit - i read one commentator who was broadly sympathetic to David Cameron say that it was throwing red meat to the Tory right wingers. This is politicking and is about core tory values not about defecit reduction.
So if we had a government with different priorites then their priorities would change and we shoudl find we have enough cash to do some of the things we need to do. The difficulty in Westminster is finding a party with different priorities - The Lib Dems have got lost inside the Tories, and the LAbour Party is almost undistinguishable from the tories at times. It may actually be independence for Scotland which forces the Uk Labour party to look at itself and move back to a being a party focused on social democracy.
Well put, the austerity cuts are based on ideological beliefs to minimise state involvement / hence spending, the threat of independence could well re focus Labour, but to be fair, Labours Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls has been hammering on about fiscal spending increases for yonks now, Swinney is very similar to Ed Balls, ie Plan Mac B is interventionist by definition ( still not enough though ) , as the present "plan" cant and wont work. So in a nutshell, the strategy is that the tories sit back, let Labour and SNP have the cat fight over the referendum, if SNP win then england becomes a solid tory /slightly watered down tory heartland for generations, as the Lib Dems are dead in the water, leaving a labour minority in England and a labour rump in Scotland, which will again take a generation to win back voters, unless of course, the SNP majority screw things up and labour make a come back in an independant Scotland. So it looks like the Tory austerity party are quids in however you look at it !
secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-12, 00:30
I see the odd secessionists are still presenting blatant lies as established facts, and the bleeding heart liberals are as deluded as ever. It seems I'll have to explain in detail why a seceded Scotland could easily be bankrupt within a couple of years....
Go on then What are the lies being presented as facts and what facts do you have? Im keen to learn
Go on then What are the lies being presented as facts and what facts do you have? Im keen to learn
Don't hold your breath, squidge. Facts are cheils which don't exist, far less ding. in the Unionist campaign to date....so there won't be any appearing here.
Don't hold your breath, squidge. Facts are cheils which don't exist, far less ding. in the Unionist campaign to date....so there won't be any appearing here.
Well your pseudo calculations for a start, which you didn't defend I might add after SiS so effectively proved false.
Good lord this discussion is still ongoing. I think it's already been established that no opinions are going to be changed - on here - anyway by these sort of discussions. So I ask what's the point? If you just want to post your own opinions then get a blog or a Facebook page.
You do realise you're having a discussions about independence in a post complaining about discussions about independence.
Well your pseudo calculations for a start, which you didn't defend I might add after SiS so effectively proved false.
What was to defend...I held my hands up to mistyping.....you obviously did not read my response here http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?183443-Are-you-British-or-are-you-a-wimp&p=973984#post973984
oldmarine
10-Sep-12, 21:34
Or in more realistic terms we have a population density of 65 people per sq km compared to Englands 383 people per sq km & the UK as a whole has 246 people per sq km....
So... yes... we do have a lower population density than the rest of the UK, but when you consider that countries like The USA (32 people per sq km), Australia (3 people per sq km), Canada (4 people per sq km), Norway (15 people per sq km), etc... Are all doing OK as far as I know, you can safely say that low population density has very little to do with the wealth of a nation.
Very interesting reading. A good point is made here about the comparison with other countries density. In particular those countries with large land masses.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.