PDA

View Full Version : Nor Scot



Pages : [1] 2

piratelassie
24-Aug-13, 23:53
Oil rich Norway. Population 4.9 million,independent and prosperous.
Oil rich Scotland. Population 5.2 million, too wee, too poor, too stupid.
Think Independence, and please no one reply with so we are, or some other bitchy remark. Show your maturity.

Tangerine-Dream
25-Aug-13, 00:05
I don't understand the question / statement so cannot reply maturely or otherwise.

Phill
25-Aug-13, 02:04
With respect. With maturity.
This is, if I can even hope to grasp the mentality, a banal statement.

Comparing a possible future (semi quasi) Independent Scotland with a long established sovereign state, and then trying to bargain 50 years of known returns against a future of... well..... literally, anyone's best guess sales pitch and arse smoke blowing routine is fruitless.

Given your post, and the timing v frequency of prevous posts: Piratelassie, I suspect you may be a drunken Alex Salmond 'research' assistant / intern. And therfore, in effect, a troll.

But, always entertaining.

mi16
25-Aug-13, 07:36
To base your facts on oil, Scotland would have been better going solo at the beginning of the oil boom, not the end.
Norway have been stashing funds into their oil fund since their indistry has kicked off and has a value in the region of $750 billion.
This will stanf them in good stead for the future.
What do we have??

sids
25-Aug-13, 09:03
Scotland. Population 5.2 million, too wee,

Yes, Scottish people are not as tall as Norwegians.

golach
25-Aug-13, 10:06
Think Independence, Show your maturity.

I have thought long and hard and am still going to vote NO, does that make me immature?

PantsMAN
25-Aug-13, 10:25
To base your facts on oil, Scotland would have been better going solo at the beginning of the oil boom, not the end.
Norway have been stashing funds into their oil fund since their indistry has kicked off and has a value in the region of $750 billion.
This will stanf them in good stead for the future.
What do we have??

Aye, maybe if the Westminster Govt. (Labour and Tory) hadn't lied about the oil we might have taken the step sooner .


"One month after former Labour Chancellor Denis Healey admitted that his party had underplayed the value of Scottish oil in the 1970s, new research has revealed that during the same period the Conservatives failed to honour a pledge to set up an oil fund. In the October 1974 General Election, the Conservative manifesto promised that the UK government would create an oil fund for Scotland should the party be returned to power."


"Some of the conclusions the report makes about an independent Scotland include:


The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe…
An exchange rate of £1 Scots to 120p sterling within two years of independence therefore seems quite probable.
Thus, for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic advantage lies in its repeal.
Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments that it is easy to imagine R-UK in dire straits without it."

From -http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7597-more-evidence-that-scots-were-misled-over-oil-by-successive-uk-governments

Plus - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html)

equusdriving
25-Aug-13, 11:53
Oil rich Norway. Population 4.9 million,independent and prosperous.
Oil rich Scotland. Population 5.2 million, too wee, too poor, too stupid.
Think Independence, and please no one reply with so we are, or some other bitchy remark. Show your maturity.

Just a thought, have you ever considered using actual relevant applicable facts to back voting yes, instead of the immature bitchy anti British/English drivel you spout? as I feel this type of bile is more likely to encourage people to vote No, rather than put all our futures in the hands of such hate filled bigots as yourself, who cannot see the future because they insist on dwelling in the past [evil]

Humerous Vegetable
25-Aug-13, 13:24
Just a thought, have you ever considered using actual relevant applicable facts to back voting yes, instead of the immature bitchy anti British/English drivel you spout? as I feel this type of bile is more likely to encourage people to vote No, rather than put all our futures in the hands of such hate filled bigots as yourself, who cannot see the future because they insist on dwelling in the past [evil]

I can't see where posting facts comes under the aegis of hate-filled bigotry? Okay, he/she may have been whistling in the wind when asking for no bitchy remarks in response to the post but, thank God, you never let us down.

orkneycadian
25-Aug-13, 13:39
An interesting comparison....

With Orkney and Shetland still arguably being Norwegian / Danish (some say that for a mere 50,000 florins, Norway could reclaim Orkney / Shetland after pledging them for that amount in 1468), and much of "Scotlands" oil being in waters off Orkney and Shetland, then Scotland in the traditional sense, doesnt really have very much oil to shout about anyway. And that was at the beginning of the oil boom in the 1970's, not now when its finished!

Pirate Lassie has once more drawn attention to how it should really be.....

Oil rich Norway. Population 4,942,000,independent and prosperous.
No Oil Scotland. Population 5,158,000, too wee, too poor, too stupid.

Folks up here are getting more and more suspicious of the Neverendum and the claims of "Scotlands Oil", when all those in Edinburgh and Glasgow are about as remote from oil and petroleum as you can get. I am sure they would even get very het up if there was a suggestion of fracking on Sachiehall or Princes streets, and would be out campaigning against it.

So, Pirate Lassie, what will an independent Scotland give us in exchange for Orkney and Shetlands oil?

sids
25-Aug-13, 14:18
After the Edinburgh tram scheme, fracking on Princes St would be a breath of fresh air.

sids
25-Aug-13, 14:22
An interesting comparison....

With Orkney and Shetland still arguably being Norwegian / Danish (some say that for a mere 50,000 florins, Norway could reclaim Orkney / Shetland after pledging them for that amount in 1468),

I think they could claim all they like. Neither Britain's nor Scotland's government would give them the islands.

orkneycadian
25-Aug-13, 14:28
Maybe then, any Orcadians or Shelties could make random postings on here, generally late in the evenings after a few sherries, making some exaggerated claims about how badly we are off up here as a result of having Scottish rule imposed on us?

sids
25-Aug-13, 14:38
Maybe then, any Orcadians or Shelties could make random postings on here, generally late in the evenings after a few sherries, making some exaggerated claims about how badly we are off up here as a result of having Scottish rule imposed on us?

Freedom and whisky gang thegither!

equusdriving
25-Aug-13, 17:15
I can't see where posting facts comes under the aegis of hate-filled bigotry?
no I don't suppose you can , considering your use of "incomers" In your previous posts

equusdriving
25-Aug-13, 17:26
So, Pirate Lassie, what will an independent Scotland give us in exchange for Orkney and Shetlands oil? no you don't understand , its perfectly ok for an Independent Scotland to treat Orkney and Shetland, the same way that these pro-independence hypocrites are constantly whining about how the Uk government treat Scotland:confused

piratelassie
25-Aug-13, 19:46
What are you talking about? To mention that Scotland would be oil rich is nothing to do with the past.And dont refer to me as a hate filled bigot.

Just a thought, have you ever considered using actual relevant applicable facts to back voting yes, instead of the immature bitchy anti British/English drivel you spout? as I feel this type of bile is more likely to encourage people to vote No, rather than put all our futures in the hands of such hate filled bigots as yourself, who cannot see the future because they insist on dwelling in the past [evil]

equusdriving
25-Aug-13, 22:02
dont refer to me as a hate filled bigot.

why does the truth hurt? and I see you have diverted away from the question you was asked, what a surprise[disgust]

orkneycadian
25-Aug-13, 22:25
To mention that Scotland would be oil rich is nothing to do with the past.

So where, exactly, in the Central Belt (a misnomer if ever there was given that its nearly at the bottom....) is all this oil?

And taking Scotland as a whole (including the Northern Isles), where is all this oil, given that its nearly finished? Even in the "oil rich North", the Flotta oil terminal and Scapa Flow are quiet backwaters compared to what it used to be - Maybe a tanker a month if you are lucky, compared to the numerous ones every week 35 years ago.

theone
25-Aug-13, 22:38
I think they could claim all they like. Neither Britain's nor Scotland's government would give them the islands.

I disagree.

If a referendum to stay in the UK was held in the northern isles, I'm sure the British government would listen.

The MP for Shetland has already mentioned this posibility in the event of Scottish independence.

RagnarRocks
26-Aug-13, 07:30
There is an assumption by many that should scotland gain independence that the isles would be quite happy to sit in bed with Scotland and hand over all the oil revenues, but it doesn't take much reading to hear the murmurs coming out of the isles that they too may wish to be independent from Scotland. Now that is perfectly reasonable and acceptable under the remit of rights of self determination, all I ask is what happens once the oil revenue is gone ? Independence isn't about a short term boost to make one party popular it should be about the long term economic viability of this country now view Scotland without oil revenues is it really long term still as viable ? Also why should Scotland have independence and not the isles if they wish it so !

piratelassie
26-Aug-13, 12:19
Where is the divertion, it's still Scotlands oil whether you like it or not.

why does the truth hurt? and I see you have diverted away from the question you was asked, what a surprise[disgust]

equusdriving
26-Aug-13, 12:57
Where is the divertion, it's still Scotlands oil whether you like it or not.

actually it is Great Britain's Oil, whether you like it or not :lol: and how about answering the question "So, Pirate Lassie, what will an independent Scotland give us in exchange for Orkney and Shetlands oil?"

golach
26-Aug-13, 14:10
Where is the divertion, it's still Scotlands oil whether you like it or not.

How or why is it "Scotlands oil"?

Alrock
26-Aug-13, 15:36
@piratelassie....

If it wasn't for the oil would you still want an independent Scotland?

squidge
26-Aug-13, 16:18
Scotland can afford to be independent without the revenue from oil.

Alrock
26-Aug-13, 17:00
There is an assumption by many that should scotland gain independence that the isles would be quite happy to sit in bed with Scotland and hand over all the oil revenues, but it doesn't take much reading to hear the murmurs coming out of the isles that they too may wish to be independent from Scotland....

Fair enuff.... But....

By the time they've bickered & debated, placated with devolution, bickered & debated again, finally given a referendum on independence, etc.... 25 years or so would have passed & all the oil will finally be gone, by which time they will be nothing but a burden to the rest of Scotland so no loss anyway.

[lol]

sids
26-Aug-13, 17:57
Scotland can afford to be independent without the revenue from oil.

Yeah, but who wants independence anyway! It would be a drag, man.

orkneycadian
26-Aug-13, 17:58
Documents like;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136390/production_projections.pdf
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136390/production_projections.pdf)
highlight how far along the road we are from "UK Peak Oil". The switch to being import dependent happened in 2005/2006, and the UK as a whole now is 36% dependant on import oil. By 2030 (a mere 17 years away), the UK is expected to be 67% import dependent (assuming anyone has any left to sell us....). Even assuming the oil is all Scottish, a time will come soon after 2030 when the oil cannot even keep Scotlands fires burning and cars going, without Scotland becoming import dependant too. So as a sustainer of an independent Scotland, oil, even if Scotland could lay claim to it, is a pretty short fix. Within a few years, oil becomes so insignificant that its not worth considering, and the fledgling Scotland is going to have to find something else to sustain it. Now, I would have that thought that something as significant as independence would need to be based on something better that a sub 20 year short fix. The union is, after all, 306 years old and counting, and thats still quite young in world history. Orkney and Shetland have, meantime, been pledged as security for 545 years. Would we really want to open the next chapter in Scotlands history to find that after all these arrangements that have been in place for centuries, independence is a 20 year flash in the pan, after which Scotland (probably minus Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles by then), is grovelling to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be allowed back in again?

Please do answer some of these questions Pirate Lassie. The silence is deafening.

sids
26-Aug-13, 18:01
And dont refer to me as a hate filled bigot.

Is it ok to think it?

squidge
26-Aug-13, 22:19
Orkneycadien Scotland can afford Independence even without oil

secrets in symmetry
26-Aug-13, 22:57
Documents like;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136390/production_projections.pdf
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136390/production_projections.pdf)
highlight how far along the road we are from "UK Peak Oil". The switch to being import dependent happened in 2005/2006, and the UK as a whole now is 36% dependant on import oil. By 2030 (a mere 17 years away), the UK is expected to be 67% import dependent (assuming anyone has any left to sell us....). Even assuming the oil is all Scottish, a time will come soon after 2030 when the oil cannot even keep Scotlands fires burning and cars going, without Scotland becoming import dependant too. So as a sustainer of an independent Scotland, oil, even if Scotland could lay claim to it, is a pretty short fix. Within a few years, oil becomes so insignificant that its not worth considering, and the fledgling Scotland is going to have to find something else to sustain it. Now, I would have that thought that something as significant as independence would need to be based on something better that a sub 20 year short fix. The union is, after all, 306 years old and counting, and thats still quite young in world history. Orkney and Shetland have, meantime, been pledged as security for 545 years. Would we really want to open the next chapter in Scotlands history to find that after all these arrangements that have been in place for centuries, independence is a 20 year flash in the pan, after which Scotland (probably minus Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles by then), is grovelling to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be allowed back in again?

Please do answer some of these questions Pirate Lassie. The silence is deafening.It's worse than that. The more it dawns on them that Ugly Fat Eck was lying about the retrievable resources still in the North Sea/Atlantic Ocean, and the more they realise that it's going to be ever more expensive to retrieve less and less of the black stuff, the more they resort to lies and nonsense. Some are now claiming that we don't need oil to balance the books. They were insane to start with, it's now getting to the stage where they should be locked up for their own good!

golach
26-Aug-13, 23:03
Orkneycadien Scotland can afford Independence even without oil

Oh do enlighten us Squidge....please.,,,,,,,,,How???

piratelassie
26-Aug-13, 23:03
Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Scotland has many natural resorces and a small talented population.
@piratelassie....

If it wasn't for the oil would you still want an independent Scotland?

mi16
27-Aug-13, 08:14
How or why is it "Scotlands oil"?

I dont think we have had a response to this one, have we?

squidge
27-Aug-13, 08:34
It isnt Scotlands oil at present, it belongs to the UK. There are maritime boundaries which already ARE defined as under Scots jurisdiction. This is because of the different legal systems in Scotland. An Independent Scotland would use these boundaries as the basis for a division of assets. As many of the oil fields are in what would be, indeed what are already identified as Scottish waters then those oil fields would 'belong' to the people of an independent Scotland. There are recognised procedures to make these decisions when countries become independent ... This wouldnt be the first time this has happened.

golach
27-Aug-13, 09:18
As many of the oil fields are in what would be, indeed what are already identified as Scottish waters then those oil fields would 'belong' to the people of an independent Scotland. .

Oh the Nationalists are going to nationlise the oilfields? That is a surprise. Sorry squidge I cannot see that as an option, more likely one of your pipedreams.

Rheghead
27-Aug-13, 10:15
Norway has the highest petrol prices on the planet. I'm not sure people would want to follow their economic pattern.

golach
27-Aug-13, 10:22
Norway has the highest petrol prices on the planet. I'm not sure people would want to follow their economic pattern.

But Rheg, Norway is the shining example set by many Nats on here, why are they not divulging imformation such as this?

fingalmacool
27-Aug-13, 11:48
Regardless of all the pros and cons of being independent, I think if the loonies down south drag us into another conflict that cant be won, it will be mana from heaven for the Nationalists:confused

mi16
27-Aug-13, 11:53
But Rheg, Norway is the shining example set by many Nats on here, why are they not divulging imformation such as this?

You fail to note however that the average annual wage in Norway is around 308,500NOK (£41,105) as opposed to the UK average of £26,500.
But its not just fuel that is more expensive over there.

sids
27-Aug-13, 12:04
Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Scotland has many natural resorces and a small talented population.

How big is the untalented poulation?

mi16
27-Aug-13, 15:46
How big is the untalented poulation?

Approx 5'10" tall, 5'10" wide

RagnarRocks
27-Aug-13, 16:20
I think I've realised the cunning plan. With no one wanting nuclear power stations or oil or gas fired ones on their door steps now we've got no one wanting windmills or fracking. Also bearing in mind the inevitable running out of oil that leaves one readily available source of fuel PEAT ! Yes the whole of the uk will be dependant on peat to heat homes once every other source is unavailable and Scotland will become a world superpower :0))

squidge
27-Aug-13, 16:44
Oh the Nationalists are going to nationlise the oilfields? That is a surprise. Sorry squidge I cannot see that as an option, more likely one of your pipedreams.

Lol golach you never fail to jump in and stick words into my mouth for me.

Nationalise? did I say that? Nope.

However lets expand on that issue a bit - i said "belong" in inverted commas because they will belong to the people of Scotland in a similar way as Scotland will "belong" to the people of Scotland. That means that it will be up to us through our democratically elected government to manage these oilfields and the revenue from them as we see fit.

That could be a variety of ways - as they are now or something different. But it will be up to us. We can flog them off completely - to the rest of the UK if they want them or to Russia. We can grant licences to work them or we can close them down completely. It will be up to us - the voters to vote for the party which meets what we think is right - and that is the sense in which they will "belong" to the people of Scotland.

Is that better? Is there another word you want to assume that I mean other than which I have said?

equusdriving
27-Aug-13, 18:21
Lol golach you never fail to jump in and stick words into my mouth for me.

Nationalise? did I say that? Nope.

However lets expand on that issue a bit - i said "belong" in inverted commas because they will belong to the people of Scotland in a similar way as Scotland will "belong" to the people of Scotland. That means that it will be up to us through our democratically elected government to manage these oilfields and the revenue from them as we see fit.

That could be a variety of ways - as they are now or something different. But it will be up to us. We can flog them off completely - to the rest of the UK if they want them or to Russia. We can grant licences to work them or we can close them down completely. It will be up to us - the voters to vote for the party which meets what we think is right - and that is the sense in which they will "belong" to the people of Scotland.

Is that better? Is there another word you want to assume that I mean other than which I have said?

and please enlighten us to your plans, after Shetland and Orkney have voted for Independence from Independent Scotland and took "their oil with them"

squidge
27-Aug-13, 18:28
Not my plans equus but if orkney and shetland call for a referendum and achieve independence then the same rules will apply. After all, as i have already said, there are already protocols in place for deciding these things. If the oil fields fall in waters which belong to an Independent orkney and Shetland then that is the way it is. I am sure that as you are so against seperation that you will campaign strongly for them not to be independent.

golach
27-Aug-13, 18:50
Lol golach you never fail to jump in and stick words into my mouth for me.

Nationalise? did I say that? Nope.

However lets expand on that issue a bit - i said "belong" in inverted commas because they will belong to the people of Scotland in a similar way as Scotland will "belong" to the people of Scotland. That means that it will be up to us through our democratically elected government to manage these oilfields and the revenue from them as we see fit.

That could be a variety of ways - as they are now or something different. But it will be up to us. We can flog them off completely - to the rest of the UK if they want them or to Russia. We can grant licences to work them or we can close them down completely. It will be up to us - the voters to vote for the party which meets what we think is right - and that is the sense in which they will "belong" to the people of Scotland.

Is that better? Is there another word you want to assume that I mean other than which I have said?

Squidge your own phrase "As many of the oil fields are in what would be, indeed what are already identified as Scottish waters then those oil fields would 'belong' to the people of an independent Scotland." to me means Nationalisation, I may be wrong, but that is the way I read it. If it belongs to the Scottish People i.e, then it belongs to us, then that is Nationalisation. I wonder how the Independence lot could afford that??

squidge
27-Aug-13, 19:02
Squidge your own phrase "As many of the oil fields are in what would be, indeed what are already identified as Scottish waters then those oil fields would 'belong' to the people of an independent Scotland." to me means Nationalisation, I may be wrong, but that is the way I read it. If it belongs to the Scottish People i.e, then it belongs to us, then that is Nationalisation. I wonder how the Independence lot could afford that??I have already explained my own point of view. I see no plans for nationalisation of oil - do you? If so where? Or is this yet another tiresome and pointless excercise in dissection which just serves to cloud issues and avoid sensible debate. What exactly are you asking me? If it is "are there SNP plans to nationalise oil after independence" i would answer "No" is that good enough for you

sids
27-Aug-13, 19:19
This is boring. Can we get back to bigotry and abuse please?

equusdriving
27-Aug-13, 21:20
If the oil fields fall in waters which belong to an Independent orkney and Shetland then that is the way it is.

oh so suddenly the biggest and most often quoted reason for backing Independence IE "Scotland's oil revenue" suddenly loses its importance if it becomes "Shetland and Orkney's oil revenue" :confused

orkneycadian
27-Aug-13, 21:49
As many of the oil fields are in what would be, indeed what are already identified as Scottish waters then those oil fields would 'belong' to the people of an independent Scotland.

Did you mean to say "depleted oil fields"?

squidge
27-Aug-13, 21:57
Have I ever said that oil is MY reason for voting for Independence? You asked ME and I answered you with MY view. Oil is Important. Its not likely that Orkney and Shetland would ask for a referendum on Independence and be answered with "Aye - on ya go" There would be much negotiation and work to try to dissuade them from this action.

However Equus, in a fair and sensible society IF Orkney and Shetland decided to ask for a referendum and got one - which might take some sort of referendum to decide whether they should have a question on Independence (after all they are not a country in their own right and will not have an election to elect a government which will give a mandate to hold a referendum) and then vote for independence then the SAME RULES would apply to dividing assets and liabilities for Orkney and Shetland as apply to Scotland.

Why would you think that it would be any different?

squidge
27-Aug-13, 21:59
Did you mean to say "depleted oil fields"?

erm.......... no

equusdriving
27-Aug-13, 22:25
Oil is Important it seems its importance depends on "if we are buying or selling"
There would be much negotiation and work to try to dissuade them from this action.
why are they "too wee" "too poor" or "too stupid"

Why would you think that it would be any different? When did I say it would?

squidge
27-Aug-13, 22:44
You know what Equus Im not being drawn into your endless and pointless posts on semantics. Take what you like from my posts. If you have any sensible things to discuss fine but in the meantime On ya go honey - Im away to do something important.

equusdriving
28-Aug-13, 12:16
You know what Equus Im not being drawn into your endless and pointless posts on semantics. Take what you like from my posts. If you have any sensible things to discuss fine but in the meantime On ya go honey - Im away to do something important.

so really you want to preach and dictate not debate and discuss

neilsermk1
28-Aug-13, 12:33
Based on what?
Scotland can afford to be independent without the revenue from oil.

squidge
28-Aug-13, 14:47
based on a variety of information. Firstly Oil is a massive bonus and we should be delighted that we have the prospect of revenues from oil, but our economy is not based on oil, its based on many other things like Scotland's food and drink industry, whisky and tourism. I have talked about this before.




Scotland having generated more tax per head than the UK for every one of the last 30 years
* Our world-class food and drink industry which is seeing rising exports and the most recent annual turnover of £12.4 billion
* Our thriving creative industries which are recognised throughout the world and have an annual turnover of £4.8 billion
* Our global reputation in life sciences and an annual turnover of £2.9 billion
* Our oil and gas industry, which is seeing record investment and which, in 2011, contributed £26bn to Scotland’s GDP and boosted the UK balance of payments by £40bn.
* Our green energy reserves, with an estimated 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind resources.
* Our tourism industry which employs almost 200,000 people
* Our manufacturing sector, which exported £14.7bn in 2011
.

If you add to this information that the 2011-2012 GERs figures show that Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population and we receive 9.3% of UK public spending to run our services. However Scotland generates 9.9% of UK taxes (up from 9.6% the previous year).

If I can refer you to this document http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00422987.pdf

This offers an interesting and eminently readable view of the Scottish Economy.

Scotland has contributed more per head in taxes than the rest of the UK in each of the last thirty years. Scotland's wealth per head of the population is 99% of the rest of the UK and it leads the way in inward investment and the economy is growing.

So why do we think Scotland cant afford Independence?

squidge
28-Aug-13, 14:53
so really you want to preach and dictate not debate and discuss

Ill refer you here

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?209628-Labour-for-Independence/page4

and here

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?205162-Yes-or-No-to-independance/page3

Im not squabbling over semantics with you Equus

Ill respond to your posts with answers to questions you ask but as soon as you start being a numpty and picking at words and their meaning Im off.

equusdriving
28-Aug-13, 15:08
Ill respond to your posts with answers to questions you ask but as soon as you start being a numpty and picking at words and their meaning Im off.

what did you say previously about name calling, when you last chucked your toys out of the pram for not being agreed with? HYPOCRITE comes to mind.

bye now, missing you already

squidge
28-Aug-13, 15:33
Prod prod prod ........ What do they say? Dont feed the troll?

Like I say when you have a serious point to make, Ill happily chat and discuss the issues but I dont know why you bother to be honest. You are always slagging me off - Im apparently a liar and now a hypocrite too :roll:. I have no idea why you find me such a despicable human being and although I have tried to find out what your problem with me is you blank me on that too.

I give up ok... I cant be bothered with your nastiness any more. I disagree with Golach,Rheghead, Lizz and others but I dont mind that they have different views to me and we have a friendly relationship otherwise, Im sure they would agree. J have tried to be friendly with you too but you seem determined to be as mean as possible and I havent the energy to deal with you just now.

equusdriving
28-Aug-13, 15:40
Prod prod prod ........ What do they say? Dont feed the troll?

Like I say when you have a serious point to make, Ill happily chat and discuss the issues but I dont know why you bother to be honest. You are always slagging me off - Im apparently a liar and now a hypocrite too :roll:. I have no idea why you find me such a despicable human being and although I have tried to find out what your problem with me is you blank me on that too.

I give up ok... I cant be bothered with your nastiness any more. I disagree with Golach,Rheghead, Lizz and others but I dont mind that they have different views to me and we have a friendly relationship otherwise, Im sure they would agree. J have tried to be friendly with you too but you seem determined to be as mean as possible and I havent the energy to deal with you just now.you are a hypocrite, when someone calls you a name you don't stop bleating about it, but its fine for you to do it, dry your eyes and get over yourself
P.S if you really are that sensitive block me(again) and stop PM ing me

squidge
28-Aug-13, 16:04
There has been an interesting development in the "on the streets" campaigning.

It appears that in several places where Yes Scotland have applied to have a stall or a presence and been given permission to do so they have had their permission withdrawn because Better Together Stalls cant find enough volunteers to man their stall. This has a couple of times not been communicated to the YES Scotland campaigners until they arrive and set up - they are then asked to take their stall down because the Better Together Stall hasnt turned up or has called to say they cant get volunteers.

In a separate development the official Better Together Webpage and Facebook page has been criticised for deleting posts which question what they are saying on any particular subject and then banning people from posting again - even when they are polite and not offensive. This banning seems to be happening to people who are not posting pro independence stuff in the form of adverts or links to pro independence articles and the like - I could understand that - but it is happening to people who simply ask a question of an original post. An example was a post about the BBC licence fee which said that they had to withdraw a leaflet because "nationalists complained that we used the BBC logo without permission". I asked a question which said "Can you tell me how you knew that it was complaints by nationalists rather than the BBC themselves who asked you to withdraw and amend the leaflet" I hadnt posted before and I wasnt rude and yet my question was deleted and I was banned from posting again.

It seems to be a huge issue on the Better together page with - its reported 30% of posts censored compared to 11% on the Yes Scotland page in June alone. Now I know its their page and they can run it how they want but it seems a bit heavy handed to me. In addition you could say that is because the "terrible cybernats"(yawnnnnn) are at it and yet I cant see how that would be when other Pro Union pages dont seem to be censoring the same amount of posts. Again Im not sure what I think about this and would be interested in other people's opininons.

sids
28-Aug-13, 18:08
There has been an interesting development in the "on the streets" campaigning.

It appears that in several places where Yes Scotland have applied to have a stall or a presence and been given permission to do so they have had their permission withdrawn because Better Together Stalls cant find enough volunteers to man their stall. This has a couple of times not been communicated to the YES Scotland campaigners until they arrive and set up - they are then asked to take their stall down because the Better Together Stall hasnt turned up or has called to say they cant get volunteers.



So the event ends up having no political stalls at all? How awful!



It seems to be a huge issue .

Yes, gigantic, but on a very small scale.

orkneycadian
28-Aug-13, 19:04
based on a variety of information. Firstly Oil is a massive bonus and we should be delighted that we have the prospect of revenues from oil, but our economy is not based on oil, its based on many other things like Scotland's food and drink industry, whisky and tourism. I have talked about this before.

Originally Posted by squidge http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1029397#post1029397)

Scotland having generated more tax per head than the UK for every one of the last 30 years
* Our world-class food and drink industry which is seeing rising exports and the most recent annual turnover of £12.4 billion
* Our thriving creative industries which are recognised throughout the world and have an annual turnover of £4.8 billion
* Our global reputation in life sciences and an annual turnover of £2.9 billion
* Our oil and gas industry, which is seeing record investment and which, in 2011, contributed £26bn to Scotland’s GDP and boosted the UK balance of payments by £40bn.
* Our green energy reserves, with an estimated 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind resources.
* Our tourism industry which employs almost 200,000 people
* Our manufacturing sector, which exported £14.7bn in 2011


If you add to this information that the 2011-2012 GERs figures show that Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population and we receive 9.3% of UK public spending to run our services. However Scotland generates 9.9% of UK taxes (up from 9.6% the previous year).

If I can refer you to this document http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00422987.pdf

This offers an interesting and eminently readable view of the Scottish Economy.

Scotland has contributed more per head in taxes than the rest of the UK in each of the last thirty years. Scotland's wealth per head of the population is 99% of the rest of the UK and it leads the way in inward investment and the economy is growing.

So why do we think Scotland cant afford Independence?

If I simplistically add up all the turnover figures you quote above, I get £60.8 billion of turnover. There are about 5.2 million people in Scotland (could be less if the islands declare independence too....). Thats about £11,700 of turnover for each of us. Not clear "profit" to go and spend on life's necessities. Even if it were clear "profit", then £11,700 is not a huge amount for supporting each and every one of us, bearing in mind that that "income" per head has to cover all the services provided by government and local authorities, and is not just the "household income". And it doesn't help the situation that the £26 billion attributed to oil will continue to ramp down drastically over the next decade or 2.

squidge
28-Aug-13, 20:30
Thats not everything though Orkneycadien it is an illustration, a part of the whole. You need to look at those sectors and then analyse the GERS reports and go through them at some length. You need to think about taxation, income tax, corporation tax and see what the analysts say about that. You then need to examine the paper that the Scottish Government produced on the Economy and Independence. In addition you need to look at the figures for Expenditure and think about how much Scotland pays into the UK for Defence and gets back in defence spending. If you also take on board things like the income raised from things like TV licence and how much of that is spent in Scotland on programmes and consider the surplus left over from that. The same with Road tax ( I know Mi16, I know) You need to think about the Barnett Formula and how it is worked out so and what projects are being designated as benefitting the UK and therefore excluded from the calculations. Like the Whole UK benefitting (not) High Speed Rail Link, Like the London Sewer upgrade. You need to think about Welfare and how much we spend on that and how we could change that. Many of the "spending on Scotland" is actually borrowing to spend on these things and we would not be doing that in an Independent Scotland. We would be borrowing and spending on Scottish priorities. Think about trident and how much we would NOT be spending on Tridents replacement. You need to talk to economic experts and listen to what they say - experts from both sides of the fence and make your own mind up.

There is no simple answer to the Economic issue - these are all the things that I have done to decide what I think about it and you have to do what you need to do to. I dont expect anyone to agree with me or to be persuaded - I have said this time and again. I beleive that Scotland can prosper and grow as an Independent Country even without oil. It has taken me a long time to get to that stage because there is a lot of information on both sides.

The bottom line is, however, that Money raised in an Independent Scotland - from whatever source would be spent on the priorities of Scotland. These priorities would be decided by us - the voters. They would be implemented by a Scottish Government elected by and answerable to the Scottish electorate. This isnt what happens now. I think this is a better way of managing our economy and meeting the challenges that will face us in the future..... including any reduction in the income from the oil industry

squidge
28-Aug-13, 20:33
Yes, gigantic, but on a very small scale.

Ok lol - maybe huge was a bit of an overstatement lol. :Razz

squidge
28-Aug-13, 20:55
P.S if you really are that sensitive block me(again) and stop PM ing me

One PM and you are stamping your foot! Like I said in the PM Leave me alone lol. You dont like me and I dont care. Stop prodding me for a response. Its boring for me and boring for everyone else. Find something else to do.... for everyones sake

equusdriving
28-Aug-13, 21:15
Find something else to do.... for everyones sake im very happy doing what I do thanks, and considering how sensitive and easily upset and offended you say you are, I find it strange you keep responding to my posts, but I guess you just cant stand not having the last word can you?

squidge
28-Aug-13, 21:22
im very happy doing what I do thanks, and considering how sensitive and easily upset and offended you say you are, I find it strange you keep responding to my posts, but I guess you just cant stand not having the last word can you?

Absolutely and I know that about myself - its a failing I know -

so ......last word zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

equusdriving
28-Aug-13, 21:25
last word zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

what was that about stopping for everyones sake? oh yeah I forgot you are a hypocrite

Phill
28-Aug-13, 22:26
Lets face it, if we had any decent amount of oil left or other mass of natural resources, the Yanks would be here bombing some freedom and democracy into Scotland.

ducati
28-Aug-13, 23:50
I may have mentioned this before. The vast majority of 'Scottish Industry' is owned, and managed by foreign organisations. This means to me that while they may (or may not) pay taxes in Scotland, Scotland does not benefit from the profits or income generated. The fast majority of working Scots, have relatively low paid service and industrial jobs and we do not have a hugely dynamic global financial services industry.

To sum up, I don't believe the assurance that we can prosper in independence, I think it is a lie.

squidge
29-Aug-13, 00:10
Is it a lie though Ducati? If there are experts, industry specialists and advisers saying both Scotland can and Scotland cannot afford to be an independent country then is it a lie or different interpretation. A lie means that those saying a thing believe it to be untrue. There is a vast array of expert opinion which says that Independence is affordable. Do you think that they have made it up in order to deceive? If you think that one side is lying, with all the evidence then why would you believe the other side when their evidence comes in the same type of package?

equusdriving
29-Aug-13, 11:07
If there are experts, industry specialists and advisers saying both Scotland can and Scotland cannot afford to be an independent country then is it a lie or different interpretation.

so you would agree, Independence would be a massive Gamble with all our futures at stake, progress at last

ducati
29-Aug-13, 11:13
Is it a lie though Ducati? If there are experts, industry specialists and advisers saying both Scotland can and Scotland cannot afford to be an independent country then is it a lie or different interpretation. A lie means that those saying a thing believe it to be untrue. There is a vast array of expert opinion which says that Independence is affordable. Do you think that they have made it up in order to deceive? If you think that one side is lying, with all the evidence then why would you believe the other side when their evidence comes in the same type of package?

The people using their interpretation to assure us we can afford it, are lying.

Humerous Vegetable
29-Aug-13, 11:56
The people using their interpretation to assure us we can afford it, are lying.

People using their interpretation to assure us we can't afford it are also lying. It's called propaganda.

equusdriving
29-Aug-13, 12:13
People using their interpretation to assure us we can't afford it are also lying. It's called propaganda.

that may be true, the BIG difference is, everyone knows what we have and have not got now, the pro-Independence propoganda is based on trying to convince us to gamble with all our futures, whereas the anti-Independence "propoganda" is based on trying to convince us not to gamble.

a bit like an alcholic/drug addict/smoker saying that drinking/drugs/smoking wont kill him and a doctor saying it probably will, is the doctor lying?

Humerous Vegetable
29-Aug-13, 13:41
No, because clinical decisions are based on research data. Politcal decisions are based on political agendas, spin and social media websites, on both sides The trick is to be able to diffentiate between propaganda and facts. The SNP are purely in place to give the Scottish electorate the ability to chose an independent voice in the future of their country. After the independence vote, you can vote for whoever you want - are you a Tory, vote for them. The point of the referendum vote is to give the Scottish electorate the ability to vote for someone other than what the UK electorate decides is best for Scotland.

ducati
29-Aug-13, 16:13
People using their interpretation to assure us we can't afford it are also lying. It's called propaganda.

Yes but... So doing my own research and using existing knowledge of the dynamic of employment in Scotland.

The biggest employer is (probably) the NHS., numbers two to twenty are (probably) local authorities. I doubt if a private sector employer makes it into the top 30. So, employers 1 to 30 are paid for by the people working for employers (getting ever smaller) 31 to whatever. So you tell me, how can that be sustainable?

BTW if you look up Scottish Insider 500 you will find there are some very small businesss in the top 500 Scottish private companies. (and an awful lot of English ones).

Big Gaz
29-Aug-13, 19:19
You fail to note however that the average annual wage in Norway is around 308,500NOK (£41,105) as opposed to the UK average of £26,500.
But its not just fuel that is more expensive over there.

The tax rate over in Norway is a minimum of 28% and their VAT system (sales tax) is variable between 14-28% too! Compare that to the meagre tax rates set by the UK govt!. The reason that the Norwegian tax rate is so high is directly because of the cost of their welfare system.....and people think the UK welfare system is screwed. For the size of Norway and its population, their govt raises over 1trn NOK (approx £110,000,000,000) in taxation income

Alrock
29-Aug-13, 19:29
The reason that the Norwegian tax rate is so high is directly because of the cost of their welfare system.....and people think the UK welfare system is screwed...

The UK welfare system is still being screwed up more & more by this Tory Government...

The reason that the Norwegian welfare system costs so much is because in general they care about people's welfare in comparison to the UK "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off my stack" attitude.

hopper.65
29-Aug-13, 19:42
We still have 20+ years of decent oil production in the North sea, and that's not accounting for what we haven't been able to get to yet, as technological advances in drilling continue to progress who knows what may be found in years to come.
There also seems to be plenty people getting jobs in the North sea at moment which was not the case ten years ago when i heard of people being off shore for many years being paid off and struggling to find another job in the oil industry.
Why do so many only mention us Scots of being robbed by England of our oil when it comes to voting for independence?
You would think it was the only industry to exist, there are many things to consider when it comes to independence, some of them are no doubt beneficial but many are not.
It just worries me that many people shout about independence and base it on nothing more than anti-English thoughts passed down from parents etc and can't tell you any real beneficial reason based on policies.
Some of us Scots think we and the English are like chalk and cheese, well in my experience we are very similar indeed.

secrets in symmetry
29-Aug-13, 23:51
Yes but... So doing my own research and using existing knowledge of the dynamic of employment in Scotland.

The biggest employer is (probably) the NHS., numbers two to twenty are (probably) local authorities. I doubt if a private sector employer makes it into the top 30. So, employers 1 to 30 are paid for by the people working for employers (getting ever smaller) 31 to whatever. So you tell me, how can that be sustainable?

BTW if you look up Scottish Insider 500 you will find there are some very small businesss in the top 500 Scottish private companies. (and an awful lot of English ones).The secessionists will never get it ducati...

They don't even realise that the current high investment in the North Sea is correlated with the difficulty in extracting the dwindling resources of black stuff! Ugly Fat Eck doesn't worry about technicalities such as dwindling resources and the consequent increasing difficulty of extraction - he just lies about everything, and the fools that blindly follow him lap it all up.

Humerous Vegetable
30-Aug-13, 10:23
Oh, for God's sake....the NHS is the largest employer for all countries in the UK. Most UK firms and affiliates appear to be owned by companies based overseas, including most of the energy suppliers, British Rail, Rolls Royce; etc etc etc.....
If the economy of the country you are investing in is sound, you might invest or, you might not. You are missing the point here. Currently we here in Scotland are being dragged along on the coat tails of the UK government's whims and fancies. The referendum will give us the chance to vote for whatever party meets the needs of the majority of the Scottish electorate, Labour, Tory, LibDem Monster Raving Looney....at least we will have the choice in Scotland, for the first time, of choosing a national government voted for by Scots, accountable to Scots and representative of the majority of Scots.

Phill
30-Aug-13, 12:19
But, can you be sure that will happen?

The UK govt' is not representative of English or Welsh or NI voters either. The current incumbents of govt' office were not voted for by the UK in any sense.
Salmond & the SNP are centralising everything to focus on the 'central' belt, playing he numbers game. And with any govt' (MP's, MSP's) they will do the bidding of whoever lines their pockets.

All I see is a transfer of corruption from Westminster to Holyrood, now that may be a bonus.
But I suspect, and my fear is, that the populace living North of Perth, bar Aberdeen(for now), will be worse off. I see a replication, albeit in smaller form, of the current UK. The Southwest is the power base, decision base and control base. Anything North of Oxford can get to feck.

Add to this the fact that 'Indy' Scotland will also be run from Brussels, and Salmond is still tying a lot of interests to the rUK, this notion that a independent Scotland will have some fantastic 'democratic' leadership that will somehow be accountable to ALL Scot's and make everything rosey & bonnie is, I fear, fantasy.

ducati
30-Aug-13, 13:22
Oh, for God's sake....the NHS is the largest employer for all countries in the UK. Most UK firms and affiliates appear to be owned by companies based overseas, including most of the energy suppliers, British Rail, Rolls Royce; etc etc etc.....
If the economy of the country you are investing in is sound, you might invest or, you might not. You are missing the point here. Currently we here in Scotland are being dragged along on the coat tails of the UK government's whims and fancies. The referendum will give us the chance to vote for whatever party meets the needs of the majority of the Scottish electorate, Labour, Tory, LibDem Monster Raving Looney....at least we will have the choice in Scotland, for the first time, of choosing a national government voted for by Scots, accountable to Scots and representative of the majority of Scots.

That will be very nice, until we realise (or some of us do) that there is way more money going out than coming in and we all starve.

equusdriving
30-Aug-13, 13:45
All I see is a transfer of corruption from Westminster to Holyrood, now that may be a bonus.
But I suspect, and my fear is, that the populace living North of Perth, bar Aberdeen(for now), will be worse off. I see a replication, albeit in smaller form, of the current UK. The Southwest is the power base, decision base and control base. Anything North of Oxford can get to feck.




no you need to borrow a pair of the pro-independence rose tinted specs, and you will see the wonderful Independent future, where everything is warm and fluffy :lol:

Humerous Vegetable
30-Aug-13, 16:08
Phill, of course I can't be sure that will happen, in the same way that you cannot be sure it won't. Are we psychic? The economy after independence will fail or flourish depending on the talents and skills of the finance secretary/chancellor of whatever party is elected.
As for corruption in MPs and MSPs - well it appears to part of the job description unfortunately.

sam09
30-Aug-13, 21:21
What is wrong with the anti brigade, are you afraid independence will work?

ducati
30-Aug-13, 23:12
What is wrong with the anti brigade, are you afraid independence will work?

There is nothing wrong with the anti brigade. The question is work for who? It certainly won't work for me so that is what I would base my vote on. Everyone has to make their own decision.

secrets in symmetry
31-Aug-13, 00:17
There is absolutely no doubt that a seceded Scotland would be a disaster. Economic failure would be inevitable.

I was speaking today to one of Scotland's most vociferous business leaders. They will head south within a year if secession is at all likely.

squidge
31-Aug-13, 08:54
Thats ok Secrets .... You can hitch a ride!

Again for those who are interested have a look at the paper produced recently Scotland's Economy- the case for Independence http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/05/4084 as a starting point. Then have a look for Secret's business leader and see what you find. There are plenty of business people happy to stay. Have a look at what the Westminster government says about oil when they are not talking about Independence and you will find a positive, upbeat and optimistic approach to the industry. Check out the inward investment record and focus of the Scottish Government. Despite being warned by Alistair darling, that the referendum and independence will put off businesses investing in Scotland, inward investment continues to rise. No sign of businesses being put off then.

Ducati talked about lies earlier. It could be said that Secrets in symmetry lies when he says "economic failure would be inevitable". Secrets never offers any evidence or any signposts to evidence to support his pronouncements. Scotland is in a good position to have a healthy economy.

Phil says that the idea that the Government of an Independent Scotland being more accountable to the Scottish Electorate is fantasy. He is mistaken. It will be more accountable for what it does than the westminster government because we will be able to vote it out of office. Currently the votes cast in Scotland make utterly no difference to the result of uk wide elections. In every one of the general elections since WW2, the result would have the same regardless of Scotland's votes. Scottish voters cannot vote out the current government, our voice makes no difference in the clamour that is UK politics. In an Independent Scotland we will have the government that the Scottish Electorate votes for every time and perhaps more importantly we wont have a government that we dont elect forced upon us.

That isnt fantasy it is FACT.

Note - as Ducati points out below - I should have said in 15 out of the 18 General Elections since WW2 the votes in Scotland have made no difference to the results of the General Election

ducati
31-Aug-13, 09:16
Thats ok Secrets .... You can hitch a ride!

Again for those who are interested have a look at the paper produced recently Scotland's Economy- the case for Independence http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/05/4084 as a starting point. Then have a look for Secret's business leader and see what you find. There are plenty of business people happy to stay. Have a look at what the Westminster government says about oil when they are not talking about Independence and you will find a positive, upbeat and optimistic approach to the industry. Check out the inward investment record and focus of the Scottish Government. Despite being warned by Alistair darling, that the referendum and independence will put off businesses investing in Scotland, inward investment continues to rise. No sign of businesses being put off then.

Ducati talked about lies earlier. It could be said that Secrets in symmetry lies when he says "economic failure would be inevitable". Secrets never offers any evidence or any signposts to evidence to support his pronouncements. Scotland is in a good position to have a healthy economy.

Phil says that the idea that the Government of an Independent Scotland being more accountable to the Scottish Electorate is fantasy. He is mistaken. It will be more accountable for what it does than the westminster government because we will be able to vote it out of office. Currently the votes cast in Scotland make utterly no difference to the result of uk wide elections. In every one of the general elections since WW2, the result would have the same regardless of Scotland's votes. Scottish voters cannot vote out the current government, our voice makes no difference in the clamour that is UK politics. In an Independent Scotland we will have the government that the Scottish Electorate votes for every time and perhaps more importantly we wont have a government that we dont elect forced upon us.

That isnt fantasy it is FACT.

The bit about Scots votes don't count is utter rubbish and a deliberate lie (to add). If you assume that Scots all vote one way then you would have a case. Total bull as usual. :roll:

squidge
31-Aug-13, 09:36
Not a lie Ducati. although I was wrong. There have been three elections since the war where The Scottish vote influenced the outcome of the General Election. I had forgotten the hung parliaments. One was 1964. one 1974 and 2010. My apologies. So I should have said in 15 out of the 18 general elections since WW2, voters in Scotland made no difference to the outcome of a general election. The change they were able to make in 64, 74 and 2010 were from a majority to a hung parliament. Which meant that we STILL did not change who was in power but simply managed to dilute it a wee bit - the 1964 government lasted 18 months I think and the 1974 needed the Lib-Lab pact. It is precisely because Scots voters do not all vote the same way which makes the Scottish result immaterial in most elections to the overall outcome. And although 30 years ago Scottish MPs in Westminster number 70 odd today there are 52 which reduces the influence of the Scottish vote still further. The Scottish vote has NEVER turned a conservative government into a labour one or vice versa.

You can see here

1945 Labour govt (Attlee)
————————————
Labour majority: 146
Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143
NO CHANGE
1950 Labour govt (Attlee)
————————————
Labour majority: 5
Without Scottish MPs: 2
NO CHANGE

1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden)
——————————————————–
Conservative majority: 17
Without Scottish MPs: 16
NO CHANGE

1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan)
——————————————————–
Conservative majority: 60
Without Scottish MPs: 61
NO CHANGE

1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home)
————————————————————————
Conservative majority: 100
Without Scottish MPs: 109
NO CHANGE

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -9
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

1966 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 98
Without Scottish MPs: 77
NO CHANGE

1970 Conservative govt (Heath)
——————————————–
Conservative majority: 30
Without Scottish MPs: 55
NO CHANGE

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————-
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
NO CHANGE

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 43
Without Scottish MPs: 70
NO CHANGE

1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 144
Without Scottish MPs: 174
NO CHANGE

1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major)
——————————————————-
Conservative majority: 102
Without Scottish MPs: 154
NO CHANGE

1992 Conservative govt (Major)
———————————————
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE

1997 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 179
Without Scottish MPs: 139
NO CHANGE

2001 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 167
Without Scottish MPs: 129
NO CHANGE

2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown)
——————————————–
Labour majority: 66
Without Scottish MPs: 43
NO CHANGE

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)
——————————————
Conservative majority: -38
Without Scottish MPs: 19
CHANGE: HUNG PARLIAMENT TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY



Just as an aside - I try never to say things for which I have not seen, read or researched the information. If you think that I am wrong or you believe what I say to be incorrect that's fine - just show me how or ask me to look at it again and I will listen or do so. But to say that what I have posted is a lie implies that I sat in my living room and just plucked something out of thin air = made it up, fabricated it out of nothing other than a desire to deceive. Do you not know by now that I dont do that. Everything I post is supported by evidence either in the post or referenced in a previous post or if you need a link then ask I will try to provide one. You might not AGREE with me Ducati, or with the evidence that I use but that doesn't make me a liar!
It just makes us .....erm.... not agree! And you know what - Thats ok....

sam09
31-Aug-13, 14:57
Well said sqidge. The U.K. Government are always busy trying to impose their idea of democracy on other nations, when we have no democracy here in Scotland. When no matter which way we here in Scotland vote we have no say in who governs us.
The anti brigade do not like to think of what the effect will have on the remaining parts of the U.K`s economy if Scotland does succeed in gaining independence. As yet I have yet to see anything mentioned about that.

ducati
31-Aug-13, 15:34
Not a lie Ducati. although I was wrong. There have been three elections since the war where The Scottish vote influenced the outcome of the General Election. I had forgotten the hung parliaments. One was 1964. one 1974 and 2010. My apologies. So I should have said in 15 out of the 18 general elections since WW2, voters in Scotland made no difference to the outcome of a general election. The change they were able to make in 64, 74 and 2010 were from a majority to a hung parliament. Which meant that we STILL did not change who was in power but simply managed to dilute it a wee bit - the 1964 government lasted 18 months I think and the 1974 needed the Lib-Lab pact. It is precisely because Scots voters do not all vote the same way which makes the Scottish result immaterial in most elections to the overall outcome. And although 30 years ago Scottish MPs in Westminster number 70 odd today there are 52 which reduces the influence of the Scottish vote still further. The Scottish vote has NEVER turned a conservative government into a labour one or vice versa.

You can see here

1945 Labour govt (Attlee)
————————————
Labour majority: 146
Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143
NO CHANGE
1950 Labour govt (Attlee)
————————————
Labour majority: 5
Without Scottish MPs: 2
NO CHANGE

1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden)
——————————————————–
Conservative majority: 17
Without Scottish MPs: 16
NO CHANGE

1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan)
——————————————————–
Conservative majority: 60
Without Scottish MPs: 61
NO CHANGE

1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home)
————————————————————————
Conservative majority: 100
Without Scottish MPs: 109
NO CHANGE

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -9
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

1966 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 98
Without Scottish MPs: 77
NO CHANGE

1970 Conservative govt (Heath)
——————————————–
Conservative majority: 30
Without Scottish MPs: 55
NO CHANGE

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————-
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
NO CHANGE

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 43
Without Scottish MPs: 70
NO CHANGE

1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 144
Without Scottish MPs: 174
NO CHANGE

1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major)
——————————————————-
Conservative majority: 102
Without Scottish MPs: 154
NO CHANGE

1992 Conservative govt (Major)
———————————————
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE

1997 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 179
Without Scottish MPs: 139
NO CHANGE

2001 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 167
Without Scottish MPs: 129
NO CHANGE

2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown)
——————————————–
Labour majority: 66
Without Scottish MPs: 43
NO CHANGE

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)
——————————————
Conservative majority: -38
Without Scottish MPs: 19
CHANGE: HUNG PARLIAMENT TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY



Just as an aside - I try never to say things for which I have not seen, read or researched the information. If you think that I am wrong or you believe what I say to be incorrect that's fine - just show me how or ask me to look at it again and I will listen or do so. But to say that what I have posted is a lie implies that I sat in my living room and just plucked something out of thin air = made it up, fabricated it out of nothing other than a desire to deceive. Do you not know by now that I dont do that. Everything I post is supported by evidence either in the post or referenced in a previous post or if you need a link then ask I will try to provide one. You might not AGREE with me Ducati, or with the evidence that I use but that doesn't make me a liar!
It just makes us .....erm.... not agree! And you know what - Thats ok....

Then it is a lie you are passing on because you don't understand the fundamental of one person one vote. Scotland contains 5 million odd voters. Pick any area of the UK with a population of 5 million, do their votes count? Do they influence anything? Of course if they were a single interest group and all voted the same way...who knows? Scotland is not a single interest group, it has about 10% of the voters. I really am sick of one-liners being parroted out by the same individuals in an attempt I presume to influence thick people who can't or don't want to think for themselves
.

secrets in symmetry
31-Aug-13, 20:58
SNP lying comes from the very top of their party.

I was speaking recently to an eminent professor of economics, who happens to be a friend of Ugly Fat Eck. Apparently, it's very difficult to stay friends with Eck because of the continuous lies he spouts about the economics of secession. The professor has explained to Fat Eck why his claims are lies on very many occasions, but Eck still repeats them both in public and to the professor of economics!

orkneycadian
01-Sep-13, 00:07
Have a look at what the Westminster government says about oil when they are not talking about Independence and you will find a positive, upbeat and optimistic approach to the industry.

OK, I have again looked at the document, the link to which I posted above. In case you missed it, here it is again;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136390/production_projections.pdf

"Westminster Government says...." - Check
"Not talking about independence...." - Check
60% export in 1998 falling to 1% export in 2005 - Check
7% import in 2006 rising to 36% import in 2013 - Check
Projected import dependency in 2030, 17 years from now, 67% - Check
Yes, thats pretty positive, upbeat and optimistic! Thank goodness, we are all going to be OK in Eck and Nic's hands after all!

Partan
01-Sep-13, 07:09
SNP lying comes from the very top of their party.

I was speaking recently to an eminent professor of economics, who happens to be a friend of Ugly Fat Eck. Apparently, it's very difficult to stay friends with Eck because of the continuous lies he spouts about the economics of secession. The professor has explained to Fat Eck why his claims are lies on very many occasions, but Eck still repeats them both in public and to the professor of economics!

Unsubstantiated playground drivel, devoid of intellect and integrity.

Partan

squidge
01-Sep-13, 09:03
Yes, thats pretty positive, upbeat and optimistic! !Not as upbeat and optimistic as this.... From this publication in March 2013.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175480/bis-13-748-uk-oil-and-gas-industrial-strategy.pdf

"However, amongst the general public, the oil and gas industry is currently perceived as a “sunset industry” which makes a diminishing contribution to the UK economy. It is incorrectly perceived that the industry faces an unsustainable future and that it is coming to the end of its life. If this perception persists, talented individuals might overlook the industry; compounding the skills shortage.According to Oil & Gas UK’s Activity Survey, the reality is that the UK will continue to supply oil and gas well beyond 2055.On the long term demand side, even ifthe International Agency’s “New Policies Scenario” is met, global demand for oil and gas is forecast to increase by 28% between now and 2035"

I will say again, its not all about oil - Scotland's economy OR the reasons for voting YES. . If that is the basis on which you decise how to gote orkneycadien then fine but it is different things for me and many others.


Ducati, you are right if Scotland was a region of England the figures I showed would not be of any use at all. If we were not facing a referendum on independence it would not be pertinent but we are.

Scotland now has a choice about what is best for Scotland and one of those issues is how accountable the Government would be to Scots Voters. The information about the influence of Scots voters on UK general elections is absolutely pertinent to that point. We have the OPPORTUNITY to choose a democracy which is closer and more accountable to the people of Scotland. Nothing which I posted was a lie. The figures shown are correct. The statement that we would have a government that we could vote out of office in a way we cannot do now, is correct.


Phill suggests that voters in rural scotland would be ignored by an Independent Scotland but they number almost 20% of the Scottish Electorate so not so easy to ignore. In addition, if we secure a YES result then we will be able to vote for the party who best supports rural Scotland.

golach
01-Sep-13, 09:17
Phill suggests that voters in rural scotland would be ignored by an Independent Scotland but they number almost 20% of the Scottish Electorate so not so easy to ignore. In addition, if we secure a YES result then we will be able to vote for the party who best supports rural Scotland.

Squidge, with all your knowledge, pray tell us what party will that be. Surely not the SNP from their record up until now.

squidge
01-Sep-13, 09:47
Well Golach, lets see

It might be the Green party with their support of less centralisation, It might be the SDA as they have started to field candidates. It might be the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservatives, it could be the monster raving loony party or a party which appears on the electoral scene after the referendum.

The point is Golach that the referendum is a vote for the type of democracy we want to have in Scotland NOT the party we want to lead the Government. The vote for which party will lead Scotland into Independence will take place in 2016 and you can vote for the party of your choice, based on their position on decentralisation, on immigration, on oil, on welfare, on defence or whatever else is important to you.

The referendum asks whether you agree Scotland should be independent or not. Thats it, thats the only question. After that WE get to choose who governs our country. We -the scottish voters - decide, no one else.

golach
01-Sep-13, 10:03
The referendum asks whether you agree Scotland should be independent or not. Thats it, thats the only question. After that WE get to choose who governs our country. We -the scottish voters - decide, no one else.

I have already decided which way I am voting [lol]

squidge
01-Sep-13, 10:10
You have already decided who you are voting for in the 2016 elections? Given you havent seen much in the way of manifestos then ... Erm ... Good for you!

Or, oh goodness me, perhaps you mean the referendum. Have you Golach? Really? ( she says wide eyed and surprised looking like) I NEVER Would have guessed that lol.


Golach, old friend, I know .... You didnt have to tell me x

Humerous Vegetable
01-Sep-13, 10:24
Unsubstantiated playground drivel, devoid of intellect and integrity.

Partan Well said. I am constantly tempted to put this secrets person on ignore, but it would cut down on the number of small spurtles I can feel sorry for.

equusdriving
01-Sep-13, 10:56
In addition, if we secure a YES result then we will be able to vote for the party who best supports rural Scotland.

and still get the government that the other 80% of the population want???????????????

orkneycadian
01-Sep-13, 11:11
I will say again, its not all about oil - Scotland's economy OR the reasons for voting YES. . If that is the basis on which you decise how to gote orkneycadien then fine but it is different things for me and many others.

As the original poster kicked off the thread comparing Scotland and Norway, and their oil reserves, then at the moment, yes I do think it is about oil. However, in addition to that, in being asked to consider voting next year, there should be a rational reason for voting one way or another. Knowing that we will have a sustainable economy is very important to many of us.

The document you link to paints an extremely varied picture. Mainly, it appears to set out aspirations - i.e what its authours would like, rather than what might actually be the case. Its a bit contradictory as well. In section 2, there is an aspiration to maximise recovery of oil and gas, with a hope that by 2040 it will still be meeting 70% of our energy demand. Meanwhile, in section 3, we are advised that the oil and gas industry (at present I assume) meets almost half of our primary energy needs.

So, it meets nearly half of our needs at the moment, and is expected to still be supplying 70% of our needs come 2040. :confused:

Meanwhile, demand for oil and gas will have risen significantly. So, apart from finding another Brent, Piper or Forties, how are we going to go from nearly half at the moment, to 70% in 27 years?

golach
01-Sep-13, 11:59
You have already decided who you are voting for in the 2016 elections? Given you havent seen much in the way of manifestos then ... Erm ... Good for you!

Or, oh goodness me, perhaps you mean the referendum. Have you Golach? Really? ( she says wide eyed and surprised looking like) I NEVER Would have guessed that lol.
Golach, old friend, I know .... You didnt have to tell me x

Even if there is a chance that the Independent crowd mange to win, and thats a big IF. I will still know what to vote Squidge lol

secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-13, 12:36
Even if there is a chance that the Independent crowd mange to win, and thats a big IF. I will still know what to vote Squidge lolThe secessionists won't win. The people of Scotland have seen through them already.

mi16
01-Sep-13, 13:41
I see the latest opinion polls indicate the Unionist camp are extending their lead over the republican rebels.

sam09
01-Sep-13, 15:20
Yes but... So doing my own research and using existing knowledge of the dynamic of employment in Scotland.

The biggest employer is (probably) the NHS., numbers two to twenty are (probably) local authorities. I doubt if a private sector employer makes it into the top 30. So, employers 1 to 30 are paid for by the people working for employers (getting ever smaller) 31 to whatever. So you tell me, how can that be sustainable?

BTW if you look up Scottish Insider 500 you will find there are some very small businesss in the top 500 Scottish private companies. (and an awful lot of English ones).

Surely you mean U.K. companies ducati? After all England is a region of the U.K.

mi16
01-Sep-13, 15:44
Companies are listed by country not the union

sam09
01-Sep-13, 16:00
Companies are listed by country not the union

Are you trying to say that England is a seperate country from The Union?
England is only a region of the U.K.

mi16
01-Sep-13, 16:17
Are you trying to say that England is a seperate country from The Union?England is only a region of the U.K.Whatever, regional then
However if you wish to be a pedant it is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland not the U.K. as you state.

ducati
01-Sep-13, 17:37
Surely you mean U.K. companies ducati? After all England is a region of the U.K.

No, I mean English companies. Ones with HOs in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so forth. You won't find very many major employers headquartered in Wales or Northern Ireland either.

sam09
02-Sep-13, 15:00
No, I mean English companies. Ones with HOs in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so forth. You won't find very many major employers headquartered in Wales or Northern Ireland either.
It is often wrongly interpreted that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK, because public spending is £1,200 higher per head than in other parts of the country. However, on average Scots generate £10,700 per head in taxes compared to £9,000 per head in the rest of the United Kingdom, meaning Scotland actually receives £500 less back from Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster) than it contributes.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-68) Furthermore, in February 2012, the Centre for Economics and Business Research concluded that "Scotland receives no net subsidy".[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-69) Overall, Scotland generates 9.9% (£56.9bn) of the UK's tax revenues with just 8.4% of the UK population. It receives 9.3% (£64.5bn) of spending, which, although a budget deficit, is considerably smaller than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Over the past thirty years, Scotland has also contributed a relative budget surplus of almost £20 billion to the UK economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom).[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-70)[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-71) In the final quarter of 2012, the Scottish economy recorded 0.5% growth, outperforming the United Kingdom, which recorded a contraction of 0.3%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-0.5-2) Scotland also outperforms the rest of the United Kingdom in both employment and unemployment levels, with the Scottish unemployment rate currently standing at 7.1% as of June 2013, well below the UK figure of 7.8%. Scotland's youth unemployment rate is much lower as well, standing at 15.2% compared to 19.5% for the rest of the UK. The employment rate is also higher north of the border, standing at 72.2% in comparison with the UK figure of 71.5%.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-72)
In the run up to the Scottish independence referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014), opinions on the likely state of a post-UK Scottish economy are varied. Some commentators believe that a current account surplus would accrue to Scotland (including oil and gas revenues).[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-73) In response, a spokesman for finance secretary John Swinney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinney) referred to “the UK’s deteriorating growth outlook" and noted that Scotland was the only area of the UK outside London to record output growth between 2007 and 2010 and that "among the 12 nations and regions of the UK, Scotland is the third most prosperous in terms of output per head in 2013 – behind only London and the South East of England.”[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-74) (According to Office of National Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Statistics) data, Scotland was also outperformed by the South West region of England for the period 2007-13.)[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland#cite_note-75)

squidge
02-Sep-13, 15:46
I read a collections of quotes for how Scotland performs and would perform under Independence.

“I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone. I know first-hand the contribution Scotland and Scots make to Britain’s success – so for me there’s no question about whether Scotland could be an independent nation.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scots-better-off-in-uk--cameron-sets-out-stall-for-independence-campaign-8488556.html) (David Cameron, February 2013)

“The question is not whether Scotland can survive as a separate state. Of course it could” (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/27/scotland-partner-united-kingdom) (Alistair Darling, June 2012)

“I reject the arguments that some people make on my side that Scotland is too poor and too stupid. ‘Cos I don’t think it is. I think it’s well capable of being a vibrant, successful nation.“ (http://wingsoverscotland.com/one-more-time-for-the-folks-at-home/) (Willie Rennie, July 2013)

“It is insulting to suggest, as many Labour politicians do, that, while Norway, Sweden and Denmark can exist happily on their own, Scotland could not. Of course Scotland can survive on her own; she is a strong and capable country full of brilliant and talented people.” (http://www.eleanorlaing.com/29112012_scotland_union) (Tory MP Eleanor Laing, November 2012)

“This isn’t a question of whether or not Scotland could go it alone — of course Scotland could.” (http://news.stv.tv/politics/222192-chancellor-george-osborne-criticises-snp-plans-for-pound/)(George Osborne and Danny Alexander, April 2013)

“No-one from Better Together thinks that Scotland couldn’t go it alone.” (http://archive.is/NKmF8) (unnamed Better Together “spokesman”, April 2013)


Interestingly these people who support the Union and actively campaign for a NO vote seem to think that Scotland would do very well out of independence and yet the armchair doom mongers and the hoard of (imaginary?) friends that Secrets has in almost every walk of life and every area of the country and every sector of business and industry seem to think that Scotland will fall apart almost the day after the referendum.

A panelbase poll published today and reported in the Daily Record showed support for Yes is at 44 per cent compared with 43 per cent for No, and 13 per cent who do not know, among 908 Scottish adults who are most likely or certain to vote. Even when you added in those who are uncertain and less likely to vote the result was 41 per cent backing Yes, 42 per cent for No and 17 per cent who do not know.

Its interesting to see this reported as it seems that polls which show results where the gap is closing in favour of Independence are studiously ignored by the main stream media so well done to the Daily Record for publishing this. The polls are all over the place - it will be fun to watch how they go as we approach the 1 year to go date. Everything to play for methinks.

equusdriving
02-Sep-13, 16:04
I read a collections of quotes for how Scotland performs and would perform under Independence.

“I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone. I know first-hand the contribution Scotland and Scots make to Britain’s success – so for me there’s no question about whether Scotland could be an independent nation.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scots-better-off-in-uk--cameron-sets-out-stall-for-independence-campaign-8488556.html) (David Cameron, February 2013)

“The question is not whether Scotland can survive as a separate state. Of course it could” (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/27/scotland-partner-united-kingdom) (Alistair Darling, June 2012)

“I reject the arguments that some people make on my side that Scotland is too poor and too stupid. ‘Cos I don’t think it is. I think it’s well capable of being a vibrant, successful nation.“ (http://wingsoverscotland.com/one-more-time-for-the-folks-at-home/) (Willie Rennie, July 2013)

“It is insulting to suggest, as many Labour politicians do, that, while Norway, Sweden and Denmark can exist happily on their own, Scotland could not. Of course Scotland can survive on her own; she is a strong and capable country full of brilliant and talented people.” (http://www.eleanorlaing.com/29112012_scotland_union) (Tory MP Eleanor Laing, November 2012)

“This isn’t a question of whether or not Scotland could go it alone — of course Scotland could.” (http://news.stv.tv/politics/222192-chancellor-george-osborne-criticises-snp-plans-for-pound/)(George Osborne and Danny Alexander, April 2013)

“No-one from Better Together thinks that Scotland couldn’t go it alone.” (http://archive.is/NKmF8) (unnamed Better Together “spokesman”, April 2013)


Interestingly these people who support the Union and actively campaign for a NO vote seem to think that Scotland would do very well out of independence and yet the armchair doom mongers and the hoard of (imaginary?) friends that Secrets has in almost every walk of life and every area of the country and every sector of business and industry seem to think that Scotland will fall apart almost the day after the referendum.

A panelbase poll published today and reported in the Daily Record showed support for Yes is at 44 per cent compared with 43 per cent for No, and 13 per cent who do not know, among 908 Scottish adults who are most likely or certain to vote. Even when you added in those who are uncertain and less likely to vote the result was 41 per cent backing Yes, 42 per cent for No and 17 per cent who do not know.

Its interesting to see this reported as it seems that polls which show results where the gap is closing in favour of Independence are studiously ignored by the main stream media so well done to the Daily Record for publishing this. The polls are all over the place - it will be fun to watch how they go as we approach the 1 year to go date. Everything to play for methinks.

so just because we could survive after Independence , is not a valid reason to vote for Independence[disgust] where is any proof that we would be better off or at least no worse off after Independence

squidge
02-Sep-13, 16:53
So all over the place that this is yesterdays Herald website
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/record-poll-low-for-yes-vote.22029825

and this appeared short ago on todays Herald website. Better late than never :)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-poll-puts-yes-campaign-ahead.1378115779



(http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-poll-puts-yes-campaign-ahead.1378115779)

Oddquine
02-Sep-13, 17:10
so just because we could survive after Independence , is not a valid reason to vote for Independence[disgust] where is any proof that we would be better off or at least no worse off after Independence

So just because we could survive if we stay in the Union, is not a valid reason to vote "No" to Independence. :roll: Where is any proof we would be better off or at least no worse off staying in the Union? (Particularly as all the cuts to pay back the Union's ongoing profligate spending appears to be going to continue until well after the next UK General Election)

equusdriving
02-Sep-13, 18:28
So just because we could survive if we stay in the Union, is not a valid reason to vote "No" to Independence. :roll: Where is any proof we would be better off or at least no worse off staying in the Union? (Particularly as all the cuts to pay back the Union's ongoing profligate spending appears to be going to continue until well after the next UK General Election)
I will try and explain it slowly and simply for you:D

if for instance the Co-op want me to change from shopping at Tesco's and use them instead, do I have to prove to and convince them that Tesco's is better? No of course I don't, they are the ones wanting change so the onus is on them to do the convincing to get the change they want, like wise it is the pro-independence supporters who want the change and therefore need to do the convincing

ducati
02-Sep-13, 18:29
So just because we could survive if we stay in the Union, is not a valid reason to vote "No" to Independence. :roll: Where is any proof we would be better off or at least no worse off staying in the Union? (Particularly as all the cuts to pay back the Union's ongoing profligate spending appears to be going to continue until well after the next UK General Election)

Pointless arguing the same point. :roll:

I don't care what is said by who. My logic tells me the 5 million relatively low earners, and an almost complete lack of home based big business contributers, cannot maintain services never mind improve them. (That is the object isn't it? Better lives for everyone?)

sam09
02-Sep-13, 19:03
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Scotland‎

Have a look here ducati.

Can you tell me what it would do to the rest of the U.K`s (and N.Irelands) Financial standing if Scotland was to get independence?

Big Gaz
02-Sep-13, 19:28
It's all good and well that Eck the Hutt is arguing for a solo Scotland and is gibbering all the pros about it but the issue i am truly wondering about is why on earth is there so much scaremongering from down south? It's well known that they really don't want us Scots to vote for a split and cite all manner of reasons against every pro from Eck but is it me or does anyone else seem to think that they are hiding the true reason why they don't want a split for fear of actually causing a split.

ducati
02-Sep-13, 20:18
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Scotland‎

Have a look here ducati.

Can you tell me what it would do to the rest of the U.K`s (and N.Irelands) Financial standing if Scotland was to get independence?

I'm very familier with the list (which is years out of date BTW) You seem to be trying to prove my point, in as much as the majority of these business listed are not owned in Scotland. What that would do to the finances of the rest of the UK? I don't know. Is that your reason for wanting independence, to damage the rest of the UK? Or just England? I'm sure they would get over it.

Oddquine
02-Sep-13, 20:19
It's all good and well that Eck the Hutt is arguing for a solo Scotland and is gibbering all the pros about it but the issue i am truly wondering about is why on earth is there so much scaremongering from down south? It's well known that they really don't want us Scots to vote for a split and cite all manner of reasons against every pro from Eck but is it me or does anyone else seem to think that they are hiding the true reason why they don't want a split for fear of actually causing a split.

They know that there is a lot less chance of UK finances ever managing to support the UK in the manner to which London and the South has become accustomed without the input of the taxes from Scottish resources (like oil), companies (like whisky) and population?

ducati
02-Sep-13, 20:25
They know that there is a lot less chance of UK finances ever managing to support the UK in the manner to which London and the South has become accustomed without the input of the taxes from Scottish resources (like oil), companies (like whisky) and population?

I seriously doubt it, I don't know how much tax the likes of Pernod and Diagio pay to the UK but I'll bet it is not as much as you think. Which leaves Oil again.

And I'll bet you could lose the total personal Income Tax paid in Scotland in a small London borough.

Rheghead
02-Sep-13, 20:39
I find it confusing when the SNP compare Norway with what Scotland could be like yet on the next breath they claim Scotland will join the EU. This political duality serves nobody except for the SNP.

sam09
02-Sep-13, 20:39
I'm very familier with the list (which is years out of date BTW) You seem to be trying to prove my point, in as much as the majority of these business listed are not owned in Scotland. What that would do to the finances of the rest of the UK? I don't know. Is that your reason for wanting independence, to damage the rest of the UK? Or just England? I'm sure they would get over it.

You do not know ducati. Then what is your argument for staying with the rest of the U.K. (and N.Ireland)?

I certainley do not want to damage England or any other region of the UK or N.Ireland. I would love to see a Scotland with self rule, free to make our own future mistakes and successes and all. At least they would be the choice of the people of Scotland to make.

We had no vote in the other Treaty (European) or the Treaty between Scotland and England. This time we, The people of Scotland can shape our own destiny.

By the way, what will Cameron do if he gets a vote to leave the E.U?

ducati
02-Sep-13, 20:43
You do not know ducati. Then what is your argument for staying with the rest of the U.K. (and N.Ireland)?

I certainley do not want to damage England or any other region of the UK or N.Ireland. I would love to see a Scotland with self rule, free to make our own future mistakes and successes and all. At least they would be the choice of the people of Scotland to make.

We had no vote in the other Treaty (European) or the Treaty between Scotland and England. This time we, The people of Scotland can shape our own destiny.

By the way, what will Cameron do if he gets a vote to leave the E.U?

I don't understand the question. I said I don't know what Independence would do to the rest of the UK. It is what it will do to Scotland that is my (and should be your) concern.

Ditto the E.U.

ooh missed a question. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with any argument. All I do is, if I see nonsense or lies I question them.

squidge
02-Sep-13, 21:21
So Ducati, if scotland has nothing, is nothing and pays nothing in taxes how come Scotland's GDP per capita is 99% of the rest of the UK without oil? How come Scotland's financial sector is considered the third most important in the country outside london and the South East? How come Scotland's food and drink industry is worth over £5.3 billion? How come The Scotland that you suggest doesnt pay much in the way of taxes contributes more per head to the treasury than we get back through the Block Grant? How come Scotland's GVA is third behind only london and the south east. This is all without oil? So if Scotland is not quite as poor, the cupboards not so bare as you suggest can you explain to me why you think Scotland will crash and burn after independence.

Especially when after Independence we would have an opportunity to change the tax system, to close loopholes, to channel spending in the way that meets the priorities of Scotland? See i dont get how yours and Secrets vision of a broken skint scotland matches up with the figures?

ducati
02-Sep-13, 21:34
So Ducati, if scotland has nothing, is nothing and pays nothing in taxes how come Scotland's GDP per capita is 99% of the rest of the UK without oil? How come Scotland's financial sector is considered the third most important in the country outside london and the South East? How come Scotland's food and drink industry is worth over £5.3 billion? How come The Scotland that you suggest doesnt pay much in the way of taxes contributes more per head to the treasury than we get back through the Block Grant? How come Scotland's GVA is third behind only london and the south east. This is all without oil? So if Scotland is so poor, the cupboards so bare as you suggest how do you explain how Scotland will crash and burn after independence?

Especially when after Independence we would have an opportunity to change the tax system, to close loopholes, to channel spending in the way that meets the priorities of Scotland? See i dont get how yours and Secrets vision of a broken skint scotland matches up with the figures?

Like I said, logic tells me there is something wrong with either the figures themselves, or the way they are presented. It just doesn't stack up, that a population similar to a large town, can fund the infrastructure and services needed by a sovereign state in the modern world. I've mentioned before about Financial services, with one notable exception, Edinburgh hosts regional offices of London based or foreign business.

What changes to the tax system do you envisage? What loop holes? Who in Scotland isn't paying their dues? If you try to gouge the foreign companies they will leave won't they?

You keep quoting pro-rata and per capita figures. That is kind of the point isn't it?

Or lets analyse one example. The food and drink industry is worth 5.3 billion. Great! How much goes into (or would) the Scottish treasury coffers for the benefit of the people of Scotland? Don't forget to include the income tax from the many hundreds of people working in this industry for minimum wage (but claiming some or all of it back in working tax credits, housing benefit etc).

Oddquine
02-Sep-13, 21:40
I'm very familier with the list (which is years out of date BTW) You seem to be trying to prove my point, in as much as the majority of these business listed are not owned in Scotland. What that would do to the finances of the rest of the UK? I don't know. Is that your reason for wanting independence, to damage the rest of the UK? Or just England? I'm sure they would get over it.

We live in a global economy.....or hadn't you noticed, ducati? Given it has escalated since Thatcher and Reagan, I'd be surprised if you hadn't, tbh. There are hunners of companies with a presence in countries outside the one in which the parent company is registered.....and they seem to manage. Companies don't really care where they make their profits just as long as they make them...because if that wasn't the case, the prospect of Independence for Scotland should have scared off investors, as forecast by the Bitter Together crowd as soon as the referendum was announced.....but it has not.

What it would do to the finances of the rUK... it would likely reduce some of their income, depending on how Scotland worked it (particularly re the oil income which shores the UK up)...but let's be honest, it won't reduce it any more than the current UK taxation set-up which appears to allow big business to avoid taxes if they so choose (as most of them do)...and just maybe make the rUK rethink their taxation policy versus their own fixation on possible jobs on retiring from/being dumped from Westminster.

Nobody for independence wants to damage the rUK..that would be immensely counter-productive for Scotland...and we aren't as stupid as Unionists would have you believe...though I do think that you are a shade naive if you separate England from NI and Wales regarding consequences, given all the taxes they produce goes into the Westminster pot. But everybody for Scottish Independence wants to stop the Union damaging our country, our lives and our childrens' futures....and Independence is the only way left for us to go.

We have tried fairly regularly since 1707 to change what an English Parliament considered democracy, to no avail......heck we have had, even nowadays, MPs and ministers agreeing with the current UK (which incidentally is only about 85 years old) Government report that said Scotland had been “extinguished” by the 1707 Act of Union....which echoes the comment by the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1708 "We have catch'd Scotland and would keep her fast,"

We don't accept that!

ducati
02-Sep-13, 21:55
We live in a global economy.....or hadn't you noticed, ducati? Given it has escalated since Thatcher and Reagan, I'd be surprised if you hadn't, tbh. There are hunners of companies with a presence in countries outside the one in which the parent company is registered.....and they seem to manage. Companies don't really care where they make their profits just as long as they make them...because if that wasn't the case, the prospect of Independence for Scotland should have scared off investors, as forecast by the Bitter Together crowd as soon as the referendum was announced.....but it has not.

What it would do to the finances of the rUK... it would likely reduce some of their income, depending on how Scotland worked it (particularly re the oil income which shores the UK up)...but let's be honest, it won't reduce it any more than the current UK taxation set-up which appears to allow big business to avoid taxes if they so choose (as most of them do)...and just maybe make the rUK rethink their taxation policy versus their own fixation on possible jobs on retiring from/being dumped from Westminster.

Nobody for independence wants to damage the rUK..that would be immensely counter-productive for Scotland...and we aren't as stupid as Unionists would have you believe...though I do think that you are a shade naive if you separate England from NI and Wales regarding consequences, given all the taxes they produce goes into the Westminster pot. But everybody for Scottish Independence wants to stop the Union damaging our country, our lives and our childrens' futures....and Independence is the only way left for us to go.

We have tried fairly regularly since 1707 to change what an English Parliament considered democracy, to no avail......heck we have had, even nowadays, MPs and ministers agreeing with the current UK (which incidentally is only about 85 years old) Government report that said Scotland had been “extinguished” by the 1707 Act of Union....which echoes the comment by the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1708 "We have catch'd Scotland and would keep her fast,"

We don't accept that!

We do indeed live in a global economy. The trick though, is to be the country whose business is taking over the world. Not the ones being taken over.

squidge
02-Sep-13, 22:27
Like I said, logic tells me there is something wrong with either the figures themselves, or the way they are presented. It just doesn't stack up, that a population similar to a large town, can fund the infrastructure and services needed by a sovereign state in the modern world. I've mentioned before about Financial services, with one notable exception, Edinburgh hosts regional offices of London based or foreign business.

Thats it? So no contradicting evidence? No research? just your logic. Are you therefore saying that these figures are lies? That the UK government figures are fabricated and not true? These are UK provided figures - not cooked up by the SNP not dreamed up by a lying nat in her living room on a Sunday morning ;)- but the figures which have meant that all the politicians I quoted above and many others have stopped saying Scotland is too poor to be a success as an Independent Country. Your logic tells you they are wrong. It seems to me that your mistake is to compare Scotland and its people and its economy to a large town. Scotland is not a large town. It is a country - a nation in its own right and Independent it will have the powers needed to grow and develop the economy that it has.

Lets look. The countries which have a similar population to Scotland in Europe include Finland, Denmark, Norway. These countries are prosperous and doing very nicely - no one would compare Norway or Denmark to a large town. If all you see when you look at Scotland is a "large town" then it explains why you fail to see the opportunities that Independence can bring.


What changes to the tax system do you envisage? What loop holes? Who in Scotland isn't paying their dues? If you try to gouge the foreign companies they will leave won't they?

I dont know Ducati - I talked about opportunity - to raise and spend money, to do what needs to be done to make Scotland a more prosperous country. And by prosperous I mean better off every way - financially and socially. The point is only in an Independent Scotland will we be able to do these things if they need doing and if they benefit Scotland.


You keep quoting pro-rata and per capita figures. That is kind of the point isn't it? Thats how you measure and compare GDP



Or lets analyse one example. The food and drink industry is worth 5.3 billion. Great! How much goes into (or would) the Scottish treasury coffers for the benefit of the people of Scotland? Don't forget to include the income tax from the many hundreds of people working in this industry for minimum wage (but claiming some or all of it back in working tax credits, housing benefit etc).

Yes lets and there is a simple answer Ducati - None of it and all of it. None of it because today it goes to the UK treasury where it contributes to spending on Trident, High Speed rail links, London sewers and some of it comes back in the Block Grant. After Independence? Well - All of it! It would all go into the Scottish treasury as part of the income of Scotland to be spent on whatever we instruct our government to spend it on.

And if that last sentence was a suggestion that Scotland cant afford the welfare bill - well you are wrong about that as well!

equusdriving
02-Sep-13, 23:25
It would all go into the Scottish treasury as part of the income of Scotland to be spent on whatever we instruct our government to spend it on.

and now tell us the one about the three bears :lol:

ducati
02-Sep-13, 23:37
Thats it? So no contradicting evidence? No research? just your logic. Are you therefore saying that these figures are lies? That the UK government figures are fabricated and not true? These are UK provided figures - not cooked up by the SNP not dreamed up by a lying nat in her living room on a Sunday morning ;)- but the figures which have meant that all the politicians I quoted above and many others have stopped saying Scotland is too poor to be a success as an Independent Country. Your logic tells you they are wrong. It seems to me that your mistake is to compare Scotland and its people and its economy to a large town. Scotland is not a large town. It is a country - a nation in its own right and Independent it will have the powers needed to grow and develop the economy that it has.

Lets look. The countries which have a similar population to Scotland in Europe include Finland, Denmark, Norway. These countries are prosperous and doing very nicely - no one would compare Norway or Denmark to a large town. If all you see when you look at Scotland is a "large town" then it explains why you fail to see the opportunities that Independence can bring.



I dont know Ducati - I talked about opportunity - to raise and spend money, to do what needs to be done to make Scotland a more prosperous country. And by prosperous I mean better off every way - financially and socially. The point is only in an Independent Scotland will we be able to do these things if they need doing and if they benefit Scotland.

Thats how you measure and compare GDP




Yes lets and there is a simple answer Ducati - None of it and all of it. None of it because today it goes to the UK treasury where it contributes to spending on Trident, High Speed rail links, London sewers and some of it comes back in the Block Grant. After Independence? Well - All of it! It would all go into the Scottish treasury as part of the income of Scotland to be spent on whatever we instruct our government to spend it on.

And if that last sentence was a suggestion that Scotland cant afford the welfare bill - well you are wrong about that as well!


5.3 billion eh? Blimey we'll all be rich. That's over a grand each. However, it would be more likely about 3% of that once you take into account allowances against this that and the other thing. This is a good example though of figures bandied about that sound great and mean little.

Now having been pressed I've given my opinion on much more than I like so on yer go.

squidge
02-Sep-13, 23:50
One example Ducati and there are plenty more.

Im glad you shared your opinion Ducati - thank you. Its been interesting. :D

ducati
02-Sep-13, 23:52
One example Ducati and there are plenty more.



Yes, I know. :roll:

rob murray
03-Sep-13, 13:18
Oil rich Norway. Population 4.9 million,independent and prosperous.
Oil rich Scotland. Population 5.2 million, too wee, too poor, too stupid.
Think Independence, and please no one reply with so we are, or some other bitchy remark. Show your maturity.

Yep : see below, they may have more money but UK money goes further, so how can we be, in relative terms, "poor"



Consumer Prices in United Kingdom are 36.60% lower than in Norway


Consumer Prices Including Rent in United Kingdom are 36.12% lower than in Norway


Rent Prices in United Kingdom are 34.91% lower than in Norway


Restaurant Prices in United Kingdom are 46.91% lower than in Norway


Groceries Prices in United Kingdom are 36.77% lower than in Norway


Local Purchasing Power in United Kingdom is 3.66% higher than in Norway

squidge
04-Sep-13, 07:04
Thats an Interesting question Rob. Because as a country we are not poor - not the UK nor Scotland( despite what you might read on this thread) And yet we have people who need to use food banks, who cant afford their heating, who are being driven to despair and even suicide because their benefits are being cut, who are being evicted because they cant afford their social housing since the bedroom tax and many of whom have no roof over their heads at all. We have children who arent able to stay with their parents and need specific care and cant get it because there isnt enough money. We have carers on the brink of despair because they cant get the respite they need and we have disabled people being spat at in the street or - as witnessed recently - being abused in a shop because they dont "look disabled" so shouldnt have a badge for a parking space.

You have to ask whether the UK has its priorities wrong if so many people are struggling financially and socially. To cut benefits and support for people whilst handing it out on projects of dubious usefulness like the High Speed Rail link seems to be all wrong. There also seems to be no mechanism for changing this. No party willing to bite the bullet and stand up to say we are doing this wrong. The commitments made by previous governments and politicians to reduce and even end child poverty might as well have been whistled in the wind.

rob murray
04-Sep-13, 09:31
Thats an Interesting question Rob. Because as a country we are not poor - not the UK nor Scotland( despite what you might read on this thread) And yet we have people who need to use food banks, who cant afford their heating, who are being driven to despair and even suicide because their benefits are being cut, who are being evicted because they cant afford their social housing since the bedroom tax and many of whom have no roof over their heads at all. We have children who arent able to stay with their parents and need specific care and cant get it because there isnt enough money. We have carers on the brink of despair because they cant get the respite they need and we have disabled people being spat at in the street or - as witnessed recently - being abused in a shop because they dont "look disabled" so shouldnt have a badge for a parking space.

You have to ask whether the UK has its priorities wrong if so many people are struggling financially and socially. To cut benefits and support for people whilst handing it out on projects of dubious usefulness like the High Speed Rail link seems to be all wrong. There also seems to be no mechanism for changing this. No party willing to bite the bullet and stand up to say we are doing this wrong. The commitments made by previous governments and politicians to reduce and even end child poverty might as well have been whistled in the wind.

Points taken on board and well put. The stats show UK is cheaper to live in....but I should have added for those who have money, those who are on the bread line are really really struggling so its back to income distribution / taxation / and strength of the economy ( hence availability of good jobs..of which theres not a lot ) Also I havent read anything about banking financial scandals affecting Norway ! SO more people work in Norway, in a financially sounder environment but pay more to live.

Rheghead
04-Sep-13, 22:16
It looks like support for Scottish Indy is down to its lowest ebb in the polls so far, 25% and there is no stopping the hemorrhage of support.

equusdriving
04-Sep-13, 22:54
I take it the usual lack of input from piratelassie after making an obscure fact-less thread attacking the UK is due to mental exhaustion from desperately searching the internet for any little scrap of unfounded info to claim as a reason to vote yes

Oddquine
04-Sep-13, 23:22
It looks like support for Scottish Indy is down to its lowest ebb in the polls so far, 25% and there is no stopping the hemorrhage of support.

Depends on the poll you read, though Rheghead. The only one which had the SNP winning the 2011 election has it a heckuva lot closer than that.

Can't say I believe any polls myself.......given I was polled once (in 65 years) and was very impressed at the way they managed to get me to give them the answers which suited their agenda..and I knew they were doing it......but couldn't work out any way to stick it to them. [evil]

orkneycadian
05-Sep-13, 17:19
I take it the usual lack of input from piratelassie after making an obscure fact-less thread attacking the UK is due to mental exhaustion from desperately searching the internet for any little scrap of unfounded info to claim as a reason to vote yes

No, I don't think she works like that. She starts a thread, probably using a quote she has pulled off the SNP website or some other propaganda library, then stands back after pressing the submit button, assuming she has done the cause some good and might get a gold star from 'Eck. Unfortunately, its usually detrimental. She will maybe cotton on one day! ;)

squidge
06-Sep-13, 07:26
George Osborne arrived this week and this is from an article in the Herald about his visit. I dont usualy cut and paste but it discusses oil and Norway so is relevant. Hersld articles are not always accessible online due to their subscription. In the rest of the article he condemns the lack of imagination of the YES campaign. Ill include the link if you would like to read it

. "George Osborne is responsible for policies that have left tens of thousands of Scots in insecure jobs and plunged many Scottish families into crisis through the bedroom tax, while he cut taxes for multi-millionaires. He has also sparked a mini-property boom in the south-east of England by using taxpayer's money to subsidise £600,000 mortgages.Worse, he tried to argue an independent Scotland would be worse off if it received revenues from North Sea Oil. He even put a figure on it: £2000 per Scottish family. He said setting up an oil fund, like Norway's, would lead to tax rises of 27%, or £8bn, or spending cuts of the equivalent.

This was underpinned by a Treasury report of breathtaking sophistry, which brought to mind the 1975 McCrone Report that cynically sought to disguise the true value of North Sea oil. It should have been kicked the length of Scotland, by Unionists as well as nationalists, for the contempt it showed for the intelligence of the Scottish public.An independent Scotland would have a budget deficit of around £8bn, according to George Osborne, but it is less than the budget deficit being run by the UK right now which, in case you had forgotten, is around £120bn. The Osborne argument is Scotland with oil revenues of £8bn would be in a worse predicament than the UK without it.

How could a numerically literate Chancellor manage to arrive at that ludicrous conclusion?Mr Osborne said that if the Scottish Government puts its oil revenue into an oil fund, similar to Norway's state pension scheme, this would so denude finances that welfare spending would have to be slashed, free personal care abolished, tuition fees hiked. In other words, unlike the UK, the Scottish Government would have to balance its budget in year one in order to set up an oil fund.

In fact, the existence of oil assets estimated by industry body Oil and Gas UK at £1.5 trillion would, even if left under the North Sea, substantially reduce Scotland's deficit by reducing borrowing costs. It is silly to base the case for or against independence on one expendable resource, but this is a legacy most countries cannot dream of, even if the value fluctuates with the oil price. Currently it is up and production is rising.

It is reasonable to expect that Scotland would experience an 'independence boom' which is what often happens when small countries take charge of their own affairs. But even if Scotland carried on exactly as it is, with GDP per head at approximately the UK level, it would still be in a better fiscal condition than the UK, and not just because of hydrocarbons. Stormy Scotland has an abundance of green energy, and the continuing disaster at Fukushima confirms that nuclear power is not going to ride to the rescue of a warming planet.

The worst error the Chancellor and his predecessor, Alistair Darling, made this week was to bring Norway centre stage in the independence debate. This is a successful small country, with a very similar demographic profile to Scotland, and fewer economic advantages. It has become something of a beacon for all those who believe there is an alternative to the devil-take-the-hindmost banker capitalism that is currently the British way.

Not only does Norway have one of the highest standards of living on the planet, it has one of the lowest levels of income inequality, the highest levels of social security and - Conservative chancellors please note - one of the most dynamic private sectors in the world. Small countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland have discovered that impoverishing the working population while allowing the rich to get even richer is not the way to encourage business to invest. What works is stability: progressive taxation, full employment, social investment.

Even without oil, countries like Denmark - which the World Bank recently cited as the best country in Europe to start a business - have kept calm and carried on throughout the Great Recession. Workers are more willing to change jobs, which makes it is easier to start new enterprises. Wages are relatively high, ensuring there is demand in the high streets.In Britain, by contrast, 4.8 million workers earn less than the living wage of £7.20. The top 1% have seen their share of income triple thanks to low taxation. The UK Government seems to think zero-hours working creates enterprise and house price inflation is the same as economic growth. Not so much voodoo economics as vampire economics; sucking the blood out of the real economy.

Scotland is already more like Norway than England, in its social outlook and political culture. A social democracy with communitarian values borne of struggle against a harsh climate and an implacable global economy. The UK squandered North Sea oil revenues, hundreds of billions of them, to finance Margaret Thatcher's industrial recessions and enrich a financial kleptocracy based in the City of London.

Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, worth $700bn. Britain has one of the biggest debt problems of nearly £2tr. And he has the nerve to say Scotland would be worse off? On yer bike, Chancellor: Scots have been fooled once too often."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/columnists/osborne-has-a-nerve-to-say-scots-would-be-worse-off.22065922?_=1c6f6bfeef9fb2d3b7d2efe7091047e5860 21334

ducati
06-Sep-13, 15:37
George Osborne arrived this week and this is from an article in the Herald about his visit. I dont usualy cut and paste but it discusses oil and Norway so is relevant. Hersld articles are not always accessible online due to their subscription. In the rest of the article he condemns the lack of imagination of the YES campaign. Ill include the link if you would like to read it

. "George Osborne is responsible for policies that have left tens of thousands of Scots in insecure jobs and plunged many Scottish families into crisis through the bedroom tax, while he cut taxes for multi-millionaires. He has also sparked a mini-property boom in the south-east of England by using taxpayer's money to subsidise £600,000 mortgages.Worse, he tried to argue an independent Scotland would be worse off if it received revenues from North Sea Oil. He even put a figure on it: £2000 per Scottish family. He said setting up an oil fund, like Norway's, would lead to tax rises of 27%, or £8bn, or spending cuts of the equivalent.

This was underpinned by a Treasury report of breathtaking sophistry, which brought to mind the 1975 McCrone Report that cynically sought to disguise the true value of North Sea oil. It should have been kicked the length of Scotland, by Unionists as well as nationalists, for the contempt it showed for the intelligence of the Scottish public.An independent Scotland would have a budget deficit of around £8bn, according to George Osborne, but it is less than the budget deficit being run by the UK right now which, in case you had forgotten, is around £120bn. The Osborne argument is Scotland with oil revenues of £8bn would be in a worse predicament than the UK without it.

How could a numerically literate Chancellor manage to arrive at that ludicrous conclusion?Mr Osborne said that if the Scottish Government puts its oil revenue into an oil fund, similar to Norway's state pension scheme, this would so denude finances that welfare spending would have to be slashed, free personal care abolished, tuition fees hiked. In other words, unlike the UK, the Scottish Government would have to balance its budget in year one in order to set up an oil fund.

In fact, the existence of oil assets estimated by industry body Oil and Gas UK at £1.5 trillion would, even if left under the North Sea, substantially reduce Scotland's deficit by reducing borrowing costs. It is silly to base the case for or against independence on one expendable resource, but this is a legacy most countries cannot dream of, even if the value fluctuates with the oil price. Currently it is up and production is rising.

It is reasonable to expect that Scotland would experience an 'independence boom' which is what often happens when small countries take charge of their own affairs. But even if Scotland carried on exactly as it is, with GDP per head at approximately the UK level, it would still be in a better fiscal condition than the UK, and not just because of hydrocarbons. Stormy Scotland has an abundance of green energy, and the continuing disaster at Fukushima confirms that nuclear power is not going to ride to the rescue of a warming planet.

The worst error the Chancellor and his predecessor, Alistair Darling, made this week was to bring Norway centre stage in the independence debate. This is a successful small country, with a very similar demographic profile to Scotland, and fewer economic advantages. It has become something of a beacon for all those who believe there is an alternative to the devil-take-the-hindmost banker capitalism that is currently the British way.

Not only does Norway have one of the highest standards of living on the planet, it has one of the lowest levels of income inequality, the highest levels of social security and - Conservative chancellors please note - one of the most dynamic private sectors in the world. Small countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland have discovered that impoverishing the working population while allowing the rich to get even richer is not the way to encourage business to invest. What works is stability: progressive taxation, full employment, social investment.

Even without oil, countries like Denmark - which the World Bank recently cited as the best country in Europe to start a business - have kept calm and carried on throughout the Great Recession. Workers are more willing to change jobs, which makes it is easier to start new enterprises. Wages are relatively high, ensuring there is demand in the high streets.In Britain, by contrast, 4.8 million workers earn less than the living wage of £7.20. The top 1% have seen their share of income triple thanks to low taxation. The UK Government seems to think zero-hours working creates enterprise and house price inflation is the same as economic growth. Not so much voodoo economics as vampire economics; sucking the blood out of the real economy.

Scotland is already more like Norway than England, in its social outlook and political culture. A social democracy with communitarian values borne of struggle against a harsh climate and an implacable global economy. The UK squandered North Sea oil revenues, hundreds of billions of them, to finance Margaret Thatcher's industrial recessions and enrich a financial kleptocracy based in the City of London.

Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, worth $700bn. Britain has one of the biggest debt problems of nearly £2tr. And he has the nerve to say Scotland would be worse off? On yer bike, Chancellor: Scots have been fooled once too often."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/columnists/osborne-has-a-nerve-to-say-scots-would-be-worse-off.22065922?_=1c6f6bfeef9fb2d3b7d2efe7091047e5860 21334

As I know, financially, there are very few people on this earth cleverer than G. Osborne, this sounds like someone ranting against something they don't want to hear.

You know, like when he said this is what we are going to do to turn the economy around and it won't start to work for three years. From month one that idiot Ed Balls was muttering or shouting it won't work it isn't working. Now after 3 years, guess what?.....

Oddquine
10-Sep-13, 14:12
As I know, financially, there are very few people on this earth cleverer than G. Osborne, this sounds like someone ranting against something they don't want to hear.

You know, like when he said this is what we are going to do to turn the economy around and it won't start to work for three years. From month one that idiot Ed Balls was muttering or shouting it won't work it isn't working. Now after 3 years, guess what?.....

It's working in the mind of George Osborne? Quelle surprise!

But who else is it working for..certainly not the those being targeted with cuts to ensure tax cuts and breaks for big business and the rich! And certainly not those now off the jobless figures because they have zero hours contracts...but no way to ensure an income from week to week.

It may well be working in the minds of Osborne and the millionaires who "represent" us in Cabinet and Parliament (or rather the 1% or so of us who are also millionaires)......and it may well be working for those new millionaires regularly being added to the rich lists...and it may even be working for those who earn nearly £1000 a week and can still claim tax credits.......but it isn't working for everybody. So much for us being "all in it together!"

ducati
10-Sep-13, 19:45
It's working in the mind of George Osborne? Quelle surprise!

But who else is it working for..certainly not the those being targeted with cuts to ensure tax cuts and breaks for big business and the rich! And certainly not those now off the jobless figures because they have zero hours contracts...but no way to ensure an income from week to week.

It may well be working in the minds of Osborne and the millionaires who "represent" us in Cabinet and Parliament (or rather the 1% or so of us who are also millionaires)......and it may well be working for those new millionaires regularly being added to the rich lists...and it may even be working for those who earn nearly £1000 a week and can still claim tax credits.......but it isn't working for everybody. So much for us being "all in it together!"

It won't work for anybody until we get some growth. That is what is starting to happen. I hope for your sake that there is a no vote. Imagine how fed up you will be when independent, you still aren't happy.

squidge
10-Sep-13, 21:08
Growth? Well of course there is some growth but this is apparently the worst ever recovery from recession in history - hardly something to be trumpeted as a massive success!!! George Osborne said that his plan is for improved living standards - for whom? Recent OBR data suggests it will take until 2018 for the average earner to get back to 2008 salary levels. The rich might feel richer and their mortgages might be cheaper whilst they are still getting bonuses and their investments are up. But for people with wages rather than salaries and without investments there is nothing cheerful about their living standards. And lets not even mention the poor and those on benefits. The idea that HS2 will spread the prosperity is particularly nonsensical and is being rubbished by many who once supported this ridiculous scheme. And despite his "austerity speeches" he borrows more and plans to borrow more and more. Smoke and mirrors.

ducati
11-Sep-13, 07:36
Nevertheless, we are seeing growth, we are seeing improved employment, we are seeing significant new investment (Tata for instance). Of course, as it is all happening sooth of the border it is doubtful an indy Scotland will benefit much.:(

squidge
11-Sep-13, 07:44
Lol. We are getting growth in Scotland and the Scottish Government has worked to mitigate the worst effects of the welfare reforms and maintain some universal benefits within the budget, balancing the books. Its not enough in my opinion and we could do so much more if we had an independent Scotland. Scrap the bedroom tax, redesign the welfare system, sort out the tax system so they work for an independent Scotland. Independence gives us the opportunity to change things, maximise growth and change policies to improve the lives of the people of Scotland and not just the rich ones!

ducati
11-Sep-13, 07:50
Lol. We are getting growth in Scotland and the Scottish Government has worked to mitigate the worst effects of the welfare reforms and maintain some universal benefits within the budget, balancing the books. Its not enough in my opinion and we could do so much more if we had an independent Scotland. Scrap the bedroom tax, redesign the welfare system, sort out the tax system so they work for an independent Scotland. Independence gives us the opportunity to change things, maximise growth and change policies to improve the lives of the people of Scotland and not just the rich ones!

Hmm. the rich chip again. Thing is, compared to the rest of the UK, Scotland has few rich people, and after indy :eek:, I suspect, quite a lot less.

I also suspect, that this would suit many Nats. Untill they realise that countrys are powered by money.

squidge
11-Sep-13, 08:51
Honestly lol.... Its not a rich chip, I have no problems or dislike for those who are rich. What I have a problem with, what I think is indefensible are Government Policies designed so that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable. THESE are the things I detest, THESE are the issues I find incomprehensible, THESE are the things that I cannot understand people supporting.I read today that the UN have said that the bedroom tax breaches Human Rights. It breaches the basic human right to housing because there are not enough smaller houses for people. The Labour party to my disgust will not say they will get rid of this tax. Is it any wonder that I believe Independence is the only way to effect change and move towards a fairer society for ALL. I dont want the rich taxed at 90% no more than I want the poor having to use food banks. If we get a YES vote then we have an opportunity to shape Scotland the way WE choose.

ducati
11-Sep-13, 10:14
Honestly lol.... Its not a rich chip, I have no problems or dislike for those who are rich. What I have a problem with, what I think is indefensible are Government Policies designed so that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable. THESE are the things I detest, THESE are the issues I find incomprehensible, THESE are the things that I cannot understand people supporting.I read today that the UN have said that the bedroom tax breaches Human Rights. It breaches the basic human right to housing because there are not enough smaller houses for people. The Labour party to my disgust will not say they will get rid of this tax. Is it any wonder that I believe Independence is the only way to effect change and move towards a fairer society for ALL. I dont want the rich taxed at 90% no more than I want the poor having to use food banks. If we get a YES vote then we have an opportunity to shape Scotland the way WE choose.

Well, as I said, the rich tax won't be much of a problem.

Apart from the so called millionaire's tax rebate (reversing the 50p rate) which is just used as a headline and actually means nothing as has been explained to death, but the people making capital out of dividing the country into rich and poor constantly refere to (breath). What exactly would you change to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

equusdriving
11-Sep-13, 10:57
If we get a YES vote then we have an opportunity to shape Scotland the way WE choose.

No if we get a YES vote, we will give whatever party are voted in the opportunity to TRY and shape Scotland the way THEY choose, there will be NO WE about it, exactly like it is now, but with lots more risk, unless of course you are saying that Scottish politicians/party's are never corrupt, greedy, selfish, unlawful etc etc?
Can you explain using your theory, which parts of Britain currently decide the way Britain is shaped and reap all the benefits?

ducati
11-Sep-13, 16:01
No if we get a YES vote, we will give whatever party are voted in the opportunity to TRY and shape Scotland the way THEY choose, there will be NO WE about it, exactly like it is now, but with lots more risk, unless of course you are saying that Scottish politicians/party's are never corrupt, greedy, selfish, unlawful etc etc?
Can you explain using your theory, which parts of Britain currently decide the way Britain is shaped and reap all the benefits?

The rich ones :roll: haven't you been paying attention? [lol]

squidge
11-Sep-13, 20:59
What exactly would you change to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

I dont want to STOP the rich getting richer Ducati - I know you like to paint me as some Thenardier character but Im not. I am happy for people to make money as long as they dont do it through unfair state sponsored means.

So lets see - what would I do as far as the "rich" are concerned.

I would make sure that anyone working for a public company cannot be paid through a third party to avoid tax. All public Sector employees should be on PAYE and bonuses should be limited to an agreed percentage of salary with "pay offs" - the like we have seen at the BBC this week subject to scrutiny and value for money examinations before contracts are signed.

I would reinstate the 50% tax ( or maybe not depending on how much this would bring in in addition to the changes to NI that I propose later)

I would close tax loopholes that are designed to assist people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes.

I would make the winter fuel allowance taxable on the highest rate of income tax. People would still get it but they would have their tax code amended to ensure that it doesnt go to the highest tax payers.

I would abolish the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance contributions so that contributions would be paid at the current flat rate on all earnings.

Thats for starters Private Sector bonuses would need to be examined but that would need a good look because competition is important

As for the poor

Economic growth - capital projects, inward investment, a variety of supported employment options for those not able to work full time through ill health or disability

I would abolish the bedroom tax

I would redesign the welfare system so that it is fairer. This actually means a few things - firstly it means treating people like people and not like rubbish; it means a Work Programme that actually gets people into work; I would ensure that the only people who can run programmes that deal with benefits are charities, not for profit organisations or public sector organisations - private companies only have one reason to do this work and thats profit - charities and public sector companies are more likely to do things that are better for the person. Private companies must not be allowed to make money for shareholders or chief executives out of the misery of others. Where money is made it should go back into the organisation to improve services or benefit the service users.

I would start a programme of increases in the minimum wage

I would ensure that everybody who is working has access to quality affordable childcare by looking at how this is done in Europe. Not vouchers or 21/2 hours a day but a comprehensive overhaul

I would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme to give school leavers more choice and better vocational training

I would reinstate legal aid to fight benefit appeals

I would ensure that the only way that people's fitness to work is assessed is by qualified Independent Doctors

I would make targets for getting people off benefit illegal - any public sector organisation must exist to help and support not count up the number of benefits they can stop through fair means or foul.

I would increase Fraud investigation resource.

I would only make two changes to amounts of benefit - I would increase carer's allowance to the same rate as those in the ESA support Group get and give a class one NI contribution to all people claiming Carers benefits. I would also like to see the amount a couple get the same as the amount for two single people - it makes no sense to pay less and it encourages fraud.

I would introduce rent controls and make it illegal to evict someone from social housing in between September and March

I would ensure that all pensioners on pension credit get a subsidy off their heating costs sliding down as the pension credit decreases

That will do for starters!

How would I pay for this well - the heating allowance I would take from the exorbitant profits that the energy companies make They will squeal but Id bet money they wouldnt pull out of the market. The benefit increases would be paid for by the NI contribution change and reinstating the 50% income tax. Money would also be saved by having a work programme that actually gets people into work and by reducing the complete waste of money that ATOS is - the amount spent on appeals alone is disgraceful. I wonder what the old DSS rate of successful appeals was? Better resourced Fraud would pay for itself. If we succeed in getting an Independent Scotland the money we would have spent on Trident would cover a goodly part of it.

Oddquine
11-Sep-13, 21:28
I dont want to STOP the rich getting richer Ducati - I know you like to paint me as some Thenardier character but Im not. I am happy for people to make money as long as they dont do it through unfair state sponsored means.

So lets see - what would I do as far as the "rich" are concerned.

I would make sure that anyone working for a public company cannot be paid through a third party to avoid tax. All public Sector employees should be on PAYE and bonuses should be limited to an agreed percentage of salary with "pay offs" - the like we have seen at the BBC this week subject to scrutiny and value for money examinations before contracts are signed.

I would reinstate the 50% tax ( or maybe not depending on how much this would bring in in addition to the changes to NI that I propose later)

I would close tax loopholes that are designed to assist people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes.

I would make the winter fuel allowance taxable on the highest rate of income tax. People would still get it but they would have their tax code amended to ensure that it doesnt go to the highest tax payers.

I would abolish the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance contributions so that contributions would be paid at the current flat rate on all earnings.

Thats for starters Private Sector bonuses would need to be examined but that would need a good look because competition is important

As for the poor

Economic growth - capital projects, inward investment, a variety of supported employment options for those not able to work full time through ill health or disability

I would abolish the bedroom tax

I would redesign the welfare system so that it is fairer. This actually means a few things - firstly it means treating people like people and not like rubbish; it means a Work Programme that actually gets people into work; I would ensure that the only people who can run programmes that deal with benefits are charities, not for profit organisations or public sector organisations - private companies only have one reason to do this work and thats profit - charities and public sector companies are more likely to do things that are better for the person. Private companies must not be allowed to make money for shareholders or chief executives out of the misery of others. Where money is made it should go back into the organisation to improve services or benefit the service users.

I would start a programme of increases in the minimum wage

I would ensure that everybody who is working has access to quality affordable childcare by looking at how this is done in Europe. Not vouchers or 21/2 hours a day but a comprehensive overhaul

I would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme to give school leavers more choice and better vocational training

I would reinstate legal aid to fight benefit appeals

I would ensure that the only way that people's fitness to work is assessed is by qualified Independent Doctors

I would make targets for getting people off benefit illegal - any public sector organisation must exist to help and support not count up the number of benefits they can stop through fair means or foul.

I would increase Fraud investigation resource.

I would only make two changes to amounts of benefit - I would increase carer's allowance to the same rate as those in the ESA support Group get and give a class one NI contribution to all people claiming Carers benefits. I would also like to see the amount a couple get the same as the amount for two single people - it makes no sense to pay less and it encourages fraud.

I would introduce rent controls and make it illegal to evict someone from social housing in between September and March

I would ensure that all pensioners on pension credit get a subsidy off their heating costs sliding down as the pension credit decreases

That will do for starters!

How would I pay for this well - the heating allowance I would take from the exorbitant profits that the energy companies make They will squeal but Id bet money they wouldnt pull out of the market. The benefit increases would be paid for by the NI contribution change and reinstating the 50% income tax. Money would also be saved by having a work programme that actually gets people into work and by reducing the complete waste of money that ATOS is - the amount spent on appeals alone is disgraceful. I wonder what the old DSS rate of successful appeals was? Better resourced Fraud would pay for itself. If we succeed in getting an Independent Scotland the money we spend on

Good post, squidge! Fancy starting a "Sensible People" Party and becoming FM in an Independent Scotland?

squidge
11-Sep-13, 22:16
Absolutely NOT!!!! Lol

Rheghead
11-Sep-13, 22:18
There's nobody more evangelical than a convert. ;)

squidge
11-Sep-13, 22:28
Convert to what Rheghead? Fairness? Equality? Hope? These are the things I have championed my whole life. I was soapboxy about them as a teenager. They are fundamental to who I am. If Independence gives us a chance to reach for these things then Ill take that opportunity with everything I have. Might I be disappointed? Yes I might, i have been a labour party member, an ex-wife and I am a manchester city supporter. Disappointment isnt a stranger to me. But you know what, its got to be worth trying because it sure as hell isnt going the right way today. The opportunity to do things differently is too good to miss.

golach
11-Sep-13, 22:28
Absolutely NOT!!!! Lol

Awwww go on Squidge, become the First Lady, you look far better wearing your whimple than Eck is his Rupert the bear trews [lol]

equusdriving
11-Sep-13, 22:32
I dont want to STOP the rich getting richer Ducati - I know you like to paint me as some Thenardier character but Im not. I am happy for people to make money as long as they dont do it through unfair state sponsored means.

So lets see - what would I do as far as the "rich" are concerned.

I would make sure that anyone working for a public company cannot be paid through a third party to avoid tax. All public Sector employees should be on PAYE and bonuses should be limited to an agreed percentage of salary with "pay offs" - the like we have seen at the BBC this week subject to scrutiny and value for money examinations before contracts are signed.

I would reinstate the 50% tax ( or maybe not depending on how much this would bring in in addition to the changes to NI that I propose later)

I would close tax loopholes that are designed to assist people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes.

I would make the winter fuel allowance taxable on the highest rate of income tax. People would still get it but they would have their tax code amended to ensure that it doesnt go to the highest tax payers.

I would abolish the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance contributions so that contributions would be paid at the current flat rate on all earnings.

Thats for starters Private Sector bonuses would need to be examined but that would need a good look because competition is important

As for the poor

Economic growth - capital projects, inward investment, a variety of supported employment options for those not able to work full time through ill health or disability

I would abolish the bedroom tax

I would redesign the welfare system so that it is fairer. This actually means a few things - firstly it means treating people like people and not like rubbish; it means a Work Programme that actually gets people into work; I would ensure that the only people who can run programmes that deal with benefits are charities, not for profit organisations or public sector organisations - private companies only have one reason to do this work and thats profit - charities and public sector companies are more likely to do things that are better for the person. Private companies must not be allowed to make money for shareholders or chief executives out of the misery of others. Where money is made it should go back into the organisation to improve services or benefit the service users.

I would start a programme of increases in the minimum wage

I would ensure that everybody who is working has access to quality affordable childcare by looking at how this is done in Europe. Not vouchers or 21/2 hours a day but a comprehensive overhaul

I would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme to give school leavers more choice and better vocational training

I would reinstate legal aid to fight benefit appeals

I would ensure that the only way that people's fitness to work is assessed is by qualified Independent Doctors

I would make targets for getting people off benefit illegal - any public sector organisation must exist to help and support not count up the number of benefits they can stop through fair means or foul.

I would increase Fraud investigation resource.

I would only make two changes to amounts of benefit - I would increase carer's allowance to the same rate as those in the ESA support Group get and give a class one NI contribution to all people claiming Carers benefits. I would also like to see the amount a couple get the same as the amount for two single people - it makes no sense to pay less and it encourages fraud.

I would introduce rent controls and make it illegal to evict someone from social housing in between September and March

I would ensure that all pensioners on pension credit get a subsidy off their heating costs sliding down as the pension credit decreases

That will do for starters!

How would I pay for this well - the heating allowance I would take from the exorbitant profits that the energy companies make They will squeal but Id bet money they wouldnt pull out of the market. The benefit increases would be paid for by the NI contribution change and reinstating the 50% income tax. Money would also be saved by having a work programme that actually gets people into work and by reducing the complete waste of money that ATOS is - the amount spent on appeals alone is disgraceful. I wonder what the old DSS rate of successful appeals was? Better resourced Fraud would pay for itself. If we succeed in getting an Independent Scotland the money we would have spent on Trident would cover a goodly part of it.

Have you been watching reruns of all the old Miss World speeches :lol:

ducati
11-Sep-13, 22:36
I dont want to STOP the rich getting richer Ducati - I know you like to paint me as some Thenardier character but Im not. I am happy for people to make money as long as they dont do it through unfair state sponsored means.

So lets see - what would I do as far as the "rich" are concerned.

I would make sure that anyone working for a public company cannot be paid through a third party to avoid tax. All public Sector employees should be on PAYE and bonuses should be limited to an agreed percentage of salary with "pay offs" - the like we have seen at the BBC this week subject to scrutiny and value for money examinations before contracts are signed.

I would reinstate the 50% tax ( or maybe not depending on how much this would bring in in addition to the changes to NI that I propose later)

I would close tax loopholes that are designed to assist people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes.

I would make the winter fuel allowance taxable on the highest rate of income tax. People would still get it but they would have their tax code amended to ensure that it doesnt go to the highest tax payers.

I would abolish the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance contributions so that contributions would be paid at the current flat rate on all earnings.

Thats for starters Private Sector bonuses would need to be examined but that would need a good look because competition is important

As for the poor

Economic growth - capital projects, inward investment, a variety of supported employment options for those not able to work full time through ill health or disability

I would abolish the bedroom tax

I would redesign the welfare system so that it is fairer. This actually means a few things - firstly it means treating people like people and not like rubbish; it means a Work Programme that actually gets people into work; I would ensure that the only people who can run programmes that deal with benefits are charities, not for profit organisations or public sector organisations - private companies only have one reason to do this work and thats profit - charities and public sector companies are more likely to do things that are better for the person. Private companies must not be allowed to make money for shareholders or chief executives out of the misery of others. Where money is made it should go back into the organisation to improve services or benefit the service users.

I would start a programme of increases in the minimum wage

I would ensure that everybody who is working has access to quality affordable childcare by looking at how this is done in Europe. Not vouchers or 21/2 hours a day but a comprehensive overhaul

I would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme to give school leavers more choice and better vocational training

I would reinstate legal aid to fight benefit appeals

I would ensure that the only way that people's fitness to work is assessed is by qualified Independent Doctors

I would make targets for getting people off benefit illegal - any public sector organisation must exist to help and support not count up the number of benefits they can stop through fair means or foul.

I would increase Fraud investigation resource.

I would only make two changes to amounts of benefit - I would increase carer's allowance to the same rate as those in the ESA support Group get and give a class one NI contribution to all people claiming Carers benefits. I would also like to see the amount a couple get the same as the amount for two single people - it makes no sense to pay less and it encourages fraud.

I would introduce rent controls and make it illegal to evict someone from social housing in between September and March

I would ensure that all pensioners on pension credit get a subsidy off their heating costs sliding down as the pension credit decreases

That will do for starters!

How would I pay for this well - the heating allowance I would take from the exorbitant profits that the energy companies make They will squeal but Id bet money they wouldnt pull out of the market. The benefit increases would be paid for by the NI contribution change and reinstating the 50% income tax. Money would also be saved by having a work programme that actually gets people into work and by reducing the complete waste of money that ATOS is - the amount spent on appeals alone is disgraceful. I wonder what the old DSS rate of successful appeals was? Better resourced Fraud would pay for itself. If we succeed in getting an Independent Scotland the money we would have spent on Trident would cover a goodly part of it.

50% :roll: nuff said.

As for the rest, I wonder why the grubbiement haven't thought of it?

Oddquine
11-Sep-13, 22:40
Absolutely NOT!!!! Lol

Shame.....the main problem with politics is incompetent politicians, and a Civil Service working to keep their jobs...even if they are required to implement a policy which they know won't work.

Given the Civil Service is the entity which comes up with the way to do what politicians' brainfarts produce as policy.....why couldn't they do the same for 650 ordinary people, picked from the electoral register, who are bound to come up with sensible ideas, because they know the effects of the politicians' brainfarts. And, given they are only going to be there for four years (on a secondment on the lines of the TA heading off to Afghanistan) and as it isn't going to turn into a decades long career with perks and a big pay-off.......it will save us bucket loads of dosh! ;)

equusdriving
11-Sep-13, 22:51
Shame.....the main problem with politics is incompetent politicians, and a Civil Service working to keep their jobs...even if they are required to implement a policy which they know won't work.


but surely that only applies to the ones south of the border? as we are constantly told "come the glorious day of Independence" we will be led by loyal, honest, hard working, moral driven, caring political philanthropist's whose only goal in life is to serve their public and make the World a better place

squidge
11-Sep-13, 23:06
50% :roll: nuff said. Yawn!


As for the rest, I wonder why the grubbiement haven't thought of it?

I am sure they have but there is no impetus to do things differently. Lets see Raquel Rolnik, the UN official looking at the Bedroom tax called today for the tax to be scrapped, a cap to be put on private rents and for the government to reaffirm their commitment to social housing and the UK government called her a "loopy brazilian leftie". Says it all really - no impetus and no opportunity for change. I see labour remain stubbornly silent on the subject

squidge
12-Sep-13, 00:07
Awwww go on Squidge, become the First Lady, you look far better wearing your whimple than Eck is his Rupert the bear trews [lol]

Oooh Golach you'll be sayin you would vote for me next!!!!

golach
12-Sep-13, 08:12
Oooh Golach you'll be sayin you would vote for me next!!!!

Now Squidge, your being silly :lol:

rob murray
12-Sep-13, 09:19
Yawn!



I am sure they have but there is no impetus to do things differently. Lets see Raquel Rolnik, the UN official looking at the Bedroom tax called today for the tax to be scrapped, a cap to be put on private rents and for the government to reaffirm their commitment to social housing and the UK government called her a "loopy brazilian leftie". Says it all really - no impetus and no opportunity for change. I see labour remain stubbornly silent on the subject

Yeah they would, wouldnt they, but her words have power, Labour are pathetic dont look for any changes there ( they are adopting the same stance as their attitude to the poll tax ) good to see Swinney attempt to alleviate the pain caused. You should consider politics if not at a national level a local level as youve the passion required !!!!

squidge
12-Sep-13, 14:50
Im not hard enough Rob and I dont have a thick enough skin. It would leave me weeping in a corner. I do my bit through my work and my volunteering and as an activist. Thats the most I can bear and even that can be pretty unpleasant.

equusdriving
12-Sep-13, 20:34
I dont want to STOP the rich getting richer Ducati - I know you like to paint me as some Thenardier character but Im not. I am happy for people to make money as long as they dont do it through unfair state sponsored means.

So lets see - what would I do as far as the "rich" are concerned.

I would make sure that anyone working for a public company cannot be paid through a third party to avoid tax. All public Sector employees should be on PAYE and bonuses should be limited to an agreed percentage of salary with "pay offs" - the like we have seen at the BBC this week subject to scrutiny and value for money examinations before contracts are signed.

I would reinstate the 50% tax ( or maybe not depending on how much this would bring in in addition to the changes to NI that I propose later)

I would close tax loopholes that are designed to assist people and corporations to avoid paying their taxes.

I would make the winter fuel allowance taxable on the highest rate of income tax. People would still get it but they would have their tax code amended to ensure that it doesnt go to the highest tax payers.

I would abolish the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance contributions so that contributions would be paid at the current flat rate on all earnings.

Thats for starters Private Sector bonuses would need to be examined but that would need a good look because competition is important

As for the poor

Economic growth - capital projects, inward investment, a variety of supported employment options for those not able to work full time through ill health or disability

I would abolish the bedroom tax

I would redesign the welfare system so that it is fairer. This actually means a few things - firstly it means treating people like people and not like rubbish; it means a Work Programme that actually gets people into work; I would ensure that the only people who can run programmes that deal with benefits are charities, not for profit organisations or public sector organisations - private companies only have one reason to do this work and thats profit - charities and public sector companies are more likely to do things that are better for the person. Private companies must not be allowed to make money for shareholders or chief executives out of the misery of others. Where money is made it should go back into the organisation to improve services or benefit the service users.

I would start a programme of increases in the minimum wage

I would ensure that everybody who is working has access to quality affordable childcare by looking at how this is done in Europe. Not vouchers or 21/2 hours a day but a comprehensive overhaul

I would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme to give school leavers more choice and better vocational training

I would reinstate legal aid to fight benefit appeals

I would ensure that the only way that people's fitness to work is assessed is by qualified Independent Doctors

I would make targets for getting people off benefit illegal - any public sector organisation must exist to help and support not count up the number of benefits they can stop through fair means or foul.

I would increase Fraud investigation resource.

I would only make two changes to amounts of benefit - I would increase carer's allowance to the same rate as those in the ESA support Group get and give a class one NI contribution to all people claiming Carers benefits. I would also like to see the amount a couple get the same as the amount for two single people - it makes no sense to pay less and it encourages fraud.

I would introduce rent controls and make it illegal to evict someone from social housing in between September and March

I would ensure that all pensioners on pension credit get a subsidy off their heating costs sliding down as the pension credit decreases

That will do for starters!

How would I pay for this well - the heating allowance I would take from the exorbitant profits that the energy companies make They will squeal but Id bet money they wouldnt pull out of the market. The benefit increases would be paid for by the NI contribution change and reinstating the 50% income tax. Money would also be saved by having a work programme that actually gets people into work and by reducing the complete waste of money that ATOS is - the amount spent on appeals alone is disgraceful. I wonder what the old DSS rate of successful appeals was? Better resourced Fraud would pay for itself. If we succeed in getting an Independent Scotland the money we would have spent on Trident would cover a goodly part of it.

Don't forget you would have all the extra money below to spend, if you cut out just some of the ludicrous ways the current Holyrood clowns waste taxpayers money

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/holyrood-art-to-cost-taxpayer-163-250-000-1-504359
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/80010/Holyrood-s-114m-consultancy-fees-a-waste-of-money
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2013/09/holyrood-urged-back-scottish-enterprise-probe/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1457593/Holyrood-firms-paid-100m-to-do-nothing.html
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/12/03/salmond-accused-of-wasting-money-over-ludicrous-moon-idea/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-of-wasting-taxpayers-1076196
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/381508/Salmond-s-wife-was-secret-guest-on-50k-Brave-jaunt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9955353/Alex-Salmond-in-golf-tournament-controversy-over-luxury-hotel-stay.html
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-to.html
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87395264/4m-taxpayers-money-spent-publicise-snp-eco-crusade
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89917794/1billion-cost-taxpayers-trimming-public-sector
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74186571/electric-car-charging-scheme-blows-fuse
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/84723001/outrage-over-snp-plans-hand-out-1bn-foreign-aid
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74128962/knife-crime-now-lower-priority-than-recycling
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87704768/vanity-project
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/413981/1-5m-wasted-on-wind-turbines-in-playgrounds
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-splash-out-300000-survey-1767420

Rheghead
12-Sep-13, 21:12
Convert to what Rheghead? Fairness? Equality? Hope? These are the things I have championed my whole life. I was soapboxy about them as a teenager. They are fundamental to who I am. If Independence gives us a chance to reach for these things then Ill take that opportunity with everything I have. Might I be disappointed? Yes I might, i have been a labour party member, an ex-wife and I am a manchester city supporter. Disappointment isnt a stranger to me. But you know what, its got to be worth trying because it sure as hell isnt going the right way today. The opportunity to do things differently is too good to miss.

Fairness, Equality and Hope?

Scottish independence is not a champion of Fairness, Equality and Hope. Rather, Scottish Independence is a symptom of the Fairness, Equality and Hope of our current system that has been championed by the British social reformers of the 20th and 21st century.

After Scottish independence, there will be political division. There is nothing Fair, Equal or Hopeful about any form of division.

Oddquine
12-Sep-13, 22:57
Fairness, Equality and Hope?

Scottish independence is not a champion of Fairness, Equality and Hope. Rather, Scottish Independence is a symptom of the Fairness, Equality and Hope of our current system that has been championed by the British social reformers of the 20th and 21st century.

After Scottish independence, there will be political division. There is nothing Fair, Equal or Hopeful about any form of division.

So you are saying that the UK is not Fair, Equal or Hopeful? I can agree with that!

In the UK, without Scottish Independence, there is political division(big style) but not only political division, also attitude division....and little hope for improvement staying in the 4th most unequal society in the world. So is your point that the political division, engendered in a FPTP system which produces 500+ MPs for English Constituencies and 100+ MPS from Non-English constituencies, few, if any, of which can claim a majority (+50%)of votes in any constituency, deciding on UK wide policies is less divisive than 100+ MSPs elected under proportional representation (however flawed the UK preferred system was, if it continues as is) deciding on Scottish only policies to benefit Scotland with the tools to do that more competently and less expensively would be? Really?

Sure, after Independence there will be political division......but it won't be based on a Westminster colonial perception which considers Scotland as a Region of the UK, because Westminster believes Scotland was extinguished when the Union was signed...and is less important, in the Westminster scheme of things than even the North of England. What it will be remains to be seen..but we are less inclined, at the moment anyway (though I can't forecast Scotland in the years to come, any more than anyone can forecast what the UK will be like after 2015), to consider money our only God.

I kinda liked the big society we had before the acquisition of money became the UK God in the late 70's, and the buying of votes became the imperative for political parties to get elected, rather than just doing what was necessary for the common good for all parts of society .....and when the majority of us didn't just exist to engender profits for businesses. Maybe in Scotland we can get back to having something approaching a real community again......one which doesn't do scapegoating of any element within it as an excuse to trash them...and doesn't continue to pay failed bankers/businessmen etc silly money as salaries..and even sillier bonuses for coming into work and trashing the business (and the economy).

Rheghead
12-Sep-13, 23:10
So you are saying that the UK is not Fair, Equal or Hopeful? I can agree with that!

In the UK, without Scottish Independence, there is political division(big style) but not only political division, also attitude division....and little hope for improvement staying in the 4th most unequal society in the world. So is your point that the political division, engendered in a FPTP system which produces 500+ MPs for English Constituencies and 100+ MPS from Non-English constituencies, few, if any, of which can claim a majority (+50%)of votes in any constituency, deciding on UK wide policies is less divisive than 100+ MSPs elected under proportional representation (however flawed the UK preferred system was, if it continues as is) deciding on Scottish only policies to benefit Scotland with the tools to do that more competently and less expensively would be? Really?

Sure, after Independence there will be political division......but it won't be based on a Westminster colonial perception which considers Scotland as a Region of the UK, because Westminster believes Scotland was extinguished when the Union was signed...and is less important, in the Westminster scheme of things than even the North of England. What it will be remains to be seen..but we are less inclined, at the moment anyway (though I can't forecast Scotland in the years to come, any more than anyone can forecast what the UK will be like after 2015), to consider money our only God.

I kinda liked the big society we had before the acquisition of money became the UK God in the late 70's, and the buying of votes became the imperative for political parties to get elected, rather than just doing what was necessary for the common good for all parts of society .....and when the majority of us didn't just exist to engender profits for businesses. Maybe in Scotland we can get back to having something approaching a real community again......one which doesn't do scapegoating of any element within it as an excuse to trash them...and doesn't continue to pay failed bankers/businessmen etc silly money as salaries..and even sillier bonuses for coming into work and trashing the business (and the economy).

Oh please! spare us it.

golach
12-Sep-13, 23:14
Maybe in Scotland we can get back to having something approaching a real community again......one which doesn't do scapegoating of any element within it as an excuse to trash them...and doesn't continue to pay failed bankers/businessmen etc silly money as salaries..and even sillier bonuses for coming into work and trashing the business (and the economy).

Aye right, when the First minister is in the act too, He is as bad as the failed bankers/businessmen. He has cost us £790.000 already on this one deal, how many much more has he cost us with his daft ideas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24067411

squidge
13-Sep-13, 00:23
The question should be what on earth were the labour party doing paying £840 000 for a piece of land that was only worth £50 000. The land was sold at public auction to the highest bidder. Land is worth what it is worth.If the Labour party believe the land was worth what they paid for it in 2008 then they cant complain when today it is only worth what someone will pay for it. Ministers apparently are excluded from land deals. And to hear that man on Newsnight scotland tonight berate John Swinney for not giving enough to help with the bedroom tax when labour created the monster and the only solution they have to dealing with it is to pay the damn thing; when labour councils are still threatening tenants with eviction over bedroom tax arrears and when the Labour Leader will not commit the party to abolishing this tax is frankly nauseating.

squidge
13-Sep-13, 00:35
Fairness, Equality and Hope?Scottish independence is not a champion of Fairness, Equality and Hope. Rather, Scottish Independence is a symptom of the Fairness, Equality and Hope of our current system that has been championed by the British social reformers of the 20th and 21st century.After Scottish independence, there will be political division. There is nothing Fair, Equal or Hopeful about any form of division.Do you know what? I cant even be bothered. British Social reform in the 21st Century? Fair? Dont make me laugh! Are you ok rheg? Enough food on the table tonight? Enough oil? Gas? Coal? Wood? Solar energy or power from your own wee turbine? A nice comfy bought roof over your head? A job? New clothes for your family? Maybe even a wee holiday? Did you manage to afford school uniforms in time for them going back? No health problems that stop you working? Not needing beta blockers to help you deal with panic attacks caused by getti g a letter for a medical this morning? Now I know you think im a stupid dazzled wee girl but jeepers Rheg even you must read the papers and see there is nothing to be proud of about social reforms in the 21st century.

equusdriving
13-Sep-13, 11:22
Don't forget you would have all the extra money below to spend, if you cut out just some of the ludicrous ways the current Holyrood clowns waste taxpayers money

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/holyrood-art-to-cost-taxpayer-163-250-000-1-504359
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/80010/Holyrood-s-114m-consultancy-fees-a-waste-of-money
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2013/09/holyrood-urged-back-scottish-enterprise-probe/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1457593/Holyrood-firms-paid-100m-to-do-nothing.html
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/12/03/salmond-accused-of-wasting-money-over-ludicrous-moon-idea/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-of-wasting-taxpayers-1076196
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/381508/Salmond-s-wife-was-secret-guest-on-50k-Brave-jaunt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9955353/Alex-Salmond-in-golf-tournament-controversy-over-luxury-hotel-stay.html
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-to.html
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87395264/4m-taxpayers-money-spent-publicise-snp-eco-crusade
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89917794/1billion-cost-taxpayers-trimming-public-sector
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74186571/electric-car-charging-scheme-blows-fuse
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/84723001/outrage-over-snp-plans-hand-out-1bn-foreign-aid
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74128962/knife-crime-now-lower-priority-than-recycling
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87704768/vanity-project
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/413981/1-5m-wasted-on-wind-turbines-in-playgrounds
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-splash-out-300000-survey-1767420


all thanks to the caring, selfless, honest politicians that will do exactly what we want if we get Independence ,yeah right [evil]

Rheghead
13-Sep-13, 21:17
Do you know what? I cant even be bothered. British Social reform in the 21st Century? Fair? Dont make me laugh! Are you ok rheg? Enough food on the table tonight? Enough oil? Gas? Coal? Wood? Solar energy or power from your own wee turbine? A nice comfy bought roof over your head? A job? New clothes for your family? Maybe even a wee holiday? Did you manage to afford school uniforms in time for them going back? No health problems that stop you working? Not needing beta blockers to help you deal with panic attacks caused by getti g a letter for a medical this morning? Now I know you think im a stupid dazzled wee girl but jeepers Rheg even you must read the papers and see there is nothing to be proud of about social reforms in the 21st century.

I said social reforms of the 20th and 21st centuries but you chose to focus on the latter.

Yes I can do all that. I've worked for it and I've took the opportunities when they came. But this is not about me, it is about the whiney whinging, wo is us SNP argument that us Scots are poor. But it is an assymetric discussion. If you want to see real poverty then look at the third world. If Fairness and Equality and Hope are the buzzwords that really get you rocking and you really want to make a difference then cast your gaze onto campaigning for democracy and cancelling debt in the third world etc etc. You'd be waving a banner that we could all follow.

At least you'd give them some Hope but then they've pretty well had their fill of Hope as it is free, Equality and Fairness costs a whole lot more...

squidge
13-Sep-13, 21:35
I said social reforms of the 20th and 21st centuries but you chose to focus on the latter.

Yes I can do all that. I've worked for it and I've took the opportunities when they came. But this is not about me, it is about the whiney whinging, wo is us SNP argument that us Scots are poor. But it is an assymetric discussion. If you want to see real poverty then look at the third world. If Fairness and Equality and Hope are the buzzwords that really get you rocking and you really want to make a difference then cast your gaze onto campaigning for democracy and cancelling debt in the third world etc etc. You'd be waving a banner that we could all follow.

At least you'd give them some Hope but then they've pretty well had their fill of Hope as it is free, Equality and Fairness costs a whole lot more...

I am glad you arent struggling Rheghead and Im glad you took the opportunities and were able to do that. I do not begrudge that one iota. but its not about YOU or ME - its about those who ARE struggling and poor. You talk about supporting third world issues and guess what...... I do exactly that through a whole other load of stuff that I do. Scots are not poor - Scotland isnt poor but SOME people are poor both in Scotland AND the rest of the UK and too many of them. I do what I can do for as many places as I can - particularly through supporting women's charities in the third world. But I believe that through campaigning for an Independent Scotland to be a fairer and more equal place to live we can improve the lot of those people who are poor and who are sick or disabled or vulnerable and in turn we will influence and change politics within the rest of the UK.

squidge
13-Sep-13, 21:39
Don't forget you would have all the extra money below to spend, if you cut out just some of the ludicrous ways the current Holyrood clowns waste taxpayers money

1 http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/holyrood-art-to-cost-taxpayer-163-250-000-1-504359
2 http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/80010/Holyrood-s-114m-consultancy-fees-a-waste-of-money
3 http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2013/09/holyrood-urged-back-scottish-enterprise-probe/
4 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1457593/Holyrood-firms-paid-100m-to-do-nothing.html
5 http://nationalcollective.com/2012/12/03/salmond-accused-of-wasting-money-over-ludicrous-moon-idea/
6 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-of-wasting-taxpayers-1076196
7. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/381508/Salmond-s-wife-was-secret-guest-on-50k-Brave-jaunt
8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9955353/Alex-Salmond-in-golf-tournament-controversy-over-luxury-hotel-stay.html
9 http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-to.html
10 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87395264/4m-taxpayers-money-spent-publicise-snp-eco-crusade
11. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89917794/1billion-cost-taxpayers-trimming-public-sector
12 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74186571/electric-car-charging-scheme-blows-fuse
13 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/84723001/outrage-over-snp-plans-hand-out-1bn-foreign-aid
14 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/74128962/knife-crime-now-lower-priority-than-recycling
15 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/87704768/vanity-project
16. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/413981/1-5m-wasted-on-wind-turbines-in-playgrounds
17 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-splash-out-300000-survey-1767420
Okay Equus I’ll Bite – lets have a look at your list….. I have numbered them for easy reference.

1 – 4 Hmm " Current Clowns" by that I assume that you mean the Current Scottish government. It seems strange then that the first four links refer to Things that happened as long ago as 2000 - despite your wishful thinking equus it seems odd that you think these are the CURRENT governments fault.

5. This makes me wonder if you even READ the links you posted as this links to a spoof article which isnt actually real.:roll:

6. I would agree this seems to be a waste of money too – although if it was made up of people already employed and they were just redeployed rather than appointed externally to the post then its perhaps less of a waste than it initially seems.

7,9,10.12 and 14 all refer to the promotion of policies and Scotland. Promoting Scotland is the job of the First Minister. The SNP overnment have made no secret of the fact that the environment is a priority for them so you would expect – and indeed it was in their manifesto that this was a high priority – They ot votes and won the right to form a government with people knowing that. You might not agree with their priorities but that doesn’t make them a waste of money.

8. I also think that Alex Salmond could have spent less on his stay but it says that he carried out 8 official engagements and I would like to know if the hotel was part of these. In addition, Government Departments do not pay the full rate that you and I would pay – there is a government rate for hotels which often means that one can stay even in a high quality hotel for the price of a lower quality hotel. Even so – The Culloden is very posh and he probably could have stayed cheaper elsewhere. Ill give you that one.

11. Relates to redundancies and severance pay for staff affected by reductions in spending. Seems like a lot of money although it appears with further research that it equates to less than £20K per person. Whilst this means that people will have got more than this it also means that people will have got less than this. Quite often redundancy payments are legal requirements. The most that someone seems to have been paid is £600 000. A lot of money but it actually pales into insignificance at the rate of pay offs paid to BBC executives.

13. So you think foreign aid is a waste of money? This article is actually misleading. Scotland currently spends around 958 million in Foreign aid – its share of the Uk aid budget is 949 million and then on top of that the Scottish government spends a further 9 million. Making a total Scotland aid budget of 958 million. An Independent Scotland would try to take this to 1.5billion after Independence. This actually equates to around 1% of Scotland’s GDP. Foreign Aid is important and valuable but if you think it’s a waste of money then I’m not surprised that you quoted so many articles from the Daily Mail – that’s their stock in trade – bash the foreigners……

15 Eh? The Daily Mail thinks everything is a vanity project so you just picked a random all encompassing link? No detail? No nothing. This is just poor, Equus.

16. An experiment that didn’t work. A waste of money? Well perhaps although I am sure that there are people who think otherwise – again I tend to agree with you so Ill give you that one.

17. It’s a government’s job to consult with people and I think Social Attitude Surveys are far far better value for money than endless ridiculous polls on independence.

So we agree on a couple of things. But even if we add the amounts together excluding the first four cos they don’t even meet your OWN criteria and the fifth cos that’s just a piece of satire we are left with around the £2.5 bn mark.

That’s a lot of money but you know what - the HS2 link is costing Scotland over £4.6bn and only goes as far as Birmingham!!!! Trident costs around £1.6m a year and the upgrade has already cost Scotland £320 million in design costs alone and the upgrade to London Sewers is costing Scotland £400m. The UK government has already wasted £34m on a universal credit IT system which doesn’t work and this may rise to £200m. They have spent £66m on Atos Appeals and on and on it goes.

So lets not talk about wasting money in Holyrood when the greed and ineptiude of politicians in Westminster beggars belief.

As a final point – I have never said that politicians in an independent Scotland are any more fair or honest than any other. What I have said is that we have an opportunity to grow and develop a fairer more equal society. We should take it.

equusdriving
13-Sep-13, 21:56
As a final point – I have never said that politicians in an independent Scotland are any more fair or honest than any otherno you just slag of one to aid your cause, for doing exactly the same thing as the other one does but you somehow overlook that in the name of your cause.
What I have said is that we have an opportunity to grow and develop a fairer more equal society please explain how that works, starting from after Independence and whatever government has been elected? and finishing with "a fairer more equal society" bearing in mind you agree "that politicians in an independent Scotland are not any more fair or honest than any other"

Rheghead
13-Sep-13, 22:04
I am glad you arent struggling Rheghead and Im glad you took the opportunities and were able to do that. I do not begrudge that one iota. but its not about YOU or ME - its about those who ARE struggling and poor. You talk about supporting third world issues and guess what...... I do exactly that through a whole other load of stuff that I do. Scots are not poor - Scotland isnt poor but SOME people are poor both in Scotland AND the rest of the UK and too many of them. I do what I can do for as many places as I can - particularly through supporting women's charities in the third world. But I believe that through campaigning for an Independent Scotland to be a fairer and more equal place to live we can improve the lot of those people who are poor and who are sick or disabled or vulnerable and in turn we will influence and change politics within the rest of the UK.

And there in a nutshell is your problem. You have no evidence to prove Scotland is going to be a Fairer and more Equal place to live, you can only Hope it is.

Oddquine
13-Sep-13, 22:15
And there in a nutshell is your problem. You have no evidence to prove Scotland is going to be a Fairer and more Equal place to live, you can only Hope it is.

Just as we know that the UK is not a fairer and more equal place to live right now...and we have no evidence to prove it will improve in the future .and all forecasts seem to infer that it will take years, if it does improve at all...so your point is?

equusdriving
13-Sep-13, 22:19
Just as we know that the UK is not a fairer and more equal place to live right now...and we have no evidence to prove it will improve in the future .and all forecasts seem to infer that it will take years, if it does improve at all...so your point is?
I would have thought it was obvious Don't jump from the pan into the fire

squidge
13-Sep-13, 22:58
no you just slag of one for doing the same as the other . please explain how that works, starting from after Independence and whatever government has been elected?

It is opportunity that is key.

Firstly - Within an Independent Scotland the elected government will be accountable to people in Scotland in a way that the Westminster government is not. I have previously shown that the Scottish votes have not changed the result in almost all the General Elections since the war. The result would have been the same even if there were no Scottish votes. This effectively means that regardless of whether the majority of Scottish voters think the current Westminster Government are lying arrogant self serving greedy liars the Scottish Electorate will not be able to vote that government out of office. If Scotland is Independent and the majority of voters think that the Scottish Government are lying arrogant self serving greedy liars the Scottish Electorate will be able to vote their government out of office.


We have the opportunity to grow a fairer society by our vote. The various parties will offer their manifestos and the Scottish electorate will vote on these and we will have an opportunity to vote for the party that offers us a better deal. This is my hope. It might not happen as I have said repeatedly but NONE of the Westminster parties are offering policies which will even begin to tackle the inequalities we have in our society. This means within the UK there is no opportunity to even start to do something different. Independence gives us the opportunity for change and for doing something differently so I will take that thank you very much.

There is already a commitment amongst pro independence parties to implement a constitution which will enshrine the rights of the people. The commitment is that all parties and people will be able to contribute to this important document. This will be important in defining the sort of new Independent Nation Scotland will be. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

In addition - in an Independent Scotland the Scottish government will have Scottish Priorities as its Reason for existence. Westminster has responsibilities for the whole of the UK and Scottish Priorities are only a part of their remit.


Therefore Independence gives us a key and important opportunity for change which we dont currently have within the UK as a whole. The Electorate can choose to vote for a Government which offers an alternative to the same same same policies of the Westminster parties. Lets face it you can hardly put a pin between them.


And there in a nutshell is your problem. You have no evidence to prove Scotland is going to be a Fairer and more Equal place to live, you can only Hope it is.

Hope may be what I have - sneer if you like - but Ill tell both of you, Rheghead and Equus that if we stay with the union there is NO hope at all of anything changing. The gaps between poor and rich will grow bigger and the sick disabled and vulnerable will continue to be pilloried. Children needing looked after will continue to be failed and carers will continue to be undervalued whilst having to fight for everything they need to help with the person they are caring for. Life expectancy will continue to depend on how wealthy you are and the creeping privatisation of the NHS will continue and, make no mistake, will affect Scotland as the Block grant is reduced to reflect the "savings" being made in England.

Ill take hope over that any day of the week. We can have the Scotland that the majority of the Scottish Electorate would choose. We dont have the UK that the majority of the Scottish Electorate would choose.

Rheghead
13-Sep-13, 23:03
Just as we know that the UK is not a fairer and more equal place to live right now...and we have no evidence to prove it will improve in the future .and all forecasts seem to infer that it will take years, if it does improve at all...so your point is?

Please define your version of fairer and equal for me please. Communism?

squidge
13-Sep-13, 23:13
Communism?

Oh Rheghead - you are sending me off to my bed laughing my head off..... Communism indeed!!!!!![lol]

Rheghead
13-Sep-13, 23:17
Oh Rheghead - you are sending me off to my bed laughing my head off..... Communism indeed!!!!!![lol]

Let her answer, let her answer. She has to be mindful of her previous utterances though...

Rheghead
13-Sep-13, 23:25
Hope may be what I have - sneer if you like - but Ill tell both of you, Rheghead and Equus that if we stay with the union there is NO hope at all of anything changing. The gaps between poor and rich will grow bigger and the sick disabled and vulnerable will continue to be pilloried.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It is no secret that I have left leaning political tendencies. And I have more in common with the Green Party than any other party. In 2010, the UK got it's first Green party MP and nearly had 2 if Norwich went a little further. Green shoots indeed. The tories are on the wane and UKIP just seem to be in ascension but you can't change a monster by running away. That is political cowardice. You have to change it from within to make real change or Scottish Independence is just political escapism.

Oddquine
13-Sep-13, 23:37
Please define your version of fairer and equal for me please. Communism?

:roll: <10 characters>

squidge
14-Sep-13, 00:13
Political escapism? Running Away? nope not any of that - political escapism is allowing someone else to make decisions that you could make for yourself but you wont cos its too hard or you are too scared or you just cant be bothered. Running away is to shirk your responsibilities; to turn your back on all those people who are not having a good time, all those suffering under the worst excesses of this and previous governments and paying off your mortgage, taking your bonuses, shutting the door and saying I'm alright Jack and I dont care about you. When you could have done something to change things, influence policy makers and improve opportunities for equality.

I cant change what happens in the third world, I cant change what happens in Sheffield to any great degree. I can change what happens here in Scotland and I can do that by working to make sure that Scotland is the best it can be, for all the people that live her, for everyone looking at us and then we can work to influence Sheffield and the rest of the UK, we can work to influence Europe and Nato, we can work to influence what happens in the third world. (Maybe by Equus's "waste of money foreign aid budget") We have to try to do the best we can and Independence gives us that opportunity in a way we dont have now.

Im sure that you dont really do that Rheghead but if you really really want something better, fairer or even greener then you have to take every opportunity to change things that you get. If you dont then you might as well pay off your mortgage, take your bonus, shut the door and say I'm alright Jack and I dont care about you or the fact that this government thinks its acceptable for Jobcentres to push people to apply for "jobs" which are actually only taking part in clinical drug trials... You couldnt make it up.... and these offers are implicit with threats to remove benefits if the person does not apply. What next???? Claim JSA by donating a kidney? Politics in the UK has to change and we have a chance to change it. Westminster Politics offer no choice - only Scotland has an alternative.

equusdriving
14-Sep-13, 01:54
Westminster Politics offer no choice - only Scotland has an alternative.

so a bit like deal or no deal we have only got the 100k box but you want to swap it for a box that could have a better prize or could just as easy have 1p, its called gambling and what you want is not only gambling with your future and livelihood its gambling with all the people's lives that you constantly propose to be campaigning for like the disabled, unemployed, sick etc[evil]

squidge
14-Sep-13, 08:09
Making an informed choice equus.

Some facts about independence

Scotland can afford to be Independent. Its GDP matches the UK now even WITHOUT oil.
After independence Scotland will have a government which WILL be more accountable to the electorate.
After Independence Scotland will have a government which WILL reflect the priorities of the Scottish people
After Independence Scotland will have a government which WILL spend money on those priorities
After Independence Scotland will have control over HOW it spends its money
After Independence Scotland will have the government it voted for
After Independence money raised in Scotland WILL be spent on Scottish priorities instead of HS2 or london sewersAfter
After Independence we WILL have a written constitution

These are the fundamentals of independence - Lets look at some other stuff.
After Independence you will be able to vote for a policy to scrap the bedroom tax. None of the Westminster parties are offering this
After independence you will be able to vote for a policy to scrap trident. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.
After Independence you will be able to vote for a policy to continue with free higher education. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.
After Independence you will be able to vote for an immigration policy which suits Scotland. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.

Lets look at the opportunities that Independence offers which are not offered as part of the UK.
The opportunity to change the welfare system to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
The opportunity to change the tax system to support the personal, business and fiscal requirements of the people of Scotland.
The opportunity to do anything we (the voters) want, differently
The opportunity for a distinctive Scottish voice to be heard in Europe and other partnerships
The opportunity to have an oil fund
The opportunity to have a political opposition which is effective and robust. ( although after SLABs performance over the last few weeks Im not sure about this one myself)

You argue that this is a gamble and staying with the union offers certainty and stability. So lets see, certainty about what Equus? What is certain for Scotland after 2016 if we remain as part of the Union?

ducati
14-Sep-13, 08:30
We can have the Scotland that the majority of the Scottish Electorate would choose. We dont have the UK that the majority of the Scottish Electorate would choose.



Actually, if you look at the polls you don't like, we do.


The current UK government is introducing lots of change to make us a fairer society, more in one parliamentary session than we have seen in decades. You don't like any of it.

Here are a couple of things from a long list in current Scotland that I don't think are fairer than the rest of the UK.

I am paying for other people's prescriptions when they can perfectly well afford them themselves.

I am paying to further educate other people's children so they can get a better job than me; Bankers, lawyers etc.

squidge
14-Sep-13, 09:04
You are paying for other peoples children to get further educated so they can be doctors lawyers bankers and care for you, your money and your legal issues. You are paying for education so that everyone, children AND adults can have the opportunity to realise their potential whatever their financial situation: you are paying for education because other people paid for yours and you are paying for education so that society has an educated population able to secure work which in turn creates wealth in the society you live in.

You are paying for free prescriptions so that no one including you, never has to choose food over medicine. That in turn gives us a healthier population so that people are better able to work and to enjoy better health which also contributes to a wealthier society.

Complaining about paying for these is like complaining that you dont have a car so none of your taxes should go towards roads, or dont break the law so shouldnt have to pay for policemen or dont have a streetlight at the end of your drive so shouldnt have to pay for street lighting. You would soon complain if when you walked into town you fell over the big crack in the road as you were running away from the thief that you didnt spot cos it was dark and who was trying to steal your wallet!!!!!

ducati
14-Sep-13, 09:14
You are paying for other peoples children to get further educated so they can be doctors lawyers bankers and care for you, your money and your legal issues. You are paying for education so that everyone, children AND adults can have the opportunity to realise their potential whatever their financial situation: you are paying for education because other people paid for yours and you are paying for education so that society has an educated population able to secure work which in turn creates wealth in the society you live in.

You are paying for free prescriptions so that no one including you, never has to choose food over medicine. That in turn gives us a healthier population so that people are better able to work and to enjoy better health which also contributes to a wealthier society.

Complaining about paying for these is like complaining that you dont have a car so none of your taxes should go towards roads, or dont break the law so shouldnt have to pay for policemen or dont have a streetlight at the end of your drive so shouldnt have to pay for street lighting. You would soon complain if when you walked into town you fell over the big crack in the road as you were running away from the thief that you didnt spot cos it was dark and who was trying to steal your wallet!!!!!

Disagree on all counts. No one payed for my further education. (Left skoole :lol: at 15) And I don't see why free prescriptions shouldn't be means tested, likewise winter fuel subsidies and concessionary fairs etc.

I wanta fairer society and I want it NOW!

squidge
14-Sep-13, 09:23
Lol Ducati ... Your education was paid for as long as you wanted or were capable of. If you chose to go to university today it would be paid for which would ensure that you had the same opportunity for access as any one of the kids you begrudge paying for.

Means testing the things you mention costs massive amounts of money more than it costs to fund the actual policy. I would like to see winter fuel allowance taken back from the wealthiest thro the tax system but i believe that transport and prescriptions and education should be free.. Thing is Ducati, the fairer society you want NOW is one that is better and fairer for YOU, not better and fairer for society as a whole.

You know what though Ducati, in an Independent Scotland you will still be able to vote for the stuff you want. The SDA or the Scottish Conservatives are likely to offer policies which appeal to you. Probably SLAB too and if the majority of Scottish voters agree they will form the government. On you go.

golach
14-Sep-13, 09:35
Making an informed choice equus.

Some facts about independence

Scotland can afford to be Independent. Its GDP matches the UK now even WITHOUT oil.
After independence Scotland will have a government which WILL be more accountable to the electorate.
After Independence Scotland will have a government which WILL reflect the priorities of the Scottish people
After Independence Scotland will have a government which WILL spend money on those priorities
After Independence Scotland will have control over HOW it spends its money
After Independence Scotland will have the government it voted for
After Independence money raised in Scotland WILL be spent on Scottish priorities instead of HS2 or london sewersAfter
After Independence we WILL have a written constitution

These are the fundamentals of independence - Lets look at some other stuff.
After Independence you will be able to vote for a policy to scrap the bedroom tax. None of the Westminster parties are offering this
After independence you will be able to vote for a policy to scrap trident. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.
After Independence you will be able to vote for a policy to continue with free higher education. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.
After Independence you will be able to vote for an immigration policy which suits Scotland. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.

Lets look at the opportunities that Independence offers which are not offered as part of the UK.
The opportunity to change the welfare system to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
The opportunity to change the tax system to support the personal, business and fiscal requirements of the people of Scotland.
The opportunity to do anything we (the voters) want, differently
The opportunity for a distinctive Scottish voice to be heard in Europe and other partnerships
The opportunity to have an oil fund
The opportunity to have a political opposition which is effective and robust. ( although after SLABs performance over the last few weeks Im not sure about this one myself)

You argue that this is a gamble and staying with the union offers certainty and stability. So lets see, certainty about what Equus? What is certain for Scotland after 2016 if we remain as part of the Union?

I like your xmas and birthday wish list Squidge, but I personally think you will get none of the above.

squidge
14-Sep-13, 09:43
How is all that stuff a wishlist Golach? Are you saying that all the things i say are facts about Independence are NOT facts? Are you saying that the policies I mention are NOT going to be available to Scottish Voters or ARE being offered by Westminster? Or are you saying that Independence does not offer us the opportunities that I mentioned or that those oportunities are also available as part of the union? Or are you simply taking a roundabout patronising way of saying the YES vote might not win the referendum?


Well Golach, I know that. If that happens we are back to Rhegheads green shoots which in the next ten years might see another Green party candidate elected to Westminster if Norwich find their ... Erm ... Courage. I will continue to fight for a better society within the union but I will regret that Scotland wasnt braver.

golach
14-Sep-13, 10:30
I went from snidey to patronising in the blink of an eye, thanks Squidge :lol:

squidge
14-Sep-13, 10:48
You did, i thought i was being a bit harsh lol and you know I ALWAYS try to be nice ;)

ducati
14-Sep-13, 11:51
You know what though Ducati, in an Independent Scotland you will still be able to vote for the stuff you want. The SDA or the Scottish Conservatives are likely to offer policies which appeal to you. Probably SLAB too and if the majority of Scottish voters agree they will form the government. On you go.

I've already got what I want thanks, membership of the UK. I won't be voting to throw it away.

Phill
14-Sep-13, 12:15
Hmmmm, fixed some bits.


Scotland can afford to be Independent. Its GDP matches the UK now even WITHOUT oil.Really? And Scotland will retain this GDP?



After independence Scotland will have a government which MAY be more accountable to SOME of the electorate.

After Independence Scotland will have a government which MAY reflect the priorities of SOME of the Scottish people

After Independence Scotland will have a government which MAY spend SOME money on those priorities

After Independence Scotland will have control over HOW it spends its moneyNot in its current proposal.



After Independence Scotland will have the government it voted forNo.



After Independence money raised in Scotland SHOULD be spent on Scottish priorities instead of HS2 or london sewers



After Independence you MAY be able to vote for a policy to scrap the bedroom tax. None of the Westminster parties are offering this

After independence you will NOT be able to vote for a policy to scrap trident. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.

After Independence you will be able to vote for a policy to continue with free higher education. None of the Westminster parties are offering that. More funding to find through...Taxation?



After Independence you will be able to vote for an immigration policy which suits Scotland. None of the Westminster parties are offering that.Not with its current proposal.



The opportunity to change the welfare system to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.Maybe.



The opportunity to change the tax system to support the personal, business and fiscal requirements of the people of Scotland. Some people. SOME. Particularly the wealthy and powerful around the South East / Edinburgh area. (sound familiar?)



The opportunity to do anything we (the voters) want, differentlyLOL's (actual)



The opportunity for a distinctive Scottish voice to be heard in Europe and other partnershipsHmmm yes. Interesting choice of wording 'distinctive'.



The opportunity to have an oil fundToo late.



The opportunity to have a political opposition which is effective and robust. ( although after SLABs performance over the last few weeks Im not sure about this one myself)Same old troffers, just wearing a different rosette.

squidge
14-Sep-13, 19:03
Really? And Scotland will retain this GDP?

I beleive it will - I think we will have an economy which will grow and at the very least keep up with the rest of the UK and which many commentators think will do better than the what we have now. Do you think it will drop and be worse than the rest of the UK? If so why?

The changes that you made to my points are valid too however when a group of people vote the group of people get the result that the group wants - within that group some might want one thing and some another but as a whole the result is that of the group.

So - Scotland as a whole gets the result that Scotland wants. The result reflects the priorities of the Scottish Electorate as a whole and the money raised in Scotland will be spent on the priorities that Scotland as a whole has decided to vote for.

How will Scotland NOT have the government that it votes for in an independent Scotland? Will it have the government that the whole UK votes for, or the government that Wales votes for? Or the Government that the rest of Europe votes for? No After Independence Scotland will have the Government that Scotland votes into power. sorry Phil - NO doesnt make any sense at all. Perhaps you could explain why you think it wont have.

Again your changes in the next bit are incorrect. The SNP have definitely stated they will scrap the Bedroom tax after independence - that will be in their manifesto and you will be able to vote for the SNP if you want. The Labour Party appear to have finally said they will have in their manifesto to scrap the bedroom tax for 2015. The SNP and the Green Party are committed to removing trident and you will be able to vote for the green party and the SNP after Independence. Also the Scottish Green Party and the SNP are committed to free education - you will be able to vote for the SNP and the Green Party. There are others which support the things I have mentioned - The SSP, Solidarity and others which dont like SLAB, the Lib-Dems, the Tory Party, and the SDA so you WILL be able to choose which party to vote on dependent on what your own priorities are. Why do you think that you wont be able to vote for these things?


More funding to find through...Taxation?. Maybe but likely as not. There are plenty of places where the savings we will make from not being part of the union will cover the costs of the things that I mentioned. We are actually spending money and a lot of money to fight the bedroom tax and protect people from its worst effects which if it was scrapped we would not have to spend. We dont have the problems with housing benefit that the bedroom tax was supposed to balance and so we dont need the tax itself. We meet the cost of free education already out of the money we already have. Say what you will the Government has managed to balance the budget even considering the free education. Removing Trident might be costly but I personally think it is worth the cost. Some people may not but Id pay more tax for things that are important to me.



Not with its current proposal. I have said before that I would prefer Scotland to have its own currency but even keeping the pound and agreeing fiscal boundaries we would not have to spend money on the bedroom tax, on trident replacement, on HS2 or other projects that the Westminster government decides have benefit nationwide. Scotland would have to be consulted and agree that it will benefit Scotland. So I say again - Scotland will have contril over how it spends its money - perhaps you could tell me why you think that this is not so.



Maybe.Some people. SOME. Particularly the wealthy and powerful around the South East / Edinburgh area. (sound familiar?) I dont really understand what point you are making here - there is definitely the opportunity to do the things I said - change the welfare and the tax system. How we change them and whether we take these opportunities is to be decided but the opportunity to change things is there in a way we dont have in the UK.





Hmmm yes. Interesting choice of wording 'distinctive'. I dont understand the point you are making here. If you are speaking for Scotland alone then you are distinctive from the rest of the UK.



Too late. Not necessarily, It depends on all sorts of things but as I said it is an opportunity and we can take it or not as we choose.



Same old troffers, just wearing a different rosette. Dont particularly disagree with that although we may find that some of the Scottish MPs who will no longer have seats in Westminster will return and influence things. We have a different system in Holyrood than in Westminster and we can work at developing a more robust opposition. We NEED to do that actually and I would like to see changes to ensure that we have a good opposition.

golach
14-Sep-13, 20:14
sighs, Squidge, your points are all your wish list, nothing you have posted are in tablets of stone, and I doubt if they ever will be.

Rheghead
14-Sep-13, 21:26
Political escapism? Running Away? nope not any of that - political escapism is allowing someone else to make decisions that you could make for yourself but you wont cos its too hard or you are too scared or you just cant be bothered. Running away is to shirk your responsibilities; to turn your back on all those people who are not having a good time, all those suffering under the worst excesses of this and previous governments and paying off your mortgage, taking your bonuses, shutting the door and saying I'm alright Jack and I dont care about you. When you could have done something to change things, influence policy makers and improve opportunities for equality.

I cant change what happens in the third world, I cant change what happens in Sheffield to any great degree. I can change what happens here in Scotland and I can do that by working to make sure that Scotland is the best it can be, for all the people that live her, for everyone looking at us and then we can work to influence Sheffield and the rest of the UK, we can work to influence Europe and Nato, we can work to influence what happens in the third world. (Maybe by Equus's "waste of money foreign aid budget") We have to try to do the best we can and Independence gives us that opportunity in a way we dont have now.

Im sure that you dont really do that Rheghead but if you really really want something better, fairer or even greener then you have to take every opportunity to change things that you get. If you dont then you might as well pay off your mortgage, take your bonus, shut the door and say I'm alright Jack and I dont care about you or the fact that this government thinks its acceptable for Jobcentres to push people to apply for "jobs" which are actually only taking part in clinical drug trials... You couldnt make it up.... and these offers are implicit with threats to remove benefits if the person does not apply. What next???? Claim JSA by donating a kidney? Politics in the UK has to change and we have a chance to change it. Westminster Politics offer no choice - only Scotland has an alternative.

I thought you couldn't be bothered?

squidge
14-Sep-13, 23:21
Ach you know me Rheg - cant resist a good debate;)

However - it seems I was wrong to be optimistic about labour refinding their ...erm.... spines - seems Jackie Baillie overstepped the mark and Scrapping the bedroom tax isnt on the agenda after all

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/baillie-bedroom-tax-comments-not-labour-policy-1-3093800

Appalling.

Phill
15-Sep-13, 01:38
The result reflects the priorities of the Scottish Electorate as a whole and the money raised in Scotland will be spent on the priorities that Scotland as a whole has decided to vote for.

Removing Trident might be costly but I personally think it is worth the cost. Some people may not but Id pay more tax for things that are important to me.

I dont really understand what point you are making here...


I dont understand the point you are making here.

Squidge, you really are not that daft to not understand. Take a step back and just consider some of what you are saying.
Consider the actual reality.
Not the SNP / Salmond cherry picked sales pitch.

Remember, the EU. Remember what Salmond is choosing.

If it were true independence, then, yes. I would be there helping build the barricades. But, that is not on offer.

Alrock
15-Sep-13, 01:56
If it were true independence, then, yes. I would be there helping build the barricades.

So... What is your definition of true independence?

squidge
15-Sep-13, 09:05
Phil. Disappointing to have you imply that because I disagree with you I am being somehow daft but hey ho... Didnt take long!

I need to remember what I - Me - mother, wife, worker, friend, volunteer, daughter, educator, peace maker, british citizen, english woman noisy, opinionated wifie - am choosing. What after extensive reading and research and discussion I am standing for. SNP or Alex Salmond are not important, they/ he are nothing until after the referendum. Golach is right - without a yes vote - the future I would like for my family, the type of society I want for everybody - is NEVER going to happen. I have spent 35 years working for improvements in fairness and equality and have seen some fantastic things happen but the move to the right for the Labour Party, the complete sell out of the Lib-Dems, the decimation of public services and the isolation of the poor and vulnerable i have seen in this century shocked me and filled me with despair for the future.

I watched Donald Dewar become the first First Minister of Scotland with pride and hope and i believed that Scotland would have a greater voice to help people with its own parliament. I think it has helped but it has been shown that it isnt enough to make the changes that need to be made to make us the best we can be.

Independence gives us the chance to make the changes and take the decisions we need to take to make society better. Queen or a republic, pound or scottish currency, these are things that the people of Scotland can choose after the referendum.

The important thing is that only with a YES vote do we get that chance to choose. The referendum is not the end, the pinnacle, the final destination. Its actually just the start, its like opening the door to step outside.... If you dont do that you are going nowhere.

equusdriving
15-Sep-13, 11:17
Independence gives us the chance to make the changes and take the decisions we need to take to make society better. Queen or a republic, pound or scottish currency, these are things that the people of Scotland can choose after the referendum.oh is that right? :confuseddo you really believe that all the life changing decisions will be just down to an Independent Scotland to decide and there wont need to be agreement from Westminster, The Bank of England or the EU etc on virtually every major decision to be made:(

Humerous Vegetable
15-Sep-13, 11:58
Squidge, you really are not that daft to not understand. Take a step back and just consider some of what you are saying.
Consider the actual reality.
Not the SNP / Salmond cherry picked sales pitch.

Remember, the EU. Remember what Salmond is choosing.

If it were true independence, then, yes. I would be there helping build the barricades. But, that is not on offer.

It doesn't matter what "Salmond is choosing" until after the referendum, when you can vote for whichever party lights your particular candle. You are not voting SNP at the referendum, you are voting for the chance to determine your own future, not dictated by what the southeast of England decides is good for Scotland. True independence is the choice and ability of the electorate to determine the structure of their nation.
The Scottish Labour party is currently in a quiet stramach with their national leadership, and needs to secede from them if it wants to retain any political credibility in Scotland. MPs in Westminster (of any party) should not have a voice in the independence debate, because they have a vested interest in hanging on to the status quo. An independent Scotland would have no need of Westminster MPs, or members of the House of Lords, and their salaries, perks and expenses would disappear after Scotland became an independent country again.

ducati
15-Sep-13, 14:02
What increasingly irritates me, is the the way the independentists seem to be assuming they are speaking for the people of Scotland. They are not. They are speaking for a small, extreme group. What they will find in the referendum, is that as a rule, people of all sorts are resistant to change. You can help people with with change, but you need to coach them with chapter and verse. All we are getting from this group are vague assurances.

It won't work.

squidge
15-Sep-13, 14:11
Who here is speaking for the people of Scotland? The result of the referendum, the votes in the 2016 election and the party chosen to lead Scotland into Independence if the result is YES will do that when it happens. Me? Im speaking for me, I am answering questions, explaining my reasoning, offering evidence, challenging lists of links to practically a whole pile of nonsense, offering alternative opinions and generally having a nice time. Agree or not its your choice. I dont expect to influence a change in your opinion, im happy just to challenge it.

And you are wrong about helping people by coaching them with chapter and verse. The best way to encourage change is to encourage people to explore the issues and make their own decisions.

ducati
15-Sep-13, 18:57
And you are wrong about helping people by coaching them with chapter and verse. The best way to encourage change is to encourage people to explore the issues and make their own decisions.

Maybe if you have 100 years. You (independantists) have less than 1.

golach
15-Sep-13, 19:11
Agree or not its your choice. I dont expect to influence a change in your opinion, im happy just to challenge it..

Challenge away Squidge, your pleas for an independant Scotland are falling on my and many others deaf ears. Nothing you have said so far has made me, go ....oh wait a minute maybe Squidge is right.
I dont want to end up in a country like Iceland , Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Greece, all nearly bankrupt, in my opinion thats how Scotland will end up at the hands of the independantists.

squidge
15-Sep-13, 19:29
Maybe if you have 100 years. You (independantists) have less than 1.

IT will be a challenge - it IS a challenge but its exciting times. I will do my best and thats all that anyone can ask. BTW when did I move from being a "seperatist to an Independentist"? Squidge the Independentist isnt as easy to trip off the tongue as Squidge the Seperatist. :lol:


Challenge away Squidge, your pleas for an independant Scotland are falling on my and many others deaf ears. Nothing you have said so far has made me, go ....oh wait a minute maybe Squidge is right.
I dont want to end up in a country like Iceland , Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Greece, all nearly bankrupt, in my opinion thats how Scotland will end up at the hands of the independantists.

Ah Golach my old friend - I have absolutely completely and utterly no expectation of changing your mind. If I succeeded in doing that I would have to go into politics because I would have to be super fantastic at it and I have NO desire to do that at all. Please do not change your mind and make me do that.

I dont want to be any of the places you mentioned either, but why do you believe that Scotland will end up bankrupt. It has been said on this board many times and I would love to really understand why people think this is a likely situation.

ducati
15-Sep-13, 19:33
I dont want to be any of the places you mentioned either, but why do you believe that Scotland will end up bankrupt. It has been said on this board many times and I would love to really understand why people think this is a likely situation.

Ah, the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what is or is not, nor what is likely or unlikely. The only thing that matters is what the majority of the people believe.

Phill
15-Sep-13, 19:36
So... What is your definition of true independence?Outside of full EU membership. Own currency. Own defence. Own immigration. An entirely independent nation free from any external interference.

Phill
15-Sep-13, 19:44
Phil. Disappointing to have you imply that because I disagree with you I am being somehow daft but hey ho... Didnt take long!That is not what I said.

What hasn't taken long?


the decimation of public servicesWhich we are seeing by the SNP in preparation for their version of independence.

squidge
15-Sep-13, 19:53
Outside of full EU membership. Own currency. Own defence. Own immigration. An entirely independent nation free from any external interference.

But isnt that Isolationism Phil? I believe that Scotland needs to be outward looking and participating in world affairs as we move further into the 21st Century? Its not my idea of the future I would choose. Are you banking on David Cameron's referendum on getting out of Europe or are you interested in the SDA manifesto for an Independent Scotland? Seems like they might offer some of the policies you would like.



Which we are seeing by the SNP in preparation for their version of independence. Well they are saying that they are against the Royal Mail Privatisation even asking for the floatation to be put off until after the referendum. (Like thats going to happen) They appear to say there are more police officers and more nurses. They cant be responsible for closing tax, benefit and DVLA offices - those are not devolved. More teachers too I think. Can you explain a bit more for me so I can have a wee look.

Rheghead
15-Sep-13, 20:43
And another reason why independence is so bad is due to the nature of the demographics with respect to land ownership. Scotland is about 40% of the size of the UK but it is owned by relatively fewer people and out of them a greater proportion are people who live south of the border. So we will have independence but the land we walk on will be owned by foreigners whose primary interest lies with their own country. Ther'll be too much foreign interference in an independent Scotland's affairs

In Michael Corleone's infamous words, "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer."

Keep the Union.

Phill
15-Sep-13, 22:13
But isnt that Isolationism Phil?No, independence. Why claim powers from Westminster only to hand them to Brussels whilst letting Westminster organise Scotland's currency?


I believe that Scotland needs to be outward looking and participating in world affairs as we move further into the 21st Century? Its not my idea of the future I would choose. Are you banking on David Cameron's referendum on getting out of Europe or are you interested in the SDA manifesto for an Independent Scotland? Seems like they might offer some of the policies you would like.Really, No.

Still curious as to what didn't take long.

squidge
15-Sep-13, 22:34
Ah, the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what is or is not, nor what is likely or unlikely. The only thing that matters is what the majority of the people believe. Thats true but whenever I ask this question I never get an answer - why do people think that Scotland will be bankrupt after Independence. Secrets in Symmetry is fond of this point of view but never ever answers my questions - I think Im probably on ignore. :lol: What are people with the opinion that Scotland will be another Greece or Spain and bankrupt basing that opinion on? What have they read or heard that persuades them that Scotland will just crash completely? Is there anybody willing to answer this cos I dont get it.....

squidge
15-Sep-13, 22:57
And another reason why independence is so bad is due to the nature of the demographics with respect to land ownership. Scotland is about 40% of the size of the UK but it is owned by relatively fewer people and out of them a greater proportion are people who live south of the border. So we will have independence but the land we walk on will be owned by foreigners whose primary interest lies with their own country. Ther'll be too much foreign interference in an independent Scotland's affairs



The Scottish government is looking at ways to tackle this though. The lairds are not happy and think its all too far but there are complaints that it isnt going far enough or quickly enough according to Labour - although they are taking enough time to decide what to do about the Bedroom tax ( I know I know - I keep mentioning it - thats cos i am really really annoyed about Labours complete inability to make a decision Ill try not to say it again for the next 24 hours promise!!!!)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lairds-warn-holyrood-over-new-land-buy-out-powers-1-3023862


Westminsters Scottish Affairs Committee are running an open consultation on this and you can send in your views until 28th October and they will publish a report within 12 months.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/news/tor-land-reform/

Rheghead
15-Sep-13, 23:04
The Scottish government is looking at ways to tackle this though. The lairds are not happy and think its all too far but there are complaints that it isnt going far enough or quickly enough according to Labour - although they are taking enough time to decide what to do about the Bedroom tax ( I know I know - I keep mentioning it - thats cos i am really really annoyed about Labours complete inability to make a decision Ill try not to say it again for the next 24 hours promise!!!!)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lairds-warn-holyrood-over-new-land-buy-out-powers-1-3023862


Westminsters Scottish Affairs Committee are running an open consultation on this and you can send in your views until 28th October and they will publish a report within 12 months.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/news/tor-land-reform/

Unless Alex Salmond fancies doing something Mugabe-esque, I doubt anything can be done. So much for an Equal and Fair place to live I'd say. It just serves to be another problem that the SNP don't have answers for.

squidge
15-Sep-13, 23:15
Unless Alex Salmond fancies doing something Mugabe-esque, I doubt anything can be done. So much for an Equal and Fair place to live I'd say. It just serves to be another problem that the SNP don't have answers for.

Compulsory Purchase for Tenant Farmers even when landlords dont want to sell would be a good start as suggested by Richard Lochead - the environment secretary and MSP for Moray. It could be argued that its easier to pass land reform stuff in an Independent Scotland than in Westminster where some members of the House of Lords particularly would have a vested interest in seeing legislation fail. Although I am sure that they would abstain on any vote which clashed with their personal interests ( like hell I am - did you see the list of politicians who supported NHS reforms and would stand to benefit personally from the legislation)!!!!

Rheghead
16-Sep-13, 08:36
Compulsory Purchase for Tenant Farmers even when landlords dont want to sell would be a good start as suggested by Richard Lochead - the environment secretary and MSP for Moray. It could be argued that its easier to pass land reform stuff in an Independent Scotland than in Westminster where some members of the House of Lords particularly would have a vested interest in seeing legislation fail. Although I am sure that they would abstain on any vote which clashed with their personal interests ( like hell I am - did you see the list of politicians who supported NHS reforms and would stand to benefit personally from the legislation)!!!!

Do you support Lochead's comments?

ducati
16-Sep-13, 09:13
Compulsory Purchase for Tenant Farmers even when landlords dont want to sell would be a good start as suggested by Richard Lochead - the environment secretary and MSP for Moray. It could be argued that its easier to pass land reform stuff in an Independent Scotland than in Westminster where some members of the House of Lords particularly would have a vested interest in seeing legislation fail. Although I am sure that they would abstain on any vote which clashed with their personal interests ( like hell I am - did you see the list of politicians who supported NHS reforms and would stand to benefit personally from the legislation)!!!!

You are for compulsary purchase by tennents of private land and against right to buy of public housing?

squidge
16-Sep-13, 09:16
I dont know Rheg. I dont know if it has the backing of tenant farmers or not. There seems to be some concern that it could lead to real problems with land management and conservation and yet there needs to be a way of ensuring that farming is sustainable into the future and Family farms have a vital role to play in this. The point is surely that both Westminster and Holyrood are looking at this issue.
I am always suspicious of governments making stuff like this compulsory but it may be the right way to go - it depends on the reports that come back from the consultations. I DO have concerns that any legislation which makes changes would struggle if it needed to pass through the House of Lords as I have already said.

I wouldnt presume to speak for those people who live and work on land that is owned by someone else. I would like to see what they think about it. Are you a tenant farmer Rheg? What do you think?

squidge
16-Sep-13, 09:25
You are for compulsary purchase by tennents of private land and against right to buy of public housing?

I am absolutely FOR the right of tennants to buy public housing where there is enough public housing to buy. I am absolutely not For the right of people to buy their public housing where it means that other people in need cannot get social housing to live in. One size does not fit all. If we were renewing public housing stocks so that the housing need had or was being met then I would be absolutely happy for people to buy their social housing but we havent and we arent.

Lets see if I can offer an example. In some areas - Rochdale, bolton, Greater Manchester for example - if you qualify for a council or housing association property you are directed to a website where there are houses you can choose. The Right to buy is perhaps not an issue in these areas but see in the Highlands the housing Stock nowhere near meets the needs of those needing social housing. We should not be selling off social housing in these circumstances.

Its not the right to buy policy that is the problem as I have said on here many times I am sure - its the lack of investment in social housing.

Rheghead
16-Sep-13, 10:26
I am absolutely FOR the right of tennants to buy public housing where there is enough public housing to buy. I am absolutely not For the right of people to buy their public housing where it means that other people in need cannot get social housing to live in. One size does not fit all. If we were renewing public housing stocks so that the housing need had or was being met then I would be absolutely happy for people to buy their social housing but we havent and we arent.

Lets see if I can offer an example. In some areas - Rochdale, bolton, Greater Manchester for example - if you qualify for a council or housing association property you are directed to a website where there are houses you can choose. The Right to buy is perhaps not an issue in these areas but see in the Highlands the housing Stock nowhere near meets the needs of those needing social housing. We should not be selling off social housing in these circumstances.

Its not the right to buy policy that is the problem as I have said on here many times I am sure - its the lack of investment in social housing.

Then you would be introducing a postcode lottery on where one would have the right to buy public housing. Postcode lotteries are deemed to be unfair.

Rheghead
16-Sep-13, 10:32
The point remains though that so much is promised on the grounds of Fairness and Equality by the SNP in an independent Scotland but they haven't the foggiest clue on how to deliver it. Some of it even sounds illegal. There doesn't seem any substance except Hope for a Dreamocracy

Rheghead
16-Sep-13, 10:40
An experienced poker player has to weigh up the chances of losing against what is in the pot. We've gone over countless times that what we would gain is independence and the Braveheart factor but we've also got a huge amount to lose like loss of international standing, economic growth, oil revenues, unfairness with land ownership, etc etc. We need something that will tip the balance, the right to choose our own independent destiny is not enough for me. I need to see that the fortunes of Scotland will skyrocket after independence and I'm just not seeing it.

squidge
16-Sep-13, 12:22
Then you would be introducing a postcode lottery on where one would have the right to buy public housing. Postcode lotteries are deemed to be unfair.

Lets be clear here - the issue of equality and fairness is about the right to housing. that is a Basic Human right and why the UN caused such a stushie last week when they said that the bedroom tax undermines that right. The right to buy is not that and for me the right to housing trumps the right to buy. I would howeverprefer to see social housing bought and lived in rather than lying empty for want of tenants. So if there is available housing I dont have any problems with allowing people to buy the houses that they live in. Where there is little available housing I would like to see investment so that everyone has that opportunity in the end but its not worth the price of people sitting on the housing list or in Bed and Breakfast Accommodation or homeless shelters or on the street or in squats. People who want to buy can usually buy somewhere else - people who NEED social housing often cant rent elsewhere. If you dont agree with me thats fine but that is my position and I am perfectly comfortable with that.


Some of it even sounds illegal.

Illegal? Like what?


We've gone over countless times that what we would gain is independence and the Braveheart factor but we've also got a huge amount to lose like loss of international standing, economic growth, oil revenues, unfairness with land ownership, etc etc. We need something that will tip the balance, the right to choose our own independent destiny is not enough for me. I need to see that the fortunes of Scotland will skyrocket after independence and I'm just not seeing it.

Braveheart Factor lol Rheghead!!!!! The Braveheart Factor is only ever mentioned by those opposing Independence. Nothing is being proposed based on the "Braveheart" Factor and neither the YES campaign or the SNP have suggested that this is a reason for voting for Independence. I only ever hear it on the No pages on facebook and out of the mouths of numpty politicians. Its a bit of an insult to suggest that people are expecting to vote YES because of a stupid inaccurate film and that somehow the NO voters are above all that. Its just nonsense.

You seem to want something to tip the balance - the balance to what? Rheg - perhaps you could explain to me WHY you think an Independent Scotland cant deliver the things you mention. We have seen the figures, we have seen politicians across both parliaments agree that Scotland can be prosperous and achieve economic growth and oil revenues and there is work being done on land reform. I accept that you dont agree but I dont know why you dont agree in the face of the information that is out there. I can understand that if you feel british and want to stay british and have a "Braveheart";) type of attachment to the UK that you would want to vote no but if that is what it is then say so. I understand that. But if you are saying that you believe an Independent Scotland will fail in the ways you suggest - no economic growth, rubbish oil revenues, an unwillingness to implement land reform then I would like to understand why you think that.

squidge
17-Sep-13, 06:57
Anyone? Rheg? Ducati? Golach? Secrets? Orkneycadian? Can anyone please tell me on why they believe Scotland will be bankrupt after Independence? Im not asking for them to justify this just for someone to tell me. I am not going to try to persuade any of you guys to change your view, I would just like to understand why you think that.

ducati
17-Sep-13, 07:06
I've already explained why it is obvious to me. Not necesarily bankrupt, but very definately disadvantaged.

My own experience of doing business in Scotland for over 30 years. If you didn't work with the public sector (not my first choice) you starve. The one time I worked for a company that could only work in Scotland (franchise) and could not deal with the rest of the UK, I nearly did. :eek:

squidge
17-Sep-13, 07:13
Thank you Ducati. Am I right then to take from that that you believe in an Independent Scotland, business with the rest of the UK would stop or be much harder to do than it is now?

ducati
17-Sep-13, 07:16
Thank you Ducati. Am I right then to take from that that you believe in an Independent Scotland, business with the rest of the UK would stop or be much harder to do than it is now?

I don't know, but the point is there is so little going on in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK that it couldn't even support my little operation. This is what informs my view.

golach
17-Sep-13, 07:24
Squidge, I dont believe the current government could control the finances of a "Counrty". we have seen larger countries, go virtually bankrupt all around Europe even whilst being memebers of the EU, despite the first ministers assurances that an independent Scotland will be allowed to become a member, I have my doubts.

squidge
17-Sep-13, 07:30
Thank you Golach. You say current government, do you think there is any party that could run Scotland's finances or do you think we lack the ability to do this across the board?

golach
17-Sep-13, 08:01
[QUOTE=squidge;1047534]Thank you Golach. You say current government, do you think there is any party that could run Scotland's finances or do you think we lack the ability to do this across the board?[/QUOTE

NO.....................................

squidge
17-Sep-13, 08:25
Im not being cheeky Golach I am trying to understand. So Im sorry to ask again but Which bit of the question does no reply to? The political party or the lack of ability?

golach
17-Sep-13, 08:31
Im not being cheeky Golach I am trying to understand. So Im sorry to ask again but Which bit of the question does no reply to? The political party or the lack of ability?

Both, Scotland is no longer in its heyday, the 18th century and the age of Scottish Enlightenment, we no longer have innovators of the quality we had then.