PDA

View Full Version : 'Yes Scotland' Promises Explained



Rheghead
24-Mar-14, 00:46
There is a lot of talk from people who intend to say No to independence on the lines of

'Salmond will tell you anything to get your vote'

'SNP gives us all the empty promises'

However, in reality, it is the aspirations of the Yes Scotland campaign which are completely in line with the rest of northern Europe. It is the rest of the UK that is anomolous and is sitting in the bottom of the league tables in democracy, renewable energy, education standards, health care, proportions of public to private business, high rail charges, childcare, university fees.

If you are thinking of voting No in September, take a read at this webpage. See what you are voting for.

The ambitions of an indy Scotland are not unrealistic, they are completely normal and what we should have in place.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre

ducati
24-Mar-14, 10:06
I don't want aspirations.

squidge
24-Mar-14, 10:40
What? Are you dead? You don't want aspirations? What does that mean?

ducati
24-Mar-14, 17:51
I want consistency

squidge
24-Mar-14, 18:07
Ok - For whom?

Kenn
24-Mar-14, 18:25
And you honestly expect anything to change other than who will represent us in a smaller country which judging by a lot of the drivel being spouted and miss leading information bandied about, might as well be called Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Gronnuck
24-Mar-14, 21:02
There is a lot of talk from people who intend to say No to independence on the lines of

'Salmond will tell you anything to get your vote'

'SNP gives us all the empty promises'

However, in reality, it is the aspirations of the Yes Scotland campaign which are completely in line with the rest of northern Europe. It is the rest of the UK that is anomolous and is sitting in the bottom of the league tables in democracy, renewable energy, education standards, health care, proportions of public to private business, high rail charges, childcare, university fees.

If you are thinking of voting No in September, take a read at this webpage. See what you are voting for.

The ambitions of an indy Scotland are not unrealistic, they are completely normal and what we should have in place.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre

An interesting read. It shows that London and the south east are creating conditions ready for seperation. I wouldn't be surprised if Greater London becomes an independent city state by the middle of the century.

Rheghead
24-Mar-14, 22:02
And you honestly expect anything to change other than who will represent us in a smaller country which judging by a lot of the drivel being spouted and miss leading information bandied about, might as well be called Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Examples of misleading info?

As I said, the promises of the Yes Campaign are on a par with what is a reality in the rest of northern Europe.

ducati
25-Mar-14, 00:10
Ok - For whom?

For me, who else?

Kenn
25-Mar-14, 00:27
The sets of statistics that vary from one side to another both of which seldom stand up to closer scrutiny.
The assertions that things will change, to use the vernacular "Aye right."
This constant banging the drum for renewables. I would be impressed if the turbines were manufactured here, installed by scots and created real jobs for local people rather than just for ground workers and the odd service engineer when completed, with foreign firms creaming off all the subsidies that tax payers provide.l
I am tired of any one other than the indigenous people being blamed for all the country's woes.

I see the same problems looming over the horizon with regard to who gets the lion's share of any monies, The Central Belt will merely replace London and the south east, that's simple when you take into account what proportion of scots live in those two cities.

Okay I'll admit that I'm older than a lot of folk on the forum and have been around the block more times than I care to remember which might just account for my cynicism.

Rheghead
25-Mar-14, 15:26
The sets of statistics that vary from one side to another both of which seldom stand up to closer scrutiny.
The assertions that things will change, to use the vernacular "Aye right."
This constant banging the drum for renewables. I would be impressed if the turbines were manufactured here, installed by scots and created real jobs for local people rather than just for ground workers and the odd service engineer when completed, with foreign firms creaming off all the subsidies that tax payers provide.l
I am tired of any one other than the indigenous people being blamed for all the country's woes.

I see the same problems looming over the horizon with regard to who gets the lion's share of any monies, The Central Belt will merely replace London and the south east, that's simple when you take into account what proportion of scots live in those two cities.

Okay I'll admit that I'm older than a lot of folk on the forum and have been around the block more times than I care to remember which might just account for my cynicism.

The constant banging of drum for renewables is wholly justified. Renewables are becoming cheaper and fossil fuels are becoming dearer. In fact onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy which will make bills cheaper. That is good news for me and you.

Climate change is the No.1 threat to our environment and civilisation. Scotland's coastline and fauna is already bearing the brunt of rising global temperatures due to fossil fuel burning.

So although you may be getting tired of hearing about renewables, they are the best thing we've got to help the little birdies that you love to go out to see, unless you want to live in a cave.

Rheghead
25-Mar-14, 15:32
Come to think of it, a lot of those in Scotland who are opposed to wind farms bang on about how little the rUK has in the way of renewables, the rUK relies on Scotland's rich resource of available wind, wave and tides to satisfy international law. The tory backbenches relish in this so that their country piles don't sit in view of a wind farm!!

However, independence will readdress this imbalance. Under EU targets and other international agreements, the rUK will have to go through a renewable revolution of their own to catch up with Scotland otherwise they will default on their agreements. That means by voting Yes, you can make sure that there will be more wind farms alongside English country houses which means less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Think of it!

Even Chance
25-Mar-14, 16:06
Thanks for posting some good info there Rheghead. We have the chance this year, to become a better place, managed by the people that care about us.
The Scottish Government is investing heavily at the moment on our children, our future, making sure that Scotland is ready to become a world leader in every sense of the word when the time comes. Having the foresight to embrace change when it comes, will make us a thriving country. Theres only one way to ensure this happens....

Rheghead
25-Mar-14, 18:08
Latest poll puts the Yes Campaign just 7% behind the No Campaign.

The gap is closing gradually as the No's scaremongering steadily gets debunked.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

ducati
25-Mar-14, 19:19
Come to think of it, a lot of those in Scotland who are opposed to wind farms bang on about how little the rUK has in the way of renewables, the rUK relies on Scotland's rich resource of available wind, wave and tides to satisfy international law. The tory backbenches relish in this so that their country piles don't sit in view of a wind farm!!

However, independence will readdress this imbalance. Under EU targets and other international agreements, the rUK will have to go through a renewable revolution of their own to catch up with Scotland otherwise they will default on their agreements. That means by voting Yes, you can make sure that there will be more wind farms alongside English country houses which means less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Think of it!

Wrong. There are way more windfarms in England and Wales than Scotland. The SNP, while banging the drum for renewables, are completely commited to extracting every last drop of oil from the North Sea. Bit of a having cake and eating it, don't you think?

ducati
25-Mar-14, 19:20
Latest poll puts the Yes Campaign just 7% behind the No Campaign.

The gap is closing gradually as the No's scaremongering steadily gets debunked.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

Dont worry, the economic argument is unravelling fast and no-one will vote for being poorer.

Rheghead
25-Mar-14, 19:38
Wrong. There are way more windfarms in England and Wales than Scotland. The SNP, while banging the drum for renewables, are completely commited to extracting every last drop of oil from the North Sea. Bit of a having cake and eating it, don't you think?

Not according to per capita there isn't, and that is where it counts. UK has 12 times more people than Scotland.

The oil is sold on a global market, the SNP have little to do with it I'm afraid. But Yes, I agree that they should keep it under the North Sea.

Kenn
25-Mar-14, 20:12
I am not against renewables, what I said annoyed me was the constant banging the drum and the assurances about the jobs it produces for Scotland.
Funny though when at last there will be turbine blades etc being manufactured again that Siemens are putting all the investment into sites in England and not Scotland.

golach
25-Mar-14, 20:25
I am not against renewables, what I said annoyed me was the constant banging the drum and the assurances about the jobs it produces for Scotland.
Funny though when at last there will be turbine blades etc being manufactured again that Siemens are putting all the investment into sites in England and not Scotland.

Hear Hear Lizz

Rheghead
25-Mar-14, 21:28
I am not against renewables, what I said annoyed me was the constant banging the drum and the assurances about the jobs it produces for Scotland.
Funny though when at last there will be turbine blades etc being manufactured again that Siemens are putting all the investment into sites in England and not Scotland.

well jobs are being made in Scotland, I don't see the problem. 4500 construction and 580 regular northern Scotland jobs were assured last week on the Beatrice field.

Did the UK government favor Siemens going to England? Makes me wonder!

You are a whisker away from joining up the dots.

I'm not going to ask how many wind farms you have objected to.

Kenn
26-Mar-14, 00:49
Go ahead and ask, I have objected to only one and that on environmental grounds and I'm not afraid to admit it a I have told you face to face.
You know me and you should be acutely aware of what the natural world means to me, it's one of the main reasons I live here.
Err 'scuse me were n't you saying earlier that the oil and gas should stay under The North Sea and now you are promoting The Beatrice Field ?

Rheghead
26-Mar-14, 01:14
Err 'scuse me were n't you saying earlier that the oil and gas should stay under The North Sea and now you are promoting The Beatrice Field ?

LOL yes but I mean the wind farm called the Beatrice field X

Rheghead
26-Mar-14, 01:17
I am a firm believer that if you think renewables are a good thing then you should go out of your way and say so. How many wind farms have you sent a letter of support?

richardj
26-Mar-14, 09:55
The BBC has reported today that the CBI does not think the SNP and Yes campaign add up.

Also - If the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland vote to leave Scotland what is the SNP going to do - I will tell you, they will simply ignore the democratic will of the island people.

Vote NO is my view and I doubt if I will change it.

orkneycadian
26-Mar-14, 11:37
If you are thinking of voting No in September, take a read at this webpage. See what you are voting for.

The ambitions of an indy Scotland are not unrealistic, they are completely normal and what we should have in place.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre

It would appear that a Yes vote on the 25th of September would turn Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles a lovely shade of bright green!

Rheghead
26-Mar-14, 12:10
The BBC has reported today that the CBI does not think the SNP and Yes campaign add up.

The CBI represents very few businesses in Scotland and is firmly on the No Campaign despite its claims of being non-political and impartial. The CBI were against the Scottish parliament, predicting dire consequences which have never happened.

It is probably most appropriate to read comments from Business for Scotland rather than the CBI. Just read the rebuff about the CBI comments. It makes total sense.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scottish-independence-best-for-entire-uk-and-cbi-should-know-better/

squidge
27-Mar-14, 00:19
It would appear that a Yes vote on the 25th of September would turn Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles a lovely shade of bright green! I was reading tonight that a year ago a poll on the Press and Journal showed only 8% of islanders thought they should be independent from Scotland. 82% thought they should remain part of Scotland and 10% were undecided. Last week Alistair Carmichael debated Independence in Shetland and the proportion of YES voters increased from 58 to 70 in an audience of 150, whilst the NO vote fell from 57 to 48. The remainder was undecided. None of the local MPs were elected on a manifesto promise of giving the Northern Isles the chance to vote on Independence from Scotland. I'm really glad tho Orkneycadian that you are getting enthused about the idea of independence for the Islands. The attractions of governing ourselves - whether Scotland or the Islands - opens all sorts of possibilities and it is exciting to think about what we could create for ourselves given the control and power to do so. It's exciting isn't it :)

Kenn
27-Mar-14, 01:15
Really? I have far better things to get excited about squidge.

piratelassie
27-Mar-14, 02:40
Ducati, don,t you realise oil is a bonus.



Wrong. There are way more windfarms in England and Wales than Scotland. The SNP, while banging the drum for renewables, are completely commited to extracting every last drop of oil from the North Sea. Bit of a having cake and eating it, don't you think?

ducati
27-Mar-14, 07:29
Ducati, don,t you realise oil is a bonus.

OK. Please explain to us how, even with the oil, an indy Scotland can afford to run a £12 billion defecit (the amount we need to borrow every single year just to make ends meet) for a population of only 5 million? I'm sick of people glibly saying Scotland is rich and Scotland can afford to be independent. The numbers to me just don't add up and despite the assurances the case is getting worse as more info comes to light.

squidge
27-Mar-14, 08:49
Let's look at this then 12 billion is a really scary figure especially for someone who likes consistency. Thing is that Scotland is just like any other Country. Sometimes the figures are good sometimes they aren't. The figure of 12 billion actually equates to 5.9% of GDP. If we compare it to the UK figure which is 5.8% of GDP. So the we are all doomed stuff applies to Scotland but not to the rest of the UK despite there being only 0.1% difference. Hmm double standards anyone? 5.8% goooood, 5.9% baaaaaad!!!!

Another couple of interesting things about the 12 billion is that it is based on everything - spending and borrowing being exactly the same as it is now, trident, ATOS, welfare, taxation income, HS2. Also worth noting is that half of this defecit comes from servicing debt accrued by Westminster.

So what about the fall in oil revenues? Well there was tax deductible record investment in oil of 14 billion which will have reduced revenue this particular year but is positive news for the future. Oil companies don't invest without expecting a substantial return and remember we had David Cameron here just a few short weeks ago saying how great the industry is and how much oil is left but of course now we are all doomed. In addition the oil revenues were affected by yet more tax changes brought in in 2011. In the ten years to 2012 there have been 16 tax changes affecting the oil and gas industry - not great if you like consistency! In addition, Scotland increased its capital expenditure by moving money around to aid recovery. This is also reflected in the figures.

So, how would Scotland cope with this defecit if it was independent? Well the truth is, like every other country! Scotland would manage its finances over years not months: Scotland would have cuts to make some years and spending to do other years; Scotland would do what it has to do to balance it's budget, just like it does now, just like any other country does - even the small ones - all of whom seem to be doing ok within the EU. When you understand that Scotland has had healthier economy than the UK for years and consistently raises more money per head than the rest of the UK, it becomes clear that we would be well placed to weather the ups and downs of our economy.

Oil is a "volatile" commodity. Well, yes it is... But you know what... No one has ever denied that as far as I can see. Arguing that because of that volatility we "couldn't cope"and should just hand it to someone else to manage on our behalf suggests that you think Scotland is uniquely incapable of using its brains or maybe doesn't actually HAVE the brains to manage it and Westminster is smarter, sharper and better prepared than anything Scotland could do. Johan Lamont of course said recently that Scots aren't genetically programmed to make political decisions. I doubt even Johan Lamont actually meant that, but by saying Scotland couldn't cope with making these decisions or managing these resources, isn't that what is implied? That doesn't make any sense.

Whatever the deficit, in an Independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent by a Scottish Government on priorities decided by us at the ballot box... That's not what happens now and it will make us more responsive and accountable,

ducati
27-Mar-14, 09:16
Let's look at this then 12 billion is a really scary figure especially for someone who likes consistency. Thing is that Scotland is just like any other Country. Sometimes the figures are good sometimes they aren't. The figure of 12 billion actually equates to 5.9% of GDP. If we compare it to the UK figure which is 5.8% of GDP. So the we are all doomed stuff applies to Scotland but not to the rest of the UK despite there being only 0.1% difference. Hmm double standards anyone? 5.8% goooood, 5.9% baaaaaad!!!!

Another couple of interesting things about the 12 billion is that it is based on everything - spending and borrowing being exactly the same as it is now, trident, ATOS, welfare, taxation income, HS2. Also worth noting is that half of this defecit comes from servicing debt accrued by Westminster.

So what about the fall in oil revenues? Well there was tax deductible record investment in oil of 14 billion which will have reduced revenue this particular year but is positive news for the future. Oil companies don't invest without expecting a substantial return and remember we had David Cameron here just a few short weeks ago saying how great the industry is and how much oil is left but of course now we are all doomed. In addition the oil revenues were affected by yet more tax changes brought in in 2011. In the ten years to 2012 there have been 16 tax changes affecting the oil and gas industry - not great if you like consistency! In addition, Scotland increased its capital expenditure by moving money around to aid recovery. This is also reflected in the figures.

So, how would Scotland cope with this defecit if it was independent? Well the truth is, like every other country! Scotland would manage its finances over years not months: Scotland would have cuts to make some years and spending to do other years; Scotland would do what it has to do to balance it's budget, just like it does now, just like any other country does - even the small ones - all of whom seem to be doing ok within the EU. When you understand that Scotland has had healthier economy than the UK for years and consistently raises more money per head than the rest of the UK, it becomes clear that we would be well placed to weather the ups and downs of our economy.

Oil is a "volatile" commodity. Well, yes it is... But you know what... No one has ever denied that as far as I can see. Arguing that because of that volatility we "couldn't cope"and should just hand it to someone else to manage on our behalf suggests that you think Scotland is uniquely incapable of using its brains or maybe doesn't actually HAVE the brains to manage it and Westminster is smarter, sharper and better prepared than anything Scotland could do. Johan Lamont of course said recently that Scots aren't genetically programmed to make political decisions. I doubt even Johan Lamont actually meant that, but by saying Scotland couldn't cope with making these decisions or managing these resources, isn't that what is implied? That doesn't make any sense.

Whatever the deficit, in an Independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent by a Scottish Government on priorities decided by us at the ballot box... That's not what happens now and it will make us more responsive and accountable,

Yes yes yes. But missing the point entirely. The population is only 5 million. That means we are spending £3000 more for evey person in Scotland than we earn in every year. With such a small population we don't have the flexibility needed to cope with this every year. It is nothing to do (as you like to keep alluding to) with the Scots resident in the street being somehow less capable.

The 12 billion isn't a one off figure, it is every year. This year we need to borrow £12 Billion, next year we need to borrow 12 Billion and pay the interest on this years 12 Billion and the year after? The same or similar, so that is £36 billions worth of interest before we pay any capital and so it goes on. Bankruptcy is the only end result I can see. The only way out would be increasing the population and all the economic activity by many times. That would be as near to impossible as you can get.

Shabbychic
27-Mar-14, 12:05
OK. Please explain to us how, even with the oil, an indy Scotland can afford to run a £12 billion defecit (the amount we need to borrow every single year just to make ends meet) for a population of only 5 million? I'm sick of people glibly saying Scotland is rich and Scotland can afford to be independent. The numbers to me just don't add up and despite the assurances the case is getting worse as more info comes to light.


You may find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=1W8cKHcZn60&app=desktop) interesting. Well worth listening to.

squidge
27-Mar-14, 17:15
Yes yes yes. But missing the point entirely. The population is only 5 million. That means we are spending £3000 more for evey person in Scotland than we earn in every year. With such a small population we don't have the flexibility needed to cope with this every year. It is nothing to do (as you like to keep alluding to) with the Scots resident in the street being somehow less capable.The 12 billion isn't a one off figure, it is every year. This year we need to borrow £12 Billion, next year we need to borrow 12 Billion and pay the interest on this years 12 Billion and the year after? The same or similar, so that is £36 billions worth of interest before we pay any capital and so it goes on. Bankruptcy is the only end result I can see. The only way out would be increasing the population and all the economic activity by many times. That would be as near to impossible as you can get.Scotland's income does not just come from 5 million people though Ducati. However The white paper includes plans to increase employment both by growing business and by improving employability and access to the labour market for women through providing affordable childcare, through better welfare support and through more appropriate immigration policy.In addition The GERS figures do not include all the income that Scotland generates - they don't include VAT and some other taxes and they overstate spending on defence and interest payments. You say I do not get the point but the point surely is that Economies go up and down. An independent Scotland is well placed to weather those ups and downs because it has a varied economy which - as Standard and Poor pointed out recently - is not over reliant on oil. And yet you assert that Scotland could not manage it's economy - why not? You can, however Argue economics til you are blue in the face there is only one fact and I Have said it already many times. In an independent Scotland money raised here from all sources will be spent on Scottish priorities by politicians elected by those of us living here. That is the only fact there is and, if you think that the best people to make decisions on the future of Scotland are the people of Scotland then that's important. If you DONT think that then why not?

ducati
27-Mar-14, 19:01
Scotland's income does not just come from 5 million people though Ducati. However The white paper includes plans to increase employment both by growing business and by improving employability and access to the labour market for women through providing affordable childcare, through better welfare support and through more appropriate immigration policy.In addition The GERS figures do not include all the income that Scotland generates - they don't include VAT and some other taxes and they overstate spending on defence and interest payments. You say I do not get the point but the point surely is that Economies go up and down. An independent Scotland is well placed to weather those ups and downs because it has a varied economy which - as Standard and Poor pointed out recently - is not over reliant on oil. And yet you assert that Scotland could not manage it's economy - why not? You can, however Argue economics til you are blue in the face there is only one fact and I Have said it already many times. In an independent Scotland money raised here from all sources will be spent on Scottish priorities by politicians elected by those of us living here. That is the only fact there is and, if you think that the best people to make decisions on the future of Scotland are the people of Scotland then that's important. If you DONT think that then why not?

You live in the biggest town in the Highlands. Here is an exercise if you are interested which will demonstrate to you why it is a different problem to the whole of the UK. Research employers based in Inverness, other than Highland Council and the NHS, that employ more than a couple of hundred people. You will find your results replicated throughout Scotland.

ducati
27-Mar-14, 20:04
I've just seen the SNP's party political broadcast. Presumably, designed to create an upwelling of nationalistic ferver. All it created in me was an upwelling of vomit.

golach
27-Mar-14, 20:11
I've just seen the SNP's party political broadcast. Presumably, designed to create an upwelling of nationalistic ferver. All it created in me was an upwelling of vomit.Me too! The lies and half truths, no questions answered.

Rheghead
27-Mar-14, 23:45
Yes yes yes. But missing the point entirely. The population is only 5 million. That means we are spending £3000 more for evey person in Scotland than we earn in every year. With such a small population we don't have the flexibility needed to cope with this every year. It is nothing to do (as you like to keep alluding to) with the Scots resident in the street being somehow less capable.

The 12 billion isn't a one off figure, it is every year. This year we need to borrow £12 Billion, next year we need to borrow 12 Billion and pay the interest on this years 12 Billion and the year after? The same or similar, so that is £36 billions worth of interest before we pay any capital and so it goes on. Bankruptcy is the only end result I can see. The only way out would be increasing the population and all the economic activity by many times. That would be as near to impossible as you can get.

Well even the Better Together says that an independent Scotland could pay its own way, contradictary to what you're saying. They just say it's better to be together. Their words not mine.

wavy davy
27-Mar-14, 23:58
The white paper includes plans to increase employment both by growing business and by improving employability and access to the labour market for women through providing affordable childcare, through better welfare support and through more appropriate immigration policy.

And the cost/benefit of each of these grand plans is?

squidge
28-Mar-14, 09:20
Grand plans? There isn't much grand about it.... Just sensible policies for a fair society.

The childcare policy is likely initially to cost 114 million but will increase the numbers of women in the workforce. It is forecast to generate 700 million in taxation income for an independent Scotland.

Changes to welfare provision can be made by spending almost nothing overnight. A change from focus on sanctions to putting people into work would cost little. It would at one fell swoop almost, save a significant amount in the cost of appeals, transferring the focus onto helping people find work would reduce the benefit bill and increase taxation income - that's a win win situation.

Again research shows that immigration brings a net benefit to the economy and will be important as Scotland has skill shortages in IT specialisms and other technical fields. Having a more flexible and appropriate immigration policy is unlikely to cost huge amounts of money to implement.

There will be costs in the way of staff training and recruitment but these will be recouped in both money terms... People in work, healthier economy and also in societal terms, people feeling valued, reducing stigma, less discrimination against those on welfare, and so on.

spurtle
28-Mar-14, 09:40
I'll point out Squidge that the figures of £700m were guessed at and used no model of reference, you have to be assuming all the women want to go back to work and that their wage will be such that the state would take in that much tax and also that they will want jobs outside the public sector , or the taxes they pay will have already been paid out by the state in their wage.

Oddquine
28-Mar-14, 12:49
I'll point out Squidge that the figures of £700m were guessed at and used no model of reference, you have to be assuming all the women want to go back to work and that their wage will be such that the state would take in that much tax and also that they will want jobs outside the public sector , or the taxes they pay will have already been paid out by the state in their wage.

But that is how economics work.....in the UK as much as in Scotland. You look at what is now...decide what would be a useful policy to achieve your aims.... assume that what you decide as policy is going to make a difference in the direction you want it to make (going by economic models which are as accurate as any computer models written by techie people are).....assume that nothing economically drastic out of your control is going to negate the accuracy of the models.......then cross your fingers and go for it. Fiscal policy is a seat of the pants thing....a best case scenario giving the best outcome, though a good economist will have worked out a worst case and an average scenario as well..but they're not going to tell us about them, are they.

After all, just think about Cameron's promises pre and post 2010 and the November 2010 coalition budget, compared to what is now.

Cameron has said, for example......no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS (before the biggest top-down reorganisation in its entire history); the government is "making work pay" (although the average wage has fallen in real terms every month since he came to power); we're paying down Britain's debts(though the national debt is still growing annually);We'll cut the deficit, not the NHS (then launched a £20 billion programme of cuts to the NHS)

And in November 2010, the budget forecast was that the nominal GDP of the entire British economy would be £1,916 billion by the next election (but in the latest budget statement, it is forecast to be £1,788 billion in 2015/16).; In November 2010, it was forecast that the Debt to GDP ratio would be 67.2% by the next election (but in the last Budget statement the forecast debt to GDP ratio is 78.7% by 2015/16.); In November 2010 the declared forecast level of National Debt was a total £1,232 billion (but in 2014, it is now going to be £1,439 billion); In 2010, the Budget Deficit was to be completely eradicated by the end of this parliament (but in budget statement 2014, the Budget Deficit will not be eradicated until 2018/19); In November 2010, it was claimed that the economy would recover to pre-crisis levels by 2012( but that recovery is now put off until the last quarter of 2014); In 2010, it was forecast that there would be a small budget surplus of 0.3% by the time of the next election(while in 2014, that has been changed to a budget deficit of 4.2%). So the Coalition, in order to make the economy £128 billion smaller than was predicted, borrowed £207 billion more than predicted. How accurate is that after nearly four years of adjusting fiscal policy?

If anyone is looking for accuracy and certainty, they won't get it in any economic forecasts as a result of extrapolating the effects of spending/cuts/taxes from anyone..not even the Westminster Government. Forecasting what will happen in the future is a bit like deciding to take out a mortgage because you have a good job, which is perceived to be safe (though there aren't that many of them around nowadays) and assuming that the interest rates won't rise too much.....and then being caught by inflation, your job going to India and unexpectedly ending up on JSA with only part-time work or zero-hours contracts available on the job market.

.

Shabbychic
28-Mar-14, 13:00
Me too! The lies and half truths, no questions answered.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, which I assume is based on fact. Could you please expand on what these lies and half truths actually are?

spurtle
28-Mar-14, 14:29
The majority of these economic forecasts are based on having a stable currency union, which is not guaranteed. Also most policies are not purely made on guess work with no reference to working models (unlike the SNP's attempt at policy making) . The question of independence is far too important to make on assumptions and guess work, also as everyone is so keen on pointing out, that these policies are based on us using the SNP's view of independence, in 2016 it could all well change.

ducati
28-Mar-14, 14:54
and through more appropriate immigration policy.

I can't see real nationalists welcoming being outnumbered by forners. :roll:

golach
28-Mar-14, 19:49
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, which I assume is based on fact. Could you please expand on what these lies and half truths actually are?

What currency will we have? Credit Union with the UK = lies, North sea oil will be the answer to to all our problems = more lies, Scotland can become a member on the EU even more lies, I am not going to bother listing the half truths.

Oddquine
28-Mar-14, 21:39
The majority of these economic forecasts are based on having a stable currency union, which is not guaranteed. Also most policies are not purely made on guess work with no reference to working models (unlike the SNP's attempt at policy making) . The question of independence is far too important to make on assumptions and guess work, also as everyone is so keen on pointing out, that these policies are based on us using the SNP's view of independence, in 2016 it could all well change.

Well of course they are....they are based on the assumption we will be using Plan A and be paying our share of UK debt and getting our share of UK assets....although I would suspect that all other options have been examined to the same degree......otherwise the independent fiscal committee wouldn't have said Plan A was the best option for both Scotland and the rUK. Not taking on any debt and not taking anything but the fixed assets in Scotland would likely be more beneficial to Scotland (and I shouldn't think that's Plan B, btw) And of course they are based on the SNP's view of Independence....because the SNP is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government was responsible for producing it.

A few other parties have produced similar visions....but I think I may have posted links to them somewhere on here already...and any of them will be an option come May 2016, it doesn't have to be the SNP. With our voting system, we are unlikely to get many, if any, majority Governments again....if only because all parties will be Scottish parties, working for Scotland and Scottish citizens only..so we won't have to send any more messages to Westminster using the SNP....a Westminster, incidentally, which deliberately refused to give the majority in Scotland their preferred option in the referendum, although they were aware it was the preferred option..which makes the cynical wonder if they really want Scotland to stay in the Union...or if they just want Scotland to stay in a Union in which Westminster has full and final control over everything.

However, the UK Government has a stable Currency union already.....plus all the facts and figures regarding a known economy at their finger-tips...and they still manage to get things spectacularly wrong, don't they? And the SNP, whether you like them or not, has done a good job with what they had....and balanced their budget....and I suspect won't offer what they feel can't be delivered.....because I suspect they won't deliberately set themselves up for failure and banishment to the political wilderness.

If we were only ever going to make decisions on certainty of outcome, we'd never make many decisions...never get married, never change jobs, never move house, never take out a mortgage, never become a member of a religion or a political party....and never vote.....because some things in life are just not cut and dried, black and white or writ in stone.

Rheghead
29-Mar-14, 00:32
Scotland's Future promised a shared currency and the Guardian revelation that a Better Together minister privately admitted that there will be a shared currency just proves it.

Kenn
29-Mar-14, 00:56
Oh Yeh and all three major parties immediately poo poo'ed the idea.

Rheghead
29-Mar-14, 01:16
Oh Yeh and all three major parties immediately poo poo'ed the idea.

The Better Together Campaign are just creating uncertainty because that is their best weapon to stop people from voting Yes.

Oddquine
29-Mar-14, 01:38
The Better Together Campaign are just creating uncertainty because that is their best weapon to stop people from voting Yes.

And going by some posts on here, it is a tactic which is working superbly, don't you think?

ducati
29-Mar-14, 04:17
And going by some posts on here, it is a tactic which is working superbly, don't you think?

It says something that whenever a nat has the reality explained to them by a government that has been doing it a while, they don't believe it, but believe everything the wannabe Scottish government says. And particularly the the fat one that is looking increasingly like a megelamaniacal dictator. (wannabe)

ducati
29-Mar-14, 09:29
Scotland's Future promised a shared currency and the Guardian revelation that a Better Together minister privately admitted that there will be a shared currency just proves it.

Amazing! You don't believe anything the whole government and opposition tell you but latch on to one un-named quote.:lol:

Interesting that this quote includes "in return for Trident remaining on the Clyde" How does that sit with you?

squidge
29-Mar-14, 11:26
There are plenty of working models for all the issues I mentioned. The childcare policy is based on similar policies which exist all over Europe. They have costs and have savings and have increased income in plenty other places. Childcare in the UK is the most expensive by far in Europe and it the proportion of women in the workforce is well down the list. The suggestion that women working in public sector jobs is somehow a waste of Money is one I don't really agree with for a variety of reasons but it is worth pointing out that it isn't a straight "we pay a public sector workers wages so they cost us money". Firstly, we are paying them to work.... Therefore they are not getting money for nothing, we as tax payers are getting a fair exchange - their labour, for wages. They will pay tax. Next they will take those wages and spend them in shops, on goods and services, houses, cars, shopping - contributing to the economy and benefitting all of us. Next working contributes to well being and therefore can help to reduce the burden on the health services. Women in work mean they are less likely to rely on benefits and can build up a pension pot which means they will be less reliant on the state. So more of our population in work is a good thing even if some of those jobs are public sector.

Immigration has been shown to bring a positive contribution to an economy and there is plenty of research out there if you are concerned about this. One of The main change to the immigration policy as proposed in an Independent Scotland is that overseas students who study here in Scotland will be allowed to work here after they qualify. The UK does not allow that. We invest in their knowledge and skills and they invest in Scotland.

There are changes to welfare which can be made with very little cost at all and which we could implement quickly and cheaply to save money almost straight away. In the long term removing companies the like of ATOS or G4e who make profits from our welfare system, changing the approach of the Jobcetreplus network, moving more people into work - the Scottish Government already runs a programme to help young people find work which is more successful and more cost effective than anything Westminster is doing. All these things will reduce costs.

As for believing everything the politicians say - actually I do. I believe labour will cut deeper and tougher than the Tories, I Believe that Scottish Labour want to introduce a tax system which will allow Scotland to put up taxes but not put taxes down which means they have devised a system that no Scottish government would ever WANT to use therefore leaving us with Westminsters tax system. I believe that this Tory government truly believes that cutting taxes on beer and bingo will " allow working people. To do more of what they enjoy" - a direct quote from an advert released by the treasury after last weeks budget. And I believe that Tory politician truly thinks that says that food poverty doesn't exist because "you can't get a table in a restaurant in Crawley on a Saturday Night".

As for currency, well the day after independence I will still have money in my pocket,if I have a job I will still be paid. If I am getting benefits I will still get them and if I am getting my pension I will still get that. Just like after decimalisation, just like they did in Ireland when the stopped using the pound and stArted using their own currency, just like the countries in Europe did when they started using the Euro. Whether it's the pound. The Scottish pound, the groat or the Golach, Ducat or Spurtle makes no difference. Scotland has a strong varied economy and NO ONE, not even the BT politicians are suggesting otherwise.

squidge
29-Mar-14, 11:35
And particularly the the fat one that is looking increasingly like a megelamaniacal dictator. (wannabe)Can you explain why you think that Ducati?

ducati
29-Mar-14, 14:20
Can you explain why you think that Ducati?

I choose to think that.

squidge
29-Mar-14, 14:25
Ok so you made it up. See every time I see that statement made about dictatorships or megalomaniacs I ask why people think that and I have never had an answer that in any way enlightens me.

Rheghead
29-Mar-14, 15:28
Amazing! You don't believe anything the whole government and opposition tell you but latch on to one un-named quote.:lol:

Interesting that this quote includes "in return for Trident remaining on the Clyde" How does that sit with you?

It just shouts out that that there is a lot of scaremongering from the No campaign. They are just stirring uncertainty because that is their biggest weapon to prevent people from saying Yes to independence.

bekisman
29-Mar-14, 16:23
It just shouts out that that there is a lot of scaremongering from the No campaign. They are just stirring uncertainty because that is their biggest weapon to prevent people from saying Yes to independence.
Wot! the Guardian using propaganda! surely not?

bekisman
29-Mar-14, 16:27
Not commentating on this thread as it's amusing enough already.. but notice it's Squidge, Piratelassie, Shabbychic, oddquine in the YES camp, all Women? and a couple of others of course - this is simply a passing observation (before the sexist thing starts!);)

ducati
29-Mar-14, 16:58
Ok so you made it up. See every time I see that statement made about dictatorships or megalomaniacs I ask why people think that and I have never had an answer that in any way enlightens me.

Well if you can't see it in everything he does and everything he says, I can't help you. From what you are saying, I'm obviously not the only person that thinks so, am I?

Oddquine
29-Mar-14, 17:01
Not commentating on this thread as it's amusing enough already.. but notice it's Squidge, Piratelassie, Shabbychic, oddquine in the YES camp, all Women? and a couple of others of course - this is simply a passing observation (before the sexist thing starts!);)

And the No camp think women are less likely to vote yes.......according to the pollsters. We will see.

Oddquine
29-Mar-14, 17:30
As this thread is called "Yes Scotland Promises Explained" ......maybe worth a look at the Better Together NuLabour promises for Devo-whatever, so incompetently explained by JoLa on the telly to Gordon Brewer. I know certain of you won't touch Wings with a Dettol soaked barge pole, in case a germ of truth, commonsense and reality attacks......but you are missing something......because whether you agree with him or not....Rev Stu does explanations and dissections very well..and quite wittily :D.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/through-the-fog-of-war/

squidge
29-Mar-14, 17:54
Ducati, I don't know what people are alluding to. I see lots of SNP spokespeople, I also see Green Party spokespeople, SSP, RIC and other spokespeople. I recently attended breakfast meetings where both ALex Salmond and alistair Darling spoke so was able to draw some conclusions from those. I also have heard some anecdotes from people who have worked with the FM or had dealings with him through charities of by accident and don't think he is as you describe but whenever I ask for examples of his suggested megalomania or dictatorial behaviour I get no answers. In fact I have NEVER had an answer which included any examples or evidence. I'm not an SNP member so have never been to conference but I always like to hear both sides of any point of view so it would be really good if you can help me with this by giving me the examples that you have clearly seen which I have missed. So how is it in everything he says and everything he does? Examples please :)

ducati
29-Mar-14, 23:06
Ducati, I don't know what people are alluding to. I see lots of SNP spokespeople, I also see Green Party spokespeople, SSP, RIC and other spokespeople. I recently attended breakfast meetings where both ALex Salmond and alistair Darling spoke so was able to draw some conclusions from those. I also have heard some anecdotes from people who have worked with the FM or had dealings with him through charities of by accident and don't think he is as you describe but whenever I ask for examples of his suggested megalomania or dictatorial behaviour I get no answers. In fact I have NEVER had an answer which included any examples or evidence. I'm not an SNP member so have never been to conference but I always like to hear both sides of any point of view so it would be really good if you can help me with this by giving me the examples that you have clearly seen which I have missed. So how is it in everything he says and everything he does? Examples please :)

Please don't ask me direct questions. This is a forum for the discussion of ideas. I have stated my belief, if you don't like it, do one.

Surfice it to say I have seen enough to know I don't want this joker to have anything to do with, or influence over my future.

In fact I don't even want to talk about it anymore. I'm so sick of the whole thing and what it has cost me already.

squidge
29-Mar-14, 23:40
Jeezo Ducati, you shared an opinion which I don't get and which I asked you to explain. I have no idea whether I like or don't like your opinion because I don't get it. I truly don't! I understand that you don't want independence and I could understand if you said that's simply want a United Kingdom but try as I might I do not get why people peg Alex Salmond as some sort of dictator and I can't egg ANYONE to give me evidence or examples to explain it. I thought you might be able to give me some examples or discuss your reasons being as you freely shared your view. Clearly I was wrong and I seem to have touched a nerve and I'm sorry about that.

piratelassie
30-Mar-14, 01:06
No country has ever willingly voted against their own independence. Lets not be the first. If we do we'll be the laughing stock of the world. Vote yes.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 08:26
No country has ever willingly voted against their own independence. Lets not be the first. If we do we'll be the laughing stock of the world. Vote yes.

When we vote no, we will be respected for not being sheep.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 08:36
Jeezo Ducati, you shared an opinion which I don't get and which I asked you to explain. I have no idea whether I like or don't like your opinion because I don't get it. I truly don't! I understand that you don't want independence and I could understand if you said that's simply want a United Kingdom but try as I might I do not get why people peg Alex Salmond as some sort of dictator and I can't egg ANYONE to give me evidence or examples to explain it. I thought you might be able to give me some examples or discuss your reasons being as you freely shared your view. Clearly I was wrong and I seem to have touched a nerve and I'm sorry about that.

You don't see it, I do. What is to explain? I'll give examples that make me feel this, like his consistent refusal to accept and move on when it becomes obvious that something he wants isn't going to happen. His I'm right and everyone else is wrong attitude. His manipulation of voices of opinion with organisations such as Universities and the Higher Education Funding Council. Commercial organisations that contract to the Scottish gov. with threats to withdrawer or not award contracts-completely illigal BTW. I've noticed that Nicola Sturgeon has started to affect a lot of his mannerisms and the way he talks which is quite odd.

I'm a good judge of people, I made a career of it. This guy makes my skin crawl.

And again, you seem to come across this opinion of him more than a few times so maybe you need to take the scales off your eyes.

squidge
30-Mar-14, 09:23
Thank you. As for scales... Well I will do what I always do Ducati. And that is take what you have said, go away read up on the issues you have raised, talk to people who are involved in some of the areas you refer to and add the information I find to what I already know and make my own mind up over time but at least now I have more to go on than the no pages on the internet where i usually see this sort of stuff. It's rarely said out loud in an arena where you can explore the issue so I thank you for helping me try to get to the bottom of it. Does it matter - not to my independence support but it will contribute to the decision I make about who I vote for in 2016.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 13:03
Thank you. As for scales... Well I will do what I always do Ducati. And that is take what you have said, go away read up on the issues you have raised, talk to people who are involved in some of the areas you refer to and add the information I find to what I already know and make my own mind up over time but at least now I have more to go on than the no pages on the internet where i usually see this sort of stuff. It's rarely said out loud in an arena where you can explore the issue so I thank you for helping me try to get to the bottom of it. Does it matter - not to my independence support but it will contribute to the decision I make about who I vote for in 2016.

Good for you. Did you get anywhere researching employment patterns in Scotland?

Personally, I don't look at any No websites or Yes websites. I made my mind up years ago based on my own experience of living and working in Scotland for many years.

If the unthinkable happens, I will be at the forefront of the re-unification movement. It should take off pretty quickly once the peeps that vote yes realise how badly wrong they got it. :D

golach
30-Mar-14, 13:31
If the unthinkable happens, I will be at the forefront of the re-unification movement. It should take off pretty quickly once the peeps that vote yes realise how badly wrong they got it. :DIf that does happen , I will just sit laughing at the yes voters, saying, see, I told you so.

squidge
30-Mar-14, 13:59
You may have made made your mind up years ago but if you did aren't you failing to acknowledge the changes in society and the economy since "years ago". The idea that you don't look at the research and evidence offered by both sides may mean that your decision is based on out of date information which I has changed. It may also mean that you are not looking ahead to the future and what can be achieved by doing things a different way than before. However I know that you are utterly not interested so There is no point in discussing these things with you is there. I have a good understanding of employment in Scotland Ducati. I don't really know what you want to say about that but as you seem to be opening up to the idea that you can share something more than a superficial statement maybe you would like to open a discussion with an actual point to discuss.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 15:34
You may have made made your mind up years ago but if you did aren't you failing to acknowledge the changes in society and the economy since "years ago". The idea that you don't look at the research and evidence offered by both sides may mean that your decision is based on out of date information which I has changed. It may also mean that you are not looking ahead to the future and what can be achieved by doing things a different way than before. However I know that you are utterly not interested so There is no point in discussing these things with you is there. I have a good understanding of employment in Scotland Ducati. I don't really know what you want to say about that but as you seem to be opening up to the idea that you can share something more than a superficial statement maybe you would like to open a discussion with an actual point to discuss.

Not really, it is pretty pointless as you say.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 17:41
Actually, there is something I would like to discuss.

What proportion of the votes cast is needed to secure a mandate to break up the UK?

50% would seem out of reach for the yes campaign but how much more would be needed?

Rheghead
30-Mar-14, 21:52
Actually, there is something I would like to discuss.

What proportion of the votes cast is needed to secure a mandate to break up the UK?

50% would seem out of reach for the yes campaign but how much more would be needed?

If you feel that the independence referendum has been thrust upon you by the failure of the conservative, libdem and labour parties in Scotland because of their failing to manage Scotland in your best interest then you can do declare your objection to the vote by the most obvious means by abstention.

ducati
30-Mar-14, 22:05
If you feel that the independence referendum has been thrust upon you by the failure of the conservative, libdem and labour parties in Scotland because of their failing to manage Scotland in your best interest then you can do declare your objection to the vote by the most obvious means by abstention.

Nice try. Do you think I came up the Clyde on a bike?

Do you know the answer to the question or are you just being an earse?

ducati
30-Mar-14, 22:10
You may have made made your mind up years ago but if you did aren't you failing to acknowledge the changes in society and the economy since "years ago". The idea that you don't look at the research and evidence offered by both sides may mean that your decision is based on out of date information which I has changed. It may also mean that you are not looking ahead to the future and what can be achieved by doing things a different way than before. However I know that you are utterly not interested so There is no point in discussing these things with you is there. I have a good understanding of employment in Scotland Ducati. I don't really know what you want to say about that but as you seem to be opening up to the idea that you can share something more than a superficial statement maybe you would like to open a discussion with an actual point to discuss.

I thought there weren't any changes. That is why you are voting yes isn't it?

golach
30-Mar-14, 22:16
Would like to post a reply here, but am unsure if it will be allowed to stay, my anti yes policies are well known, so I will not bother

squidge
31-Mar-14, 14:36
Nice try. Do you think I came up the Clyde on a bike?

Do you know the answer to the question or are you just being an earse?

When the votes are cast the majority wins. Simple

squidge
31-Mar-14, 14:47
I thought there weren't any changes. That is why you are voting yes isn't it?

Of course there have been changes over the years - we dont have the heavy industry, we dont have the coal mines, we have more tourism and a bigger financial sector. Families have changed - Less extended families and more nuclear families, the nature of immigration has changed and things like interest rates and home ownership have changed. Oil has changed and the boom years have passed without us making the most of what we had.

I am voting yes - not because "nothing has changed" but because the opportunity to affect a change has reduced. The union has served us well for years but the last twenty years the opportunity to do something different has reduced. The opportunity for change has diminished as the main political parties have all aligned themselves with each other. There is no chance for anything different. In 1997 there was a difference between Labour and the Tories and the lib dems were floating about on the edges somewhere and a vote for labour WAS a vote for change. Today - almost 20 years later - you cant put a pin between them - they are all positioned in the same ideology - scared of upsetting big business, banks, tax avoiders, the language of politics in Britain has become more about profit profit profit and not about people and there is no sign that it is going to get any better. Scotland has not the power to affect any changes despite voting against a range of westminster policies we have to continue to do as we are told over the bedroom tax, trident and so on. In this modern, information rich age it is clear we can aspire to do better than what we are doing so far.

ducati
31-Mar-14, 16:16
When the votes are cast the majority wins. Simple

50.001%? Really? That won't be a good start will it with half the population feeling disenfranchised?

ducati
31-Mar-14, 16:19
Of course there have been changes over the years - we dont have the heavy industry, we dont have the coal mines, we have more tourism and a bigger financial sector. Families have changed - Less extended families and more nuclear families, the nature of immigration has changed and things like interest rates and home ownership have changed. Oil has changed and the boom years have passed without us making the most of what we had.

I am voting yes - not because "nothing has changed" but because the opportunity to affect a change has reduced. The union has served us well for years but the last twenty years the opportunity to do something different has reduced. The opportunity for change has diminished as the main political parties have all aligned themselves with each other. There is no chance for anything different. In 1997 there was a difference between Labour and the Tories and the lib dems were floating about on the edges somewhere and a vote for labour WAS a vote for change. Today - almost 20 years later - you cant put a pin between them - they are all positioned in the same ideology - scared of upsetting big business, banks, tax avoiders, the language of politics in Britain has become more about profit profit profit and not about people and there is no sign that it is going to get any better. Scotland has not the power to affect any changes despite voting against a range of westminster policies we have to continue to do as we are told over the bedroom tax, trident and so on. In this modern, information rich age it is clear we can aspire to do better than what we are doing so far.

Oh well. I vote Conservative for change.

Interesting you think you are going to get a fairer more equal society with less poverty, someone else thinks they are getting a greener, more environmentally friendly society. I hope these aren't mutually exclusive. :eek:

squidge
31-Mar-14, 21:04
The point is surely that we have the opportunity to vote for a fairer society, a more equalSociety, a greener society and a more environmentally friendly society in a way we don't have now.

ducati
01-Apr-14, 07:37
The point is surely that we have the opportunity to vote for a fairer society, a more equalSociety, a greener society and a more environmentally friendly society in a way we don't have now.

Yes you are right. Having examined the evidence I have decided to vote Yes

squidge
01-Apr-14, 08:01
OMG DUCATI!!! Pauses ... Nope lol ....Not as good as the driving on the right story in today's guardian , especially as it was actually a BT real story a while ago .... Be afraid of independence you'll be driving on the right said Andy Burnham in February. Today it's an amusing April fool.

Oddquine
04-Apr-14, 01:27
Better Together? Really? (Not wanting to start a new thread!....so going O/T)

Found this interesting.......http://wingsoverscotland.com/before-the-oil-the-deluge/


There are photos of the info from the records.........but it appears that subsidised Scotland, in the year 1920-1921 (when the publication of the information was discontinued.and I wonder why), and before the discovery of oil.......

Transmitted to the UK Treasury, the total of £119,753,000.

Had spent on Scottish Services the total of £33,096,000


And £86,657,000 was retained in London for "Imperial Services"

Been saying to folk for years, and particularly since devolution, that the reason Scottish infrastructure, for example, is so flaming bad is because it was never a Westminster priority, and there is no way that 15 years of devolution could sort out the neglect of 300 years of the Union.. (though the Lab/LibDem Governments not handing back unspent Barnett money to Westminster might have helped a bit.).


The last photo simply illustrates that having MPs for English constituencies forcing through bills applicable to Scotland, despite the majority of Scottish constituency MPs voting against it, is not a new thing..it has been happening all along...but we had neither the media or the internet in those days to make us aware of it.

And just noticed the figures over the time, from 1911 to 1921, when they did publish records (and we can see why they stopped doing it) are in this link http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-historical-debt/

Not surprising that the 1920s had the highest emigration from Scotland of any decade on record.

ducati
04-Apr-14, 07:55
Better Together? Really? (Not wanting to start a new thread!....so going O/T)

Found this interesting.......http://wingsoverscotland.com/before-the-oil-the-deluge/


There are photos of the info from the records.........but it appears that subsidised Scotland, in the year 1920-1921 (when the publication of the information was discontinued.and I wonder why), and before the discovery of oil.......

Transmitted to the UK Treasury, the total of £119,753,000.

Had spent on Scottish Services the total of £33,096,000


And £86,657,000 was retained in London for "Imperial Services"

Been saying to folk for years, and particularly since devolution, that the reason Scottish infrastructure, for example, is so flaming bad is because it was never a Westminster priority, and there is no way that 15 years of devolution could sort out the neglect of 300 years of the Union.. (though the Lab/LibDem Governments not handing back unspent Barnett money to Westminster might have helped a bit.).


The last photo simply illustrates that having MPs for English constituencies forcing through bills applicable to Scotland, despite the majority of Scottish constituency MPs voting against it, is not a new thing..it has been happening all along...but we had neither the media or the internet in those days to make us aware of it.

And just noticed the figures over the time, from 1911 to 1921, when they did publish records (and we can see why they stopped doing it) are in this link http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-historical-debt/

Not surprising that the 1920s had the highest emigration from Scotland of any decade on record.

Yes, the internet has really helped. [lol]