Scotland Debate

[chris661]

Fine in context it is relevant. However asking who can name their "faceless MEP" doesn't seem to have any relevance to a debate on Scotland. I understand the comparisons regarding self rule/governance but in this case it seems to be nothing more than an attempt to stir up the pot a bit.

 

[Old Skier]

Certainly have done whenever the UK has had a Labour Government. Anyone remember how Scottish Labour MP's helped the then Govt to get its legislation on tuition fees for universities through.

Not sure why he brings up Gordon Brown either. If ever there is someone being paid under false pretences he takes the haggis. His voting record and appearance in Westminister during this Paliament is a disgrace. source: TheyWorkForYou

 

[Hobbit]

Can the BT/No proponents actually provide any REAL reasons why the Scots would actually be better off staying in The Union - transition difficulties excluded.

The ability to borrow money, the thing that ALL countries need to do irrespective of tax revenues. Scotland may end up with a credit rating akin to Norway's but because their income is so much lower and the value of their assets would be lower and then minus what they spend, their worth as a country would be lower than it is as part of the Union.

The White paper talks of joining the EU and Nato but gives no indication what this would cost. The White paper shows a healthy surplus but its EU contribution based on % of UK population alone, irrespective of how much oil revenue there is, would see the surplus pretty much gone. Then add in the NATO (and UN membership) it talks about in the White paper... as a country Scotland wouldn't be better off. No worse off, no better off but with a lot lower buffer available from the ECB & IMF.

The White paper also speaks of generating an extra £250 mill from tax efficiencies. If this figure forms part of balancing the books, and it isn't realised, I wonder where this extra £50 per head will come from?

I see lots of promises in the White paper of shiney benefits but there's a lot of substance missing from how those benefits would be realised.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

What does that have to do with a debate on Scotland?

Doon you seem I the t on trying to take this off topic. Start a new thread if you so wish but stop trying to go off on a tangent in the is one. There have already been a few warnings regarding this. Thanks.

Part of the discussion was about UK citizens wishing to leave the European Union and Scotland wishing to leave UK.

If that was off topic to the thread then sorry, apologies.

 

[Foxholer]

The ability to borrow money, the thing that ALL countries need to do irrespective of tax revenues. Scotland may end up with a credit rating akin to Norway's but because their income is so much lower and the value of their assets would be lower and then minus what they spend, their worth as a country would be lower than it is as part of the Union.

Well, that argument would be easily countered by the fact that the amount needed to be borrowed would be smaller as well.

The Ratings guys don't seem to think there would be a problem with an iScotland and there are certainly pretty much equivalent economies in Europe and around the world of the size envisaged. Comparing iScotland to Norway is a bit aggressive imo, though the opportunity and proposal was there, and shunned by Westminster, decades ago!

The White paper talks of joining the EU and Nato but gives no indication what this would cost. The White paper shows a healthy surplus but its EU contribution based on % of UK population alone, irrespective of how much oil revenue there is, would see the surplus pretty much gone. Then add in the NATO (and UN membership) it talks about in the White paper... as a country Scotland wouldn't be better off. No worse off, no better off but with a lot lower buffer available from the ECB & IMF.

Indeed, the cost of maintaining all the bureaucracy of a separate country is considerable - and conveniently forgotten/not costed in the White Paper. Balanced (?) by the ability to have it all specific to iScotland needs/views. Whether the benefit of that 'balance' is worth the cost is one of the questions for Scots to consider imo.

The White paper also speaks of generating an extra £250 mill from tax efficiencies. If this figure forms part of balancing the books, and it isn't realised, I wonder where this extra £50 per head will come from?

Hang on. Even if it doesn't happen, there's no 'extra £50 per head' required.

And the streamlining of the Tax System is long overdue. UK apparently has the most complicated one on the planet!

I see lots of promises in the White paper of shiney benefits but there's a lot of substance missing from how those benefits would be realised.

Yep! That's what White Papers are often about! The Vision, not the Pathway!

And while I agree with you, that's not actually an answer to the question I asked. But at least you have answered it which is what 'debate' is about. Repetitive banging on with the same arguments from the same entrenched positions is not 'debate' imo! I'd like someone to sway me (not that I have a say) with a compelling reason one way or the other, but I'm afraid that's unlikely to happen.

 

[Hobbit]

Well, that argument would be easily countered by the fact that the amount needed to be borrowed would be smaller as well.

The Ratings guys don't seem to think there would be a problem with an iScotland and there are certainly pretty much equivalent economies in Europe and around the world of the size envisaged. Comparing iScotland to Norway is a bit aggressive imo, though the opportunity and proposal was there, and shunned by Westminster, decades ago!


Indeed, the cost of maintaining all the bureaucracy of a separate country is considerable - and conveniently forgotten/not costed in the White Paper. Balanced (?) by the ability to have it all specific to iScotland needs/views. Whether the benefit of that 'balance' is worth the cost is one of the questions for Scots to consider imo.


Hang on. Even if it doesn't happen, there's no 'extra £50 per head' required.

And the streamlining of the Tax System is long overdue. UK apparently has the most complicated one on the planet!



Yep! That's what White Papers are often about! The Vision, not the Pathway!

And while I agree with you, that's not actually an answer to the question I asked. But at least you have answered it which is what 'debate' is about. Repetitive banging on with the same arguments from the same entrenched positions is not 'debate' imo! I'd like someone to sway me (not that I have a say) with a compelling reason one way or the other, but I'm afraid that's unlikely to happen.

It was Alex Slamond who compared Scotland to the El Dorado of a Nowegian economy.

NATO & the UN membership; again, its the El Dorado in the White paper but without the costings.

£50 per head; it is an extra £50 per head IF the party in power is expecting those efficiencies to balance the books on other spending, e.g. EU membership.

The White paper may well be the vision/pathway but it is the promises to the Scottish people therein that may lead to them voting Yes without the full knowledge of the costs to turn those visions into reality.

Why should the Scottish people vote "no?" That's up to them to decide but I wouldn't be voting Yes based on unfounded promises. If the Yes campaign could show what it would cost to reach El Dorado, and it was affordable, and had the benefits that they seem to be selling, I'd vote Yes - not that I can...

A "no" buys them what they've already got, albeit I'd expect a move towards more devo. A "yes" buys uncosted promises. WOW!! Independence but unfulfilled promises or a heavier financial burden.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

A "no" buys them what they've already got, albeit I'd expect a move towards more devo. A "yes" buys uncosted promises. WOW!! Independence but unfulfilled promises or a heavier financial burden.

It buys what it already has and what the UK government has already promised - e.g. more spending cuts. It gives absolutely nothing about the future e.g. whether funding through Barnett remains the same; whether there would be any move towards devo max (which would quite possibly be resisted by rest of UK electorate); and a risk of UK exiting the EU on the basis of an English electorate vote perhaps not reflecting the general wishes of Scotland, Wales and NI electorate.

So BT are simply offering 'better the devil you know'

Fair enough - but not a very inspiring shout out for your vote; and not one you might want to wake up to on the morning after a NO knowing that the devil you know is what you've got - you might as well say for good. As for a YES there being no going back.

 

[Foxholer]

...
£50 per head; it is an extra £50 per head IF the party in power is expecting those efficiencies to balance the books on other spending...

And only IF they don't happen! In this case, I'd be inclined to back the likelihood of savings - at least in the short term.

I agree that the 'Yes' needs to convince Scots that things are affordable and will be better - even if not the El Dorado result. I think they are doing a pretty good job. whether they can sell it enough to overcome the inertia of 'what they've already got' remains to be seen. Devo-Max is off the table - for now!

And Salmond didn't actually compare Norway as an El Dorado - except for the Oil Fund. But he did use it as an example, along with other countries of similar size to iScotland. Quite a reasonable thing to do imo.

 

[Hobbit]

It buys what it already has and what the UK government has already promised - e.g. more spending cuts. It gives absolutely nothing about the future e.g. whether funding through Barnett remains the same; whether there would be any move towards devo max (which would quite possibly be resisted by rest of UK electorate); and a risk of UK exiting the EU on the basis of an English electorate vote perhaps not reflecting the general wishes of Scotland, Wales and NI electorate.

So BT are simply offering 'better the devil you know'

Fair enough - but not a very inspiring shout out for your vote; and not one you might want to wake up to on the morning after a NO knowing that the devil you know is what you've got - you might as well say for good. As for a YES there being no going back.

Does BT have to offer more? Bearing in mind the shared debt, and even the White paper recognises that it will inherit a share, do you think Scotland could service a debt of £9 billion AND deliver on the promises in the White paper? Even the White paper doesn't say whether the debt will be split based on where historical spend has happened or on the % of population but gives some veiled idea it will be the former - lol, the westminster parliament that signs up for that version will be throwing votes away.

The austerity cuts are a reality that some in Scotland don't want to accept, and some think that walking away from the Union means walking away from the debt.

If I was Scottish, and living in Scotland, I'd be voting Yes purely for self-determination. I certainly wouldn't be voting Yes based on the Castles in the sky that Alex Salmond is trying to sell to the undecideds.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Does BT have to offer more? Bearing in mind the shared debt, and even the White paper recognises that it will inherit a share, do you think Scotland could service a debt of £9 billion AND deliver on the promises in the White paper? Even the White paper doesn't say whether the debt will be split based on where historical spend has happened or on the % of population but gives some veiled idea it will be the former - lol, the westminster parliament that signs up for that version will be throwing votes away.

The austerity cuts are a reality that some in Scotland don't want to accept, and some think that walking away from the Union means walking away from the debt.

If I was Scottish, and living in Scotland, I'd be voting Yes purely for self-determination. I certainly wouldn't be voting Yes based on the Castles in the sky that Alex Salmond is trying to sell to the undecideds.

Fact is that YES are offering a vision - and even although you may have a feeling that in the short term delivering even 10% of it will be a tall order - they (as in Scotland) over time just might deliver more. And for some that prospect will still be quite a bit more enticing than 'more of the same' - for as long as long is.

 

[Val]

Fact is that YES are offering a vision - and even although you may have a feeling that in the short term delivering even 10% of it will be a tall order - they (as in Scotland) over time just might deliver more. And for some that prospect will still be quite a bit more enticing than 'more of the same' - for as long as long is.

We hear you and hear you every day about this. You prefer the BT campaign to plan a vision for the future the reality is the don't have to, the only 100% guarantee is a NO vote see's no change to what's there now and all they have to do is highlight the many flaws and negatives of the YES campaign. Why do they have to do anything different? All they need to do is prove the doubters that there are too many holes in the YES campaign, which is what they are doing.

 

[Hobbit]

We hear you and hear you every day about this. You prefer the BT campaign to plan a vision for the future the reality is the don't have to, the only 100% guarantee is a NO vote see's no change to what's there now and all they have to do is highlight the many flaws and negatives of the YES campaign. Why do they have to do anything different? All they need to do is prove the doubters that there are too many holes in the YES campaign, which is what they are doing.

Very well said Val. The negativity that some see from the "no" campaigners is the only option the no campaigners need to follow, i.e. highlight the flaws in the "sell." If Westminster decide on buying Yes votes by offering Scotland more, they risk a back lash at the next election.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Very well said Val. The negativity that some see from the "no" campaigners is the only option the no campaigners need to follow, i.e. highlight the flaws in the "sell." If Westminster decide on buying Yes votes by offering Scotland more, they risk a back lash at the next election.

OK - but I am a little baffled why asking for more positivity from BT provokes this reaction - because 'all they need to do is...' sounds like they are feart of opening up a debate that they don't want to have. So instead fall back on 'don't need to...'.

Which is fine if that's what they want to do. But risky to them IMO.

 

[Val]

OK - but I am a little baffled why asking for more positivity from BT provokes this reaction - because 'all they need to do is...' sounds like they are feart of opening up a debate that they don't want to have. So instead fall back on 'don't need to...'.

Which is fine if that's what they want to do. But risky to them IMO.

Risky maybe but it's full of truths and not full of inaccurate or unrealistic goals and objectives.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Well, the continuing negativity from BT ramps even more today when Gordon Brown, the man who effectively stole £100 Billion from the pension pot, preaches that iScotlands pensions might be at risk.You seriously couldn't make it up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...id-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html


And then the MSM tell an entirely different story either side of the border.And folk think this is the best course of action for unionists to peddle.They must all be agents for YES.

https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilMP/status/458540503924219904/photo/1

 

[FairwayDodger]

Well, the continuing negativity from BT ramps even more today when Gordon Brown, the man who effectively stole £100 Billion from the pension pot, preaches that iScotlands pensions might be at risk.You seriously couldn't make it up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...id-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

If what he says is true (and I have no idea if it is or not) then it seems unfair to simply criticise it as negative? And you attack the character of the man making the statement rather than the veracity of what he is saying.

This isn't about what Gordon Brown did or didn't do as chancellor or PM, it's about the future of our country.

How I wish this pathetic "debate" was over and we could just vote on the damn thing and move on.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

If what he says is true (and I have no idea if it is or not) then it seems unfair to simply criticise it as negative? And you attack the character of the man making the statement rather than the veracity of what he is saying.

This isn't about what Gordon Brown did or didn't do as chancellor or PM, it's about the future of our country.

How I wish this pathetic "debate" was over and we could just vote on the damn thing and move on.

I think what Brown (and Darling) did whilst Chancellor or PM is relevant.He's asking us to believe his opinion on pensions but was responsible for £100 Billion worth of cuts to it.The DWP have confirmed last year that pensions will be safe guarded.

He's trotting out the same nonsense that Scotland is too poor to afford to run itself, which was pretty much rubished last year, and yet here comes Brown ( the man who described himself last year as an 'ex-politician') regurgitating lies and peddling myths.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Risky maybe but it's full of truths and not full of inaccurate or unrealistic goals and objectives.

Sorry - not sure what you mean as being full of truths? If BT made some statements about the next 5yrs for Scotland in the UK following a NO then I'm sure that that would indeed be full of truths - some positive and some difficult I have no doubt. However I'm guessing that BT don't want to do that and I can understand why.

 

[Old Skier]

Brown ( the man who described himself last year as an 'ex-politician')

And still draws a very nice salary thank you very much and has one of the worse attendance records in Parliament.

 

[Val]

Sorry - not sure what you mean as being full of truths? If BT made some statements about the next 5yrs for Scotland in the UK following a NO then I'm sure that that would indeed be full of truths - some positive and some difficult I have no doubt. However I'm guessing that BT don't want to do that and I can understand why.

Ok, full of truths maybe a bad choice of words but you get my drift.