Scotland Debate

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Very much this.

I believe I saw graphs showing that UKIP actually declined in votes (can't actually remember where, so I may be mistaken), but the Green party get little to no airtime, annoying. I'm not a green supporter, but would like to see more of them in the news!

I hope that you are right and that UKIP don't win any Westminster seats - but it is a possibility. And they do get an absurd amount of publicity for what their support amounts to and the influence that they actually have.

Many Scottish NO voters will have to take a punt on a Tory/UKIP coalition not happening - or indeed deciding whether or not they'd be bothered if it did. Best thing cameron could do at the moment for BT would be to shut up about UKIP and stop 'bigging them up'

 

[FairwayDodger]

Many Scottish NO voters will have to take a punt on a Tory/UKIP coalition not happening - or indeed deciding whether or not they'd be bothered if it did. Best thing cameron could do at the moment for BT would be to shut up about UKIP and stop 'bigging them up'

Not saying you're wrong on this but it's fairly depressing to think that this huge decision could boil down to such a short term issue such as fear over who might make up the next government. It's not even relevant, in my book, and I'd hate a tory/ukip government as much as anyone else in the country.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

UKIP won't win a single seat at next years GE. England have used the Euro elections to make a point.No way they'll do that for Westminster.And given the % of turnout all over The UK I'm even less bothered.

The only thing that bothers me is the insanely disproportionate level of media coverage they get.If the Green party got the same level of media time they'd trounce UKIP.

Whilst I agree with your assessment of UKIP's chances in the General Election I would have to disagree with your opinion of the Greens' chances.

They could have all the publicity they want and Joe Public still would not be interested in their policies. Folks vote with their wallets not their principles.

 

[c1973]

Not saying you're wrong on this but it's fairly depressing to think that this huge decision could boil down to such a short term issue such as fear over who might make up the next government. It's not even relevant, in my book, and I'd hate a tory/ukip government as much as anyone else in the country.

This.

It's blatant 'scaremongering' to use a possible short term coalition of Tory UKIP in the next government as a reason to vote yes. Or to use more of the yes camp parlance, 'simply not true' 'That's nonsense' 'we don't believe that' blatantly untrue' 'sorry but we disagree' and all the other positive (?) sound bites they use.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

...and...?

I am quite aware that UKIP now have a MEP in Scotland (10% of Scottish vote). I was talking about Westminster and a Tory/UKIP coalition government. Anyway go ahead and tell me that that would be welcomed by most Scots voters and that it won't be an issue that they'll consider.

What Tory/UKIP coalition government ? - no such thing and it won't ever happen

 

[Val]

Cost of setting up independant Scotland could top £1.5bn, no doubt Salmond will put his spin on it saying it's nonsense and won't back it up why.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-cost-of-setting-up-independent-scotland-could-be-15bn-claims-treasury-9434222.html

Oliver Wright
Monday, 26 May 2014

The cost of setting up an independent Scottish state could be as much as £1.5bn, the Treasury claimed yesterday, prompting another fierce row with Alex Salmond.

In an official paper to be published on Wednesday, the UK Government will say the one-off cost of replicating about 180 public bodies currently combined with England, Wales and Northern Ireland could amount to £600 per household.

Whitehall’s analysis has also put the cost of a new benefit system at £400m and of setting up a new tax system at up to £562m. It challenged the First Minister to put his own price on an Scottish independent state so that voters could make an “informed choice” in September’s referendum.

But Mr Salmond described the Treasury analysis as flawed and called for it to be withdrawn. “The Treasury are either guilty of a horrendous blunder, or it is a deliberate and deeply dishonest attempt to deceive – either way, it leaves the Treasury’s analysis without a shred of credibility, and they should withdraw this misleading claim,” he said.

A spokesman for Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney, added: “Much of the infrastructure needed for an independent country already exists, and Scottish taxpayers already pay their fair share for all devolved and reserved services – while Scotland also stands to inherit a fair share of joint assets, valued at about 1.3 trillion dollars.” The Treasury analysis looks at the costs of creating a new state and considers research by the Institute for Government, the London School of Economics and Canadian professor Robert Young.

His research, based on Quebec setting up a new state, estimates it could cost up to 1 per cent of a country’s GDP to establish the new systems required to run a newly independent state. In Scotland’s case, 1 per cent of its GDP would see taxpayers face a £1.5bn tax bill – equivalent to £600 per household, the Treasury said.

The IfG and the LSE have published independent analysis that puts the average cost of setting up a new policy department at £15m. Applying this figure to 180 new departments for Scotland totals £2.7bn.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Whilst I agree with your assessment of UKIP's chances in the General Election I would have to disagree with your opinion of the Greens' chances.

They could have all the publicity they want and Joe Public still would not be interested in their policies. Folks vote with their wallets not their principles.

I was meaning in Euro elections,not GEs.And it would appear that folk ignore their wallets and act very much on principles if the euro results are an indicator.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Cost of setting up independant Scotland could top £1.5bn, no doubt Salmond will put his spin on it saying it's nonsense and won't back it up why.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-cost-of-setting-up-independent-scotland-could-be-15bn-claims-treasury-9434222.html

£1.5B sounds a fair number.Not sure why anyone would debate this, and lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much.

 

[Hobbit]

Cost of setting up independant Scotland could top £1.5bn, no doubt Salmond will put his spin on it saying it's nonsense and won't back it up why.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-cost-of-setting-up-independent-scotland-could-be-15bn-claims-treasury-9434222.html

£1.5B sounds a fair number.Not sure why anyone would debate this, and lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much.

Its a pity Alex Salmond didn't use the opportunity to quote numbers/costs rther than just saying the Treasury should withdraw the statement. Just made him look a tadge weak...

 

[FairwayDodger]

Its a pity Alex Salmond didn't use the opportunity to quote numbers/costs rther than just saying the Treasury should withdraw the statement. Just made him look a tadge weak...

That is the strategy, I'm afraid, bluff and bluster. Attack anyone who expresses any opinion with a negative slant on independence.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

£1.5B sounds a fair number.Not sure why anyone would debate this, and lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much.

Exactly what I thought, complete non story.
It is a two way cost remember so when the percentages add up it will not be too much for Scotland.

I am beginning to lose faith in Treasury statements, they should be impartial at this time. Whiffs of desperation

 

[Adi2Dassler]

That is the strategy, I'm afraid, bluff and bluster. Attack anyone who expresses any opinion with a negative slant on independence.

Maybe the figures are wrong?I dunno.But spending money on infrastructure projects isn't really a negative, is it?Maybe Eck is gonna tell us it'll cost £2billion?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Maybe the figures are wrong?I dunno.But spending money on infrastructure projects isn't really a negative, is it?Maybe Eck is gonna tell us it'll cost £2billion?

.....and just think of all the new former London based jobs it will create.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

.....and just think of all the new former London based jobs it will create.

I'd be looking to share that round the country...Dumfries/Perth/Dunfie...these places should have their fare share of the new jobs, not just Edinburgh.

 

[Hobbit]

£1.5B sounds a fair number.Not sure why anyone would debate this, and lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much.

Exactly what I thought, complete non story.
It is a two way cost remember so when the percentages add up it will not be too much for Scotland.

I am beginning to lose faith in Treasury statements, they should be impartial at this time. Whiffs of desperation

But how do you know they're wrong? Surely the question you should be asking is are those figures right? Or would you prefer to live in blissful ignorance of the (possible)truth if it eminates from south of the border?

 

[FairwayDodger]

I am beginning to lose faith in Treasury statements, they should be impartial at this time. Whiffs of desperation

I have no way of knowing the veracity of these or any other figures the treasury produces. However, in principle, it is possible to reveal figures that are negative for the independence case and still be impartial.

Are you suggesting that anyone with any facts or figures that go against independence should just keep quiet?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Maybe the figures are wrong?I dunno.But spending money on infrastructure projects isn't really a negative, is it?Maybe Eck is gonna tell us it'll cost £2billion?

It is if it's money to replicate infrastructure that we already have within the UK. i.e. if it's money that only needs to be spent if we go for independence and could otherwise have been spent on something entirely different.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

But how do you know they're wrong? Surely the question you should be asking is are those figures right? Or would you prefer to live in blissful ignorance of the (possible)truth if it eminates from south of the border?

I'm not doubting the figure...it seems reasonable to me.I'm questioning why eck is questioning it, maybe he thinks (and has evidence) that it less (or more) capital expenditure in creating a new nation is a + thing, job creation/construction work, the spread of governmental bodies around the country involving folk in the process of nation building.Cheap at twice the price of £1.5Billion.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I have no way of knowing the veracity of these or any other figures the treasury produces. However, in principle, it is possible to reveal figures that are negative for the independence case and still be impartial.

Are you suggesting that anyone with any facts or figures that go against independence should just keep quiet?

That's the problem the figures are so one sided that you do question them.
There are many experts saying an independent Scotland is viable, non from the treasury though!
Bear in mind a percentage of these treasury experts will lose their jobs if Scotland go independent.

Starting with the MP's

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That's the problem the figures are so one sided that you do question them.
There are many experts saying an independent Scotland is viable, non from the treasury though!
Bear in mind a percentage of these treasury experts will lose their jobs if Scotland go independent.

What are the figures from Salmond ?