Scotland Debate

Val

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
12,424
Location
Central Scotland
Visit site
Because (stating the obvious) the BT Campaign isn't Westminster and we haven't heard anything from Cameron and Osborne backing up the BT statements - especially given they rejected giving the Scottish electorate the choice of Devo Max in the referendum. And Labour? LibDems? UKIP? What are their policies in respect of moving towards devo max?

Of course it's not but it has Westminister's support or you wouldn't get the promises made. I couldn't make promises to customers if i didn't have the backing of my bosses.
 

FairwayDodger

Money List Winner
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
9,622
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Because (stating the obvious) the BT Campaign isn't Westminster and we haven't heard anything from Cameron and Osborne backing up the BT statements - especially given they rejected giving the Scottish electorate the choice of Devo Max in the referendum. And Labour? LibDems? UKIP? What are their policies in respect of moving towards devo max?

I wish you'd stop being so disingenuous on this point. A third option on the referendum would just have muddied the water and potentially allowed independence to win even if the majority voted against it.
 

Foxholer

Blackballed
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
24,160
Visit site
Well hopefully with BT trying to be +ve and coming out of the closet with 'future powers' for Holyrood statements then voters in Scotland will have a choice of uncertainties. Will be interesting to hear how BT play 'new tax raising powers' off against 'Barnett formula funding'. Because you can't have the former unless you reduce or remove the latter.

Why reduce it?

If the argument that Scotland isn't getting a fair deal under that formula (and I'm not saying they are/aren't) is correct - because the relative wealth of the countries is not the same, then the formula should be adjusted away from simple population percentage. It was, after all, merely the simplest approach/starting point and even Barnett has suggested that it should be 'tweaked' as it was only a 'short-term solution'!

I'm aware of that, do you think BT has nothing to do with the government?

It's in the fortunate position of being sufficiently associated with the government to suggest that what it says is/will be government policy without actually committing the government to anything it 'promises'! To me, it's the epitome of political marketing - nothing it promises can be depended upon/trusted to be implemented, even if it's deemed absolutely the right thing to do! Best to consider it a very well connected lobby group imo!
 
Last edited:

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
Of course it's not but it has Westminister's support or you wouldn't get the promises made. I couldn't make promises to customers if i didn't have the backing of my bosses.

Not sure if I am at all convinced that BT's promises have Westminster backing and will to deliver. I might be convinced if I heard David Cameron or George Osborne make the promises. And also Milliband, Clegg and Farangle state their backing and party positions.
 

JamPal

Assistant Pro
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
113
Visit site
This thread has been a fantastic credit to the level-headedness of all participants imo! Can't actually remember any mod-ing activity being required - or maybe i missed it! I doubt any other thread where opinions can be so 'opposite' would go nearly 2500 posts without a lot of moderation! Long (well, 100 days or so) may it continue!

That IS remarkable. I wish the same could be said of the many locked threads on my site. :-/
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
Why reduce it?

If the argument that Scotland isn't getting a fair deal under that formula (and I'm not saying they are/aren't) is correct - because the relative wealth of the countries is not the same, then the formula should be adjusted away from simple population percentage. It was, after all, merely the simplest approach/starting point and even Barnett has suggested that it should be 'tweaked' as it was only a 'short-term solution'!

I agree - but it would have to change in some way. And say if Holyrood were able to keep all taxes raised in Scotland would Westminster still make a 'grant' of some form to Holyrood and what would it be and on what basis would it be calculated. Because such matters will clearly affect in some way BT's £1400 better off if NO (or was it more a case of not £1400 worse off if YES)
 
Last edited:

Doon frae Troon

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
19,031
Location
S W Scotland
Visit site
This thread has been a fantastic credit to the level-headedness of all participants imo! Can't actually remember any mod-ing activity being required - or maybe i missed it! I doubt any other thread where opinions can be so 'opposite' would go nearly 2500 posts without a lot of moderation! Long (well, 100 days or so) may it continue!

I started the Rangers thread and this one.
I think the Rangers post went to 5,000 + posts and scrillions of views.
The Rangers one was lightly modded as well, big cheer to the Mods for allowing two potential powder kegs from exploding.
 

Val

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
12,424
Location
Central Scotland
Visit site
Not sure if I am at all convinced that BT's promises have Westminster backing and will to deliver. I might be convinced if I heard David Cameron or George Osborne make the promises. And also Milliband, Clegg and Farangle state their backing and party positions.

The independence referendum is not about parties it's a straight yes or no, all these people have stated they want the union to remain intact.

Do you seriously believe what the BT campaign are saying have not been spoken of in government circles?
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
The independence referendum is not about parties it's a straight yes or no, all these people have stated they want the union to remain intact.

Do you seriously believe what the BT campaign are saying have not been spoken of in government circles?

Spoken of is one thing - them ever happening is another. Let's just hear Cameron state it then I'll believe that they have actually been spoken about and that the Tories have a commitment to deliver additional powers towards devo max.

If devo max was the great thing that BT now tell us then why the heck wasn't it offered to the electorate in the referendum. It wasn't offered because Westminster had a pretty good idea it would be what would be voted for and Westminster doesn't want to grant it.
 
Last edited:

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
...and then there is this sort of nonsense (from today's Herald)

In other developments yesterday, Lord West, former First Sea Lord and Labour security minister said independence posed "the greatest grand strategic threat to the security and defence of our islands".

He added: "There is no doubt whatsoever that if Scotland separated it would diminish our ability to defend these islands."
 

Val

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
12,424
Location
Central Scotland
Visit site
Spoken of is one thing - them ever happening is another. Let's just hear Cameron state it then I'll believe that they have actually been spoken about and that the Tories have a commitment to deliver additional powers towards devo max.

You constantly state you want positivity from the BT campaign, now we get positivity from the BT campaign, your response is you don't believe them :rolleyes:
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
You constantly state you want positivity from the BT campaign, now we get positivity from the BT campaign, your response is you don't believe them :rolleyes:

Well if it was what they wanted for Scotland they would have offered the option in the referendum. It wasn't offered because Westminster doesn't want to grant Holyrood the extra powers - so why should we start believing they have had a damascene moment and that they now realise that they were wrong all along about devo max.
 
Last edited:

Doon frae Troon

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
19,031
Location
S W Scotland
Visit site
You constantly state you want positivity from the BT campaign, now we get positivity from the BT campaign, your response is you don't believe them :rolleyes:

Not sure about positivity.
In my mind positivity would have been allowing DevoMax on the ballot paper in the first place.
Now we have a panic move because the Darling boy has made a series of momentous mess ups and it looks like the Nats just may have a chance of winning.
 

Old Skier

Tour Winner
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
9,608
Location
Instow - play in North Devon
Visit site
...and then there is this sort of nonsense (from today's Herald)

In other developments yesterday, Lord West, former First Sea Lord and Labour security minister said independence posed "the greatest grand strategic threat to the security and defence of our islands".

He added: "There is no doubt whatsoever that if Scotland separated it would diminish our ability to defend these islands."
It's no more nonsense than your sprouting. It's just one mans opinion, just like yours. I doubt if there are many people have even heard of Lord West let alone worry about what he has to say.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,340
Visit site
It's no more nonsense than your sprouting. It's just one mans opinion, just like yours. I doubt if there are many people have even heard of Lord West let alone worry about what he has to say.

With my spouting I just seek information and clarity - I don't tend to say whether I agree or not. So with these statements from BT - I say excellent - a bit of +ve'ity from BT - but let's have some flesh around what they are saying and hear some commitment from Westminster to deliver.

Just as a statement providing information - what Lord West says is tosh as it gives me absolutely no information on why what he says would be the case. Give me an explanation and I might well agree with him.
 
Top