Scotland Debate

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In the event of a No vote why should it change? If the people of Scotland vote no then it should be sending the message out saying we like what we have

hmmm - not so sure it says that - but nonetheless it would certainly say we don;t want what is on offer from the YES campaign. But is the BT campaign actually saying to the Scottish electorate that a NO means No Change. Because I am not so sure that the status quo is sustainable and acceptable in the long term for the English electorate. And a NO means a long term NO.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Bet you do as it's more than the rest of us get!

Quite - I am not so sure the BT campaign's Best of Both Worlds approach will make it many friends down here in the south.

 

[Val]

Bet you do as it's more than the rest of us get!

Statistics are easily manipulated, like Scotland contributing more to the GDP per head of population and doesn't get the same percentage in return.

I don't buy this argument.

 

[Val]

Quite - I am not so sure the BT campaign's Best of Both Worlds approach will make it many friends down here in the south.

It doesn't have to, all it has to do is please voters.

 

[Val]

hmmm - not so sure it says that - but nonetheless it would certainly say we don;t want what is on offer from the YES campaign. But is the BT campaign actually saying to the Scottish electorate that a NO means No Change. Because I am not so sure that the status quo is sustainable and acceptable in the long term for the English electorate. And a NO means a long term NO.

So what is going to happen in the even of a NO vote?

No one has really commented that vocally on this front. As far as we are led to believe its going to be a case of "as you were".

Very unlikely I suppose but if there is to be a referendum afterwards then on what basis?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So what is going to happen in the even of a NO vote?

No one has really commented that vocally on this front. As far as we are led to believe its going to be a case of "as you were".

Very unlikely I suppose but if there is to be a referendum afterwards then on what basis?

I'm guessing that the YES campaign don't want to go too much down the 'what-if' NO route as that becomes negative and would mirror what the YES campaign is critical of the BT campaign for doing - that is playing on fear of change. Indeed it seemed to me when last in Scotland earlier this year and reading daily on-line The Herald and watching the BBC Scotland news on a regular basis, that really not a lot is being made by the YES campaign about what may or may not happen in the eventuality of a NO. But I think that it is a reasonable question to ask of BT. Of course BT would probably say that they cannot speak for what Westminster might do in the future - and Westminster of course will say that it has no comment on a Scottish affair - except it clearly now does.

So for instance 'does a NO mean No Change in such as the Barnett formula for the foreseeable future?'. Because unless the answer to that question is 'there will be no change in the Barnett formula in the foreseeable future' then Scotland might as well get used to the idea of budget cuts as they may well come - and that the English electorate may come to demand.

 

[Hobbit]

The Barnett Formula; as a simple calculation based on head count seems fair but... free prescriptions, free university education, free parking at hospitals... funding infrastructure development I don't have a problem with but funding the above, especially for some Scots who are better off than some English, you're having a laugh.

If its a YES vote, fine carry on with your free x,y,z. If its a NO vote, I hope that the money recieved under the Barnett Formula is reduced to reflect the fact you're obviously receiving too much if you can afford the freebie's.

In truth, sadly, I feel that so much power has been devolved to the Scottish parliament you might as well go your own way anyway. Let's face it, if the UK government passes a law, which is also law in Scotland, and a Scottish local authority can usurp that law with impunity... yes, bedroom tax is disgraceful but its still the law until its changed by due process.

 

[ger147]

The answer to the question is there is a general election several months after the Scottish vote so no-one knows who the Government in Westminster will be.

So unless you're into Astrology...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The answer to the question is there is a general election several months after the Scottish vote so no-one knows who the Government in Westminster will be.

So unless you're into Astrology...

Which is true - but all three main parties seemed to be able to state an agreed position on 'sterling-zone' - and it's not as if they each don't have time to decide between now and 18/09 on their positions.

@Hobbit has reflected a view that I think may gain a broader constituency down here in the coming 7months.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Funny how folk do not seem to get the possibility that the Scottish Government are managing their share of the UK budget in a more successful way than rUK.
I dread to think what the total housing benefit sum for the 'home' counties is and who pays it?

 

[Rumpokid]

So if Alex Salmond wants half of UK assets if he gets the vote,(Bank of England being one of them, although this cannot be defined as an asset), maybe he would be so kind as to take in a few economic migrants from English towns and cities to alleviate pressures on services etc, as these are an asset to the UK economy eh?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Funny how folk do not seem to get the possibility that the Scottish Government are managing their share of the UK budget in a more successful way than rUK.
I dread to think what the total housing benefit sum for the 'home' counties is and who pays it?

Which may well be the case but that knowledge doesn't take away resentments on these things when they also find out that the per head grant is grater than in England.

 

[ger147]

Which may well be the case but that knowledge doesn't take away resentments on these things when they also find out that the per head grant is grater than in England.

Per head GDP is also greater in Scotland but the Daily Mail don't print that.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Per head GDP is also greater in Scotland but the Daily Mail don't print that.

...again I haven't noticed that this 'fact' (as there will no doubt be some who dispute it) is understood and accepted as a basis for Scots getting freebies that the rest of us don't. The DM headline is much simpler and easy to understand. Scots per head grant > English per head grant; Scots get more free 'services'. Easy to make one the consequence of the other.

 

[stevie_r]

So if Alex Salmond wants half of UK assets if he gets the vote,(Bank of England being one of them, although this cannot be defined as an asset), maybe he would be so kind as to take in a few economic migrants from English towns and cities to alleviate pressures on services etc, as these are an asset to the UK economy eh?

I think you will find there are economic migrants in Scotland already.

 

[ger147]

...again I haven't noticed that this 'fact' (as there will no doubt be some who dispute it) is understood and accepted as a basis for Scots getting freebies that the rest of us don't. The DM headline is much simpler and easy to understand. Scots per head grant > English per head grant; Scots get more free 'services'. Easy to make one the consequence of the other.

We earn more per head, we spend more per head. Couldn't be any simpler.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think you will find there are economic migrants in Scotland already.

Yes .....most are English OAP's.
Another couple in our village this week

Ps. If you check the facts....Ger 147 is correct.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Im looking forward to Scotland being independent now - never thought i would say that until recent months.

 

[stevie_r]

Yes .....most are English OAP's.
Another couple in our village this week

Ps. If you check the facts....Ger 147 is correct.

I really do doubt that retired English people fall into the category of economic migrants; with regard to your post script, I haven't the faintest idea what you are referring to.

 

[Foxholer]

We earn more per head, we spend more per head. Couldn't be any simpler.

From the figures I've seen, that's only if you include revenue from North Sea Oil/Gas. Excluding NSOG, earnings are slightly less than rUK

That will be the (next big?) challenge for the the politicians - whether/how to decide the percentage of that that belongs to rUK! at the moment, it seems to be assumed that it's simply going to be annexed by Scotland!