Scotland Debate

[ger147]

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

I very much doubt it will happen. I have not seen a single opinion poll putting Yes at 50% or more and most of the folk I know can see all the recent announcements/speeches for what they are, just more politics.

The bottom line is that the people of Scotland are being asked to vote for an idea, and come the day of the vote we won't have any more idea of what a post-Yes future would hold than we do today, and on that basis I do not believe that a majority of the currently Undecided voters will be prepared to take that gamble.

 

[FairwayDodger]

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.

The NHS in Scotland has a budget, as does the NHS in England and they decide how to spend that budget. So, for example, in Scotland you get free prescriptions and in England you get access to modern cancer medication. I know which I'd prefer.

So if you want to argue about the overall level of budget funding, fair enough, but don't nit-pick what they do with it.

......Oh, and try parking at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary without paying and see where that gets you!

 

[Val]

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

Why?

 

[Rumpokid]

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

..so you have towns like Boston,Thetford, Margate,Dover,..Bradford, Manchester,London etc etc....Maybe try visiting them,and see what a difference the last few years have made,I never said Scotland do not have migrants, I asked if the kind hearted braveheart Alex Salmond would help out a bit..

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

I can understand that. But for many the truth is what the people believe having read it on the front page of the DM or wherever. But there is some resentment down here at what are perceived to be Scottish 'freebies' and the inequality of it all. A NO could well raise the level of that resentment. A misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the point of, and benefits of, devolution.

 

[Val]

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!

But you have to include NSOG, why wouldn't you?

 

[Val]

I can understand that. But for many the truth is what the people believe having read it on the front page of the DM or wherever. But there is some resentment down here at what are perceived to be Scottish 'freebies' and the inequality of it all. A NO could well raise the level of that resentment. A misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the point of, and benefits of, devolution.

People will only see and believe what they want regardless of how often they are told.

 

[Val]

..so you have towns like Boston,Thetford, Margate,Dover,..Bradford, Manchester,London etc etc....Maybe try visiting them,and see what a difference the last few years have made,I never said Scotland do not have migrants, I asked if the kind hearted braveheart Alex Salmond would help out a bit..

In what way? And where do these migrants come from?

 

[ger147]

I can understand that. But for many the truth is what the people believe having read it on the front page of the DM or wherever. But there is some resentment down here at what are perceived to be Scottish 'freebies' and the inequality of it all. A NO could well raise the level of that resentment. A misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the point of, and benefits of, devolution.

I can't think of a more ludicrous reason to vote Yes than being afraid of the reaction from down south if you vote No.

What's the plan, ban Tartan again?

 

[stevie_r]

..so you have towns like Boston,Thetford, Margate,Dover,..Bradford, Manchester,London etc etc....Maybe try visiting them,and see what a difference the last few years have made,I never said Scotland do not have migrants, I asked if the kind hearted braveheart Alex Salmond would help out a bit..

Here's the thing, we have economic migrants in Scotland who don't want to be in England, there are economic migrants in England who are there because they don't want to be in Scotland; If I am picking you up correctly, you seem to be advocating some sort of forced removal of some of the ones in England and resettling them in Scotland.

Purely out of interest, when do you plan to invade Poland and annex Austria?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

..so you have towns like Boston,Thetford, Margate,Dover,..Bradford, Manchester,London etc etc....Maybe try visiting them,and see what a difference the last few years have made,I never said Scotland do not have migrants, I asked if the kind hearted braveheart Alex Salmond would help out a bit..

Stereotyping, based on nationality.always a good way to go.

But to answer your question Mr Farage, you can't force folk to live where they don't want to.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

But you have to include NSOG, why wouldn't you?

Because it suits a particular agenda.And if you MUST include it, make it plain that it's a diminishing resource and fluctuating markets make it more of a burden that an asset.

 

[Foxholer]

But you have to include NSOG, why wouldn't you?

Well, at the moment it 'belongs' to UK!

Certainly include both with/without figures - though I'm a little unsure how the 'with' allocation is made.

Scotland won't simply be granted 100% of NSOG, though it'll certainly keep the economies of the associated areas like Aberdeen - until it runs out of course!

 

[Val]

Because it suits a particular agenda.And if you MUST include it, make it plain that it's a diminishing resource and fluctuating markets make it more of a burden that an asset.

Which maybe the case, but it still has to be included in any figures hemce my response to Foxholers post on GDP per head

 

[Val]

Well, at the moment it 'belongs' to UK!

As does the assets and revenue streams held in England's borders, would Scotland post YES have claim to these assets and revenue streams too?

 

[SocketRocket]

Does the rUK have a claim on part of the assets in Scotland?

 

[Foxholer]

As does the assets and revenue streams held in England's borders, would Scotland post YES have claim to these assets and revenue streams too?

That's another, associated, question! Some would suggest giving RBS back - and demanding the 75+ Billion it has cost the (r)UK!

 

[Val]

That's another, associated, question! Some would suggest giving RBS back - and demanding the 75+ Billion it has cost the (r)UK!

Of course it is, as is the question on NSOG. You can't assume one without the other, all valid questions.

 

[Val]

Does the rUK have a claim on part of the assets in Scotland?

I've no idea, hence the question Scotlands claim on UK assets such as the pound, EU membership etc.

Why has no one asked Salmond the question that if iScotland has claim on these assets then by definition should rUK have claim on assets within Scotlands borders?

 

[One Planer]

I've no idea, hence the question Scotlands claim on UK assets such as the pound, EU membership etc.

Why has no one asked Salmond the question that if iScotland has claim on these assets then by definition should rUK have claim on assets within Scotlands borders?

I think it's a very good question personally and I'd be flabergasted if, as you say, no one has asked the question before now.