Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are not prescription charges in Scotland.
I know, but the fear is, they could make a comeback. Scottish Labour have already rallied against them, and seem strongly in favour of scrapping them.
The thing is, it shouldn't be a fear that they make a comeback, free prescriptions for all is basically unaffordable, it means we lose out of public spending elsewhere and was done as a bit of political point scoring with labour voters when disillusioned labours supporters wanted someone else to vote for after the Blair\Brown years.
There is no reason why say someone like me should get free prescriptions, I am 32, working and earn enough that I shouldn't get free prescriptions, and having Cronhs I need vitamin b12, azathioprine tablets and iron tablets every couple of months, but I would just have to pay it.
However those on medical disability benefits or under say £18k PA wage SHOULD get free prescriptions, however Govt's are worried that this would lose them votes with many middle class labour voters so everyone got it in Scotland.
there is nothing wrong with being asked to pay a fair amount, however when certain Medical professionals spout crap such as people should pay £200 for a GP appointment to stop folk wasting time, they should be shouted down.
There is private healthcare in the UK, if you want to use it, do so, but the NHS is supposed to be free at point of use, however if they are struggling that much, add a % increase to national insurance contributions and then do some proper restructuring and reduce the massive waste in the NHS first.
Not true about the Euro. You can agree in principal to adopt it, but there is no time limit for adoption. Sweden have been stalling on the euro for years, even though they agreed to adopt it.
I don't think that will be possible, due to being another reason for some countries to vote against Scotland's entry, but assuming that it is not a barrier, not adopting the Euro leaves Scotland without a currency or a central bank. Yes, Scotland to unilaterally adopt sterling, but that leaves them without a central bank, little scope for borrowing internationally, no way to manage sovereign debt and no lender of last resort. Personaly I think that would be very damaging for Scotland. What Scotland is going to do about currency is a big question that needs to be answered, and (despite what Alex Salmond thinks) sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalala we will use the pound lalala" is not a plan.
Given how brilliant and wonderful privatization of energy companies and the trains has been, I'm sure Scots will look forward to paying for prescription charges and fees to see their GP.
Because British Rail was the paragon of high quality low cost rail travel... I don't agree about energy companies being worse than the public companies, but anyway, equally you could point to telephone, QinetiQ, or the British automotive industry. It is not a simple matter of Private = Bad, Public = Good, or the other way round. It is a much more nuanced question. Fees for GP's and prescription charges had nothing to do with privatization. Fees was something suggested by a think tank and quickly dismissed. Talk of privatization is just scare mongering.
There is just too many unanswered questions, and too much hand waiving from the Yes side IMO. I think as a larger county, with more people, more resources and greater stability we are stronger as one nation, and divided we will all be damaged. IMO Scotland will be more damaged than the rest of the UK, mostly because so much is just "It'll be ok". If the questions of currency, EU membership, student funding, pension funding and what to do if oil does not reach the rather optimistic projections of the Yes campaign, were answered, then I would be more positive, but as it stands there are too many questions.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/08/11 13:25:35
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.
The biggest problems here are:
The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.
I've already gone over this in a previous post; a commitment in principle is a requirement to join the EU, and that is what the UK have an "opt-out" of, actually joining the Eurozone and adopting the Euro as currency is voluntary as the first step is to have your own currency and use ERM2 to peg that currency to the Eurozone for two years minimum, and joining ERM2 is entirely at the discretion of the member state, indeed no mechanism exists in any EU law or treaty to force a member state to join it. The UK's "opt-out" is meaningless posturing designed to placate the Europhobic elements in Parliament and the media, it has zero practical value.
Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.
The UK shares its only land border with the Republic of Ireland, with whom we share the Common Travel Area and a joint Schengen opt-out. If the rUK choose to maintain their opposition to joining Schengen, which they doubtless will, the same situation will be negotiated for Scotland, since exactly the same rationales which apply to Ireland(an EU nation which would have no land-border with anyone except the UK, both nations on an island rather than the EU mainland - forcing Scotland to adopt Schengen has no utility for the EU since it would result in the imposition of new barriers to freedom of movement, ie the exact opposite of what Schengen is supposed to achieve, and no utility for the rUK since its interests lie in minimising the potential economic impact of Scottish independence and the easiest way to do that is to "expand" the Common Travel Area to include Scotland).
Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.
Could you clarify this one? As far as I was aware the UK adopted the WTDs into law in 1998 and as such they have been part of Scots Law since the inception of the Parliament since compliance with EU acquis are part of its founding charter.
Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.
There are two issues with that, the first is that vetoing or delaying Scotland's membership is not without consequences for the EU and its constituent nations, that's not a threat it's just a fact - without transitional arrangements which would have to amount to full albeit unofficial membership regardless, there would be substantial issues around EU citizens studying and working in Scotland and vice versa, with the Scottish portion of the UK's contributions, with Scotland's imports from and exports to the continent etc etc. That has to be weighed against any desire they might have to "send a message". The second is a drum Spain have been banging continually since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed - the Agreement itself. Scotland has no inherent legal right to hold a referendum under EU or international law(something I believe is wrong as it's completely incompatible with the principles of self-determination enshrined in both the EU and UN, but factually that is the case), our referendum is an agreed process between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it derives all of its legal validity from that agreement. Spain(and other EU nations with "separatist movements") argues, therefore, that the result of the Scottish referendum can have no bearing on the situation of the Catalans or Basques, since Spain's constitution forbids their government to enter into such an agreement, and without one the EU has no obligation to respect the result of any independence referendum or universal declaration of independence. Now in practice Scotland's successful independence would likely "embolden" other EU independence movements, but at that point the damage is essentially already done, and in combination with the first issue I highlighted real politik would make it pretty difficult to obstruct Scottish membership out of what would look very much like spite.
Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.
"Easy" is a relative term, but it will almost certainly not be the insurmountable obstacle Better Together claim.
In 2012 before the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Graham Avery(Honourary Director-General of the EU Commission, senior policy adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK and several other nations' EU accessions) stated;
“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.”
And in 2014 before the Scottish Parliament's European Committee he stated;
“A situation where Scotland was outside the European Union and not applying European rules would be a legal nightmare for the people in the rest of the United Kingdom and the British Government has to take account of that. I think it would be very, very unfortunate for the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland was not a member from day one of independence.”
The current European Commission president is reportedly "sympathetic" to the case for an independent Scotland's membership. Nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty "Scotland will be a member of the EU on independence day in 2016 on the same terms as today within the UK", but it's hardly unlikely, and by the same token nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty that a Scotland that had voted No and was still part of the UK would be a member of the EU come 2017 when the UK government holds the promised in-out referendum on EU membership, and in that case the preponderance of polling evidence combined with simple demographics analysis would suggest we wouldn't be.
Rick_1138 wrote: Regarding the NHS and the issue of things like trident and wasteful spending, remember that Trident system costs circa £22billion over the 10 year upgrade, the NHS in the UK costs annually some £700billion, the welfare bill is somewhere in the £1.7Billion annually region also.
Scotland has a higher percentage of welfare dependants that the rest of the UK, with a lower tax take, this will becaome a greater issue in an independent Scotland, the SNP keep talking about a fairer society, which basically means the richer will pay higher taxes. Many go, "fine, they have lots to spare", well this is true, but higher earners already pay far more in tax than lower earners, they pay their fair share already, its the reason for a percentage based system, 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 10.
However this doesn't simply mean the millionaires will pay a little more each year, it means people earning over £30k a year will suddenly find themselves £150 a month worse off, with no real noticeable benefit as it just goes into the black hole that is the welfare budget.
Regarding the NHS, privatisation isn't necessarily going to appen, though many decry the privatisation of the trains as a terrible thing, many forget that the public state owned rail system was falling apart and was never getting any money spent on it, and the cost of travel today is still massively subsidised by the state, if it wasn't the cost of trains would be massively higher, many assume the train operators juist suck up all the cash and laugh, they do actually put a lot back in to replace the system, east coast being a good example.
The NHS also needs massive restructuring, it is far too wasteful, a few trusts have taken on the idea of running as a partnership, a bit like John lewis, and have started to make a 'profit' from their budget which is put back into the hospital, this should be done on a national level, therefore it is state run and funded, but pays for itself at each hospital.
privatisation doesn't just mean making it a PLC to make money.
I would much rather be part of a country with a stronger financial foundation that can work through economic issues (as we are doing) than start a new nation up that is already going to have massive start up costs (even the SNP admit it will be close to some 1.5 billion, not the £200 million originally claimed) and we will be on a knife edge economically for many years, it could all go wrong and be almost impossible to fix, why do all that for the chance to self determine that we get the same bunch of politicians 150 miles away rather than 500?
I get the idea behind it all, but its been so badly sold and set-up by salmond and the SNP as a vote winner 5 years ago rather than an actual planned process in hand with the rUK that could have worked so much better.
It all seems a bit slap dash to be honest, and with it being so important I cannot fathom any other vote than No.
I'm going to want a few sources for these claims please. First, where is the claim that Scotland will have a lower tax rate come from? The SNP have proposed lowering corporation tax and air passenger duty, not personal taxation on income or capital gains, and that those cuts be accompanied by changes to the tax code to make avoidance much more difficult. They argue this will result in increased revenues in the medium to long term due to increased business activity. Now, personally I disagree as I don't subscribe to neoliberal economics, but since that is essentially the same policy espoused by both the previous Labour and current Coalition governments, it can hardly be held up as an example of why Scotland in particular would be in a weaker economic position.
Scotland has a higher "proportion" of welfare dependents than the UK, but as a percentage of GDP the welfare system is a lower burden on Scotland's economy than is the case for the whole UK, and that is forecast to remain the case for at least two decades, only after that becoming worse than the UK if you assume current demographic trends of working age population to retirees continue uninterrupted. Given that obtaining the powers to begin changing that demographic trend is one of the core arguments in favour of independence, and that the UK has no specific plans to address those trends in Scotland if we remain part of it, again how can this be used as an example that Scotland is economically weaker than rUK?
While you may have an ideological preference for privatisation, your view is not shared by the majority of the British or Scottish populace, and your example in the trains is hardly a shining one given that that East Coast Mainline is run by Directly Operated Railways, a publicly-owned institution which was put in place when not one but two previous private operators failed, and which is the best performing rail line in the entire network; it receives the lowest levels of direct subsidy, it returns more money to the Treasury than any of the privately operated lines by a substantial margin, and it consistently gets the highest customer satisfaction ratings. The NHS's "restructuring" in England has already resulted in whole specialisms disappearing from some hospitals as "unprofitable" treatments are abandoned, leaving many people with serious illnesses having to travel further and further to receive treatment. Prescription charges in England have left many poor and vulnerable people having to choose between their prescribed medications because they cannot afford to fill all of them. Government-favoured think tanks are proposing the introduction of fees to visit GPs, and the fact that the NHS England(they are distinct entities remember) reforms have created a "marketplace" means that if the UK government don't seek a specific exemption(which they have no plans to), when the UK becomes a signatory of TTIP the private sector will be able to use the courts to force their way into any aspect of healthcare provision by having them declare government provision as "unfair competition", and further the case has been made that this would also apply to a devolved Scotland still within the UK since despite the SG having control over Health and Social Care, as a "region" of the UK TTIPs provisions would apply here as well.
I'll also want a source on your claim that the SNP have "admitted" setup costs of £1.5bil, considering that figure is derived from a UK Government report which has been discredited and disavowed by BOTH the academics on whos figures the government claimed it was based.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are not prescription charges in Scotland.
I know, but the fear is, they could make a comeback. Scottish Labour have already rallied against them, and seem strongly in favour of scrapping them.
The thing is, it shouldn't be a fear that they make a comeback, free prescriptions for all is basically unaffordable,
Factually incorrect. Free prescriptions "costs" the Scottish Government £60million per year, and considering the exemptions which were in place before(only around 2 in 5 people paid for a prescription before they were made free) and the cost of the administrative apparatus necessary to means-test them, at best reverting to the old system would save a few million a year, and that's before you consider any additional cost burdens placed on the rest of the NHS by situations like those mentioned above where people on multiple medications cannot afford to fill all their scripts and so aggravate their existing conditions to the point they need much more expensive treatments in the long-term.
At this point, we're getting on for another monsterpost, so I'm going to step back and suggest that people who have questions or objections go to the link in my signature and download a copy of the Wee Blue Book. It's far better written than my own posts will be, it deals with all the issues being raised here, and it includes citations for the sources on which every claim and argument is based.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
There is actually a huge range in the figures being brought in by the different polling companies. They're all using their own methodologies, and while one end of the spectrum(Ipsos MORI and the company in that link, YouGov) typically shows a higher No lead, other companies(Panelbase, Survation, ICM) have come out with polls showing a gap of five points, and in a few cases less than three points on the unrounded figures, which is within the standard margin of error. YouGov in particular have been a source of some controversy, given that high level employees at the company have made pro-Union statements in the media, they use a mechanism called "the Kellner Correction" which artificially upweights No voters in their samples because the head of the company believes "shy No syndrome" makes No voters less likely to express their preference(on the basis of anecdotal evidence which nobody but him has seen), and until their most recent poll they didn't even survey the 16-17 year old bracket despite them having a vote. To be fair, Panelbase have come in for their fair share of flack from the Unionists for ostensibly being "biased" towards the SNP and Yes, but unlike in the case of YouGov no actual questions have been raised regarding Panelbase's conduct, it's merely an accusation levelled at them because they typically show a higher projected Yes vote than No-friendly pollsters like YouGov and MORI do(and in the minds of Unionists that is evidence enough to damn them).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/15 12:06:18
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
For starters, start up costs. yes the start up costs stated by the SNP was £200m as stated by Dunleavy, however he then went on to say that that was only initial start up, and would probably cost a further £700-900m following that, so in actual fact the £1billion stated by better together in the first place.:
I don't have an 'ideaological' preference for privatisation, what I do have is the ability to understand simple economical reality, the NHS cannot continue in its current funding form, I have 5 close relatives all based in healthcare (mother and aunt are nurses, Cousin is a doctor) and have a lot of experience of the NHS having a chronic Illness, and I have seen them talk time and again that the system simply cannot continue, it will collapse under its own weight unless drastic funding changes happen, namely the streamlining of services or a huge increase in national insurance contributions, which I cant see the public just accepting tbh.
Some elements of the NHS can and will be privatisedm things like non emergency medical issues, such as cosmetic surgeries or non required caesarean births (i.e. too posh to push), these should not be getting paid for via public purse. Also a huge amount of hospitals have massive waste issues spending great amounts on overpriced equipment from a single centralised suppler, private supply firms will encourage competition and lower prices, this is simple supply and demand.
regarding the East coast main line, yes it is publicly ran as an intermediary since 2009, but it was the private owner that put cash into it and upgraded the carriages and equipment, however it ran into financial difficulties and the reason no new owner has been stated yet is because Virgin trains who ran a large part of the service were outbid by First, however it was proven that First couldn't possibly run the service for the lower bid\budget they claimed, so its now on hold until a new tendering process can happen, I personally hope its virgin trains as they are really good, as I use the line a lot.
I never said Scotland would have a lower tax rate, I said a lower tax TAKE, i.e. we are going from a pool of some 45million tax payers to a pool of 4.5 million taxpayers. Yes this does mean the smaller pot has to cover less people, but many forget the HUGE imbalance that the London mile creates in the banking sector to cover the tax take used to pay for a large amount of services across the UK, Scotland being third behind Northern Island and the North east of England in Tax given from the pot (this was in agraphic in the newspaper the other day, I was surprised how tax was split after many decry that Scotland (incorrectly) takes more than anywhere else!
Scotlands higher level of welfare dependants wont magically change under an independent state, there will still be a higher level of welfare dependants, they just wont be getting their benefits (be that disability, job seekers, child fund etc) so Scotland will have to foot the bill, this isn't insurmountable but it will be an issue.
Regarding the belief that lowering business rates and flight tax but not increasing the income tax levels will cover an increase in public spending is quite simply laughable, especially considering we don't know what currency we will be using, that's an awful big gamble to claim how taxation will work when we don't know what we will be getting paid in. You CANNOT claim we will use the pound as all members of the govt, opposition and bank of England have said no Currency union will happen, so that leaves a Scottish poind (which will be worth little to start with), which will not be backed by the bank of England, yes Alex Salmond is correct, England cant stop us using the pound, much as Panam use the US dollar, it isn't backed up by the Federal reserve so is basically not worth the money its printed on in trade economics, I don't fancy that as my pay tbh. or the Euro which as Greece and Ireland, Spain etc have proven, it works for Germany and France, but for small weaker powers that need a strong currency or options to devalue their currency to entice trade, you cannot do that with a monetary union such as the Euro, which caused Greeces economy to spectacularly collapse, there is no reason why Scotland under the euro couldn't have the same issue, no strength behind its currency.
Regarding free prescriptions, I didn't mean a govt couldn't afford it, what I meant was, there is no reason people who can afford them without issue, should have them subsidised, but those who cannot afford treatment should of course have it paid for them.
As a final point, and I know I keep coming back to economics, but in my view it is the single most important reason why we should vote No, the whole thing has been badly thought out, poorly explained and in some cases downright lies about how Scotland will operate as an independent nation. The reason the BT camp keep banging on about what the SNP will do if Plan A isn't available (a currency union) what they plan to do afterwards, here we are 4 weeks till the vote and the Yes camp still keep bleating on that we will use the pound and be in a union with the bank of England, this simply wont happen, its too dangerous for the UK treasury to basically give Scotland its credit card and watch the debt rack up, because it will, its a start up nation with a socialist govt who will increase public spending (this is the SNP's big thing, lower taxes and higher public spending, this has to be paid for with public money borrowed against the BoE.
A final thinking point, if we change to the Euro or say the Scottish pound, what happens to everyone with mortgages taken out in English banks, those mortgages are in pounds but Scottish borrowers will have to pay back those loans from whatever currency we have after independence which will be weaker than the pound, (due to the simple nature an emerging economy will be weaker than the established ones, AND the pound Sterling is going from strength to strength, the IMF has basically said it was wrong about Osbornes plans and even labour\Ed Balls has stopped banging the drum about Osborne doing it all wrong, yet John Swinney carries on the same broken record). As a result of our loans\mortgages being based in the stringer pound, this means paying back mortgages will be more expensive and could lead to forclosures and people losing their homes, this is basic economics and happened in Greecem Spain, Ireland and Italy when the Euro collapsed and inflation skyrocketed and as a result people couldn't pay their debts.
This is fear mongering or trying to scare undecided voters, this is what happens when you sell an economy on lies and hopes.
Come the 18th I look forward to a No vote and going to bed hoping all the bile and rubbish I have seen in the past year from the Nats vanishes.
but hey ho. this is only a wargaming forum...and I am going home.
My mother works as a senior adminstrator in an NHS PCT, among other roles. She complains daily about waste, inefficiency and the nightmare of NHS bureaucracy.
The founding principles of the NHS are all fine and honourable, but like all other things that politicians get their hands on, it's now well and truly F.U.B.A.R.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/15 15:53:42
Rick, I appreciate that while you're disagreeing with me, you're doing so (mostly)politely and laying out your position thoroughly. I hope you won't consider my continuing to argue the points you raise as an attack on yourself.
In order then;
Startup costs - if you pop over to Prof Dunleavy's blog on the LSE site(I'll try and dig out the link but I never BM'd it), you'll note that he specifies those "additional" costs are in fact not additional, they relate to the expenditure necessary to create new IT and other administrative systems required to run presently reserved matters, which as I mentioned in a previous post Scotland would have to pay regardless because the UK government is planning to upgrade those same systems UK-wide over the course of the next parliament, which we would contribute to at our usual 1-or-2%-above-per-capita share. He is explicit that by his estimation the "cost of independence", ie spending which would have to be undertaken in an independent Scotland which we would not otherwise have had to make/contribute to as part of the UK, is the £200-600million estimate he gave(and in his view the lower end of that scale). An additional point of fact on this matter; Better Together's initial claim was not £1billion, it was £3billion based, they claimed, on Prof Dunleavy's work. After he publicly disavowed their interpretation(manipulation, if we're being uncharitable) of his work, Better Together/the Treasury then made a second claim of £1.5billion, based on the work of a Canadian academic who then also publicly disavowed their interpretation on the basis that his study related to Quebec and couldn't be directly compared to the Scotland/UK situation. They have as yet, to my knowledge, not backed down from the £1.5bil claim.
Regarding the NHS - I disagree with your fundamental premise. Waste is an inherent quality of any bureaucracy, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately run, or whether it is on a large or a small scale. Large organisations generate waste through inability to quickly respond to circumstances and, depending on how well they are run, in over-provision of middle management, but that waste is offset by economies of scale which smaller groups are incapable of. Smaller organisations generate waste through an inability to leverage those economies of scale, and through duplication of effort when multiple small groups attempt to function as a whole without adequate oversight, but their ability to react to circumstance without moving through multiple layers of management makes them more responsive. If we want to have public services, we much accept the inherent additional cost of operating the bureaucratic apparatus. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector, and even in cases where it does demonstrate greater efficiency that does not necessarily mean it would cost less, since some or all of the resources saved due to increased efficiency will be repurposed as profits rather than savings.
Regarding welfare/dependency ratios - I don't believe I argued that the ratios would "magically" change under an independent state, my contention is that A; given social security is a smaller percentage of an independent's Scotland's GDP than the UK and will remain so for at least 20 years, it will not be an immediate problem and B; given that the issue largely related to the ratio of pensioners to working age employed adults, having powers over our economy and immigration system will allow us to take positive action to address the issue before it does become a problem.
Regarding tax base - you also have to take into account that Scotland generates more revenue for the Treasury than anywhere else in the country except London and the SE(and just London if you include geographic oil revenues, which an independent Scotland would). We spend more, but we also pay in more.
Free prescriptions - The point though is that the system to means-test the prescription system to ensure only the "deserving" get theirs for free costs almost as much as just giving them to everyone free - universalism is important to benefits being accepted by society, the more heavily you means test benefits, the more people who're not eligible see themselves as being unfairly victimised to pay for the "lazy & feckless". So in situations when there's almost no benefit to the public purse of means testing(such as free scripts), why cut off our nose to spite our face?
Currency and economics in general - I genuinely don't get where you're coming from on this aspect. I don't get how someone can look at a Scottish Government led by a former oil economist, making economic propositions on the advice of a panel of renowned international academic economists, who're part of a campaign that includes groups like Business for Scotland who's sole role in the campaign has been analysing the economics of independence, who're advocating the independence of a country that has received preliminary ratings from two different ratings agencies at their highest levels of assessment, a country about which the Financial Times said;
“An independent Scotland could expect to start
with healthier state finances than the rest of the
UK.”
...I don't get how someone can look at all that and think that the economic case is badly thought out.
And we know what currency we will use immediately; the Pound. Ideally within a currency agreement, but if not then using it without agreement is perfectly possible and according to some(like the Adam Smith Institute) preferable. It would have disadvantages compared to an agreed use, but would be advantageous in other ways. Again, I don't get how someone can look at the Scottish Government's position on currency, one based entirely on the work of aforementioned internationally renowned academics which lays out every single option available and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and think it anything other than the most thorough analysis it's possible to make before negotiations take place.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Yodhrin wrote: The second is a drum Spain have been banging continually since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed - the Agreement itself. Scotland has no inherent legal right to hold a referendum under EU or international law(something I believe is wrong as it's completely incompatible with the principles of self-determination enshrined in both the EU and UN, but factually that is the case), our referendum is an agreed process between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it derives all of its legal validity from that agreement.
Its good to see that Yes campers are no longer completely ignoring the Spai9nsh threat of veto as project fear but actual Spanish policy.
However it would help if they told the truth.
Spain has no opinion on the referendum, there is no referendum drum they have been 'banging on'. The Spanish Prime Minster has even gone as far as to say there would be no Spanish intereference in the referendum, which was something the Yes camp were previously spinning into the lie that there was no veto threat. Quotes for this have been twice linked on this thread already.
Spain(and other EU nations with "separatist movements") argues, therefore, that the result of the Scottish referendum can have no bearing on the situation of the Catalans or Basques, since Spain's constitution forbids their government to enter into such an agreement,
That comment is bollocks because the Scottish referndum, if the outcome is a Yes vote, will have an emboldening affect on the Basque and Catalan movements and possibly movements in Italy also. The fact that Spanish constitution forbids a referendum only makes matters worse as it could be a catalyst for unrest or terrorism.
Now in practice Scotland's successful independence would likely "embolden" other EU independence movements, but at that point the damage is essentially already done, and in combination with the first issue I highlighted real politik would make it pretty difficult to obstruct Scottish membership out of what would look very much like spite.
You admit the above but miss the point, not all the damage is done. The damage to the Uk and Scotlands futire is done but the damage to Spain is only beginning. Things can get a qwholwe lot worse if Scottish idependence is successful. If however Scottish independence fails, on account of internal policy or inability to join the EU then the seperatist agenda in Spain will have a lot less appeal.
Its as simple as:
Scotland gets independence and gets EU entry = If we Basques/Catalans make enough of a ruckus we will get our own nation also.
Scotland gets independence and fails to get EU entry = If we Basques/Catalans make enough of a ruckus we will get our own nation also, but a lot of our fellows don't think its worth it because we will lose a lot of what we have got.
"Easy" is a relative term, but it will almost certainly not be the insurmountable obstacle Better Together claim.
a Veto is insurmountable. So long as Spain has the political will to keep saying no. Its insurmountable in the short term, possibly the medioum term, probably not the long term, but by then it will be too late.
“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.”
Interesting quote, but far more senior people including those speaking on behalf of the French and Spanish governments at the highest level have already cartegorically stated Scotland will have to apply to join.
The hard reality is that the UK is part of the EU, if Scotland votes yes and volunteers to leave the Uk it also volunteers to leave the EU as the UK is the member of the EU, not Scotland, which has no direct presence there. Scottish MEPs are UK MEPs. The same act that gives up UK citizenship also gives up EU citizenship. Nobody is stripping Scots of EU citizenship, they do that themselves by voting Yes.
And in 2014 before the Scottish Parliament's European Committee he stated;
“A situation where Scotland was outside the European Union and not applying European rules would be a legal nightmare for the people in the rest of the United Kingdom and the British Government has to take account of that. I think it would be very, very unfortunate for the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland was not a member from day one of independence.”
The EU mioves at its own pace, not Salmonds. Applications to join normally take many years, that is the reality.
Take thwe Uk entry for instance, this was as stated in earlier posts blocked by De Gaulle for rerasons of personal bile. The UK was ready to join the EEC in 1969 when the treaty was signed allowing the Uk to join, the Uk still did not actually get to join until 1974. It is interesting to note that in 1969-72 the Uk was booming, but had a financial meltdown due to a lengthy battle with the unions in 73-74, the Uk joined when its economic strength was low and was out while it was high. This was because entry was determined by the nurauyvcratic procedures of the EEC, not actually viability of joining.
When Scotland applies wit will have to grease the joining wheels of the EU, and those controlling the application process will not be hurried as the process soaks up power and revenue.
The current European Commission president is reportedly "sympathetic" to the case for an independent Scotland's membership. Nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty "Scotland will be a member of the EU on independence day in 2016 on the same terms as today within the UK", but it's hardly unlikely,
Juncker is sympathetic as an offshoot of not liking Cameron, I dont know if he is actually pro-Scottish or just wants his oqwn back against the UK. This doesnt matter, I agree that Juncker will try and help, but he can sympathise as much as he likes, is Spain vetoes sympathy is all you get.
and by the same token nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty that a Scotland that had voted No and was still part of the UK would be a member of the EU come 2017 when the UK government holds the promised in-out referendum on EU membership, and in that case the preponderance of polling evidence combined with simple demographics analysis would suggest we wouldn't be.
I grant you this one, however a withdrawal form the EU is very unlikely. UKIP is popular for reasons other than its stance on Europe.
I'll also want a source on your claim that the SNP have "admitted" setup costs of £1.5bil, considering that figure is derived from a UK Government report which has been discredited and disavowed by BOTH the academics on whos figures the government claimed it was based.
Patrick Dunleavy has also said it costs £15 million to set up a new department. Both figures are widely optimisitic. The Scottish parliament buildings cost more than the entire set up for iScotland is projected to cost, sorry its just not realistic.
I can see Dunleavy's point, the actual cost of itself would be about 200m, but by the time you have had bureaucracy and inefficiency it will cost a whole lot more. The Treasury figures are more grounded, Scotland also has its gravy trains, if you disbelieve that look at Salmond's wild expenses.
Startup costs - They (the Treasury) have as yet, to my knowledge, not backed down from the £1.5bil claim.
Nor should they, they are realistic. The Scottish parliament has not been efficient or gravy train free, so its vapid to think iScotland will be.
In fairness this just means more of the same, iScotland will not be any worse, though it will have to include departments that the Scottish parliament doesnt need to consider.
Lets take one for example, a foreign ministry. a top ambassador has a salary of over £100k, say that iScotland was to halve that to £50k, doable, but unpopular with those who want some gravy. Assume that you want to send embassies in only 120 of the 196 sovereign states that still comes up to 6 million, in salaries a year just for the 120 cut price ambassadors. These are without premises and without staff. Median civil service pay is about £19k, management pay is about £30k. Assuming you want a bare bones embassy staff of only one manager and two staff this means, this is an extra £8 milion rounded down. You havent added a foreign ministry of any kind, no embassies purchased and no representation at all in a third of nation states (this of itself is not unusual for smaller European countries). We have already clocked up £14 million on salaries alone for a bare bones salaries without any infrastructure whatsoever. Lets carry on with the salaries for a minute though. How much will it cost to pay the people to pay the embassy staff for the bare bones 120 embassies. Payroll department of 20 with a median salary of 19k as most are just clerks, thats 380k, a legal department, that will cost buts lets be generous and say you start with a legal department of a further thirty at 'manager' salaries, thats 900k, ten bigwigs on 100k each average (this unreasonably assumes that Salmond cronies don't get slush funding) thats another million, plus another fifty of so general workers averaging at the median civil service salary of 19K again. another 950k. Lets total this up (£3.28milion) and round it extra generously down to £3
No0w these figures are admittedly from the top of my head, but they are also woeful underestimates for rthe salary costs of a working foreign office for a small country, actual costs would be orders of magnitude larger, and these costs do not include recruiting the civil servants, vetting them or paying for a single paper clip or square yard of office space. Yet we have already clocked up £17million for our bare bones foreign ministry, 1/11th of the entire iScotland setup for all departments and all infrastructure.
I dont buy the £200 million figure, and neither does the treasury.
And we know what currency we will use immediately; the Pound. Ideally within a currency agreement, but if not then using it without agreement is perfectly possible and according to some(like the Adam Smith Institute) preferable.
Scotland can do this, but it cannot print any new currency and would have to use Bank of England notes as Bank of Scotland notes end circulation. Those in circulation would remain legal tender.
It would be preferable as you can offset the cost of setting up a new Bank of iScotland, that alone would cost way more that £200 million.
It would have disadvantages compared to an agreed use, but would be advantageous in other ways. Again, I don't get how someone can look at the Scottish Government's position on currency, one based entirely on the work of aforementioned internationally renowned academics which lays out every single option available and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and think it anything other than the most thorough analysis it's possible to make before negotiations take place.
Other equally or more reknowned academics and economists however think iScotland will be such a disaster companies and people will flee with their money.
Who is right?
A lot of the experts have opinions that are paid for not academically held, this goes both ways. You have to look at the numbers and at case studies of former examples. Panamaisation is a nightmare for anyone wanting to paint a picture of a rose tinted bright future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/16 02:49:10
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!
We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!
What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/16 14:16:38
Perfect illustration of what I was saying above. The problem with the referendum is there's no direct precedent, so there's no way to tell which polling company is using the "right" methodology and weighting system until after we're done. Some weight by recalled 2010 Westminster vote, some by recalled 2011 Holyrood vote, some have started using a Frankenweight of 2011 combined with the recent EU elections; some weight by country of origin while others don't; Panelbase, Survation, and YouGov use preselected online panels, while Ipsos MORI exclusively poll landline telephones and ICM exclusively use face-to-face interviews; some companies use additional "anecdote-based" weightings like the aforementioned "Kellner Correction"(YouGov) or upweighting/downweighting by party affiliation(Labour and SNP supporters respectively, Ipsos MORI). When you also factor in that all of the pollsters appear to be failing to reach the "missing million"(the ordinarily unregistered and non-voting who it seems may well play a big role) and that a fair few of them had some pretty entertainingly wrong results in the last couple of Holyrood elections, at this point the polls are more about trying to guide opinion rather than measure it, ie political points scoring by either campaign("Blow for Salmond! etc", "Momentum with Yes! etc" *sigh*).
As for Abbott, if voting Yes means being on the opposite side than someone who thinks those voting one way in an entirely peaceful democratic process in a negotiated referendum are "enemies of freedom and democracy" or whatever, someone who thinks women are physiologically incapable of being leaders, who thinks climate change is a global conspiracy among scientists to cheat the world out of extra funding, and is so homophobic his own sister had to leave his country just to marry her partner - I'm entirely comfortable with that.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Scottish pro-independence movement are 'underdogs', says Alex Salmond
First minister says yes campaign 'has work to do' as polls show support stalling after TV debate with Alistair Darling
Alex Salmond has moved to dampen hopes of victory for the yes campaign in September's referendum on Scottish independence by describing the pro-independence movement as "underdogs".
As a further poll showed the yes vote stalling following his televised debate with Alistair Darling, the first minister admitted the yes campaign had "still got work to do" to close the gap with less than 40 days before the referendum.
The Scottish national party leader insisted that being behind in the polls suited his campaign, signalling he wanted independence activists to step up their campaigning dramatically in the final weeks.
"I relish the position of being the underdog," he told the BBC. "I think that's the best position to be in, in a campaign. I have been there before in other campaigns, Scotland has been there before many times. The trick is not to be ahead today, it's to be ahead on September 18."
The YouGov poll for the Sun on Monday put the no vote at 55% and yes at 35% – the same level it detected in June, and at 61% to no and 39% to yes after taking out undecideds.
On Saturday the polling organisation Survation told the Daily Mail that, after the STV debate, the no vote was up to 50%, its highest figure for the anti-independence vote, with support for setting up a new state falling four points to 37%.
Those findings were echoed by the latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey, funded by a UK government research council, which put the yes vote at 39% – three points up on the same survey last year, and the no vote at 61% after undecideds were excluded.
The gap in yes support between men and women had doubled since last year to 12%, the largest gap found by the survey, with only 27% of women backing independence. But it also found that support for independence is more evenly spread through Scotland's social classes and by age than before.
Its face-to-face questionnaire of 1339 voters was carried out between May and July, so it did not capture any effect from the Glasgow Commonwealth games or the STV debate.
But the study, widely seen as the most authoritative of its kind, found voters are increasingly seeing themselves as both British and Scottish, as attitudes changed during the campaign. The number seeing themselves as Scottish as opposed to British fell to 65% – the lowest level found by the SSA since 1979, when it stood at 56%.
Asked to define their identity further, 32% said they were equally Scottish and British – the highest number since 1992. Those describing themselves as Scottish-only fell to 23%, the joint lowest figure since 1997 and the number seeing themselves as more Scottish than British stood at 26% – the lowest the SSA has recorded.
Professor John Curtice, who oversaw the SSA study for the Scottish Centre for Social Research, said his best guess was that, as voters were now being faced with a choice of leaving the UK, some voters felt their identification with being British was strengthening.
Those voters could equally want greater power for Scotland, he added, although the study found support for devolution had dropped to 50% from a high of 61% in 2010. "They don't quite want to leave the UK, therefore the question of 'do I acknowledge some sense of Britishness' is coming to some people's minds," Curtice said
I'm starting to think this independence referendum is going to fizzle out like a damp squib. If the general political mood is statistically in favour of union, I also begin to wonder why we even need the referendum at all. I suppose it'll put the issue to bed for another thirty years until the SNP can push for another one though.
I'm not sure why when asked about Scotland's Energy Policy nobody is bringing up the vote from December last year in which Renewable Energy powers were handed back to Westminster by Unionist MP's?
It's always struck me that if it could happen in such a manner like that once, it could happen again.
Scottish pro-independence movement are 'underdogs', says Alex Salmond
First minister says yes campaign 'has work to do' as polls show support stalling after TV debate with Alistair Darling
Alex Salmond has moved to dampen hopes of victory for the yes campaign in September's referendum on Scottish independence by describing the pro-independence movement as "underdogs".
As a further poll showed the yes vote stalling following his televised debate with Alistair Darling, the first minister admitted the yes campaign had "still got work to do" to close the gap with less than 40 days before the referendum.
The Scottish national party leader insisted that being behind in the polls suited his campaign, signalling he wanted independence activists to step up their campaigning dramatically in the final weeks.
"I relish the position of being the underdog," he told the BBC. "I think that's the best position to be in, in a campaign. I have been there before in other campaigns, Scotland has been there before many times. The trick is not to be ahead today, it's to be ahead on September 18."
The YouGov poll for the Sun on Monday put the no vote at 55% and yes at 35% – the same level it detected in June, and at 61% to no and 39% to yes after taking out undecideds.
On Saturday the polling organisation Survation told the Daily Mail that, after the STV debate, the no vote was up to 50%, its highest figure for the anti-independence vote, with support for setting up a new state falling four points to 37%.
Those findings were echoed by the latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey, funded by a UK government research council, which put the yes vote at 39% – three points up on the same survey last year, and the no vote at 61% after undecideds were excluded.
The gap in yes support between men and women had doubled since last year to 12%, the largest gap found by the survey, with only 27% of women backing independence. But it also found that support for independence is more evenly spread through Scotland's social classes and by age than before.
Its face-to-face questionnaire of 1339 voters was carried out between May and July, so it did not capture any effect from the Glasgow Commonwealth games or the STV debate.
But the study, widely seen as the most authoritative of its kind, found voters are increasingly seeing themselves as both British and Scottish, as attitudes changed during the campaign. The number seeing themselves as Scottish as opposed to British fell to 65% – the lowest level found by the SSA since 1979, when it stood at 56%.
Asked to define their identity further, 32% said they were equally Scottish and British – the highest number since 1992. Those describing themselves as Scottish-only fell to 23%, the joint lowest figure since 1997 and the number seeing themselves as more Scottish than British stood at 26% – the lowest the SSA has recorded.
Professor John Curtice, who oversaw the SSA study for the Scottish Centre for Social Research, said his best guess was that, as voters were now being faced with a choice of leaving the UK, some voters felt their identification with being British was strengthening.
Those voters could equally want greater power for Scotland, he added, although the study found support for devolution had dropped to 50% from a high of 61% in 2010. "They don't quite want to leave the UK, therefore the question of 'do I acknowledge some sense of Britishness' is coming to some people's minds," Curtice said
I'm starting to think this independence referendum is going to fizzle out like a damp squib. If the general political mood is statistically in favour of union, I also begin to wonder why we even need the referendum at all. I suppose it'll put the issue to bed for another thirty years until the SNP can push for another one though.
"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.
As for putting the issue to bed, that's an optimistic view of things. The SNP might not be planning to publicly advocating another referendum for a decade or two if there's a No vote this time around, but whatever the picture painted in certain parts of the media of Emperor Alex Salmond and his SNP generals marching at the head of their Cybernat army, they lost control of the Yes campaign a long time ago, and if Unionists believe Radical Independence, Green Yes, Scottish CND, and the hundreds of local autonomous groups across the country are just going to vanish into the ether after a No, and that they won't start getting support from amongst the general public when we get Tories in 2015(which we will), followed by years of austerity(which we'd get even if Labour win in 2015 by their own admission), years of dithering and equivocating over the already weak "more powers" offers(which is inevitable considering prevailing attitudes among English MPs towards further devolution, even token further devolution), further erosion of Scottish representation at Westminster(another inevitability if we stay in, whether it takes the form of fewer Scottish MPs or limiting their voting rights on "English-only issues") and further cuts to the Scottish budget(either due to cuts in England resulting in a proportionate reduction of the block grant, or by the removal of the Barnett Formula which is favoured by many including the Welsh and Barnett himself) - now that's what I call optimism. Personally I'd rather it were just over and done with either way(although I'd evidently also rather it were over with a Yes vote), but we'll be lucky if we make it through a single parliament.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure why when asked about Scotland's Energy Policy nobody is bringing up the vote from December last year in which Renewable Energy powers were handed back to Westminster by Unionist MP's?
It's always struck me that if it could happen in such a manner like that once, it could happen again.
Oh it's more fun that that even, it wasn't elected Unionist MPs, the renewables powers were stripped by the unelected House of Lords. I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/17 15:55:48
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
My two cents (Euro cents, I know which currency I have) as an complete outsider who has nevertheless closely followed the media and other online discussions relating this matter.
Frankly, it seems to me that Salmond's vision for Scotland is based on hot air and wishful thinking. He constantly keeps promising things that are in no way in his power to promise, and some of which seem pretty darn unlikely to go in the way he says. Currency Union, easy EU membership and the oil profits are all things with huge uncertainties. Whilst there certainly have been some exaggeration from 'Better Together', overall they seem way more honest. It is easy for the Yes-campaign to be positive, when they can carelessly make all sort of fanciful promises of how everything will magically be awesome, and then No-side gets labelled as negative scaremongers when they point out that maybe it will not be quite that easy after all.
Furthermore, to me it seems that Scotland has pretty good deal currently overall, they benefit from economic strength and international prestige of UK, while having a partial autonomy that gives them power to offset some of the possible undesired effects of the Westminster policies (of course the exact specifics of that arrangement is something that certainly is worth debating, I'm sure improvements could be made.) I don't think many people in UK quite realise, what sort of influence a great power like UK has. Finland is a country of five million people, about the same as the independent Scotland would be. I can tell you that in the international arenas country of that size has great difficulty of getting their voice heard; Salmond is utterly deluded if he thinks he could get a same kind of deal from EU than UK currently has. Whilst I find it unlikely (but not impossible) that Scotland would be completely denied the membership, it will be the EU dictating the terms. Big countries like, France, Germany and UK can get all sorts of exceptions that smaller countries can only dream of (Cameron has said he want to negotiate even better deal, seems a bit greedy to me, but it is quite possible that he will get it.) Then there is the matter of financial strength. Whilst I by no means think it would be a (complete) disaster, the idea that Scotland would economically be better off as an independent country is a fantasy. A bigger country with a bigger economy is always much more stable than a smaller one, and they have much more options to deal with problems as they arise. This also relates to the international influence, decisions made by bigger economies or international institutions will affect smaller countries, yet they have little or no power to affect these decisions. This is also good to remember when talking about sovereignty gained via independence: independent or not, policies of bigger players will still affect you, but at least by being part of UK, you have some (limited) say to the policies of one of the big players.
As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.
As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.
And even then there'd be people with Multiple Personalities who disagree with themselves.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/17 21:47:43
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
Not the answer I was expecting - good to see you're not a hypocrite (advocating the breakup of foreign countries but not your own).
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
Not the answer I was expecting - good to see you're not a hypocrite (advocating the breakup of foreign countries but not your own).
Well that's the rub isn't it? Scotland is a nation it's own, and a people their own. Why should they, or the Basques, or the Catalans, the Kurds, or any other people not have the right to go their own way if they wish too?
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well that's the rub isn't it? Scotland is a nation it's own, and a people their own. Why should they, or the Basques, or the Catalans, the Kurds, or any other people not have the right to go their own way if they wish too?
Yes, thats my attitude too.
As an Englishman and a Brit, I don't want Scotland to leave the Union and breakup my country. I feel I have much more in common politically and culturally with Scotland, Wales and Ireland than say, Continental Europe.
But if a majority of people in Scotland wish to leave the Union to become an Independent country then I acknowledge and fully support their right to do so. Same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. My belief in democracy and self determination trumps any sense of nationalism. The Scots (well, the ones in favour) want Independence from Westminster in much the same way that I want British Independence from the European Union.
..though I do feel Salmond and co. are being somewhat dishonest and are trying to blackmail the UK(give us currency union or else we'll refuse to take our fair share of UK Debt) and the EU(Let us join the EU or we'll close off Scottish waters to European shipping) to get their own way.
(note that I'm NOT referring to posters in this thread like Yohdrin so its not intended as a personal attack...unless of course he's an actual formal member and activist of the Yes Campaign and/or SNP?)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/18 00:04:37
