Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
GoneAnon said:
When a bunch of people are entitled to vote, and quite a lot of them do but some can't be bothered, the stay-at-homes don't express a preference so can't be counted. That's how it works. Partly, it has to be that way because some people on the list have died so it would be wrong to count dead people as suporters of one side or the other.
We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
You talk like Brexit provides swathes of uncertainty where as Scottish Independence doesn't.We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
kowalski655 said:
Northern Munkee said:
kowalski655 said:
jsf said:
The reduction in the size of the civil service will save a fair few pennies.
A good chunk of the UK wide civil service is based in Scotland,eg debt collection is done from Stornoway, some big tax offices too i think, so if Scotland did go, there may be more civil servants.Of course all the civil servants from Scotland can then make up the new government, should be done in 3 days,for 50 groats and a crate of Irn Bru,if you believe the SNP.
But you carry on.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Monday 20th March 11:12
There will be more civil servants in rUK, as they take over what the Scots offices did, perhaps i should?have specified *in rUk*, but that was what the post i quoted referred to.
Apologies if i wasn't clear but no doubt we could have more "workshy lazy gold plated pensioned civil servants"[/PH mode]
And the Scots civil servants who lose their jobs them become the CS for iScot, which may be tricky as they couldn't even take on some DWP benefit functions without 4 extra years.
At the moment, the civil service works for UK government, everyone is paid out of UK funds.
Should Scotland leave the Union, some of those jobs will be repatriated to the remaining UK, the rest will cease to exist as far as UK is concerned, those in Scotland would no longer be on the payroll of the UK government.
There would also be no need for any civil servants working in relation to Scotland, as that ceases to be part of the UK's problem.
There may well be an increase in civil servant jobs overall, but UK doesn't care about what would be required in Scotland, that's for the Scots to pay for now.
You would also see all the UK military jobs moved out of Scotland, the Nuclear subs, RAF Lossiemouth etc would be shut down. The UK might seek to come to some arrangement for bases in Scotland, like we do in Germany via NATO, but it would be small scale by comparison and Scotland would have to pay NATO for the privilege.
Has anyone actually carried out a proper study of how many UK military and civil service jobs would move post an independent Scotland vote? They are usually relatively well paid jobs that are not volatile employment work.
GoneAnon said:
When a bunch of people are entitled to vote, and quite a lot of them do but some can't be bothered, the stay-at-homes don't express a preference so can't be counted. That's how it works. Partly, it has to be that way because some people on the list have died so it would be wrong to count dead people as suporters of one side or the other.
We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
You said you were a simple yesser and you've proved it by completely misunderstanding my point. Not just mine, but that of that arch unionist Jim Sillars.We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Neither of us are interested in non voters. Read it again. And when you understand then you can start to explain 'how it works'. And at that point someone might even listen.
GoneAnon said:
When a bunch of people are entitled to vote, and quite a lot of them do but some can't be bothered, the stay-at-homes don't express a preference so can't be counted. That's how it works. Partly, it has to be that way because some people on the list have died so it would be wrong to count dead people as suporters of one side or the other.
We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
Scotland didn't have a referendum on continued EU membership.We then look at the ones who made a little effort and find that 6 out of 10 of those said Stay, and only 4 out of 10 say Leave, but becuase a smaller % majority in our larger neighbour say they are going so we have to as well, I'd say that's kind of being taken out against our will.
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
Phud said:
I have trimmed it but thanks for the abuse, and also the quote is is almost word for word, actually the words are not in the manifesto but added later, but it seem you wish to ignore that.
Here is the only part of the 2016 Manifesto which mentions referendum, We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence.
The words are in the Manifesto Page 23 left hand side. You can download it and read it for yourself.Here is the only part of the 2016 Manifesto which mentions referendum, We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if it is clear that more than half of the people in Scotland want independence.
Edited by Phud on Monday 20th March 21:56
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages...
We believe that the Scottish
Parliament should have the right to
hold another referendum if there
is clear and sustained evidence
that independence has become the
preferred option of a majority of
the Scottish people – or if there is
a significant and material change in
the circumstances that prevailed in
2014, such as Scotland being taken
out of the EU against our will.
Now, if what I wrote to you came across as abuse, I sincerely apologise. I was trying to keep some brevity in it and that has failed.
GoneAnon said:
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
When you have quite finished being condescending you will see that I was asking where it was in their manifesto, since you said it was a manifesto pledge.I looked in both PDFs and could not find those actual terms - I found something entirely different.
What I didn't do was ask for a link to news sites where they have reported that the SNP have said this and that.
So if you can answer my original question since I'm clearly just a dumb southern unionist. Even though I was quite polite about asking. You wonder why you can't have a decent debate?!
GoneAnon said:
We won't have to contribute to the cost of things like London Crossrail, HS2 and other projects that don't come within hundreds of miles of us?
So, at where do you draw the line on local expenditure? 10 miles? 50 miles? 150 miles? Why should Shetland tax payers contribute towards rail links in Lothian & Borders? Why should tax payers in Dumfries subsidise bridges in Skye? Why is one "right" and one "wrong"?Should we all just expect to only see project within our own street paid for with locally raised money. Maybe within 100m of our houses?
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Scotland has a clear budget so you know exactly what money is being raised and spent so you know no net money currently goes South but in fact goes the other way.
SBDJ said:
GoneAnon said:
Now, if these journalists can find it, and a simple YESSER like me can find it,I'm astounded that all you smart Unionists can't. Maybe it's the big, complicated words like "significant" and "material" that confuse you?
When you have quite finished being condescending you will see that I was asking where it was in their manifesto, since you said it was a manifesto pledge.I looked in both PDFs and could not find those actual terms - I found something entirely different.
What I didn't do was ask for a link to news sites where they have reported that the SNP have said this and that.
confused_buyer said:
GoneAnon said:
We won't have to contribute to the cost of things like London Crossrail, HS2 and other projects that don't come within hundreds of miles of us?
So, at where do you draw the line on local expenditure? 10 miles? 50 miles? 150 miles? Why should Shetland tax payers contribute towards rail links in Lothian & Borders? Why should tax payers in Dumfries subsidise bridges in Skye? Why is one "right" and one "wrong"?Should we all just expect to only see project within our own street paid for with locally raised money. Maybe within 100m of our houses?
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Scotland has a clear budget so you know exactly what money is being raised and spent so you know no net money currently goes South but in fact goes the other way.
confused_buyer said:
GoneAnon said:
We won't have to contribute to the cost of things like London Crossrail, HS2 and other projects that don't come within hundreds of miles of us?
So, at where do you draw the line on local expenditure? 10 miles? 50 miles? 150 miles? Why should Shetland tax payers contribute towards rail links in Lothian & Borders? Why should tax payers in Dumfries subsidise bridges in Skye? Why is one "right" and one "wrong"?Should we all just expect to only see project within our own street paid for with locally raised money. Maybe within 100m of our houses?
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Scotland has a clear budget so you know exactly what money is being raised and spent so you know no net money currently goes South but in fact goes the other way.
The new Forth Bridge has had to be funded entirely by Scotland - we even needed to be given new borroowing powers to make it happen. Similarly the building of Holtrood which was an unmitigated shambles was funded entirely from the Scottish budget despite lots of people making out that Westminster paid for it all. If you look back you will find that the SNP proposed calling a halt to the construction until the projevt and the bdget could be brought under control.
Edinburgh Trams? Another shambles funded by Scotland and Edinburgh coucil tax payers. Again, the SNP tried to get it halted but were outvoted.
GoneAnon said:
technodup said:
GoneAnon said:
I don't see the suggestion or advocating of violence as even remotely acceptable.
I don't give a toss what you find acceptable.
hole. As long as you are free to spout whatever poison, right?hole.I'm so offended.
Greedydog said:
GoneAnon said:
Why would we bother? It's not like the unionists will listen, and we really don't need the abuse.
Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
This is just my point. The is no rational Independence argument, so when challenged independence supporters just fall back on "why bother, we don't need the abuse". As I see it the only way to answer the doubters is to explain why and how independence offers a better future for Scotland. To do this the independence movement needs to properly answer all the outstanding questions re currency, deficit, EU membership, costing etc. AND why being independent will be better in the future (not nonsense like 'it can't be any worse' or fantasy projections about this that and the next thing as if no other country in the world has thought of it before). I'm utterly against independence but IF someone can provide evidenced answers I'd at least consider the idea. Until then I'll just consider the independence movement a delusional cult.Check back through this thread before it gets too big and count Unionist attacks on their opponents and then count SNP/independence attacks on the Unionists.
I would do it myself but can hazard a pretty accurate estimate as to what the results will show.
Just saw this on Sky news:
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-doing-better...
A nationally representative poll of people living in Scotland gave their views on whether party leaders were doing a good or bad job. The results were as follows:
Theresa May: good 48%, bad 47%
Jeremy Corbyn: good 16%, bad 77%
Nicola Sturgeon: good 42%, bad 54%
Kezia Dugdale: good 36%, bad 50%
Ruth Davidson: good 53%, bad 36%
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-doing-better...
A nationally representative poll of people living in Scotland gave their views on whether party leaders were doing a good or bad job. The results were as follows:
Theresa May: good 48%, bad 47%
Jeremy Corbyn: good 16%, bad 77%
Nicola Sturgeon: good 42%, bad 54%
Kezia Dugdale: good 36%, bad 50%
Ruth Davidson: good 53%, bad 36%
2015 manifesto can be found at http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf
Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market. That is why we will oppose a referendum on
membership of the EU. Being part of Europe is good for
business and it supports jobs in Scotland and across the UK.
If an in/out EU referendum does go ahead, we will seek to
amend the legislation to ensure that no constituent part of
the UK can be taken out of the EU against its will. We will
propose a 'double majority' rule - meaning that unless
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each vote
to leave the EU, the UK would remain a member state.
Page 18-19
MAKING THE EU WORK BETTER FOR SCOTLAND
The European Union is far from perfect, however we
believe that it is overwhelmingly in Scotland’s interests
for us to remain a member, engaging with the
institutions as fully as we can, and to argue for reform
from within.
We will oppose UK withdrawal from the EU and will
propose that, in any future referendum there should be
a double majority requirement. Each of the four
constituent nations of the UK would have to vote for
withdrawal before the UK as a whole could leave the
European Union.
We believe there should be a greater role for devolved
administrations in the Council of Ministers and more
direct engagement in devolved policy areas, across the
full range of European institutions.
We will seek a Cooperation Agreement between the UK
government and devolved administrations, which will
include formal agreement on speaking rights for Scottish
ministers and direct Scottish input into the development
of UK policy on key EU issues.
We support free movement within the EU and recognise
both the contribution EU citizens make to Scottish
society and the opportunities created for Scottish citizens
elsewhere in the EU. We also support Scottish
participation in the European Arrest warrant, a measure
that makes it easier to bring to justice criminals who
have fled to other EU jurisdictions.
Page 9
Opposing withdrawal from the European Union
At least 330,000 Scottish jobs – around one in seven of
all jobs - are dependent on our membership of the single
market. That is why we will oppose a referendum on
membership of the EU. Being part of Europe is good for
business and it supports jobs in Scotland and across the UK.
If an in/out EU referendum does go ahead, we will seek to
amend the legislation to ensure that no constituent part of
the UK can be taken out of the EU against its will. We will
propose a 'double majority' rule - meaning that unless
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each vote
to leave the EU, the UK would remain a member state.
Page 18-19
MAKING THE EU WORK BETTER FOR SCOTLAND
The European Union is far from perfect, however we
believe that it is overwhelmingly in Scotland’s interests
for us to remain a member, engaging with the
institutions as fully as we can, and to argue for reform
from within.
We will oppose UK withdrawal from the EU and will
propose that, in any future referendum there should be
a double majority requirement. Each of the four
constituent nations of the UK would have to vote for
withdrawal before the UK as a whole could leave the
European Union.
We believe there should be a greater role for devolved
administrations in the Council of Ministers and more
direct engagement in devolved policy areas, across the
full range of European institutions.
We will seek a Cooperation Agreement between the UK
government and devolved administrations, which will
include formal agreement on speaking rights for Scottish
ministers and direct Scottish input into the development
of UK policy on key EU issues.
We support free movement within the EU and recognise
both the contribution EU citizens make to Scottish
society and the opportunities created for Scottish citizens
elsewhere in the EU. We also support Scottish
participation in the European Arrest warrant, a measure
that makes it easier to bring to justice criminals who
have fled to other EU jurisdictions.
GoneAnon said:
andy_s said:
I've certainly never insulted anyone, I've no dog in the fight and don't care who is in charge, one lot is as bad as the other frankly. So if you have a case to make, please make it - one positive, tangible advantage of independence to me and my family?
Lots of reasons come to mind. We heard a lot about the "Arc of Prosperity" until the financial meltdown in 2008, then we heard how badly those countries were doing. Since then those governments took action appropriate to their own circumstances and have now recovered better than the UK. We now have a couple of taxpayer-owned banks at least one of which (HBoS) was actually English despite the brass plate in Edinburgh. Most of their bailout money came from foreign governments, principaly the USA but we are regularly told how wonderful it was to have Westminster bail them out. As an RBS shareholder, maybe it woould have been better to let them fail?
Every Scottish Pound in circulation is backed by a Poundd deposited at the Bank of England. English money is not backed in the same way - think "quantative easing".
Norway invested a fraction of their oil wealth (only since and now earn more from that than they do from oil. We still have time to do something similar if we stop pisssing money away on nukes etc.
You and your family have benefitted from 10 years of Council Tax being frozen. The 10 years before saw a 73% increase in mine.
You don't pay bridge tolls any more.
You and/or your children can benefit from free university fees.
The Westminster government could adjust the VAT treatment for Police Scotland and The Fire & Rescue Service but won't. Why?
Europe didn't have to give permission for the euro referendum but Westminster insist on giving their consent to a Scottish vote. Why?
When the Brexit negotiations begin, what Scottish interests will be a price worth paying to protect the south? We've already seen European money intended for Scottish hill-farmers, diverted to English items.
We won't have to contribute to the cost of things like London Crossrail, HS2 and other projects that don't come within hundreds of miles of us?
Maybe we could have a national airline that will allow us to fly anywhere except London.
Can you find me a country - any country - that has won independence from the UK and asked to come back?
I think free uni is a wonderful thing, it really is by the way, and it's good that council tax has been frozen of course (to be honest I wouldn't have minded paying small increases to ease those that can less afford it), which has just happened, I also agree about the VAT for fire and police services, and agree to some degree at the Londoncentricity of some projects (just listen to the weather reports...).
I'm ambivalent about toll fees, it doesn't affect me and is a minimal thing seen anywhere there is a big bridge, it's normal. Brexit negotiations and their implication regionally are murky waters, so we can't assume Scotland would pay a higher price really - not yet; (bearing in mind London generates 22% of GDP and taking things in isolation is a little 'cherry picking' I feel). The UK didn't need permission from the EU as it's a sovereign nation, Scotland is at the moment part of a union and has some devolved powers so I can understand why something that could have a detrimental effect on the UK needs the UK Govt.'s permission.
The banking saga was/is a bad situation, but I can't grasp your point on that one, it's in the past now anyway. Trident unfortunately we'll have to agree to disagree on, I personally think it's an umbrella for all of us in these isles, but I know that's contentious.
What I'm trying to ask is what is there to entice me to vote for independence - will my tax rate remain stable? Will we be able to pay for everything extra we need to and still maintain a stable economy? Will my kids still get a free uni place and be able to use it in the workplace if they stay here? Will interest rates stay relatively stable? Will the currency stay the same? Will trade continue as normal at stable prices?
And those are things just to maintain the status quo (and yes, I'm mindful that other unforeseen circumstances may change so aspects of these things, but I'm speaking in general).
Now to the advantages - will my tax fall, council services get better, NHS get better, emergency services get better, education get better, a better environment for business, a better environment full stop? Any of those things?
I think, realistically, that post-independence we will be neither be fish nor fowl; half a foot in europes door and half in rUKs, with little to negotiate with nor to offer in terms of contribution (the oil is in decline and the prices have always fluctuated anyway - one of the annoying little mistakes the SNP made when they made projected oil revenue the central pillar of their argument last time around). The only way I can see us generating enough cash to pay for everything is attracting business by being the cheapest place to be for companies and banks - but that notion doesn't jibe well with the SNP and I've seen no mention of it or anything alternative anywhere.
Short to mid-term post-independence will be tough I reckon, and a few million quid spent on someone else's railway will seem to be very small beans indeed in comparison. Eventually we'll get on out feet I'm sure, the Scots are canny at heart, renewables maybe, or high tech (if we have the cash to invest in education and facilities...) but until now, no one has been honest enough to say this, bold enough to plan a solution nor apt enough to execute it.
I'm not particularly bright, but those in office at the moment appear no brighter.
GoneAnon said:
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
To continue your analogy, what if things take a different course? Say you all decide to stay on for a lock-in then, once the doors are closed the landlord turns nasty, doubles his prices and turns off the heating. Can you leave if he has the keys? Will he let you? What'll it cost?My concern was not the uncertainties of Brexit, it was the uncertainties of staying in the EU and being subsumed into Le Grand Projet.
GoneAnon said:
Imagine going out with a crowd of mates. You get to a pub you like and would quite like to stay in, but your bigger pals say they are moving on. They don't know where they are moving to, how long it will take to get there, how expensive the beer is and it is cold and wet outside but they make you go with them or be left behind.
In exclusivity I can't work out if this is pro UK or pro EU.
For what it's worth, I'd be going with my mates if the majority of them wanted to leave. Falling out with them and going in the huff would be petulant and childish once we had decided to go out as it's... BETTER TOGETHER.
Edited by simoid on Monday 20th March 23:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff