Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

[Gaspode]

ViperPict said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing YES

Former senior police officers backing YES

Leading economist backing currency union

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted

Oil and Gas People supporting YES

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no

Massive new oil fields to be developed

SG making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care to be enshrined in Scottish constitution

The list goes on. All will increase support for YES.

If it's going to be a good deal easier and cheaper to move Trident than originally thought, doesn't that mean that in the event of a Yes then Scotland would be more likely to lose a cartload of defence jobs?

I'm wasn't sure who you were referring to by your 'leading economist' reference, so I googled it and the top story is this one:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-...

So presumably the question is, "Is a 'top' economist more or less likely to be correct than a 'leading' economist?"

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing YES

Former senior police officers backing YES

Leading economist backing currency union

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted

Oil and Gas People supporting YES

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no

Massive new oil fields to be developed

SG making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care to be enshrined in Scottish constitution

The list goes on. All will increase support for YES.

In your dreams.

What point is not accurate?

Are you leaving Scotland after yes vote?

You could as easily post:

HenryJM said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing NO

Former senior police officers backing NO

Leading economist backing currency union and pointing out that since Scotland wouldn't have it that's a major problem for independence

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted and not possible in under around 10-14 years

Oil and Gas People supporting NO

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no because of the reaction for Yessers to their more sensible neighbours

Massive new oil fields to be developed in England

Westminster making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care has been enshrined in the UK for over half a century and will continue to be so

The list goes on. All will increase support for NO.

[Gaspode]

HenryJM said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing NO

Former senior police officers backing NO

Leading economist backing currency union and pointing out that since Scotland wouldn't have it that's a major problem for independence

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted and not possible in under around 10-14 years

Oil and Gas People supporting NO

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no because of the reaction for Yessers to their more sensible neighbours

Massive new oil fields to be developed in England

Westminster making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care has been enshrined in the UK for over half a century and will continue to be so

The list goes on. All will increase support for NO.

You could add
'Most of a major domestic industry sector, responsible for
• £4 billion a year in gross value added to the economy;
• £1.1 billion invested annually on local supplies;
• 35,000 Scottish jobs supported across Scotland;
• £3.45 billion in exports, second only to oil & gas
backs NO'

[ViperPict]

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing YES

Former senior police officers backing YES

Leading economist backing currency union

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted

Oil and Gas People supporting YES

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no

Massive new oil fields to be developed

SG making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care to be enshrined in Scottish constitution

The list goes on. All will increase support for YES.

If it's going to be a good deal easier and cheaper to move Trident than originally thought, doesn't that mean that in the event of a Yes then Scotland would be more likely to lose a cartload of defence jobs?

I'm wasn't sure who you were referring to by your 'leading economist' reference, so I googled it and the top story is this one:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-...

So presumably the question is, "Is a 'top' economist more or less likely to be correct than a 'leading' economist?"

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing YES

Former senior police officers backing YES

Leading economist backing currency union

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted

Oil and Gas People supporting YES

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no

Massive new oil fields to be developed

SG making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care to be enshrined in Scottish constitution

The list goes on. All will increase support for YES.

In your dreams.

What point is not accurate?

Are you leaving Scotland after yes vote?

You could as easily post:

HenryJM said:

A bit of a groundswell it seems...

Former NFU leaders backing NO

Former senior police officers backing NO

Leading economist backing currency union and pointing out that since Scotland wouldn't have it that's a major problem for independence

Moving Trident competent feasible and not nearly as expensive as previously quoted and not possible in under around 10-14 years

Oil and Gas People supporting NO

Out and about, lots of YES signs etc in folk's properties but very little no because of the reaction for Yessers to their more sensible neighbours

Massive new oil fields to be developed in England

Westminster making sensible controls on fracking development.

Free health care has been enshrined in the UK for over half a century and will continue to be so

The list goes on. All will increase support for NO.

No you couldn't as it would not be true. Most of the above I quoted have been in the press. Note Oil and Gas People are an organisation.

Will you be leaving Scotland after a YES vote?

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Google leading economist and the top new story says:

Top economist: an iScotland currency union would collapse

Hard not to agree with him, the well know Scottish economist, Ronald McDonald.

[Gaspode]

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

[HenryJM]

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

Then there are all the people who benefit from them spending their money locally, the house prices that are supported by the people who work there, their relatives etc. who live in the area and so on.

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

Will you be leaving Scotland after a YES vote?

Right this minute I'm not in Scotland, in a couple of weeks I will be. I would hope that regardless of the vote I'll be leaving after the 18th September, and no doubt returning. What I can say though is that all my financial assets have already left. I deliberately backed money out of Scotland some time ago.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Google leading economist and the top new story says:

Top economist: an iScotland currency union would collapse

Hard not to agree with him, the well know Scottish economist, Ronald McDonald.

Insert clown joke here.

It's a case of pick the leading economist who agrees with your position. There is certainly no consensus.

And will you be leaving in the event of a yes vote?

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

Insert clown joke here.

It's a case of pick the leading economist who agrees with your position. There is certainly no consensus.

If you were an economist and if you mixed with economists and had discussions with economists you would have no doubt that they are all of the same mind as to the economic effects of independence. Something that would be blindingly obvious if you understood any of it your self.

ViperPict said:

And will you be leaving in the event of a yes vote?

Already answered, will you in the event of a no vote?

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

Then there are all the people who benefit from them spending their money locally, the house prices that are supported by the people who work there, their relatives etc. who live in the area and so on.

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

HenryJM said:

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

Then there are all the people who benefit from them spending their money locally, the house prices that are supported by the people who work there, their relatives etc. who live in the area and so on.

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

Really? The annual cost of Trident is estimated at £2bn a year, a lot of which gets spent in Scotland.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

Insert clown joke here.

It's a case of pick the leading economist who agrees with your position. There is certainly no consensus.

If you were an economist and if you mixed with economists and had discussions with economists you would have no doubt that they are all of the same mind as to the economic effects of independence. Something that would be blindingly obvious if you understood any of it your self.

Except that some will go on record to say that they are not. Stop talking rubbish.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

HenryJM said:

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

Then there are all the people who benefit from them spending their money locally, the house prices that are supported by the people who work there, their relatives etc. who live in the area and so on.

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

Really? The annual cost of Trident is estimated at £2bn a year, a lot of which gets spent in Scotland.

What utter nonsense. Luckily the electorate see through this unionist nonsense.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

HenryJM said:

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

So if you Googled 'leading economist' you probably got results for Donald MacKay also then! Odd you should cherry pick the story...

Not getting your logic about job losses but jobs directly involved with Trident are in the region of 600. Not the ludicrous number figure quoted by unionists. Why do they do this? Only adds to the scaremongering fuel for the YES campaign.

Not really cherry picking, just showing that there are leading economists on both sides of the story. I did state that it was the first result in the list, presumably because it's the most recent and significant.

There appear to be around 3,000 service personnel and 4,000 civilian personnel at Faslane and Coulport. If they aren't servicing nuclear submarines or their weaponry, what would they be doing? Would an independent Scotland continue to have a submarine? How many people would it need to keep it going? Would the remaining 3,400 jobs (given the military would all move with the subs) all be safe, then? I honestly don't know what iScotland's defence budget is going to be, or how much of it they are going to devote to keeping an operation the size of Faslane and Coulport going.

Then there are all the people who benefit from them spending their money locally, the house prices that are supported by the people who work there, their relatives etc. who live in the area and so on.

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

Really? The annual cost of Trident is estimated at £2bn a year, a lot of which gets spent in Scotland.

What utter nonsense. Luckily the electorate see through this unionist nonsense.

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

What utter nonsense. Luckily the electorate see through this unionist nonsense.

What's nonsense? The £2bn a year or a lot of it being spent in Scotland.

The first is easy, just google it, the second is bleeding obvious. They are based in Scotland. A lot of people are paid in Scotland to maintain them and man them, it's sure as hell going to be a much bigger spend there than my equivalent region of the UK, Yorkshire, despite having much the same population etc.

[Gaspode]

ViperPict said:

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

I'm intrigued as to where you get this figure from? Surely the benefit to Scotland would be a proportion of the total UK spend on its nuclear defence force, so roughly 10% of the total. Trident running costs are around £2bn/year. The programme to replace Trident is projected to cost £20bn over the next 20 years or so. We know that defence projects have a habit of blowing their budgets, so even if we allow them to double to 40bn, this still only represents a cost to Scotland of £200m/year. So where does the £10bn come from?

[ViperPict]

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

I think the net benefit to Scotland will be the £10BN we will save getting shot of WMDs...

I'm intrigued as to where you get this figure from? Surely the benefit to Scotland would be a proportion of the total UK spend on its nuclear defence force, so roughly 10% of the total. Trident running costs are around £2bn/year. The programme to replace Trident is projected to cost £20bn over the next 20 years or so. We know that defence projects have a habit of blowing their budgets, so even if we allow them to double to 40bn, this still only represents a cost to Scotland of £200m/year. So where does the £10bn come from?

I have never seen any prediction of the costs to replace Trident being £20BN over 20 years!!! Seems likely it'll be well over £100BN. I can wave my willy for much less than that...

[ViperPict]

Vote no at our peril...

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/we...

'Bumbling' Boris already 'accidentally' let the cat out of the bag...