Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

[ViperPict]

drangular said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Do a tiny bit of digging about the businesses on business for scotland

a large proportion of them have filed no accounts or are contractors for the SNP and YES campaign

If you still think it is unbiased then try

www.ihatetheenglishtorybds.com

I didn't say they were unbiased.
Their sources of information, however , mostly are. ie. they take the research and statistical information that is out there and view it from a different angle. They also reveal stats. and info. that exists but is deliberately hidden or ignored by the UK Government because it doesn't support the anti-independence rhetoric.

I think it provides some excellent info that otherwise would be hidden from the electorate.

[drangular]

Here's what the polls are showing in terms of the campaign.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...

And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014

And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/

These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.

There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.

[Dryce]

drangular said:

I'm not sure where your getting your information from but what I see is the most lively, vibrant, inclusive, extensive and interesting political debate in at least a generation.

This seems to be the subjective view of the yes advocates.

A referendum like this isn't like a general election. A general election is something that is routine and comes along and you vote for your MP or often just the party you support. You don't ask for a general election - it just comes round and takes about three weeks.

With a refrendum on an issue that *the majority* against which a clear majority of the electrorate were polled as being against things are diffrent. Those who want to vote for the issue clearly will be happy and excited. There will be a proportion who will be very active participants.

Meanwhile what about the rest?. Well they didn't really want the referendum. They're left being dragged into a political campaign that they didn't want. It's hard to get enthusiastic. Worse the whole thing is taking over a year instead of just a few weeks. And even worse it's a bigger issue.

So if you're a yes advocate it's like a kid being told that the family is planning to go to Disneyworld next Autumn. It's all you talk about because you're excited. Your friends who are not going to Disneyworld get a bit fed up with this fairly quicly and think you're getting tiresome and just want you to go there and get it over with.

So some people might indeed think that there is a "lively, vibrant, inclusive, extensive and interesting political debate".

If you're really into it then maybe it seems that way. People tend to mix with their peers who likely as not will share similar views. A bit like party political conferences that are meaningful to the party and its attending members and activists while the general public are pretty oblivious to them.

Edited by Dryce on Friday 18th April 10:37

[jamieduff1981]

There's lots of information. Unfortunately though, any pro-indy information on topics I happen to know about is absolute nonsense, which casts severe doubt on the validity of anything else the Yes campaign or its supporters publish as information.

I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.

£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.

£150,000,000. Really? Really?

The first projections were up to £40million to build Holyrood. Final cost was £414million according to Wikipedia.

That anyone that can delude themselves that the published Whitepaper figure of £150million will service its intended function of buying overseas land, building embassies and installing ambassadors, admin and security staff in even a handful of countries is an absolute moron frankly.

There is nothing to suggest that the entire concept of establishing a completely autonomous new national infrastructure won't be underestimated by an order of magnitude too. Who's going to pay for that and what will it actually mean for people on the street in terms of taxation and borrowing interest rates?


Just 30 seconds critical thinking on absolutely anything in the Scotland's Future whitepaper sees it collapse like a pack of cards. I'm just astounded that so many don't want to even think about these "visions".

Here's another. Salmond wants to keep Scottish based Typhoon squadrons. What proportion does the reader suppose of total RAF Typhoons are based in Scotland? What proportion of RAF Fast Jet streamed pilots, let alone those selected for single seaters and trained/qualified to fly Typhoons are Scottish? What about the ground crews, RAF Regiment squadrons stationed to protect Scottish bases on the ground and even the Admin wings? It's just ridiculously over-simplified in a way that only an economist could.

An ounce of practical thinking on anything remotely involved shreds it. Of course it could all be resolved, but at the levels of cost that nobody is prepared to even contemplate and frankly which Scotland and its population simply cannot afford.

[ViperPict]

jamieduff1981 said:

I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.

£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.

£150,000,000. Really? Really?

Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.

You're not thinking big enough.

Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.

[A.J.M]

ViperPict said:

jamieduff1981 said:

I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.

£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.

£150,000,000. Really? Really?

Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.

You're not thinking big enough.

Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.

How much did these poor countries pay for said embassies?
I'm sure there were a few cheques wrote and i'm certain they didn't contain positive and creative thinking for payment.

[jamieduff1981]

ViperPict said:

jamieduff1981 said:

I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.

£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.

£150,000,000. Really? Really?

Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.

You're not thinking big enough.

Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.

Wrong. Everything can be achieved with money.

That requires competence in identifying what actually needs to be achieved, establishing realistic cost estimates to achieve that and then funding the projects to completion.

You'll also find I'm thinking bigger than most of the Yesers. I'm thinking of everything, not just waving a Saltire around and having a massive celebration party. I'm actually thinking beyond that and to what we would actually require as a nation just to function. I'm even thinking beyond that. I'm thinking of how much it'll cost to establish, not just run that infrastructure which presently doesn't exist and I'm thinking of how those costs marry up with what we as a nation could afford to fund. I'm also considering influential external stakeholders and what risks they pose to "our" plans - something the Yes campaign just dismisses as scaremongering.

So, I'll say it again. I'm thinking big enough to have a mental risk register of threats to the economic "vision" set out in the Whitepaper as long as your arm. I recognise many, many ways for this to cost me as an individual a lot more for a worse standard of living and even at best, I see absolutely no benefit to me as an individual for being independant.

Do you know what being Scottish rather than British means to me beyond an economic level? I'll tell you - Nothing. It means nothing. I don't give a flying f*** what nationality I get called. I don't care about national pride. It's valueless to me. It doesn't exist.

I don't care where major decisions are made. Some of those which affect me as an individual are already devolved. Others could be made in Edinburgh but sat in Edinburgh the only decisions that could affect me are how much tax I have to pay. An Edinburgh government will, I assert, have a higher operating cost per head of population than a UK government and will be in no position to grant me lower taxation.

It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

There are no real meaningful benefits to be gained for me, but much to lose.

Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48

[jith]

jamieduff1981 said:

Wrong. Everything can be achieved with money.


It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48

This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.

If it wasn't for the fact she is dead, I would have thought Thatcher wrote that post.

Bloody sad and pathetic

J

[Pooh]

drangular said:

That would only be the outcome if the Scottish people, collectively, were completely incapable of making the right decisions in all the right areas. What Devolution has demonstrated is that the opposite is true.

Really!!
There have been plenty if idiotic decisions such as free prescriptions for people who can afford to pay for them resulting in less money for the NHS, banning fracking and nuclear power, the disaster that is the curriculum for excellence etc etc, can you please provide us with some examples of sensible ones.
A major factor in my decision to vote no is that the Scottish Parliament is a total joke.

[gofasterrosssco]

drangular said:

Here's what the polls are showing in terms of the campaign.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...

And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014

And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/

These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.

There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.

You are getting confused between 'information' and (well presented biased) 'opinion'.

If you want to base things on independant expert opinion (quite validly) then fine, but there will always be disagreement between experts on even well understood subjects. In my opinion though, the majority of unbiased expert opinion does not really support the case for independance. It does not say it is not feasible (nobody sensible does), but rationally questions the purpose of the whole process (as a function of benefits / drawbacks) without the overly nationalistic sentiments.

There's change for the better, and then there's change for the sake of it, which only serves to make people "feel" they are moving forward when really they've just shuffled the pack and come out with a similar hand. The interesting thing is that people equate a No vote with happyness and contentment with the political and economic status quo, but I believe that is absolutely not the case.

This concept of Scotland being a much fairer and more just place is lovely, and very desirable, but (with me being a cynical bar steward) from where does this come from? Because there will be less of us? More democratic accountablity (which we already have)? And these aren't just the political vote winning tactics used by both political and / or nationist parties?

We have just as much opportunity for practical change within the UK (but without the histrionics), than on independance based on half-baked vote-winning policies...

Edited by gofasterrosssco on Friday 18th April 13:16

[gofasterrosssco]

jith said:

jamieduff1981 said:

Wrong. Everything can be achieved with money.


It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48

This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.

If it wasn't for the fact she is dead, I would have thought Thatcher wrote that post.

Bloody sad and pathetic

J

Why do you think Thatcher would have written that? If you think she was all about money, then you don't seem to understand what she was all about (whether you like her or not)..

And this is the Westminster mentality?

Just admit you're a proper socialist and be done with it..

[Kiltie]

jamieduff1981 said:

I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

You are Erchie AICMFP

[jamieduff1981]

Kiltie said:

jamieduff1981 said:

I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

You are Erchie AICMFP

I don't know what that means but I have been honest in stating my position of putting myself first.

I've worked very hard and achieved a lot. I don't want to lose it all just so someone else can feel proud to be more Scottish.

I am clearly not as noble and selfless as many of the socialists who want a bigger pay off from other peoples' earnings.

[jamieduff1981]

jith said:

jamieduff1981 said:

Wrong. Everything can be achieved with money.


It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48

This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.

If it wasn't for the fact she is dead, I would have thought Thatcher wrote that post.

Bloody sad and pathetic

J

So to be clear - you'd be happy to sacrifice your Mercedes to help pay the NHS Glasgow bill?

Everything that everyone needs to live will cost more and taxation levels will need to be higher to maintain even the thousands of miles of roads in Scotland but with far fewer people per square mile to chip in via tax.

Call me cynical, but it always seems to be the people with the most to gain who are the loudest proponents of Socialist sharing. I.e. got nothing to bring to the party but want to share anyway.

Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 14:08

[Hollowpockets]

Jamie, ^ agree completely with both your posts above.

[andy_s]

I don't know why Independence is being hitched to the cart of socialism; you'd probably get independence if you proposed making it a principality and declaring a very low tax rate, welcome Starbucks...

How much do you want independence?

[simoid]

drangular said:

simoid said:

What economic information do you think is relevant to independence on that businessforscotland website?

Eh!? It's ALL about business, economics and independence!!
I suggested it in order to bring folks attention to what real business people are saying about the potential benefits of independence and to counterbalance all the doom, gloom and negativity that pervades the MSM.
There is a lot more information and interesting viewpoints out there if one cares to look.
The main premise of the OP is that an independent Scotland will fail economically and socially with dire consequences for everyone's standard of living, jobs, financial security etc.
But why would this be? That would only be the outcome if the Scottish people, collectively, were completely incapable of making the right decisions in all the right areas. What Devolution has demonstrated is that the opposite is true. With the few powers available to them the Scottish people have ensured the way this country is organized and run, and the things we consider important, reflect our values. All of this has very positive benefits for our standard of living that others have mentioned. With independence, and with control over all of the levers, the Scottish people can complete the job and create a very successful, socially just, and comparatively wealthy nation.
Change is very scary for some. For others it is an essential part of progress towards something better. This is a great opportunity. I think we should grasp it enthusiastically and make it work!

Any chance you could provide a particularly relevant piece of analysis, backed up by evidence, that we can discuss?

You provided the link to the website, I'm asking what particular information you are bringing to the table, and how it is relevant to "should Scotland be an independent country)". Simply posting web addresses is basically spamming us

[jamieduff1981]

andy_s said:

I don't know why Independence is being hitched to the cart of socialism; you'd probably get independence if you proposed making it a principality and declaring a very low tax rate, welcome Starbucks...

How much do you want independence?

Well that's the thing really isn't it? I'm happy to be British but also happy to be a Scot as and when it suits. Doesn't actually bothet me one way or the other.

Mostly the costs of setting out on our own are ignored or glossed over as unimportant, although everyone with a 3 digit IQ recognises that those costs will materialise and they will not be small.

Moving on to the actual operating costs as a country, again there are lots of numbers ranging from optimistic to pessimistic. Some would argue that the realistic costs given the track record of Scottish parliament so far would lean towards the latter.

All in all, there are a stack of figures making up the financial case for Scotland and it doesn't take a genious to work out that the tax grab per head has to go up to match the promised public spending and general freeness. If you believe that the rest of the world will bow to our awesomeness and take away north sea decommissioning liabilities, Scotland's share of public debt, continue to award us rUK military ship building contracts at current pricing structures etc then the tax hike will be lower. It does make the naive assumption that everyone else will want to help us out though, despite having given rUK the middle finger and gone off by ourselves. It seems unlikely that there will be much good will - perhaps even willfully giving ship building contracts to Europe just to teach us a lesson / avoid Salmond gloating about how right he was. RUK will want to save face too and let's face it - the English will not be our friends thereafter.

So, getting down to brass tacks it seems that we're cutting our nose off to spite our face with regards to independence. In pretty much every meaningful and measurable way it'll be worse - so some people must really, really have a chip on their shoulder about apparent English rule.

[jamieduff1981]

simoid said:

drangular said:

simoid said:

What economic information do you think is relevant to independence on that businessforscotland website?

Eh!? It's ALL about business, economics and independence!!
I suggested it in order to bring folks attention to what real business people are saying about the potential benefits of independence and to counterbalance all the doom, gloom and negativity that pervades the MSM.
There is a lot more information and interesting viewpoints out there if one cares to look.
The main premise of the OP is that an independent Scotland will fail economically and socially with dire consequences for everyone's standard of living, jobs, financial security etc.
But why would this be? That would only be the outcome if the Scottish people, collectively, were completely incapable of making the right decisions in all the right areas. What Devolution has demonstrated is that the opposite is true. With the few powers available to them the Scottish people have ensured the way this country is organized and run, and the things we consider important, reflect our values. All of this has very positive benefits for our standard of living that others have mentioned. With independence, and with control over all of the levers, the Scottish people can complete the job and create a very successful, socially just, and comparatively wealthy nation.
Change is very scary for some. For others it is an essential part of progress towards something better. This is a great opportunity. I think we should grasp it enthusiastically and make it work!

Any chance you could provide a particularly relevant piece of analysis, backed up by evidence, that we can discuss?

You provided the link to the website, I'm asking what particular information you are bringing to the table, and how it is relevant to "should Scotland be an independent country)". Simply posting web addresses is basically spamming us

Yes it is odd isn't it. All the major employers who have gone public have stated views which land somewhere between no-difference and much-worse. I haven't seen any real company employing a meaningful number of real people who think independence will improve matters.

[fluffnik]

jith said:

jamieduff1981 said:

It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.

This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.

We need to distinguish between price, value and cost.

The first sewers weren't built by bleeding heart socialists, they were built by wealthy people who didn't want to die of cholera and who understood the difference.

The only question that needs answering is "Is Scotland uniquely incapable of running its own affairs?"