Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7

[FN2TypeR]

Sylvaforever said:

confused_buyer said:

To sum up:

In 2014 Scotland had two choices: (1) Out of the UK and out of EU or (2) In the UK and in the EU.

In 2016 Scotland has two choices: (1) In the UK and out of the EU or (2) Out of the UK and out of the EU.

No they don't you manipulative little st.

so angry

[A.J.M]

Sylvaforever said:

confused_buyer said:

To sum up:

In 2014 Scotland had two choices: (1) Out of the UK and out of EU or (2) In the UK and in the EU.

In 2016 Scotland has two choices: (1) In the UK and out of the EU or (2) Out of the UK and out of the EU.

No they don't you manipulative little st.

Well what are the choices we face then?

Because as has been pointed out at great length.
Indy Scotland doesn't meet EU entry requirements...

[DocJock]

You don't have any choice of 'out of the UK'. That was settled in 2014.

[r11co]

A.J.M said:

Sylvaforever said:

No they don't you manipulative little st.

Well what are the choices we face then?

Because as has been pointed out at great length.
Indy Scotland doesn't meet EU entry requirements...

But but......, Salmond said.....!



It is hilarious though - Sturgeon's machinations to twist unrelated issues to justify the continued grievance agenda. The draft bill though is another bluff because if it goes any further than consultation and is actually presented to the Scottish Parliament it will immediately be struck down by the presiding officer as constitutional matters are reserved. No 'Wastemonster' involvement required for that to happen!

Sturgeon is banking on continued pressure coming to bear and a second transfer of powers for a second referendum being granted, refusal of which Sturgeon will declare as a 'snub to the Scottish people'. Only awkward thing about that at the moment is that Sturgeon is 'snubbing' the majority who voted against independence in 2014, plus opinion polls suggest the majority do not want a second referendum - a figure that has increased steadily since the last one.

Best tactic for everyone concerned is to get on with the real business of the day and let Sturgeon continue ranting - the rhetoric might sound good but every part of it has something wrong with it that, rather than unite voters to the cause, will ring untrue with them and put them off. Dyed-in-the-wool SNP members of old distrust the EU and campaigned against joining it. Others spot the oxymoron that is leaving one union that is 'bad' but staying in another that is 'good'. Those against independence do not believe that supporting it will magically reverse Brexit in the way Sturgeon is stating, and the single-issue-engaged knuckledgragging support are getting bored of the whole thing (SNP membership renewals from those who joined during the indyref campaign are nosediving).

Edited by r11co on Friday 21st October 09:56

[simoid]

GoneAnon said:

simoid said:

I'm investigating the Police/Fire VAT thing. I recall it was to do with the fact it's a national service. Incidentally, the EU don't allow Holyrood to set VAT rates. It's not a Westminster thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18569696
Note the bits that say:
it was the UK Government who refused to change the rule.
And the same UK government changed the rule to let the English Academies recover VAT.

simoid said:

It would be well short of sensible to have noticeably different income or corporation tax rates between Berwick and North Berwick for obvious reasons. Those are the reasons independence is inescapably limited for Scotland, whether we're in the U.K., EU or independent.

"Inescapably limited". Not my words, the words of the man First Minister Salmond hired to advise him on economic matters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-scotland-13588...

Seems to work for Ireland.

I wasn't talking about this VAT exemption, I was talking about Scotland charging a different rate of VAT to England: the EU doesn't allow different intranational VAT rates.

Did you read the article from Salmond's adviser or not?

[Borghetto]

Gone Anon said "seems to work for Ireland"

Yes but they've just been through a dreadful economic collapse and bailed out partly by the UK. Also listen to the French about harmonisation of taxes within the eu - for that read bringing Ireland into line.

[Greedydog]

GoneAnon said:

Of course I want the best for Scotland and remain utterly convinced that Independence offers the best future for me and my family. You probably want the same but see a different way of achieving it. I'm reminded of the saying about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result... but you think the Union has been a success for Scotland and I don't.

It is a fallacy to assume that because something has, in your opinion failed (I'd be interested to hear your metrics for success), another, untested, course of action will be better. From your standpoint it's a short step to voting for change because "It can't be any worse" (which I've heard numerous times from independence supporters when challenged to why they think Scotland would be better off independent).

I can accept that an independent Scotland may be better, although from the economic forecasts I've read believe it would be a disaster. Can you at least accept that an independent Scotland may be much, much worse?

[GoneAnon]

simoid said:

I'm half way through the list there GoneAnon and, so you know, the "10x as many benefits fraud inspectors" is bullst.

Missed this one yesterday.

It may be unfair to say the tax evasion unit focussed on people earning over £150k a year are the only employees of HMRC investigating tax evasion, but I suspect that the bulk of the tax being evaded is by that part of the population or above.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tax-evasion-be...

This one shows that the numbers have increased a little now, at 320, and that there's another 400 dealing with high net worth (£20m+) individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/be...

So, I'll agree the figure isn't 10 times more if you will agree that it is more than 4 times more.

[GoneAnon]

simoid said:

I wasn't talking about this VAT exemption, I was talking about Scotland charging a different rate of VAT to England: the EU doesn't allow different intranational VAT rates.

I never made any mention of VAT rates, just the fact that it is non-recoverable. If anything, we would have to say that we now have two effective intranational VAT rates for police/fire: 20% in Scotland and 0% in England & Wales.

Someone else said we should have waited for the UK gvernment to sort this before amalgamating. How long do you think we should wait for something like that to be fixed, given that the English Acadamies proved it can be sorted very quickly, when Westminster refuse to do so? I wonder if they are worried that the rational Scottish move of having single bodies serve the population instead of 8 diffferent bodies, all with their own inflated overhead, might see calls for the same or similar moves to be implemented on the 44 police forces in E&W?

44 HR Depts
44 Payroll departments
44 Puchasing departments
44 Chief Constables and senior management teams
44 Different specifications for everything from clothing to cars

[GoneAnon]

Greedydog said:

It is a fallacy to assume that because something has, in your opinion failed (I'd be interested to hear your metrics for success), another, untested, course of action will be better. From your standpoint it's a short step to voting for change because "It can't be any worse" (which I've heard numerous times from independence supporters when challenged to why they think Scotland would be better off independent).

I can accept that an independent Scotland may be better, although from the economic forecasts I've read believe it would be a disaster. Can you at least accept that an independent Scotland may be much, much worse?

Yes, I'lla ccept that argument.

But then, when I left home at 19 and suddenly having to pay my own bills, I was very much worse off than I would have been if I'd stayed at home with my mum.

But now, some years later with a nice house almost mortgage free, a few cars to play with, money in the bank and a decent pile of stuff, would I change history and go back to an easier life at mums?
Not a chance!!!
Would I be better off? I might have more stuff and more cash but being able to invest in my own property and make my own decisions, I undoubtedly have a higher net worth now than I would have done otherwise - especially if I handed all my earnings to her and got pocket money back, let her choose my holidays, clothes, shops I could deal with etc.

[Nick Grant]

GoneAnon said:

I wonder if they are worried that the rational Scottish move of having single bodies serve the population instead of 8 diffferent bodies, all with their own inflated overhead, might see calls for the same or similar moves to be implemented on the 44 police forces in E&W?

44 HR Depts
44 Payroll departments
44 Puchasing departments
44 Chief Constables and senior management teams
44 Different specifications for everything from clothing to cars

Excellent, now apply that same logic across the UK, we both agree that centralisation is the best policy, not independent departments

[kowalski655]

yet Scotland insists on it's OWN version of the RSPCA,English Heritage , Environment Agency etc

[SBDJ]

GoneAnon said:

I wonder if they are worried that the rational Scottish move of having single bodies serve the population instead of 8 diffferent bodies

There is some logic in having a single body, but obviously Scotland is a smaller area with a much smaller population so what works up there may not work elsewhere.

Let's not also forget that a single police body also has downsides and that Police Scotland hasn't been the complete success you are portraying either...

Of course if you really believe a single body for things that serve the population is best then Police Scotland should be rolled into Police UK. Holyrood (and the MSPs) can be got rid of since we already have a UK parliament with Scottish MPs. Or does centralisation only work for the things that fit your narrative?

Edited by SBDJ on Friday 21st October 15:09

[Greedydog]

GoneAnon said:

Yes, I'lla ccept that argument.

But then, when I left home at 19 and suddenly having to pay my own bills, I was very much worse off than I would have been if I'd stayed at home with my mum.

But now, some years later with a nice house almost mortgage free, a few cars to play with, money in the bank and a decent pile of stuff, would I change history and go back to an easier life at mums?
Not a chance!!!
Would I be better off? I might have more stuff and more cash but being able to invest in my own property and make my own decisions, I undoubtedly have a higher net worth now than I would have done otherwise - especially if I handed all my earnings to her and got pocket money back, let her choose my holidays, clothes, shops I could deal with etc.

Your point is that an independent Scotland would somehow make better decisions than rUK, which let's face it is a bit biased - why would Scots in Scotland make a better fist of things than the current UK 'management' (of whatever political stripe or nationality)? It's back to your original argument that things are being badly run and someone else will do better. How much better do you think it will get? The UK has one of the highest standards of living in the world, I'd suggest there is limited upside versus a much bigger downside risk. Even if this were the case and Scotland was 'better', and I don't agree for one second it would be given the diabolical quality of the current SNP MPs and MSPs, I'll give you an example of the economic problems post independence:

A few months pre the indy ref I was at a conference with a panel of 4 economists (can't remember who but it's safe to say they were all well regarded in their field, certainly much, much, much more qualified than I with my bachelors degree). The discussion was wide ranging, however one part was about the Scottish economy post a theoretical Yes vote. All 4 agreed that Scottish economic growth would likely lag rUK for between 15 and 20 years.

My take away from that is that we (because I'm Scottish and live in Scotland) would be worse off compared to the rest of the UK for not just 15-20 years but also the period of time thereafter it took to catch up the lost 15-20 years of growth, assuming we ever did, because let's face it, it's a bit arrogant to say an independent Scotland would be more successful basically "because Scottish", and that's exactly what you're saying with your analogy; the levers and tools are the same, there would just be someone different wielding them, except they'd be starting from a much lower base.

[r11co]

GoneAnon said:

But then, when I left home at 19 and suddenly having to pay my own bills, I was very much worse off than I would have been if I'd stayed at home with my mum.

But now, some years later with a nice house almost mortgage free, a few cars to play with, money in the bank and a decent pile of stuff, would I change history and go back to an easier life at mums?
Not a chance!!!

Yeah, but that is a course of action with a predictable outcome that can be directly influenced by your own choices.

For Scottish independence to be better for Scotland it would be predilected on Sturgeon's (and Salmond's before her) speculative gambles, with a positive outcome impossible if it is reliant on their downright falsehoods. Salmond has recently gone on record making up a load of figures to explain away Scotland's fiscal defecit, and there are others who do not believe the defecit exists at all. Cloud cuckoo land stuff.

Ultimately this is what lost the SNP the last plebiscite and will lose them any subsequent ones - the truth hurts and the lies are transparent.

Hope over Fear? Transparency over bullst more like!

Edited by r11co on Friday 21st October 15:51

[wobert]

Nick Grant said:

GoneAnon said:

I wonder if they are worried that the rational Scottish move of having single bodies serve the population instead of 8 diffferent bodies, all with their own inflated overhead, might see calls for the same or similar moves to be implemented on the 44 police forces in E&W?

44 HR Depts
44 Payroll departments
44 Puchasing departments
44 Chief Constables and senior management teams
44 Different specifications for everything from clothing to cars

Excellent, now apply that same logic across the UK, we both agree that centralisation is the best policy, not independent departments

I agree in part, but at National level you are above critical mass.

I would suggest regional or super-regional is the optimal size, big enough to gain something from collective operations, but small enough to manage effectively.

The NHS and MOD are good reasons not to have centralised purchasing, years wasted with little or no decision making. At least at critical mass level the organisation would function, and gain some savings.

[Cobnapint]

Greedydog said:

It's back to your original argument that things are being badly run and someone else will do better. How much better do you think it will get? The UK has one of the highest standards of living in the world, I'd suggest there is limited upside versus a much bigger downside risk.

This is my bone of contention in a nutshell.

Just 'WHAT' exactly do the yessers think will be better?

Cheaper fuel costs? Lower tax? Faster trains? Free pint every time you walk in a pub? 300 quid towards a 4K tele?
Lower gas bills? Better weather?

The list is long - but the answer will always be the same - NOPE.

[simoid]

GoneAnon said:

I never made any mention of VAT rates, just the fact that it is non-recoverable. If anything, we would have to say that we now have two effective intranational VAT rates for police/fire: 20% in Scotland and 0% in England & Wales.

Someone else said we should have waited for the UK gvernment to sort this before amalgamating. How long do you think we should wait for something like that to be fixed, given that the English Acadamies proved it can be sorted very quickly, when Westminster refuse to do so? I wonder if they are worried that the rational Scottish move of having single bodies serve the population instead of 8 diffferent bodies, all with their own inflated overhead, might see calls for the same or similar moves to be implemented on the 44 police forces in E&W?

44 HR Depts
44 Payroll departments
44 Puchasing departments
44 Chief Constables and senior management teams
44 Different specifications for everything from clothing to cars

You did mention VAT rates - in the quoted hypothetical conversation between Sturgeon and adviser Sturgeon asked to drop VAT.

The hypocrisy here is off the scale - you're now extolling the virtues of economies of scale: the main advantage of our United Kingdom. One army, navy, Air Force, border, pension pot, foreign office, central bank, currency...

[GoneAnon]

simoid said:

You did mention VAT rates - in the quoted hypothetical conversation between Sturgeon and adviser Sturgeon asked to drop VAT.

The hypocrisy here is off the scale - you're now extolling the virtues of economies of scale: the main advantage of our United Kingdom. One army, navy, Air Force, border, pension pot, foreign office, central bank, currency...

I was replying to your comment on VAT for the Police and Fire services in Scotland.

I believe in economoies of scale but NOT where the larger partner is the favoured entity as we have with England versus the rest of the UK. If there was an equal partnership like we keep being told there is, with four votes (one each for E, W, S & NI) that would be a different kettle of fish but given the enormous population differences, that isn't going to happen.

We can see that by simple arithmetic, England can ALWAYS outvote the rest of us on ANY issue.

[Garvin]

GoneAnon said:

Greedydog said:

It is a fallacy to assume that because something has, in your opinion failed (I'd be interested to hear your metrics for success), another, untested, course of action will be better. From your standpoint it's a short step to voting for change because "It can't be any worse" (which I've heard numerous times from independence supporters when challenged to why they think Scotland would be better off independent).

I can accept that an independent Scotland may be better, although from the economic forecasts I've read believe it would be a disaster. Can you at least accept that an independent Scotland may be much, much worse?

Yes, I'lla ccept that argument.

But then, when I left home at 19 and suddenly having to pay my own bills, I was very much worse off than I would have been if I'd stayed at home with my mum.

But now, some years later with a nice house almost mortgage free, a few cars to play with, money in the bank and a decent pile of stuff, would I change history and go back to an easier life at mums?
Not a chance!!!
Would I be better off? I might have more stuff and more cash but being able to invest in my own property and make my own decisions, I undoubtedly have a higher net worth now than I would have done otherwise - especially if I handed all my earnings to her and got pocket money back, let her choose my holidays, clothes, shops I could deal with etc.

Well, bully for you - you're alright Jack! What about those less fortunate than yourself, are you voting for the good of Scotland or are you just voting for the good of yourself?

BTW, you will not remain untouched. Once the coffers dry up and real austerity has to be invoked no one in Scotland will be immune from the fallout of the belt tightening.

Let's say Scotland survives the economic shock. Just what is it the the SNP government are going to do to improve the wealth of Scotland that they can't do now. Please do tell.