[phil200tdi]

I'm not sure what you are getting at...

The last time this would have been a risk would have been.

A Scottish Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) asking Scottish MP's to vote on UK legislation. Alistair Darling (also Scottish) was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time.

Its hilarious to hear people whine about Westminster being geared up for the English or the South East when Scotland, Wales and NI have better benefits (Prescriptions, hospitals, care, education funding etc.) than the English do. Every company locating in the UK wants to be in the SE of England because it is in the Core of Europe and hence better for access to EU Markets. Westminster pays companies (tax breaks and grants) to locate outside of this area for that purpose - hence locating Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derby etc.. There is also concern from foreign investors in our highly unionised labour forces in certain parts of the country.

"Westminster" has also been through a huge exercise of Decentralising Government services to other cities - hence certain central gov departments locating in Liverpool (GPS), Newcastle (DWP), Manchester (BBC), Cardiff (DVLA) etc.. Infrastructure investment (Housing, Schools, Hospitals and Roads etc) has predominantly gone to other deprived areas of the country - not some London boroughs where deprivation and housing demand is much higher.

Devolution has massively increased the power and budget of Scotland, Wales and NI to spend on areas it deems fit - i.e. those areas affecting the people. England is the only exception.

People in the South East pay far more and get far less than the people of any other geographic area of the UK - perhaps we should go independent!!?

[misterS3]

Peter that's a comprehensive reply!

Alan has answered far more succinctly that i could. But will tackle a few points.

There is no anti-English sentiment from me. And no on i know is the same. We're so intertwined in terms of relationships nothing will change. The same way i have friends and family in Ireland I have most of my family in England. There may be some who 'hate the English' but the same is true the other way. And i doubt if you put those people together they'd actually not get on. So it's not what is driving the decision. If it was, it would very easy to counter for the No campaign. And i've seen nothing anti-English from any of the parties campaigning for Indy. SNP, Green, Labour for Indy etc. Maybe it's how it feels or is being reported to you.

The drivers are for a change from what is going on up here. A more social just and fair society. No one where the rich get richer and the not even poor go to foodbanks and struggle by. And as Alan points out that doesn't just apply in Scotland it's just that we elected a govt who put the Referendum on their manifesto and are delivering on that. And have the opportunity to choose a different path.

Pension & Aging population. Yes it is a drain hence we need to invest in creating jobs to pay more tax into the system (not austerity) to pay those pensions. State pensions as you know are paid almost in real-time (i think i read there is a year in the pot but not sure). SG has promised a triple-lock which i expect the UK Govt top copy so that pensions don't continue to be the worst in Europe and fall further and further behind inflation.

NHS - it's not privitised. But it's heading in that direction. Stereotypically for Sri Lankan family most of my family are doctors (i'm far too lazy). And all now work in the English NHS. And so i know from them first hand what is going on. The profitable parts are being sold off to private companies to run. GPs are being asked about charging for missed appointments/appointments (my sister and cousin).

Foodbanks. The SNP have put in £1.5m that i know of. But why should we raise taxes up here to pay for policies from Westminster? That makes no sense. We already paid for the Bedroom tax from our budget.And there are foodbanks all over England too. So again it's not particular to Scotland.

Currency Union - Balance of Payments. That's the reason why there will be one. Unless the unionist parties can sell you the £ being devalued by removing the Scottish Exports. That will increase interest rates and cost of imports.
Also we would remove our share of the bullion i guess (not totally up on this one - need to do more reading). And there is of course the fact that if we're not getting the assets why would Scotland take the debt which is another £5bn per year. Of course rUK could still say no. But that to me would be a case of cutting off nose to spite face. And Scotland could still use the pound.
The argument about not being truly independent in a CU would have to aimed at all the countires in the Euro first and foremost and those countries surely view themselves as independent.

Benefit Reform. Why not ask Sir Phillip Green, Vodafone etc for their fair share of the Corp Tax bill. Those 2 alone would make up for more than Benefit Fraud There are more people chasing benefits cheats than tax cheats, yet the revenues lost to corp tax is at least a factor of 16 and according to some a factor of 40. I'm not saying let the benefits cheats off scot free. But don't push people to committing suicide/death because they miss a meeting. Have some compassion. But then IDS has his fans.

Trident - it's less than 600 people directly affected. And Scotland would have it's own Defence Forces based there (i need to check as i'm not up on the White Paper). Again we pay more into Defence that we get back. The majority of Defence cuts have come in Scotland. So with our own Defence forces we will probably create jobs pound for pound (or groat for groat)


I've not seen one report that actuall says that Scotland get more than their fair share. Yeh you can twist it by saying we get more back than we put in, but that's because of borrowings. Forgive me if i copy and paste and explanation i gave a pal.

This is for 2012/13 which was the latest figures to hand when but true for 32 out of 33 years going back from today.

Scotland puts in £56bn of £566bn total tax revenue. That's 9.9%. And the Rest of UK puts in £510bn (that's 566-56)

The whole of the UK then borrows additional £122bn (that's why we're in £1.3tn debt at the moment)

The pot now stands at £688bn (that's £566bn tax revenues + £122Bn additional borrowing)

Scotland now get out of the pot £64Bn which is 9.3% of the total pot of £688bn. Great that's 8bn more. But note that the Rest of UK gets 624Bn out of the pot which is £688bn - £64Bn. Which is £144Bn more than they put in.

So Scotland gets £8bn more than it put in. But the Rest of the UK gets £144Bn more than it puts in.

Worked out as percentages. We are putting in 9.9% and getting out 9.3% (9.9% is more than 9.3%). So we're getting less back. And we're only 8.8% of the UK population!

Hope that clears that up that we pay our own way and then some.

This has been the case for 30 years!


So ask yourself why we have free prescritpions, education etc and you don't with the above info. If it's affordable for us. It should be affordable for you. Where is the money going? It's how you chose to spend the money. And that's the reason for the Indy Drive.

Right back to work

[phil200tdi]

So you put in £56bn and get out £64bn in benefit. You'll pay £5bn to the uk per year to pay off the defecit.

Am I the only one who sees the flaw in your affordability plan..

[misterS3]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

So you put in £56bn and get out £64bn in benefit. You'll pay £5bn to the uk per year to pay off the defecit.

Am I the only one who sees the flaw in your affordability plan..

Worked out as percentages. We are putting in 9.9% and getting out 9.3% (9.9% is more than 9.3%). So we're getting less back. And we're only 8.8% of the UK population!

[phil200tdi]

That doesn't make it affordable or sustainable...

When oil and gas revenues are removed from the calculation or apportioned on a per capita basis (UK asset) rather than geographic share - how do the figures look? Another £8bn in the red in the case of the latter.

Currency union has been rejected by all parties. Even independent banks and analysts reject any possibility of RUK having a currency union with an independent Scotland.. The fact Salmond has no back up plan just shows how ill thought out the plans are.

[AlanQS]

Paxman tried to stick it to Alex Salmond on the same basis when he pointed out that Scotland earned £14 billion less than it spent. Which, on the surface of it seemed direct and accurate. But he didn't mention, although Salmond made the point, that England spent £150 billion more than it earned (i.e. the shortfall for both countries came from government borrowing). Of course Paxman was trying to hint that we couldn't possibly survive whilst ignoring the fact that if that was true, U.K. plc would have been bust years ago.

As for all the freebies we awarded ourselves, we didn't. It came out of the total money Scotland has to spend in a year. Our choice how to spend it, not Westminster's.

Take the Scottish parliament building. All it's cost and the running costs of all Scottish government offices comes out of our annual budget. No extra money was given because the price went up. It's the same for Wales. All their government office running costs come out of their annual budget.

Now, let's look at Westminster and all government offices and running costs. Do the English pay for them. err, not exactly. National government office costs come out of general taxation, i.e. all four countries pay for it, not just England. If I recall, there is a proposal to upgrade the palace of Westminster soon, over a number of years with a budget of Seven Billion pounds - that's coming out of all our pockets too.

And before we get mocked for the rising costs of the Scottish Parliament building once again, an office block was built in London to accommodate an overspill of MPs roundabout the same time. Just an office block, an overspill office block, for Westminster - and it cost more than the Scottish Parliament building... you couldn't make it up.

As an afterthought, the belief that London and the south east subsidise the rest of the country is far too big a subject for this thread - it needs another one but since that one has so many entrenched viewpoints it probably isn't worth it. Suffice to say, that whatever functions have been sent out to other parts of the country, London gets to pick whatever it wants when it wants. Sometimes all it takes is a new chairman of a British company whose HQ has always been in the Midlands say, to arrive - and he's a foreigner, he doesn't want to be out in the sticks, he wants to be in London - some slight compensation perhaps for being away from home and bingo! The company HQ moves to London, London gets more property taxes, the Midlands gets less, London GDP increases with all the office salaries, the Midlands don't, London gets some more jobs, the Midlands gets more dole costs. This same sad scenario (not necessarily with a foreign chairman) has happened hundreds of times over the last 20 years. Even the HS2 scheme will benefit London first.

[phil200tdi]

UK government offices deliver all English government and reserved powers - I.e. All the non devolved powers - which are significant.

How much will these cost to replicate in Scotland?

[misterS3]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

UK government offices deliver all English government and reserved powers - I.e. All the non devolved powers - which are significant.

How much will these cost to replicate in Scotland?

Depends if you get Danny Alexander to infate the figures into the billions or read what Prof Dunleavy said himself

[misterS3]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

That doesn't make it affordable or sustainable...

When oil and gas revenues are removed from the calculation or apportioned on a per capita basis (UK asset) rather than geographic share - how do the figures look? Another £8bn in the red in the case of the latter.

Currency union has been rejected by all parties. Even independent banks and analysts reject any possibility of RUK having a currency union with an independent Scotland.. The fact Salmond has no back up plan just shows how ill thought out the plans are.

What are you going to do when our exports are removed from balance of payments and rUK £ is devalued?

[phil200tdi]

That's why I'd vote no! We'll all be worse off.

But then again it's not as rosy or simple as imagined - £47.6bn of a total £73.6bn in non-oil exports of goods and services, and almost half of its oil and gas exports were to the rest of the UK. If Scotland don't keep the pound or gain entry to Europe - neither of which are certain - who's buying these goods? About 10% of exports are financial services - which is wholly reliant on being under the same banking system as London - which it won't be following independence. This is partly why all the financial institutions are looking at relocating HQ's (and hence where they pay tax) following independence. The other reason being the Bank of England will no longer act as the lender of last resort - Scotland will pay 1.65% additional interest on all its debts - mortgages etc will rise sharply.

Scotland pay more and get less argument, here is the expenditure per capita across the UK:

England £7,121
Scotland £8,623
Wales £8,139
Northern Ireland £9,385

SE England gets the least benefit:

North East £8,177 ¢ 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
North West £7,798 ¢ 106%
Yorkshire and Humberside £8,188 ¢ 115%
East Midlands £6,491 ¢ 88%
West Midlands £7,065 ¢ 96%
Eastern £6,144 ¢ 83%
London £8,704 ¢ 124%
South East £6,304 ¢ 86%
South West £8,677 ¢ 121

Source: Barnett formula
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

[misterS3]

Are you just copying and pasting stuff?! So i'm actually discussing with someone else? lol

At least have the decency (eh Peter? ) to tidy it up and pretend you're typing it.

The reason for independence isn't driven by anything to do with currency by the way.

The currency issue is the last bastion for the No Camp (they don't push the EU issue because of what Juncker said recently and the Tories are promising an In/Out referendum anyway!) which is why it's all we hear in the media is Currency.

But it's very simple. iScotland will have the £. If rUK can sell a currency devalution (i'd imagine a tad difficult for an economic area that was a net importer) to the businesses and inhabitants being better than a currency union then there won't be one. But iScotland will still have the £ and it won't be as benefical/cheap as a CU but it will work. We will make it work the same way rUK will have to make the currency devalution work. The same way people got on with things when Ravencraig, Linwood, Methyl etc were shut down after 79. And the same way we coped after Devolution. In neither cases did Israel start bombing us. So by that measure, we'll still do well

[misterS3]

BTW if you don't want further privitisation of the NHS - sign this https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/petition-ttip

[misterS3]

Oh and this just in....

Scotland is doomed if we vote Yes. Investment is on hold. Businesses will leave. The oil is running out........ Blah blah blah.

Oh wait. What is this. One of Scotland's largest office leasing deals signed for 20 years by a Norwegian Oil company. That can't be right....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-28755287

[phil200tdi]

I copied the statistics - which are taken from a website detailing how the devolution calculations are determined.

It shows Scotland gets a very fair share of UK support.

IPhones add the other characters in front of the pound sign. Not sure why this happens but always has and you can't remove them "£"

[misterS3]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

I copied the statistics - which are taken from a website detailing how the devolution calculations are determined.

It shows Scotland gets a very fair share of UK support.

IPhones add the other characters in front of the pound sign. Not sure why this happens but always has and you can't remove them "£"

Can you post a link to the source instead? Ta (Sorry for being cheeky above - must try harder to remember which forum i'm on!)

Why do people see public expenditure as bad btw? Is it better that it's spent in the private sector for profit?

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by misterS3

The currency issue is the last bastion for the No Camp (they don't push the EU issue because of what Juncker said recently and the Tories are promising an In/Out referendum anyway!) which is why it's all we hear in the media is Currency.

I couldn't disagree more.

The whole idea of "independence" from the SNP - Keep the Pound (fully controlled by the Bank of England), Keep the Royal Family, rUK to regulate, administer and collect all taxes, rUk to administrate and run the Welfare System, rUK to regulate and administer all issues related to the DVLA, rUK to fund Northern Lighthouse Board and Marine Accident Investigation Branch ,rUK to continue to subsidise iScotland's green energy production, etc., etc.

If you want Independence Lite ™ and buy into the "get the government you want" (All things to all men, take your pick) and want to be led to the glorious green upland pastures of a socialist utopia, with promises of having the pound in your pocket, more employment, more ship building, more public spending, lower corporation tax, no food banks, in the EU with no change of terms and conditions and actually believe the assertions only suggested by the SNP ("they" say you are too wee, poor and stupit - "they" being any bogey men you want to make them) - then vote yes.

The white paper is just a wish list that was drawn up with the prime objective of enticing in voters, rather than a realistic attempt at independence. Its whole raison d'etre is to get a yes vote. All the real issues will be worked out afterwards. As is being shown.

I am glad we are getting more public TV debates now as when these "policies" are dragged out into the harsh and unflattering sunlight everyone will see them for what they are. Optimistic guesses at best. Currency Union is dead in the water. All the main political parties are staking their political lives on jointly stating it won't happen, even to the point of including it in manifestos - and with the backing and support of the majority of the rUK public. Speak to any guys in the money markets. I still see a great may Yes voters who still do not comprehend the actual difference between a currency union and "keeping the poon' 'cause it's oors" like the panama dollar. The currency issue is what the entire Yes white paper is built around. Kick that shoogly foundation away and the rest comes tumbling down - think financial sector and Edinburgh.

I believe an iScotland would eventually get back into the EU (sticky one without our own central bank, LOLR and our own currency though). It most assuredly will be leaving when it leaves the UK, to return to the EU smoothly will require consent from all member countries (And Mr Salmonds abrasive, strident demanding will not help there at all - we would need friends). iScotland will never get the same concessions that the rUK will retain. Rebates, VAT on food and children's clothing, Schengen agreement, and adoption of the Euro will all need negotiating. If the SNP had concrete statements that would prove seamless continued membership of the EU we would have been shown it (although the SNP spent thousands hiding the fact they haven't had legal advice, but assuring us they had) - so at best we can say "maybes aye, maybes naw".

The green energy thing is topically and politically attractive. But it is supported by subsidies from the UK of over £770 Million a year, of which over £550 Million is from the rUK. That is over £1 Billion every 2 years. The solution for this loss by the SNP? You couldn't make this up, the solution is the rUK will continue to pay it as it is in everyone's best interest. A foreign country paying iScotland to run its own green energy. The new power lines going to Europe etc., may suggest otherwise especially with the abundance of cheap French Nuclear energy.

I have spoken a great deal with the guys who install the wind farms (mostly Spanish guys) and also with the land owners. Almost all of them have stated that the whole thing is a game with subsidies. They all tell me, and you can see it with your own eyes that the majority of the time they are not generating power. No wind, too much wind, the wrong type of wind = NO power. And only when the wind is blowing do you get any power. It is not predictable. No wind = no power, the correct wind but no demand and it cannot be stored, it is lost. Ask any German about the costs of wind energy.

About a third of iScotland's energy comes from green energy. A third nuclear and a third conventional.

The SNP want to phase out all nuclear energy. That is power that can be switched on when demand requires, regulated and switched off. Dependable supply. With Nuclear switched off we lose 1/3 of our power production (And a lot of jobs). BUT - you also, as an iScotland, have the responsibility of setting up regulatory bodies to oversee the decommissioning, dismantling, research, siting and final disposal of your nuclear waste within Scotland (nuclear waste includes not only waste directly from the power plants, but also medical and industrial radioactive waste). That is not cheap - again think £Billions - unless we expect the rUK to do this for us too ?

So, on a nice calm, winter's day in iScotland in the Future, the coal fires will be burning flat out to maintain a 1/3 of our energy output. Not as green as we would like ... even with being given £Millions from a foreign country. Without the £Millions we would receive from rUK, the cost of energy in iScotland wouldn't go down.

The loss of the Royal Navy at Faslane would be a huge blow to the area and the 11,000 workers, but the SNP have stated that the new Scottish Navy (2 ships as stated in the white paper) would be headquartered there with no loss of jobs. From all independent research and consultation the location of this base makes no sense for iScotland's Navy's role. Based inland on the West coast to protect our main assets in the North Sea - several days away on the East coast. The loss of naval contracts on the Clyde are promised to be replaced with new orders flooding in for new ships to an iScotland. Strangely the new replacement CalMac Ferries were ordered and built in Poland, why not the Clyde ?

As to how much Scots pay - I have seen many, many accounts - and give or take it does not look to me like we pay over the odds. The re-distribution of tax revenue is varied by needs and Scotland does ok. I dislike this mentality that once we have found oil we can thumb our nose at the UK and want to keep it all to ourselves. Oil has only been relevant for the last 35 years. For the other centuries when the industrial revolution was occurring, the rest of the UK didn't want to break away from us. And when the oil reassuredly will run out, if we haven't built up a strong country it will only be much, much harder as a small country.

But for me, and many I speak to, the main reason why there will be a No vote is simple. At the last Scottish Parliament elections only half of the Scottish people could be bothered to vote. This great mass of people are singularly uninterested and turned off by political dogmas of any colour, and dismissive of the parochial amateurs that bicker in our parliament. For them, with a dislike of politicians of all ilks, there are two choices :


Vote No, for a continuation of an evolving Union that has left its mark (good and bad) on the world, one of 5 permanent nations at the United Nations, you'll still have the pound in your pocket, you'll still be in the EU, you'll still benefit from all the assorted organisations built-up over 300 years, you'll still have the BBC, you'll still have a Navy, Army and Airforce for purposes other than ceremonial, shipbuilding on the Clyde, your mortagage will be the same, Research grants, Lottery grants, everything familiar (good and bad) will still be there. In some ways, the Devil you know.

or

Vote Yes, break up all the existing joint apparatus of govt., get a new govt. that is all things to all men, all better, more jobs, more democracy, no food banks, more nationhood, save money for an oil fund, lower taxes, more public spending, be better off, rebuild the tax authorities, rebuild the welfare state, rebuild our DVLA, create a central bank and the whole process will cost £200 million. A smaller downsized country.


And then realise that the 50% of people who have no time for politicians look on at these debates, and they remember the fiasco of the Scottish parliament building - 11x over budget (twice the cost of independence for one building). And the internationally renowned twin strips of steel to carry a horseless carriage from the city centre of Edinburgh to the airport 8.7 miles away - which ballooned to 3x estimate to over £1 BN (about 5 independent Scotlands for technology our forefathers mastered over 100 years ago). This great mass of people are already turned off and cynical of Scottish politics from any party. With a massive turnout expected for the referendum, which option do you think they will choose?

I have outrageously played devil's advocate here. But I do so only in response to balance the Yes view. I have already been called all the base names under the sun you can imagine by some deranged/passionate Yes supporters for even daring to slightly question independence. I fully acknowledge that that is not representative of the majority of Yes voters but it has stirred me into responding (As many other normal people are doing). The incessant mobbing and hurling of abuse by the cybernats have turned many normal people into quiet but strong No voters.

Now for a strange admission : I will not be voting. I am Scottish, born and bred. I bought my house and home in Scotland. I pay my council tax. I bank in the Royal Bank of Scotland. I pay my pension in Scotland. I put money back into Scotland. BUT. I live abroad at the moment and am denied my right to vote about the future of my country. By living abroad in different countries and cultures I have done and experienced what our famous bard Rabbie Burns wrote : "O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us".

If you are genuinely interested in the backgrounds to the issues of Scottish Independence I can wholeheartedly recommend the series of debates held by the Royal Society of Edinburgh on YouTube. These lectures are presented by leading experts and academics (of both persuasions) and look fairly, evenly and in-depth at the proposals and implications of varying topics. They are about 2 hours long each, so have a great deal more content and value than the simplified and dumbed-down "media bites" issued from all the political parties, or almost anything you will find flung around Twitter.

D.

[AlanQS]

Nice one Dave.

[mowflow]

Some great posts on here.

Everything you need to know summarised.
http://www.thefuckingreferendum.com

[misterS3]

Originally Posted by mowflow

Some great posts on here.

Everything you need to know summarised.
http://www.thefuckingreferendum.com

Ha ha - that's brilliant. Going viral...............