You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes only th egreens think that nuclear waste is dangerous...Pfft
It's the huge amount of stuff they've successfully lobbied to get [b]classified[/b] as nuclear waste that's the problem.
I'm afraid not, which is why this isn't actually a vote about independence.At present, if the UK government acts in a way that's detrimental to Scotland, there's not much the Scottish voter can do about it. After independence, if we don't like what the government is doing, we can just elect a new one.
Even if the legendary negotiating skills of AS do create a currency union, that's an economic straitjacket for Scotland which would remove many policy levers from the Holyrood Government. Don't like what it is doing? Tough - the terms of the currency union would prevail no matter the party in government.
The EU opt outs which UK has are unlikely to continue for Scotland so the EU would have more impact than at present.
That's why this is a crap proposal. It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood.
So the democratic position. Is equivalent to England's.....Bizarrely, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than England, but that is a separate story
thanks for clearing up the fluff there and giving us a spin free account
very helpful and clear
THANKS
A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.
B/ no nation is fully independent as long as it has treaties and agreements with other nations... and creditors.
It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood
I do agree but no country can completely repatriate everything where it signs treaties - but yes he is selling a weird hybrid that is neither devolution nor independence.
As for the EU who knows what iS will get tbh they may get better - it is unlikely but we do not know- as the EU may bend over backwards to not lose a country, we just do not know.
I would imagine that the same as the UK or the same as the other EU countries are both about the same odds were I a betting man.
@Athgray I looked at the various parties websites Labour says they plan to restore the 50p tax rate, but that dosnt itself help poor or vulnerable people, Labour also said they plan to stick to Osbournes spending plan. Couldnt find any thing about raising taxes on the Conservative party site. Then again IDS is driving a campaign of welfare cuts which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Libs said they believe in progressive taxation but I didnt see any detail or policy that said they would increase the top rate of tax.Ukip well firefox didnt find their site but the BBC said "Ukip is currently rethinking tax policy"
You may have heard of thecommonweal,[url= http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Common-Weal.pdf ]allofusfirst[/url]
The real debate about independence is to try to change a broken political system for one which the ordinary person feels involves them and belongs to them rather than the current one which appears separated from swathes of ordinary people and is perceived as belonging to an elite. Struggling to get by on £120,000 per year anyone?An increase to £20,000 would be a substantial pay rise for me.
edit
You sure? If Scotland is to be richer and fairer as promised, then it is going to diverge more from the rUK than it does at present. So the impact of CU would be greater in that the terms of the CU would prevent it moving too far from rUK (otherwise the CU would fail). With no MPs and only an observer role on the MPC, there's less influence on policy being proposed.A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.
Correct. Which is why claims along the lines of "if they're mistakes, at least they're our mistakes" or "if we don't like the government, we can change it" are optimistic about the amount of control which can be exercised.B/ no nation is fully independent as long as it has treaties and agreements with other nations... and creditors.
As I've said before, I'm not opposed to independence in principle. I'm just opposed to the current vision of it.
As my post is too old to edit I assume the "facts" come from here
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1
to get the same count [ the one you think is both equal and worse ] for england as scotland you have to
1. Count an equal vote [ but more lab MPs as a loss] - 1950. I doubt the exact vote was identical to the last vote so I further assume that percentages are given to " massage" the figure but labour actually got most votes [ Assumption if it was the reverse the website would have mentioned it] but i am not certain to be clear.
2. Count the coalition as a loss for both - even though the combined vote is a majority of votes cast in england never mind seats when in Scotland it is neither. I woudl call that spin and bluster and you a lot worse if As did it.
3. Count % of votes cast rather than MP's in the country. See point above
4. Assume that a 0.2 % difference [ but more MP's] in England is the same as 30 % less in Scotland with fewer MP's. See point above.
Can i thanks you once more for your fluff free post free of spin and deceit
This "debate" would work better if you just put the facts up and let folks decide what they mean IMHO.
Correct. Which is why claims along the lines of "if they're mistakes, at least they're our mistakes" or "if we don't like the government, we can change it" are optimistic about the amount of control which can be exercised.
You are correct but it would be better if they went at least if we dont like it we can leave ....again 😉
While we are doing nukes...
Moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of an independent Scotland is not impossible and would probably cost far less than the tens of billions of pounds previously predicted, experts have suggested.Relocating Trident in the event of Scottish independence would be feasible, although it could take more than a decade and spark significant local opposition, a new paper from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) military think tank has found.
But the paper, published on Friday suggests that recreating the nuclear facilities outside Scotland would add between £2.5bn and £3.5bn to the cost of the UK maintaining a nuclear-armed fleet, plus the cost of acquiring and clearing land — but would be far less than a previously predicted £20bn to £25bn.
There may or may not be reasons to vote yes, Trident isn't one of them.
You missed out the two big reasons - we'd save a huge amount of money, and it's morally repugnant to possess WMDs.
That's why this is a crap proposal. It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood.
You don't quite understand how independence works. Sure, we'd be tied into a currency union, EU treaties, NATO treaties, WTO treaties, whatever, same as every other country.
But if we didn't like it, we could elect a government that would pull us out of those treaties. We could decide for ourselves whether we wanted to be in those clubs or not.
Without independence, we're just hanging on the UK's coattails.
By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.
This is just a question of choosing which people you regard as the base unit. It's childishly nationalistic. The decisions we make are better decisions just because they're ours. What if you choose the British as the base unit? Prods? White people?
[quote=konabunny ] The decisions we make are better decisions just because they're ours.Not [i]better[/i], just more representative of what the people want.
It's childishly nationalistic
Putin should use that line to ukraine 😉
By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.
It has to be true, assuming we agree democratic is fairer.
This is just a question of choosing which people you regard as the base unit.
As I've said before, I would prefer a fully federal system of government in the UK. If that was in place, Scottish independence would be a fringe issue.
But it isn't. We're stuck with Westminster, with its undemocratic voting system, its unelected Lords, its cronyism and nepotism. No party wants to get rid of it, or even reform the system slightly.
So all we can do is pick the base unit we have to work with - Scotland - and change that.
Few people deny Scotland is a country - certainly not the "I'm a proud Scot" Better Together people. Scotland is a typical Northern European country in political outlook. It's Britain that's weird:
OH so more from that link which claims
25 October 1951 - Conservative (Winston Churchill)
Scotland voted Conservative (48.6%). Got Conservative.
England voted Labour (46.1%). Got Conservative.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge51/seats51.htm
says england voted conservative in % and MP terms so I think that paper /claim must be poor but I cannot be bothered doing them all.
Can I see any working rational for your claim please THM
I assume you iwsh to ignore the fact based nature of my retorts and just maintain your claim and then call AS names?
FWIW http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
Which links to each result and then you can do it by region to see what the figures are
yes it is a slow day at work
It has to be true, assuming we agree democratic is fairer.
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
[quote=konabunny ]
It has to be true, assuming we agree democratic is fairer.
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
Of course. All Fife has to do is create it's own legitimately elected local government and then negotiate with the govt. of iScotland to hold a referendum.
There is a proposal to create around 100 local councils and devolve a lot of power to them:
That sounds unfair.
says england voted conservative in % and MP terms so I think that paper /claim must be poor but I cannot be bothered doing them all.
Your link says England voted 45.64% Conservative (or 48.78% for a combined Conservative sub-total) and 48.81% Labour.
I assume you iwsh to ignore the [i]fact[/i] based nature of my retorts
what's that phrase your so keen on about ironing?
I think the reductionist argument about Orkney, Shetland, Fife etc being able to vote is on a par with the counter-point about England being able to vote to go independent. As scotroutes says, all you have to do is elect the right people, who can then negotiate a case for a referendum. The SNP have done exactly that, which still staggers me, given what level of support they used to gather in the 70s and 80s.
But it isn't. We're stuck with Westminster, with its undemocratic voting system, its unelected Lords, its cronyism and nepotism. No party wants to get rid of it, or even reform the system slightly.
There was a great programme on the House of Lords recently, basically saying they were good for the country because they lacked 'party' political affiliation, leaving them free to approve or discredit ideas on merit*.
*Yes, this is a massive generalisation open to attack. I'll see if I can dig out the original piece (I want to say it was 'Lord's Tale', but I'm not sure it is without watching a good portion of it).
what's that phrase your so keen on about ironing?
Sorry I did not mean to put the % [ the difference is only 0.03 %] claim in there I just meant to put down the MP's. My error, I was wrong and not trying to spin it. I have not really helped my case have I 😳 Sorry and thanks for at least reading.
If we look at MP's
Conservative - 259 and combined 271
Labour - 233
England Tory MP's were the majority even thought they [just] lost the popular vote
I am not sure that is "losing the election" and if it is then england alone lost the election. there will not be a similar scenario in scotland and the point was % were chosen to spin the case.
I am not sure how i could have made that point worse or shot myself in the foot so more.
It is marginal and shows the weakness in FPTP rather than
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
There is probably a point at which passport for Pimlico becomes a comedy and a little counter productive
We have done the a constituency is not a country debate a numbe rof time now
There was a great programme on the House of Lords recently, basically saying they were good for the country because they lacked 'party' political affiliation, leaving them free to approve or discredit ideas on merit*.
voting for the house of lords would be a disaster, we already have a bunch to self serving politicians only looking after their own career... Salmond included...
Anyway, back to Scotland... good luck, go independent, cos if you don't there will only be continued whining about it...
Any figures for setting up a parallel civil service? I would assume now the cost will be similar what ever the size of the country due to a lot of the work being done in large call centers and computer systems. Discounting stuff like the police of course.
Do any of you who support the yes side know why all politicians in all countries are despised? Yes I know they are politicians but they promise the moon on a stick but strangely enough usually cannot deliver. Don't be fooled into thinking politics in Scotland will be any different.
Any figures for setting up a parallel civil service?
Why would we need to do that when we already have one?
The UK has a civil service and some of the infrastructure is based in Scotland. Any changes to policies such as big tax changes will require big changes to the software for example. Roll on those big IT projects.
Geda - the dunleavy report looked into this - the plan is that they are going to continue using rUK DVLA, HMRC etc. until at least 2018 under contract
Of course, thats if we're willing to let them use it - which IMO is entirely dependent on their attitude regards debt repayments, Faslane etc.
Of course, thats if we're willing to let them use it - which IMO is entirely dependent on their attitude regards debt repayments, Faslane etc.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street. But only we wouldn't do that as we are a mature and responsible nation.
I assumed that there must be a period of dual running. Still it would be interesting to see how much it will cost as they are capital projects that will need funding, borrowing for example. Borrowing will cost more for a new country especially if it does not have its own currency. Another interesting thing is for example campaigning for a nuclear free Scotland. Individual policies are pointless as surely the only thing that matters is yes/no it is only after independence that these sort of decisions will be made. At a guess the Scottish political climate could swing to the right as you are no longer voting against those bullying southern tories but for "self reliant" Scottish conservatives that want to encourage free enterprise and get foreign investment. Fair social policies can only come from a strong economy. Look at Ireland for an example. As I have said before culture steers the politics of a country and in terms of culture there is not that much difference between England and Scotland.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street. But only we wouldn't do that as we are a mature and responsible nation.
Aye big man, Scotland holds all the bargaining chips, eh!
now, who is it whose vote they have to get to join the EU? 😆
At a guess the Scottish political climate could swing to the right
You been drinking?
in terms of culture there is not that much difference between England and Scotland
If by England you mean the North of England then I'd agree with you, but the south is radically different.
It is safe to say both sides have nuclear [ see what I did there] threats to the other but i doubt either will press it as its obvious it would harm both sides
Aye big man, Scotland holds all the bargaining chips, eh!now, who is it whose vote they have to get to join the EU?
Given that everyone in Scotland is already an EU citizen and will remain so after independence due to there being no mechanism for removing our EU citizenship then it certainly will not be needing the rUK's vote, or indeed lack of veto.
Scotland holds more bargaining chips that you give it credit for. That's probably why there is so much opposition from Westminster and south of the border - because you know that you're in a bit of trouble if independence does happen.
Given that everyone in Scotland is already an EU citizen and will remain so after independence due to there being no mechanism for removing our EU citizenship then it certainly will not be needing the rUK's vote, or indeed lack of veto.
Yes, keep on repeating it and it might come true - shame that all the EU politicians still seem to reckon the opposite 😆
Maybe its hidden in that legal opinion that Alex still refuses to publish 🙄
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
Stay out of the EU and have the fishing grounds all to ourselves.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street.
Marvellous. Do I know you IRL? There's a chap at work says almost exactly the same.
He's not very bright.
Stay out of the EU and have the fishing grounds all to ourselves.
😆
£500M fishing business, versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU
I'm afraid that this is a trade war you ain't gonna win 😉
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
Keep the nuclear weapons and point them towards our new enemy?
Yourselves?
good call!
£500M fishing business, versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EUI'm afraid that this is a trade war you ain't gonna win
You won't be laughing when the Tunnocks stop coming south.
versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU
You telling me that people in Europe would instantly stop drinking whisky? That argument is retarded.
Also given that Scottish boats alone landed £429million worth of fish in one particularly bad year a couple of years ago, it would seem unlikely that the whole fishery was only worth £500m/yr.
£500M fishing business
Does that include the non-uk vessels fishing in Scottish waters but landing outside uk?
Ernie, ninfan,
sorry Ernie I meant that they can't nuke us because we have nukes i.e. a deterrent. Let's try to keep the discussion pleasant guys. 😉The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment
Ben, I agree with you nukes are repugnant but I think the world is stuck with them until we all live in peace, due to the amount of conflict going on I predict that won't be any time soon 🙁 .
Wanmankylung is a better together troll?
No - and that's actually pretty insulting.
sorry Ernie I meant.....
I see, you meant something different to what you said.
Is this even on topic anymore?
Somebody is fibbing somewhere.
I see, you meant something different to what you said.
No Ernie as pointed out by ninfan there was a comma there to aid understanding. I will use bullet points from now on. 😉
Nothing to do with commas. Z-11 tried to help a fellow nuclear armer out by suggesting it was all down to commas.
If you wanted to say "they can't nuke us because we have nukes" then you should have said so.
Even with all the commas it still doesn't say "they can't nuke us because we have nukes"
fasternotfatter - MemberBen Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.
Gordi, they invaded Georgia and slyly invaded Ukrainian Crimea as well.
Posted 23 hours ago # Report-Post
On a side issue, almost every country in the world doesn't have nuclear weapons and yet Russia and China haven't nuked any of them with their outdated equipment and inexperienced troops.
Is having experienced troops a good thing to boast about? Or is it more a sign that the country's leaders are a bit fighty and warmongering.
klumpy - Member
....As for moving them from Scotland, the base was never a nuclear target in itself as the deterrent subs are mostly at sea...
Strange reasoning. The base is where the non-operational subs and warheads are held. It would have to be a prime target if only to deny re-supply.
There is a precedent.
The UK put a lot of effort into trying to destroy German U-boat bases during WWII for very much the same reasons.
scotroutes - Member
A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.
Was that serious Scotroutes? If so, that is a unique interpretation of how CUs work.
Perhaps it was a really smart answer in that the no more restraints refers to the fact that you would (it isn't going to happen) devolve all responsibility to a foreign country. So independent, that you don't even bother. Amazing concept.
THM - would Scotland be independent if they joined the Euro? Because Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all what right minded individuals would call independent and they use a currency over which they do not have full control. So, what exactly is your grip about a currency union? Other than spouting utter shite.
On the contrary, I understand entirely how this works.You don't quite understand how independence works. Sure, we'd be tied into a currency union, EU treaties, NATO treaties, WTO treaties, whatever, same as every other country.But if we didn't like it, we could elect a government that would pull us out of those treaties. We could decide for ourselves whether we wanted to be in those clubs or not.
However, how long do you think it takes to negotiate a way out of treaty commitments and how much do you think it costs? It is a contract. It will have penalties designed to be much worse in the event of departure than staying. No party to a treaty will be happy to (say) see Scotland benefit for 10 years and then leave the deal once it is Scotland's turn to let the support flow the other way without paying for that. Once you're in, departing is a nuclear (in political and diplomatic terms) option.
Why thank you - utter shite it is then.
Out of interest, have you had a wee look at what has been going on in Europe over the past few years. What happens when you're devolve responsibility to others who are unaccountable to you. Just how much independence do many countries in the (your word) shite have. Look at the "democratic" result in Italy. Ask youself just have equal and prosperous the periphery of Europe are.
They have given up responsibility for their own policies and the results have been an utter disaster.
So how independent? Less than now, that is the elephant in the room. If you want to swallow this, good luck! See no evil, hear no evil, speak now evil.....
Anyway CU isn't going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn't sterlingisation..
Anyway CU isn't going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn't sterlingisation..
What are you basing the currency union isn't going to happen claim on?
Also wtf is a DO?
And plans A&B are using sterling, plan D is using the Euro and plan C is the Cameron is a Bawbag (rather catchy name for a currency.)
It takes considerable myopia to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. But don't say that you were not warned.
I want a Scotland that is not part of the UK. That is exactly what I want and I don't really care what flavour it comes in as I've said all along.
Well, if you could get the leader of the Yes campaign to state that very clearly and say if he agrees with everything his beloved Fiscal Commission had to say on the subject, that would be handy.And plans A&B are using sterling, plan D is using the Euro and plan C is the Cameron is a Bawbag (rather catchy name for a currency.)
Understanding.
Is a person whose deliberately deceives and lies to people for vanity purposes.
A - no
B - even worse
C - ?
D - won't exist in 5 years time
wanmankylung - Member
I want a Scotland that is not part of the UK. That is exactly what I want and I don't really care what flavour it comes in as I've said all along.
Oops, either way you are not going to have your wishes fulfilled.
I am still waiting for the SNP to tell us what not having a currency union will cost Scottish businesses. Within a day of Osborne announcement we were told it would cost rUK business £500m. Is it too much to assume that a Scottish government that cares so much for it's people would not have worked out the cost to Scotland also?
Well, if you could get the leader of the Yes campaign to state that very clearly and say if he agrees with everything his beloved Fiscal Commission had to say on the subject, that would be handy.
He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.
Oops, either way you are not going to have your wishes fulfilled.
That is a moronic thing to say - a yes voted will give me exactly what I want.
Enjoy your dreams then but be ready for when you wake up.....the hangover will be long and hard.
Eh, no. That's his preference for Plan A.He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.
Have you read the Fiscal Commission's Report? It discounts using Sterling in anything other than a formal currency union. That's why AS has never formally listed it as plan B - because to do so would undermine the credibility of the "experts" who recommended Plan A and so undermine the proposal itself. Just to quote it again as you must have missed it:
International evidence suggests that informal monetary unions tend to be adopted by
transition economies or small territories with a special relationship with a larger trading
partner (e.g. between the UK and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Advanced
economies of a significant scale tend not to operate in such a monetary framework. Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution.
The Fiscal Commission's Plans B and C are the Euro and a Scottish Currency.
He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.
And you claim others are talking utter shite and being moronic?
No they are not. Go away and read it.
THM - remember a couple of years ago you said that the Euro was on its way out and that Germany and Greece would be leaving it?
Read the FC stuff several times. Have you? Here's something else to read
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16d54dd4-237a-11e4-8e29-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#slide0
When not if....it's simple. Tell me about the democratic process in Italy? Actually don't, better that you have sweet dreams with innocent dreams.
I have, dry though it is. Have it open right now if you could point me to the bit where they recommend any informal use of sterling.No they are not. Go away and read it
That rejection of it which I quoted, by the way, is para 20 on page 4 of the Feb 2013 report.
At least the DO is not alone in talking shite. Swinney has also been at it. Yet another yS bit of nonsense requiring the BOE to make an announcement saying that they (yS) are telling porkies (again!!)
OB, mentioned it a few pages back. The DOs latest stunt was dismissed in one short para by the FIscal Commission. Not even worth discussing by his own advisers because it is a BS solution. But Wanman...reckons it's a goer!
THM - are you realistically expecting an educated man to accept what is written in the media?
What is a DO?
What is a DO?
Is a person who deliberately deceives and lies to people for vanity purposes. Best avoided at all costs.
Ah - so it's a David Osborne. I get it now.
Deceitful One, I think. As in Salmond for THM.