[Closed] Sound bite politics - Scotland content

I can't see how any government whether in Scotland or Westminster can re-nationalise Royal Mail after it has been privitised as doing so would without any doubt break EU rules.

And the SNP is committed to the EU.

Because the SNP might want Scotland to be independent from England and Wales, but it is more than happy for it to be ruled by a thoroughly undemocratic institution which puts the interests of foreign owned private companies before the democratic wishes of the people in member states.

[i]I can't see how any government whether in Scotland or Westminster can re-nationalise Royal Mail after it has been privitised as doing so would without any doubt break EU rules.[/i]

Irrelevant of that, while I don't believe for Scotland that a privatised mail system is the way to go; too rural and culturally we're more 'socialist' (notice the small 's'); it's the way that he is just jumping on another 'bandwagon' - and the lack of the Opposition to actually attack him with logic that winds me up, but then I'm getting to an age where ALL Politicians wind me up 🙂

Personally I don't have a problem with contracting private firms to work for the Govt, I just don't want to have more privatised monopolies that WILL end up costing us more money.

Doesn't seem to be a fully worked out and agreed policy from the SNP . Alex Salmond left Swinney looking a bit silly. However I would support renationalisation if that's what happens as the private companies such as tnt already charge extra for delivery to parts of Scotland.

Doesn't seem to be a fully worked out and agreed policy from the SNP

Is there ever? I'd apply that statement to the whole Scotland Independence topic as well.

the lack of the Opposition to actually attack him with logic that winds me up,

How can you argue logically against

AS: "Scotland will be better"
[i]"Why? and how will you do it?"[/i]
AS: "It just will be"
[i]"No, really, please show me the hard facts and plans"[/i]
AS:"It'll be better. Scotland is better with independence"
and repeat...

Beyond blustering and in my mind notions and ideas, there is little substance to back up his arguments that you can logically counter.

As for the mail, I think up here and further oot in the sticks, it'll pan out to be a worse service once private.

Ernie, interesting comment. What is the EU rule that you refer to? I haven't heard of that. Why didn't that stop EU governments partially or totally renationalising banks? (genuine questions, to be clear)

Fisha +1 it's incredible after all this time, how little substance there is behind Salmond. And he is hailed as a political genius????

[img] ?6[/img]

The fact that Salmond is hailed as a genius just goes to illustrate the political pygmies prsently at work in all the other parties. Anyone with half a brain could point out that none of his proposed policies stack up, instead with their constant idiocy they simply make him look better

The fact that Salmond is hailed as a genius

only by his cronies

The problem with that picture, binners is that on the same basis it seems strange that we have to pay to get something done by an organisation we "already own", and that it is perfectly normal for one party to be able to buy out the other parties in a partnership.

ernie - I'd forgotten you were even more anti EU than me!

Doesn't seem to be [s]a[/s][i]any[/i] fully worked out and agreed policies from the SNP

I'll be voting for what is in the best interests of my kids, irrespective of what my own view is. With less than a year to go though all we seem to hear is idealistic wiffle waffle rather than any actual policy.

Lets face it, Salmond would get very far if he was punting for investment on Dragons Den. No business case, no forecast, no stats.....

AS: "Scotland will be better"
"Why? and how will you do it?"
AS: "It just will be"
"No, really, please show me the hard facts and plans"
AS:"It'll be better. Scotland is better with independence"
and repeat...

excellent summary of current position.

Although to be fair, the no campaign is not a whole lot better!

I think its a bit of he-who-talks-the-loudest gets his point across in the the Scottish Gov at the moment when it comes to Salmond. That as well as there really not being much of a competition from other parties against him.

Conservatives will just have no hope in Scotland for a long long time. The bitter feeling is entrenched in a lot of areas, and wont disappear for generations. ( Although personally I think that in general, the Conservatives approach to the economy and austerity probably was the best of a bad bunch over the last few years )

Labour is a damp squib ... UK and Scotland wise ... and I personally still think they sit with their head in the sand regarding the economy and how to fix it. Plus, I don't like our local labour person.

Lib Dems - Who?

Politically, there just isn't someone to compete. It'll be the public that take him off the perch. My fear is that rather than making educated and well informed decisions in a years time, it'll be a lot of people having been brainwashed by years of media spouting "it'll be better".

I wonder if we'll get Scottish stamps that the rest of the UK will hold upto the light and look at them funny ( like oor fivers! )

The Yes campaign has repeatedly asked the UK government to provide information it holds which is essential for providing hard facts and figures about settlements in the event of a yes vote. The UK government has refused to provide them .

DP

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7439-uk-govt-must-talk-to-scottish-govt-before-referendum-to-help-voters-says-electoral-commission-
This is interesting

Why didn't that stop EU governments partially or totally renationalising banks? (genuine questions, to be clear)

You mean nationalisation of the banks, they weren't previously nationalised. The nationalisation and government support of the banks did break EU rules, the reason an exception was made and it was allowed was because there was a banking crises with extremely far reaching consequences.

Privatisation of the Royal Mail is required under the EU Postal Service Directive, there is no way that the EU would allow it to be reversed.

It's EU directives which decide whether the 500 year old Royal Mail is privatised and handed over to foreign owned companies, not the British, or even Scottish, people.

EDIT : Actually what I've said is slightly misleading. It's the service which the Royal Mail provides that the EU requires to be privatised, not the Royal Mail itself.

Privatisation of the Royal mail is required under the EU Postal Service Directive, there is no way that the EU would allow it to be reversed.

Not sure it is required, according to [url= http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/legislation/index_en.htm ]this official EU webpage[/url]:

[i]According to the Directive, Member States must abolish any remaining reserved areas by 2010, with the possibility for some Member States to postpone full market opening by two further years as a maximum. A temporary reciprocity may apply to those Member States that make use of the transitional period. [/i]

Unless I misunderstand that, the only requirement is that there should be no "reserved areas", so if DHL or whoever wants to set up a national postal service they can, but that doesn't exclude a publicly owned service from also existing. (I've not read the full directive, so I could be wrong).

Further edit to my post ! Although the Royal Mail itself doesn't have to be privatised and the service does, governments cannot financially support any companies without approval from the EU, something which it only allows under exceptional circumstances. So when the private companies get all the juicy bits that make all the profit, the Royal Mail will be in Shit Street.

The bottom line is that our postal services will change and any SNP government won't be able to do much about it or reverse it as all the important decisions are decided by EU directives.

what fisha said!

am i right in thinking that AS and SNP simply put up the business tax rate to compensate for the "bedroom tax" ie. buying votes and popularity at the expense of jobs and the economy - at the recent budget
thats the way to encourage scottish business.

certainly his YES arguments seem to be "there... there.. little scottish people, i'll pat you on the head and tell you everything is going to be fine" despite everything being to the contrary ( despite the BBC or any other Media coverage actually giving him proper decent questioning and interrogation over his claims.)

fisha - Member

How can you argue logically against

AS: "Scotland will be better"
"Why? and how will you do it?"
AS: "It just will be"
"No, really, please show me the hard facts and plans"

AS: "We can't provide hard facts and figures because that's equally dependant on the RUK government, who are refusing to cooperate at all, in order to undermine the Yes campaign."
Electoral Commission: "Yeah, actually he's right."

AS: "We can't provide hard facts and figures because that's equally dependant on the RUK government, who are refusing to cooperate at all, in order to undermine the Yes campaign."

That being the case, how do the SNP actually know that the business case adds up then? What if they get the figures then work out that Scotland isn't viable as an independent country.

Surely they must of had 'facts and figures' before they felt bold enough to set a date for a referendum, or are we back to the 'it will just be better' argument.

Because the SNP might want Scotland to be independent from England and Wales, but it is more than happy for it to be ruled by a thoroughly undemocratic institution which puts the interests of foreign owned private companies before the democratic wishes of the people in member states.

This!!! I'm currently undecided but tending towards a no vote as I don't see the benefit in being free from the rest of the UK but still having many laws dictated by the EU. Heath gave away Scotland's fisheries. I'd have thought one benefit of independence would be getting them back. Not if we are still in the EU though.

Any yes vote should be followed by an In/Out vote on the EU. I don't see it happening though.

franksinatra - Member

Surely they must of had 'facts and figures' before they felt bold enough to set a date for a referendum, or are we back to the 'it will just be better' argument.

There is a lot of financial data out there- and the SNP use it extensively, the idea that it's all "it will just be better" is just gibberish frankly.

+1 franksinatra.

Even in the absence of the real/confirmed figures from UK gov, I've not really seen mainstream information put forward on realistic projected business cases or scenarios. There are going to be ball-park figures regarding the scottish economy that the SNP could be working from. (scottish generated revenue, tax, exports, liabilities etc etc as well as reasonable expected RUK input figures) If those ballpark figures show a business case that screams YES even in cases were the figure expectations are lowered to worst case scenarios, then why not share it with the public and inform them?

Experience has made me some what of a cynic in a number of ways, and this is an area where is shows. Seeing is believing in my case here.

If someone could show turn round to me and say:

"At the moment, these are our incomes, expenses etc etc. You can see that we lose a lot here, here , here. If we go independent then we gain here because of ... , dont lose there because of ... and the net result will be however many % better financially for every person"

Then fine, I may be more convinced. But the Royal Mail topic is a really good example of where that simply doesn't happen.

RUK: We're privatising Royal Mail
Public: Outcry! Heathen!
2 days later:
AS: Nae bother Scotland. Ah'll re-nationalise it ... make it scaawtish !
Scottish public: How you gonna do that then?
AS: Errr, I'm sure the details can be ironed out later, but It'll be better.
Scottish public: No Alex, how?
AS: Well, the RUK wont tell us about Royal Mail, you'll just have to take my word that it'll be better.

There is a lot of financial data out there- and the SNP use it extensively, the idea that it's all "it will just be better" is just gibberish frankly.

But its not gibberish.

Whilst I don't trawl every news paper article every day, I do generally browse the main papers up here in scotland and some of the news websites. Over the last while, I don't recall seeing a good balanced article that puts forward explanations of scottish economy in a manner that shows independence is the way forward.

I see a lot of articles and topics where SNP postulate that an independant scotland will be able to do this and that and therefor will be better, but never any grit behind headline.

I've not decided either way yet. I'm not opposed to the notion of SNP seeking independence, but at the same time, I dont feel any of the YES arguments have convinced me beyond doubt that it is the way forward.

err "free from the uk"
we'll still have the pound and therefore monetary policy will be set by the UK
we'll still have the queen as head of state and therefore will have to pay for her upkeep like the rest of UK
we'll adopt all the EU policies as before
we'll have to adopt some more EU policies that the UK actually opted out of (some of them good!)
we'll still geographically be in the exact same space as before
we'll still be called scottish
we'll still talk english

we'll still talk english

So that's what it is !!!

fisha - Member
...Whilst I don't trawl every news paper article every day, I do generally browse the main papers up here in scotland and some of the news websites. Over the last while, I don't recall seeing a good balanced article that puts forward explanations of scottish economy in a manner that shows independence is the way forward...

You're not going to read anything balanced or that supports independence in the news papers. Look at who owns them.

Thats very true, and in some way adds to my point. A large percentage of the population will get their so called news and information from a daily rag they buy from the shop. If that isn't going to have good information in it, then the public aren't going to be given enough information to make their own, well informed decision.

Thanks for the links Ernie.

Although to be fair, the no campaign is not a whole lot better!

And why should the No campaign be any better? The purpose of the vote is to decide if Scotland should leave the UK. The No campaign is to remain in the UK, should the No campaign be promising 'goodies' to not leave.

RUK

There is no RUK or rUK. There is the UK and Scotland is deciding to stay or leave. If Scotland leaves, the UK will remain, it won't be the RUK (rUK) it will be the UK.

The SNP give the impression that if they leave the union then the UK will cease to exist. This will not happen. The UK will remain part of the EU, NATO, UN, etc and Scotland will need to join those organisations. It will become the Worlds newest state, at least until some other province splits off.

fisha - Member

Over the last while, I don't recall seeing a good balanced article that puts forward explanations of scottish economy in a manner that shows independence is the way forward.

A lack of balance in the media is the Yes campaign's fault? That's interesting. Just because something is not reported doesn't mean it's not out there, you just have to go to the source rather than waiting for someone else to tell you about it.

Sorry about - last post - just being grumpy! The problem is that for an Englishman living the south of the UK, the whole debate from the SNP is to create a division between Scotland and England - forgetting about Wales and NI. This has resulted in the rather ironic situation that England would vote for Independence!

Facts and figures according to the guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-essential-guide