Scottish Independence

[Bibs]

How are they funded? Does Scotland contribute enough tax dollars to pay for the NHS?

 

Edit - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-nhs-in-scotland-will-face-1bn-budget-cuts-if-country-breaks-away-ed-miliband-claims-9730283.html

 

Well that will go well then!

[hedgerley]

^^^^ The NHS shouldn't change at all. NHS Scotland has always been completely separate to NHS England.

 

"Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that between 2009-10 and 2015-16, the Scottish Government chose to spend one per cent less on NHS Scotland in real terms. Spending on the NHS in England went up by four per cent in real terms over the same period."

 

The NHS is wholly devolved to Scotland so its the Scottish Government's decision to do so. Kind of blows their argument, that the NHS is safer with the Scottish Government, out of the water. 

[hedgerley]

And another thing that irritates me. Salmond is often quoting his hero Adam Smith, as recently as today - "how dare they (whoever they are) say that we can't run our own affairs in the home of the father of economics, Adam Smith".

 

So, here are a couple of quotes from Adam Smith that he might like to consider, from an excellent essay in yesterday's Sunday Times.

 

"By the union with England, the midling and inferior ranks of people in Scotland gained a complete deliverance from the power of the aristocracy which had always before oppressed them". Smith shrewdly pointed out the parasitical character of the Edinburgh elite (there's that word again, elite, that Salmond is often quoting in a different context)

 

Perhaps more tellingly, "There was little trade or industry in Edinburgh before the Union," he wrote. Only "when the Scottish parliament was no longer to be assembled in it" did Edinburgh become "a city of some trade and industry".

 

Smith also issued a prescient warning about politicians who promise "plausible plans for reformation that are mainly intended for their own aggrandisement".

 

Salmond isright about one thing - that Adam Smith was a smart cookie!

 

But I can't help you make your decision John. All I would say is that for all the promises of a fair and just society, a laudable aim, it has to be funded somehow. For me, the Yes campaign have failed utterly to convince me on the economic argument. It will be alright on the night simply won't wash with the international capital markets and the various financial institutions and tax paying businesses that Scotland will have to depend on, never mind that many will have moved South anyway in the event of a Yes vote. Dismissing this reality as scaremongering and bluff and bluster does a disservice to Scottish voters.

 

On the flip side, the No campaign has been way to downbeat. Getting people to vote for a negative was always going be hard, but the positive aspects of the Union have been drowned out by them banging on about the risks of separation. All perfectly valid of course, but they really should have been a lot more positive and yes, emotional about the Union.

 

I've already voted (postal) and you can probably guess which way. But for the undecided, it really will be a leap into the dark. So if you don't know, vote no. 

[iainskea]

I think the more the No lectures on all of these points, the more bloody minded the Yes will become. Nobody likes to be lectured, even if given in the guise of reasoning. You have raised teenagers right?

[hedgerley]

You have a point Iain and Salmond plays on it constantly. I've just come away from the TV and there he is, using those very words, "how dare they say we can't". For many that's reason enough to vote Yes. The problem is I don't believe anyone has actually said that. Even David Cameron has said Scotland can succeed as an independent nation state. The Yes campaign have even printed his quote in their own campaign leaflet FFS!

 

Take the currency question. The White Paper says Scotland will use the Pound in a currency union with the rUK. This requires the agreement of the rUK Treasury, the BoE, the Government of the day and possibly the rUK electorate given the risk that would have to be underwritten by the rUK taxpayer. The Treasury's own White Paper examining the currency options, the recommendation of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two shadows as well as all three main UK party leaders have all said that a currency union will not be agreed. A whole raft of reasons have been presented as to why its a bad idea.

 

To me, this is a rational presentation of the facts underpinning a decision made by the UK government. Its one of the facts that allows me to come to my own decision.

 

To others however, it is interpreted as lecturing by the Westminster elite which goes against the sovereign will of the Scottish people (as stated by Salmond on numerous occasions) and the longer Westminster bangs on about it, the harder they will dig their heels in. So yes, I have to agree with you on that point Iain.

 

This unfortunately is a fact of life - for many of us, our own prejudices and emotions will always put the appropriate spin on the 'facts' in order to support our adopted position.

 

And yes, I have raised teenagers and girls at that. I fondly remember our rational debating of the coming home time conundrum..... 

[sailorbob]

In the event of a yes vote why don't we reinstate the old 9th century Kingdom of Northumbria border as part of the rUK for the no voters    

 

  

[DanR]

Does all this mean the old Roman wall will have to be fixed and manned again?

[red vtec]

Some kind of border will need to be put in, They will be a foreign country and not part of the EU. And what are Scotland doing about defence I read they will have something like 3000 troops moving upto 15000, which is bugger all. How are they going to fund all of this?

 

Just read Sturgeon is only 44!!!! I thought she was a lot older.

 

The Yes campaign seems to be based on anti Tory, well if they do say Yes. I hope they are not shocked in a few years when they ask to come back and the English say No.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

If "Yes" looks like winning, why not switch the wording on the ballot paper to:

 

"Do you wish to remain part of the UK?"

[johnpwalsh]

Good idea, you could use all those poor soles who are going to be unemployed with all the financial institutions moving South, I am sure the rUK government will invent a training scheme to allow it to happen then as any party government has done in the past, massage the unemployment figures to either hide the fact or enhance it as proof of there earlier warnings. Mind you by that time us poor Scot's will be so hard up a bigger wall will be required to keep us out with our begging bowls. Mm now here's a thought, if it goes YES, then goes Tits up, the powers that be and quite rightly so, say there is no going back. Now, my father was English, my mother a Scot, my wife is English so would I get a bit of leeway and be allowed to cross over the wall.

Oh and BIBs, as far as I know Scotland has always been pounds Sterling even in tax payment terms, not Dollars.

 

I am still undecided, but whichever way it goes there are going to be lots of unhappy people.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

John, your final few words are probably the most important written on this subject. Any referendum really needs to be a landslide to keep emotions in check. This vote looks like being the source of fresh resentment and tensions within Scotland for years to come. Whatever is decided I hope it's going to be worth it for you.

 

Despite what the Party Leaders say in public, do you really believe that if it's a narrow No vote, Salmond will just accept it and move on, particularly if they have another good set of Scottish Parliament results next time round? If it's any kind of Yes vote, I can't ever see the Scottish Government voting itself out of a job by offering its people a chance to vote to rejoin the Union at a later date in another referendum.

[hedgerley]

With 48 hours to go I don't envy you John. For me it boils down to two simple propositions. Do you stick with what you know and believe the UK parties promise of additional powers or do you believe the Yes campaign have proven the case for independence and do you believe the SNPs promises, as outlined in their White Paper, can be delivered.

 

For me, the case for independence has simply not been proven and not being Scottish I don't have the 'Braveheart' emotional pull towards independence. But I've been here for 20 years, love it to bits and will hopefully retire here to live out my days. But I firmly believe it should remain part of the UK.

 

Good luck in your deliberations John.

[Loose Cannon]

Well if it goes ahead that annoying old woman behind the shop counter* who always says she won't accept Scottish pound notes may finally have a point!

 

 

*generalisation

[johnpwalsh]

Well, going by my latest bit on new just received, it may all be down to flight times and delays now as it looks like I may be stuck over in Kazi for the vote anyway but just for the hell of it I was swaying towards the negative and keeping the status quo with the hope that the promise of more powers for the Scottish government would come true. For me now it's in the lap of the gods between Air France strikes and quick turnarounds at Shiphol on Thursday.

Let good sense prevail and lets hope no long term damage done between friends from both sides of the border.

[Advantage]

Last night, Salmond admitted that at 59, if the result was a "No" it would be unlikely that he'd be around to oversee another referendum in his lifetime. 

But then he's lied about so many other things in the past...

[sailorbob]

I unfortunately think that a yes vote will result in a lot a of resentment all around rUK and Scotland when the enormous financial cost of separation starts to be felt. It's not a good time economically either as we are not out of the woods yet with the recession and there are signs of it sliding back across Europe.

[Loose Cannon]

Not having read too much of the subject (as I can't alter it's course), will we still be a "United Kingdom" after any yes vote? And would the Union Jack change? The impact on "Brand Britain" will be global, our slide down the world pecking order assured.

 

All very sad it has got to this, and a burden of blame on Britain's politicians that they didn't stem such a groundswell long ago. Talk of greater Scottish devolved powers on the eve of the poll make them look duplicitous and desperate

 

As John said this should be a landslide decision or nothing, it's too important for a 59/61 result .

[iainskea]

Hmmm, some strategy taken from war: best not to assume you have the upper hand in all things, let alone the ground you stand on.

All of this talk from the No camp that 'they' can't have 'our' this or that (pounds, defence, health, EU etc) is beyond arrogance and an assumption that most likely will be their undoing. It does nothing but inflame sentiment. A better strategy would have been to do the opposite and give everything and see if 'yes' can afford it. The reality of a fully costed independence may be too rich.

You don't have to win a war if the other side looses it for you.

[Advantage]

Hmmm, some strategy taken from war: best not to assume you have the upper hand in all things, let alone the ground you stand on.

All of this talk from the No camp that 'they' can't have 'our' this or that (pounds, defence, health, EU etc) is beyond arrogance and an assumption that most likely will be their undoing. It does nothing but inflame sentiment. A better strategy would have been to do the opposite and give everything and see if 'yes' can afford it. The reality of a fully costed independence may be too rich.

You don't have to win a war if the other side looses it for you.

What? Arrogance? Nope, realism. The YESers have been continually fed lies, half truths and misdirections by Salmond. There are many things which categorically will not happen upon a YES vote. Yet Salmond seems to think otherwise and dismisses these statements with claims of Westminster bullying or scaremongering and his supporters are lapping it up. 

 

It sounds like you're saying the rUK should just either lie to Scotland or worse than that, roll over and give away the family jewels to the detriment of the remaining 60m population. Scotland needs to know of the consequences of their voting for independence. It's not arrogant to give the voters the facts, but it's criminally devious to mislead them.

[DanR]

So will England save a lot of money by letting the Scots leave to do their thing? If there are savings isn't that better?

 

On a more serious note will the cost of a Lotus go up with new import taxes? How many are bought in Scotland anyway?

[mdavies]

Restraining myself about several aspects - being Welsh, some things seem less one-sided than they might otherwise - when the chips are down I am British and so my strong feelings about the situation are focussed on the gross incompetence with which the voting arrangements were agreed with the Scottish Nationalists by our British Government.

 

I have little time for Salmond or his whole approach to leading his country (restrain yourself, restrain yourself) in the most important decision his generation of Scots will face. But I do not believe that even he would regard a Yes vote with a minute majority as good for his country. 50% +1 is the formula I understand.  So 50.0001% against 49.9999% is something that Salmond wished for and the British Government accepted?  Politicians, civil servants, the lot?? Fit for office? Remember hanging chads? Even as a responsible Scot I would have set 55/45 minimum for the sake of Scotland and, as a Brit, 60/40 would have been better.

 

Then the agreement to allow youngsters barely more than children to vote - words fail me.  And the date ........ emotion before  everything ........ and shortly before an election with no idea of the consequences re Scottish MPs and much else in the event of a Yes.

 

And no discussion about fundamentals well ahead of the vote. Yes it might have been fruitless without agreements but it would have exposed the issues to debate, and allowed matters to be appreciated by the voters. And forced Salmond into better clarity - or being exposed as having no answers.

 

Then I read and hear that many, including Gordon Brown and civil servants, were warning of a narrow margin 6 months ago - and little or nothing was done.

 

If a Yes, the next rUK election will be a time of reckoning. 

 

All from me; its up to you Scotland, and as Dave Allen would have said ...............

Edited September 16, 2014 by mdavies

[stephenbirdsall]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01m14jh

 

Edit: Sorry, hit post a little too quickly.

 

Alex Salmond visits Border Control. Enjoy

Edited September 16, 2014 by bigbird

[Kimbers]

I agree with what many of you have said. There will be a lot of bad feeling either way. If they vote Yes then it will come from the rest of Britain.

 

If they vote no then you will always have a portion of Scotland who dislikes the rest of the UK (but more so the English) more than they do now and there will be a lot of bad blood over this as well (if you have ever spoken to a true Scottish Football Supporter you will know how much they dislike us).

 

Myself I do think if they want to go it alone then that's fine but I would refuse to vote for anyone who gives them assets more than they deserve or doesn't give them a large % of national debt.

[Clive59]

On the night before the devolution of Scottish Parliament in 1999, Blair enacted in law, moving the maritime boundaries to include at least 7 oil wells into British area. What a cynical thing to do. Just one example of British arrogance over the Scots, and stealing of assets.

 

So the Scots have less than 10% of UK population. What is their share of the GDP and National debt?

 

Just a comparison example, New Zealand and Scotland

 

New Zealand area: 100,000 sq miles      Scotland: 30,000 sq miles

 

New Zealand pop: 4.3 million                Scotland: 5.2 million

New Zealand has GDP $US181 billion     Scotland has GDP $US235 billion

 

Both commonwealth countries.

 

Looks like Scotland has similar ratios of debt/GDP to the UK. Looks like per person GDP is slightly higher than average UK GDP/person, can't see why Scotland will become more of a basket case than the UK is already, but will have choice on how it sinks or swims.

[sailorbob]

On the night before the devolution of Scottish Parliament in 1999, Blair enacted in law, moving the maritime boundaries to include at least 7 oil wells into British area. What a cynical thing to do. Just one example of British arrogance over the Scots, and stealing of assets.

Setting a maritime boundary to more closely follow the internationally accepted "equidistance method" is hardly stealing (it's also hard for the UK to steal from the UK ). Also, a paper written a year ago by some Dundee University bods says that that the International Court of Justice would "likely" favour a more northerly line if a dispute was raised with them.

 

Oh, yes, BTW the Scots are currently British too