Scottish Independence

[pentagathus]

If you're completely ignorant of the situation does it not make sense to vote no since thats as close to guaranteeing that things won't change much? I'd rather keep things as they are (they really aren't too bad here) than take a shot in the dark.
I'm not going to vote because I'm not scottish so I feel like its not my choice, but I don't really see the point of independance. Scotland doesn't seem like a separate nation to me, there's little cultural difference and I don't actually think that most scots would want to head towards a scandinavian model if they knew what that entails because scots are not scandinavian, they hold different cultural and societal views. I know socialism is supposedly more popular here than in rUK but that mainly seems to stem from the thatcherite era because heavy industry got dicked over, but heavy industry is not how rich countries are staying rich these days so I don't see how an independent Scotland would reverse the damage done.
But then I know **** all about economics and very little about politics so meh.

 

[Sir Saladin]

If the independance crowd hasn't convinced you then you should stick with the devil you know. Kind of like how the prosecuters in a murder trial are the ones who should need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any and all doubt, just a reasonable one.

 

[DrBlacksmith]

If you're completely ignorant of the situation does it not make sense to vote no since thats as close to guaranteeing that things won't change much? I'd rather keep things as they are (they really aren't too bad here) than take a shot in the dark.
I'm not going to vote because I'm not scottish so I feel like its not my choice, but I don't really see the point of independance. Scotland doesn't seem like a separate nation to me, there's little cultural difference and I don't actually think that most scots would want to head towards a scandinavian model if they knew what that entails because scots are not scandinavian, they hold different cultural and societal views. I know socialism is supposedly more popular here than in rUK but that mainly seems to stem from the thatcherite era because heavy industry got dicked over, but heavy industry is not how rich countries are staying rich these days so I don't see how an independent Scotland would reverse the damage done.
But then I know **** all about economics and very little about politics so meh.

Read my post again smart ass. I never said I was ignorant of the situation, or that I was un-aware of anything. I am aware of it all, both sides are being twats, neither side should get what they want. I don't pick sides, I'm neutral in most situations. The BetterTogether campaign are idiots, and so are the Yes campaign. Both say that the other side, will lead to "disaster." You are better of not voting, than voting no. If you don't know who to vote, or don't want to vote.

 

[dan1993uk]

If you're completely ignorant of the situation does it not make sense to vote no since thats as close to guaranteeing that things won't change much? I'd rather keep things as they are (they really aren't too bad here) than take a shot in the dark.
I'm not going to vote because I'm not scottish so I feel like its not my choice, but I don't really see the point of independance. Scotland doesn't seem like a separate nation to me, there's little cultural difference and I don't actually think that most scots would want to head towards a scandinavian model if they knew what that entails because scots are not scandinavian, they hold different cultural and societal views. I know socialism is supposedly more popular here than in rUK but that mainly seems to stem from the thatcherite era because heavy industry got dicked over, but heavy industry is not how rich countries are staying rich these days so I don't see how an independent Scotland would reverse the damage done.
But then I know **** all about economics and very little about politics so meh.

Regardless of the outcome things are going to change, if Scotland stays things are only going to get worse for any part of the UK outside of Scotland, if they leave things will get better for the UK but only marginally.

Also Thatcher did not "**** over" heavy industry, she cut it out like the cancer that it was, it was dieing, the only reason it still existed at that point was because it was being heavily subsidized by the government, if she did not do it someone would of later on because there was no way it was ever going to be profitable. Sure people lost their jobs and it caused national damage but that had to happen at some point.

Before I get called southern scum I would like to point out I live in and was originally from two parts of the country that Thatcher "****ed over"

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

If you're completely ignorant of the situation does it not make sense to vote no since thats as close to guaranteeing that things won't change much? I'd rather keep things as they are (they really aren't too bad here) than take a shot in the dark.
I'm not going to vote because I'm not scottish so I feel like its not my choice, but I don't really see the point of independance. Scotland doesn't seem like a separate nation to me, there's little cultural difference and I don't actually think that most scots would want to head towards a scandinavian model if they knew what that entails because scots are not scandinavian, they hold different cultural and societal views. I know socialism is supposedly more popular here than in rUK but that mainly seems to stem from the thatcherite era because heavy industry got dicked over, but heavy industry is not how rich countries are staying rich these days so I don't see how an independent Scotland would reverse the damage done.
But then I know **** all about economics and very little about politics so meh.

Read my post again smart ass. I never said I was ignorant of the situation, or that I was un-aware of anything. I am aware of it all, both sides are being twats, neither side should get what they want. I don't pick sides, I'm neutral in most situations. The BetterTogether campaign are idiots, and so are the Yes campaign. Both say that the other side, will lead to "disaster." You are better of not voting, than voting no. If you don't know who to vote, or don't want to vote.

Difference between the Yes campaign and the BetterTogether campaign is that voting No doesn't mean that the BetterTogether campaign gains political power. The Yes campaign, however, or at least their most prominent members, will almost certainly gain political power if they win, however. Keep that in mind, given that you're not "giving them what they want" if you vote no.

 

[Flanged]

I find it a bit amusing that the two of you can't even agree on what the basic facts are. How can there possibly be an informed vote on the subject without that kind of agreement?

To be fair, the Economist and Financial Times (and Forbes) can't agree on the basic facts either.  The Economist can't even agree with itself on the basic facts. 

The UK Government and Better Together campaign are also having a hard time agreeing among themselves on the basics.

The official position of BT is that independence would harm businesses in Scotland, and cause investment flight, or the relocation of corporate headquarters to south of the border.  At the same time, ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown is touring the country under the BT banner telling us that "Salmond wants to cut corporation tax... business would be the only ones to benefit from independence."  Both things can't be true.

It's a bit like when they told us, early on, that we'd be expelled from the EU, but somehow forced to join the Euro (and pay for the education of EU students) nonetheless.  Doesn't make sense.

That's politics though.

A disagreement on the basic facts is where independence movements come from.

I found the "ruthless ****s" and haggard feral pig masturbator [cybertwats] to be profoundly evocative.

He certainly has a fine turn of phrase. 

Those words kind go against the prevailing unionist narrative though.  They would like it to be thought that only the Nats ever insult people online, or call people names, while unionists are the very soul of levelheaded rational civility at all times.  That's never been the case, obviously:

The No campaign has it's own set of haggard feral pig masturbators, it's just that they can't work keyboards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Also Thatcher did not "**** over" heavy industry, she cut it out like the cancer that it was, it was dieing, the only reason it still existed at that point was because it was being heavily subsidized by the government, if she did not do it someone would of later on because there was no way it was ever going to be profitable. Sure people lost their jobs and it caused national damage but that had to happen at some point.

Not true mate, I'm afraid.  There was absolutely no need for Britain to decimate and destroy it's heavy industry in the way that Thatcher (and other UK Governments since) did.  Ravenscraig, which had the longest steel rolling facility in Europe at the time, was operating at a profit when it closed.  The same was true of many of the other politically-motivated closures.

France, Germany, and pretty much every other country in Western Europe somehow managed to keep the bulk of their industrial bases alive with limited government subsidy during the hard times - and nobody could say that those industries (and manufactured exports) are unprofitable today. 

It's the reason that these countries (particularly Germany) are still exporting nations, with relatively healthy balances of trade, while the UK is now almost wholly reliant on imports, and has a service economy that depends on bribing ruthless multinationals to (temporarily) set up shop here with tax breaks and brown envelopes.  Norway and Denmark have even managed to keep their commercial shipbuilding sectors alive and thriving, despite the supposedly deadly competition from South-East Asia, while shipbuilding in Britain has been on it's last legs for decades due to a deliberate lack of
investment. Hell, even Poland and Spain still have healthy and highly profitable shipyards - though Norway is the best example, since it shows you can have a very high-wage economy and still compete globally on bringing in a broad range of heavy industrial contracts.   

Jesus, my posts are just going to keep getting longer and longer if I reply to everybody.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Flanged]

Just because these areas are richer does not mean they are prioritized, Scotland gets more tax per head spent on it than any part of England

Except for London in 2010, and in several other years preceding that:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn04033.pdf&ei=M74JVP6BO8iXavSlgbAB&usg=AFQjCNGxWOa3wwXhMYyt4mtVNMMjeL8lrA&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZGU

What you also leave out is the actual tax take per head from Scotland.  Is it higher or lower than the amount we get back in public spending?

It's higher.  In fact, since the fiscal year of 1980/81, Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax to the UK Treasury than if we had merely matched the per capita tax contributions of the rest of the UK:

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_scotland_contribute_more_in_taxes_than_rest_of_uk-34755

Another thing you've left out is that public spending in Scotland is "capped" - we can only spend what the Treasury gives us, and have no borrowing powers to get more if it's needed.  The same is true of Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Public spending in England, by contrast, is "uncapped."  When a big public infrastructure project like Crossrail, HS2, or the London Olympics comes along, the UK Government can spend as much as they can raise or borrow to fund it.  Scotland, Wales, and NI do not have that power - perhaps helping to explain the frankly outdated and rubbish infrastructure they have been left with.

Another fact is that when something needs built in England (HS2, Crossrail, new sewer upgrade for London, Houses of Parliament renovation) the entire UK contributes to the expense.  When something needs built in Edinburgh (like the trams) the reverse is not the case.  Best example would be the recent Commonwealth Games - they were paid for exclusively from the budgets of Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government, whereas the London Olympics were paid for by the whole of the UK.

Scotland also gets given more money to spend than Scotland is able to generate in tax revenue, even when including oil revenue geographically. Scotland's current budget is around £60 billion but including oil revenue only generates around £53 billion, meaning the UK government is taking on large amounts of debt specifically so that Scotland (and Wales and NI) can live in a world of benefits that the people of England do not have access to.

But we would have a lower deficit, and have an easier time reducing it, if we were an independent state?  Your own figures show that.  If we were independent, and had the exact same spending priorities as now (including the money spent on Trident, etc.) we would run an annual  deficit of circa £7 billion, as you say.  The UK as a whole currently runs an annual deficit of £107.7bn.  Our share of that, under the Union, is £10.7 billion. 

Thus, we would have a lower deficit if we were independent, and the country would be better off - we would have "healthier state finances" just like the FT said.

All the while Scotland seems to want to dodge its fraction of the debt.

Not at all.  It was the UK Government's insistence that an independent Scotland would be a "new state" - rather than a co-successor state with the rUK - which absolved us of any responsibility for the debt.  After all, Scotland, as a state, has not existed for the last 307 years - it has therefore not borrowed anything from the international markets, while the UK Government has.

Don't worry though, we'll take our fair share.  A fair divsion of assets means a fair share of debt.

for a long time, the people of England are seemingly apathetic towards UK politics and their current situation, but its changing, slowly.

That's good.  England deserves a lot better than it has got under the Union too.  The passivity of British people in general toward their situation has always puzzled me.  It's not that things are hellishly bad at the moment for the majority, on the whole - but they could be so much better for everybody if people just demanded a fairer settlement.

Low spending in the rich areas is fairly justified but high spending in Scotland when comparing it to much poorer areas (Northern England, Wales) is not. High spending in London is also fairly justified because of the vast wealth difference between its population.

 

It's probably not the best time to consider cutting the Scottish budget. 

Leave it two weeks, like Westminster is doing.

looking at the other map you provided the map I quoted is rather misleading to the South West's actual economic situation

To be fair, it's a map of where the highest number of wealthy households are located, not the wealthiest areas.  A lot of rich folk choose to live (or retire) in Cornwall, 'cos it's a beautiful area within travelling distance of London, but that doesn't make the place rich.

 

[Mage246]

You keep switching back and forth between per capita, gross, and net in a way that is highly manipulative and intellectually dishonest. What relevance does per capita tax contribution have to gross and net tax contribution and budget? Answer: very little. Simple fact: Scotland gets more from the government than it puts in. Nothing else matters.

 

[Flanged]

You pretty much voted IN the current coalition

Um, no, clearly not.  Are you saying that the current Coalition relies on Scottish MPs for it's majority?  If it doesn't, then we obviously never voted them in, anymore than the rest of the UK did.  The Coalition came about through party negotiations. 

I don't think that the "strength, stability and pooled resources" argument can be written off so easily. Financial stability, to me, comes before any notion of unfair distribution of budget

What stability does the UK system offer?  In my lifetime alone the UK has needed an IMF bailout (1976), come close to bankruptcy on several occasions, saw a massive devaluation of the pound on Black Wednesday after the Tories tried to take us into the Euro (1992), allowed our interest rates and mortgages to be dicked around with by LIBOR rigging, allowed our savings and investments to be devalued by quantitative easing, and suffered the financial crash of 2008 (Northern Rock, Barclays, RBS, HBOS, etc), plus all the other economic downturns, recessions, shocks and upsets inbetween.  Boom and bust is not stability.  It's especially rocky for the populace at large when the boom times are confined to a single square mile in the City of London.

so long as I have a degree of confidence in the existing system, to risk that is to throw away something people in other parts of the world strongly desire.

There will certainly be people in other parts of the world who desire the stability of the UK financial system - but very few of them are in Europe.  After all, the UK has the highest borrowing costs in the EU (now higher than Ireland's!), a national debt of £1.4 trillion, runs an annual deficit of £107.7 billion (mentioned above) - higher than Portugal's.

It's London and the South East that you complain about now but not long after a Yes Vote it will be Edinburgh and South that those in the North or on the Islands complain about.

Edinburgh might actually listen to them.  London never has.  The UK Gov only show interest in the islands when there's a new oil find.

No nation is better off being governed by another, and no country ever increased it's wealth by sending the entirety of it's revenue to another country's Treasury.

Unless they get more back.

But we don't, so why stick around?

Under Alex Salmond's currency plans the Bank of England would still control Scottish Interest rates and monetary policy! You'll get the same monetary policy with less consideration given towards the economic requirements of Scotland.

Less than zero?  Neither Scotland, Wales, or NI have a representative on the Monetary Policy Council of the BoE as things stand.  The MPC sets policy to suit London and the South East (particularly the financial sector).  That's always been the way, and always will be.  We have no sway over fiscal policy even as part of the Union.  So how can we lose out by having less?

I believe that the £2 Billion renovation is for the whole of the Houses of Parliament which as the seat of our democracy and as part of the preservation of our culture and history, is a price worth paying.

I agree with you on that, I'm just not sure why Scotland would want to contribute towards the costs.

Blimy that took a while, maybe Alex Salmond has had time to exercised his power to vary income tax whilst I was writing that

He can't I'm afraid.  HMRC have admitted that they would charge the Scottish Government £7million, plus £50,000 per year, for collecting any extra money that could be brought in under the SVR (Scottish Variable Rate) - so the tax-raising powers we've been given so far are essentially unusable, as they were always intended to be when Westminster granted them.  That's why the Labour governments who preceded the SNP at Holyrood never used them either.

 

[Flanged]

Simple fact: Scotland gets more from the government than it puts in. Nothing else matters.

You're wrong though:

Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland's share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to £27bn - a figure which the SNP used to refute previous claims that Scotland was subsidised.

As soon as Mr Waldegrave saw the implications of the figures he had released in January, he attempted to backtrack, and Tories in Scotland fell back on trying to question one key figure - Scotland's share of the UK deficit. This was 17.9% in 1994-95, almost double the per capita share

So not only has there been a higher net contribution from Scotland to the UK Treasury - more than we get back - as admitted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself, but we have also been paying far more than our per capita share towards UK's deficit spending over many decades.

Nae wonder we're too poor to go independent, eh? 

 

[Mage246]

Instead of going all the way back to 1979 (and every year between now and then - which would include the huge peak oil price years in between), why not try using recent figures? Oh right, that would expose your argument as a fraud, so you won't. 

Unless Scotland has a time machine and is planning to transport the entire country into the past, using historical numbers over present day numbers is bull****.

 

[Flanged]

But the point is that you're still wrong now Mage.  You would've been wrong in the 1970s, you would've been wrong in the eighties and nineties (and, if you want to go back before oil was discovered, you would've been wrong then too).  And you're still wrong now.  Scotland is not subsidized by the rUK, the overall evidence suggests it never has been, and the current evidence suggests we would be better of financially as an independent state.

Here's one of Scotland's top economists, a unionist for many years (he voted against the establishment of the Parliament in 1997) explaining the current financial situation better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wB6ycSvMU

 

[Anthropoid]

But the point is that you're still wrong now Mage.  You would've been wrong in the 1970s, you would've been wrong in the eighties and nineties (and, if you want to go back before oil was discovered, you would've been wrong then too).  And you're still wrong now.  Scotland is not subsidized by the rUK, the overall evidence suggests it never has been, and the current evidence suggests we would be better of financially as an independent state.

Here's one of Scotland's top economists, a unionist for many years (he voted against the establishment of the Parliament in 1997) explaining the current financial situation better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wB6ycSvMU

That is a rather sound, cogent and compelling argument for a Yes vote I have to say.

Being American and not one to lament the destruction of the rebels, I am generally rather wary of secession. I have often thought that in a globalized world, the benefits of greater solidarity and unit outweigh those of "home rule" as Sir Donald puts it. But that is frankly a rather vague and poorly informed perspective. It is not like Scotland is under imminent threat of aggressive annexation by Iceland or Norway, so at the end of the day, it is a matter primarily to be judged on economic and/or social not global strategic concerns.

I am of course NOT Scot, but I think having heard that MacKay interview I'd actually be leaning on a Yes vote.

ADDIT: and besides that, my "Nemesis" Mage246 seems to be leaning on No, so no sense in missing out on the fun 

 

[Mage246]

There are a surprisingly large number of narcissistic nutjobs on TW who imagine that they are my "Nemesis" when I honestly don't give a **** about them, just the stupid **** they sometimes say.

 

[Sir Saladin]

There are a surprisingly large number of narcissistic nutjobs on TW who imagine that they are my "Nemesis" when I honestly don't give a **** about them, just the stupid **** they sometimes say.

With so many narcissistic nutjobs and so few Mage246es it's no wonder why nobody has a decent government.

 

[Anthropoid]

There are a surprisingly large number of narcissistic nutjobs on TW who imagine that they are my "Nemesis" when I honestly don't give a **** about them, just the stupid **** they sometimes say.

With so many narcissistic nutjobs and so few Mage246es it's no wonder why nobody has a decent government.

You left out the compulsive lying part, the best part of the whole trip.

 

[pentagathus]

Read my post again smart ass. I never said I was ignorant of the situation, or that I was un-aware of anything.

Calm your tits, I wasn't replying to you in particular, there are people on this thread who have said they haven't done any of their own research and don't know which campaign to believe. Also I meant pretty much what sally said but he said it betterer than I did.

 

[dan1993uk]

Ed Miliband will promise the people of Scotland that he will abolish the bedroom tax and devolve more powers to Holyrood if he is elected Prime Minister next year.

Labour everybody, Ed Miliband is the epitome of weak leadership.

What a world we live in.

 

[CryoNomad]

Just curious, if Scotland did go independent. Would this put a geographical and political strain on Northern Ireland you think to stay united with the English?

 

[pentagathus]

Probably, the Irish are pretty much like the Scottish but they're not.  Because they're in ireland and whatnot.
The place sounds like a bit of a wankrag though so I don't see why we'd give a ****.