/ I know the Scots are canny with money
Disentangling from UK revenue and customs - and setting up their own equivalent.
Disengaging from the DVLA central registration system and setting up a Scottish body.
Then there is the not so small matter of Defence (which also includes Fisheries and Oilfield Protection, as well as Search and Rescue - not to mention the significant number of Military bases and all of the civilian staff they also employ. Other things that we tend to take for granted, like Met Office, Civil Aviation Authority, Air Traffic Control, Broadcasting, Power and gas grids will all have to be separated. Then there is the whole issue of the NHS and Pensions.
The lawyers and computer software people will have a field day -- and we know just how 'efficient' they've been when goverment contracts have been involved.
Sign makers will also have a proverbial field day.
Do we really think that the canny Scots will be happy to see so much of 'their' money disappear down the proverbial gurgler?
No wonder that Salmon(d)-- he always comes across as a bit fishy -- and his team have been so quiet on these issues and concentrate on playing the ideological and emotional cards.
We'll need our own MOD with officer training and other facilities. This has not been costed. Financially speaking the jock govt said
"“Scotland will inherit the prevailing UK tax code at the point of independence, including tax rates, thresholds and allowances for all taxes.”"
Although I'd imagine we'd need our own 'HMRC' and Border crap. How we manage to pay for everything and not raise taxes is a mystery to me.
We should have the option of a devo max/plus.
You can add printing their own currency to that list :p
Not if they use the pound or Euro. Either way, I reckon there are bigger costs underfoot for a newly independent Scotland than printing bits of paper.
My we are sensitive, and a tad self-righteous. I'm Scottish and don't mind it one bit. Don't see it as derogatory at all. Get over yourself, and congratulations on missing the point of my post so completely.
It's not really about the cost of it though. Or the Oil.
So you'd be happy to have taxes raised significantly to have independence? (I assume you're Scottish)
They already do that, have you never been to Scotland?
No I'm not a Scot. Lived there as a kid. Taxes will probably be raised. Salmond and co are quasi socialist. They won't be hitting business any harder as they seek to encourage investment. Big multinationals seem to pay close to zero corporate tax in the U.K. as a whole at the moment.
Point being it's not about the cost or the oil. It's about in my mind valid notions of nationalism and self determination. And then unfortunately, having all that fire and spirit pissed all over by the E.U.
Salmond is a great operator even if you don't like the mans politics. He covers all the bases. Or conveniently ignores them if he thinks they may scare the electorate too much.
Self determination but at what cost to the people? If they won't hit business any harder, then the only option is to hit individuals with higher income tax etc.
They've been flagged up loads of times, just never been answered.
Likewise, when living in England I relished being called Jock. It made me fell different and let all the burds know I was Scottish which combined with being very good looking gave me the upper hand in the pulling stakes.
'the cost' won't be borne across the whole of the electorate will it. High levels of poverty and deprivation in Scotland, I guess the highest among the indigenous population of the U.K. There will be 'winners' and 'losers'.
I guess calling the Scottish government Jocks is fair enough. I've been calling the English government Dicks for ages.
And suddenly you end up with 60% plus tax bans for the top 10% of earners (for example) who will then be encouraged to move to the UK (along with businesses they run/own) to escape the high taxes in Scotland. And that is self defeating.
There is no easy solution to this despite what salmon might think.
What's the english government?
It's interesting to note that all Scottish notes have the words 'Pounds Sterling' printed on them, whereas BOE notes just state 'Pounds'. Notes issued by Scottish banks are only allowed to be printed with permission of the BOE.
Whilst I have occasionally met with some resistance when offering Scottish notes as legal tender south of the border, there have been no issues when offering 'English' notes in Scotland. They're always happy to take them!
Strange as we refer to the scottish government as dick jocks.
Having lived in Edinburgh for 4 years I found most of the Scots I came into contact with rude and highly insulting to England, the English and anything south of the border so I think it's a bit rich any Scots shouting foul over being called Jocks. I also found they had a starngely missed placed arrogance and superiority whilst i'm on!
Sure that wasn't just a reaction to you? Over 20 years I rarely had a problem.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
The politician will always tell the people what they think they want to hear - not what they really need to know.
Salmon is indeed an oily fish.
I certainly wouldn't want to buy a used car from him!
PS I'm English with strong Scots roots - and married to a Scot. I enjoy some lively discussions with some members of her extended family who are committed nationalists (with a large N) - and even more of her family who are staunch Unionists (but not of the Conservative persuasion).
No. I guess we all come into contact with different people. Some of the Scots were very pleasant, a lot weren't
They aren't even legal tender in Scotland, no notes are according to http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php
They are legal currency. Technically you don't need give change (queue jokes about tight Scots not giving the correct change) :-)
I think you're missing the point of the whole pro-independence stance, don't trouble yourself with all those pragmatic things we'll sort them out at the time. We're willing to suffer decades of stagnation for our freedom. and it's pretty obvious that Salmond has it all worked out in his master plan, it'll all be taken care of, it's just he's got to keep it all quiet and hide his real plan with rhetoric in case the English get hold of it.
All you need to know is Scotland's tired of being bullied by the English, they're tired of David Cameron holding the purse strings, SCOTLAND!, grab your claymores boys and lift your kilts, this is freedom, this is centuries of oppression being overturned, this is victory, this is our birth right, this is our chance finally to destabilise the country like we've always wanted. I mean, yes the union's given us stability, yes it's given us protection from the worst of the recession, yes we've got free tuition fees while the English don't, yes we've got free prescriptions, yes we've got better care for the elderly, yes we've had our council tax frozen for years, yes our NHS is miles better than the English's...etc. etc. But it's not about that, it's not about prosperity, we've suffered at the hands of the English for long enough, it's about freedom. At any cost.
I'm in Glasgow a the moment and I'm getting a bit tired of how bashing the English is a good laugh, but certainly not racist or reason for offence. Had to endure some guy called Len Murray at a burns supper who was preaching to all that would listen about why England was so insignificant in terms of academics, culture etc compared to Scotland. He even had a go at the USA.
My English fiance's dad is (a closet nationalist) Scott living in England and she feels links to the country, but as much as she wants to feel welcomed by Scotland and part of it, she keeps being faced with a decsiosn that feels liek she either has to renounce England, or not engage with her scottish past.
Dont know what I'm trying to say, but I can empathise with previos comments. Racism does exist towards the English, no doubt.
I'll be interesting to see Sour Albas response to this, SNP and supporters have been told not to give an excuse for the election to be seen as anti-english.
The referendum has nothing to do with it, anti english sentiment is woven into the fabric of Scottish society (for various reasons, i'm not saying whether they're valid or not). This is acknowledged by scots and english alike and plain to see. Cast your mind back to the AOBE (anyone but england) tshirts, reinforcement of this racist attitude poorly disguised as a tounge in cheek joke.
The irony is that it makes no difference whether you are inside or outside the EU. If you want to trade with member states you have no choice but to implement EU directives which makes an independence referendum on Europe pointless. I was surprised to learn that vast swathes of legislation in places like the US and China implement EU directives.
Oh dear, you really have lost the plot. I take it you realise Mel Gibson is Australian?
I totally agree but think the root support of independence is from it. I was pointing a theory out that the SNP have been playing a careful game where they have never openly encouraged anti-english behaviour. I deserve to be called paranoid for that, but the lack of "anti-englishness," in the independence camp is odd in the extreme and I'm trying to figure out why.
Although born in the States
It's not an anti-English campaign. Quite a lot of people from England live in Scotland. It's not difficult to work out.
Yes, I have said that, but given the anti-english feeling in Scotland, why has the SNP not played on that for support? Or do they think they already have the support from the anti-english, which means their support base is a little nasty. Hence my question about parties after the win. Why would the no campaign not celebrate the way the yes would if either won?
Hmmm -- really? Have you really wondered who the true cost will be borne by -- It certainly won't be the politicians!
History is littered with 'failed states' whose people wanted Freedom at any cost! More often than not the freedom they got was the freedom of their politicians to impose their will on anyone who disagreed with them.
I thought Ben's reply was pure sarcasm, even funny...but I maybe wrong.
Reading it again, I think I may have picked him up wrong.
They may not have played on any "anti-English feeling" for support, because they don't believe it's a decent thing to do. That would be the correct view, because it's not. Why do you think they would?
There are more Scots living in England than vice versa -- I wonder how many of them would be tempted to return if Scotland were to become independent - or even to swap their British Passport for a Scottish one?
Which raises another question of cost - an independent Scotland would need to have separate embassies and consulates all over the world, employ a legion of diplomats and clerical staff and negotiate access and visa treaties with those countries that until now Scots travelling with British Passports have easy access. A Bureaucratic minefield awaits.
I agree. It's going to take a huge amount of time, effort and money trying to disentangle the union, and will create a myriad of ongoing arguments. A can of worms.
Because they are politicians? It may be the correct view, but it is not the SNP view, I expect they believe they have the anti-english supporters already.
I know what you mean, that's why I always call them Mac. It always seems to get their attention.
Hey Peter. I didn't miss the point of your post. I just didn't think it required a response. You seem to think that in Scotland we are unable to reorganise our resources and manage change following independence. Personally I don't think that it's beyond our wit to do so. You could do with a bit more "can do" in your life. I still think calling all Scots Jocks is sad. I assume in your world everybody from Ireland is called Paddy. And I shudder to think how you might refer to other groups.
>It may be the correct view, but it is not the SNP view.
What's your evidence for this? I mean evidence, as in facts. You type that above, then follow it up with a sentence that includes the words "I expect they believe"...
I think you are misunderstanding the usage of "jock", it just means Scottish. It does not mean you are all called Jock, although I understand this was it's origin.
Eg Jocks & Geordies at Kyloe means "Scots and Thick F*ckers from Newcastle" :-)
That's correct. Just saying 'we can' doesn't make it so. I like to see some sort of plan of not just what they'd like to see happen once independent but how it'll be achieved.
>Personally I don't think that it's beyond our wit to do so.
- based on what?
>You could do with a bit more "can do" in your life.
Meaning what? I should just join the collective circle-jerk that is scottish nationalism and repeat 'Yes we can' and hope it manifests itself out of thin air? What amazes me is that people believe AS based on nothing more than persuasion.
>I still think calling all Scots Jocks is sad. I assume in your world >everybody from Ireland is called Paddy. And I shudder to think how you >might refer to other groups.
Having thought about this, the only other nationalities I refer to using a colloquialism are Yanks and Kiwis for some reason. Don'y know why
I thought "this is finally our chance to destabilise the country like we've always wanted" might have given it away! I guess not ;-)
On a serious note I do see a lack of "independence will make your life better in these ways..." from the yes camp and a lot of romantic rhetoric about self-determination in it's place. Fortunately I think the majority of Scots priorities lie in how easy it'll be for them to get a mortgage, to get on the housing ladder, the education of their kids etc. and Salmond seems to have dropped the ball in the last few weeks, relying on "we don't take kindly to being bullied and we'll fight them all the way..." instead of actually engaging with the Europe and currency debate, which regardless of bullying tactics do have some serious issues underlying it.
We already print our own banknotes
I think that the current plan from the Salmond is to run an economy with a lower corporation tax to attract businesses. There is evidence that it works (Ireland). Of course you would have to compensate by having a slightly higher income tax, but who care about a few point of income tax more if you can get rid of unemployment ?
They are politicians with a country at stake, they will have looked at every way they can possibly win votes! That there is scots/english feeling MUST have crossed their minds. The lack of solid reason for independence yet they had 25% of the voters support means that I have missed something and I'm curious to know what.
And if you had your own currency those banknotes would be legal tender, unlike the current situation.
Shhhh, don't mention Ireland. Salmond used to sing so happily on how great a model of independence they were, I believe he stopped mentioning them shortly after their economy blew up in their faces while the rest of the UK enjoyed it's tripple A status and low rates of borrowing.
Yes there will be a lot of technical challenges, but then it could also be the opportunity to start with new, modern and efficient public services instead of being stuck with the gigantic outdated monsters we have in the UK. Also being smaller it would be easier to have an democratic oversight on them.
Lol, Ireland's Bailout was far less costly than the UK's bank bailout so you could say the same of staying in the UK...
Not sure if irony or not, but Scottish notes are currently legal tender FYI.
Technically there are not. Anywhere.
If the plan is to LOWER corporation tax while also paying for all the other stuff that needs to be done, then I bet the income tax would raise by more than just a few percent. And that would have to be more than just the richest.
Why do you assume a negative? I appreciate that there's politicians involved, but I think it says more about you that your default is that there must be a negative reason, just because you've "missed something". What I think you have missed is the possibility that this isn't an anti-English thing.
Think about it. What kind of country would we be viewed as, assuming independence, if the politicians welcomed everyone unless you were from south of the border?
You do know that the "Yes" campaign is not just backed by the SNP?
FYI. pah! You might want to check your facts. Whilst they are legal currency, NO Scottish banknotes are Legal tender in the united kingdom.
Was it? Have you got some figures to back that up, ideally as a percentage of GDP.
So what ?
You can spin these things either way.... Don't think of the money, think of the jobs / economic boost!
What jobs/economic boost?
Maybe I have missed that, but if I haven't? It just seems that people are being very well behaved at the moment, when they wouldn't in the past.
But what kind of country are we? AOBE exists, if nothing else this raises tensions further. Would you go to a "british and best," street party if the no vote won? What do you think would happen to it?
Actually did not! Who else supports it? I have tried to stay open minded, but have found websites like wingsoverscotland and the SNP information so biased that I've stopped reading them, to be fair, that applies to better together too.
A welcome change surely?
There are of course, stupid small minded people in all countries. We have our fair share sadly, but that's the way it is. I don't know why you are fixated with street parties. I don't plan on going to any, irrespective of the outcome.
Without wishing to be too patronising (and probably failing), put the words "Yes" and "Campaign" into Google. For example:
In the UK income tax brings three time more money than corporation tax. It means that a significant lowering of corporation tax can be achieved with a minimal increase in income tax. Of course it will never be a very low rate like Ireland as it would probably piss off EU neighbours too much, but for example a decrease of 2 percent in income tax can make Scotland more business friendly than the rest of the UK and attract businesses with minimal impact on income tax.
Very welcome! I don't trust it.
The party thing is me trying to understand what I see as unfairness that one would have a party and the other not, and why not. I see it as fear almost that a british party would be spoilt by scotnats and the potential for violence high. I'm trying to understand if that means we really should be independent. I like parties and think that if it was a yes vote, regardless of the way I voted, it'd be a shame to miss.
I did that before I wrote my response. The greens and socialists are not really the biggest bunch out there. I still think independence is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9563343/Alex-Salmond-spends-370000-on-entertaining.h... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10593197/Alex-Salmond-rejects-luxury-hotel-spending-critici...
But where is the money going to come to pay for all the things associated with independence that have been talked about in this thread? Income tax I assume... thus income tax rises will be significant.
The low Corp Tax rate in Ireland gets lots of PR but what doesn't is:
- the higher headline VAT rate of 23%
- the Income Levy which is effectively additional Income Tax
- the removal of the no Corp Tax for 3 years after incorporation
- the massively expensive bureaucracy that is a real impediment to new business eg Planning cost me £325 (a flat fee) for the Mini Works. For Gravity in Dublin it was north of 15,000€ (a per sqm fee). They are similar sized climbing walls.
The 3 year tax break must have been a massive incentive to locate in Ireland, I wonder how it's removal will affect things.
You've made a leap from a democratic vote to street parties to violence. No evidence that it would actually happen. I certainly hope not.
Of course those other parties are in political terms small. That's not the point.
I'm really struggling to follow your logic, particularly when you post those links which have no relevance as to whether Scotland should be an independent country or not. I struggle to forgive the SNP over the Trump debacle, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the independence question. It seems to me, and obviously this is my assumption, that you are letting your prejudices regarding individuals get in the way of objectively looking at the bigger issue.
I don't think it would because "better together," parties would be unpopular, whereas independence parties would be popular. What worries me is why that is.
Well your point was to show me that the independence campaign was not just SNP, I don't think you did.
I just liked the photo of salmond in the first one, the second was found looking for it and it interested me.
You are worrying over a problem that doesn't exist.
You asked for information regarding other parties. I sent you a link that provided the facts, that it's not just the SNP. Sure, the SNP are the main driving force behind the campaign, but you simply cannot deny that it is "just" the SNP when I sent you a link that clearly states examples of who else is backing the campaign.
I think I will give up now.
I was pretty vague, but I haven't really put my finger on what is bothering me. I'm just trying to understand the mood at the moment.
Maybe extra cost for a few years yes, but if Scotland can have a different economic policy that make it more better tailored for Scotland and more productive on the long term it's definitely worth it.
What I am waiting to hear from the yes campaign now is what could be that policy.
Let's not forget that an independent Scotland would have a higher GDP per capita than currently within the UK and therefore more margin for spending.
The biggest problem will be probably to be able to borrow at a good enough rate for the first few years.
My only problem with that arguement (the more suited economic policy), and it gets used a lot, is that it leads to reductio ad absurdum, because whatever economic policy gets set for the benefit of say Glasgow would likely not suit say Elgin, and so what do you suggest is the correct size of an entity to have its own economic policy?
I know what your saying its a strange kind of racism. I have a friend who was born in Newcastle but moved to Scotland when a young child, he married a fairly aggressive Scot and he has pretty much renounced his English heritage, wears his wife's tartan and mutters about the English, its weird
Seems obvious to me that if you tailor economic policy for scotland you'll be more efficient than the current situation with the economic policy of the whole country designed for London... (which is a problem other parts of the country, not only Scotland BTW). Following you argument even if you were stupid enough to design a policy that worked only for Glasgow you'll be better off than with a policy than currently suits none of Scotland.
Personally I don't care too much about full independence or not, but I do think that more devolution is needed, as clearly there is quite a big north south divide, economically and politically, and what works for London and the South of England does not make much sense here.
Have some pride in your national nick-name ffs.
I had that conversation with a cab driver in London. Called me Jock, asked if my Bank of Scotland tenner was real money and expected me to let him keep the change. Didn't happen.
Why? (Other than generally expecting change)
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Because cab drivers can choose between taking the piss and getting a tip.
Also, my expectation of the tipping protocol is that I will be offered the change and then, at my option, graciously decline. This guy got ready to drive away without making the slightest attempt to provide the two or three quid in change I had coming.
Try venturing north of the Border. Scottish Pound notes do exist!
Not offering change isn't on but from what you say he wasn't taking the piss, just chatting
I see Standard Life may move if there is a Yes vote. No doubt theyare bullies too
Standard Life threatened to take their business elsewhere in the event of Devolution. When it came to it, they didn't. Doesn't mean they wouldn't in the event of Independence, but let's keep a sense of proportion - saying they "may" move is hardly news.
I've heard that before, do you have any links?
And of course it's news, silly to pretend otherwise.
- saying they "may" move is hardly news.
Does none of this (business concern, currency uncertainty, EU uncertainty, pension uncertainty etc. etc.) register with you at all? How much risk disruption and uncertainty are you willing to take?
Yep, it's big news, cos suddenly lots of people like me who have pension plans with the likes of Scottish Widows are starting to think about moving them unless they are based within UK jurisdiction
I've had a quick look for you, this piece from the grauniad suggests some people's memory may be faultyhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/24/past.electionspast1
I see now that Salmond has decreed rUK shouldn't be allowed to vote on a currency union. What is he on?
Is a sterling zone the same as a currency union? Y'know, like what everyone has ruled out?
> I see now that Salmond has decreed rUK shouldn't be allowed to vote on a currency union. What is he on?
he's like one of those annoying kids in a supermarket asking for sweeties who won't take no for an answer, until, fed up to the teeth' his mum gives him a smack.
I might have to do the 'not giving change' at The Climbing Works next time someone pays with a Scottish note :-)
It is worth recognising that not everybody thinking of voting yes is doing so fuelled on emotion and blind optimism. Franky it is a bit patronising to suggest that's the case. Most of us recognise that this will be a complex and at times uncertain project. No new nation state has been launched this century without some uncertainty and a degree of economic risk. And no new nation state ever had all the answers to all the questions before making a commitment to independence. Ultimately those of us with a vote ( my guess is that many of those commenting on this forum don't ) need to decide if Scotland can be economically viable and can prosper as a small but wealthy country that wants to be a progressive social democracy. The S & P assessment today put it quite well. Scotland is relatively wealthy and can perform well if independent, and consider supporting a new currency, but it will be challenging during the early years. I think most people thinking of voting Yes accept the need to work through some of those challenges for a dividend that our children and grandchildren will inherit. And it has nothing to do with being anti anything. The fundamental difference between the Yes and No campaigns is that the Yes campaign is all about the chance to improve and the No campaign is all about being too scared to try.
Exactly, we should hear more of this from the ye cmapaign if they want to win, instead they are letting themselves being cornered by the arguments of the no campaign around currency and such, when it's a lot more than that which is at stake.
Like you I think that, yes, there will certainly be a cost to break up from the UK, but it's all about what can be achieved for future generations, and Scottish people should feel confident that they have what it takes to take on the challenge. Whether they really want it or not is the real question here.
Not really. A yes vote is a hope that an independent Scotland will be better than a current UK. A hope that currently appears to be based on wishful thinking, blaming England for all the ills of Scotland and a lack of any concrete plans, save for some vague ideas that when subject to scrutiny or actual challenge result in more turns than a spinning top.
Refusal to jump off a cliff can also be blamed on "being too scared", but I always thought one grew out of arguments like that in primary school.
No, it's about an independent Scotland being able to take its own decisions for its future. If they take the right decisions they might end up better off, if they take the wrong ones they might be worse off.
The same way, by staying in the UK, they could en up better off if the UK government takes good decisions, as well as they could en up worse off if the UK government takes bad decisions.
Truth is, nobody knows whether Scotland will be better off, or worse off in the future, whether in or out of the UK.
What we know though, is that they are unlikely to have much control over their future unless they get independence or some sort of devomax.
I always sense a slight feeling of satisfaction when people say this, as they often do! Maybe it's my imagination :-)
Isn't there any irony that all who claim to be fine democrats and swear by self determination don't seem worried that a country like Britain may be split apart, with all that this implies today and in the future, without 90% of the population even being consulted on the matter?
Or maybe - just maybe - there's a bit more to it than that.
> I see now that Salmond has decreed rUK shouldn't be allowed to vote on a currency union. What is he on?
Seems simple enough. Democracy and self determination is only allowed for things he wants a vote on.
You're right. It is about working over time to create a Scotland that has a better future and the kind of future that is shaped by the people of Scotland and how they vote. And a large part of it of course is about convincing ourselves that we can create the economic headroom to fund those developments. But for many of us it is also about a much bigger picture. A complex blend of economics, culture and a sense of priorities that characterise our country and how we see it developing. I don't mean to suggest that anybody voting no was being cowardly. I know more than a few people that intend to do so based on convictions that I respect even if I don't agree with them. But I was trying to reinforce that many of us are prepared to accept a balance of uncertainty to achieve
momentous and positive change...... even if it does take time.
Possibly, but currently we don't even know if Scotland can successfully exist on it's own.
Absolutely. And those who are saying Scotland will be better off independent appear to have spectacularly failed to think through even the simplest consequences - ie currency.
We don't know that at all, we could also believe that by being part of a larger unit like Britain one could play a greater role in advancing the lot of the average person, at home and in the world, rather than adopting an inward looking, narcissistic attitude which amounts to adopting a world view akin to "I'm all right Jack."
In the past many Scottish people have adopted the wider view and played a role in the world that goes beyond such a limited attitude. It's the basic problem with Nationalism, UKIP the FN etc., thinking that one's own bit of the world and its population are somehow of more importance than those next door.
If you follow your logic then it is unlikely that any small country or state that has been subsumed because of history or economics into a larger federation or country could ever achieve self determination. Whether you like it or not that is democracy.
Sentiment and rhetoric then.
This isn't about nationalism, it's about self determination.
That is really patronising. Sentiment, rhetoric and our poor wee heids cannae even work out that we're no up to running oor ain wee country. It's just as well we've got so many politicians and others with our interests at heart to make sure we don't get ideas above our station.
Curiously few women involved in this thread. The last opinion poll I saw which split things by gender showed women much less for independence than men. There's certainly plenty of feeling, not so much thinking.
Not if the population agreed, isn't that democracy? Isn't the rest of Britain diminished, weakened if one part splits away, especially given the oil fields? London and the South East could split away and create a very rich and comfy country by your logic :-) Would that be a nice and reasonable thing to do?
Not patronising. Your comment included no practical plans, no rational argument demonstrating that there was any basis that independence is better, simply an suggestion (not even an argument) based on (your words) - "A complex blend of economics, culture and a sense of priorities" (where "economics" are utterly unspecified).
That = rhetoric and sentiment. Which is no reason not to vote for independence but don't try to hide it behind a cloak of rationality.
I do object to the insinuation that the pro-union view is in some way anit-Scottish - "we're no up to running oor ain wee country".
There is a big difference Bruce. Scotland is a nation. Just not a full nation state presently. By your logic, Latvia or Estonia would still be part of a much bigger federation and would be swamped by the priorities of that dominant federation. I hate to mention colonialism but......
Got it. Thanks.
go on continue. It will either be entertaining or depressing. Most likely a mix of the two.
From Craig Murrays Blog today
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director of Standard Life, is on the Board of Reform Scotland, the neo-conservative lobby group which wants to abolish the minimum wage, privatize the NHS and pensions and restrict trade unions further.
It is difficult for Tories openly to campaign against Scottish Independence as everyone in Scotland hates them, so they do it with their corporate hats on. This is most of the board of Standard Life:
Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice heavily peopled by ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]
David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash
It's funny because i think that many Scots would say that they think exactly the opposite is happening.
If one country is becoming increasingly inward looking at the moment, it's the UK, with immigration paranoia and rise of UKIP.
I don't know how you can compare the Scottish nationalist movement with UKIP and the FN. They are anti-european anti-immigration (and fundamentally racist) parties, the rise of UKIP and euroscepticism is one the the many motivation behind Scottish separatism, so basically they are completely at odds. I am not sure you have any idea of what goes on in Scottish politics reading your comments.
That's where I disagree deeply. A feeling of national identity is a perfectly valid reason to vote for independence, if not the only valid reason. There can't be a rational choice, as I said before it's impossible to say whether Scotland will be better off or worse off in our out of the UK.
I would like to know why every EU country gets free Scottish Uni education, but England, Wales & NI have to pay?
So you're agreeing with him?
Very interesting post. Maybe it's just a coincidence....?:)
It's because of EU rule that EU citizens exercising freedom of movement can't be discriminated against. The thing is that currently English students coming to Scotland to study are EU citizens, but they are not exercising their freedom of movement so they are not entitled to free Scottish Unis. However English students can go to France, Germany and Spain or other EU countries with free unis and study there for free using the same EU rule.
If Scotland becomes independent, and stays in the EU, then English students would be able to go to Scottish unis for free.
It's just as well you don't mention colonialism as Scotland joined with England voluntarily, first at the level of the monarchy 4 centuries ago then is full political union 3 centuries ago. The king of Scotland became the king of England and Scotland, not the other way around. In this post you reveal the perfidy of the Nationalist with a capital "N", always ready to use emotive rhetoric as if Scotland was a colony of England. much of Africa was, India was, Ireland was - "the first and the last" - but Scotland isn't. Some may pretend they are oppressed, use as pseudo "Free Scotland" as if they aren't free now, but you are - you are as free as any inhabitant of Kent, Yorkshire or London. Free to speak, free to vote for your representatives, free to become Prime Minister just as any other Briton.
Take a look around the world outside your country, your present country, and look for one which would so complaisantly allow the democratic process that is allowed you in Britain. France certainly wouldn't, the USA went to war with half it's population to stay united and now in Ukraine there isn't exactly a red carpet being laid out to allow regional self determination, is there? Think a bit about what you are throwing away and at least don't insult those of us who are for a united isle, your fellow countrymen who think the common good is worth more than selfish self-interest. If only it were a Republic I could push the rant further, but a united kingdom inspires me less.
No, he says that a sentiment is not a valid reason to vote yes. I am saying the opposite, that it is an excellent reason, if not, the only true reason, as all the rest is highly speculative.
Zero MPs, zero MPs forecast by the polls in the next election. You really should stop repeating Nationalist propaganda and look at the facts.
You better check that out with your minder, it's not the official line.
They have as many MEPs as Labour and probably will have even more MEPs after the next EP elections.
Also they are predicted to have more votes than LibDems at the next GE.
If you can;t recognise that UKIP is becoming a worryingly strong political force in this country you are fooled. Many of the recent policies of the current coalition were introduced by fear of the backbenchers making alliances with UKIP.
TBH I don't care about the official line, I tend to think for myself.
They are predicted to have 0 MPs at the next General Election... as I said drop the SNP spin and look at the facts.
Middle right of the page.
Maybe, it's just not the impression you give.
No he's not. "That = rhetoric and sentiment. Which is no reason not to vote for independence "
Read carefully; double negative.
Despite what you might think, one of the main drivers of Scottish Independence is a desire to see a more equal society - you may have heard of organisations such as the Common Weal, or (less directly connected with the Independence movement) Nordic Horizons. Many people despair of the chances of seeing a genuine 'common good' under the current set up, which seems more interested in concentrating wealth in the SE of England than it does in distributing it across the different regions and countries of the UK.
An much-repeated statistic in the debate has been that the UK is the 4th most unequal society in the Western World. There are some statistics here, for example (the website is an obviously partisan one but the stats are from the ONS):
People in Scotland who want to see a more even distribution of wealth have the choice of waiting for England to vote in a government that seems genuinely interested in trying to achieve this - although the last Labour government (never mind the Conservative ones) of Blair and Co. (which was "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich") didn't exactly inspire much confidence in this regard. Alternatively, they may have concluded that the best chance of seeing a more equal society is to try and create one here in Scotland, which has for many years had a more left-wing outlook than the rest of the UK.
Now, you may not agree with any or all of this - I'm not saying that I do either - there's a lot that could have been done under the current Devolved set-up that hasn't - but you ought to be aware that it's not all about sticking two fingers up to the English, as you sometimes appear to think it is.
Not sure what Major chelping about Blair in 1997 and Standards reaction to it has got to the question of Scottish independence 17 years later. Feel free to enlighten us.
It's 17 years old. Thanks, I read the whole piece.
Well it would be old wouldn't it since it's talking about devolution! ?
I'm missing your point.
Scottish Parliament was just a New Labour election manifesto at this point. It's now a reality and possibly a gamble too far from the Labour party of the '90s. No doubt Brown and Blair had been doing the rounds with the financial and business sector in both Scotland and the City to keep them on board prior to making the manifesto public.
Well it would be, that's when the devolution debate was.
Christ man it's a generation ago. The whole of the U.K. is a different country politically, socially, economically. Maybe Standard have the same board and same business strategy as they did in '97. I just did a quick thought experiment. They don't.
So this is how the Propoganda machine works it's magic.
The nasty old state broadcaster (BBC) weighs in with the aid of the assasins Peston, Cook and Brian Taylor.
Scottish independence: Standard Life draws up ‘Yes’ contingency plan
They have changed this seven times, carefully refining the message/propaganda
The original version http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/745770/diff/1/2
The final version http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/745770/diff/6/7
Highlighted red is the deleted sections and green the replacement or addition.
All seven changes can be viewed from either link.
Correct. But this was all raised by Douglad claiming SL threatened to move if devolution occurred. It appears they didn't. That was the point of the old link.
If you still can't understand, now you're sober, take it up with Douglas, he brought up devolution.
Wow thats incredible.. how dare they change the article so it says the same thing...
Clegg is right. 90% of SL's pensions are south of the border, if Scotland has different interest, tax and currency it could have huge implications for pensions. If they didn't look at options for those 90% they'd be failing in their duties.
Salmonds right, for Scotland a currency union is the right option (assuming you dont want full independence), it just is not for the rUK.. for the small gains we expose ourselves to huge risk.
OK.. "MOST OF THE BOARD' STANDARD LIFE HAVE ALMOST 30 BOARD MEMBERS.. YOU LIST 6... you couldnt make it up.. the amount of lies being spun by the yes campaign..
Standard Life plc board committees
The Board has established Audit; Risk and Capital; Remuneration; Nomination and Governance; Investment; and Corporate Responsibility Committees.
The members of each Committee are set out below.
David Grigson (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Audit Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
Annually, the Audit Committee approves the Group Internal Audit Charter (PDF, 314KB).
Risk and Capital Committee
Noel Harwerth (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Risk and Capital Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
Crawford Gillies (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Remuneration Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
Nomination and Governance Committee
Gerry Grimstone (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Nomination and Governance Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
Colin Buchan (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Investment Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
Corporate Responsibility Committee
Gerry Grimstone (Chair)
The Terms of Reference of the Corporate Responsibility Committee are contained in the Board Charter.
"John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, said that City institutions and UK ministers would face a significant political and moral challenge to change tack on currency and banking union if Scotland's voters backed independence in September referendum.
Pointing out that Standard Life had issued and then retracted threats to leave Scotland before devolution in the 1990s"
"Standard Life, readers with long memories will recall, has previous form in these matters. As long ago as 1992 it warned that devolution – never mind independence – might cause it to relocate south of the border."
Do you not think this is different, 90% of its pensions are from rUK customers? If your pension is in a plan set for one economy, relatively stable interest rates (its been a while since the huge rates of the late 80'/early 90's), a tax regime and a currency you'd be worried if it could suddenly switch.
I think SL would be remiss to not look at options for those customers. Do you not think so then?
Are there any contemporary examples of them saying that rather than recent reports? I've no memory either way but the contempory link above suggests that they weren't too bothered.
In any case, it's hardly relevant 15 years later with a very different question being considered.
An internet quote from Standard Life from c. 1992? Good luck with that one.
What makes you think I don't?
I looked on the internet once and found a quote from Robert Burns. 250 years old! Imagine that.
Because I think those articles are wrong. I dont think this can be seen as bullying. I'd be pissed off if I had 10-15% of my earnings for 40 years suddenly impacted by this and the company did nothing because they want to support independence.
I do think this is such a different issue now, previous quotes on devolution, by probably different boards are not relevant.
I didn't say I agreed with every word of the articles; I quoted them to show that other people (one of them an SNP politician, the other a liberal journalist who is certainly no supporter of Independence) also remember what Standard Life said prior to Devolution.
Of course (and this is not directed at you), for some people these days unless you can provide an internet link to something, it didn't happen.
Yeah fair enough, I've seen some, and not just people like Lynx, who have really ranted at SL.. yet I just think they have verbalised a perfectly predictable outcome of independence.
I feel that some of the anger comes from there being no real argument to it, yet before it the argument was no big player has said they may leave. I doubt they'd entirely up but I'd expect them to at least shift part of it down to the rUK.. especially if its s different currency.
What does theYes campaign's manifesto say on immigration? Is the policy proposed fundamentally more liberal than we currently have? If Scotland is preparing to open its borders to displaced refugees from genuinely oppressed and oppressive countries then that's reason for me to support the Yes campaign. If it is to stay the same then accusations of immigration paranoia towards the rUK are at best hypocritical.
Salmond and the SNP want a more liberal immigration policy. as to UKIP in Scotland, just for fun: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2013/may/17/ukip-nigel-farage-protesters-edinburgh-video
I am not sure where you saw that. I have always been very critical of the Yes campaign and I can't frame Salmond and Sturgeon. So far they lied as much if not more than better together. If Yes fails it'll be their failure for sure.
That said, I believe that there is no reasons to think that Scots would automatically make a mess of themselves if they decided to part from the UK.
Really, is that so? What's all this about keeping the oil revenues just for Scotland then? Another "Better Together" scare campaign - the bastards!
PS. Do you think there are no organisations who campaign for a more equal society all over the UK? It isn't just a Scottish thing.
I agree with you here for once Brucie, this idea that somehow Scots are more sharing and want more equality than the English is just a myth. We are as individualistic and selfish as the rest IMHO ;-).
However it's true that many left wing political groups seized the independence debate as as way to get their ideas across and communicate a discontent with the Westminster's policies, which is fine by me.
Once again, please read this time, no one, including me, is saying that... except possibly one or two indirectly as a jibe. Running the economy, especially if you manage to grab the oil revenue, shouldn't be impossible. Where a small country like Scotland might have difficulty is if it ever had to defend itself or resist a major attack on it's interests by a larger country... geopolitically it would be very weak like Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc. but if you are convinced that human nature has changed and war is no longer a risk what does this matter?
Economically the debate is about what is best not what is possible.
I agree with you Scotland is unlikely to have the same military an geopolitical weight as the UK. But not having the same military ambitions as the UK can be conscious and careful choice. I have never heard the Belgian and the Dutch complaining that they were feeling unsafe in their country, and I don't think that Scots really care about having nuclear weapons and a big enough army to invade Iraq.
The Belgians possibly felt a bit twitchy in 1914. Not sure about the Dutch in 1940.
As far as I am aware we are now in 2014 and the situation is a bit different and long term peace has been secured in Europe. The current threat is mostly terrorism, but I don't think that nuclear deterrents and huge armies really help in that matter. As the Glaswegians showed the world, all you need is a good kick in the balls : http://www.chyl.org/wp-content/uploads/myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/124944/126499146...
1914 was indeed a long time ago and, as you point out, things change. Although yesterday every second post from you was about Irish independence (1916, to save you looking it up). But yesterday is a long time ago too.
The creation of the Irish Free State is one example amongst other of a country becoming independent, and it's interesting to see how they managed some of the key issues. However unless you think that a foreign large scale invasion of Scotland is something imminently plausible today I am not sure how looking at the situation in 1914 and 1940 helps much when deciding what kind of military an independent Scotland would have.
Truth is that Scottish people most likely won't want a big and costly army with a nuclear deterrent and would be perfectly happy with a smaller force, under current threats levels, like many other smaller EU countries have.
Personally I think that UK's military ambitions are currently completely overblown and that invading Iraq was a big mistake, but that's a different matter.
I simply don't think that Belgium and Holland are much more vulnerable than the UK to a foreign attack because they don't have huge armies. They simply are smaller countries and do their bit at their scale to contribute to larger alliances, which is probably what an independent Scotland would do. Admittedly they wouldn't be a big player but then Scotland doesn't really get much of say when it comes to declaring war in the current framework anyway, after all we were dragged into invading Iraq even though there was something like 65% opposition against it in Scotland, to me not being dragged into wars we don't want to get into is much more important than having the unrealistic capacity to resist an unlikely large scale foreign invasion just by ourselves.
I don't think you can say the SNP policy is more liberal in that it is not offering a safe haven to the world's dispossessed. It has just come to the conclusion that in order to prosper it will need more *highly skilled* immigrants than are currently being allowed. In that respect it is a policy driven by economic self interest, the same as the current 'Westminster' policy is. To portray this as the SNP or an independent Scotland as being somehow more compassionate than rUK is disingenuous, they simply have a different idea on how a particular economic end is achieved, nothing to do with a progressive social policy.
Besides the only tangible thing mentioned as part of this policy is a reintroduction of student visas and presumably this is only to address the funding shortfall universities will experience as a result of not charging fees to domestic students.
> I think you are misunderstanding the usage of "jock", it just means Scottish. It does not mean you are all called Jock, although I understand this was it's origin.
> Eg Jocks & Geordies at Kyloe means "Scots and Thick F*ckers from Newcastle" :-)
And Sunderland please......
The one advantage to Scottish independance, should it happen is that I shouldn't have to listen to Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmon whine on endlessly......
In fact any outcome other than independance is probably a disaster as outcome as it will give them an enduring, whining, nagging platform.
Otherwise I like all Scots, Jocks and Jessies both.
I don't think the SNP or Scotland is more compassionate in any way, I don't think they should be either. But when you say that current immigration policies by Westminster are driven by economic self interest, it's untrue. Their policies could actually be very costly as the OBR warned many times and certainly don't save any money. The changes to immigration rules happened because of the public opinion in England, and most of all the coalition's fear of UKIP and the Tory backbenchers.
Which is probably a clever thing to do.
Us thick f*ckers from Sunderland are called Mackems though ;-)
I know, it just doesn't hav the same ring to it though....
"In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK."
Breakfast news is known for hour long interviews. He finished what he was saying then they went to the next item. Thats all it was - your paranoia is getting the better of you I think.
So you don't think that the BBC has been Bias throughout this campaign......now if Willie Walsh had said independence would have a negative impact on his business it would be splashed all over the news....just watching the news just now and it gets a wee mention but they haven't shown the interview again.
That's why I said "if you believe human nature has changed" don't worry... People have said it before though - my parents lived though the Blitz, I was born just a few years after so perhaps this explains why I don't share your optimism totally. It's true war is hard to imagine, but....
Yes the BBC probably is biased but your comment about them cutting Walsh off is just incorrect.
Well you will be glad to know the 6 o'clock News down here just had a decent long piece on what Walsh said.
Shame they didn't mention this as well...maybe they did in England?
Oh and don't forget BA aren't based in Scotland, whereas S&L are currently based in Scotland.
I let it go, but I had typed a reply to that one, and decided against it and deleted it.
You did a more tactful job. Thanks
This has nothing to do with optimism, but more with common sense.
A country like the netherland could never withstand on their own a full invasion from a powerful foreign invader. (nor the UK could BTW). However nobody really thinks of invading Holland. Why ? Because they are smart enough to have lots of good allies and contribute at their level into these alliances.
If independence happens, some businesses are going to lose, some others are going to win, what the final balance will be is anybody's guess, I don't think anybody really has one, especially when nobody knows what kind of economic policy an independent Scotland might decide.
I just wish that the Lynx would have a more balanced view. Eg BA saying they aren't bothered isn't really relevant as they are based at Heathrow, whereas S&L saying they MIGHT relocate is probably relevant.
And yet they have since 1066. Having a safe N border helped.
Concerning Holland, they have been overrun as I'm sure you know, and as for Belgium and Norway, countries often held a examples for Scotland they have been squashed in days, Belgium twice in the last century. Their allies were still thinking about what to do. That's why over the centuries sensible people grouped themselves together into nations that were big enough and strong enough to defend themselves. If you read British history, or the history of your own country you'll find out about all this.
It may seem corny but maybe it isn't.
The BBC thought that Willie might have been a good plug for there own "better together" crusade, hence why they asked him about his views on Independence. I guess it back fired for them.
Probably Bias!! Aye right....
Almost every day the BBC have a scare item about a yes vote on their web page. Its often not backed up by a date regarding when the information was released. Today an item appeared about that old chestnut Summer/Winter time regarding clocks forward etc. Scots in general have always been against it in regards to Winter. Todays item wasnt just 3 years old, it was regarding the Autumn change. The item is now gone. To me, some over zealous underling got a chance and took things too far. It was not wasted though, it revealed fully to me the climate of the BBC regarding the independence vote. The voice of trust and truth me friggin arse.
It is relevant because BA could fly long haul services out of Scotland to avoid Air Passenger Duty i.e. the APD policy might generate business for Scottish airports. There's lots of coverage of business that might leave Scotland because of uncertainty about currency, there should also be coverage of business that might be attracted to Scotland by differential tax policies.
Stop talking shite. They knew what he was going to say before they asked him.
Sorry Tom but it won't for all sorts of reasons.
If the Scots do decide on Independence, I can see a fair bit of 'enterprising' cross border traffic taking place, as happens between the Irish Republic and Ulster once there are things like different rates of taxation on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, not to mention VAT and customs duties - but on a much larger scale given the relative differences in population size and the number of roads crossing the Border. Do we really expect to see at least 15 customs posts being established on the various road crossings -- then again I suppose it would create some more jobs in Cumbria (5 road crossings) and Northumberland (10 road crossings)? Lord knows they need some more jobs in the North of those counties - though given the history of rieving I can't imagine that more officialdom would be welcome!!
The wall will have to be rebuilt - no work for the lads :-)
Yeah -- last time the subcontractors* came from Italy, and it fell down -- we all know how well Italian cars last - even though they look fantastic.
We've just got to hope that the Easter Europeans do a better job than they did with the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall!
PS -- the reference to Italian Subcontractors is taken from " The History of the Geordie Waal" by Scott Dobson.
The British Army barely has the capacity to maintain peace in Afghanistan, I don't think it could survive an invasion from Russia or China on its own. What do you want to do ? quadruple the defence budget ?
Exactly that's why we have something called the EU and NATO, which basically brought long term peace to Europe. Now If you think that the British army is still capable to police the whole world alone and that it is the only safe haven possible, why do you live in France ? I did three months in the French army I can tell you it's total shite, if Putin decides to attack I don't give them one day.
You could well be right about BA, they are pretty much welded to Terminal 5. But if I fly to San Francisco on BA via Heathrow after April this year I'm going to be paying £85 APD to the government for the outward leg. If a US carrier offered the same route from Edinburgh there would be no APD. They'd also use less fuel than a carrier flying out of London to the US, less ATC delay and a shorter flight time. With a bit of flexibility on our rules we might even get the same deal as the Irish have in Shannon allowing pre-clearing US immigration.
So it is very likely that an independent Scotland could compete strongly on price resulting in more people using Edinburgh/Glasgow rather than Heathrow as a hub airport for flights going on polar routes to the US.
1. heathrow wouldn't respond.
2. glasgow/edinburgh can cope
3. people would rather fly from there..
I often pay more to fly from MAN than London, because my parents live in sheffield and can get to Manchester easier. Anything within £100 tbh.
How is Heathrow going to respond? Admittedly it could try and get the UK government to drop APD but for the UK government that would be a money loser even if it brought some business back from Scotland. It's not got much chance of moving itself 400 miles further north along the route to the US. It's also not got much chance of reducing ATC delay without more runways.
Edinburgh could easily stick another runway through the RBS headquarters which is conveniently close to the airport. Apparently we won't be needing that after independence.
Heathrow always does dismally in customer satisfaction - people that don't live in London would probably look at avoiding Heathrow as a bonus.
1. So they'd rather lose trade than drop APD?
2. Yeah new runway.. they happen fast.. Maybe google Berlin...and thats with German efficiency...
3. Yeah, but if you live in the SE flying to Scotland to get a flight is a long way.. and you have to use a london airport anyway.. Look at the population in England.. then the population in Scotland.. then that 100-200 mile gap between major rUK population centres and Glasgow and Edinburgh.. that £85 is soon swallowed up..
TBH APD is not a huge factor when I book flights. I've flown transatlantic 5-10 times a year for 4-5 years now, work then a missus, wife to be 3 weeks tomorrow :-), the different taxes don't make a huge difference compared to differences between airlines.
Price is one factor but so is travel time.
And Scotland still needs revenue.. no student fees.. no prescription fees now low/no APD.. it's this magic money tree again.. Oh and you have to build new runways.. that money tree again.. plus all the new infrastructure.... plus new currency... Yet with a reduced finance industry and declining oil..
TBH if the SNP are this good I'm shifting up..
I think that the whole point of reducing APD is boosting tourism and bring more flights. I doubt it would result in any significant shift of business form London to Scotland, but it could just create bit more business in Scotland.
APD is one of these taxes that makes sense for London, as the place will always be attractive with or without APD, but not for Scotland, where we need to work hard to attracts as many tourists and new flights as possible.
They should have thought about that when they created the APD in the first place and have different rates for different parts of the country instead of the one size fits all approach.
You are missing the point. If you are Scotland with say 5% of the market and dropping taxes gets you 10% you come out ahead. If you are rUK with 95% of the market and drop taxes to avoid losing 5% to Scotland and ending up with only 90% of the market then you lose lots of money.
Not everybody in the SE and travelling south to Heathrow is just burning fuel to go in the wrong direction if your eventual destination is the US.
Nobody goes on about money trees when London wants Crossrail or HS2 or the Olympics or Boris Airport or god knows what is next. We get 'London has all the people and industry and infrastructure so obviously we need to give it some more'. The rest of the country is under-invested in infrastructure compared with the south east. The logical thing is to intentionally put new infrastructure outside the South East and try and restore balance and move some economic power and skilled population to regions outside of London. Since that will never happen with a London based government that completely buys into the 'the UK can only have one global city narrative' the next thing is to wave bye bye and start investing in Scotland ourselves.
When Britain become a Soviet Republic that could well be done but whenever I suggest, nay even hint at, such a thing people come down very negatively on me :-)
Your remark is an illustration of the weakness of a Nationalist "solution", the real problem, and hence solution, is not to be found in borders or going back to archaic historical myths but is political. And a corollary to this is what chance would a country of 5 or 6 million within the EU within the present capitalist world system have of imposing a radical break from the domination of market forces?
I know. Its amazing, there is not a word of objection to HS2 on grounds of cost benefit.
The plans for Boris Airport are rather well advanced as well.
A large part of infrastructure spending is subsidized or paid for by the government. This has nothing to do with "Soviet style planning", it's simply a government spending taxpayers money on vital infrastructure for the country, like most developed countries do.
The problem here is that the government spending per head on transport infrastructure at currently at £4895 per head in London, but only £246 per head in the north-east for example.
Of course London has special needs, but some balance needs to be restored if we don't want to see all the talents and businesses going to London.
I am not.. people will not fly via Scotland.. look at skyscanner? Shift taxes all you want. You have a very static view of the world.. change 1 thing = this happens.. look at the competition around London, Amsterdam for example.. you seem to think a new runway at EDI and suddenly the cards collapse..
true, but you still need tax.. no APD.. no tuition fees, no prescription fees, reduced banking.. there has to be some income . at the moment its 'we'll increase exports by 50%, increase tourists'... all questionable. No actual solid figures.
Sounds great, but feasible? Possibly, possibly not. Do you mind if we don't include our pound in that experiment...
It appears Willie Walsh strongly disagrees with you and he has evidence from people driving from Northern Ireland to Dublin to avoid APD.
You are right there are 'no actual solid figures' because there are never any actual solid figures about what will happen in the future after a change as large as this. There are no actual solid figures behind all the predictions of doom either.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the default path for the UK is to concentrate almost all investment in the South East. The London government have bought into the 'London is a global city and needs to compete with its peers' narrative and the consequence that investment needs to be focussed because the UK can only afford one such city. The consequence for regions outside of London is gradual decline as lack of investment causes people and industry to move to the South East followed by the GDP per head in regions looking even worse relative to London followed by even stronger arguments for investing in London as 'the most successful part of the UK'.
Now the issue has been forced (and I don't think it should have been, they should have left it alone for a while and asked for more devolved powers) if we vote NO the independence threat will be off the table for a generation. We can already see what the Tories would like to do when that happens - get rid of the Barnett formula and cut the funding for Scotland so the SNP cannot afford any policies which differentiate from those in England.
Once again you ignore the fact that many other countries don't have APD and tuition fees and do quite well.
It's obvious to me that a tax like APD makes sense in London as it's unlikely to be counter productive there, the airports are already at maximum capacity and so on, no lack of business nor lack of travellers to pay that tax.
But in Scotland something like APD is defo counter-productive, brings very little money as we don't have that much traffic, and not good for the local economy. With so much potential for tourism in Scotland we really need to get as many airlines in and be competitive.
But TBH I think this doesn't have too much to do with the independence debate, it's more a question of Westminsters policies being systematically one size fits all and usually badly designed, even though they most of time have a good underlying idea.
Are you serious? People drive 100 miles from Belfast to Dublin to save..
However where in England will people drive? Newcastle maybe? they ahve newcastle, Leeds or EDI/Glasgow.. at the moment.. Carlisle maybe which has few options anyway...
Nobody from Leeds down will drive to Glasgow/EDI to fly.. fuel costs in driving, plus time..
Re the Barnett.. that needs a serious review at the very least. If you are saying that Scotland should take out more than it pays in.. at the moment its argued either way. We need to re-analyse that properly. At the moment people from both sides throw wild numbers around.
We also have an NHS.. other countries dont. Its a set pot as you say, we've been paying out for other things.
Name me a country which has what we have? the SNP ae trying to give out free health care, free education.. great idea? plausible? The evidence from the Uni's says no..
We have to pay tax somewhere, or pay for use? the SNP seem to have this magic pot of free to use services and very few taxes..
yes countries do give some free things.. but i cant think of many that give what we give.
I pay 400 euros a year health insurance in Germany, in the UK that's zero, but I pay APD.. you have to pay at some point.. just not with the SNP..
So where is the money coming from?
I'm just quoting Willie Walsh. My guess is the CEO of BA knows more about what passengers will do to avoid APD than either of us. The savings are significant on long haul and you get lower flight times and to avoid Heathrow.
Ryanair has said it would like to fly to the US. If you were Ryanair or a US carrier with no commitment to Heathrow and looking to compete on long haul to the US on price why wouldn't you put some flights out of Scotland? No APD, far less ATC delay, lower overhead cost than the SE and 400 miles less per leg.
I'm doubtful that will happen.
But yes they may do, but you have to get from the south of the rUK then pay for baggage, parking, food on flight.. it'll still be hundreds. They say £10 we'll see.
Norwegian air currently do a basic US flight, no bags, no food.. I'd rather pay 400 for a good comfortable flight with baggage. Once you add all the extra's on it wasn't that much cheaper.
What evidence ?
Norway and Sweden have free healthcare and free unis, they just pay more taxes.
Poland also has free HE and free healthcare (it's actually a constitutional right there) of very high quality.
If others do it successfully I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic.
Yeah, thats the point.. so much higher taxes. Will that work in Scotland? I dont think so. Culturally we dont want to give such
Not sure on Poland, not much experience, state of the roads are attrocious.. when you drive from Germany > poland on the motorways the difference is immense.
But as I said, one pot.. pick and chose where you spend it and make cuts. So far the SNP have only proposed taking less and giving more.. great but can it be backed up?
So far from experience with the Uni's no... declining standards, real term cuts in funding.
You go on about Ireland and just pay more income tax.
I think you'll find a lot of people won't like that.
A mate of mine from Yorkshire tried living and working over in Dublin back in the about the 90s, the place was too expensive to live in, cost him a really nice girlfriend as well.
You come across as one of these well to do middle class people, who happily say, let them all pay more tax.
I've been going to Ireland since the mid 70s, it's a poor country!!!
I think most of their road infra structure (for example) they've got now came from multi million or billion £ handouts from the EU.
And talking to my Irish Uncle-in-Law, he says the country is f*cked!
More tax is fine when you see it back. So you go to Norway, pay more tax and see it back. In Scotland if they upped tax it would take years to see the benefits and people won't like that. Norway has been that way for years.
I am not sure why it would takes years to see the benefits, mostly because we already have all that in Scotland, and everything IS PAID FOR. Scotland generates more taxes than it receives in services and funding, has a higher GDP per capita, less unemployment, lower budget deficit...
Then why is the Barnett formula such an issue?
I don't think it is that clear or well proven.
Yes.. Scotland has free HE and free NHS.. so how can it afford to not take in the billions a year England does?
Is that really it?
Then if so why don't they put money into HE?
Yeah well the grass is always greener elsewhere. Reality is that Ireland has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, and according to many key indexes, one of the best quality of life in the word, well ahead of the UK.
and everything IS PAID FOR.
lower budget deficit...
so still a deficit?
Yes like most western countries
2.5% instead of 6.0% for the UK.
If you think if Scotland up taxes to +50% overnight people would be OK with that I think you are having a laugh. A mate who lives in Norway, Uk citizen, says when you are a single guy you lose out, but you don't mind because you know when you have kids you see the benefits. I don't think we have that attitude in the UK.. such a societal view.
If it's so clear cut why aren't the Yes campaign streets ahead?
Still well up there well ahead of many countries including the UK if you check more recent indexes.
granted, just thought the juxtaposition of your statements was amusing.
> 2005 data....
Interesting to note that the 2nd weighting factor in the ratings is the divorce rate. Note that divorce was illegal in Ireland until 1996 and has presumably been subject to significant religious stigma since. Or the 6th weighting factor - "Climate and geography: Latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climates. Source: CIA World Factbook" - you might as well pull a number out of the mud, latitude says nothing about constant rain or the gulf stream. Perhaps they balance out for Ireland.
Most of these quality of life indices are trying to pin a number on something quite ineffable. A more convincing statistic would be to note that the net outwards migration from Ireland is larger than any other EU state, it's *that* desirable a place at the moment...
You are being ridiculous there, do you look at the numbers sometimes ? An increase in taxation of only 2.5% would bring immediately the Scottish budget in suprlus. If the Uk wanted to do the same they would need to increase general taxation by overall 6%. In any case, we are not anywhere close to the +50% levels you are talking about.
like this one from the OECD?
But really, Quality of life is good in the UK and in Ireland - we are in the very fortunate position to live in countries that have amazing quality of life compared to the vast majority of the human population, and to suggest that the UK is in some way bad is as much guff as the No campaign suggesting that an independent Scotland would be a disaster.
So if its so clear why don't we do that?
6% is nothing if we all agree to it?
You are seeing things statically again.. you can't just change one parameter, life works holistically, you change one, many others get affected.
Re Ireland.. it's great.. so why do we have so many Irish immigrants?
the UK is awful, horrid place.. Poland and Ireland offer what we can't.. yet those who live there come here. We must offer something?
> I don't think it is that clear or well proven.
What you evidence ? I am quoting the official numbers from the treasury and scottig gov.
> Magic oil?
> Is that really it?
Basically Scotland's economy performs better, (about 1% less unemployment, that brings in more taxes), and yes, north sea oil revenues.
DO you think England puts money into HE ? Government funding of Unis is well over everywhere in the Uk my friend. Remember that scottish universities still charge fees, they are simply paid by the scottish government. The Scottish universities are exactly in the same fianacial situation as the English one.
Says the guy who left the UK...
Exactly, thanks you
Cheap shot.. I expect more from you..
I left for a stunning little blonde..
I left last time for a job at the a planck?
I went to NZ because my then Aussie missus went there..
But I've said all along in the 3 continents, 6 countries I've lived in my quality of life rarely changes that much. life is what you make of it. In a western country it doesn't change that much.
Too many pro-independence think there is some magical bullet which will just change the world.. the best one no corrupt politicians.. no dominance of one area.. instead of London it will be the central belt..
head in sand..
So it doesn't.. so you've got one pot of gold that is dwindling.. the rest?
I think you need to re-check the fees thing and where UK fees go..
I take it you've never been around Ireland much then!
You seem to be extremely well travelled and experienced for your 27 years!!!
a pleasure, I can see why you left France though looking at those indexes ;-)
many of the countries in the upper plateau of that OECD survey (sweden, norway etc) only come out marginally better than the UK, so its hard to see that a change to their model is going to lead to dramatic change to the quality of life in Scotland.
I never said the goverment funds. I said fees do. 10,000 a student.
Is Scotland matching rUK investment if you add tuition fees?
We are seeing Uni's now recruit again. In Scotland? I don't think so. As said Glasgow wiped out one departments staff a few years back.
Once again the uni fees in Scotland and England follow exactly the same rules (Variable fee up to £9,000). Only difference in that in Scotland the SAAS pays the university directly for that fee. So basically the universities in Scotland are receiving more or less the same funding "per head" as other unis in England, it's just that it is paid through general taxation rather than by students taking out a loan. The biggest challenge for Scottish Unis right now is to be able to recruit more lucrative non-EU students, which is made more difficult by tightening of visa rules at Uk level.
And yes we are seeing unis recruit again in Scotland, there as been an increase for the past three years
I'd heard that Scottish research unis are struggling to get Westminster/ quango research grants and projects these days?
at junior levels.. low wages, i.e. pay cuts for post docs to step across. Often also 'teaching fellows' which are lowly paid lecturers, on short term contracts with little hope of promotion.
At the moment Scotland takes more than its fair share of RCUK funding north of the border. Its another reason many academics fear independence, and others argue that the RCUK should stay old UK wide..
Any evidence this is different in England?
I've not heard of such large redundancies as Glasgow. Generally most seem to recruit lecturers, young, but on long contracts.
Well it's anecdotal of course but two of my best friends got hired as lecturer at Napier Uni and Edinburgh Uni last year, plus all the people I know who didn't go to the private sector after their master all found paid phds or research assistant positions. Ok they don't make as much money as in the private sector, but not too badly, and they work twice less hours than me and have twice as many holidays, so I think they do quite well... (Apart from the Phd students of course who have no money and no life but then they knew what they were getting into ;-))
Also I found absolutely nothing on Google about large redundancy in universities in or near Glasgow, and I didn't hear of anything like, that, but I could be mistaken.
RCUK is government funded so there is no reason to think that local taxation couldn't finance a similar agency, (or the same one). Unless of course Scotland was getting a lot more funding from RCUK than it contributes to it through taxation, but I don't have the numbers.
I think its something that the SNP want to hang onto (white paper), which suggests its an actual benefit to scotland of the union.
I found the numbers. Total expenditure on Scotland by RCUK (2011) is 10.7% of their budget. Scotland contribute to 9.9% of Uk tax revenues. So basically they are being overpaid only by 0.8%. Doesn't seem to me a significant gap but fair enough.
Interesting to see that RCUK operates in RoI as well, indicating they already work with a foreign country.
They are not being overpaid, they are getting the money they are bidding for in a very competitive process within the UK - if you want to leave the UK that pot of money <might> not be available to bid for.
That 0.8% is probably quite a lot of university jobs.
What you are saying doesn't make sense, if Scotland puts in in taxes about the same of what it gets, there is nothing preventing scotland from either :
- exiting the system and create its own agency, with same levels of funding (ok minus 0.8%)
- Stay in the same system, as long as they contribute to it to the same levels I see no reason why they would get less funding from it ?
Have you even figured out how much that 0.8% is ?
That represent about £2.5 million pounds, maybe about 25 professors overall if you strech it very far? If you look ONLY at Edinburgh Uni they have about 12,000 staff, a total revenue of more than 700 millions (increased by 38 million just last year)...
I am not saying £2.5 millions is nothing it represents maybe a few dozens of well paid uni jobs, but that's certainly peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
I understand there might be concerns but you need to look at the numbers at some point... On many of the arguments we had on this thread you often have people looking at what Scotland gets from different UK agencies and public services, but forget to look at the other side of the balance sheet.
The problem is that the government reports 'Expenditure on Scotland' rather than 'Expenditure in Scotland'. Then the various departments (including RCUK) think 'oh look most of the people live in SE England and all the transport heads towards London and the politicians we need to influence are in London so we better put our major facilities and head office near London'. Then it classifies all the expense for central facilities as 'national resource' and divides it up evenly among the regions according to population.
The figures are designed to disguise how much of the government's money is actually spent in London and the SE. Not surprisingly since the folk involved in collecting and defining the statistics are almost certainly civil servants living in London. If Scotland was independent more of the 'expenditure on Scotland' would become 'expenditure in Scotland' which contributed to Scottish GDP and Scottish tax revenues.
Elsewhere on the site
The British climbing scene is very exciting at the moment. It is quite clear that as a sport it is developing at a rapid rate and... Read more