UKC

A plea to potential nationalist voters

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Escher 16 Oct 2019

I'm English, I live in Northern England. I voted remain. I still think we should remain in the EU.

If I lived in Scotland I might be tempted to vote for Scottish independence, same if I lived in Wales.

That worries me a lot.

This is a plea to anyone who wishes to vote for a nationalist party or for independence.

Please consider not doing so, I am deeply worried what that might bring for us. Plenty of us in England need you, we aren't all little Englander's, I can completely see why you would want to separate from us but I really fear for our future without you.

I have no idea what is going to happen or what any sensible answers are, I get more confused by the day. But my gut feeling is the moderate English heartland (whatever that is) needs you and we will be irreparably diminished without you.

10
 girlymonkey 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

Sorry mate, that ship has sailed. I voted to remain in the UK last time. I have seen the error of my ways, independence is for me now. 

18
 hokkyokusei 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

England will always out vote the rest of the UK. We need to take power away from Westminster and devolve it to the regions. Regional assemblies and a federal UK are the way forward.

https://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/

3
 Andy Johnson 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

Your first three paragraphs could have been written by me.

> Please consider not doing so

But why would someone in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland want to stay shackled to a nation that has succumbed to the kind of derangement we're seeing now? I just don't see it.

7
In reply to Escher:

Voting for the SNP in Scotland is also due to the party being seen as providing good governance and being led by capable people. Also, the voting system means that they have to have a working relationship with the Greens to get business done. It means that Scotland, whilst nowhere near perfect, is moving in the right direction. 

You have my sympathies living in England. The country appears to be having a collective nervous breakdown as its understanding of itself and its standing in the world is being tested by reality. The idea of English exceptionalism is really deep rooted. 

Unfortunately, if you are Scottish, having a border with England is like sleeping next to an elephant. Voting for the SNP makes sense to most people here, considering the alternative is to get crushed. 

10
Removed User 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

But the SNP are useless.

Ask yourself what they have actually done for Scotland over the last decade.

In the first decade of the Scottish Parliament Scotland introduced land reform, banned hunting with dogs, introduced free health care for the elderly and banned smoking.

The SNP went an entire year without introducing any new legislation whatsoever and do you know what they came up with after a year? A bill to allow the docking of dogs tails ffs! Since then they have had to abandon plans to reform education and quietly abandoned their named persons scheme. Unemployment in Scotland is the worst of any region in the UK and our health service is running into serious problems due to lack of staffing. While funding for local authorities in Scotland has been reduced by 1.7% in the block grant, the Scottish Government have reduced actual funding by 7%. They say they are opposed to fracking but every year continue to grant licences for it.

The SNP are all talk and no action.

It dismays me that on the one hand people criticise politicians for being all talk but on the other hand praise those who are full if soaring rhetoric but consistently fail to follow through.

As an example, take Nicola's climate emergency. The Greens have just accused her of hypocrisy and inaction and as evidence I offer the fact that a new car was being raffled at their conference. Was it Leaf or a Tesla? No, just a normal petrol engine job. The day before she announced her emergency she was crowing about eliminating passenger airport tax of £5 a skull but a week later backtracked on this by reverting to their tried and tested tactic of not doing anything. Why doesn't the Government show it's green credentials by doubling the tax instead? Reason, it might lose them votes.

Spend the next month interpreting the actions of our government's pronouncements through the prisms of "will it win or lose us votes" and "does it help the independence argument". You'll see what I mean 😊.

15
In reply to Removed User:

Whilst I delight in your enthusiasm, I don't think it makes good politics. 

Politics is the art of the next best. Politics is the art of the possible and the attainable. 

The SNP like any political party would be a busted flush if it let its enthusiasm get better of its discretion. 

4
Removed User 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Sorry but I just don't understand what you mean. I explain in some detail how ineffective the SNP are and you seem to be excusing them in a way that doesn't seem very clear.

Is it just the case that if they don't massively Phuq it up then that is regarded as good governance?

2
 john arran 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Is it just the case that if they don't massively Phuq it up then that is regarded as good governance?

In Westminster at the moment, not massively Phuqing it up would be regarded as an absolute triumph to be praised from the rooftops. The best many can hope for right now is that the government goes for a plan of 'only' massively Phuqing things up rather than setting a course for something much worse.

2
 Robert Durran 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> But the SNP are useless.

But a vote for independence is not a vote for government by the SNP in perpetuity - it is a vote for Scotland to elect the government of its choice.

2
Removed User 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes two things that are often conflated which seems to be what Heartinthehighlands was doing and I was rebutting his point that the SNP were in some way an effective party of governance.

 rogerwebb 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

>  Voting for the SNP makes sense to most people here, 

Most?

One day perhaps, maybe . If it wasn't for brexit that day would be a long way away if ever. 

4
 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Voting for the SNP in Scotland is also due to the party being seen as providing good governance and being led by capable people.

I'd be interested to know by what metrics you're judging this 'good governance'?

As a for instance, the Scottish government's budget deficit is currently running at 7%. That's 7 times the UK rate and if Scotland to become an independent nation within the EU, it would have the highest deficit by some considerable margin (Cyprus currently leads the pack at 4.8%).

Bit of a mute point in any case as to join the EU Nicola would have to reduce that deficit to below 3%. Without English taxes subsidising SNP spending, getting down to that 3% threshold would make Tory austerity look like they'd been on a spending spree.

4
 Robert Durran 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Yes two things that are often conflated.

Indeed. In the last referendum it seemed at times that Salmond was treating it as asking for a mandate for a dictatorship for life. A referendum body should be fought on the independence question alone - nobody should be even mentioning possible future policies.

1
Removed User 16 Oct 2019
In reply to john arran:

Quite, a situation that was brought on us by conviction politics. A lot of politicians and ordinary people of course, had grave misgivings over the future sovereignty of our country leading to a referendum followed by a massive miscalculation by a PM who felt her majority wasn't large enough to get a settlement through Parliament. She was certainly right about that.

On the other hand in Scotland the Scottish government sits on its hands making popular noises, comfortable in the knowledge that they can take a position on Brexit that will command broad support and not lose them any voted, the most important thing obviously. They find themselves in a position envied by both main parties where no seats are threatened by taking a position and no MPs or MSPs will rebel because their selection as candidates was based on a written undertaking that they would follow the party line. Yes, really. And the tragedy is that people seem to think that doing nothing, achieving nothing is somehow good governance.

Consider though that Scotland may at some point vote for independence and presumably these people would be elected as leaders for at least the first term of office. They would be going into withdrawal negotiations knowing that the hit to their economy would be significantly worse than a no deal Brexit would be for the UK ( which isn't going to happen anyway). Once they emerged with a separation arrangement this same lot of ineffectual windbags would be in charge of running an economy hit by a shock the like of which has not been seen by Scotland for the best part of a century. A recipe for disaster for the young, the poor, the elderly and the sick.

4
 subtle 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

>  Once they emerged with a separation arrangement this same lot of ineffectual windbags would be in charge of running an economy hit by a shock the like of which has not been seen by Scotland for the best part of a century. A recipe for disaster for the young, the poor, the elderly and the sick.

Wow, that is some amount of conjecture! You really are against the SNP, wow.

As has been said upthread, a vote for independence is not a mandate for the SNP to govern in perpetuity, after independance is won then, I would like to think, the Labour Party would re-emerge as a credible party in Scotland, as would the Tories. 

1
 wercat 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

I do not think Scotland should get independence at all.

I suggest we divide England up between Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

Removed User 16 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

The Labour party are a credible party in Scotland who want to transform it into a fairer and more equitable to live.

Again, people simply swallow the SNP line that Labour have somehow lost the plot or something. They haven't it's just what the SNP want you to believe so you'll vote for them (see above).

6
 Alan M 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

> I'm English, I live in Northern England. I voted remain. I still think we should remain in the EU.

> If I lived in Scotland I might be tempted to vote for Scottish independence, same if I lived in Wales.

> That worries me a lot.

> This is a plea to anyone who wishes to vote for a nationalist party or for independence.

> Please consider not doing so, I am deeply worried what that might bring for us. Plenty of us in England need you, we aren't all little Englander's, I can completely see why you would want to separate from us but I really fear for our future without you.

> I have no idea what is going to happen or what any sensible answers are, I get more confused by the day. But my gut feeling is the moderate English heartland (whatever that is) needs you and we will be irreparably diminished without you.

I agree with the sentiment of your post us English moderates need to stay attached to the Scottish as close as we can.

Just thinking though,

Based on the Brexit negotiations and how they have panned out over the last few years.   Can anyone actually see the break up of the UK being something that can be achieved in any sort of reasonable timeframe from a negotiations point of view?  

Post edited at 17:37
 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

If Brexit demonstrates anything that might give pro-independents pause, it has shown how quickly the divisive dark underbelly of nationalism can be fanned into full voice, and how difficult and costly it is to untangle even a relatively recent union.

 Dax H 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Sorry mate, that ship has sailed. I voted to remain in the UK last time. I have seen the error of my ways, independence is for me now. 

By By. 

Personally I think that if Scotland is going to have a second referendum then England should also have a referendum on giving Scotland back to the Scottish people. 

14
In reply to Removed User:

I hesitate before proclaiming the virtues of the SNP too loudly but I am comparing them, like John Arran does above to what Westminster governments do.

So, for example since 2007: 

1. Baby Box – A jam-packed box of baby essentials to help new parents at the start of a child’s life.

2. Childcare – 600 hours of early learning and childcare, saving families up to £2,500 per child per year.

3. Free Tuition – Students in England face tuition fees up to £27,750 – Scottish students receive university tuition free.

4. Period Poverty – Scotland is the first in the world to make sanitary products available free to all pupils and students.

5. Prescriptions – Prescription charges abolished in Scotland – now £9 per item south of the border.

6. Cheaper Council Tax – Every Scottish household benefits from cheaper tax bills – on average £500 less than England.

7. Care For All – Free personal and nursing care extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age.

8. Free Bus Travel – Over one million Scots now enjoy free travel, including over-60s and disabled people.

Plus a more progressive tax system, i.e. you pay 40% tax on a lower threshold than in England. 

Seems to be more support for public services and the ordinary person than compared to south of the border. 

4
 girlymonkey 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Dax H:

Why? Scotland doesn't belong to England! 

My favourite option would still be that England leaves the UK and EU, and the rest of the UK stays in the EU. 

Edit: Not that I want rid of England as such, more that if England is hell bent on self destruction, I don't want to be taken down with them

Post edited at 19:27
6
 Alan M 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Why? Scotland doesn't belong to England! 

> My favourite option would still be that England leaves the UK and EU, and the rest of the UK stays in the EU. 

> Edit: Not that I want rid of England as such, more that if England is hell bent on self destruction, I don't want to be taken down with them

Eh?  Didn't Wales also vote majority to leave the EU? 

Edit:

Just checked 52.5% Wales in favour of Leaving compared to 53.3% in England.  Why do you want England out but Wales still in?  Seems a weird statement if I am honest.

Anyway even as remain voter it was never about the individual parts of the UK the majority of UK voters that night (including a 38% of Scottish voters) combined won them the vote.  Even as a remainer I accept that.

Post edited at 19:49
1
 NathanP 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

If I was really mean spirited, I'd suggest that the parts of England and Wales that voted Leave should leave whilst Scotland, Northern Ireland and the parts of England that voted Remain should remain. The only problem then is who would then pay the massive subsidies that the Leave voting areas now receive from the EU and the rest of the UK?

 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> I hesitate before proclaiming the virtues of the SNP too loudly but I am comparing them, like John Arran does above to what Westminster governments do.

> So, for example since 2007: 

> 1. Baby Box – A jam-packed box of baby essentials to help new parents at the start of a child’s life.

> 2. Childcare – 600 hours of early learning and childcare, saving families up to £2,500 per child per year.

> 3. Free Tuition – Students in England face tuition fees up to £27,750 – Scottish students receive university tuition free.

> 4. Period Poverty – Scotland is the first in the world to make sanitary products available free to all pupils and students.

> 5. Prescriptions – Prescription charges abolished in Scotland – now £9 per item south of the border.

> 6. Cheaper Council Tax – Every Scottish household benefits from cheaper tax bills – on average £500 less than England.

> 7. Care For All – Free personal and nursing care extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age.

> 8. Free Bus Travel – Over one million Scots now enjoy free travel, including over-60s and disabled people.

> Plus a more progressive tax system, i.e. you pay 40% tax on a lower threshold than in England. 

> Seems to be more support for public services and the ordinary person than compared to south of the border. 

So the union clearly isn't working too badly for Scotland is it.

5
 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> I hesitate before proclaiming the virtues of the SNP too loudly but I am comparing them, like John Arran does above to what Westminster governments do.

> So, for example since 2007: 

> 1. Baby Box – A jam-packed box of baby essentials to help new parents at the start of a child’s life.

> 2. Childcare – 600 hours of early learning and childcare, saving families up to £2,500 per child per year.

Yet Scotland has twice the rate of avoidable child mortality rates as England and Wales.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17453010.avoidable-child-death-rate-in-...

> 3. Free Tuition – Students in England face tuition fees up to £27,750 – Scottish students receive university tuition free.

Yet latest figures see 34% of English 18 year olds going to university against just 27% in Scotland.

https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/record-proportio...

> 4. Period Poverty – Scotland is the first in the world to make sanitary products available free to all pupils and students.

> 5. Prescriptions – Prescription charges abolished in Scotland – now £9 per item south of the border.

Yet life expectancy in Scotland is lower than in any other UK country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47161342

> 6. Cheaper Council Tax – Every Scottish household benefits from cheaper tax bills – on average £500 less than England.

> 7. Care For All – Free personal and nursing care extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age.

> 8. Free Bus Travel – Over one million Scots now enjoy free travel, including over-60s and disabled people.

> Plus a more progressive tax system, i.e. you pay 40% tax on a lower threshold than in England. 

> Seems to be more support for public services and the ordinary person than compared to south of the border. 

With £9000 public spending per English resident as opposed to £11000 for the average Scot it's unsurprising that you can point to loads of areas where Scotland's spending exceeds the rest of the UK's, but its not spending that indicates good governance, its outcome and evidence for good outcomes in Scotland are a lot harder to come by.

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Why? Scotland doesn't belong to England! 

> My favourite option would still be that England leaves the UK and EU, and the rest of the UK stays in the EU. 

> Edit: Not that I want rid of England as such, more that if England is hell bent on self destruction, I don't want to be taken down with them

That and the obvious fact that Scotland can't meet EU entry requirements by a country mile.

1
In reply to off-duty:

Ha! A good point. If devo max was on the 2014 referendum, it would probably have won a majority. 

1
 girlymonkey 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

No, we can't yet. However, we can move to much closer alignment with the EU than Westminster appears to be seeking. We should be able to stay in the single market and customs union etc and continue to try and move towards meeting the requirements. 

There is also a chance they might bend the rules out of sympathy, however we can't vote based on that assumption. 

4
 bouldery bits 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

Do what you want. 

It no longer matters.  The rich have completed the greatest transfer in wealth in a millenium to themselves. At least we can all watch bake off whilst the planet dies. 

Post edited at 20:08
In reply to Stichtplate:

Life expectancy and child mortality rates are complicated. They have some long term historic causes related to 20th century poverty, diet, and climate. So measuring these outcomes are not particularly good indicators of government performance. They are long term indicators.

The public spending per head is fundamentally a political decision. England consistently returns Conservative low tax/ low public spending governments whilst Scotland does not. 

These choices are not set in stone and can change. 

4
 girlymonkey 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Alan M:

Ok, they can leave with England if they want to, but either way, if the countries who voted to remain could stay in that way. 

It was a UK wide vote, but Scotland voted to stay in the UK on the premise that we would be staying in the EU. So it does put it in a very different position. We will also be much worse affected than England by being dragged out. We are a different country, with different needs. 

4
 Alan M 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Ok, they can leave with England if they want to, but either way, if the countries who voted to remain could stay in that way. 

> It was a UK wide vote, but Scotland voted to stay in the UK on the premise that we would be staying in the EU. So it does put it in a very different position. We will also be much worse affected than England by being dragged out. We are a different country, with different needs. 

Scotland only voted to remain in the UK because of the promise of staying in the EU?  Can that be proven.

I am from a Scottish family none of my remain voting family (Scottish referendum) voted to stay in the UK because of the promise to remain in the EU.  I just asked some of them!!

Post edited at 20:16
1
 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> It was a UK wide vote, but Scotland voted to stay in the UK on the premise that we would be staying in the EU.  

I think that reducing the independence vote to nothing more than a proxy Brexit vote is nonsense.

I'm sure it was relevant but given the Nationalist rhetoric of many leave campaigners (see the similarity there?) there was a whole lot of other issues involved as well, on both sides of the debate.

In reply to Removed User:

> Is it just the case that if they don't massively Phuq it up then that is regarded as good governance?

I think most people in England would be delighted to have the option of voting for a party which will not massively f*ck it up.

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> No, we can't yet. However, we can move to much closer alignment with the EU than Westminster appears to be seeking. We should be able to stay in the single market and customs union etc and continue to try and move towards meeting the requirements. 

I suppose, but with no Good Friday Agreement to muddy the waters, you'd certainly have to put up a hard border with the rest of the UK. According to the Scottish governments own figures that would mean accepting a hard border for 60% of your exports in exchange for an open border for the 18% of your exports that go to the EU.

https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublicati...

> There is also a chance they might bend the rules out of sympathy, however we can't vote based on that assumption. 

Perhaps, but I can't see them accepting Scotland as another net recipient of funds, waving the 3% budget deficit and letting you maintain a 7% deficit, especially when they've just lost their second biggest net contributor. As far as the rule on new members joining the Euro, maybe they'd let you keep the pound, as Nicola keeps insisting, but since that would mean Scotland remaining locked into UK monetary policy, you'd hardly be getting much more political independence than you already have.

1
In reply to Alan M:

> Scotland only voted to remain in the UK because of the promise of staying in the EU?  Can that be proven.

Could easily be 5% of votes influenced by that promise.   EU citizens in Scotland had a vote and their families would also be strongly influenced.  It doesn't mean that all or even most NO votes were influenced only that there could be enough of a swing to change the outcome.

The fact that the polling is now showing 60% for YES and the main thing that has changed is Brexit also suggests it was a factor.

Post edited at 20:20
1
Lusk 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The fact that the polling is now showing 60% for YES and the main thing that has changed is Brexit also suggests it was a factor.

Is it?  Some interesting comments on this link that support some of the above postings:
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scot...

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Life expectancy and child mortality rates are complicated. They have some long term historic causes related to 20th century poverty, diet, and climate. So measuring these outcomes are not particularly good indicators of government performance. They are long term indicators.

Scotland has twice the rate of child mortality as the rest of the UK! This isn't a slight difference due to subtle historic factors. What's more, 2017 saw Scotland move from second worst child mortality in the union, to the worst. That's not long term indicators, that's what happened on the SNP's watch.

> The public spending per head is fundamentally a political decision. England consistently returns Conservative low tax/ low public spending governments whilst Scotland does not. 

Obviously, but it doesn't explain why England consistently outperforms Scotland in health and education despite lower spending.

1
 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Could easily be 5% of votes influenced by that promise.   EU citizens in Scotland had a vote and their families would also be strongly influenced.  It doesn't mean that all or even most NO votes were influenced only that there could be enough of a swing to change the outcome.

> The fact that the polling is now showing 60% for YES and the main thing that has changed is Brexit also suggests it was a factor.

Right. And just as no-one who voted remain could ever be a true Scot, no-one who voted leave could ever be a Brexiteer. I forgot how simple it all was.

3
 Alan M 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Could easily be 5% of votes influenced by that promise.   EU citizens in Scotland had a vote and their families would also be strongly influenced.  It doesn't mean that all or even most NO votes were influenced only that there could be enough of a swing to change the outcome.

> The fact that the polling is now showing 60% for YES and the main thing that has changed is Brexit also suggests it was a factor.

Thanks, that seems like a plausible suggestion.  

Maybe we need this general election to see how the votes actually fall for the different parties and agendas.  Will the SNP clear up? Will the Conservatives continue their more recent upward trend in Scotland.  Labour that's the interesting one.  A national Labour party has greater ability to actually implement more  meaningful left/socialist policy than the SNP.  Corbyns labour is more left than the SNP can ever claim to be so we will find out if Scotland truly is as far left as 'some' claim it is.  Personally I think Scotland is pretty similar to a majority of England.  The difference is that some areas of England will swing wildly. Go centre(ish) and they will go centre go to the left and they will trend to the right instead.

Take my area Corbyn's labour will clean up here in the deprived areas.  Move 16 miles up the road to the more affluent areas and they will swing all over the place.  Give them a centre policy and you'll get a Lib Dem or something give them left and you'll get them going to the right and returning Conservatives.

Post edited at 20:52
In reply to Stichtplate:

Infant mortality rates. I don't know where you are getting your data from but this is from the Nuffield Trust which states quite the opposite! 

Between 1990 and 2017, the infant mortality rate decreased considerably in all UK countries. Scotland showed the largest decrease, from 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 3.3 in 2017. However, the rate of decline of infant mortality has slowed in recent years. In England, the infant mortality rate remained at 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births between 2013 and 2016, before increasing to 4.0 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2017; this was the highest of the four countries.

2
In reply to off-duty:

> Right. And just as no-one who voted remain could ever be a true Scot, no-one who voted leave could ever be a Brexiteer. I forgot how simple it all was.

How do you get to that from what I said?

The question is whether the promise to stay in the EU if you voted NO to indy could have influenced a few percent of the vote.  5% of the electorate switching from NO to YES would change the outcome.

2
 summo 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17453010.avoidable-child-death-rate-in-...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/scotlands-child-health-among-wo...

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scotland-highest-in-uk-for-avoidable-chi...

Should we move onto drug related deaths, education, or the deficit. Scotland isn't excelling, anymore than the rest of the UK which isn't excelling either. 

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Sorry, that should have been avoidable child mortality rates as stated in my earlier post, not child mortality rates. I’m sure you can appreciate why avoidable child mortality figures are more significant when assessing the impact of social and health policies.
The figures were published in The Herald earlier this year and the link is included in my post at 19:52. 

 Dave Garnett 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Why? Scotland doesn't belong to England!

You could argue that since 1603 it's been the other way round.

Then again, some of Scotland really belongs to Norway. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

> Scotland has twice the rate of child mortality as the rest of the UK! This isn't a slight difference due to subtle historic factors. What's more, 2017 saw Scotland move from second worst child mortality in the union, to the worst. That's not long term indicators, that's what happened on the SNP's watch.

> Obviously, but it doesn't explain why England consistently outperforms Scotland in health and education despite lower spending.

The A & E in Scotland is out performing A & E in England according to BBC reality check from last year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45790051

What data are you using to make your claims that state the opposite? 

As for education, England outperformed Scotland on the latest Pisa tests. Although Pisa is an average score of a random sample on a given day. Many educationalists on both sides of the border are wary of reading too much into them. 

2
In reply to Alan M:

> Maybe we need this general election to see how the votes actually fall for the different parties and agendas.  Will the SNP clear up? Will the Conservatives continue their more recent upward trend in Scotland.  Labour that's the interesting one.  A national Labour party has greater ability to actually implement more  meaningful left/socialist policy than the SNP.  

Scotland is no longer the same as England politically because Labour fell apart and most of its activists are now SNP or Green.  Scottish Labour have a lackluster leader and are going nowhere.

The Tories have totally lost the plot.  Ruth Davidson was effective because her relatively sane, relatively pro-Europe politics worked with the middle class.   She's been kicked out and what is left are out and out Loyalists and Brexiteers toadying to Boris Johnson.  Their last bastion of support is the Loyalist/Rangers Supporter/Brexiteer vote because the middle class has switched to the LibDems.  

The LibDems are now the biggest challenge to the SNP in Scotland.

The other thing that is starting to happen is fractures appearing in the SNP.   We might be starting to see the beginning of post Indy politics.

 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> How do you get to that from what I said?

> The question is whether the promise to stay in the EU if you voted NO to indy could have influenced a few percent of the vote.  5% of the electorate switching from NO to YES would change the outcome.

Though, if you weren't saying that, then the 5% switching from YES to NO would have balanced that out.

1
In reply to summo:

Is the Scandanavian system better? If so, how and why? 

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> The A & E in Scotland is out performing A & E in England according to BBC reality check from last year.

> What data are you using to make your claims that state the opposite? 

Life expectancy and avoidable infant mortality rates. They're a fairly straight forward metric and provide a pretty good picture of actual health outcomes. If you read the A&E link you provided, you'll see it's just talking about A&E waiting times, figures that are easily manipulated by, for instance, altering booking procedures or keeping ambulances and patients waiting outside until the hospital is able to accept them. A picture further blurred by the fact that Scotland has one ambulance service while England has eleven, all operating with slightly different, equipment, procedures and guidelines.

> As for education, England outperformed Scotland on the latest Pisa tests. Although Pisa is an average score of a random sample on a given day. Many educationalists on both sides of the border are wary of reading too much into them. 

Interesting that just 27% of Scottish children go onto university compared to 34% of English children, despite it costing them an extra £30,000. Hard to spin that in any other terms than as a failure.

Post edited at 21:57
2
pasbury 16 Oct 2019
In reply to anti Scottish sentiment on this thread:

Thanks for enlightening me, I hadn't realised what a basket case Scotland is.

Thank goodness they can rely on Westminster to teach them how to govern themselves poor dears.

9
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think we are getting into the realm of 'statistics, damned statistics and lies'. Meaning we are producing statistics to each suit our own pre formed conclusions. 

 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I've not noticed any anti-Scottish sentiment on this thread. Criticising the performance of the SNP in government is no more anti-Scottish than criticising the Tories is anti-English.

In reply to Stichtplate:

> Interesting that just 27% of Scottish children go onto university compared to 34% of English children, despite it costing them an extra £30,000. Hard to spin that in any other terms than as a failure.

No, it is common sense.  Give students who have reasonable results funding to attend reasonable courses rather than hand out loans like sweeties. 

1
 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> I think we are getting into the realm of 'statistics, damned statistics and lies'. Meaning we are producing statistics to each suit our own pre formed conclusions. 

As I've pointed out, A&E waiting times give an insight into procedure, and a poor insight at that. The average Scot dying 2 years earlier than the average person in England is just a straight forward fact and as good an indicator of actual health outcomes as its possible to get.

 Dax H 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Why? Scotland doesn't belong to England! 

> My favourite option would still be that England leaves the UK and EU, and the rest of the UK stays in the EU. 

> Edit: Not that I want rid of England as such, more that if England is hell bent on self destruction, I don't want to be taken down with them

Okay let me use different terminology then. Why should Scotland have a vote on whether they stay and carry on suckling at the English tit when England can't have a vote on cutting off said tit and the milk it provides. 

All seems a bit one sided to me. 

7
 bouldery bits 16 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

What has someone said that is anti Scottish?

And no, I'm not anti-Scottish. I hate everyone equally. 

My Auntie is Welsh tho. If that helps. 

In reply to off-duty:

> Though, if you weren't saying that, then the 5% switching from YES to NO would have balanced that out.

The polls show there's now a majority for YES.  What has actually happened is a swing from NO to YES on indy and pretty much everybody thinks some of it is due to Brexit.

2
 Dax H 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> I hesitate before proclaiming the virtues of the SNP too loudly but I am comparing them, like John Arran does above to what Westminster governments do.

> So, for example since 2007: 

> 1. Baby Box – A jam-packed box of baby essentials to help new parents at the start of a child’s life.

> 2. Childcare – 600 hours of early learning and childcare, saving families up to £2,500 per child per year.

> 3. Free Tuition – Students in England face tuition fees up to £27,750 – Scottish students receive university tuition free.

> 4. Period Poverty – Scotland is the first in the world to make sanitary products available free to all pupils and students.

> 5. Prescriptions – Prescription charges abolished in Scotland – now £9 per item south of the border.

> 6. Cheaper Council Tax – Every Scottish household benefits from cheaper tax bills – on average £500 less than England.

> 7. Care For All – Free personal and nursing care extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age.

> 8. Free Bus Travel – Over one million Scots now enjoy free travel, including over-60s and disabled people.

> Plus a more progressive tax system, i.e. you pay 40% tax on a lower threshold than in England. 

> Seems to be more support for public services and the ordinary person than compared to south of the border. 

I wonder how much of that would change when money was no longer flowing from the South to the North. 

5
Northern Star 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

The SNP are in government partly because they are conveniently able to blame the rest of the UK, and specifically Westminster, for all of Scotland's problems.  In the same way that in the EU referendum the Leavers blamed the EU for most of UK's problems.  And now we are in a right old mess are we not?  Yet there are still voters in Scotland who seem to think that breaking away from the Union is the answer to everything?  Another big old (and far, far messier) mess about to happen.

Scottish independence is a strange one.  On one hand they say they want to be closer to Europe and remain in the EU.  On the other they want to shun by far their biggest trading partner - the rest of the UK.  They seem happy to be governed by the non-elected MEP's in Brussels yet seem not particularly happy having an elected representation in Westminster nor a high degree of autonomy in the shape of the Scottish Parliament?

Back at the last Scottish referendum it didn't seem to bother the SNP that they would by default be out of the EU should Scotland have become independent.  Yet they are now using Brexit and remaining in the EU as a big issue in their independence campaign.  They continue to twist and turn to skew events as they please to help support another referendum.  Populism at it's most illogical perhaps?  Can't get my head around it personally.

So what happens if Scotland do go independent?  The SNP would have to start taking responsibility.  It won't be long I'm sure before people from Shetland, Orkney and other remote regions start blaming their problems on an Edinburgh centered government.  No doubt they will want independence too.  So where does it stop?  At what point do people finally see that collaboration and cooperation is always going to be stronger than hate, nationalism and division?

3
 ScraggyGoat 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

As a Scottish voter I'm totally despondent about the SNP and Indy2.  The Scottish government could really be forging ahead with good governance, tackling Climate Change, Land Reform, Rewilding, transport, carbon sequestration, plus making social changes and investing more in long term R&D etc. But the SNP amazingly are too scared to do this, they gone from trying to win votes, to be scared of losing them and dooing very little.  

The argument that we can do it post Indy is weak.  Indy will mean putting all advancements on the back burner as we negotiate access and payments to entities like HMRC and then set up our own systems, institutions, protocols and associated legislation......all lost time (maybe a generation)  from getting on with the important stuff we could be dooing now..

1
In reply to Dax H:

> Okay let me use different terminology then. Why should Scotland have a vote on whether they stay and carry on suckling at the English tit when England can't have a vote on cutting off said tit and the milk it provides. 

Cutting off your tits seems a bit drastic, but on you go if that's what you want.  Either party can file for a divorce.

2
 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The polls show there's now a majority for YES.  What has actually happened is a swing from NO to YES on indy and pretty much everybody thinks some of it is due to Brexit.

And "some of it" may be.  Other factors may also be involved...

Northern Star 16 Oct 2019
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> The argument that we can do it post Indy is weak.  Indy will mean putting all advancements on the back burner as we negotiate access and payments to entities like HMRC and then set up our own systems, institutions, protocols and associated legislation......all lost time (maybe a generation)  from getting on with the important stuff we could be dooing now..

Agreed.  Scottish leaving the UK would be an even bigger sh*t show that we are currently in thanks to Brexit.  A far bigger and messier mess lasting for years and years.  Is it really worth it?  I know it's not up to us who live here in England but most of us down here (despite the jokey comments above) really quite like the Scottish and would be heartbroken if the UK we know and love was to be broken up by another group of small minded populists.  Brexit is bad enough, let alone a break up of the UK as we know it.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> The argument that we can do it post Indy is weak.  Indy will mean putting all advancements on the back burner as we negotiate access and payments to entities like HMRC and then set up our own systems, institutions, protocols and associated legislation......all lost time (maybe a generation)  from getting on with the important stuff we could be dooing now..

I suspect it will take considerably less than a generation to change the name on the HMRC offices in Scotland from HMRC to Revenue Scotland and to pass a law carrying over the existing rules and procedures.  

Countries far smaller than Scotland do this stuff for themselves.

4
 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I suspect it will take considerably less than a generation to change the name on the HMRC offices in Scotland from HMRC to Revenue Scotland and to pass a law carrying over the existing rules and procedures.  

> Countries far smaller than Scotland do this stuff for themselves.

Christ. Could you sound any more like a rabid Brexiteer, galloping toward the sunny uplands?

7
 mountainbagger 16 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

> At least we can all watch bake off whilst the planet dies. 

Or, to put it another way, at least we can all die off whilst the planet bakes.

 ScraggyGoat 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Of course other countries have done it, I'm not suggesting we can't do it, but I see the generation of duplicate parallel buearacratic systems as a complete waste and a distraction from getting on the real change. there is so much we could be dooing but the SNP aren't, let's face it they are currently in preIndy limbo, and Indy will push back good reforms even further down the line.

1
Northern Star 16 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Sorry mate, that ship has sailed. I voted to remain in the UK last time. I have seen the error of my ways, independence is for me now.

Grass always looks greener perhaps?

1
 off-duty 16 Oct 2019
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Agree 

It's far easier to go for populist crowd pleasing "leave" votes, based on sunlit uplands, and glorious nationhood, than it is to get stuck in to reforms and policy with all the difficulties, hurdles and setbacks that might involve.

Funny* how you don't have to specify the country involved.

*Not funny.

pasbury 16 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Nine years ago the Labour Party had 41 MPs, the Liberal Democrats had 11 and the SNP had 6. Criticising the performance of the Scottish government is not necessarily about the SNP is it?

 rogerwebb 16 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I suspect it will take considerably less than a generation to change the name on the HMRC offices in Scotland from HMRC to Revenue Scotland and to pass a law carrying over the existing rules and procedures.  

The delays in the transfer of social security powers resulting from the 2016 Act suggest that it will take a considerable number of years to unpick the union. 

'what hasn't been done before is  transferring powers from one government's agency to another's' Shirley Anne Somerville when trying to explain why it was all taking so long. Projected date for full transfer now 2024.

Post edited at 23:27
 Stichtplate 16 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Nine years ago the Labour Party had 41 MPs, the Liberal Democrats had 11 and the SNP had 6. Criticising the performance of the Scottish government is not necessarily about the SNP is it?

Dunno? If we got into discussing the current shortcomings of British government policy, do you think I'd be referring to 2010's crop of Labour MPs? (insert baffled emoji here).

Edit: No idea what you're getting at but it still doesn't back your assertion that this thread has thrown up any anti-Scottish sentiment.

Post edited at 23:43
In reply to rogerwebb:

> The delays in the transfer of social security powers resulting from the 2016 Act suggest that it will take a considerable number of years to unpick the union. 

They just need to say 'oh f*ck it' and start from scratch, new country, everybody has a blank sheet with the tax man.   

Now we'll get all the Tories voting for Indy too.

1
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Of course other countries have done it, I'm not suggesting we can't do it, but I see the generation of duplicate parallel buearacratic systems as a complete waste and a distraction from getting on the real change. there is so much we could be dooing but the SNP aren't, let's face it they are currently in preIndy limbo, and Indy will push back good reforms even further down the line.

Scotland isn't going to be able to reform until it decouples from England.  Look at drugs policy, the SNP want to trial legal consumption rooms.  The Tories say the only legal consumption room is the House of Common's bogs.

Scotland can't do anything meaningful with tax policy.  It gets to put a percent on income tax but it can't restructure tax to shift the balance between income/corporation/vat/land taxes which is what is needed.

It doesn't get to cancel the stuff we don't want such as HS2 and sailing empty aircraft carriers to China so as to be able to afford stuff we do.

We can't have our own immigration policy despite the fact that many parts of Scotland are underpopulated.

We can't look at the services currently provided 'on our behalf' by high priced people in London and think 'hey maybe we could live with a few less Admirals' or 'let's put those senior jobs in Scotland so the tax gets paid in Scotland and companies that want to deal with those  decision makers need to locate in Scotland instead of London'.

We can get the access to a large market and sharing of many systems with other countries at the EU level.  The UK is redundant.

1
Removed User 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

vegetable rights and peace.

Roadrunner6 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Andy Johnson:

Well because Wales voted for this too..

NI that's a whole load of shit.. and lots of history.

If I was in Scotland I'd wait but if the UK ends up leaving I'd vote for independence.

For me 2 things scuppered the vote last time, the currency and the EU membership issue.The EU issue could be over and the currency isn't so good..

 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Is the Scandanavian system better? If so, how and why? 

No, just different. Healthcare related results are certainly better than the UK, but it's not for free as you pay per visit. 

Post edited at 05:37
 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> empty aircraft carriers to China so as to be able to afford stuff we do.

Weren't they built on the Forth? 

> We can't look at the services currently provided 'on our behalf' by high priced people in London .

Scotland only has the same population a Yorkshire. Should every region of the UK also have it's own taxpayer funded hqs of whatever, adding in another layer of beurocracy?

> We can get the access to a large market and sharing of many systems with other countries at the EU level.  

I thought you wanted independence?

2
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Is it just the case that if they don't massively Phuq it up then that is regarded as good governance?

Yep, exactly that.

Besides, SNP is not really the point, Scottish independence means that decision are taken in Holyrood, we can kick out the SNP if people don’t like it.

Post edited at 06:18
1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Weren't they built on the Forth? 

> Scotland only has the same population a Yorkshire. Should every region of the UK also have it's own taxpayer funded hqs of whatever, adding in another layer of beurocracy?

Yes.

> I thought you wanted independence?

Independence means you can decide or not to be part of international treaties. Including EU treaties.

1
 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Independence means you can decide or not to be part of international treaties. Including EU treaties.

I didn't think cherry picking different elements of eu membership was allowed. Hence the last two years? 

2
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> I didn't think cherry picking different elements of eu membership was allowed. Hence the last two years? 

Who said anything about cherry picking anything ?

3
 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Independence means you can decide or not to be part of international treaties. Including EU treaties.

Who said, you just did. 

2
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Who said, you just did. 

Hu no, not at all.  I’ve simply said that we can chose which international treaties we are part of or not. Not that we can necessarily cherry pick elements of EU treaties. Stop your nonsense will you.

Post edited at 07:10
5
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Do what you want. 

> It no longer matters.  The rich have completed the greatest transfer in wealth in a millenium to themselves. At least we can all watch bake off whilst the planet dies. 

While completely true I find I can't press 'Like' on a comment like that.

 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Hu no, not at all.  I’ve simply said that we can chose which international treaties we are part of or not. Not that we can necessarily cherry pick elements of EU treaties. Stop your nonsense will you.

So if Scotland leaves the UK and plans to remain in or join the eu, it can't decide for itself to be part of eu treaties or not. It's an all in eu membership, including the euro.

Thanks for clarifying. 

1
Northern Star 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

All the arguments for Scottish independence so far to me sound exactly like the arguments used by the Leave Campaign for Brexit.  Wonder how long before the slogan 'Make Scotland Great Again' gets trotted out?

3
 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Edit: Not that I want rid of England as such, more that if England is hell bent on self destruction, I don't want to be taken down with them

I suspect there are some in the pro independence camp who are happy to throw Scotland into an unknown future just to 'win' independence from the evil English rulers. How the future might play out is the last thing on their mind. 

4
Northern Star 17 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> I suspect there are some in the pro independence camp who are happy to throw Scotland into an unknown future just to 'win' independence from the evil English rulers. How the future might play out is the last thing on their mind. 

The SNP are in this camp I suspect.  What way to get more personal power for senior SNP figures plus jobs for their mates than to convince the people of Scotland to become independent.

I also have a sneaking doubt that the general poor performance of the SNP government, (all conveniently blamed on the Union) will continue to, ironically, boost support for the SNP and independence.  People who feel downtrodden and unhappy with their current situation are far more likely to vote for a change, whatever the change is. 

In other words - the worse the SNP do at governing Scotland (partly because a lot of their attention is diverted by talk of independence), then the more likely it is that their long suffering people will vote for that independence.  A win-win situation for them!

A deliberate ploy perhaps?

Post edited at 08:41
4
 wercat 17 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

What you need to understand is that what you say about England is not really true of the whole.

England has been taken over by Far-Ragists and Dr Goebbmings and a mass fraud has been committed.  Do not put us in the same boat as we are as shafted by these gangsters as you

Perhaps we should let Sunderland go asunder from us and sail off with the other parts that went insane

Post edited at 09:13
 rogerwebb 17 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They just need to say 'oh f*ck it' and start from scratch, new country, everybody has a blank sheet with the tax man. 


No deal Scexit? I take it you are not serious about this?

It wouldn't just be a blank sheet with the tax man, but the social security man as well. Not a good result for those on benefits or anything else government funded.

 TobyA 17 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Funny* how you don't have to specify the country involved.

Finland is very similar in size to Scotland in terms of population, the baby box idea mentioned above it a 50 year old Finnish policy that is now spreading. The Scottish Parliament was modeled on the circular chamber of the Eduskunta (Finnish Parliament) IIRC. 

Nevertheless it's perhaps not the best model for Scotland to follow because on the declaration of independence (6th December 1918), civil war broke out in which around 20,000 were killed in action or executed (predominantly but not solely by the victorious Whites). Tens of thousands more were imprisoned in camps, sometimes for many years, with again thousands more dying from disease and starvation. Most historians argue that it took 20 years and, more importantly, the invasion of the much large neighbour intent on destroying Finnish independence, to at least partly bring the country back together.

1
 Stichtplate 17 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland isn't going to be able to reform until it decouples from England.  Look at drugs policy, the SNP want to trial legal consumption rooms.  The Tories say the only legal consumption room is the House of Common's bogs.

To evidence Scotland being held back by Westminster the best you can come up with is being denied legal consumption rooms?

> Scotland can't do anything meaningful with tax policy.  It gets to put a percent on income tax but it can't restructure tax to shift the balance between income/corporation/vat/land taxes which is what is needed.

Scotland can only put a percent on income tax? They have the power to add or subtract 3% to income tax, they've had the power for 20 years and for 20 years they've never bothered to use it. 

> It doesn't get to cancel the stuff we don't want such as HS2 and sailing empty aircraft carriers to China so as to be able to afford stuff we do.

I don't want those things either, but just because I don't, I wouldn't presume that I speak for my entire country as you seem to be doing.

> We can't have our own immigration policy despite the fact that many parts of Scotland are underpopulated.

Scottish people's attitudes to immigration are virtually identical to those of the English, despite the SNP's continual efforts to paint everyone South of the border as small minded xenophobes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46457341

With current immigration policy the UK is still attracting 650,000 a year. If Scotland can't attract a proportionate share of those new arrivals perhaps they should ask themselves why.

> We can't look at the services currently provided 'on our behalf' by high priced people in London and think 'hey maybe we could live with a few less Admirals' or 'let's put those senior jobs in Scotland so the tax gets paid in Scotland and companies that want to deal with those  decision makers need to locate in Scotland instead of London'.

Overall uk public sector jobs account for 16.5% of the workforce. In Scotland that figure is 21.5%. What do you think will happen to that disproportionate distribution come independence?

https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-sector-employment-scotland-statist...

> We can get the access to a large market and sharing of many systems with other countries at the EU level.  The UK is redundant.

Yeah, the UK is redundant, after all, it only forms 60% of Scotland's export market. That 18% you export to the EU is far more significant.

4
 rogerwebb 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Besides, SNP is not really the point, Scottish independence means that decision are taken in Holyrood, we can kick out the SNP if people don’t like it.

That does sound remarkably like a Brexit argument if you replace  Scottish independence with Brexit, Holyrood with Westminster and SNP with whichever party you prefer. All about the status of countries and nothing about the impact on individuals.

Like Brexit it takes no account of practicability and the consequences for the most vulnerable sacrificing the imperfect reality of now for the promise of imaginary sunny uplands. All to be achieved by an apparently simple single constitutional step that will avoid the hard work and trudge of evolving what we have for the magic bullet of brexit/independence.

Meanwhile resources are wasted, opportunities lost and people divided.

1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

> That does sound remarkably like a Brexit argument if you replace  Scottish independence with Brexit, Holyrood with Westminster and SNP with whichever party you prefer. All about the status of countries and nothing about the impact on individuals.

> Like Brexit it takes no account of practicability and the consequences for the most vulnerable sacrificing the imperfect reality of now for the promise of imaginary sunny uplands. All to be achieved by an apparently simple single constitutional step that will avoid the hard work and trudge of evolving what we have for the magic bullet of brexit/independence.

No, it doesn’t, Brexiteers argued for a sovereignty they never lost, in the case of Scotland they indeed are not a sovereign state.

To make things clear I’m not necessarily in favour of Scottish independence, it will depend on how Brexit turns out, however I’m in favour of Scotland having the choice to leave the U.K. whenever they want - just like the U.K. always had the choice to leave the EU.

2
 Ian W 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Scottish independence is a strange one.  On one hand they say they want to be closer to Europe and remain in the EU.  On the other they want to shun by far their biggest trading partner - the rest of the UK.  They seem happy to be governed by the non-elected MEP's in Brussels yet seem not particularly happy having an elected representation in Westminster nor a high degree of autonomy in the shape of the Scottish Parliament?

Just the one small correction - MEP's are elected throughout Europe, most recently in the UK in may 2019. Were you not aware?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_Unit...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c7zzdg3pmgpt/european-elections-2019

 rogerwebb 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, it doesn’t, Brexiteers argued for a sovereignty they never lost, in the case of Scotland they indeed are not a sovereign state.

I might agree with that assessment, I don't think brexiteers would. The point is the argument is very similar. 

> To make things clear I’m not necessarily in favour of Scottish independence, it will depend on how Brexit turns out, however I’m in favour of Scotland having the choice to leave the U.K. whenever they want - just like the U.K. always had the choice to leave the EU.

To make things clear I agree with you on that.

I would like to see an unequivocal mandate for a referendum before we pour the resources in though. The current claimed one is thin unlike that of 2014. 2021 offers the opportunity to get a definitive one. If that is obtained and a S30 refused I too will not be impressed. 

 Pefa 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> But the SNP are useless.

> Ask yourself what they have actually done for Scotland over the last decade.

I am no SNP fan and have never voted for them but your reply seems a wee bit clouded if you don't know about SNP free prescriptions and the 200,000 modern apprenticeships which was 'done', by them. Here are some more-

https://theferret.scot/fact-check-snp-party-political-broadcast/

That was a touching OP. I voted for independence before but now I'm torn as I am glad we didn't get our independence as I think I was wrong on that occasion. We are better together I have no doubt about that and I would vote to stay united this time but if the SNP or an independent Scotland can get us back in the EU and being in the UK cannot then I think that may sway it for me in an up and coming independence referendum,as I want freedom of movement and I think Scotland needs it from shear necessity. 

1
 Dave Williams 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

There are many complexities surrounding this whole issue.

Wales' leave vote was apparently due to English in-migration:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wealthy-english-blow-ins-swung-welsh-bre... (paywall) 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit... (free) 

Has this led to a perceived unravelling of the status quo as far as Wales is concerned?

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit/welsh-independence-campaign-brexit...

 oldie 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

>We are better together I have no doubt about that and I would vote to stay united this time but if the SNP or an independent Scotland can get us back in the EU and being in the UK cannot then I think that may sway it for me in an up and coming independence referendum,as I want freedom of movement and I think Scotland needs it from shear necessity. <

I can't imagine that the EU would exclude Scotland. However if the UK had left (and dependent on any deal they had made) then joining would presumably require a hard border with England and would probably restrict freedom of movement with Scotland's closest and most important trading partner and involve bureaucracy, tariffs etc to the detriment of both. 

 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> With current immigration policy the UK is still attracting 650,000 a year. If Scotland can't attract a proportionate share of those new arrivals perhaps they should ask themselves why.

We know why, UK immigration policy disfavours massively Scotland. (And many other areas of the U.K. as well).

The minimum salary requirements are completely inadequate for the lower salaries you have outside London. And obviously the biggest blow is the end of free movement, as Scotland in particular Edinburgh is (was) a very popular destination for European youth.

I welcome the government’s suggestion to have a different immigration policy by region, something May was completely opposed to, the problem is that it comes within an ultra regressive framework which offsets any benefits of that.

Post edited at 12:00
1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to oldie:

> >We are better together I have no doubt about that and I would vote to stay united this time but if the SNP or an independent Scotland can get us back in the EU and being in the UK cannot then I think that may sway it for me in an up and coming independence referendum,as I want freedom of movement and I think Scotland needs it from shear necessity. <

> I can't imagine that the EU would exclude Scotland. However if the UK had left (and dependent on any deal they had made) then joining would presumably require a hard border with England and would probably restrict freedom of movement with Scotland's closest and most important trading partner and involve bureaucracy, tariffs etc to the detriment of both. 

That’s not true, non-EU immigration policy is a reserved matter for member state, it’s perfectly possible to have Scotland in the EU and the U.K. outside and still have freedom of movement within Britain. Just like the Irish will continue to have FoM with the U.K. after Brexit.

2
 Pefa 17 Oct 2019
In reply to oldie:

> I can't imagine that the EU would exclude Scotland. However if the UK had left (and dependent on any deal they had made) then joining would presumably require a hard border with England and would probably restrict freedom of movement with Scotland's closest and most important trading partner and involve bureaucracy, tariffs etc to the detriment of both. 

Don't get me wrong England is an amazing place full of amazing people but I would rather have freedom of movement in Europe than freedom of movement in England. And if it takes a wee bit longer to pass through a hard Scottish English border then that is no big deal tbh. 

3
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Don't get me wrong England is an amazing place full of amazing people but I would rather have freedom of movement in Europe than freedom of movement in England. And if it takes a wee bit longer to pass through a hard Scottish English border then that is no big deal tbh. 

Not having FoM between England and Scotland would be disastrous. As I’ve said there is no reason for this to happen unless rUK decide to block FoM between England and Scotland, but if that’s their choice that’s fine by me.

3
 Stichtplate 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We know why, UK immigration policy disfavours massively Scotland. (And many other areas of the U.K. as well).

'and many other areas of the UK as well' ? So Scotland isn't singled out for being massively disfavoured.

> The minimum salary requirements are completely inadequate for the lower salaries you have outside London. And obviously the biggest blow is the end of free movement, as Scotland in particular Edinburgh is (was) a very popular destination for European youth.

Again, that's an argument for the salary cap only suiting London, not 90% of the rest of the UK, so again, Scotland hasn't been especially disadvantaged.

> I welcome the government’s suggestion to have a different immigration policy by region, something May was completely opposed to, the problem is that it comes within an ultra regressive framework which offsets any benefits of that.

Except that we don't have the sort of residency permits and ID card systems that the rest of Europe employs to make such a system workable. There would be absolutely nothing preventing people from applying to one region and then immediately moving wherever they felt like.

1
Northern Star 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not having FoM between England and Scotland would be disastrous. As I’ve said there is no reason for this to happen unless rUK decide to block FoM between England and Scotland, but if that’s their choice that’s fine by me.

But if Scotland decided to implement a different immigration policy to the rest of the UK (as one independence supporter says would be desirable), then by default there would have to be restrictions on freedom of movement in place between the UK and Scotland.

1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> But if Scotland decided to implement a different immigration policy to the rest of the UK (as one independence supporter says would be desirable), then by default there would have to be restrictions on freedom of movement in place between the UK and Scotland.


Why ? Ireland has a different immigration system to the U.K. and you still have FoM between U.K. and Ireland.

1
Northern Star 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why ? Ireland has a different immigration system to the U.K. and you still have FoM between U.K. and Ireland.

Isn't that because Ireland and UK are both in the EU - plus that the special Common Travel Area applies?  It would all be up for negotiation I guess with no guarantees.

 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> 'and many other areas of the UK as well' ? So Scotland isn't singled out for being massively disfavoured.

> Again, that's an argument for the salary cap only suiting London, not 90% of the rest of the UK, so again, Scotland hasn't been especially disadvantaged.

I completely agree that Scotland isn’t the only disadvantaged region. It doesn’t change anything to the point.

> Except that we don't have the sort of residency permits and ID card systems that the rest of Europe employs to make such a system workable.

True but these days you need to prove your immigration status for anything, to rent a flat, to have a bank account, to register with a GP, to work etc etc. It’s not beyond the wit of man to simply add regional I formation to that status.

I agree it’s a problem that we don’t have mandatory ID as these checks are sometimes done on the basis of racial profiling as a result, but that’s a different issue. To be fair having an ID has become virtually mandatory in the U.K. anyway as you pretty much can’t do anything without these days, so they might as well make it official.

> There would be absolutely nothing preventing people from applying to one region and then immediately moving wherever they felt like.

It would be up to those regions with tighter immigration restrictions than others to work out  how they enforce their own immigration system and pay for it with their own money.

I don’t see why, for example, people in Scotland should pay the price for tighter immigration elsewhere. If you want tighter immigration that is absolutely fine as long as you don’t impose the cost of it on others.


 

Post edited at 14:32
1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Isn't that because Ireland and UK are both in the EU - plus that the special Common Travel Area applies?  It would all be up for negotiation I guess with no guarantees.

You can just extend the CTA to Scotland. I agree it creates a problem in terms of monitoring the border, but that’s exactly the same problem between NI and rUK, nothing really prevents someone from, say, Nigeria, with a visa for RoI, to enter NI.

Post edited at 14:21
1
 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Isn't that because Ireland and UK are both in the EU - plus that the special Common Travel Area applies?  It would all be up for negotiation I guess with no guarantees.


i agree there would be no guarantee that England accepts FoM with Scotland. Judging by the fact that virtually no one seems to question the FoM with Ireland in England I would expect they would agree for the same with Scotland. But if that is their choice to not have it they should be able to have what they want, even if I strongly disagree with it.

Post edited at 14:30
1
 oldie 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That’s not true, non-EU immigration policy is a reserved matter for member state, it’s perfectly possible to have Scotland in the EU and the U.K. outside and still have freedom of movement within Britain. Just like the Irish will continue to have FoM with the U.K. after Brexit. <

Thanks. I hadn't realized that. I had wrongly thought there would have to be a Schengen border for a new EU member that would make non-EU people require documentation to cross. Presumably a non-EU person can get into an EU country and is then easily able to get from there to other EU countries even though those countries might require different documentation to cross their own Schengen border initially? However I presume any tariffs or checks imposed on the UK by the EU would have to be implemented at the border (possibly modified  in some manner similar to Northern Ireland but complicated by the absence of an intervening sea).

 RomTheBear 17 Oct 2019
In reply to oldie:

> Thanks. I hadn't realized that. I had wrongly thought there would have to be a Schengen border for a new EU member that would make non-EU people require documentation to cross. Presumably a non-EU person can get into an EU country and is then easily able to get from there to other EU countries even though those countries might require different documentation to cross their own Schengen border initially? However I presume any tariffs or checks imposed on the UK by the EU would have to be implemented at the border (possibly modified  in some manner similar to Northern Ireland but complicated by the absence of an intervening sea).

Absolutely, if Scotland made the unlikely decision to join Schengen then there has to be a hard border with border controls for persons crossing between Scotland and England. However FoM can continue in any case. 

1
 jkarran 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Dax H:

> Personally I think that if Scotland is going to have a second referendum then England should also have a referendum on giving Scotland back to the Scottish people. 

Great idea then we can do best of three to decide it but with artillery.

jk

1
 TobyA 17 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That’s not true, non-EU immigration policy is a reserved matter for member state, it’s perfectly possible to have Scotland in the EU and the U.K. outside and still have freedom of movement within Britain. Just like the Irish will continue to have FoM with the U.K. after Brexit.

Although already Ireland had to accept the compromise of not being in Schengen in order to maintain FoM with the UK. It might mean that an independent and in EU Scotland would have to accept a similar compromise.

Removed User 17 Oct 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Finland is very similar in size to Scotland in terms of population, the baby box idea mentioned above it a 50 year old Finnish policy that is now spreading. The Scottish Parliament was modeled on the circular chamber of the Eduskunta (Finnish Parliament) IIRC. 

Childcare professionals were absolutely livid about this scheme. It was steam rollered through despite their objections that there is no evidence that baby boxes improve the life outcomes of those children who receive them. Further it costs £7 million a year which comes out of a total budget for improving children's outcomes of £23 million.

Mind you it's be popular with the voters (see above).

Post edited at 21:35
Removed User 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> I am no SNP fan and have never voted for them but your reply seems a wee bit clouded if you don't know about SNP free prescriptions and the 200,000 modern apprenticeships which was 'done', by them. Here are some more-

> That was a touching OP. I voted for independence before but now I'm torn as I am glad we didn't get our independence as I think I was wrong on that occasion. We are better together I have no doubt about that and I would vote to stay united this time but if the SNP or an independent Scotland can get us back in the EU and being in the UK cannot then I think that may sway it for me in an up and coming independence referendum,as I want freedom of movement and I think Scotland needs it from shear necessity. 

Yes I know about the free prescriptions. Isn't it the case though that the old, children and the unemployed wouldn't/didn't pay for them anyway and as such is a way of subsidising the middle class when the money could be funding other bits of public services?

Are you aware that fewer people from underprivileged backgrounds get into university now than ten years ago? It's worth asking yourself as someone with a left viewpoint what the SNP have ever done to redistribute wealth. Not much I'd say.

Yes, all the above is about the SNP and not independence but I'd say that yes, Brexit is horrible (if we can't stop it) but Scexit would be worse than a No Deal Brexit and those hurt most by it would be the poor, the young, the old and the unemployed. Why would I vote to hurt those people when I've spent my life voting for the exact opposite?

Finally, I have to leave you with this story which is ironic to say the least.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17972264.snp-spent-shetland-byelection-...

Post edited at 21:34
 summo 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Scottish unis; they don't have unlimited free places for locals, there is a cap. No bad thing as at least it pushes up standards. But there aren't any limits on fee paying folk from England and further afield. This is the money that keeps the system afloat. It's nothing to do with fantastic fiscal management by the snp. Just the unis ability to sell degree courses to folk beyond the UK. 

Many unis, not just Scottish ones have established centres in China, it's all revenue streams. 

 colinakmc 17 Oct 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Don’t have figures, but the thing about prescription charges is that a means testing system costs  real money to administer. If enough people are eligible for free scripts it’s almost as cheap to make ‘em all free, with (probably unquantifiable) benefits to health for low to mid earners.

Post edited at 22:10
1
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I would like to see an unequivocal mandate for a referendum before we pour the resources in though. The current claimed one is thin unlike that of 2014. 2021 offers the opportunity to get a definitive one. If that is obtained and a S30 refused I too will not be impressed. 

Well Nicola Sturgeon says we are having indyref2 next year and it is her decision.  There's a perfectly good mandate - it was in the SNP manifesto, the SNP was elected and the Holyrood parliament voted for it.    The last thing we need is to dick around for years allowing Brexit and the inevitable Tory trade deal with the US to bed in and give them time to start 'reforming' the devolution settlement.  

1
 RomTheBear 18 Oct 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Although already Ireland had to accept the compromise of not being in Schengen in order to maintain FoM with the UK. It might mean that an independent and in EU Scotland would have to accept a similar compromise.

Schengen doesn’t make much sense for islands anyway. Not sure it’s really a “compromise” as such.

1
 rogerwebb 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Well Nicola Sturgeon says we are having indyref2 next year and it is her decision.  There's a perfectly good mandate - it was in the SNP manifesto, the SNP was elected and the Holyrood parliament voted for it.    The last thing we need is to dick around for years allowing Brexit and the inevitable Tory trade deal with the US to bed in and give them time to start 'reforming' the devolution settlement.  

Is it a perfectly good mandate?

SNP may have had it in their manifesto, albeit qualified by commentary wanting support running consistently at 60%, but they are a minority. The Greens stated that a petition with a million (?) signatures would ensure their support for a referendum.

Neither of these conditions have been met. The fact that that these questions can legitimately be raised indicate that the mandate is questionable. 

That doubt would poison further the whole affair. An unequivocal commitment to a referendum in the 2021 election would, if the SNP were successful, lead to an unimpeachable case.

That case would result in support for the holding of a referendum across the political spectrum in Scotland. That support would make the result, whatever it was, far more likely to be accepted. 

Rushing in at full tilt will unnecessarily further divide a divided country. Would you really want an independent Scotland to start with such bitter division? 

Northern Star 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Well Nicola Sturgeon says we are having indyref2 next year and it is her decision.  There's a perfectly good mandate - it was in the SNP manifesto, the SNP was elected and the Holyrood parliament voted for it.    The last thing we need is to dick around for years allowing Brexit and the inevitable Tory trade deal with the US to bed in and give them time to start 'reforming' the devolution settlement.  

I am sorry but the SNP's share of the Scottish vote at the last General Election in 2017 was just 36.9% (that equates to just 24.5% of those eligible to vote if you take the turnout into account).  The other pro-union parties took the remaining lions share of 63.1% of the vote, gaining massively (up 13%) on the SNP since 2015. 

The massively flawed first past the post system is the only reason that the SNP still have a majority of seats in the Scottish parliament - it has very little to do with any sort of overwhelming support.

Regardless of what was in their manifesto, approval from just 24.5% of the eligible Scottish voters does not feel very much like a mandate to me.  Very shaky ground more like.

I'm not saying that there should never be another Scottish referendum.  If a big proportion of Scots still feel strongly about Independence it in a few years time then sure, have another one.  But wait until the dust has settled on the last one first.

Indeed to help cut down on the political gaming, perhaps regular planned/scheduled referendums could be set up on the matter.  That said I don't think they should be any more frequent than every 15-20 years though because of the disruption, uncertainty, hard feelings and divisions that these sort of things inevitably tend to cause. 

Plus as we can see from the Brexit referendum, the public are fickle and can be susceptible to a high degree of media manipulation.  Hence the bar on any future referendum should be set high to make sure that any results are beyond doubt and to avoid all the 48/52 sh*t we've had to put up with over the last 3 years.  I would suggest a minimum 60% level of support required for any referendum result to be upheld as decisive.

Post edited at 08:47
1
 TobyA 18 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Schengen doesn’t make much sense for islands anyway. Not sure it’s really a “compromise” as such.

I would disagree with that. Finland is a virtual island in the EU. Get on a plane to Brussels or Paris in Helsinki, and all you need is to be security checked. Flying to London you have to go through passport control and into a separate terminal which is mainly used for flights to Asia and North America. It's not the end of the world but it is an additional pain and makes going through the airport anything from 10 to 45 minutes slower depending on how busy things are. 

 Stichtplate 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Well Nicola Sturgeon says we are having indyref2 next year and it is her decision.  There's a perfectly good mandate - it was in the SNP manifesto, the SNP was elected and the Holyrood parliament voted for it.    The last thing we need is to dick around for years allowing Brexit and the inevitable Tory trade deal with the US to bed in and give them time to start 'reforming' the devolution settlement.  

I'd agree with you. But it might be a good idea, before you dive in headfirst, to give your post-indy fiscal arrangements a bit of a trial run (I did this myself before deciding to take redundancy and retrain). So first you might want to cut public spending by £2000 a head, after all Scotland spends £11,000 a head against England's £9000, even though Scotlands per head tax take is £300 lower (I mean, you can't really expect English tax money to keep flowing into Scotland's coffers).

So that's roughly a 20% cut, but you'll need to get your budget deficit down from the current 7% to below 3% if you want to join the EU. Then, as post Brexit Britain is about to discover, there'll be considerable expenses in setting up independent national institutions that you'll want to set money aside for. In Scotland's case that'll include small stuff like your own tax collection body, armed forces, intelligence and diplomatic services etc, etc. Oh...and when you rejoin the EU there'll be the small matter of setting up a hard border.

Course, its not all doom and gloom, you'll get that oil and gas revenue back, all £1.1 billion of it.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/oil-and-gas-rev...

...but set against Scotland's 2019/2020 budget of £42.5 billion that's only 2.5%, coincidently, the same amount you spend on mental health.

https://news.gov.scot/news/scottish-budget-2019-20

How about it then? say a 6 month trial run with a conservative 25% cut to Scotland's public services, just to experience how much better independence is going to feel.

 elsewhere 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

Scottish parliament is not first past the post. SNP is a minority. They form a government by coalition with the greens.

Post edited at 09:21
 oldie 18 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Absolutely, if Scotland made the unlikely decision to join Schengen then there has to be a hard border with border controls for persons crossing between Scotland and England. However FoM can continue in any case. 

Wikipedia says: "all EU member states without an opt-out which have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. " "New EU member states do not sign the Schengen Agreement as such, instead being bound to implement the Schengen rules as part of the pre-existing body of EU law, which every new entrant is required to accept.[citation needed]." Incidentally all new Members must apparently agree to join the eurozone in principle once their economy is in a suitable state.

IF that is correct Scotland would probably have to have a Schengen border with England though restrictions might be eased by a treaty between the remainder of the UK and the EU.

cb294 18 Oct 2019
In reply to oldie:

Unlikely. Much more likely Scotland would get a Schengen opt out and remain in a CTA with UK/Ireland.  What would be the point of having a Schengen border across an island? We can be pragmatic, you know... Euro, though, most probably after some time.

CB

1
 DerwentDiluted 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

>  I think Scotland needs it from shear necessity. 

Too many woolly sheep?

 oldie 18 Oct 2019
In reply to cb294:

Hope you're right. It does say "being bound to implement the Schengen rules as part of the pre-existing body of EU law, which every new entrant is required to accept.[citation needed]". Incidentally even with the extra factor of the Good Friday Agreement. having a border across an island has been a major sticking point in the negotiations leading to the current agreed EU/UK deal. If there is still eventually no deal presumably there will be a hard border across Ireland, at least initially.

 alastairmac 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

In Scotland we've already left......we've just got to sort out the paperwork now. 

2
 alastairmac 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

The figures you quote reflect the current position and not how an independent Scottish economy would fare. As you say the numbers don't look great.They underline the way in which Scotland is being burdened with a share of debt for projects, policies and infrastructure from which it doesn't benefit or want. And at the same time not benefitting from revenues, assets and resources that currently divert directly to Westminster. Those figures illustrate exactly why independence is the only sensible option for a growing majority of Scottish voters. Put simply Scotland has been asset stripped by Westminster for the last fifty years and treated like a colony. Incidentally, the most recent independent assessment suggest that an independent Scotland would be number 15 in the rankings of the worlds wealthiest nations. We don't buy the "too small and poor" lie any longer.

6
 Stichtplate 18 Oct 2019
In reply to alastairmac:

Can you imagine a situation where the U.K. was having its public spending propped up by a 20% annual cash injection from the EU and Farage came out with: “These figures simply reflect the current position and not at all how an independent Britain would fare”.

Even the most swivel eyed Brexit loon would have a hard time swallowing that.

Edit: I’ve provided links to evidence the figures I’ve quoted, any chance of links showing all the cash and assets Westminster is currently diverting away from Scotland? I don’t want to seem distrustful but we’ve had quite a lot of recent experience of nationalists seeking to undermine beneficial unions with the aid of dodgy facts and figures.

Post edited at 12:33
1
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I'd agree with you. But it might be a good idea, before you dive in headfirst, to give your post-indy fiscal arrangements a bit of a trial run (I did this myself before deciding to take redundancy and retrain). So first you might want to cut public spending by £2000 a head, after all Scotland spends £11,000 a head against England's £9000, even though Scotlands per head tax take is £300 lower (I mean, you can't really expect English tax money to keep flowing into Scotland's coffers).

The premise of GERS is like telling a guy who has £15 to spend on entertainment and decides to spend £8 on Netflix that he was being subsidised by £5 because some other c*nt has decided to buy the BBC for £12 a  month 'on his behalf' so his total spending on entertainment is £8 + £12 = £20.

Scotland is only 'subsidised' by England because we aren't allowed to cancel all the sh*t that England makes us pay for, that we don't need.   In fact, Scotland is subsidising England just like the guy who wants to buy Netflix is subsidising the BBC because even with the £5 'subsidy' he's still paying £7 pound a month for sh*t he doesn't want.  Once he is able to cancel the BBC he will be £7 under budget.

7
 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland is only 'subsidised' by England because we aren't allowed to cancel all the sh*t that England makes us pay for, that we don't need.   In fact, Scotland is subsidising England just like the guy who wants to buy Netflix is subsidising the BBC because even with the £5 'subsidy' he's still paying £7 pound a month for sh*t he doesn't want.  Once he is able to cancel the BBC he will be £7 under budget.

Foe me to vote for indepedendence I think I would want an absolute guarantee that I would not lose access to the BBC!

 girlymonkey 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

My parents watched the BBC when living in Germany

 RomTheBear 18 Oct 2019
In reply to oldie:

> Wikipedia says: "all EU member states without an opt-out which have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. " "New EU member states do not sign the Schengen Agreement as such, instead being bound to implement the Schengen rules as part of the pre-existing body of EU law, which every new entrant is required to accept.[citation needed]." Incidentally all new Members must apparently agree to join the eurozone in principle once their economy is in a suitable state.

> IF that is correct Scotland would probably have to have a Schengen border with England though restrictions might be eased by a treaty between the remainder of the UK and the EU.

Yes in principle, in practice Cyprus isn’t in Schengen, Ireland isn’t etc etc.

1
 RomTheBear 18 Oct 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> I would disagree with that. Finland is a virtual island in the EU. Get on a plane to Brussels or Paris in Helsinki, and all you need is to be security checked. Flying to London you have to go through passport control and into a separate terminal which is mainly used for flights to Asia and North America. It's not the end of the world but it is an additional pain and makes going through the airport anything from 10 to 45 minutes slower depending on how busy things are

Agree but Scotland isn’t in Schengen already I don’t see why we would join it and inflict ourselves the pain of border control with England where flows are much higher. Of course if England wanted a hard border anyway then might as well have Schengen.

Post edited at 14:23
1
 Barrington 18 Oct 2019
In reply to wercat:

> I do not think Scotland should get independence at all.

> I suggest we divide England up between Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

On the basis of historical precident; shouldn't Wessex have a say in all this?

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Foe me to vote for indepedendence I think I would want an absolute guarantee that I would not lose access to the BBC!

The Tories are talking about turning it into a Netflix style subscription service anyway.  Medium term all this content will be delivered over the internet and the spectrum broadcasters are using will get reassigned because old-school broadcasting is completely inefficient and a waste of some of the most useful parts of the RF spectrum.

1
 Stichtplate 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The premise of GERS is like telling a guy who has £15 to spend on entertainment and decides to spend £8 on Netflix that he was being subsidised by £5 because some other c*nt has decided to buy the BBC for £12 a  month 'on his behalf' so his total spending on entertainment is £8 + £12 = £20.

Yet again, no links, no actual figures and no hard facts. All you've got is a crap analogy and a whole load of unsubstantiated bias.

Back in the land of reality...

Scotland - which accounts for about a tenth of Britain’s population and economic output - is now responsible for more than half of the United Kingdom’s total government borrowing in cash terms.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-scotland/scottish-budget-...

1
 wercat 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Barrington:

Wessex, too much connection with the rise of Aengland

 wercat 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Barrington:

Northumbria perhaps

In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yet again, no links, no actual figures and no hard facts. All you've got is a crap analogy and a whole load of unsubstantiated bias.

> Back in the land of reality...

Did you know that this isn't the first time this 'you are broke, we subsidise you, you can't possibly survive as an independent country' has been used.    They used it with the American colonies!  That's how old and tired this argument is. 

It's the way it is accounted.  For example 88 f*cking billion for HS2 and a proportional share is accounted as 'on Scotland's behalf' despite the fact the f*cking thing will stop at Birmingham and infrastructure which improves London's transport and encourages more business to move their is actively against Scotland's interest.    10% of £88 billion is 8.8 billion.  The bridge across the Forth only cost about £600 million.  If HS2 goes ahead we're going to be spending more money on transport infrastructure for England than we spend on transport infrastructure for Scotland.  It is b*llocks.

Then you have the London pays far more tax and 'subsidises' everyone else.  Well, if all the high paid civil servants were in Edinburgh and all the private sector companies that need to engage with them had to locate in Edinburgh a hell of a lot more tax would get collected in Scotland.  London gets subsidised by locating far too much stuff there. 

To be fair, GERS explicitly states it is not a measure of how things would be after independence which doesn't stop unionists using it as the 'real' numbers.

> Scotland - which accounts for about a tenth of Britain’s population and economic output - is now responsible for more than half of the United Kingdom’s total government borrowing in cash terms.

If that was true do you really think the Tories would be allow it to continue?  They'd be taking powers back from the Scottish Parliament to stop it.

2
 Timmd 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

https://www.cityam.com/barnett-formula-heres-what-you-need-know/

What about the Barnett Formula?  

I'm generally pro independence for any people who seek it, from a self determination point of view, but it needs to be considered when doing the maths for independence.

Lord Barnett said: ''It is unfair and should be stopped, it is a mistake. This way is terrible and can never be sustainable, it is a national embarrassment and personally embarrassing to me as well. If we want to give them some money after devo-max OK, but do it honestly and openly. Not by doing so under the table like this."

In public spending, England gets £8.788 per head of population, and Scotland gets £10.152, currently.

Post edited at 20:15
Lusk 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That post is full of 'un-truths'.

One example: Queensferry crossing, £600 million.  I think you meant to say £1.35 Billion.

Typo I guess, eh?

Looks the herd of unicorns have galloped up North over the border!

1
 Ian W 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Dont forget Crossrail. High teens of billions, and it doesnt even get out of london, never mind north of birmingham.

 Naechi 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Timmd:

It's a complicated thing  - https://www.thenational.scot/news/17837412.barnett-formula-knew-dead-means-... - a bit more up to date and kind of explains (to me anyway) in a way I kind of understand...

Post edited at 21:13
 Stichtplate 18 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Did you know that this isn't the first time this 'you are broke, we subsidise you, you can't possibly survive as an independent country' has been used.    They used it with the American colonies!  That's how old and tired this argument is. 

"You are broke, we subsidise you, you can't possibly survive as an independent country"...who said that then? who to? Any links? I've never heard this argument about the American war of independence. I've heard the opposite, that Britain was in dire financial straits and needed to tax the colonies to balance the books after the 7 years war. As to thinking the colonies couldn't possibly go it alone, again the opposite thinking prevailed, that former French colonialists owed no allegiance to Britain and a show of force would bring them to heel.

Here's a link.https://www.thoughtco.com/why-britain-attempted-tax-american-colonists-1222...

> It's the way it is accounted.  For example 88 f*cking billion for HS2 and a proportional share is accounted as 'on Scotland's behalf' despite the fact the f*cking thing will stop at Birmingham and infrastructure which improves London's transport and encourages more business to move their is actively against Scotland's interest.    10% of £88 billion is 8.8 billion.  The bridge across the Forth only cost about £600 million.  If HS2 goes ahead we're going to be spending more money on transport infrastructure for England than we spend on transport infrastructure for Scotland.  It is b*llocks.

Actually 88% of public spending is directly linked to the region of expenditure. Only 12% is labelled as for the benefit of the UK as a whole. Scotland spend per head= £10,881.  England spend per head= £9,080. Do the maths, Scotland's spend for 2017/2018 was 19.8% above England's so even if that 12% spend labelled 'for the good of the UK' had sneakily been entirely snaffled by the underhand English, the Scots would still be ahead by 8%

Here's a link.https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04033

> Then you have the London pays far more tax and 'subsidises' everyone else.  Well, if all the high paid civil servants were in Edinburgh and all the private sector companies that need to engage with them had to locate in Edinburgh a hell of a lot more tax would get collected in Scotland.  London gets subsidised by locating far too much stuff there. 

Yeah, London's one city mate and the entirety of the UK is suffering from the same effect. Not quite sure why you should feel especially aggrieved by this just cos you live North of an imaginary line drawn up by some posh blokes in pointy hats hundreds of years ago. Hard to get facts on civil servant pay by region but here's some facts for you: public sector employees= 16.5% of UK workers, but in Scotland the public sector makes up 21.5% of the workforce.

Here's a link. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorp... 

And another. https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-sector-employment-scotland-statist...

> To be fair, GERS explicitly states it is not a measure of how things would be after independence which doesn't stop unionists using it as the 'real' numbers.

Well I'm using this stuff as 'real' numbers because they come from 'real' sources, like the Scottish government. Backed up with 'real' links to 'real' sites. As opposed to wildly inaccurate figures seemingly plucked from thin air.

> If that was true do you really think the Tories would be allow it to continue?  They'd be taking powers back from the Scottish Parliament to stop it.

You might have noticed, but when I'm trying to weigh up if something is true or not I tend to prefer verifiable facts rather than sweary and highly partisan rants from internet randomers.

1
In reply to Stichtplate:

Impressive stuff. Trouble is facts get trumped by feelings, a sense of something. We've all seen that with Brexit. 

So your facts aren't convincing anybody but yourself. Hard to believe isn't it.

I suggest you read Tolstoy. War and Peace is quite good on it. 

1
 Stichtplate 18 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Impressive stuff. Trouble is facts get trumped by feelings, a sense of something. We've all seen that with Brexit. 

On matters of nationalism, when facts get trumped by feelings it never ends well...and Brexit represents the milder end of how catastrophic that can turn out.

> So your facts aren't convincing anybody but yourself. Hard to believe isn't it.

Hard to believe what? That I'm the only one that believes in the Union? Yes, I find that very hard to believe. When it came to the ballot 5 years ago even the majority of Scots declared themselves to be unionists.

Edit: Just while we're on the subject of 'facts and feelings', here's a couple of things to consider. Post Brexit, much has been made of small minded little-Englander nationalism stoked by xenophobia, yet England remains the only home nation without a nationalist party, unsurprisingly as the average English person would run a mile from such an organisation. Outside of football tournaments, even the George flag is considered distinctly infra dig by the vast majority. Even your own handle "Heart in the highlands", can you see an English UKCer feeling comfortable broadcasting his nationalistic fervour like that?

Not that I see anything wrong in having feelings of affection or even love for your home nation, quite the opposite. However, when nationalism is not founded on a sense of love or belonging, but rather on feelings of grievance and injustice directed at other nations, despite all facts to the contrary, in such cases nationalism becomes pure poison of use only to career politicians wedded solely to the pursuit of power.

Post edited at 00:07
2
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Rushing in at full tilt will unnecessarily further divide a divided country. Would you really want an independent Scotland to start with such bitter division? 

I think things are getting desperate and the only sensible course of action is to rush in and get Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU before things go too far. 

This is only the first step of the Tory right's project and one of their targets is going to be the devolution settlement.  They see Scotland as just another English county  -  some Tory minister said today when asked why Scotland couldn't get a special deal like Northern Ireland 'Kent didn't get a special deal'.   They are 'England First' just like Trump with 'America First'.

4
In reply to Stichtplate:

>  When it came to the ballot 5 years ago even the majority of Scots declared themselves to be unionists.

No they didn't.   There is a substantial difference between voting NO in the indy referendum and declaring yourself a unionist.  Unionist has specific meanings and connotations in Scotland as it does in Ireland.

2
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You might have noticed, but when I'm trying to weigh up if something is true or not I tend to prefer verifiable facts rather than sweary and highly partisan rants from internet randomers.

Your 'facts' are from the UK government and they've got an agenda.   Tens of countries have left the British Empire and all of them were told by Westminster about the benefits of union and how they'd never survive economically without London running things.  Not one has ever asked to come back.

4
Lusk 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Got an answer about Queensferry yet? No, didn't think so.

I'll leave you with this thought, if Scotland decides to leave the UK under a Tory government that has got us out of the EU with a £33 Billion payoff, where do you think the first cuts will be occurring?

You're going to get screwed over BIG time!

 Ecce Homer 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That’s rich coming from a Scot. The Scots were often the most brazen and violent exploiters of imperialism.

A recent poll in Jamaica revealed that the majority thought they were better off under British rule.

Britain lost its empire due to the catastrophic financial burdens of 2 World Wars in 25 years. We got royally shafted after WWII. Yet still, we have a Commonwealth, none of whom want to leave it. Can Russia say the same? Or Turkey? Or Mongolia? Or Rome?

1
Northern Star 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's the way it is accounted.  For example 88 f*cking billion for HS2 and a proportional share is accounted as 'on Scotland's behalf' despite the fact the f*cking thing will stop at Birmingham and infrastructure which improves London's transport and encourages more business to move their is actively against Scotland's interest.    10% of £88 billion is 8.8 billion.  The bridge across the Forth only cost about £600 million.  If HS2 goes ahead we're going to be spending more money on transport infrastructure for England than we spend on transport infrastructure for Scotland.  It is b*llocks.

The new Forth crossing cost 1.35 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensferry_Crossing

Again regarding HS2, the UK is actually compensating Scotland as part of the Barnett formula.  Many apologies for the Daily Fail link.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346954/Scots-extra-5bn-HS2-Englis...

> If that was true do you really think the Tories would be allow it to continue?  They'd be taking powers back from the Scottish Parliament to stop it.

Here you go again:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/21/scotland-2018-deficit-highe...

If you are going to quote statistics to validate your independence argument then at least give them a quick fact check first.

Post edited at 03:41
Northern Star 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Dont forget Crossrail. High teens of billions, and it doesnt even get out of london, never mind north of birmingham.

Hmmm, Crossrail is costing 17.6 billion and will deliver 200 million annual passenger journeys.  That works out at £88 per passenger journey (assuming all construction costs are spread across the first year of operation only).

The Edinburgh Tram (including interest payments but not including the extensions currently planned or in progress) has cost approx 1 billion pounds and is delivering 7.3 million annual passenger journeys.  That works out at £137 per passenger journey (assuming all construction costs are spread across the first year of operation only).

Conclusion is that commuters using the Edinburgh tram have had 43.5% more spent on them per passenger journey than the equivalent London commuters using Crossrail.  Does that still sound unfair to you?

I also have to ask - does Edinburgh currently need or want it's own Crossrail project?

Post edited at 04:22
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Lusk:

It's not a payoff ffs, it's fulfilling obligations that we freely undertook; good stuff, you know, like paying Farage's pension.

I don't know if your incorrect use of English is a cause or symptom of your views, but it certainly provides a window into a weird  view of the world.

2
 TobyA 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Your 'facts' are from the UK government and they've got an agenda. 

Tom, I'm moderately sympathetic to your position and think that Stichtplate can come over as hectoring and, like some others who seem to have a lot of time to dedicate to UKC arguments, tends to bludgeon people slightly with his links, knowing that many don't have opportunities to really delve into them, and investigate if there are other ways of interpreting them beyond his. But, having said that, your response above is a bit pitiful, in basically saying that it's all a big conspiracy to do your side down. We all know that politicians select facts to make their point but ignore others. But we also know that a lot of research and data compilation done by the civil service, for the UK government (the CS is far from all being in London) and for the Scottish government, is often the gold standard in basic data.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Even your own handle "Heart in the highlands", can you see an English UKCer feeling comfortable broadcasting his nationalistic fervour like that?

Steady on Stichtplate with your righteous fervour. "Heart in the Highlands" also comes from the song by that well known Scottish nationalist, Bob Dylan. 'My heart is in the highlands, where the wild Aberdeen waters flow". 

1
 Doug 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Bob Dylan, sometime resident of Nethybridge in the Highlands

 Stichtplate 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Your 'facts' are from the UK government and they've got an agenda.   Tens of countries have left the British Empire and all of them were told by Westminster about the benefits of union and how they'd never survive economically without London running things.  Not one has ever asked to come back.

If you'd bothered clicking on the links you'd see that some of them are official Scottish government sites. And this myth that Scotland was ever the colonial possession of Empire? Pure, self serving bollocks...

Scots were complicit in empire, and it is insulting to the real victims of empire to assume otherwise. What else are we to make of the golf course built for Scots traders at their slave trading post on Bance Island at the mouth of the Sierra Leone River in the 18th century? Who was doing the exploitation here? Or the Scots planters in the West Indies – one, alas, named Kidd – who dressed their slaves in tartan? Or, indeed, of the fact that the Jamaican mother of Diane Abbott MP was a McClymont by birth?

After all, one of the main causes of the Union of 1707 was, ironically, the failure of Scotland’s attempt to establish its own colony at Darien in Panama in the late 1690s. The Darien disaster was a massive drain on Scottish capital, and accusations that English trading and foreign policy interests had conspired to thwart the venture stirred up Anglophobia in Scotland. However, the point is that Scottish criticism of English imperialism was focused on the larger power’s unwillingness to let the junior kingdom achieve its own colonial ambitions. As a result many early 18th-century Scots came to the conclusion, however reluctantly, that the only route to a Scottish colonial empire was within a formal Anglo-Scottish union.

Thats from an article written by two Scots and published in 'The Scotsman". Is that source Scottish enough for you, or are these the 'wrong sort' of Scots?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/scottish-independence-essay-say-no-to...

Post edited at 09:22
 Stichtplate 19 Oct 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Tom, I'm moderately sympathetic to your position and think that Stichtplate can come over as hectoring and, like some others who seem to have a lot of time to dedicate to UKC arguments, tends to bludgeon people slightly with his links, knowing that many don't have opportunities to really delve into them, and investigate if there are other ways of interpreting them beyond his.

I apologise if it comes across as hectoring, it's honestly a product of exasperation more than anything else. As to the links, the majority are there to clarify actual figures, they take seconds to find and seconds to open and see if the do indeed verify the position taken. I can't think of many recent political decisions that suffered due to an excessive examination of the facts.

Back to work in two weeks, so I expect the bludgeoning will drop off significantly.

 girlymonkey 19 Oct 2019

We can make all the economic arguements we want, but post Brexit UK will be a disaster for all parts of the UK, except the ERG.

Scotland has the option to stay with the disaster and have punitive American trade deals forced on us, lose our protections on workers rights, environmental standards and many other "red tape" which is inconvenient to Westminster. We already have different immigration needs, and we will need even more in the near future as our working age population continues to drop (Scottish birth rate is 1.5 per woman as opposed to 1.8 in England). 

The economy is screwed anyway, wherever you are.

​​

2
 off-duty 19 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> We can make all the economic arguements we want, but post Brexit UK will be a disaster for all parts of the UK, except the ERG.

> Scotland has the option to stay with the disaster and have punitive American trade deals forced on us, lose our protections on workers rights, environmental standards and many other "red tape" which is inconvenient to Westminster. We already have different immigration needs, and we will need even more in the near future as our working age population continues to drop (Scottish birth rate is 1.5 per woman as opposed to 1.8 in England). 

> The economy is screwed anyway, wherever you are.

> ​​

Whilst you state "Scotland has the option to stay with the disaster ..." (and I'm not going to dispute that!) you aren't being clear about exactly how breaking off in to a smaller, non-EU, country will actually improve things. Leaving aside the costs, divisiveness and chaos that a split of Scotland from the UK would inflict on everyone.

Isn't Brexit teaching anyone anything?

 rogerwebb 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think things are getting desperate and the only sensible course of action is to rush in and get Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU before things go too far. 

That is a point of view. Others may not share that opinion. They may, like me, think that brexit is a really bad idea but not see desperation. 

For independence to succeed it must have losers' consent as it is unlikely to be an overwhelming majority. Too much haste and you won't have that. 

> This is only the first step of the Tory right's project and one of their targets is going to be the devolution settlement.  They see Scotland as just another English county  -  some Tory minister said today when asked why Scotland couldn't get a special deal like Northern Ireland 'Kent didn't get a special deal'.   They are 'England First' just like Trump with 'America First'.

Again that is a point of view many don't share. There are foolish people on all sides of both the brexit and independence debates. 

 rogerwebb 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> >  When it came to the ballot 5 years ago even the majority of Scots declared themselves to be unionists.

> No they didn't.   There is a substantial difference between voting NO in the indy referendum and declaring yourself a unionist.  Unionist has specific meanings and connotations in Scotland as it does in Ireland.

Yes 

 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

It ditches the crappy system that needed a court case to show you can't close parliament for PM's convenience. WTF! Never thought such banana republic shenanigans would happen here. Lady Hale etc may have saved the union there.

Westminster undermined by dangerous  willingness to gamble with GFA over the last few years.

UK has lost reputation for pragmatism and stability.

Ditches FPTP, one of the causes of disunited nature of the UK - leave/remain, north/south and lab/tory.

More widely held view is chance of being an EU member that better suits the more European and forward looking outlook of Scotland.

My previously preferred option of remain in both UK and EU no longer appears to be available.

Post edited at 13:28
 off-duty 19 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> It ditches the crappy system that needed a court case to show you can't close parliament for PM's convenience. WTF! Never thought such banana republic shenanigans would happen here. Lady Hale etc may have saved the union there.

> Westminster undermined by dangerous  willingness to gamble with GFA over the last few years.

> UK has lost reputation for pragmatism and stability.

> Ditches FPTP, one of the causes of disunited nature of the UK - leave/remain, north/south and lab/tory.

> More widely held view is chance of being an EU member that better suits the more European and forward looking outlook of Scotland.

> My previously preferred option of remain in both UK and EU no longer appears to be available.

To be honest that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that got us Brexit.  Claiming that a vote to leave means multiple different things, and gives a mandate for literally anything.

1
russellcampbell 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Voting for the SNP makes sense to most people here, considering the alternative is to get crushed. 

Where is your evidence for this? Have the SNP ever had more than 50% of the vote in Scotland?

russellcampbell 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> I hesitate before proclaiming the virtues of the SNP too loudly but I am comparing them, like John Arran does above to what Westminster governments do.

> So, for example since 2007: 

> 1. Baby Box – A jam-packed box of baby essentials to help new parents at the start of a child’s life.

> 2. Childcare – 600 hours of early learning and childcare, saving families up to £2,500 per child per year.

> 3. Free Tuition – Students in England face tuition fees up to £27,750 – Scottish students receive university tuition free.

> 4. Period Poverty – Scotland is the first in the world to make sanitary products available free to all pupils and students.

> 5. Prescriptions – Prescription charges abolished in Scotland – now £9 per item south of the border.

> 6. Cheaper Council Tax – Every Scottish household benefits from cheaper tax bills – on average £500 less than England.

> 7. Care For All – Free personal and nursing care extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age.

> 8. Free Bus Travel – Over one million Scots now enjoy free travel, including over-60s and disabled people.

> Plus a more progressive tax system, i.e. you pay 40% tax on a lower threshold than in England. 

> Seems to be more support for public services and the ordinary person than compared to south of the border. 

I could argue with you about most of the points you make but I'll stick to one. Free bus travel was introduced by the Labour / Lib Dem coalition Scottish Government in 2007 before the SNP came to power.

 girlymonkey 19 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Last time, there was a very clear white paper about the aims of independence. We knew exactly what we were voting for. I would expect the same this time.

Brexit had a tiny leaflet which specified nothing about what leave meant.

Totally different

1
 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> To be honest that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that got us Brexit.  Claiming that a vote to leave means multiple different things, and gives a mandate for literally anything.

Both referendums were to start a process without a knowing the negotiated  outcome so of course they have multiple different meanings. Neither referendum was to ratify a negotiated deal. Although indyref was on the basis of a 650 page plan.

Sovereignty is literally a mandate for literally anything, subject to practicalities such as anything international needs agreement of other countries.

Post edited at 14:20
 off-duty 19 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Last time, there was a very clear white paper about the aims of independence. We knew exactly what we were voting for. I would expect the same this time.

> Brexit had a tiny leaflet which specified nothing about what leave meant.

> Totally different

So perhaps wait until the exact terms of independence are spelled out, otherwise it tends to come across as B̶r̶e̶x̶i̶t̶ , sorry, "independence" regardless of consequences.

 off-duty 19 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Both referendums were to start a process without a knowing the negotiated  outcome so of course they have multiple different meanings. Neither referendum was to ratify a negotiated deal. Although indyref was on the basis of a 650 page plan.

> Sovereignty is literally a mandate for literally anything, subject to practicalities such as anything international needs agreement of other countries.

At least that removes the pretence that's it's about anything other than nationalism, red and bloody.

 Ian W 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Hmmm, Crossrail is costing 17.6 billion and will deliver 200 million annual passenger journeys.  That works out at £88 per passenger journey (assuming all construction costs are spread across the first year of operation only).

> The Edinburgh Tram (including interest payments but not including the extensions currently planned or in progress) has cost approx 1 billion pounds and is delivering 7.3 million annual passenger journeys.  That works out at £137 per passenger journey (assuming all construction costs are spread across the first year of operation only).

> Conclusion is that commuters using the Edinburgh tram have had 43.5% more spent on them per passenger journey than the equivalent London commuters using Crossrail.  Does that still sound unfair to you?

> I also have to ask - does Edinburgh currently need or want it's own Crossrail project?


Wasnt aware of the Edinburgh tram project. Good point.

Any comment on this, Tom?

 Dr.S at work 19 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Fair point about the detailed white paper, and indyref 1 was way better than brexitref, but I do recall that the YES campaign was broader than just the SNP, and it was clear that the white paper was the SNP view rather than the YES view. 

 RomTheBear 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I apologise if it comes across as hectoring, it's honestly a product of exasperation more than anything else. As to the links, the majority are there to clarify actual figures, they take seconds to find and seconds to open and see if the do indeed verify the position taken.

 

Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing isn’t it, you didn’t a few second on a couple of links and you think you understand the topic. Typical.

4
 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> At least that removes the pretence that's it's about anything other than nationalism, red and bloody.

Funny thing to say to me an Englishman living happily in Scotland for nearly 30 years. How familiar are you with Scotland?

Post edited at 16:24
 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

>  indyref 1 was way better than brexitref

That was very striking.

 Stichtplate 19 Oct 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing isn’t it, you didn’t a few second on a couple of links and you think you understand the topic. Typical.

Despite the typically garbled syntax, it only took a few seconds to ascertain you're being a prick again. Also typical.

 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Wasnt aware of the Edinburgh tram project. Good point.

> Any comment on this, Tom?

UK cities have lagged behind similar sized continental cities for far too long.

 rogerwebb 19 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

The white paper was a wishlist. Much of it was assertion based on an assumption as to what others would do and a lot was unrealistic. It wasn't a vote on a deal. 

1
 off-duty 19 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Funny thing to say to me an Englishman living happily in Scotland for nearly 30 years. How familiar are you with Scotland?

Very, thanks. Spent a significant part of my life there, though unfortunately no longer there, and benefited from a variety of Scottish services.

My post wasn't a criticism of you personally, but the position you put forward - the vote is simply a mandate for sovereignty.  With no detail that equals simply nationalism, whether you apply that to Brexit, or independence.

 elsewhere 19 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Very, thanks. Spent a significant part of my life there, though unfortunately no longer there, and benefited from a variety of Scottish services.

So you'll know Scottish nationalism is very rarely red and bloody.

> My post wasn't a criticism of you personally, but the position you put forward - the vote is simply a mandate for sovereignty.  With no detail that equals simply nationalism, whether you apply that to Brexit, or independence.

My position is that any referendum has multiple meanings unless it is to accept/reject an already negotiated agreement.

 rogerwebb 19 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> So you'll know Scottish nationalism is very rarely red and bloody.

While that is generally true there is an element that whilst it might be less than critics believe is greater than most supporters accept. 

That element is present in all nationalist movements and whilst the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon in particular have been very good at controlling it within the party there are those outside who promote it. Thankfully at present they remain a side show but as things get heated they tend, as in brexit, to rise in prominence. 

In reply to Ian W:

> Wasnt aware of the Edinburgh tram project. Good point.

> Any comment on this, Tom?

Crossrail isn't delivering any journies at all.  It isn't done and the schedule keeps slipping.  So this is a comparison of promises for a couple of years in the future against last years numbers from a running system.   The Edinburgh Tram network is currently a fraction of what was originally intended and as the next segment gets built out and the council's wider plans for pedestrianising and limiting traffic in the city centre play out the Edinburgh numbers would be predicted to improve.  

The wider point is that London is always going to look better.  There is a feedback loop: as you centralise state functions in London, business moves to London, jobs move to London, people move to London, London gets more transport infrastructure and there's even more reason to put more state functions in London.   That feedback loop pushes the most skilled and ambitious people in the UK to move to London and impoverishes the rest of the country.   Each individual decision is rational in economic terms but the overall effect is to suck everything in SE England.  We need to break the feedback loop and that means deliberately directing investment and moving state functions out of London even if on a case by case analysis it looks like you'd get more return on investment in London.

1
 Stichtplate 19 Oct 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The wider point is that London is always going to look better.  There is a feedback loop: as you centralise state functions in London, business moves to London, jobs move to London, people move to London, London gets more transport infrastructure and there's even more reason to put more state functions in London.   That feedback loop pushes the most skilled and ambitious people in the UK to move to London and impoverishes the rest of the country.   Each individual decision is rational in economic terms but the overall effect is to suck everything in SE England.  We need to break the feedback loop and that means deliberately directing investment and moving state functions out of London even if on a case by case analysis it looks like you'd get more return on investment in London.

Surprisingly, I whole heartedly agree with you. Even more surprisingly so does Westminster, with plans to move 1000 senior civil servants out of the capital by 2022 and thousands more by 2030 as they roll out 22 regional hubs.

I'd add a link but I don't want to appear to be bludgeoning anyone.

 elsewhere 20 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Surprisingly, I whole heartedly agree with you. Even more surprisingly so does Westminster, with plans to move 1000 senior civil servants out of the capital by 2022 and thousands more by 2030 as they roll out 22 regional hubs.

> I'd add a link but I don't want to appear to be bludgeoning anyone.

That looks like a good start but fifty or a hundred years too late. The north south divide was issue then but under FPTP it suits parties to have a heartland.

Demolishing Westminster or turning it into a theme park and moving parliament to Carlisle would do wonders for democracy and infrastructure! 

Post edited at 08:56
 Dr.S at work 20 Oct 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Not to mention the relocation of a lot of the BBC to Salford

 MargieB 20 Oct 2019
In reply to Escher:

That plea is useless as unity has to be achieved.

The referendum is just one stage but a GE  would have to be reformatory at the representational /constitutional level to get that unity.

At the moment the Westminster system is like a negative of a photograph. All variation stripped away and we live with what's left due to the distortionary and limiting effect of FPTP system.

To make Westminster system a positive that means reform constitutionally. And once this referendum [If it occurs] is over the GE has to maintain an enthusiasm for change or that is it.

Post edited at 10:14
 FreshSlate 20 Oct 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> We can make all the economic arguements we want, but post Brexit UK will be a disaster for all parts of the UK, except the ERG.

> Scotland has the option to stay with the disaster and have punitive American trade deals forced on us, lose our protections on workers rights, environmental standards and many other "red tape" which is inconvenient to Westminster. We already have different immigration needs, and we will need even more in the near future as our working age population continues to drop (Scottish birth rate is 1.5 per woman as opposed to 1.8 in England). 

> The economy is screwed anyway, wherever you are.

> ​​

I think Scotand has to take it's share of the blame in the brexit vote. The difference between the 48% and 52% was only 1.3 million people, not too far off the Brexit voting population in Scotland and less than the number that didn't vote in Scotland, a country with the lowest turnout of any country in the UK. 

Post edited at 13:44
2
In reply to FreshSlate:

> I think Scotand has to take it's share of the blame in the brexit vote. The difference between the 48% and 52% was only 1.3 million people, not too far off the Brexit voting population in Scotland and less than the number that didn't vote in Scotland, a country with the lowest turnout of any country in the UK. 

That's true.  The Brexit referendum was kind of surreal up here.  Everybody was a bit burnt out after the Indy referendum and there was almost no campaigning on the Brexit one.   Leave didn't even try in Scotland and when SNP, Tory, Labour and LibDem all want to Remain they've got no reason to pour money into campaigning.   

So we screwed up.  People didn't appreciate the madness that was going on in England enough to get scared and go out and vote.  They thought Remain was a sure thing because Leave was almost invisible in Scotland.  Now we are paying for it.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...