Scottish Independence

[Meister Jag]

The pedant in me has to point out that MJ is arguing for state control Stalin like dictatorship, not just "more" state control of the economy. Quite a different thing.

 

fixed that for you

 

You never fail to amuse Jaggy, total wind-up merchant right to the end

 

But in response to Mr Scruff, I'm the first to accept that my World vision isn't shared by many; and certainly not many on this forum. (I've probably never openly discussed issues with as many neo-cons in my life .) However, unlike some in the left, I'm not willing to piggy-back onto independence and to use enterism to advance my cause (Trotskyite means of tacking control of larger organisations e.g. unions and social democratic liberal-type political parties like the Labour party). All that would happen then would be that those who would have hastily joined the SNP to aid them in getting a "yes" vote would then start to take over branches and then make a push for the leadership of the party. All with a view to wrestling control from the old guard of the party. The Socialist Workers Party are especially famous for this and will add their weight to all sorts of campaigns. In truth, I understand why they do it, but over the years I have seen them slink away when the media spotlight moves off the issue. So what I'm against is political opportunism.

 

But to get to the point, and I promise there is one... What I'm advocating isn't overall control of the economy as Jaggy suggests, but the taking back of essential industries and services that would serve the common good e.g. power companies and public transport. Thatcher and her cronies were quick to spot an opportunity to make a fast buck; so independence would provide an opportunity to make right a wrong - and all in the name of the Scottish people, new republic (bet that word hurts Jaggy?) or whatever part of the Commonwealth ruled over by HM that we become. All of which takes me back to my earlier point: independence probably in name only; nothing would be materially better for many ordinary people, and this remains my prime concern.

 

But to finish on a note of cautious optimism, why shouldn't we be warm with heating and lighting provided at a reasonable cost and why shouldn't we have a decent public transport system that is available to all at minimal cost. This will hopefully tee-up this one nicely for this week.

 

Jaggy: fire away mate, you are a class act on this DG and remind me of a former manager who once told me that he prayed for my soul! Problem was that a few years later I became his boss. Just think what would be possible in a post-revolutionary society; we could be a double act, I'd even let you carry the flag

Edited October 3, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

You never fail to amuse Jaggy, total wind-up merchant right to the end

 

But in response to Mr Scruff, I'm the first to accept that my World vision isn't shared by many; and certainly not many on this forum. (I've probably never openly discussed issues with as many neo-cons in my life .) However, unlike some in the left, I'm not willing to piggy-back onto independence and to use enterism to advance my cause (Trotskyite means of tacking control of larger organisations e.g. unions and social democratic liberal-type political parties like the Labour party). All that would happen then would be that those who would have hastily joined the SNP to aid them in getting a "yes" vote would then start to take over branches and then make a push for the leadership of the party. All with a view to wrestling control from the old guard of the party. The Socialist Workers Party are especially famous for this and will add their weight to all sorts of campaigns. In truth, I understand why they do it, but over the years I have seen them slink away when the media spotlight moves off the issue. So what I'm against is political opportunism.

 

But to get to the point, and I promise there is one... What I'm advocating isn't overall control of the economy as Jaggy suggests, but the taking back of essential industries and services that would serve the common good e.g. power companies and public transport. Thatcher and her cronies were quick to spot an opportunity to make a fast buck; so independence would provide an opportunity to make right a wrong - and all in the name of the Scottish people, new republic (bet that word hurts Jaggy?) or whatever part of the Commonwealth ruled over by HM that we become. All of which takes me back to my earlier point: independence probably in name only; nothing would be materially better for many ordinary people, and this remains my prime concern.

 

But to finish on a note of cautious optimism, why shouldn't we be warm with heating and lighting provided at a reasonable cost and why shouldn't we have a decent public transport system that is available to all at minimal cost. This will hopefully tee-up this one nicely for this week.

 

Jaggy: fire away mate, you are a class act on this DG and remind me of a former manager who once told me that he prayed for my soul! Problem was that a few years later I became his boss. Just think what would be possible in a post-revolutionary society; we could be a double act, I'd even let you carry the flag

 

 

so you mean all those industries and services that cost vastly more money than they were creating which at some point has to be paid for but in your utopia no one pays and we are all equal....i that will happen

 

if the alleged peoples party hadn't spent all the money we may have been able to do a lot more but they didn't so we are stuffed.

 

i don't pray so you are alright there, anyway we would all be equal with no bosses just "advisers" wouldn't we

[Jaggernaut]

the snp were given the option to cut last years budget or cut double this year, there choice unlike Wales and NI was double.

 

i don't believe we would be better off independent and the pro independence club have done nothing to prove otherwise. contrary to what some say you do have to prove it would work. i would expect to prove to any future employer that i can do the job they are going to pay me to do and so must the pro independence club.

 

ref the Baltic stats they are getting a fair bit of euro Subisdays also only Estonia is keeping its debts down to manageable levels and this may due to a population of only 1.3 million which is going down. yes these country's were doing well before the crash but when that happened it hurt them harder and faster than other countries so why do we want to take the chance, we are stronger in union than apart IMHO, i also as i have said before have more selfish job reasons for not wanting it to happen

 

the "debating skill", well that was really a bit of banter with GrantB and i also find it hard to get across what i really want to on this forum ( thank god for spell check but wheres the grammar check Admin )

 

 

that any better

On the first point, wrong. You cannot prove to anybody beforehand that you can do the job; the only way you can prove that you are capable is to get the job in the first place and then do it. What you need to do beforehand is show that you are well enough qualified to do what's asked, and the SNP are clearly best qualified for leading Scotland in the future.

 

On the second point, your entrenched view and avatar bring to mind images of old codgers saying things like "Computers will never catch on", "Whit, machines that will transport people in the sky? Never!", or "Horseless carriages that propel themselves? I don't believe it!"

[GrantB]

the snp were given the option to cut last years budget or cut double this year, there choice unlike Wales and NI was double.

 

i don't believe we would be better off independent and the pro independence club have done nothing to prove otherwise. contrary to what some say you do have to prove it would work. i would expect to prove to any future employer that i can do the job they are going to pay me to do and so must the pro independence club.

 

ref the Baltic stats they are getting a fair bit of euro Subisdays also only Estonia is keeping its debts down to manageable levels and this may due to a population of only 1.3 million which is going down. yes these country's were doing well before the crash but when that happened it hurt them harder and faster than other countries so why do we want to take the chance, we are stronger in union than apart IMHO, i also as i have said before have more selfish job reasons for not wanting it to happen

 

the "debating skill", well that was really a bit of banter with GrantB and i also find it hard to get across what i really want to on this forum ( thank god for spell check but wheres the grammar check Admin )

 

 

that any better

 

 

I've asked this before but got no reply from the unionists.

 

Were you required to give your parents a full fiscal breakdown of your ability to earn money for yourself and pay your bills before they allowed you to leave home?

[jaggybunnet]

I've asked this before but got no reply from the unionists.

 

Were you required to give your parents a full fiscal breakdown of your ability to earn money for yourself and pay your bills before they allowed you to leave home?

 

 

i never answered because i could not see the point of it and though that my one explained it better, i think my one is better anyway

 

to try and answer you anyway, no but i would hope that they would have asked just to make sure i would be ok instead of me coming back skint if it all went wrong.

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggy

 

As for being a champagne socialist, you're having a laugh. You'll find me in the S&G drinking our other national drink before games. Haven't touched a drop in years mate - keeping my body in tip top condition for the big day. Someone has to run with that red flag and I want to look good on the telly!

 

 

 

i was talking about your friend tommy

[Vladimir Putin]

i don't believe we would be better off independent and the pro independence club have done nothing to prove otherwise. contrary to what some say you do have to prove it would work. i would expect to prove to any future employer that i can do the job they are going to pay me to do and so must the pro independence club.

 

 

That's just absurd - there is no way to prove what will happen in the future. Did the Tories prove to you that they would be better for the UK than Labour at the last election? Of course not - you looked at the options available and came to the judgement that they would be better than the alternatives, which is all anyone can do. In the case of Scotland, more and more people are looking at the SNP and independence and deciding that they are the best option.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Vladimir Putin

[Blackpool Jags]

That's just absurd - there is no way to prove what will happen in the future. Did the Tories prove to you that they would be better for the UK than Labour at the last election? Of course not - you looked at the options available and came to the judgement that they would be better than the alternatives, which is all anyone can do. In the case of Scotland, more and more people are looking at the SNP and independence and deciding that they are the best option.

 

That's certainly true and how it works. It's completely fatuous to suggest that, under any system of Government, a prospective party of Government would be expected to go through a 3/6/12 months audition to prove to the electorate that they're fit to govern. All Governments at all times, in a democracy, are elected to serve for a (maximum) period and then, at the end of that period, the electorate are invited to cast judgement on that party by deciding whether they wish to re-elect them or not. I'm puzzled to see that any serious participant in this debate might think otherwise.

[Mr Scruff]

I've asked this before but got no reply from the unionists.

 

Were you required to give your parents a full fiscal breakdown of your ability to earn money for yourself and pay your bills before they allowed you to leave home?

Well I wouldn't describe myself as a Unionist but as I've stated before I would currently vote against independence in a referendum, so I'll give you a reply.

 

I assumed your question was rhetorical, since it's based on a straw man argument. No-ones talking about preparing a fiscally robust model to request from the rest of the UK that they let us go. It's for us in deiciding on Independence that it needs to be prepared and argued. To carry on your analogy, would you leave home to set up a new house (which I don't accept as an analogy) without knowing you could afford it, and what the implications are? How much will property cost? What's the council tax and utility costs etc etc. People leave their parents' home every day. A well trodden path with lots of empirical and exemplar data. This isn't like that.

 

This is much more like a business breaking up. There are risks and opportunities in doing that. There are examples of businesses thriving when the constituent parts are freed from each other; equally there are examples where it's been a disaster (at least for one part). But no business would do it, even in times of dire necessity, without a fiscal plan.

 

I'm actually finding it difficult to see how this can be handled without a two stage process in any event. Until there are realistic (and meaningful) negotiations with the rest of the UK (and the EU) we won't know what we're voting for. And until we've voted, how can they have these negotiations? Unless it comes down to an emotive "wha's like us" campaign and we have to assume that somehow everything will be alright as long as it's got a saltire on it.

[JAGZ1876]

the snp were given the option to cut last years budget or cut double this year, there choice unlike Wales and NI was double.

 

jaggy, We will always be forced to make cuts while we allow Westminster to dictate how little or how much money we receive, i am sick to the back teeth of this begging bowl mentality, that we have to be grateful for the crumbs thrown in our direction, while the money we put into this union is wasted on futile wars and Westminsters mismanagement. As for your "prove you can do the job" point, Jaggernaut and GrantB have already answered that adequately.

[Jaggernaut]

 

 

I'm actually finding it difficult to see how this can be handled without a two stage process in any event. Until there are realistic (and meaningful) negotiations with the rest of the UK (and the EU) we won't know what we're voting for. And until we've voted, how can they have these negotiations? Unless it comes down to an emotive "wha's like us" campaign and we have to assume that somehow everything will be alright as long as it's got a saltire on it.

So what do you suggest, that nothing should ever change?

 

I'd suggest that you know very well what you'd vote for, which would be full economic independence for our own country. This will replace filling London's coffers and then having to accept what they decide to give us back while they refuse us the right to negotiate economics with the rest of the world according to our own perspectives. What they want is to be able to continue tell us that we can get what they decide to let us have, while they get protected first of all. It has been thus since the formation of this damned union, which the Scots population never voted for, remember.

[Meister Jag]

so you mean all those industries and services that cost vastly more money than they were creating which at some point has to be paid for but in your utopia no one pays and we are all equal....i that will happen

 

if the alleged peoples party hadn't spent all the money we may have been able to do a lot more but they didn't so we are stuffed.

 

i don't pray so you are alright there, anyway we would all be equal with no bosses just "advisers" wouldn't we

 

Hmm, need to check but I recall that the rail network is now more expensive with greater public subsidy than when nationalsied. Your chums obviously just broke it up to make a quick killing. Shame on them.

 

Not sure about New Labour, didn't vote for them and take little interest in their affairs.

 

And here was me thinking that you were on the level and a believer in the all seeing eye . But in response, we wouldn't be advisors, just workers; but you could call me Comrade Meister.

[Mr Scruff]

So what do you suggest, that nothing should ever change?

 

I'd suggest that you know very well what you'd vote for, which would be full economic independence for our own country. This will replace filling London's coffers and then having to accept what they decide to give us back while they refuse us the right to negotiate economics with the rest of the world according to our own perspectives. What they want is to be able to continue tell us that we can get what they decide to let us have, while they get protected first of all. It has been thus since the formation of this damned union, which the Scots population never voted for, remember.

What I was suggesting was that we will probably have to have a two stage referendum. Can't really see any way to do it unless we start negotiations now so we can have a realistic chance to decide what we're voting for. Or we just blindly vote without any detail...

 

Just out of interest, would you vote for independence irrespective of the detail?

[Jaggernaut]

What I was suggesting was that we will probably have to have a two stage referendum. Can't really see any way to do it unless we start negotiations now so we can have a realistic chance to decide what we're voting for. Or we just blindly vote without any detail...

 

Just out of interest, would you vote for independence irrespective of the detail?

Yes.

 

Edited to add: You can just imagine the unionist clamour if the SNP government went for a two-stage referendum; they don't even want the one that's coming! And of course it's not really possible to start "negotiating" now, though the SNP has accepted that a proportionate slice of the UK debt would be taken on board.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[honved]

Yes.

 

Edited to add: You can just imagine the unionist clamour if the SNP government went for a two-stage referendum; they don't even want the one that's coming! And of course it's not really possible to start "negotiating" now, though the SNP has accepted that a proportionate slice of the UK debt would be taken on board.

I think that's really fair, it's like agreeing to keep paying the credit card debts after you move away from a failed relationship, even though it was her that bought the Gucci handbag and Jimmy Choos.

[JAGZ1876]

I think that's really fair, it's like agreeing to keep paying the credit card debts after you move away from a failed relationship, even though it was her that bought the Gucci handbag and Jimmy Choos.

I know we're talking billions here, but it will be a small price to pay to have our destiny in our own hands.

[Guy Incognito]

The pedant in me has to point out that MJ is arguing for state control, not just "more" state control of the economy. Quite a different thing.

 

I don't see how Independence would deliver this unless it came with an in built political programme. But I accept that this is what some do appear to be arguing; that independence will come wrapped up with a particular agenda.

 

Economic decisions are made throughout the UK currently, and we participate through representation. I don't believe that Scottish people are "too small or stupid" to make economic decisions, but I also don't think the UK is either.

Apparently 50% of East Germans miss the old DDR, so perhaps MJ's political dreams aren't so daft after all.

 

The Scottish government has limited tax varying powers but has no ability to levy income or business taxes. Salmond has already floated the idea of devolving those powers to Holyrood but the Tories are dead against it, arguing that it would disadvantage business operating in the north of England. It is quite understandable why they should object - as a unionist party they have to consider the interests of people in other parts of the UK.

 

Outwith the economy, all decisions regarding foreign policy and immigration are decided by Westminster. Aye, we send MPs to Westminster every four years (soon to be five); but we are currently politically wed to a much larger neighbour who want different things to us (just look at last year's general election results).

[Mr Scruff]

Apparently 50% of East Germans miss the old DDR, so perhaps MJ's political dreams aren't so daft after all.

 

The Scottish government has limited tax varying powers but has no ability to levy income or business taxes. Salmond has already floated the idea of devolving those powers to Holyrood but the Tories are dead against it, arguing that it would disadvantage business operating in the north of England. It is quite understandable why they should object - as a unionist party they have to consider the interests of people in other parts of the UK.

 

Outwith the economy, all decisions regarding foreign policy and immigration are decided by Westminster. Aye, we send MPs to Westminster every four years (soon to be five); but we are currently politically wed to a much larger neighbour who want different things to us (just look at last year's general election results).

I didn't realise that about former DDR people. Most of the ones I know are happy with the economic (and resultant political and personal) freedom since 1990. But I suppose there will always be those who crave a rose-tinted past irrespective of how extreme it was, and those who benefited personally. I have met BDR people who feel let down by reunification, but that was a cost thing...

 

To give you a perspective, I voted against the formation of the Scottish Parliament but for tax varying powers. I said at the time (and posted on the predecessor of this forum) that I didn't see the justification for another layer of government, but if it was created it should have some fiscal responsibility to back up a political programme. Pointless otherwise. Just to clarify, I would rather the vote had been for Independence at the time. As I say, I could be persuaded if someone could demonstrate how it would work better than our current system, and therefore I thought that would be a better debate.

 

There's nothing I've read on here or in the SNP's literature that has persuaded me that Independence would be to our benefit, and so many unanswered questions that all I can see are negative risks for what would be a huge and costly undertaking. But I have an open mind and would listen to a definitive proposal that would demonstrably work and provide economic benefits.

[Jaggernaut]

I didn't realise that about former DDR people. Most of the ones I know are happy with the economic (and resultant political and personal) freedom since 1990. But I suppose there will always be those who crave a rose-tinted past irrespective of how extreme it was, and those who benefited personally. I have met BDR people who feel let down by reunification, but that was a cost thing...

 

To give you a perspective, I voted against the formation of the Scottish Parliament but for tax varying powers. I said at the time (and posted on the predecessor of this forum) that I didn't see the justification for another layer of government, but if it was created it should have some fiscal responsibility to back up a political programme. Pointless otherwise. Just to clarify, I would rather the vote had been for Independence at the time. As I say, I could be persuaded if someone could demonstrate how it would work better than our current system, and therefore I thought that would be a better debate.

 

There's nothing I've read on here or in the SNP's literature that has persuaded me that Independence would be to our benefit, and so many unanswered questions that all I can see are negative risks for what would be a huge and costly undertaking. But I have an open mind and would listen to a definitive proposal that would demonstrably work and provide economic benefits.

With respect, to me it looks virtually impossible that anything would make you change your mind.

[Mr Scruff]

With respect, to me it looks virtually impossible that anything would make you change your mind.

I'm sorry it comes across that way. I genuinely don't know how anyone can make their mind up on this in the absence of detail, without it being purely an emotive decision.

 

I did put a personal list on earlier in the thread of things where I could see potential benefit and would thus support. I have noted that some who are in favour of independence have responded to say they would support in any circumstances.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Jaggernaut]

I'm sorry it comes across that way. I genuinely don't know how anyone can make their mind up on this in the absence of detail, without it being purely an emotive decision.

 

I did put a personal list on earlier in the thread of things where I could see potential benefit and would thus support. I have noted that some who are in favour of independence have responded to say they would support in any circumstances.

That would be me.

[GrantB]

I'm sorry it comes across that way. I genuinely don't know how anyone can make their mind up on this in the absence of detail, without it being purely an emotive decision.

 

I did put a personal list on earlier in the thread of things where I could see potential benefit and would thus support. I have noted that some who are in favour of independence have responded to say they would support in any circumstances.

 

I think it boild down to the basics of whether you feel Scottish or not.

 

Personally, it's not about whether the figures match up, it's whether you want to see your country stand up on it's own two feet and be able to make decisions concerning it's future without having to go cap in hand to Westminster for a share of what is in effect already ours!

 

I'd vote yes even if it made me personally poorer.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

I think it boild down to the basics of whether you feel Scottish or not.

 

I am 100% Scottish. I don't support independence.

[Norgethistle]

I think it boild down to the basics of whether you feel Scottish or not.

 

Personally, it's not about whether the figures match up, it's whether you want to see your country stand up on it's own two feet and be able to make decisions concerning it's future without having to go cap in hand to Westminster for a share of what is in effect already ours!

 

I'd vote yes even if it made me personally poorer.

 

Would it make us poorer or richer no one knows, they keep mentioning the Norway model, roughly the same population with some of the same resources and Norway on paper is very rich but...

 

Norwegians have one of the highest rates of personel debt of anywhere in the world, partly down to the encouragements (through tax relief on your loans) by the goverment to take on debt, banks are owned by the goverment

 

Norway has a terrible infrastructure, outwith oslo the roads are poor and you have to pay tolls (£2 a time to get near a city) to use them, on top of your road tax (£300 a year) plus the petrol is rougly £1.40 a liter and the new car price is at least twice that of a new car in the UK, and an 8 year old car will cost you almost as much as a new car in the UK due to them not losing there value at re sale

 

We have to pay for our doctors fee's and prescriptions up to a point (first £300 a year if i remember correctly)

 

Our income tax level is 36% on normal time and 50% on overtime

 

We have high levels of poll tax

 

Beer is roughly £7 for 0.4 liter in a bar, and £2.50 from the shop for a can

 

Bread and milk will cost you roughly £4, and don't even think about buying chicken, although salmon is cheap. You have to shop around cans in this shop fresh stuff this shop etc etc

 

Housing is extortianete here you will pay approx £1000 a month for a 2 bedroom unfurnished flat, not in the center.

 

Norway and especially Stavanger were on there arse before the oil boom, stavanger was bankrupt with high unemployment and the norwegian government is so scared of it happening again it has not spent a penny of the money it has earned from oil, not even re-invested it in new technology for the future for when it does run out, Scotland doesn#t have that piggy bank, has a high level of debt and a ridiculous amount of people on benefit it has to pay for, where would that money come from, Norway has next to no unemployment so doesnt have that high level of payout.

Also more importantly it is not part of the EU but is a EEA member so doesnt have to abide by some of its crazy laws.

 

Norway also has more gas and oil production than the scottish sector so more income.

 

Yes the standard of life is good here, but your outgoings are enormous and i know several people that had to leave as they were losing money by working here, and not by pissing it up the wall just living.

 

I'd be very careful just pushing for independance before some party came out with what it really would cost the man in the street, as it could be his home and job if they mess it up

[Phoenix]

I think it boild down to the basics of whether you feel Scottish or not.

 

Personally, it's not about whether the figures match up, it's whether you want to see your country stand up on it's own two feet and be able to make decisions concerning it's future without having to go cap in hand to Westminster for a share of what is in effect already ours!

 

I'd vote yes even if it made me personally poorer.

Probably the most honest post i've read on this thread. Forget all the financial arguments, etc. If you feel Scottish then you must want independence.

 

I assume that everybody voting for independence on the argument that we can survive on our own two feet and don't need England/ the union/ westminster will also agree with not joining the euro and basically being run from Brussels instead.

The main thing that puts me off independence is that it wouldn't be independence. It would just be changing masters.

Look at Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. All of these independent countries are having to implement financial cuts on orders/directions from Brussels. Maybe independence and joining the Euro would have worked at the start (Ireland certainly benefitted) but I honestly don't see the benefits in joining now.

When we go for independence we should go from a position of strength. To join something that looks as if it could collapse any day would not be good for Scotland.