Jump to content

One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.


The Jukebox Rebel
 Share

Independence Poll  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      33


Recommended Posts

did he say it, yes. wos a biased propaganda outlet for bitter and twisted Scottish people with a chip on there shoulder.

 

only my view of course but sums it up perfectly.

 

WoS is a biased outlet, agreed. But to be fair it doesn't pretend to be anything else, unlike certain other outlets... *cough, splutter* BBC *cough*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having the gift of second sight or access to a time machine I am afraid I can't show you how things would be better under independence. All I can do is explain why I think things might be.

 

By saying 'it is a fact' that everything good about Scotland has come about because we are in the UK you are implying that those things would cease if we were to leave, without actually explaining why.

 

i did, read my answers ref no funds from the eu and added costs due to not being in the uk and ref the currency. my main point as i said was that the yes camp seem happy to say that if its good it must because we are Scottish but anything bad is Westminsters fault.

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i did, read my answers ref no funds from the eu and added costs due to not being in the uk and ref the currency. my main point as i said was that the yes camp seem happy to say that if its good it must because we are Scottish but anything bad is Westminsters fault.

 

Scottish farmers get the lowest EU CAP funding of all regions in the UK and other member nations. That's an outcome of bitter together Westminster politicians using their "broad shoulders" to give us "the best of both worlds." Money earmarked for Scottish rural development was simply kept by Westminster, as part of the "best of both worlds."

 

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/hot-topics/cap-reform/convergence-snub-shows-benefits-of-scottish-independence/61936.article

 

Added costs to what of not being in the UK? No more costs than other independent countries have, and meet. Once again, the Westminster-led UK is effectively bankrupt, 1.4 TRILLION GBP in debt, with it unlikely ever to be paid back in our lifetimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i did, read my answers ref no funds from the eu and added costs due to not being in the uk and ref the currency. my main point as i said was that the yes camp seem happy to say that if its good it must because we are Scottish but anything bad is Westminsters fault.

 

You made a lot of assumptions there though, i.e. that we wouldn't be allowed to remain into the EU or to retain sterling. I know that is the official line but there have been strong hints from people in the know to the contrary.

 

To say that everything good is down to Scotland and everything bad is down to Westminster - if indeed anyone is saying that - is pretty facile, but so is suggesting that we have only managed to achieve good things because we have been part of the UK. It implies that we are somehow incapable of making decisions or even thinking for ourselves and require the input of those clever folk in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i did, read my answers ref no funds from the eu and added costs due to not being in the uk and ref the currency. my main point as i said was that the yes camp seem happy to say that if its good it must because we are Scottish but anything bad is Westminsters fault.

 

Not even you can suggest that the "union dividend" of the lowest pensions in Europe is somehow the Scottish Government's fault. That rests fairly and squarely upon Wetminster's "broad shoulders" that give us "the best of both worlds" (Not!) The rich get richer, and poor get poorer, and inequality in the UK continues to rise rapidly.

 

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/11/28/uk-state-pension-is-lowest-in-europe/

 

More and more Scots are seeing through all of this, and will vote YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottish farmers get the lowest EU CAP funding of all regions in the UK and other member nations. That's an outcome of bitter together Westminster politicians using their "broad shoulders" to give us "the best of both worlds." Money earmarked for Scottish rural development was simply kept by Westminster, as part of the "best of both worlds."

 

scotland gets its fair share of the money for what it s produces in comparison to other uk regions.

 

"The intra-UK CAP budget allocation that I announced in November means that Scottish farmers will retain the highest per farmer payments in the UK."

 

http://www.farmersgu...e/61936.article

 

Added costs to what of not being in the UK? No more costs than other independent countries have, and meet. Once again, the Westminster-led UK is effectively bankrupt, 1.4 TRILLION GBP in debt, with it unlikely ever to be paid back in our lifetimes.

 

sorry but if you dont think there will be added cost when scotland has to start its own currency till eck can beg the eu to take us then you are kidding yourself on, add to that cross boarder cost and all is not well, eck and the rest of the yes camp can ignore it all they want but people deserve to know how much things will cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even you can suggest that the "union dividend" of the lowest pensions in Europe is somehow the Scottish Government's fault. That rests fairly and squarely upon Wetminster's "broad shoulders" that give us "the best of both worlds" (Not!) The rich get richer, and poor get poorer, and inequality in the UK continues to rise rapidly.

 

http://money.aol.co....west-in-europe/

 

More and more Scots are seeing through all of this, and will vote YES.

 

there are details which you fail to mention such as country's like Italy where there are very few private pensions and having to work 45 years in Austria (30 years at moment in uk may rise to 35 ) to get full pension none of them are perfect and all need to be paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are details which you fail to mention such as country's like Italy where there are very few private pensions and having to work 45 years in Austria (30 years at moment in uk may rise to 35 ) to get full pension none of them are perfect and all need to be paid for.

 

Complete tosh yet again to try to protect your failing union. Austria: read the first sentence (http://www.oecd-ilib...F409B570121CDC2) : "Normal pension age is 65 for men." How clear does it need to be? You can earn more (what you either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly call "full pension") if you work 40 years (not 45, as you again either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly write). Oh, I forgot, unionists do like to multiply by whatever factor suits their fear-mongering, baseless arguments.

 

And in case you need it spelled out even more clearly, look at this: http://www.efbww.org...ustria%20GB.pdf

 

But it's not the Daily Mail, so maybe you won't bother reading it, so for the benefit of you and other readers let me quote: "Retirement age for the ordinary old-age pension is currently 65 for men and 60 for women..... Austria therefore has a statutory minimum pension [their bold typeface, not mine], which for single persons is 793 euros and for married persons 1189 euros..."

 

Oh, and just in case you have problems with conversion rates, 1189 euros for married persons converts to 952.71 GBP, which compares to 687.40 GBP for married couples in the UK.

 

You've recently been found out to be "mistaken" about Scotland's spending on roads, now the pension argument, your position on the relative lack of railways investment in Scotland is indefensible.......and that's only in the past couple of days. I can't be bothered trawling through your other "contributions." Basically your argument seems to be based on unrequited love for being ruled by Westminster and calling Alex Salmond "wee eck." My guess is that any undecided voters who read your contributions here defending the Westminster liars and gravy-trainers might be persuaded that Yes is indeed a more positive message for people across Scotland.

 

But I could be wrong.

Edited by Jaggernaut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Complete tosh yet again to try to protect your failing union. Austria: read the first sentence (http://www.oecd-ilib...F409B570121CDC2) : "Normal pension age is 65 for men." How clear does it need to be? You can earn more (what you either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly call "full pension") if you work 40 years (not 45, as you again either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly write). Oh, I forgot, unionists do like to multiply by whatever factor suits their fear-mongering, baseless arguments.

 

And in case you need it spelled out even more clearly, look at this: http://www.efbww.org...ustria%20GB.pdf

 

But it's not the Daily Mail, so maybe you won't bother reading it, so for the benefit of you and other readers let me quote: "Retirement age for the ordinary old-age pension is currently 65 for men and 60 for women..... Austria therefore has a statutory minimum pension [their bold typeface, not mine], which for single persons is 793 euros and for married persons 1189 euros..."

 

Oh, and just in case you have problems with conversion rates, 1189 euros for married persons converts to 952.71 GBP, which compares to 687.40 GBP for married couples in the UK.

 

You've recently been found out to be "mistaken" about Scotland's spending on roads, now the pension argument, your position on the relative lack of railways investment in Scotland is indefensible.......and that's only in the past couple of days. I can't be bothered trawling through your other "contributions." Basically your argument seems to be based on unrequited love for being ruled by Westminster and calling Alex Salmond "wee eck." My guess is that any undecided voters who read your contributions here defending the Westminster liars and gravy-trainers might be persuaded that Yes is indeed a more positive message for people across Scotland.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

So much anger in one post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete tosh yet again to try to protect your failing union. Austria: read the first sentence (http://www.oecd-ilib...F409B570121CDC2) : "Normal pension age is 65 for men." How clear does it need to be? You can earn more (what you either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly call "full pension") if you work 40 years (not 45, as you again either mistakenly or deliberately misleadingly write). Oh, I forgot, unionists do like to multiply by whatever factor suits their fear-mongering, baseless arguments.

 

let see now

 

" Benefits can amount to as much as 80% of an individual's average lifetime earnings if contributions have been made for at least 45 years (subject to a predefined cap)." http://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/content/country-profiles/austria/27

 

You need 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits to get the full basic State Pension.

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

 

you mentioned 65 not me.

 

 

And in case you need it spelled out even more clearly, look at this: http://www.efbww.org...ustria%20GB.pdf

 

But it's not the Daily Mail, so maybe you won't bother reading it, so for the benefit of you and other readers let me quote: "Retirement age for the ordinary old-age pension is currently 65 for men and 60 for women..... Austria therefore has a statutory minimum pension [their bold typeface, not mine], which for single persons is 793 euros and for married persons 1189 euros..."

 

Oh, and just in case you have problems with conversion rates, 1189 euros for married persons converts to 952.71 GBP, which compares to 687.40 GBP for married couples in the UK.

 

You actually get £904.8 in the UK, as with Austria it can be topped up with NI credits

 

"Basic state pension

The basic state pension is worth £113.10 a week for a single person in 2014/15 (or £5,881 a year).

If you’re married, and both you and your partner have built up state pension, you’ll get double this amount – so £226.20 a week. But if your partner has not built up their own state pension, they'll still be able to claim a state pension based on your record.

If your income is below a certain level, you can boost it by claiming pension credit. This will take your income up to £148.35 a week for a single person and £226.50 a week for a couple (in 2014/15). "

http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/state-pension-explained/how-much-state-pension-will-i-get/

 

You've recently been found out to be "mistaken" about Scotland's spending on roads, now the pension argument, your position on the relative lack of railways investment in Scotland is indefensible.......and that's only in the past couple of days. I can't be bothered trawling through your other "contributions." Basically your argument seems to be based on unrequited love for being ruled by Westminster and calling Alex Salmond "wee eck." My guess is that any undecided voters who read your contributions here defending the Westminster liars and gravy-trainers might be persuaded that Yes is indeed a more positive message for people across Scotland.

 

found out, how, no i didn't know about the A9 up grade BUT this has been needing upgraded for years and the Scottish government have dragged there feet since 1998.

as for the rail spending, do you think that £350 mil on 30 miles of rail track is good business? or nearly a bil on the trams not to mention the parly building, scotland can make a hash of projects as well as anyone, we just wouldn't have the same amount of cash to cover it when it went wrong.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

Possibly but don't let that stop you posting your bitter and twisted posts, how is that chip on your shoulder.

 

 

there is plenty i am wrong on and will admit it if i am but there was nothing factually wrong with my post below............But I could be wrong.

snapback.pngjaggybunnet, on 24 June 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

there are details which you fail to mention such as country's like Italy where there are very few private pensions and having to work 45 years in Austria (30 years at moment in uk may rise to 35 ) to get full pension none of them are perfect and all need to be paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is plenty i am wrong on and will admit it if i am but there was nothing factually wrong with my post below............But I could be wrong.

 

snapback.pngjaggybunnet, on 24 June 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

there are details which you fail to mention such as country's like Italy where there are very few private pensions and having to work 45 years in Austria (30 years at moment in uk may rise to 35 ) to get full pension none of them are perfect and all need to be paid for.

 

I despair, and won't even try again to show how you distort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that because you cant.

 

the only thing to despair is the yes camps belief that "it will all be OK " with nothing to prove this or even close to showing is the case.

 

You can be sure that all will not be ok if Scotland decides to be ruled by Westminster. I shudder to think about the future in that scenario, and that includes my pension.

Edited by Jaggernaut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaggernaut, you can't win the one to one here, but I think it's clear to all with common sense. Even when you go to some good effort to deliver up the facts you're shouted down by the incoherent one or rudely dismissed as angry by the ex-pat.

 

Do you know what? The more I read and listen from and to their likes, then the more I believe that the Yes campaign will succeed on September 18th.

 

It's the undecided who hold ALL the power in this referendum.

 

And who will the "middle million" listen to?

 

The rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrelentless negativity of the scaremongering No Campaign, who, despite a catchy slogan, have been completely unable to explain why we're better together?

 

Or the common sense policies of the Yes campaign which are completely and totally immersed in the good of Scotland, with her people as the number one priority?

 

I predict the latter.

 

The polls are keeping their secrets. Meanwhile, the scaremongers can keep turning those crucial, but silent, undecided our way ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do occasionally wonder if JB is on the wind-up, such are the inaccuracies and (probably deliberate) misinterpretations that litter his posts.

 

sorry you think it is deliberate lol as opposed you you and Jaggernaut who always put out straight facts...not.

 

i only ask a simple question of the yes camp, which is show me why we would be better off independent, something that they have singularly failed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry you think it is deliberate lol as opposed you you and Jaggernaut who always put out straight facts...not.

 

i only ask a simple question of the yes camp, which is show me why we would be better off independent, something that they have singularly failed to do.

 

The OECD certainly thinks so.in terms of GDP per capita (as of March 2014)..

 

1 Luxembourg $89,417

2 Norway $66,135

3 Switzerland $53,641

4 United States $51,689

5 Australia $44,407

6 Austria $44,141

7 Ireland $43,803

8 Netherlands $43,348

9 Sweden $42,874

10 Denmark $42,787

11 Canada $42,114

12 Germany $41,923

13 Belgium $40,838

14 Scotland (Onshore + geog oil) $39,642

15 Finland $39,160

16 Iceland $39,097

17 France $36,933

18 United Kingdom $35,671

19 Japan $35,482

20 Italy $34,143

21 New Zealand $32,847

22 Spain $32,551

23 Israel $31,364

24 Korea $30,011

25 Slovenia $28,482

26 Czech Republic $27,522

27 Slovak Republic $25,848

28 Portugal $25,802

29 Greece $25,586

30 Estonia $24,260

31 Poland $22,783

32 Hungary $22,635

33 Chile $21,486

34 Turkey $18,315

35 Mexico $17,019

 

Then again Johann did say that we did not have the genetic blueprint for self governance - even with the economic advantage that independence offers us!! Others in the NO camp have been send out a strong message to our international trading partners that we are an economic basket case. That will really help consolidate our place on the world stage no matter the result of the referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question, JB: if, hypothetically, it was actually possible to provide concrete evidence / proof to the effect that Scots would be financially better off under independence, would you then vote YES?

 

it would certainly make me think about it, i have other issues such as with the armed forces, which i think would become a laughing stock in the world.

 

i said i would wait for the white paper to come out before making a def decision, that was a joke to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OECD certainly thinks so.in terms of GDP per capita (as of March 2014)..

 

1 Luxembourg $89,417

2 Norway $66,135

3 Switzerland $53,641

4 United States $51,689

5 Australia $44,407

6 Austria $44,141

7 Ireland $43,803

8 Netherlands $43,348

9 Sweden $42,874

10 Denmark $42,787

11 Canada $42,114

12 Germany $41,923

13 Belgium $40,838

14 Scotland (Onshore + geog oil) $39,642

15 Finland $39,160

16 Iceland $39,097

17 France $36,933

18 United Kingdom $35,671

19 Japan $35,482

20 Italy $34,143

21 New Zealand $32,847

22 Spain $32,551

23 Israel $31,364

24 Korea $30,011

25 Slovenia $28,482

26 Czech Republic $27,522

27 Slovak Republic $25,848

28 Portugal $25,802

29 Greece $25,586

30 Estonia $24,260

31 Poland $22,783

32 Hungary $22,635

33 Chile $21,486

34 Turkey $18,315

35 Mexico $17,019

 

Then again Johann did say that we did not have the genetic blueprint for self governance - even with the economic advantage that independence offers us!! Others in the NO camp have been send out a strong message to our international trading partners that we are an economic basket case. That will really help consolidate our place on the world stage no matter the result of the referendum.

 

sorry but where does that show we would be better off independent?

 

i know things are not great at the moment but that's not the question is it, will we be better off after and the answer going on the info given by the yes camp is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The OECD certainly thinks so.in terms of GDP per capita (as of March 2014)..

 

1 Luxembourg $89,417

2 Norway $66,135

3 Switzerland $53,641

4 United States $51,689

5 Australia $44,407

6 Austria $44,141

7 Ireland $43,803

8 Netherlands $43,348

9 Sweden $42,874

10 Denmark $42,787

11 Canada $42,114

12 Germany $41,923

13 Belgium $40,838

14 Scotland (Onshore + geog oil) $39,642

15 Finland $39,160

16 Iceland $39,097

17 France $36,933

18 United Kingdom $35,671

19 Japan $35,482

20 Italy $34,143

21 New Zealand $32,847

22 Spain $32,551

23 Israel $31,364

24 Korea $30,011

25 Slovenia $28,482

26 Czech Republic $27,522

27 Slovak Republic $25,848

28 Portugal $25,802

29 Greece $25,586

30 Estonia $24,260

31 Poland $22,783

32 Hungary $22,635

33 Chile $21,486

34 Turkey $18,315

35 Mexico $17,019

 

Then again Johann did say that we did not have the genetic blueprint for self governance - even with the economic advantage that independence offers us!! Others in the NO camp have been send out a strong message to our international trading partners that we are an economic basket case. That will really help consolidate our place on the world stage no matter the result of the referendum.

 

The OECD figure doesn't show what counties companies are actually earning that money only where they have part of an operation, it's a very misleading figure.

 

I'm still awaiting as to what currency Scotland will use or how it will fund the £1.5 billion setup fee (quoted today by an adviser to Salmond) on top of paying its share of the national debt whilst cutting taxes and increasing spending and benefits. As Brian Souter stated in the press today "it doesn't add up"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still awaiting as to what currency Scotland will use or how it will fund the £1.5 billion setup fee (quoted today by an adviser to Salmond) on top of paying its share of the national debt whilst cutting taxes and increasing spending and benefits. As Brian Souter stated in the press today "it doesn't add up"

 

I seriously doubt Brian Souter said any such thing. He's an unequivocal supporter of independence. The way the media have spun Stagecoach's annual report is ridiculous, but typical. It's an accounting requirement to mention any possible risks, so of course the independence referendum had to be included. Also mentioned, but not reported, were things like the EU in/out referendum and the UK general election. This link has Souter's real opinion.

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/280679-sir-brian-souter-independence-will-create-a-positive-outcome-for-firms/

 

Re the set up costs. What was actually said was that initial set up costs are likely to be around £200m, rising to between £600m and £1.5bn over the first 10 years of an independent Scotland. Included within these costs would be the upgrade of the tax system, which is something the UK will have to do anyway so those costs will be incurred whether we vote Yes or not. This is according to Prof Dunleavy in his interview with GMS the other morning.

 

Even if the costs do reach the top end of the estimate they're a better investment for Scotland and considerably less than our £2bn share of HS2 over the same period, as far as I'm concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry you think it is deliberate lol as opposed you you and Jaggernaut who always put out straight facts...not. i only ask a simple question of the yes camp, which is show me why we would be better off independent, something that they have singularly failed to do.

 

Scotland will be better off independent because we'll have a govt at Holyrood making decisions for and creating policy for the 5m people of Scotland rather than a govt at Westminster attempting a one size fits all approach for 65m people. Even if I thought the UK govt was trying to do the best it could for the whole of the country I'd believe fundamentally that a Scottish govt could make better decisions for Scotland. That the current political climate south of the border is lurching further to the right of centre makes it even more important in my eyes to vote Yes. While I don't expect UKIP to make much headway in terms of the number of seats they claim at the next election their rise in popularity is dictating policy for both the Tory and Labour parties. We already have the the 4th most unequal society in the developed world and I can only see this pattern continuing under a UK govt.

 

If you're looking for absolutes when it comes to the financial side of things then you're probably going to be disappointed. Both sides are obviously going to spin the numbers to suit the outcome they're after. However, if you look at Scotland's resources and diverse economy there's no doubt we have what it takes to be a successful independent country. Cameron, Darling and Paddy Ashdown amongst others have all said as much. I don't see many other European countries of a similar size struggling to make ends meet so why would Scotland be any different. I don't expect it to be easy, far from it, but I see just as much uncertainty if we vote No.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...