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

[Colognejag]

So what? There is enough North Sea oil to last well beyond all of our lifetimes. Depends how old you are! What about the UK's dependency on oil for shoring up it's crippled financial status and financing its illegal wars, nuclear weapons, new titanic, etc. etc. It is less dependent as a whole on this one sector than Scotland would be on it's own.

 

How many times does it need to be said: Scottish independence is not about oil, and it's not about Alex Salmond. Funny you are right - it was until yesterday. Now we have the child care debate to add to these two.

 

You'll know that the UK is now extremely dependent on financial services. How fragile an economy is that! All it needs is for the EU to decide that most transactions need to be conducted in a Eurozone country (and many politicians would like to see this), and London will be entirely crippled. Then I suspect the UK would leave the EU.

 

How do you see the UK paying off its debt? And how smart do you think the UK government has been to allow it to get to that unbelievable sum in the first place? How will Scotland pay off it's debt? Do you think that if Scotland had been independent over the past 5 years it would not have any debts or have to cut back beudgets?!

 

I think you should be more honest and say that nothing would make you change your voting intention. A question not directed at me, but there is nothing that would change my voting intention. Sadly, democtratic Alex is not allowing this Scot to vote on the matter...

[Mr Scruff]

How do you see the UK paying off its debt? And how smart do you think the UK government has been to allow it to get to that unbelievable sum in the first place?

It;s such a size that it will take generations to sort out. This will be true for the UK as a whole, or Scotland as an independent nation. The significant ramp up of public spending during the years where apparently we had eliminated 'boom and bust' was an important factor, and we largely contributed to that (not least having a Scottish CotE and PM). But obviously austerity on its own won't deliver a reduction, but it is still the generation approaching middle age now, and each generation below who will increasingly pay for this.

 

 

I think you should be more honest and say that nothing would make you change your voting intention.

Like you.

 

These debates can be interesting, and can give context to opinions and influence them (especially when trying to frame an answer to a difficult question). But the entrenched will always use this to back up their own opinion rather than be influenced by it to shape their opinion.

[Jaggernaut]

It;s such a size that it will take generations to sort out. This will be true for the UK as a whole, or Scotland as an independent nation. The significant ramp up of public spending during the years where apparently we had eliminated 'boom and bust' was an important factor, and we largely contributed to that (not least having a Scottish CotE and PM). But obviously austerity on its own won't deliver a reduction, but it is still the generation approaching middle age now, and each generation below who will increasingly pay for this.

 

--AGREED. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON FOR REMAINING DEPENDENT ON POCKET MONEY FROM WESTMINSTER.

 

 

 

Like you. -- EXCUSE ME? I'VE NEVER PRETENDED THAT I'M OPEN TO PERSUASION. OTHERS HAVE.

 

These debates can be interesting, and can give context to opinions and influence them (especially when trying to frame an answer to a difficult question). But the entrenched will always use this to back up their own opinion rather than be influenced by it to shape their opinion.

 

YES.

Apologies for caps, but easiest way to reply within your quotes.

[Mr Scruff]

EXCUSE ME? I'VE NEVER PRETENDED THAT I'M OPEN TO PERSUASION. OTHERS HAVE.

 

Absolutely - you've been honest enough to go on record that nothing would alter your opinion.

 

I assume I'm the same as others with an open-mind ie sceptical but engaged, and in that sense these discussions can be very helpful.

[kni]

These:

 

"We are constantly being asked how Scotland is going to pay for this or that but no one seems to ask where the money is coming from to pay for HS2, the Trident upgrade, Cross Rail, Boris island, The repairs to the Palace of Westminster and the upgrade to the English ship yards to build the ships that are being built on the Clyde. There is also the little matter of the £1,430,000,000,000 debt that the UK government had built up. A debt that is growing each day. When is someone going to ask these questions?"

 

I'll address three of them.

 

There are plenty of pressure groups and think tanks who are questioning the affordability and value of HS2. The Bill is nearly 50,000 pages and its unlikely to be passed before the next general election. If so, the next Government would have to start the Parliamentary process again. By then, the economic case will have been debunked further. It's probably dead already.

 

Crossrail is being funded mainly by Londoners (through council tax and fares) and business. Central government's contribution's is less than £5 billion. The 9 new stations are being built now and most of the work will be completed by 2015.

 

Boris Island will never be built. It's likely that the airports review will favour at least one, possibly two, more runways at Heathrow rather than "Boris Island". BAA has submitted detailed plans for 3 options for Heathrow's expansion. Any government funding for "Boris Island" could be challenged by the owners of the other London airports in the European courts - abuse of state aid. In any case, it is in the wrong place as demand is growing to the west and north of London.

[Mr Scruff]

--AGREED. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON FOR REMAINING DEPENDENT ON POCKET MONEY FROM WESTMINSTER.

I suppose the issue is whether you believe that a larger economy has more scope to do this than a smaller one (ie more diversity and ability to absorb shocks).

 

Do any political parties in Scotland have a plan for this, or the guts to take the difficult decisions to address it? The SNP manifesto dressed up in an 'independence' white paper certainly suggested making the problem worse but maybe the idea is to leave it to our kids sort it out.

 

On the other hand, and independent Scotland which encouraged diversity, entrepreneurial spirit and achievement, strong economic growth and an end to patronage could do it - I just don't see this as an objective of the 'independence' offered.

 

And again I don't recognise your characterisation of "pocket money from Westminster" any more than I'd view an 'Independent' Scotland as oppression from Edinburgh.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Mr Scruff

[Jaggernaut]

I suppose the issue is whether you believe that a larger economy has more scope to do this than a smaller one (ie more diversity and ability to absorb shocks).

-- Many smaller economies are doing very nicely. The standard of living is much higher than here.

 

Do any political parties in Scotland have a plan for this, or the guts to take the difficult decisions to address it? The SNP manifesto dressed up in an 'independence' white paper certainly suggested making the problem worse but maybe the idea is to leave it to our kids sort it out.

 

--Is the SNP's position any more "dressed up" than unionist parties' manifestos?

 

On the other hand, and independent Scotland which encouraged diversity, entrepreneurial spirit and achievement, strong economic growth and an end to patronage could do it - I just don't see this as an objective of the 'independence' offered.

 

--You really don't? I'd have thought that most if not all of those were amongst the core values of the independence movement.

 

And again I don't recognise your characterisation of "pocket money from Westminster" any more than I'd view an 'Independent' Scotland as oppression from Edinburgh.

 

--That's up to you; you appear to be content with Scotland being dependent on Westminster (whose objective in ending the Barnett agreement is clearly to impoverish Scotland further) not only for finances, but for all the other non-devolved issues which every other nation takes for granted as being their right.

[Mr Scruff]

-- Many smaller economies are doing very nicely. The standard of living is much higher than here.

Agreed, there are. And there are those that aren't. Greece, a small economy in a monetary union with no fiscal or political union is supremely struggling in a way that will affect them for a generation.

We could trade examples back and forth to little advantage. The question is what the 'independence' proposals suggest and what we can predict from that.

 

--Is the SNP's position any more "dressed up" than unionist parties' manifestos?

No, but that's not what I was referring to. I was saying that the white paper was dressed up as an SNP manifesto.

 

--You really don't? I'd have thought that most if not all of those were amongst the core values of the independence movement.

I really don't. What detail we have been given (no monetary autonomy; increased state control/ spending; retaining the hereditary monarchy etc) suggests not.

 

--That's up to you; you appear to be content with Scotland being dependent on Westminster (whose objective in ending the Barnett agreement is clearly to impoverish Scotland further) not only for finances, but for all the other non-devolved issues which every other nation takes for granted as being their right.

Again I don't recognise your characterisation. I wouldn't view Glasgow as being dependent on Westminster in the UK any more than being dependent on Edinburgh in an 'independent' Scotland.

 

Similar to people who want us to leave the EU, I do understand the emotive drive for secession - (those things 'other nations take for granted'). My preference is to look at the pros and cons and to weigh the decision and the benefits and risks of union.

[kni]

Similar to people who want us to leave the EU, I do understand the emotive drive for secession - (those things 'other nations take for granted'). My preference is to look at the pros and cons and to weigh the decision and the benefits and risks of union.

 

My desire to leave the EU is not driven by emotion but by reason. The EU is

 

1. Undemocratic - the Commissioners are appointed, not elected. They impose the majority of our laws through qualified majority voting (i.e. we have no veto to stop them). The appointed judges in the European Courts can over-rule our Parliament and courts.

2. Environmentally disastrous - e.g. Common Fisheries Policy which has destroyed fish stocks.

3. Economically disastrous - Excessive regulations and emissions trading costs have added hugely to industrial costs and energy bills resulting in economic stagnation in the Eurozone.

4. Costly - Britain's contribution is now about £20 billion and rising every year. We also contributed £ billions more to bailing out Greece and Ireland.

5. Corrupt - £ billions go missing every year. The mafia has made a fortune from the CAP and the ETS. The auditors have not signed off the accounts in over 15 years.

 

Australia and Canada don't need to be a massive political and economic union to trade and prosper.

[Annie H]

Yes

[stillresigned]

Yes, but I do understand people having fears about the economy in an independent Scotland. Yet, I fear making economic predictions of just what and what not will happen if something else happens is about as scientifically valid as predicting the weather for the day of the referendum! I have to confess, I have little time for economic forecasts per ce, and most are politically influenced one way or another. After all how many economists were predicting the last(current!) recession? The thing is independence is a political and probably social decision to for some people and though you'd be foolish not to consider the economic predictions, it shouldn't be your only or indeed main focus. Do I think Scotland will vote Yes, unfortunately I think that is about as likely as Thistle appearing in next seasons Champions Leagu.

[Rid Skwerr]

I know it's not very grown-up, and these are really trivial matters, but the things below get on my thruppennies....

 

It grates that after 300 years we are still regulated by The Bank of ENGLAND - surely a properly united Britain should have found a way to rename the central bank in a more inclusive manner.

Also the BBC (and many others) refer to "the North-east" and mean Tyneside, "the North-west" and mean Liverpool/Manchester, and "northerners" are people from Lancashire & Yorkshire.

If they truly represented the whole of GB, then they should recognise that these places are barely half way up the nation and cannot be reasonably described as "the north".

If they sufficed these terms with "of England" I'd have no complaints and the solo terms would then be used to refer to Wick or Ullapool in the geographic north of our shared island.

 

I'm also becoming less interested in watching the "national" news from our major broadcasters.

It's not their fault of course but, since devolution, more and more institutions have separate organisations and arrangements north and south of the border.

Accordingly, it is of little "national" interest how the NHS is faring, or how the latest rehash of education in England is progressing, to those of us who live elsewhere.

 

Mini rant over.

 

Don't be a Willie Wet-legs........Vote YES

[Jaggernaut]

Of course the latest "benefit" of being ruled by Westminster is that today's teenagers will probably need to work until they are 70 years of age before they qualify for a state pension (however miserly that may be). That much is true for all parts of the present UK, but how convenient: it's well established that the average Scot lives for 4 years less than the average English person. So in other words, we'll be paying more into the system, but proportionally more of us will die before being able to retire. And the shocking fact is that neither the so-called "Scottish" unionist parties have dared say a word against this, or their London-based masters.

 

Vote YES.

[Norgethistle]

Of course the latest "benefit" of being ruled by Westminster is that today's teenagers will probably need to work until they are 70 years of age before they qualify for a state pension (however miserly that may be). That much is true for all parts of the present UK, but how convenient: it's well established that the average Scot lives for 4 years less than the average English person. So in other words, we'll be paying more into the system, but proportionally more of us will die before being able to retire. And the shocking fact is that neither the so-called "Scottish" unionist parties have dared say a word against this, or their London-based masters.

 

Vote YES.

 

We already need to work to 69 in Norway for our full pension, the reason they are putting the age up is the fact there is a massive shortfall in the pension fund due to various things.

• Banking crisis worldwide
  
• People living way longer than when the pension age was first set (Instead of drawing a pension for 5 years folk are now living long enough to draw 20 years worth)
  
• More pensioners
  

As for Scots living on average 4 years less than the rest of the UK its hardly a fact we want to trumpet and be proud of, it shows the social issues (Drinking, smoking, drugs, violence, lack of exercise, fast food diet) that Scotland has (Going by the stat we live less) a greater problem with, so as we have that problem it means logically thinking the drain to the health service etc will be greater per head capita than the rest of the UK, so in turn will mean more benefits (Less fit people to work) and more money needed for the health service, but we'll be paying out more in pensions, and bringing in less in tax

[Jaggernaut]

 

As for Scots living on average 4 years less than the rest of the UK its hardly a fact we want to trumpet and be proud of, it shows the social issues (Drinking, smoking, drugs, violence, lack of exercise, fast food diet) that Scotland has (Going by the stat we live less) a greater problem with, so as we have that problem it means logically thinking the drain to the health service etc will be greater per head capita than the rest of the UK, so in turn will mean more benefits (Less fit people to work) and more money needed for the health service, but we'll be paying out more in pensions, and bringing in less in tax

 

Is what you're saying along the lines that because Scots have relatively poor health and a shorter life expectancy than in most other parts of the UK they should not feel hard done by because they are a drain on the health service? And that by dying before other people it somehow equals out? That's certainly what it looks like to me, and I would thing to more than a few others who read your post. If so, then "thanks" for further reinforcing the YES vote.

[Norgethistle]

Is what you're saying along the lines that because Scots have relatively poor health and a shorter life expectancy than in most other parts of the UK they should not feel hard done by because they are a drain on the health service? And that by dying before other people it somehow equals out? That's certainly what it looks like to me, and I would thing to more than a few others who read your post. If so, then "thanks" for further reinforcing the YES vote.

 

No you stated that Westminster wants to put the pension wage up by 5 years BUT that Scotland has life expectancy 4 years lower than the rest of the UK and thats not fair so vote YES, that is due to social and culture problems in Scotland, nothing else, its not a genetic thing as we have been breeding cross border for centuries, and the life expectancy is lower in the central belt (Glasgow & Edinburgh) than the highlands and islands.

 

Yes we may take less years pension out it, but some may not, but on that if our health is worse than the national insurance contributions that are paid will also go to help those with health problems which by definition (Lower life expectancy so probably more health issues at a younger age) means may kick in earlier and stop us working so long.

 

Stop trying to blame Westminster for all the problems, they are trying to balance the books or we will end up with no one getting a pension once they reach 75 as the fund is dry, the SNP have this great plan of increasing benefit payments, keeping the pension age fixed, scrapping some taxes and maybe lowering others, not one tax hike has been mentioned, wee Ec must be using Rangers CFO when it comes to setting budgets as what is planned will bankrupt us quicker than if we were part of the UK

[Jaggernaut]

No you stated that Westminster wants to put the pension wage up by 5 years BUT that Scotland has life expectancy 4 years lower than the rest of the UK and thats not fair so vote YES, that is due to social and culture problems in Scotland, nothing else, its not a genetic thing as we have been breeding cross border for centuries, and the life expectancy is lower in the central belt (Glasgow & Edinburgh) than the highlands and islands.

 

Yes we may take less years pension out it, but some may not, but on that if our health is worse than the national insurance contributions that are paid will also go to help those with health problems which by definition (Lower life expectancy so probably more health issues at a younger age) means may kick in earlier and stop us working so long.

 

Stop trying to blame Westminster for all the problems, they are trying to balance the books or we will end up with no one getting a pension once they reach 75 as the fund is dry, the SNP have this great plan of increasing benefit payments, keeping the pension age fixed, scrapping some taxes and maybe lowering others, not one tax hike has been mentioned, wee Ec must be using Rangers CFO when it comes to setting budgets as what is planned will bankrupt us quicker than if we were part of the UK

 

You start your reply with "No", but it's clear that what you mean is "Yes."

[jaggybunnet]

You start your reply with "No", but it's clear that what you mean is "Yes."

 

as with most things. only in your head

[jaggybunnet]

your thoughts on this Norgethistle

 

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/deal-or-no-deal/

[Norgethistle]

your thoughts on this Norgethistle

 

 

http://wingsoverscot...eal-or-no-deal/

 

Its all very well saying Norway is £12k better off, till you look at the cost of living

 

Beer in a pub 86nok for 0.4L = £12.20 a pint

Can of beer in shop 26 Nok = £2.60

Bottle of wine in shop 140Nok = £14 pound

 

Bread 30nok = £3 a loaf

Milk 0.75l 20nok = £2

Chicken 2 breasts 96nok = £9.60

Mince 400g 40nok = £4

Flora 400g 23nok = £2.30

 

So just basics (ignoring the alcohol) = £20.90

Compare it to tesco = £9.99

 

In my household, which is just me plus my daughter (8 yr old) we'll spend around £400 - £500 a month on food and I am quite frugal with my spending

 

20 minute bus ride 36nok (Say anniesland cross to St Georges cross) £3.60

Electricity around £100 a month

Unfurnished 1 bedroom apartment rent £1000 a month

 

I am fortunate i am in a well paid job now, but previously as an aircraft mechanic (with shift allowance) it was a struggle, but having my kid here you buckle down and make the best of it, and push yourself up that ladder to make a better more comfortable life

 

The figures quoted of £41k was roughly what I was on a mechanic 3 years ago (Including shift allowance) and was hardly a "very healthy salary" as it quotes, especially with 2 mouths to feed, and clothe (Full tax on children s clothes here)

 

Of that £29,000 disposable income around £17000 went on rent and electricity, the time you add your food, bus and clothing (Which I buy in UK and Mum posts) there isn't that much left, thankfully us Scots love overtime whilst the Norwegians don't so we would work as much as possible including all the national holidays at treble time to subsidize our wage, although the government and unions would kick up hell come the 3rd quarter when we were applying for extensions to our 480 hours 2nd limit on OT

 

It also doesn't mention we pay to see our doctor, for our medicines etc, plus for kindergarten, after school club (Schools finish at 1pm here!!!)

 

Its still a great place to live, pretty safe, child friendly although there is no way on earth I would move to Oslo as it has all the big city problems without the cheapness

[The Sunnylaw Jag]

I'm still no sure if people are getting the gist of this one word posting - Yes or No.

[jaggybunnet]

Its all very well saying Norway is £12k better off, till you look at the cost of living

 

Beer in a pub 86nok for 0.4L = £12.20 a pint

Can of beer in shop 26 Nok = £2.60

Bottle of wine in shop 140Nok = £14 pound

 

Bread 30nok = £3 a loaf

Milk 0.75l 20nok = £2

Chicken 2 breasts 96nok = £9.60

Mince 400g 40nok = £4

Flora 400g 23nok = £2.30

 

So just basics (ignoring the alcohol) = £20.90

Compare it to tesco = £9.99

 

In my household, which is just me plus my daughter (8 yr old) we'll spend around £400 - £500 a month on food and I am quite frugal with my spending

 

20 minute bus ride 36nok (Say anniesland cross to St Georges cross) £3.60

Electricity around £100 a month

Unfurnished 1 bedroom apartment rent £1000 a month

 

I am fortunate i am in a well paid job now, but previously as an aircraft mechanic (with shift allowance) it was a struggle, but having my kid here you buckle down and make the best of it, and push yourself up that ladder to make a better more comfortable life

 

The figures quoted of £41k was roughly what I was on a mechanic 3 years ago (Including shift allowance) and was hardly a "very healthy salary" as it quotes, especially with 2 mouths to feed, and clothe (Full tax on children s clothes here)

 

Of that £29,000 disposable income around £17000 went on rent and electricity, the time you add your food, bus and clothing (Which I buy in UK and Mum posts) there isn't that much left, thankfully us Scots love overtime whilst the Norwegians don't so we would work as much as possible including all the national holidays at treble time to subsidize our wage, although the government and unions would kick up hell come the 3rd quarter when we were applying for extensions to our 480 hours 2nd limit on OT

 

It also doesn't mention we pay to see our doctor, for our medicines etc, plus for kindergarten, after school club (Schools finish at 1pm here!!!)

 

Its still a great place to live, pretty safe, child friendly although there is no way on earth I would move to Oslo as it has all the big city problems without the cheapness

 

thanks Norgethistle

[jaggybunnet]

I'm still no sure if people are getting the gist of this one word posting - Yes or No.

 

that like ecks white(ish) paper were dumped long ago

[Chicob]

YES!!

[Norgethistle]

Nei