An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
... but overall it shows that financially we **MIGHT** make the transition without any hardship beyond what we would expect from staying in the Union and over a few years **MIGHT** even end up with a cleaner more efficient government system.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you, since I know you don't like people cherry-picking to suit their own purposes. ;)

I don't think Prof Dunleavy said these things would definitely happen. But they are certainly possible, and the latter is potentially one of the big advantages of independence.
 
I Don't like politicians cherry picking but I'm quite partial to them myself :)
 
Steep said:
but overall it shows that financially we can make the transition without any hardship beyond what we would expect from staying in the Union and over a few years even end up with a cleaner more efficient government system.
Click to expand...

The amazing thing is that you even believe that... Still there's always the lost city of atlantis & the aliens on Mars to go with that same illusion..
 
Pete if you have information to the contrary then post it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air to no good purpose.
 
Name any Goverment that has actually cost less than they STATED. The facts are once they have a taste of your money they will not be giving any back.. Its amazing how many people fail to understand this concept.

Politicians try and deceive as many of the people for as much of the time as they think they can get away with...
 
But back to the coconuts:
Steep said:
To get back the more serious topic and to back up my earlier remarks about BBC bias - This happened in London today, fifty thousand people marching in a demonstration against austerity cuts.
Find it on the BBC, ITV or Sky news websites and you get a coconut.

/edit photo not of the march so removed.
Click to expand...

Ta-daaa! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27962963

I think that's three coconuts you owe me now, plus the bonus one.

The tragedy is that I don't actually like coconut.
 
Stewart, all 24 hours late and only three sentences? My coconuts are safe :P
 
Pete I can't disagree with your opinion of politicians but the initial figures in the report are actually lower than the estimate the Scottish gov gave.
 
Steep said:
My coconuts are safe :P
Click to expand...
No, that's not fair. The challenge was to find them, not to find them within a specific time frame.

But I don't know why I'm protesting, because I still don't like coconut.
 
The beeb ran that story only after receiving over a thousand complaints about not running it, that they gave it all of three lines and 24 seconds of video which seems to show folk just wandering about says much about the attitude our 'impartial' broadcaster has.
 
As far as I'm concerned the BBC is an organisation which needs something major done with it. They seemed to have escaped any serious consequence for covering up all the historical abuse but continue to spend tax payers money foolishly with grossly overpaid salaries, building works expenses etc. Many media outlets don't appear to mind having a political slant, but I hate how the BBC try to portray themselves as being impartial when they are anything but.

The only good aspect of the BBC is they have extremely good equipment and a strong worldwide presence.
 
gman said:
What are people's thoughts on this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...al-income-tax-to-cost-families-550-extra.html
Click to expand...
It's a pretty feeble piece of reporting. I haven't studied the analysis behind it, but that's probably just as feeble.

It's totally obvious that, whenever you change a tax regime without changing the total tax take - which I understand is what's proposed here - then there will be winners and losers. Making a big fuss about the losers but not mentioning the winners is disingenuous at best.

Having said that, Salmond doesn't seem to have done himself any favours here. If the proposal is intended to raise the same amount of tax but in a 'fairer' way, he should be proud of it. It really doesn't matter whether the headline rate is 2p in the £, or 5p in the £, or whatever - if it's not actually increasing the total tax take, that's the important message.

I understand - though I would be willing to be corrected - that the expectation is that Scotland's overall tax take and government spending would be higher than the UK's. But the trouble is, everybody wants the benefits of higher government spending but nobody wants the taxes that pay for it. So, that being the case, any opportunity to raise the total tax take by stealth would be welcome to the politicians. And restructuring taxes is an obvious way to do that. So Salmond being so cagey about the detail of this proposal creates the suspicion that perhaps it's not going to be overall neutral after all.
 
I've always believed that you should pay for the services you use and this would go some way to accomplishing that. I use one persons worth of council resources so why should I pay the same as a couple living down the street who use twice as much?
The local income tax is a fairer way of distributing the cost among those who can pay although of course it doesn't take into account the possibility of a house full of non tax payers using services.
 
Perhaps a percentage of their benefits? Lol

I've no problem with paying more tax or fairer tax if the services reflect it.
 
What share in billions of the UK net liabilities are Scotland going to have to take?
 
Whatever the pre independence negotiations agree on Graham.
 
Have they not got a fairly accurate idea yet though?
 
Can't have one until Westminster agree to negotiate. I know that the Scottish Government has said it is not ever our intention not to take on our share of the debt. What that share will come to is down to so many things like splitting the shared infrastructure and who gets what. I've mentioned before in this thread the WM committee report of the cost to the UK in defence of Scottish independence. They say that although Scotland has paid for about 8.9% of current defence capability we would not need anything like that as an independent country whereas rUK would need the extra. What I would expect to see is an agreement on the value of the hardware etc and that value being taken off our final share of the debt. The agreement on value is the impossible thing to guess, since WM point blank refuse to even accept the possibility of a yes they will not do any work towards contingencies, This is a line that many in the UK establishment have questioned, armed forces commanders, politicians and civil servants all saying it's a daft attitude. I can see why they take that line mind you, they believe that any tacit acceptance of the possibility might help the cause.
 
I agree the assets will require negotiation, but what about the UK's net liabilities? They know what they are so have they not at least drafted up something to say what they are willing to accept?
 
That's just the problem if WM won't discuss it there's no way to get an accurate figure. I suppose if as a worst case scenario WM say we don't want anything from you just pay your share then Scotland would have to take on about 5% of the debt if you work it out by population share. Doing that would create huge expense for rUK though as the MOD for example would have to replace everything at market value and the Trident boats would be homeless immediately.
I prefer to think that level heads will work out a mutually advantageous agreement for both but what the final figure would is anyone's guess.
 
5% seems a bit low considering our population is larger than that. Even if Westminster won't discuss it that doesn't stop Scotland from putting an offer on the table though, even with conditions such as based on a % quantity of the assets?
 
Actually you're right it's more like eight and a bit percent the 5% came from the report I mentioned before as the top figure Scotland would be likely to need in terms of defence assets though more likely less than that.
There is no table for anyone to put an offer on to and if there were it's not just a simple trade off of one or two things, much horse trading would need to be gone through before any final figure could be reached.
 
You couldn't make it up! Salmond and Darling agreed to debate live on ITV in July, now Darling has pulled out saying he didn't like it that ITV agreed to move the date at Salmonds request. Darling now says he'll debate on the BBC in August, his choice of date and I suppose BT think he'll get a more sympathetic audience at the beeb. This is what I meant when I said playing politics annoys the **** out of me! at least children have the excuse of being children when they act like children.
 
Steep said:
There is no table for anyone to put an offer on to
Click to expand...

Of course there is, it's the table that Scotland and the rUK are both sitting at which has two piles in the middle: assets and liabilities.

There is nothing stopping Scotland from saying we want 8% value of all assets and in return we will take on 8% of say the national debt on the logic that such debt has helped contributed towards the creation of the assets. How the actual particulars of the assets are broken up can be subject to negotiation as time will be needed to see what and how much of each asset will be required but in the end they should get 8% worth and if less then the rUK should have to stump up for the shortfall or reduce a liability accordingly that Scotland may have on.

Or they could propose a different method rather than per capita of calculating what they think is fair? There's a historic version apparently (which is 'surprise surprise' much lower) but then they could always take the middle ground and offer that?

I previously read that Salmond threatened not to take on any of the national debt unless rUK shares the pound. Apart from the obvious fact that we would become a pariah state and pretty much ruined, Salmond seems to forget a rather important thing: he is confident that Scotland will get into the EU, but if he tries to screw over the rUK then THEY can veto him from joining the EU.

If he doesn't take on any of the public debt or liabilities, then rUK are perfectly within their rights to say you aren't getting any of the assets then. So where does this all leave us?

No pound so no debt
No debt so no assets
No assets.....


It feels like he just wants to wait and if independence actually comes then it will end up like a messy divorce and most likely be filled with unreasonable demands/threats by Salmond. It will also give him many, many more years to be able to continue blaming Westminster for problems because "they won't give us this" or "they won't give us that". Who knows what he has planned, he has a huge public purse to use for legal battles to block Freedom of Information requests. So much for transparency.
 
Steep said:
You couldn't make it up! Salmond and Darling agreed to debate live on ITV in July, now Darling has pulled out saying he didn't like it that ITV agreed to move the date at Salmonds request. Darling now says he'll debate on the BBC in August, his choice of date and I suppose BT think he'll get a more sympathetic audience at the beeb. This is what I meant when I said playing politics annoys the **** out of me! at least children have the excuse of being children when they act like children.
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I read. It was the STV and Darling immediately said yes to the debate but Salmond only gave a half yes as it came with a veto that the PM must also debate him. Why does Alex Salmond think that the PM should debate him? This is supposed to be about the Yes and No campaign, so the leaders would be Salmond and Darling. I know Salmond likes to think he's as high ranking as the PM but at the moment he is not. Also, Salmond actually wanted an August date because it was closer to the postal voter date and also not during a depleted audience due to the school holidays, Glasgow games and World Cup.

Salmond was available on the 16th July so why move it? Darling has accepted a second date on 12th August but Salmond hasn't yet.

So Darling has accepted twice and Salmond has only "half" accepted once then pulled out. They are now saying they will only debate Cameron on the 16th July but won't debate Darling until after 3rd August. Sounds more like the Yes campaign are playing games here.
 
Alex Salmond has said he'd debate with David Cameron on 16th July and if he won't do it then with Alistair Darling after the games, AD has previously said "anywhere anytime" STV agreed to hold the debate later but AD refused and now wants to go even later in August but on the BBC.

The point about DC is that he keeps saying "it's a matter for the Scots" when asked to debate but at the same time is continuously interfering on his own terms. He knows he would look bad losing a debate which he almost certainly would do, so his refusal is understandable but so is AS "put up or shut up" proposal.

Personally I think later in August is better, AD will lose the debate badly, he doesn't do well in confrontational situations where he has to think on his feet and that's one of AS strengths.
 
Last edited:
Ref the 'table' ok there may be a table but there's no one sitting on the other side of it. WM refuse to acknowledge even the possibiliry of a yes.
 
Steep said:
Alex Salmond has said he'd debate with David Cameron on 16th July and if he won't do it then with Alistair Darling after the games, AD has previously said "anywhere anytime" STV agreed to hold the debate later but AD refused and now wants to go even later in August but on the BBC.

The point about DC is that he keeps saying "it's a matter for the Scots" when asked to debate but at the same time is continuously interfering on his own terms. He knows he would look bad losing a debate which he almost certainly would do, so his refusal is understandable but so is AS "put up or shut up" proposal.

Personally I think later in August is better, AD will lose the debate badly, he doesn't do well in confrontational situations where he has to think on his feet and that's one of AS strengths.
Click to expand...

Sounds just like politicians being politicians.

Salmond is great at debating or head to heads but he's cringeworthy to watch unless preaching to the converted.

He gets very pedantic to suit his point and does that slimy thing where he chortles at the opposition. Often appears to come out on top providing you don't actually take into account what he's saying. Not very endearing but I can understand why he does it.

I honestly think this head to head thing will be an embarrassing watch for all concerned.
 
Graham this is what I read on STV, AS has always said 'after the games'.
news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/280402-salmond-vs-darling-stv-reviews-proposed-date-for-referendum-debate/
 
Phil we'll have to wait and see, I'll watch it critically even though I'm 'one of the converted'.
 
Steep said:
he doesn't do well in confrontational situations where he has to think on his feet and that's one of AS strengths.
Click to expand...

Salmond is very good at avoiding the question and projecting copious amounts of conjecture, which makes a good politician. I'll give him that. Although it's fairly obvious now as you know when he's asked a question he very rarely just answers it directly and always starts with "Well...." lol
 
Come to think of it, how come Salmond has so much time with the Yes campaign when he's the First Minister?
 
Well it is a kind of important question.
 
gman said:
But why won't Salmond debate Darling on the 16th July?
Click to expand...

A debate in August is better for Yes because there'd be less time to gloss over the damage Yes believes AD will do to his side. Both these guys were weaned on Westminster style politics and one upmanship unfortunately plays a big part in their attitudes to political enemies.

My preference would be for a date in August on STV, after what I've seen over the last few months I wouldn't give the BBC the time of day.
 
Steep said:
Well it is a kind of important question.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it right though, he is paid a considerably higher salary than Darling and also spent a considerable higher amount of time on this quest. How many employers would be happy with their staff doing a personal venture during working hours?


As for the date, moving it closer will also prevent Salmond's theorising to be discredited. I don't think the Yes are worried about Darling doing damage to his own side (has this been quoted somewhere?) because I believe Cameron would be the weaker one with debating - so why agree to debate him in July and allow him the time to gloss things over?

I also find it ironic that as much as I also dislike the BBC, you seem to think it's fine for an STV debate, because they'll be impartial right? lol

Darling is coming across as the more honest man here and Salmond is just coming across as sneaky again.
 
Perhaps it's worth me reiterating this as well:

gman said:
Salmond seems to forget a rather important thing: he is confident that Scotland will get into the EU, but if he tries to screw over the rUK then THEY can veto him from joining the EU.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody can veto Scotlands entry into the EU. The veto can only be used if a country does not meet all the requirements of membership. Learned that from a Spanish EU minister on the BBC.
 
Personal venture? You think millions of Scots are going to the polls in September because it's Alex Salmonds hobby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top