An Independent Scotland?

arclight said:
The Scottish gov (SNP) have actually performed better than the other 2 dodgepots largely because they have frozen council tax for several years which is a major relief to many. However, that is well short of trusting them withcomplete control of Scotland and separating from the UK.
Click to expand...
Doug - would it be fair to point out that John Swinney has presided over a balance budget for the past 6+ years? He hasn't spent a penny more than he has received in income. Contrast this with Westminster where the debt has grown by about £7,000,000,000.00 in the same time frame. At the same time, he has removed tolls on ALL bridges road bridges in Scotland (you'd know this with your location), paid for tuition fees, care of the elderly, prescriptions and a numbe rof other 'social' policies. I know which prson I'd trust with ALL my taxes.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Unfortunately democracy is a freedom wasted on the disinterested majority.. I think it should be compulsory to cast a vote even if that means ticking an abstention box on the voting slip. As it stands less than half the eligible poll can actually be bothered to turn out. Politicians need to be doing much much more to engage with the people they represent..
Click to expand...
At the same time, it's no good politicians telling us to vote when they are conveniently absent from Westminster themselves. The depute leader of the Labout Party in Scotland (Anas Sarwar) was very vocal about the bedroom tax. However, when the vote was meant to be cast, he was found in his ancesteral home (Pakistan) supporting their business entrepreneurs!:mad:
 
I feel the same about non voters, I think if you don't use your vote you should lose the right to vote and the right to complain when something happens that you don't like.
 
FourRingCircus said:
At the same time, it's no good politicians telling us to vote when they are conveniently absent from Westminster themselves. The depute leader of the Labout Party in Scotland (Anas Sarwar) was very vocal about the bedroom tax. However, when the vote was meant to be cast, he was found in his ancesteral home (Pakistan) supporting their business entrepreneurs!:mad:
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Unfortunately democracy is a freedom wasted on the disinterested majority..

I think it should be compulsory to cast a vote even if that means ticking an abstention box on the voting slip. As it stands less than half the eligible poll can actually be bothered to turn out.

Politicians need to be doing much much more to engage with the people they represent..
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, Glenn. I believe that Australia has compulsory voting, but have no idea how it is enforced.
 
The UK could learn a lot from Australia, and I'm not taking about cricket :D

You can emigrate there if you have a skill that the country needs, have a job waiting for you, and a clean bill of health. If not, you can't come in.

If you are retired, and have family living there, you can go there on a parent visa, but you must be financially self-sufficient, as you can't 'sponge' on their benefits system. You also have pay up-front for a 'bond' to cover any future medical needs, as you haven't, and won't be paying into their Medicare system. In other words, you aren't free to use a service that you have paid nothing into.

I wonder how the "NHS" would work in an Independent Scotland. I know that they get free prescriptions, and free nursing care for the elderly, but is it Scotland alone that pays for this, or does it come out of the UK national budget?

Dave
 
Last edited:
DaveS2 said:
I wonder how the "NHS" would work in an Independent Scotland. I know that they get free prescriptions, and free nursing care for the elderly, but is it Scotland alone that pays for this, or does it come out of the UK national budget?
Click to expand...
Everything you hear about happening in Scotland just now is paid-for by the Scottish government. The NHS is a devolved issue so is entirely funded by Edinburgh.

The way the devolved parliament works is it is given a specific amount of money from which it must pay for its public sector (just like Wales etc). However, Scotland cannot 'borrow' and hence it does everything within the framework of a BALANCED BUDGET.

In the past six years, the Scots in Edinburgh have balanced the books whilst Westminster have run-up an ADDITIONAL £7,000,000,000.00 debt.:eek:
 
Thanks for explaining the NHS issue John, I wasn't aware of how it was funded in Scotland, hence my asking the question.

Dave
 
Hi John, is that operating costs and capital costs? If so, that is impressive and definitely some thing for Westminster to learn from.
 
Keith W said:
It's a fairy tail
Click to expand...
Once upon a time there was a devolved Scottish parliament which was responsible for operating AND capital funding.......

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/02/11120802

(From 2011/12 details in the above link): Health boards across Scotland are set to share in £8.584 billion in revenue funding in 2011-12......[snip lots of boring stuff]....... In addition, boards will split capital funding of over £488 million which will build new fit-for-purpose facilities and improve those that already exist......[snip more boring stuff]........Major capital schemes for 2011-12 include:
  • New Southern General in Glasgow
  • Emergency Care Centre in Aberdeen
  • Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh
  • Nuclear Medicine Facilities at Ninewells, Dundee
  • Scottish Ambulance Service Vehicle and Defibrillator Replacement Programme
  • A range of community based facilities across Scotland including those in Jedburgh, Musselburgh, Dumfries, Airdrie, Alexandria, Mull & Iona, Migdale and Cupar
And they all lived happily ever after........ :D
 
Last edited:
I didn't know fairies had tails?
 
Don't think it was available in England but did anybody watch the TV programme tonight on ITV ?
Should Scotland be an independent country? Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon goes head to head with Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont to debate the nation's constitutional future. The programme includes live analysis from expert guests in the studio and viewer interaction on social media. Presented by Rona Dougall and John MacKay.

I missed it tonight however - I had the 'honour' of showing Nicola Sturgeon (technically I work for the Scottish Government so I have to go with it) around our business. It was fimed (for internal use) and it was all good fun. In the past we had Salmond and whilst I may be able to share some clips I'm not sure if I'm allowed to.
 
Last edited:
GeeJay57 said:
Unfortunately democracy is a freedom wasted on the disinterested majority..

I think it should be compulsory to cast a vote even if that means ticking an abstention box on the voting slip. As it stands less than half the eligible poll can actually be bothered to turn out.

Politicians need to be doing much much more to engage with the people they represent..
Click to expand...

....Hmm, now I wonder why the majority of people are disinterested and/or distrustful of politics and politicians (regardless of their political party label).

By not casting a vote one is expressing that none of the options are what you want to vote for and that is a fundamental freedom of choice which should not be changed in my opinion. Fortunately I think it would be either impossible or impractical to enforce/police. How do they enforce it in Australia? Do I vote? - I went through a period of never doing so but now I vote Tory again (if I can be bothered to go to the polling station).

As far as Scotland's independence is concerned, what will be will be and one set of problems will merely be swopped for another set.
 
dinners said:
Don't think it was available in England but did anybody watch the TV programme tonight on ITV ?
Click to expand...
I had high hopes for this. Nobody can accuse Nicola of being a 'stunner', but she looked like a prom queen last night compared to 'that'!!! However, the debate was a disappointment as I felt that Johann failed to answer a single question. Meanwhile when it was Nicolas chance to provide an answer, Johann didn't even allow her three words of a response before talking blindly over her until time was up. Personally, I believe that Johann's advisor(s) knew that she was 'toast' before walking into the room, so told her just to talk utter rubbish until the time was up and avoid letting Nicola make any points.

The single most 'telling' sentence of the evening will be the one which will prompt her resignation shortly. Bear in mind (for the benefit of southern people who don't know), this is Scotland's excuse for an opposition leader. This is the woman whose party believes that it is the 'natural party' of Scotland. This is the woman who would be in charge of a nation..........


and it is what decades of Westminster brow beating does to the politics of Scotland.
 
FourRingCircus said:
Everything you hear about happening in Scotland just now is paid-for by the Scottish government. The NHS is a devolved issue so is entirely funded by Edinburgh.

The way the devolved parliament works is it is given a specific amount of money from which it must pay for its public sector (just like Wales etc). However, Scotland cannot 'borrow' and hence it does everything within the framework of a BALANCED BUDGET.

In the past six years, the Scots in Edinburgh have balanced the books whilst Westminster have run-up an ADDITIONAL £7,000,000,000.00 debt.:eek:
Click to expand...

Its unbelievably cheeky to call it a balanced budget as there is no income raising. Swinney has no responsibility for tax raising or borrowing. He is therefore not balancing the budget, simply living within the country's means. Big deal! Folks do that all the time. He has all the power to spend and none of the responsibility for raising the money in the first place. He can therefore spend it on whatever will get them elected. As for Westminster raising the additional debt, how much of that goes toward the block grant? I'll bet the answer is not zero. (The debt issue is much larger and not as simplistic as you would have us believe in blaming Westminster.)

Regards...
 
FourRingCircus said:
I had high hopes for this. Nobody can accuse Nicola of being a 'stunner', but she looked like a prom queen last night compared to 'that'!!! However, the debate was a disappointment as I felt that Johann failed to answer a single question. Meanwhile when it was Nicolas chance to provide an answer, Johann didn't even allow her three words of a response before talking blindly over her until time was up. Personally, I believe that Johann's advisor(s) knew that she was 'toast' before walking into the room, so told her just to talk utter rubbish until the time was up and avoid letting Nicola make any points.

The single most 'telling' sentence of the evening will be the one which will prompt her resignation shortly. Bear in mind (for the benefit of southern people who don't know), this is Scotland's excuse for an opposition leader. This is the woman whose party believes that it is the 'natural party' of Scotland. This is the woman who would be in charge of a nation..........


and it is what decades of Westminster brow beating does to the politics of Scotland.
Click to expand...


We are now paying for giving women the vote. Dark days ahead:cool:
 
Finste said:
Its unbelievably cheeky to call it a balanced budget as there is no income raising.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that you think this is cheeky, but what else would you call it? Money IN = Money OUT. If that's not 'balanced' then I wouldn't like you to be in charge of my finances!
Finste said:
Swinney has no responsibility for tax raising or borrowing. He is therefore not balancing the budget, simply living within the country's means. Big deal!
Click to expand...
The point about having no tax-raising or borrowing powers is exactly what this debate is about. If you think that living within your means is nothing important, I'd guess your name is Osborne. It means A LOT more to the Scots (in Scotland) than it does elsewhere apparently. I suppose I should add that this doesn't include the ones that go south to make a place for their noses in the Westminster trough.:mad:
 
FourRingCircus said:
I am sorry that you think this is cheeky, but what else would you call it? Money IN = Money OUT. If that's not 'balanced' then I wouldn't like you to be in charge of my finances!

The point about having no tax-raising or borrowing powers is exactly what this debate is about. If you think that living within your means is nothing important, I'd guess your name is Osborne. It means A LOT more to the Scots (in Scotland) than it does elsewhere apparently. I suppose I should add that this doesn't include the ones that go south to make a place for their noses in the Westminster trough.:mad:
Click to expand...

Well there wouldn't be a need for borrowing if living within your means. Otherwise by definition one has debts. So this is just about being able to do some tax-raising I guess... ;)
 
FourRingCircus said:
I am sorry that you think this is cheeky, but what else would you call it? Money IN = Money OUT. If that's not 'balanced' then I wouldn't like you to be in charge of my finances!

The point about having no tax-raising or borrowing powers is exactly what this debate is about. If you think that living within your means is nothing important, I'd guess your name is Osborne. It means A LOT more to the Scots (in Scotland) than it does elsewhere apparently. I suppose I should add that this doesn't include the ones that go south to make a place for their noses in the Westminster trough.:mad:
Click to expand...

Its cheeky because he is only responsible for one side of the accounting equation, spending. He is not raising the revenue therefore he should be not credited with balancing the budget. Politicians in Westminster take the heat for raising revenue via tax.

Regards...
 
It may be rather interesting if Scotland separates. Somehow I feel they will get into EU pretty quickly (would be silly to effectively kick them out). On the other hand England would loose the teeth and probably will end up eventually joining Eurozone and effectively reuniting with Scotland. Exciting times ahead :)
 
John

Forgive me but Scotland's Parliament isn't entirely devolved, and it does not pay (from what it is allocated as Budget from Westminster), for Defence, Foreign Policy, The EU, Overseas Aid and I'd guess a lot of other things.

On the other hand it does receive the B...b****r, forgotten his name formula amount, for every person, working or not, adult or not. Now, I accept that it will be claimed, and you might be right, that this makes up for the loss in oil revenue. But does it really? Even if it does, then these added extras, defence etc, are pretty much unaffordable as things stand.

It also explains why the UK is in debt, but Scotland is within budget.
 
The Scotsman said:
Wealth levels of an independent Scotland will be comparable with countries that enjoy a Triple-A credit rating, ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has said.

In a newly released report, the company today has confirmed that even without North Sea Oil revenue, a newly independent Scotland would "qualify for our highest economic assessment".

The conclusion is contained in a new report, entitled 'Key Considerations For Rating An Independent Scotland'.
Click to expand...

The above comes from Today's Scotsman referencing a report on Scotland's financial future as an independent nation. S&P go on to say that it would not be all smooth going particularly at the beginning but the conclusion they draw is "the challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not unsurpassable."

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...-indy-scotland-set-for-triple-a-credit-rating
 
FourRingCircus said:
Doug - would it be fair to point out that John Swinney has presided over a balance budget for the past 6+ years? He hasn't spent a penny more than he has received in income. Contrast this with Westminster where the debt has grown by about £7,000,000,000.00 in the same time frame. At the same time, he has removed tolls on ALL bridges road bridges in Scotland (you'd know this with your location), paid for tuition fees, care of the elderly, prescriptions and a numbe rof other 'social' policies. I know which prson I'd trust with ALL my taxes.
Click to expand...

And how much of the UK debt has been spent on servicing the enormous losses that the banks have accrued. How would we [Scotland] be fixed if an independent Scotland was faced with financing the collapse of RBS. People dependent on soup kitchens I expect. Only the backing of the Bank of England prevented that.
The trouble with independence is that the pro lobby seem to be driven by people who want independence out of principle rather than practicality. Principles put damn on the table in so far as paying mortgages, rents, energy bills and food etc. Practicality pays the bills. Practicality is one island = one governement (preferably a lot smaller gov. than what we have).

Who can actually believe those politicians who who advocate independence (who can actually believe any politicians about anything, for that matter - that should be the warning. Their track record speaks volumes for itself).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I would hope they would do as Iceland did and let it fail. It would be hard on those who banked with them but the country and the rest of the population would be better off.
 
daugirdas said:
It may be rather interesting if Scotland separates. Somehow I feel they will get into EU pretty quickly (would be silly to effectively kick them out). On the other hand England would loose the teeth and probably will end up eventually joining Eurozone and effectively reuniting with Scotland. Exciting times ahead :)
Click to expand...

They would have to somehow get into the EU without a vote (which seems improbable), member countries have a veto on new admissions, and Spain has already intimated it won't approve due to their own Catalan nationalistic issues.

It also seems some large Scottish financial institutions aren't too thrilled with the independence idea either (according to the news tonight).
 
Dave1 said:
They would have to somehow get into the EU without a vote (which seems improbable), member countries have a veto on new admissions, and Spain has already intimated it won't approve due to their own Catalan nationalistic issues.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that, yet I still can't believe this is more than harsh intimidation. Do you think Spain's policy can't be influenced in some clever way? And they don't exactly have to allow a referendum.

Obviously nothing would move an inch until after the vote. It will be in the best England's interests to keep scotland in EU and that may open some doors. For now I am pretty sure the government asked the spanish to issue these warnings.

Dave1 said:
It also seems some large Scottish financial institutions aren't too thrilled with the independence idea either (according to the news tonight).
Click to expand...

It will be a complete havoc. Let's just think about Edinburgh university that receives the major share of funding through EU and UK research grants (mostly EU). I can already see the consequences... What about fish import from non EU or fishing in non EEC water? Fishy? Then there are the navy bases, and so on... one word: mess! An ongoing EU membership could save a lot of that.
 
There is certainly no guarantee of EU membership for an independent Scotland.
Spain and the UK were both vetoed at their first attempts. Then there is the currency issue.

Quoted from the EU Website.

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.


Member State joins the euro area and its control of monetary policy passes to the European Central Bank (ECB).




So Scotland leaves the the UK to have independent control of monetary policy, then gives that control over to the ECB, and has to drop the £ for the € . You can't have an on going EU membership, because as a new country you won't be a member in the first place. There is a reason it'll take a couple of years ( the yes campaign say 18 months) after the vote to become independent is the huge number of treaty's to be negotiated and signed with country's all over the world, for example will Scotland want the same one side extradition treaty with the USA that the UK has.


When you listen to what Standard Life says in it report there are far to many unknowns with just 200 days to the vote.
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
There is certainly no guarantee of EU membership for an independent Scotland.
Spain and the UK were both vetoed at their first attempts. Then there is the currency issue.


Quoted from the EU Website.

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.


Member State joins the euro area and its control of monetary policy passes to the European Central Bank (ECB).




So Scotland leaves the the UK to have independent control of monetary policy, then gives that control over to the ECB, and has to drop the £ for the € . You can't have an on going EU membership, because as a new country you won't be a member in the first place. There is a reason it'll take a couple of years ( the yes campaign say 18 months) after the vote to become independent is the huge number of treaty's to be negotiated and signed with country's all over the world, for example will Scotland want the same one side extradition treaty with the USA that the UK has.


When you listen to what Standard Life says in it report there are far to many unknowns with just 200 days to the vote.
Click to expand...

As has been said many times here it's very unlikely that any veto would be used...if...Scotland had indeed to apply for membership and did not simply continue as an existing member. You stated that Scotland would have to reapply as if it were fact when it's far from one, since there has never been a situation like this before there is no procedure to follow. Scotland will not be a new country, Scotland already is a country as part of a union of countries.

You think we can't be fully independent until we sign treaties with the rest of the world?? horlicks.

As for Standard Life they said exactly the same thing before devolution, they're still here and will still be here if, as and when Scotland becomes independent.
 
arclight said:
And how much of the UK debt has been spent on servicing the enormous losses that the banks have accrued. How would we [Scotland] be fixed if an independent Scotland was faced with financing the collapse of RBS. People dependent on soup kitchens I expect. Only the backing of the Bank of England prevented that.
The trouble with independence is that the pro lobby seem to be driven by people who want independence out of principle rather than practicality. Principles put damn on the table in so far as paying mortgages, rents, energy bills and food etc. Practicality pays the bills. Practicality is one island = one governement (preferably a lot smaller gov. than what we have).
Who can actually believe those politicians who who advocate independence (who can actually believe any politicians about anything, for that matter - that should be the warning. Their track record speaks volumes for itself).
Click to expand...

It would appear as if RBS is off to a green and pleasant land, so no need to worry on that score:rolleyes:
 
daugirdas said:
I am aware of that, yet I still can't believe this is more than harsh intimidation.....
Click to expand...

This is definitely one of the more unpleasant and frustrating aspects of the Independence debate. Anything real world problem or differing point of view which the nationalists find inconvenient is simply derided as bullying or in this case intimidation. Its almost as if they think that after they have hung their bullying moniker on the problem it simply goes away and doesn't need to be talked about. These problems will not go away and will eventually have to be dealt with. Not necessarily to Scotland's benefit either. The separatists simply don't seem to want to acknowledge the right of other countries to determine for themselves what is in their own best interests.

Why can't they accept that other countries have looked at their own probable situation after Independence and decided what to do about it. That it is not in Scotland's interests in simply tough. I rather suspect that the constant accusations of bullying are simply a smoke screen to cover up just how ill thought out the whole Independence thing is.

Regards...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
daugirdas said:
For now I am pretty sure the government asked the spanish to issue these warnings.
Click to expand...

The Spanish government is not much minded to do things that the UK government asks.

Gibraltar is a bit of a sticking point when the UK government wants favours ;)
 
As far as I'm concerned Scotland can go independent. Rebuild Hadrian's Wall and charge an entry fee into England. That said, it's just a pipe dream of Alex Salmond and will never happen. Let's face it Scotland can't afford it.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
Blank_Canvas said:
As far as I'm concerned Scotland can go independent. Rebuild Hadrian's Wall and charge an entry fee into England. That said, it's just a pipe dream of Alex Salmond and will never happen. Let's face it Scotland can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Probably not a good idea as you've just given half of Newcastle upon Tyne (and everything north of it) to Scotland ;).
 
onomatopoeia said:
The Spanish government is not much minded to do things that the UK government asks.

Gibraltar is a bit of a sticking point when the UK government wants favours ;)
Click to expand...

I think the problem for Spain is that Scottish independence and membership of the EU could be seen as encouragement for the separatist movement(s) in Spain. What favour does a Spanish veto do for rUK?

The thing is; for me an independent Scotland would indeed having emerged from under the coat-tails of the UK, need to apply in its own right for full membership of the EU. That is assuming that it wishes to do so. That they are already members as part of the UK is (should be) irrelevant. On top of that there are a whole bunch of other grown-up issues they would have to deal with on their own; currency, defence, health care, social welfare, international trading, secure energy supply, international diplomacy... etc. It is surely not possible to pick and choose which of these have to be dealt with and assuming that others are just glossed over. There must be well developed policies that address all of the issues, perhaps there are...

Should Scottish independence happen, I predict that the biggest growth area in Scotland will be the Scottish civil service. I also predict that the new politicians will stuff things up in just the same way that Westminster do now. After that warm fuzzy post-independence feeling has worn off, the Scottish people will in the end be no better off than they are now. But hey, they will be independent, well as anybody is in this connected world of ours...
 
GeeJay57 said:
But hey, they will be independent, well as anybody is in this connected world of ours...
Click to expand...

Independent and free to take credit where it's due, make our own mistakes and pay for them when we need to. Scotland has the resources and ability to make a real success of it, we need to put the work in ourselves though.

These arguments about eu membership and what currency we'd use are all just semantics, nothing will be decided either way until the time comes and either way it makes no difference. If we choose to take independence we will deal with whatever needs dealing with. If we don't continue in the eu I won't miss it, there are many other options available. I quite fancy the idea of a Scottish punt or crown and it will work if we make it work regardless of the naysayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top