An Independent Scotland?

[boyfalldown]

Personally, I think Scotland is certainly capable of standing on its own. Same as the remainder of the UK could go on without it. However I believe neither country would be stronger for doing so and that it would be better for both to remain as is.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Was tripping the light fantastic as I could not sleep last night which took me on to the commentary board of that bastion of newspapers... The Daily Mail. In particular the section devoted to Scottish Independence.

The ignorance shown by so many contributors would gladden the YES campaign as it provides so much anti Scotland rhetoric that Sand and Co would only have to point to it to tip the UNSURE to their camp.

I am all for free speech no matter what the commentary (less deliberate hate campaigns against a particular group).

Oh hang on. This is the Daily Mail I am speaking of...

Sadly it is full of commentary that negates the positives that has been a benefit the a greater Britain has enjoyed for 300 years and the lists of achievements and truly life changing benefits that have come through the union and individuals from all parts of the Union.

Now almost blind hatred and it really surprises me to read it. Who has fed these people the seeds of small mindedness born from malice and certainly not education. Or, as I suspect, the creation of yet another group for 'right minded' Daily Mail readers to blame or hate?

Sadly I think it will get worse as September speeds ever closer.

I am pleased that this thread stays mainly to a reasonable and balanced approach but we will see a bigger dirtier and unbalanced campaign out in the real world that I hope does not invade us here. Passion and fair balance yes. Half truths and misinformation no

Steve

 

[Steep]

I think it is about time the English had a vote about whether we want Scotland as a part of the UK anymore.

Lobby your MP, that's what we did and look what's happened! Granted you might have to wait a few decades...

 

[JennyGW]

I think you'll find it's a good idea to provide references when you make bold claims like that. I personally do not know whether your statement is correct, and I do not know how extensive your knowledge is either. But one of the things which has made the debate in this thread (mostly) constructive and civilized is that people have (mostly) tried to avoid stirring the pot gratuitously.

So:
- If you know your statement to be true, please tell us why. What is your source?
- If you don't know whether or not your statement is true, but you would like to know, then I'm sure some of the experts will be along soon to help.
- If you don't care whether or not your statement is true, then you're not really contributing much here.

Hope this helps.

Even the possibility that Scotland will gain independence casts doubts in the minds of businesses that it will continue to offer stability. This will result in a drop in businesses prepared to risk their investments in Scotland.

Scotland will not be able to join the EU until, at the earliest and assuming it is accepted, 2016. This will result in the loss of billions of pounds of EU funding.

Businesses state that Scotland's independence will result in unnecessary complexities leading to higher administration costs.

Scotland will lose the pound. More instability, more drop in confidence, less investment. Will Scotland join the Euro? Look at what happened when the UK joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism in preparation for joining a single currency with Europe, is this a disaster you want to see happen in Scotland?

Currently Scotland's armed forces are a part of the British Army. Following independence they will become the equivalent of a local militia with no input on the world stage. It will be interesting to see what impact this has on any Scottish "armies" recruiting campaigns.

Link to articles and extracts below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-ten-Scots-living-off-states-patronage.html

“The rotten system of patronage, which denies so many people real choices in their lives, has created a corrosive sense of entitlement which suits its political gang masters,” she will say. “Only 12 per cent are responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth. I wonder how many of them work on public sector contracts.”

"Miss Davidson supported her claims by publishing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed the average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...orus-warning-about-Scottish-independence.html

Many large corporations believe that Scotland will be a worse place to be should it gain independence.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...otland-lose-billions-eu-funding-william-hague

"An independent Scotland would lose billions of pounds in EU funds and could be forced to help pay for the UK's EU rebate, the foreign secretary, William Hague, has said."

 

[dinners]

Passion and fair balance yes. Half truths and misinformation no

Steve

That's how politics works. Salmond is better at it than most.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

That's how politics works. Salmond is better at it than most.

No doubt but to be honest my experiences with politicians means that in over 30 years of dealing with them, I still count my fingers after shaking hands with them.....

Trust them????? Not even as far as I can spit!

Steve

 

[Steep]

Jenny even the Bank of England has questioned the accuracy of ONS figures. The figures for who pays what and who gets what are are manipulated by every side to suit themselves, politicians lie and prevaricate as a matter of course and newspapers are worse. You are going to believe the 'facts' that suit you as others will, I prefer to check as deeply as I can and so far I've been happy to believe that those who say Scotland gives more than it gets are correct.

 

[Steep]

That's how politics works. Salmond is better at it than most.

When we get independence we can get rid of the career politicians, that's something that's never going to happen in Westminster until you first get rid of the old school tie.

 

[BBR]

When we get independence we can get rid of the career politicians, that's something that's never going to happen in Westminster until you first get rid of the old school tie.

Good luck with your first point, I don't think you will. Agree with your second point.

 

[StewartR]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-ten-Scots-living-off-states-patronage.html

“The rotten system of patronage, which denies so many people real choices in their lives, has created a corrosive sense of entitlement which suits its political gang masters,” she will say. “Only 12 per cent are responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth. I wonder how many of them work on public sector contracts.”

"Miss Davidson supported her claims by publishing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed the average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax"

Trouble is, as soon as you start quoting statistics, other people can quote other statistics which contradict yours. And the result is that nobody is any the wiser.

For example, that Telegraph article you referenced also says: "According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending." That makes it sound like Scotland is a net giver, not a net taker. That's the same article. Confused? I certainly am.

Anyway, the Office of National Statistics has rubbished those figures quoted by Ruth Davidson. They conducted a detailed analysis of the proportion of households which receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. And their conclusion was that the figures for Scotland are pretty similar to those for the UK as a whole:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/household-taxes-and-benefits--update/index.html

A more recent analysis appeared in the Telegraph a couple of months ago. It doesn't explicitly address the difference (if any) between Scotland and the rest or the UK; it focuses more on the number of higher earners, who pay a very high proportion of all taxes. But the infographic suggests that the proportion of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland is not out of line with the rest of the UK (excluding London and the South East):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

 

[JennyGW]

Trouble is, as soon as you start quoting statistics, other people can quote other statistics which contradict yours. And the result is that nobody is any the wiser.

For example, that Telegraph article you referenced also says: "According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending." That makes it sound like Scotland is a net giver, not a net taker. That's the same article. Confused? I certainly am.

Anyway, the Office of National Statistics has rubbished those figures quoted by Ruth Davidson. They conducted a detailed analysis of the proportion of households which receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. And their conclusion was that the figures for Scotland are pretty similar to those for the UK as a whole:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/household-taxes-and-benefits--update/index.html

A more recent analysis appeared in the Telegraph a couple of months ago. It doesn't explicitly address the difference (if any) between Scotland and the rest or the UK; it focuses more on the number of higher earners, who pay a very high proportion of all taxes. But the infographic suggests that the proportion of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland is not out of line with the rest of the UK (excluding London and the South East):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

I'm damned if I quote statistics and damned if I don't. You tell me statistics are unreliable and then quote your own.

I wonder how either set of statistics will look when big businesses stop to invest and begin to withdraw from Scotland.

Are you proposing that we issue all Scots in England with Scottish passports and they have to apply for a work permit or go home? Sure, it would work both ways, but I think we know who would suffer the worst.

There are a lot of Scots serving in the English regiments of the Armed Forces, your plans for them? Have you asked them how they feel about not being part of a force respected on the world stage? Sure, I am sure many of them would love to stay closer to home and you may even find some who will find patrolling the Isle of Aran enough of a career goal.

We'll lose all of the Scots from the Houses of Parliament, and as they are primarily left wing, this should seal a guaranteed Conservative victory at lease for the rest of my life time.

Will you want border control? Checkpoints? I mean, you'll want to have a control over your immigration. You'll not want all of us English folk rushing north for your supposed economic boom!

Are you proposing we scan peoples' genes to determine their nationality? You might find this quite hard to achieve considering we've been interbreeding for, umm, ever?

Splitting up the UK is nothing short of insanity.

 

[JennyGW]

When we get independence we can get rid of the career politicians, that's something that's never going to happen in Westminster until you first get rid of the old school tie.

"Careers politicians", lol. And what do you think Alex Salmond is? Look at the money the Scottish government lavished onto your houses of parliament as the project went over budget time and time again. Then consider how much they give a rats arse about the working classes, or any classes for that matter.

‘Cheaper to tear down Scottish parliament by 2020’ - The Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ar-down-scottish-parliament-by-2020-1-3265721

SPIRALLING maintenance costs mean it “would make much more sense” to tear down Holyrood and redevelop it within two decades, a leading architectural expert claims.
Questions are being asked about the Scottish Parliament’s long-term viability after figures revealed the repair bill for the building has now topped an average of £141,000 per month.
Since its inception in 2004, taxpayers have shelled out £11 million for maintenance costs – surpassing the original estimates for actually constructing the seat of power in Edinburgh.

Scottish parliament: The true story

http://www.building.co.uk/scottish-parliament-the-true-story/1011961.article

 

[Steep]

"Careers politicians", lol. And what do you think Alex Salmond is?

Never said he wasn't but you're supposing he's going to be the guy in charge after independence.

 

[Steep]

I'm damned if I quote statistics and damned if I don't. You tell me statistics are unreliable and then quote your own.
Just don't accept what you read in newspapers is automatically true.

I wonder how either set of statistics will look when big businesses stop to invest and begin to withdraw from Scotland.
If/maybe/possibly/probably not.
Are you proposing that we issue all Scots in England with Scottish passports and they have to apply for a work permit or go home? Sure, it would work both ways, but I think we know who would suffer the worst.
Scots will of course need passports but EU citizens they won't need permits.
There are a lot of Scots serving in the English regiments of the Armed Forces, your plans for them? Have you asked them how they feel about not being part of a force respected on the world stage? Sure, I am sure many of them would love to stay closer to home and you may even find some who will find patrolling the Isle of Aran enough of a career goal.
Those serving will be given the choice of continuing to serve or transfer to the Scottish forces.
We'll lose all of the Scots from the Houses of Parliament, and as they are primarily left wing, this should seal a guaranteed Conservative victory at lease for the rest of my life time.
Incorrect, loss of the Scottish labour vote would not haave affected the outcome of any election in the last fifty years.
Will you want border control? Checkpoints? I mean, you'll want to have a control over your immigration. You'll not want all of us English folk rushing north for your supposed economic boom!
See above re EU membership
Are you proposing we scan peoples' genes to determine their nationality? You might find this quite hard to achieve considering we've been interbreeding for, umm, ever?
Umm no.
Splitting up the UK is nothing short of insanity.
In your eyes, hopefully not in the eyes of most Scots

 

[JennyGW]

Alex Salmond certainly seems to be supposing he'll be your boss.

How many sources do you need quoted before you believe anything?

What about all of the other questions I have asked and you have chosen to ignore?

Businesses are ALREADY stating that their investment in Scotland will be in doubt. There is no "maybe" about it.

You are assuming Scotland will be able to join the EU. This is not guaranteed.

The whole concept of Scottish independence is an idealist dream with no connection to reality.

Convince me otherwise, please! I've already given a few reasons why I would like it to happen, I have an open mind.

 

[StewartR]

I'm damned if I quote statistics and damned if I don't. You tell me statistics are unreliable and then quote your own.

Exactly. My point is that there's no point quoting statistics. There's precious little, if anything, about this debate which is clear cut.

Are you proposing that we issue all Scots in England with Scottish passports and they have to apply for a work permit or go home?
...
There are a lot of Scots serving in the English regiments of the Armed Forces, your plans for them?
...
Will you want border control? Checkpoints? I mean, you'll want to have a control over your immigration. You'll not want all of us English folk rushing north for your supposed economic boom!
...

This is hilarious. You seem to think I'm Scottish and in favour of independence. You couldn't be more wrong on both issues:

(Declaration: I'm English, I live in England, I don't get to vote, and I'm not sure I even know how I feel about the issue. I'm just trying to be the voice of reason.)

 

[StewartR]

When we get independence we can get rid of the career politicians

I really sympathize with your desires here, but I honestly hope this isn't a major factor in your preference for independence. Nobody anywhere ever gets rid of the career politicians, because it's the career politicians who make the rules.Turkeys voting for Christmas? It has never happened in any modern democracy and there is no reason to suspect that an independent Scotland would be any different. Unfortunately.

 

[StewartR]

Businesses are ALREADY stating that their investment in Scotland will be in doubt. There is no "maybe" about it.

But surely it's all "maybe", isn't it? OK, suppose business are saying that their investment in an independent Scotland is in doubt. Does that mean they would invest? No. Does it mean they wouldn't invest? No. It means they don't know.

@gman posted a very good summary of some of the salient points of the debate back in post #519. It's worth reading in full, but here's an extract from it.

1 When will the financial sector know what the future holds?
No one knows.
...
2 What currency would an independent Scotland use?
No one knows.
...
3 Would an independent Scotland be part of the EU?
No one knows.
...
4 What will financial regulation look like?
No one knows.
...
5 How long from a “yes” vote to a new state?
No one knows.
...
6 How would financial firms based in Scotland be affected?
No one knows.
...
7 Would financial companies leave after independence?
No one knows.
...
8 Will this hurt the Scottish economy?
No one knows.
...
9 How much will a split cost the Scottish financial industry?
No one knows.
...
10 Will any of this influence the referendum?
No.

I've said this before, but I think it's worth saying again:

Nobody knows what they're voting for.

If the Yes vote triumphs, nobody knows what the result will look like.
* For starters there are the big issues like currency, EU, relationship with rUK on matters like defence etc. There's an awful lot of horse trading to be done, nobody knows what the outcome will be, but one thing that seems pretty certain is that nobody will get everything they want.
* Then there's the fact that nobody knows what an independent Scotland would feel like. In 20 years time, would everybody be complaining that the country was being run for the benefit of the bankers and the chattering classes in Edinburgh? I would hope not, but nobody knows. A fact of life with any parliamentary democracy is that you never really know what the government will do in the 4 years or so between the rare occasions when they have to listen to the voters.
* And finally (for me now, though there may be other aspects I've overlooked), nobody knows what scars would be left if the vote is narrow. If the result is, say, 55-45 - which would be a landslide compared to current polls - that's still 45% of the population who will find themselves living in a country in which they didn't want to live. That's bound to have some effect, but it's impossible to predict what it would be.

And if the No vote triumphs, again nobody knows what the result will look like.
* The reaction of the Westminster government is impossible to predict. There are those who believe that a close vote would lead to greater devolution for Scotland. There are those who believe exactly the opposite, that the Westminster government would arrange matters so as to reduce the chance that the Scots could ever try this again. It could go either way, but it probably won't be pretty.
* And again, nobody knows what damage a close vote would do to the fabric of the country. If the result of a close No vote is a clampdown from Westminster, powers taken away from Scotland, less uniquely Scottish institutions and so forth, how will that affect relationships within Scotland? Nobody knows.

Nobody knows what they are voting FOR in practical terms. At the end of the day it all comes down to principle, hope and belief, that Scotland will be better off somehow (for some personal definition of "better off") if it isn't - or is - part of the UK. Voters in both camps may find that they're facing a Pyrrhic victory - that they've won the point of principle, but eventually find that the mundane practicalities are worse than before.

 

[StewartR]

The whole concept of Scottish independence is an idealist dream with no connection to reality.

I think you might be right here, at least partly.

There are some people in Scotland, and some TP members who have contributed to this thread, for whom the principle of self-determination is so important that it transcends all other issues. By definition these people cannot be swayed by arguments over borders, or currencies, or investment, or anything like that.

And these are some people whose view of independence would be coloured to some degree by their perception of whether or not Scotland would be a "better" place after independence. these people might be amenable to argument. But the problem here is that nobody can point to a single aspect of a post-referendum Scotland and say with any degree of certaint what it would look like. For every analysis that says the Scots would be richer, there's another that says they wouldn't. For every politician who says it's obvioust that scotland would be in the EU, there's another who says it isn't. And so on, and so on.

 

[Steep]

Alex Salmond certainly seems to be supposing he'll be your boss.

How many sources do you need quoted before you believe anything?

What about all of the other questions I have asked and you have chosen to ignore?

What AS thinks is neither here nor there, he'll be the First Minister only if the Scottish vote for him.
I'd prefer as I've already made clear that you don't quote what newspapers publish as'fact' it very rarely is and when it is it's normally coloured by their chosen viewpoint for the week.
I'll get back to you on your other questions, I didn't realise you'd asked any, if there's something specific you'd like answered post it again and I'll do my best to answer it.

 

[Steep]

What Stewart has said above pretty much sums it up, there are no definite answers to most questions because almost everything is either up for negotiation after a yes vote or cannot be answered until after the yes vote, because the right people can't answer questions that can't be put to them.

 

[HuntingMartians]

Lobby your MP, that's what we did and look what's happened!

What happened?

 

[Steep]

In reply to one point Jenny. I'm using the year 2008/9 because that's what I have figures to compare for - the total cost of the Scottish Parliament was 1.3 million (according to the Scotsman article you linked to), the same single year Westminster cost a shade under £500 million, which is the better value? it makes the £11 million cost of the Scottish Parliaments entire life so far seem pretty cheap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8208590.stm

 

[Steep]

What happened?

We got a thread on TPF with some people asking stupid questions and we got a referendum on to enable us to choose Independence.

 

[bindex]

Mrs Bindex came up with a good one today... She said that she thought the borders of Scotland should extend to just North of Birmingham. I suspect a lot of us in the North of England would agree.

 

[Steep]

I think we got a similar request from someone in the North East and I'm sure we could come to some arrangement

 

[HuntingMartians]

Lobby your MP, that's what we did and look what's happened!

We got a thread on TPF with some people asking stupid questions and we got a referendum on to enable us to choose Independence.

I didn't know that this referendum happened due to lobbying MPs. I had thought it was down to the SNP getting elected basically.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Mrs Bindex came up with a good one today... She said that she thought the borders of Scotland should extend to just North of Birmingham. I suspect a lot of us in the North of England would agree.

Frankley the use of paling fences around London and the Home Counties would be an ideal border ad far as I am concerned. No HS2 the M20 A2 M20 M25 M26 M3 M4 M40 M1 A1M A10 M11 A127 A12 & A13 all dug up on the M25 boundary and fenced off with the London railway services so those of us "beyond the pale" can leave Westminster to the thieves vagabonds and liars to rule only inside the pale.

We could just leave them to themselves and be rid of them. Never leaving their little world until a by the real London people. (To the Isle of Wight perhaps..... For a while?)

So it's not just "Northerners" that need respite from Westminster......

Hang on... I am moving to Stirling soon.... roll on the revolution.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

 

[Steep]

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Aye, that'll be £35 a night, breakfast from 6 till 8am and you'll need to be out by 10 so I can get the sheets washed!

You'll love Sterling, I've only ever been passed it but it's beautiful, has lots to do and is very central to just about everywhere.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Aye, that'll be £35 a night, breakfast from 6 till 8am and you'll need to be out by 10 so I can get the sheets washed!

You'll love Sterling, I've only ever been passed it but it's beautiful, has lots to do and is very central to just about everywhere.

I know as I lectured at the university there for the Open University a few times in the 80s at their Summer schools. Plus SWMBO was left a house by her granny not too far outside.

I used to be a regular visitor to Stranraer Ayr Beith and Glasgow so am usd to the delights of a Spiceburger and days out in Stirling with a few good friends.

Steve

 

[jakeblu]

I know as I lectured at the university there for the Open University a few times in the 80s at their Summer schools. Plus SWMBO was left a house by her granny not too far outside.

I used to be a regular visitor to Stranraer Ayr Beith and Glasgow so am usd to the delights of a Spiceburger and days out in Stirling with a few good friends.

Steve

I have been to Sterling as part of my OU. what did/do you lecture in?

Steve

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The Social Sciences Foundation course and later I covered some Technology 2nd and 3rd level courses (tbough no summer schools for them).

The best Summer School location for me personally was York but Stirling was a fantasatic place and easily gave me the best tour out into the countryside on my free afternoon. Made Scotland all the more special for me.

Been some years since I have tutored for ths OU. Work and travelling abroad for same made it impossible but the early days of the OU trialling online conferencing back in the 80s using 2400bds modems seems archaic compared to today.

Anyway that discussion is for a differennt thread!

Steve

 

[gman]

In reply to one point Jenny. I'm using the year 2008/9 because that's what I have figures to compare for - the total cost of the Scottish Parliament was 1.3 million (according to the Scotsman article you linked to), the same single year Westminster cost a shade under £500 million, which is the better value? it makes the £11 million cost of the Scottish Parliaments entire life so far seem pretty cheap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8208590.stm

According to statistics (because what else can we go on?) the £500M for Westminster is for everything; salaries, new property purchases etc. The 1.3M for Scottish Parliament is for just building maintenance costs, apparently it costs a total of £72M per year to run the Scottish Parliament.

So of a total £572M between Scottish and English Parliaments, Scotland requires 12.5% of it to run their Parliament, despite their population only being 9% of that between England and Scotland (not including Wales and N. Ireland).

Doesn't seem like very good value to me and reminds me of the "Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending." deception. Like so many statistics, easily manipulated to appear different.



Here's a few statistics being thrown about I've not looked into how authentic they are but apparently they are from the Office for National Statistics and reported on by the Telegraph:

- Only 283,080 households in Scotland – 12 per cent of the total – pay more in tax than they receive in public services (so only 12% are generating Scotland's wealth and how many of them are working on public contracts?)
- The average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax
- Even the families in the middle income groups consume around £20,000 more in state spending than they contribute.
- State spending now accounts for more than half Scotland’s wealth.


SNP conjecture and rhetoric insults me but I worry at the thought of Nationalists running Scotland and it ending up a totalitarian state. There are little tell-tale signs already such as "Police Scotland" but more recently the passing of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill has a very sinister element to it. This appointing of a named person to monitor the well being of every child is a cloaked attempt at obtaining huge amounts of power over the population as there's no great leverage on someone as when it comes to their children.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Do you think Scotland win the vote to get their independence ?

 

[Steep]

According to statistics (because what else can we go on?) the £500M for Westminster is for everything; salaries, new property purchases etc. The 1.3M for Scottish Parliament is for just building maintenance costs,
snip
The average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax
snip
SNP conjecture and rhetoric insults me but I worry at the thought of Nationalists running Scotland and it ending up a totalitarian state. There are little tell-tale signs already such as "Police Scotland"

On the first point re the cost of Parliament you're right, I didn't spot that, sorry.

On the £14,151 claim - this came from Ruth Davidson, Tory MSP and leader of the Scottish Tories in a speech to their conference and has been pretty well discredited, she or her advisors cherry picked info from different reports from different years and ignored data that made her case look bad. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/08/scotland-ruth-davidson-sums-wrong-economy

On the last, as I've said before, the SNP will govern Scotland only if the Scottish people vote for them. Police Scotland is an attempt to cut costs and make the force more effective. Costs have to be cut, not just in Scotland but everywhere, I would hope that as time goes on and Police Scotland irons out the problems things will improve, right now PS is a mess.

 

[Steep]

Do you think Scotland win the vote to get their independence ?

Thanks for saying that a vote for independence would be a win Yes I do, but then I would wouldn't I?

 

[Steep]

Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill has a very sinister element to it. This appointing of a named person to monitor the well being of every child is a cloaked attempt at obtaining huge amounts of power over the population as there's no great leverage on someone as when it comes to their children.

The bill has made it possible for children in difficult circumstances, and parents to have someone they can contact, someone that isn't the social services but can deal with them if needed. The number of addict mothers for example who don't dare go to social services for fear of losing their kids (something that happens all too often) or don't go because they can't understand the forms they're asked to fill out could benefit from this enormously. Children of addicted or alcoholic parents need better care than social services can give them directly. If it's implemented well it can make a real difference, of course that's a question that can only be answered with time.

 

[gman]

I didn't really look to be fair as I'm always on phone so difficult but having a look at that link you've posted I'm wondering why they don't say what they think are the correct statistics instead of just slating?

Thing about the children, this is the problem - will it be implemented properly or will it be abused? I also hope the former but suspect the latter.

I just don't like all the "planning for the best, hope to avoid the worst" impression I get. If we were an economic powerhouse with the ability to absorb any unforeseen downturn then yes, count me in. Otherwise, it just feels like an unnecessary risk for very little gain - at the moment that is.

 

[Steep]

Thing about the children, this is the problem - will it be implemented properly or will it be abused? I also hope the former but suspect the latter.

That depends on who they get to run it, if it's done on a community basis I think it will be a success but if it's left up to civil servants then the bureaucracy will likely stifle it from the outset. I'm not in favour of centralising anything but at least in an independent Scotland the centre will be pretty accessible to most people.

I didn't really look to be fair as I'm always on phone so difficult but having a look at that link you've posted I'm wondering why they don't say what they think are the correct statistics instead of just slating?

It's not that her figures were wrong, she/they just picked the ones that looked best and ignored parts of the data that didn't suit them. For example her statement made it seem like all the 88% of Scottish households she talked of were capable of paying more tax, but in that 88% are all the pensioners in the country, a distinction made in the tables they got the data from but ignored by them. They also chose to use data from an earlier report 2009/10 instead of 2010/11 because the tax paid percentages were lower, i.e. the figures looked better for the point she wanted to make. I think if she'd done something like that in her own tax return the inland revenue would have prosecuted her for fraud.

 

[StewartR]

I didn't really look to be fair as I'm always on phone so difficult but having a look at that link you've posted I'm wondering why they don't say what they think are the correct statistics instead of just slating?

They did. And I gave you the reference in post #770 the other day:

Anyway, the Office of National Statistics has rubbished those figures quoted by Ruth Davidson. They conducted a detailed analysis of the proportion of households which receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. And their conclusion was that the figures for Scotland are pretty similar to those for the UK as a whole:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/household-taxes-and-benefits--update/index.html