An Independent Scotland?

Laudrup said:
From hearing anecdotes about England and Wales I'm glad I don't have to rely on it down there.
Click to expand...

Theres a lot more right than wrong with the NHS around my way, in fact they treat patients from Scotland for the more specialised services...

Have a look where the hospital responsible for heart and lung, lung and paediatric heart transplants for Scottish patients is, as an example.
 
Chatting with someone the other day who is quite high up in the NHS it will be highly probable that the NHS will server there links with Scotland if they gain independence. If specialist medical services are required then they will be charged for it. There is a whole new structure bring planned. At the very least it will be totally different service to the one being received now.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Chatting with someone the other day who is quite high up in the NHS it will be highly probable that the NHS will server there links with Scotland if they gain independence. If specialist medical services are required then they will be charged for it. There is a whole new structure bring planned. At the very least it will be totally different service to the one being received now.
Click to expand...

Considering just how many patients in need of specialist care come into the North of England that could prove a problem for them, substandard care in a Scottish hospital (substandard from the POV of the specialised care areas) or very expensive treatment in a world class hospital in England?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Chatting with someone the other day who is quite high up in the NHS it will be highly probable that the NHS will server there links with Scotland if they gain independence. If specialist medical services are required then they will be charged for it. There is a whole new structure bring planned. At the very least it will be totally different service to the one being received now.
Click to expand...

Point one - Scottish NHS is ALREADY charged for services provided by other NHS areas, just as the others are charged for Scottish services. - If I break my leg in England and need treatment, the NHS there charges Scots NHS, same applies if an Englishman breaks his leg in Wales, that's how it works and how it always has worked.

Point two - Good to see someone down South is doing some planning, perhaps the NHS (what's left of it) in England can have a word with Westminster and tell them to get the finger out.
 
It's official, the new Scottish National Anthem will be -

 
Hugh

Yes, it will be your own fault, but there's no need for any fault. If the SNP had done the negotiation first, then they wouldn't have to lie to you. OK, I accept, from all of your comments you don't mind that, but are you seriously sure that the entire Scots population are going to be happy when they find out that they ain't going to get what they have claimed? Are the SNP going to give the Scots people another chance if things don't happen as they promise? Are they hell!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, you weren't reading some right wing propaganda rag, you were reading facts. The experts in that report, Lord West, and others are not right wing activists, they are experts in their field. One of the contributors was an SNP candidate!

I go back to my original question, please answer it, you have been sold a lie on defence, how much more of the SNP's white paper is also a lie? I suspect much of it, with the intention of getting the yes vote, knowing full well they wont reverse it when reality sets in.
 
Who would the SNP have negotiated with? I shouldn't have to ask this since I've said repeatedly on this thread Westminster WILL NOT accept the possibility of a Yes vote and so refuse to enter into any kind of negotiation.

The report you refer to was commissioned by and published by an Extremely right wing organisation The Henry Jackson Society. The Author George Grant, as I pointed out to you earlier has used some very suspect information from suspect sources to make his claims, this is not something I made up!

You're right George Grant did stand as an SNP candidate, the he moved to Gullane and joined the Lib Dems (ain't no nationalists in Gullane, no way!). He's entitled to change his mind which makes his choice of party ideal as it's something they are very good at.

Your 'original question' is invalid since your proof that we have been lied to is flawed, however I can show you examples of outright lies told to us by Westminster politicians, they do it on an almost daily basis. blatantly.
 
Want to see Westminster lies in action? here's today's helping http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28289331 Glossing over the fact that they are having to spend £250+ million on improving the radar in an aircraft that's only just come into service! the interesting bit is the announced spending on the wonderful new Norwegian built ice patrol ship, except, the Ice Protector was bought a year ago total cost including the rent for the time they borrowed it £46 million. Why is he announcing new spending on hardware that's already been paid for?

This sounds much like the huge headline £500 million he promised to Glasgow last week which actually turns out to be only £15 million a year for a couple of years and then more maybe after a review, not reported in the press.
 
No Hugh, don't try and twist your way out of it, it wont work, I ask questions for a living, and I know when it's being avoided to hide something.

The report, whoever commissioned it, and your opinions of them is based very much on fact, and supports the fact that the SNP defence plans are made up. Although it was commisoned before the white paper, it contains rebuttles of almost every part of that white paper.

Whatever way you cut it, you have been lied too, you aren't a politician, I presume, so don't try the politicians tactic "of don't like the question, might mean having to accept something you support is rubbish, so avoid it". Just give us a straight answer, how much more of the SNP's white paper is fiction?

Oh and on HMS Protector, I hope you didn't get the information from the SNP, because it's not true. She's on hire at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)
And numerous other sites would have told you that. She has not been bought as of yet.
Who's doing the disinformation???????????
 
Last edited:
You say you ask questions for a living, I say you're pretty good at avoiding answering them yourself. You don't need to accept my assessment of the accuracy of the report, but don't think you'll ever get me to accept your word that's it's kosher when I've proved to my satisfaction that it's not.

On the sale of HMS Protector, Reuters as it happens, from an article dated last September http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/idUSnHUGdjp9+70+ONE20130926 and oddly enough Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector
 
More lies - This image is appearing on Facebook -
View attachment 16075

Here's what a Doctor has to say about it.

"Malcolm Morrell
I'm an NHS doctor, and seeing this on my feed made me very suspicious at how they arrived at this claim (I'm voting Yes, by the way). Some facts about this rather misleading image.

Better Together polled 106 Scotland-dwelling fellows of the London-based Academy of Medical Sciences. Of the 76 respondents, 73 indicated their preference as remaining in the UK. So that's the 93% figure dealt with.

Who are the Academy of Medical Sciences? Their "about us" page states:

>Our elected Fellows... are drawn from the fundamental biological sciences, clinical academic medicine, public and population health, health technology implementation, veterinary science, dentistry, medical and nursing care and other professions allied to medical science as well as the essential underpinning disciplines including mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, ethics, social science and the law.

This is not an NHS-affiliated organisation and its membership is evidently drawn from such a wide range of disciplines, many of which not directly related to clinical medicine, that calling their respondents "top doctors" is arguably very misleading.

Who funds the Academy? Well, their site states they do receive funding from the DoH, but their donors list is essentially a directory of huge multinational drug and medical technology firms.

What are their aims? Here's one of the sections:

>We seek to capitalise on our independence and ability to connect stakeholders from across the life sciences sector to... [Facilitate] strong and equitable partnerships between academia, industry and the NHS... along with promoting effective engagement with regulators and policy makers...

So, there you have it. Better Together have presented the above figure as a majority of "leading doctors" planning to vote No. What we actually find, with a minimum of Google detective work, is that the "leading doctors" are actuallyFellows of a London-based organisation, primarily concerned with academia and not directly affiliated with the NHS, funded in part by donations by big pharma and openly stating their aims include influencing policy decisions.

Are Better Together openly lying to people on Facebook? You decide."
 
So Hugh

I'll ask again, how much more of what the SNP are saying is untrue?

As a supplementary question, is everything that does not support independence propaganda? The Yes campaign seem to use that as a get out clause on everything.

You see Hugh, you, and to be fair the SNP don't seem to want to discuss anything in depth, it's a straight attempt to change the subject, throw something irrelevant in or attempt, badly to claim the subject is invalid.

It's not though, the SNP's defence policy is sunk, its rubbish. Not my evidence, it's from experts like the former First Lord of The Admiralty. Yet, you who clearly has no idea on defence theory and practice claim he's some right wing naysayer.
It's a more than valid question as to how much more of the policy is rubbish. The fact that you wriggle and twist like a wriggly twisty thing rather than answer that really does speak volumes.
I'm sorry Hugh, you beggar belief. If the Scots people are fooled by this, then they deserve everything they get. As I said, by the time they realise they've been had over, it will be far too late. Your mates in the SNP will never give the electorate a second chance once they know how bad it's going to be. Your mess, yes it will be, and the first place you will come crying to is us.
 
Laudrup said:
"...... From hearing anecdotes about England and Wales I'm glad I don't have to rely on it down there.
Click to expand...
My family have relied on the NHS heavily in the last few years, I can't say it has let us down.

That's the problem with anecdotes, their anecdotal

adjective: anecdotal
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
I'll ask again, how much more of what the SNP are saying is untrue?.
Click to expand...
You won't get an answer, both sides are lying through their teeth. This whole thing will come down to patriotism and a populist campaign against the Tories.
 
dod said:
An ex banking economist with RBS? Oh the irony :D
Click to expand...

Glad I was not the only one thinking that

dod said:
You won't get an answer, both sides are lying through their teeth. This whole thing will come down to patriotism and a populist campaign against the Tories.
Click to expand...

See this is something that worries me, people voting with their hearts and not their brains...I wish Scotland the best but I don't believe independence is the best route for Scotland, I think there has been too much obsession with a resource that is already in decline :(
 
You won't get an answer, both sides are lying through their teeth. This whole thing will come down to patriotism and a populist campaign against the Tories.
Click to expand...

I know that, you know that, but Hugh can't see it. To blinded by ideas of Braveheart and delusions that the thistles are sharper on the other side of the fence.

Of course Salmond is lying, he's a politician, and the SNP's white paper is the second greatest work of fiction known to man after the Bible.

I don't doubt that much of what the no campaign is saying lacks truth, but if it's no, no one loses much, apart from Salmond. If it's yes, then there's so much to potentially lose, and no going back once it becomes obvious the Scots have been had over.
 
Steep said:
Want to see Westminster lies in action? here's today's helping http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28289331 Glossing over the fact that they are having to spend £250+ million on improving the radar in an aircraft that's only just come into service!
Click to expand...

It works fine as it is, it will work ever better with the new one... its evolution of the beast.
(And one eye on exports too...)
 
MWHCVT said:
See this is something that worries me, people voting with their hearts and not their brains...I wish Scotland the best but I don't believe independence is the best route for Scotland, I think there has been too much obsession with a resource that is already in decline :(
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In some ways it's the only opinion that counts as NOBODY knows what will happen after the vote. We are a small but intensely proud nation and there is no reason we shouldn't decide our own futures. In fact that's exactly the patronising guff that could swing me towards voting for independence.
 
dod said:
An ex banking economist with RBS? Oh the irony :D
Click to expand...

I also wonder how much of the bail out liability Scotland will take on should they go independent? (separate issue to the National Debt)


Bernie174 said:
Of course Salmond is lying, he's a politician
Click to expand...

And originally a Westminster one at that. Learnt to lie from the best perhaps? lol
 
Would you think anyone at Westminster was a good liar? Certainly not the best. Salmond is no different from any of them, you can tell when they are lying, their mouths are moving!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In some ways it's the only opinion that counts as NOBODY knows what will happen after the vote. We are a small but intensely proud nation and there is no reason we shouldn't decide our own futures. In fact that's exactly the patronising guff that could swing me towards voting for independence.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the problem with this vote? You are voting with your eyes closed.The SNP white paper is fantasy, that much is obvious. The trouble is some people are naive enough to believe that it will all be perfect and vote in favour on that basis.

If a sensible party had power, then they would have the negotiations, then the vote. If thats not possible, then vote on the principle, then negotiate, get an agreement and vote again on that.

Will SNP do that? No, of course not, it's against their principles.
 
Last edited:
I'm also wondering, if Scotland do go independent then the North Sea Oil will become a much larger part of our economy as opposed to comparing to the UK economy. If the available oil is so vast then have there been any promises made with regard to the future price of petrol in Scotland or will they retain the current ridiculous level of duty?

After all, if we are producing it and refining it then shouldn't we also be enjoying far lower prices at the pumps?


This is an extract from the Scottish Government's website:

36. Would the fuel duty rate be altered following independence?
With independence we will examine the benefits of introducing a fuel duty regulator mechanism to stabilise prices for business and consumers.


Very, very vague and screams "no, you won't get cheaper petrol".
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
But isn't that the problem with this vote? You are voting with your eyes closed.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

If you want to know exactly what's going to happen then I don't see how any one can vote for independence just now, there's simply not enough data to make a sensible choice.

However, if you fundamentally believe in our right to self determination then all that "stuff" doesn't matter. Get independence and we'll make it work.

There is potentially another issue as well which hinges on your political leaning. Given that we'd end up with a left wing government for the foreseeable future it may or may not be appealing to remain part of the Union to maintain some level of political balance.

To be fair, this isn't just a question of logic :)
 
If you want to know exactly what's going to happen then I don't see how any one can vote for independence just now, there's simply not enough data to make a sensible choice.
Click to expand...

Which has been my point all along. It's an important decision, and one that should be made with all of the data as accurately laid out as possible, which is straight forward. It doesn't help that we all know Salmond is making it up as he goes along and like Hugh doesn't like difficult questions.
I also agree that you will end up with a socialist Government, along the lines of Hugh's much mentioned "Old Labour". So Unions running the country by proxy, rampant inflation and a broken economy. Good luck with that!
all to often Countries have asked for and got independence, and it's debatable that it works, Zimbawe being a great example. OK, I accept an extreme one, but the principle remains the same.
Luckily I am not involved in it, so I suppose I should keep my nose out, but it's a principle I have always held that I dislike people being misled to the point they do something based on a lie. At the moment thats what's happening.
 
dod said:
An ex banking economist with RBS? Oh the irony :D
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was back in the late 70's before the thatcherite era began.
 
dod said:
Yes and no.

If you want to know exactly what's going to happen then I don't see how any one can vote for independence just now, there's simply not enough data to make a sensible choice.

However, if you fundamentally believe in our right to self determination then all that "stuff" doesn't matter. Get independence and we'll make it work.

There is potentially another issue as well which hinges on your political leaning. Given that we'd end up with a left wing government for the foreseeable future it may or may not be appealing to remain part of the Union to maintain some level of political balance.

To be fair, this isn't just a question of logic :)
Click to expand...

The idea that we'll have a better idea of what's going to happen if we stay doesn't work either, we can make assumptions based on trends and for those of us voting yes the trends say if we stay in the union we'll get ever more right wing governments, a long slow painful decline of the UK and more wars.

"We'll make it work!" You should come work for the yes campaign Dod, that sums it up perfectly for me.

Re your last paragraph, see my first again.
 
Last edited:
This will be a close run thing. The chest beating 'flower of Scotland' clan will vote yes with their hearts. The other free thinkers will use their heads and vote no. Ultimately, like it or not, it will come down to a 'head or hearts' vote.
 
Last edited:
You do love to talk us all down don't you Nick? You're like that Stephenson woman (academic and uni professer) on twitter who said "yes voters are generally under educated and stupider than no voters"
 
No not really, I have many friends who are Scottish, my son lives in Fife and my ex-wife is Scottish. They just all happen to be voting 'no'.
 
Well, you see Hugh, maybe she has taken the SNP white paper as evidence of that. We all now know it's fiction. So, perhaps she's using that as an example, and saying that you'd have to be slightly simple to fall for something full of things that aren't true.
Or perhaps she means that people who are happy not to have their questions answered are displaying behaviour which, it could be said are simple.
Or maybe it's because those same people will accept everything they are told by the SNP, and yet everything else is a right wing plot?
 
Steep said:
View attachment 16175
Click to expand...

I think this image is probably more accurate than yours (in many peoples opinion) ;)

alex-salmond-train-lying-scotsman.jpg
 
I am not responsible for other peoples opinions, all I can do is say don't rely on UK media to get your information.
 
Why are people from outside Scotland arguing/debating this?
It's got nothing to do with you, it's our decision, so zip it! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top