An Independent Scotland?

My heart goes out to the family of David Haines this morning. Terrible news and very, very sad. If Scotland gain independence then they will not have the resources to respond to this. This another reason why we need to stand together as a nation. Together as a nation we are stronger.
 
lost said:
Even the Trident bases could be worked around in the short term it is the biggest sticking point in my mind but it is not impossible to find a solution where to keep them.
Click to expand...
Portsmouth or Milford haven
 
Laudrup said:
Coulport would be difficult and expensive to replicate in the rUK but they would need to be housed somewhere if it was a yes vote and the constitution was written that there would be no nukes in Scotland. The SNP give a 2020 deadline but I could see that running over or being negotiated for other things.
Click to expand...

It honestly wouldn't take much. Unused infrastructure at Portsmouth, since bae moved to Scottish yards, however that may well come back. Already secure with the navy fleet there Plenty of deep water at Milford haven, although more building would be required
 
dinners said:
I won 6 - 5 in the 'how many people's balloon's can you pop without them knowing you did it on purpose' competition. ;)
Click to expand...

How did you manage that, without the yes campaign accusing you of scaremongering? Those loud bangs...
 
gadgeteer said:
This whole independence malarky reminds me very much of when I split up with my ex nearly 12 years ago. We'd been together for a while. Had two kids and I was 27-28 at the time. We were living in a nice neighbourhood, 4 bed semi garage, two cars etc. In short life was pretty good for our age and I was pretty happy with my lot. My ex on the other hand wasn't. Always comparing us to others and what we didn't have. For example:

Her: "Oh look at your friend (Bob). He goes on holiday x times a year and lives in a bigger house than we do."
Me: "Yes, he also earns 3x what we do!"

For that and several other reasons eventually she was so unhappy that we decided to split up. Her plan was simple. Free of me and my non-ambitious ways and never having enough money to live how she wanted, she'd spend all the money from her inheritance (that I wouldn't let her spend) on a business and work damn hard! I'd of course pay her a generous child support on top of her income and she & the kids would live happily ever after. Brilliant. It sounded great on paper.

When we sat down to talk about finances she was all prepared. She'd been to a solicitor and he'd told her everything I had to give her. Except she didn't get the exact deal she'd expected. She got less. Significantly less. (Ironically it was less than I originally offered her but I digress). Net result was huge hole in her finances. To cut a long story short, 18 months later her business folded, the kids were living with me full time and she had gone from entrepreneur to part time waitress.

It's been 12 years since and the kids still live with me, I enjoy a more comfortable life now than I did (even though it was fine at the time) because I never took huge risks and have been a steady eddy. She now sees the kids alternate weekends, had to sell her house since she couldn't afford it and rents a double room. My ex works full time and works very very hard. That much I don't doubt.

The point I'm making is this. Life is grey. It's not black & white. To me and to many others, you may argue that her 'independence' hasn't been a great success. If you look at the facts & figures it's definitely not been. Mainly for her. It's not been financially better for me either. If we hadn't have split we'd have been mortgage free about 5 years ago. Instead I still have a mortgage around my neck for another 15 years and she's renting with no realistic prospect of buying.

I guess this is the point of the better together campaign. If you divorce then you are pretty much both guaranteed to lose out. Financially at least. Emotionally you may still want to be on your own and that's fine. Just stop trying to lie to voters about how much better it will be because the chances are it won't be better.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with you - divorce is not a good thing for many reasons,

BUT

not all divorces work out badly ……. and if one side is unhappy it can be the best (maybe only) solution …. otherwise the situation gets worse and worse

I have been happily married for just over 40 years by the way
 
gadgeteer said:
This whole independence malarky reminds me very much of when I split up with my ex nearly 12 years ago. We'd been together for a while. Had two kids and I was 27-28 at the time. We were living in a nice neighbourhood, 4 bed semi garage, two cars etc. In short life was pretty good for our age and I was pretty happy with my lot. My ex on the other hand wasn't. Always comparing us to others and what we didn't have. For example:

Her: "Oh look at your friend (Bob). He goes on holiday x times a year and lives in a bigger house than we do."
Me: "Yes, he also earns 3x what we do!"

For that and several other reasons eventually she was so unhappy that we decided to split up. Her plan was simple. Free of me and my non-ambitious ways and never having enough money to live how she wanted, she'd spend all the money from her inheritance (that I wouldn't let her spend) on a business and work damn hard! I'd of course pay her a generous child support on top of her income and she & the kids would live happily ever after. Brilliant. It sounded great on paper.

When we sat down to talk about finances she was all prepared. She'd been to a solicitor and he'd told her everything I had to give her. Except she didn't get the exact deal she'd expected. She got less. Significantly less. (Ironically it was less than I originally offered her but I digress). Net result was huge hole in her finances. To cut a long story short, 18 months later her business folded, the kids were living with me full time and she had gone from entrepreneur to part time waitress.

It's been 12 years since and the kids still live with me, I enjoy a more comfortable life now than I did (even though it was fine at the time) because I never took huge risks and have been a steady eddy. She now sees the kids alternate weekends, had to sell her house since she couldn't afford it and rents a double room. My ex works full time and works very very hard. That much I don't doubt.

The point I'm making is this. Life is grey. It's not black & white. To me and to many others, you may argue that her 'independence' hasn't been a great success. If you look at the facts & figures it's definitely not been. Mainly for her. It's not been financially better for me either. If we hadn't have split we'd have been mortgage free about 5 years ago. Instead I still have a mortgage around my neck for another 15 years and she's renting with no realistic prospect of buying.

I guess this is the point of the better together campaign. If you divorce then you are pretty much both guaranteed to lose out. Financially at least. Emotionally you may still want to be on your own and that's fine. Just stop trying to lie to voters about how much better it will be because the chances are it won't be better.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you'd let her spend some of her inheritance you would still be together.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
My heart goes out to the family of David Haines this morning. Terrible news and very, very sad. If Scotland gain independence then they will not have the resources to respond to this. This another reason why we need to stand together as a nation. Together as a nation we are stronger.
Click to expand...

Even Westminster haven't used this extremely sad event to try and change opinions on the referendum.
You should be ashamed.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
My heart goes out to the family of David Haines this morning. Terrible news and very, very sad. If Scotland gain independence then they will not have the resources to respond to this. This another reason why we need to stand together as a nation. Together as a nation we are stronger.
Click to expand...
When the UK government drags us into other countries, that action brings with it the need to "respond" to their retaliation. The hope is that with independence Scots will not be put in that position - in which case there is no need for resources or response.

We'll see. Until now the world hasn't worked that way.

EDIT - And I agree this shouldn't be a pro/anti independence issue. It's too far removed, and too horrific.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Even Westminster haven't used this extremely sad event to try and change opinions on the referendum.
You should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
Bit of an overreaction in my opinion. The comments wasn't mad made in a distasteful manner at all. However events like these are part unfortunately of every day life. And these are the things that the general public hears about, and sadly in this case couldn't be thwarted. If only it could be comprehended how much effort and resources go into the daily activities undertaken by a multitude of agencies. It is timely, and sadly topical, however it should part part of the decision making process, one should not shy away from any subject imo and embark on this with eyes wide open.
 
Moadib said:
When the UK government drags us into other countries, that action brings with it the need to "respond" to their retaliation. The hope is that with independence Scots will not be put in that position - in which case there is no need for resources or response.

We'll see. Until now the world hasn't worked that way.

EDIT - And I agree this shouldn't be a pro/anti independence issue. It's too far removed, and too horrific.
Click to expand...
So it is our own fault? Really? I guess you also agree that according to the guardian it wasn't the boy killing all those dogs, it was the owners who disbanded them that caused it...

Do you really think you can stand by the side lines? Heck Switserland, Norway to pick two mentioned a few times in this thread also seen action out in Afghanistan and the likes....But good luck to it...
 
Well I'm just glad that one of the no campaign brought it up.
If we'd tried to use this sickening event in any way to try and influence the referendum I can imagine the furore.
This thread is, in my opinion going nowhere now.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
If Scotland introduce a lower rate of VAT, then prices would be lower.
Click to expand...

They can't though. Borrowing costs, the share of the RBS debt will be higher for them as their credit rating will be higher plus all this free child care, free uni, free prescriptions all has to be paid for. Personal taxation for the British people in Scotland will go up
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Well I'm just glad that one of the no campaign brought it up.
If we'd tried to use this sickening event in any way to try and influence the referendum I can imagine the furore.
This thread is, in my opinion going nowhere now.
Click to expand...

Bob, you are a hypocrite. You have already made very personnel digs to another poster this morning. You said "perhaps if you let her spend her inheritance you might still be with her" or very similar words. I don't think you are in any position to take the moral high ground. Didn't one of the mods make a plea to keep it civilised yesterday.

Challenging, difficult uncomfortable subjects still have to discussed, There are serious ramifications for the future. It is far to easy to deflect, it ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

As I said to you yesterday whatever the outcome I sincerely hope that we can all live in peace and harmony together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Blank_Canvas said:
Bob, you are a hypocrite. You have already made very personnel digs to another poster this morning. You said "perhaps if you let her spend her inheritance you might still be with her" or very similar words. I don't think you are in any position to take the moral high ground. Didn't one of the mods make a plea to keep it civilised yesterday.

Challenging, difficult uncomfortable subjects still have to discussed, There are serious ramifications for the future. It is far to easy to deflect, it ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

As I said to you yesterday whatever the outcome I sincerely hope that we can all live in peace and harmony together.
Click to expand...
As sad as the death of the poor chap is, it's not to me a factor in the bigger yes/no picture. It's a Death that happened overseas by the hands of militant savages.

The thing that needs considered is the lack of the Yes campaigns questions to key facts and the risks to life as we know it. Look at it and no is the only sensible vote you can make.

Voting no doesn't mean you're voting Torie or UKIP either. It means your voting to stay British and retain the economic status quo, currency, markets, defence, prices as you've had for generations
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Bob, you are a hypocrite. You have already made very personnel digs to another poster this morning. You said "perhaps if you let her spend her inheritance you might still be with her" or very similar words. I don't think you are in any position to take the moral high ground. Didn't one of the mods make a plea to keep it civilised yesterday.

Challenging, difficult uncomfortable subjects still have to discussed, There are serious ramifications for the future. It is far to easy to deflect, it ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

As I said to you yesterday whatever the outcome I sincerely hope that we can all live in peace and harmony together.
Click to expand...

I didn't start the post using a personal scenario about divorce to try and alter opinion.
If someone wishes to use their divorce as a means of trying to influence opinion, then people shouldn't be surprised if some of those opinions vary.
My response was in relation to the comment made that the OP wouldn't let his wife spend her own inheritance.
Not sure where using that statement has any relevance whatsoever in the overall scheme of the post?
So, it's not hypocritical at all, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I feel that your post became inappropriate after the first sentence. But hey, that's just my opinion, and it happens to be different from yours.
Tit for tat does nothing for me, so I'll let you have the last word.
 
ST4 said:
They can't though. Borrowing costs, the share of the RBS debt will be higher for them as their credit rating will be higher plus all this free child care, free uni, free prescriptions all has to be paid for. Personal taxation for the British people in Scotland will go up
Click to expand...
Allegedly, if one believes the no camp.
 
Finste said:
Why don't you present a plausible alternative to how all this will be funded rather than simply dismissing it.

Regards...
Click to expand...

Bobsyeruncle said:
Well, unlike you guys, I'm no expert, therefore I'm happy not to. My choice.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't have to be you personally :) surely you have a source that helps you make an informed decision?
 
ST4 said:
They can't though. Borrowing costs, the share of the RBS debt will be higher for them as their credit rating will be higher plus all this free child care, free uni, free prescriptions all has to be paid for. Personal taxation for the British people in Scotland will go up
Click to expand...
Bobsyeruncle said:
Allegedly, if one believes the no camp.
Click to expand...
Finste said:
Why don't you present a plausible alternative to how all this will be funded rather than simply dismissing it.
Regards...
Click to expand...
Bobsyeruncle said:
Well, unlike you guys, I'm no expert, therefore I'm happy not to. My choice.
Click to expand...

It's been said many times before, Scotlands public spending is significantly above what it can generate from it's current tax revenue, however anything said against this is 'scaremongering'

But some figures:
In 2012/2013 Scotlands total public spending was £65.2bn, however at the same time their tax revenue generated was £53bn
The figures for 2012/13 assume that 84.2% of taxes from UK oil and gas accrued to Scotland, however.allocate the oil on a population basis (8.3% rather than 84.2%) and Scotland's tax receipts for 2012/13 were £48.1bn (rather than £53.1bn), equivalent to 8.2% of the UK total tax take. Strip out the oil altogether and they were £47.6bn.

So, even by the most generous measure, Scotland raised £53.1bn in 2012/13 and spent £65.2bn, leaving the country £12.1bn short.

Source: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Note in the same period the uk as a whole had a deficit of £117bn
 
And another source in case you don't want the Scottish Govts figures
https://fullfact.org/scotland/how_m...and_have_spend_uk_scottish_independence-33426

So you can see why the yes campaign are so reliant on the oil revenue becoming wholly scottish. Even then though the figures don't add up especially if the price of oil drops, from what I can work out Salmond is assuming $150 a barrel and increasing. Trouble is there is overproduction, disagreement within opec and the price is now below $100 a barrel, reducing taxation income.

None of the figures add up, but the Yes campaign just want to carry on spending without those terrible tory govt cuts. But it doesn't work, you can't just keep borrowing money.
 
Last edited:
So our deficit is 8.3% of GDP, and yours is 9.3%
So why is it always doom and gloom for an independent Scotland, and not for the UK as a whole.
It appears to my inexpert mind, that we are not a million miles apart I percentage terms.
So if the UK government are able turn things around, then why can't we?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So our deficit is 8.3% of GDP, and yours is 9.3%
So why is it always doom and gloom for an independent Scotland, and not for the UK as a whole.
It appears to my inexpert mind, that we are not a million miles apart I percentage terms.
So if the UK government are able turn things around, then why can't we?
Click to expand...
It is really bad for the UK, very bad with thanks to labour. A deficit per se is not necessarily bad, a structural deficit however it not great. Considering that all the noises are about bad UK and bad tories, and some kind of socialistic utopia wants to be created than the issue is that a structural deficit will be further increased, not on the road to be reduced.

But yes I agree, the cuts should have been harder and more intense in the UK...Unfortunately they weren't and yet many of your fellow Scotsman are complaining about the little cuts already...That is why...
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Maybe if you'd let her spend some of her inheritance you would still be together.
Click to expand...

Fair point if you don't have the full facts. I will admit not liking her idea to buy a business but that wasn't because I wasn't supportive per se. That was because in my 15 years of experience in the trade (I grew up in), I could see it was a terrible investment. She didn't listen. I was right.

But regardless that wasn't the main point.

BillN_33 said:
not all divorces work out badly ……. and if one side is unhappy it can be the best (maybe only) solution …. otherwise the situation gets worse and worse

I have been happily married for just over 40 years by the way
Click to expand...
Yep and I totally agree with that. You are saying the same thing as me really. Of course happiness is far more important than money but that was kind of my point. If you're that unhappy then yes you should split. But don't try to tell everyone how much better off you'll be financially because chances are you won't be. Chances are that given Scotland's economy is 10% of the size of rUK's that rUK will have an easier time recovering.

I'm glad you've been married for 40 years. I hope to be as lucky. But let me ask you this. If you did heaven forbid split up. Financially would you be better off? I very much doubt it. Yet that's what the Yes camp are trying to sell. Vote yes and it will be higher spending, lower taxes, jam today and jam tomorrow.
 
dejongj said:
It is really bad for the UK, very bad with thanks to labour. A deficit per se is not necessarily bad, a structural deficit however it not great. Considering that all the noises are about bad UK and bad tories, and some kind of socialistic utopia wants to be created than the issue is that a structural deficit will be further increased, not on the road to be reduced.

But yes I agree, the cuts should have been harder and more intense in the UK...Unfortunately they weren't and yet many of your fellow Scotsman are complaining about the little cuts already...That is why...
Click to expand...
Then let us get on with it, let us keep our revenue and our spending, and let us decide on our own cuts. Obviously that's too simplistic.
 
ST4 said:
They can't though. Borrowing costs, the share of the RBS debt will be higher for them as their credit rating will be higher plus all this free child care, free uni, free prescriptions all has to be paid for. Personal taxation for the British people in Scotland will go up
Click to expand...
So if we do reduce vat, and prices do come down, and we are cheaper than Ruk, maybe more businesses will want to be based in Scotland to take advantage of the increase in sales that will come from the preferential vat/corporation tax rates. This would in turn increase our revenue. The difference is, we decide.
 
ST4 said:
But experts are giving facts and reasoned arguments that so happen to support the no argument.

If that's the best you can do you're not doing well to sway me or others.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
Experts are also providing facts that in my opinion, support a yes vote.
I'd doubt that anything I'd say would alter your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Then let us get on with it, let us keep our revenue and our spending, and let us decide on our own cuts. Obviously that's too simplistic.
Click to expand...
I'm not stopping you :) By all means please do...however the case the Yes camp puts forward makes it look much better than it will be. It is that dishonesty that really annoys me because I care for the people that are being duped...
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So if we do reduce vat, and prices do come down, and we are cheaper than Ruk, maybe more businesses will want to be based in Scotland to take advantage of the increase in sales that will come from the preferential vat/corporation tax rates. This would in turn increase our revenue. The difference is, we decide.
Click to expand...

And the 12bil black hole. Scotland spends too much. To match that spending tax has to go up or spending down.

As a new country with no track record borrowing will be expensive for you. As such either bye bye vat and tax cuts or bye bye free uni/prescriptions/child care. Given the socialist nature of the Scottish sprites it'll be bye bye tax cuts and hello tax rises to retain the silly level of public spending that's presently on offer to keep them happy
 
gadgeteer said:
Fair point if you don't have the full facts. I will admit not liking her idea to buy a business but that wasn't because I wasn't supportive per se. That was because in my 15 years of experience in the trade (I grew up in), I could see it was a terrible investment. She didn't listen. I was right.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just didn't see the relevance in the statement about you not letting her spend her own inheritance, rather than it being a joint decision. like you had some sort of control over your wife. Maybe you did? A bit like Westminster having control over us.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top