Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Hasn't every recent political campaign been predominantly negative in nature?

How can anyone forget slogans like "Labour isn't working".

Every insurance salesperson under the sun will tell you that fear is a very powerful emotion to tap into.

Wouldn't it be refreshing for politicians to treat the electorate with respect and talk the truth.

The UK voting population is smart enough to make "informed" decisions.
The issue is being informed from the politicians

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....Scotland has a population and economy similar to other successful independent nations and I have yet to hear why an independent Scotland would not prevail.
...

I believe you have missed the point of this thread. It's not about the principle of independence - I'm sure that Scotland could quite happily survive as an independent nation if that was the expressed wish of its inhabitants - it's about the specific plan being currently laid before the Scottish people by a particular bunch of twonks masquerading as politicians and commonly known as the SNP, who apparently don't understand that it takes two to make an agreement.

For example; the SNP might desire that an independent Scotland enter into a currency union with the RoUK; the RoUK is at liberty to say 'No'.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

The thing is, the SNP seem to be saying with this document, "it's ok, all sorted.

I'm interested, have you received a copy of / downloaded the White Paper and read the full contents?

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Wouldn't it be refreshing for politicians to treat the electorate with respect and talk the truth.

The UK voting population is smart enough to make "informed" decisions.
The issue is being informed from the politicians

Refreshing, yes.

Possible? Hell no.

Public trust in politicians has rarely been lower. Turnouts at elections are dismal. There is good reason for this; their track record isn't great.

Anyone watching QT would have thought this was a referendum on the SNP's ability to govern an independent Scotland.

We had an opportunity back in 2011 to extend the National Census to all of UK and ask a much wider range of questions about the populations' desires and concerns. Shame we missed it. That would have been 'informed'.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

I believe you have missed the point of this thread. It's not about the principle of independence - I'm sure that Scotland could quite happily survive as an independent nation if that was the expressed wish of its inhabitants - it's about the specific plan being currently laid before the Scottish people by a particular bunch of twonks masquerading as politicians and commonly known as the SNP, who apparently don't understand that it takes two to make an agreement.

I have not missed the point but wonder if you have.
This is not a vote for the SNP to lead Scotland, but a vote for independence.

If independence were to be achieved, the government would be formed by the people of Scotland's choice, be that SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens or even the conservatives.

antrobus wrote: »

For example; the SNP might desire that an independent Scotland enter into a currency union with the RoUK; the RoUK is at liberty to say 'No'.

With regards to the currency issue, both sides are being political about it.

The SNP do not wish to concede a plan B (although I would guess they have on) as it infers that they believe / consider that they will not be successful in their plans.

The RoUK do not wish to enter into pre-vote negotiations on the currency as it concedes that the independence vote may be yes and they would potentially have to concede that their campaign for a no vote is diminished by removing this scaremongering issue.

The RoUK state they want clarity of what an Independent Scotland be like, so why will they not open up negotiations prior to the vote to define that clarity?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can I just make the point here that I wasn't making out it's a big issu. Just one issue that hits real people on the ground. It's something they can tune in with in terms of how independance effects their everyday life.

This is what the commentators were saying after the live debate last week, that ordinary people are turned off by the 'dry' discussions about EU membership, NATO, UN and just want to know how jobs will be affected and if cost of living will go up.

With Scotland paying for her own embassies, passports, defence force and all the other national institutions, that were once covered by all the UK taxpayers, I just don't see how their tax bills won't rise. Unless the SNP thinks that the RoUK will let them use their facilities free of charge.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Refreshing, yes.

Possible? Hell no.

Why not?
Rather than hear constantly about the situation the government inherited, I'd rather hear about what they have achieved since then and what they plan to put in place going forward.
If an opposition is making a pledge about what they will deliver and a party member could simply state that they don;t think it is achievable (and why) and what they propose in place.

kabayiri wrote: »

Public trust in politicians has rarely been lower. Turnouts at elections are dismal. There is good reason for this; their track record isn't great.

Trust is low because of track record and also because continuous negative campaigning.

I think that any government should be marked on their progression since they took power, so the electorate could consider whether they did well to achieve their manifesto in the economic climate they went through or their track record is clear for all to see.

The only issue I see with this is the short vision of politicians as opposed to looking at a long term strategy.
They way round that is to have a long term strategy and set goals to be achieved in a parliamentary term

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

With Scotland paying for her own embassies, passports, defence force and all the other national institutions, that were once covered by all the UK taxpayers, I just don't see how their tax bills won't rise. Unless the SNP thinks that the RoUK will let them use their facilities free of charge.

Is Scotland Tax payers not also contributing to these departments?

How do other similar nations manage e.g. Norway?

This might be worth a read
http://www.scotsman.com/news/insight-can-scotland-learn-from-scandinavia-1-3200101

I'll also have to look up the "Our Friends in The North" tv program and see if it is available online

Here it is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kk8j7/Our_Friends_in_the_North/
I'll have a look tonight

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

An arguable debate is why 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote.

If they can pay taxes and fight for ones country, I think they should be allowed the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice.

I don't have an issue with 16 & 17 year olds being allowed to vote, I just have an issue with the timing. I'd also be interested to know whether this is a 'one off' or whether they will continue to be allowed to vote for the Scottish parliament if there is a 'No' vote or for the Scottish government if there is a "Yes" vote?

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I don't have an issue with 16 & 17 year olds being allowed to vote, I just have an issue with the timing. I'd also be interested to know whether this is a 'one off' or whether they will continue to be allowed to vote for the Scottish parliament if there is a 'No' vote or for the Scottish government if there is a "Yes" vote?

To be honest, I'm not sure, but I think they should have the right for all elections