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

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

I didn't say that they wouldn't manage, I just stated a fact that if you have 300 embassies & Consulates (or whatever number there are), it's cheaper if they are paid for by 38M taxpayers than just 2.6M tax payers. Surely?

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I didn't say that they wouldn't manage, I just stated a fact that if you have 300 embassies & Consulates (or whatever number there are), it's cheaper if they are paid for by 38M taxpayers than just 2.6M tax payers. Surely?

Again, what is different to other similar sized nations i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc

System

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I will be voting yes, however I expect the no vote to prevail.
....
I simply believe in having the power to determine ones own future.

.

In what way is voting one way but losing the vote "determining your own future"?

I would have called it submitting to someone else's future.

Shakethedisease

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

Yes well that's the question isn't it. But it has to be said that a lot of insitutions are devolved, or always have been seperate anyway ( education, law, nhs etc etc ).. and proposals regarding independence so far all envisage Scotland taking a share of UK 'assets' as well as the debt. This includes defence, embassies and the like.

A shared currency is being presented in the whole of the UK's best interests too. Not just Scotlands. ( balance of payments and other stuff that mainly goes over most people's heads).. Just hearing that 'we're keeping the pound' will be enough to reassure most still making up their mind. If Westminster came right out and said 'no, you ain't having a currency union'.. ( and you have to ask why they haven't, the question keeps being dodged ? ).. then fair enough. But that again paints a pretty bad picture of Westminster for those 'don't know's. It just looks spiteful.

It should also be taken into account that the Barnett formula has been a bit of a hot topic at the moment too, with more and more politicians saying that if Scotland votes no, that this will be reduced anyway. So it's lose-lose is it not regarding either tax rises or cuts. Yes OR No...

There is no certainty with any of the above and I guess it comes down to who you trust more to do what is in Scotland's 'best' interests when it comes to jobs, growth and money in one's back pocket.

Sure there are many people scared of independence and what may happen.. ( another Greece ? costs of living soaring ?) but there are just as many scared of what will happen if another Tory led govt gets in.. Only this morning Osborne is in the Telegraph saying that the UK 'cannot afford the welfare state'. That's scary stuff for someone who is perhaps disabled, recently been laid off or already struggling with their rent to hear. Labour are likely to say the same, but slightly 'watered down' as usual. Independence offers a chance of a different way of doing things. And a lot of what the SNP has in it's white paper seems very reassuring to ordinary people who are constantly being buffeted with cuts, reforms and rocketing fuel bills. All hitting hard. The 'lifeboat' option, as I've heard it being called, may be a yes vote.

The no camp has been totally dire in regards of reassurance, positivity and trust.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

In what way is voting one way but losing the vote "determining your own future"?

I would have called it submitting to someone else's future.

They are two different things, it's not hard to comprehend.

I believe in being able to determine your own future. Something I put in place to the best of my ability in the current situation.
As a Nation, I believe we will be better long term as an independent country (see my previous link for "Our Friends in the North". To that end, I will be voting yes.

Despite my personal beliefs, there will be others that disagree and other that are too cautious for change.
This is being embraced by the "No Campaign" to try and achieve their aim, therefor, despite my belief that we will be better off as an independent nation and one which I will be voting for, I realise that the likelihood of this happening is very slim.

That said, most people thought that a majority government could not occur in Scotland given the constituency boundaries that was set up, yet it proved that is can occur.

We'll see what the outcome is next September.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

In what way is voting one way but losing the vote "determining your own future"?

I would have called it submitting to someone else's future.

As Patrick Harvie said the other night, "The only way to guarantee failure is to not even try"

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....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.....

Again I think you miss the point. There is no need for the RoUK to enter into pre-vote negotiations on the currency with some regional based political party any more than there is a need for the UK to enter into negotiations with any other party regarding a hypothetical application to enter into monetary union with the UK.

You appear to fail to appreciate that, just as Scotland has the right to be independent from the UK, the UK has the right to be independent from Scotland.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....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? .....

I don't think that the 'RoUK' are that bothered one way or the other. It's the Scottish people who deserve clarity. And honesty, for that matter. Neither is being delivered by the SNP.

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The no camp has been totally dire in regards of reassurance, positivity and trust.

Totally agree

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure there are many people scared of independence and what may happen.. ( another Greece ? costs of living soaring ?) but there are just as many scared of what will happen if another Tory led govt gets in..

Sure, there is a possibility the country could go bust, but in the comparison I have just saw part of, Finland used to be a union with Sweden, less than 100 years ago.

Since separating, the eceonomy collapsed as they had an economy to reliant on the soviet union, but are now considered in the top three of countries in Europe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kk8j7/Our_Friends_in_the_North/

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Again I think you miss the point. There is no need for the RoUK to enter into pre-vote negotiations on the currency with some regional based political party any more than there is a need for the UK to enter into negotiations with any other party regarding a hypothetical application to enter into monetary union with the UK.

You appear to fail to appreciate that, just as Scotland has the right to be independent from the UK, the UK has the right to be independent from Scotland.



I don't think that the 'RoUK' are that bothered one way or the other. It's the Scottish people who deserve clarity. And honesty, for that matter. Neither is being delivered by the SNP.

As I understand it, the RoUK have agreed to standby the outcome of the referendum , therefore it has an obligation to it's electorate to be forthright.

We are not as yet separated and Westminster has an obligation to help provide the clarity.
If anything, it should be as part of the No campaign to be clear to the people they are reaching out to.

Is there a reason why Westminster is not willing to discuss this?
Is it because deep down, they are in agreement with the SNP proposals on these issues?

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Again, what is different to other similar sized nations i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc

Sorry, you're missing the point I was making about taxation. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it'll cost more and that cost will be carried by the taxpayer. This cost can either be covered by reducing costs elsewhere or by increasing taxation.