Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

rpc

TCA wrote: »

Indeed. I'm looking forward to that paper too and how it is received.

I wouldn't bet against a UK government raising taxes either. Or stealthily through national insurance as is done at the moment.

I think we have a fair idea along party lines. Blue want to lower taxes. Red want to raise them. Yellow will sell their souls to get on the government benches.

I agree totally about NI and would sooner see it abolished - moves are being made in that area. But let us remember it was a Scot who promised no tax rises (but here, have a penny or two on NI because that isn't a tax).

And I also wouldn't bet that the Barnett formula will be around indefinitely.

I hope not. It was a temporary measure never suitable for long term adoption.

One of the few sweeping statements I ever make on the referendum is that any Yes voter who supports Barnett is an idiot. Any no voter who supports Barnett is also an idiot. I suppose any undecideds that support Barnett are likely to be idiots too.

The question is what to replace it with? Fortunately, the importance of that will be reduced as the taxation powers of Scotland are increased through further devolution and the block grant reduced accordingly.

What other countries spend on defence is completely irrelevant to Scotland. One thing you can be sure of, is after independence it would be a lot less than it is now.

I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the 12000 people employed in the defence industry (and the 18,000 employed by the forces and MoD). As much as defence is a major exporter, many of the companies rely on UK contracts to keep the business going and export is just the icing on the top. I don't care what promises Alex Salmond makes, MOD will not place these contracts with a foreign country such as an independent Scotland.

The engineering that the defence industry does is not likely to be transferable to another sector - renewable energy is the obvious one but the main source of high value engineering in that sector will be in China. We'll be left with installation and commissioning which is a very different beast to design and development.

TCA

incandescent wrote: »

Other countries are irrelevant to Scotland? Really? That's not the usual nationalist line. Why do you think Scotland is going to spend so much less on defence than pretty much any other country in Europe? And why do you think we can get away with that?

How many other countries in Europe are currently spending what we are for a redundant nuclear weapons system that was designed for the Cold War? There's about a billion quid saved for Scotland already. Not sure what you mean 'get away with it'. If you're saying we're undefended by not having Trident, then I'd suggest we're not the target you think we are.

incandescent wrote: »

I realise you don't want to admit that voting Yes is certain to cause higher taxes and / or spending cuts.

Still won't quantify anything then? The question was "let's hear your estimates of an independent Scotland's public spending and by how much we'd have to cut it or increase taxes?"

If you read my last post you'll see I openly agree there will be costs. What I disagree with is your opinion that independence will necessarily lead to a financial depression.

As it happens, I personally would be happy to pay more income tax to get a fairer, more equitable welfare system. An opportunity to simplify and redesign the benefits system, so the money gets to those who need it most. And get rid of unfair taxes like the bedroom tax. Having control of the revenue we raise, which incidentally is higher per person than the figure for the UK, gives us the chance to do much more.

rpc wrote: »

I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the 12,000 people employed in the defence industry (and the 18,000 employed by the forces and MoD).

You've let yourself down a bit with that post. I'm not suggesting no defence forces, I'm suggesting we get rid of weapons of mass destruction from Scottish soil. Trying to justify keeping Trident in terms of jobs is pretty poor. For the record, figures released by the MoD in 2012 under freedom of information law revealed that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport are directly dependent on Trident. Yes, there *could* be contracts and other jobs lost in Scotland if Trident goes, but I don't think to the levels you're suggesting. I don't like to see anyone lose their job but it's not justification to keep nuclear weapons.

incandescent

TCA wrote: »

How many other countries in Europe are currently spending what we are for a redundant nuclear weapons system that was designed for the Cold War? There's about a billion quid saved for Scotland already. Not sure what you mean 'get away with it'. If you're saying we're undefended by not having Trident, then I'd suggest we're not the target you think we are.

No, I pointed out that countries which the SNP likes to compare us with are spending similar or even greater amounts on conventional defence forces. You appear to think we need less in the way of defence than those countries, for some reason.

Still won't quantify anything then? The question was "let's hear your estimates of an independent Scotland's public spending and by how much we'd have to cut it or increase taxes?"

If you read my last post you'll see I openly agree there will be costs. What I disagree with is your opinion that independence will necessarily lead to a financial depression.

I don't know if there will be an actual depression, but there will certainly be a recessive effect on the economy, that's unavoidable. And who knows what will happen to individuals. For individuals it could be very unpleasant indeed. But of course the SNP can't or won't quantify the costs or what will happen to tax and spending.

As it happens, I personally would be happy to pay more income tax to get a fairer, more equitable welfare system. An opportunity to simplify and redesign the benefits system, so the money gets to those who need it most. And get rid of unfair taxes like the bedroom tax. Having control of the revenue we raise, which incidentally is higher per person than the figure for the UK, gives us the chance to do much more.

Well whoopdy do for you. I, on the other hand, like most people have seen my income slowly shrinking in real terms for the last 5 or 6 years and this year it grew for the first time. I have absolutely no interest in seeing those gains lost so some nationalists can feel good about themselves.

You know exactly what the effect on the Yes vote would be if the SNP were honest about this.

You've let yourself down a bit with that post. I'm not suggesting no defence forces, I'm suggesting we get rid of weapons of mass destruction from Scottish soil. Trying to justify keeping Trident in terms of jobs is pretty poor. For the record, figures released by the MoD in 2012 under freedom of information law revealed that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport are directly dependent on Trident. Yes, there *could* be contracts and other jobs lost in Scotland if Trident goes, but I don't think to the levels you're suggesting. I don't like to see anyone lose their job but it's not justification to keep nuclear weapons.

I think this lets you down. You are judging that some people don't deserve to keep their jobs. I hope people aren't judging your or I in that way.

Who else do you think deserves to be unemployed?

rpc

TCA wrote: »

You've let yourself down a bit with that post. I'm not suggesting no defence forces, I'm suggesting we get rid of weapons of mass destruction from Scottish soil. Trying to justify keeping Trident in terms of jobs is pretty poor. For the record, figures released by the MoD in 2012 under freedom of information law revealed that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport are directly dependent on Trident. Yes, there *could* be contracts and other jobs lost in Scotland if Trident goes, but I don't think to the levels you're suggesting. I don't like to see anyone lose their job but it's not justification to keep nuclear weapons.

It wasn't clear you were referring only to nuclear weapons and not defence spending in general. There are a lot of nationalists who would like to see the conventional defence budget radically cut.

Trident aside, there are still a lot of jobs that rely on UK MOD contracts (which is the point I was trying to make). Scotland won't be able to support the same level of contracts itself and will lose the MOD work if independence happens.

Even the armed forces and MOD civilian jobs will be cut - it would take the entire proposed Scottish air force to maintain the QRA fighters that have been fending off those pesky ruskies. Although that may not be a problem given Alex Salmond's statement that he admires Putin...

rpc

TCA wrote: »

If you're saying we're undefended by not having Trident, then I'd suggest we're not the target you think we are.

It's a very controversial issue and not one that would particularly influence referendum votes, but the suggestion that Trident (or any military force) is purely for self defence is incorrect.

Most Western nations accept that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The doctrine adopted by an independent Scotland may differ (and the SNP have indicated that they believe it should). but that is the justification for having a military that deploys overseas. Governments may get it wrong sometimes, but if we only defended our own borders then the world would be a worse place.

As the example you pick, Trident doesn't only exist to prevent an attack on the UK. It (in theory) deters rogue states elsewhere in the world from developing and using their own weapons.

My view is that Trident isn't a military asset, it is a political one despite all of the arguments that may be made. It gives us our permanent UNSC seat. How much value attaches to that is a matter for the individual. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people in the UK that oppose nuclear disarmament, but the how and the when are where disagreements arise.

It is all very controversial and far from simple, but the suggestion that the military only exists to defend the rocks we live upon is wide of the mark.

But this is all going off on a bit of a tangent... I won't lose sleep over Trident whether it stays or goes - there are plenty more issues in the independence vote that actually affect people's day to day lives.

incandescent

I think Trident is largely irrelevant to the debate. Others have already said that Scotland currently contributes around £3 billion a year to the defence budget, and asserted that this could be cut providing cash to spend on other services.

But as I've shown, similar sized countries which the SNP have repeatedly used as models to compare Scotland with, are spending between £2.5 and £5 billion on conventional defence forces.

Maybe an independent Scotland would be neutral, but how did that work out for Norway during World War 2 exactly? The key point is that getting rid of Trident will not magically free up the money many nationalists seem to think it will.

TCA

rpc wrote: »

It wasn't clear you were referring only to nuclear weapons and not defence spending in general.

Fair enough. No, I'm not for slashing our defence budget completely. I take your points on Trident being more than a defence mechanism. I still want it gone though. But that's another thread entirely.

TCA

incandescent wrote: »

Well whoopdy do for you. I, on the other hand, like most people have seen my income slowly shrinking in real terms for the last 5 or 6 years and this year it grew for the first time. I have absolutely no interest in seeing those gains lost so some nationalists can feel good about themselves.

Well well. True colours coming through now. It's a case of 'I'm alright Jack'. Can't say I'm surprised given your posts are all about your fear of losing your own wealth. We have a fundamental difference in reasons to vote Yes or No then. If you're only concerned with preserving your own cash, then good for you.

incandescent wrote: »

I think this lets you down. You are judging that some people don't deserve to keep their jobs. I hope people aren't judging your or I in that way. Who else do you think deserves to be unemployed?

Oh dear. Do you think we should invade another country just to get a few more army recruits? Or build an additional nuclear arsenal to get the unemployment numbers down? It's not a good argument for keeping weapons of mass destruction in Scotland. The UK government you're so eager to maintain is pretty quick to jump on the coat tails of the US and invade any other country who they *think* wants to keep any. It's a different debate but keeping weapons of mass destruction for the sake of jobs isn't a great argument.

incandescent

My wages have SHRUNK in real terms for several years. As have most peoples. This year my wages finally grew by more than inflation. According to the data that is true of most other people too.

My point is that it would be rank stupidity to tip ourselves into a further period of falling income and economic difficulty for no good reason.

And I have every bloody right to be concerned about my income and my ability to provide for my family.

Oh dear. Do you think we should invade another country just to get a few more army recruits? Or build an additional nuclear arsenal to get the unemployment numbers down? It's not a good argument for keeping weapons of mass destruction in Scotland. The UK government you're so eager to maintain is pretty quick to jump on the coat tails of the US and invade any other country who they *think* wants to keep any. It's a different debate but keeping weapons of mass destruction for the sake of jobs isn't a great argument.

Find any post from me saying we should keep Trident. And as rpc pointed out, our defence-supported jobs go way beyond Trident.

You seem very happy to criticise other people for not wanting to become poorer or lose their jobs. You don't have much empathy for your fellow Scots, do you.

rpc

I always found it curious that the penny for Scotland policy was considered to have lost votes.

I'm sure most people want better public services. But few are prepared to pay for them when asked.

In principle, I would pay more but then I object to the large inefficiencies of the state and wouldn't agree to pay for the waste.

Regardless, polls are clear that their own personal finances heavily influence the way that they will vote. Political ideology is all very well, but the majority vote to look after number one. That's why I strongly believe that Yes cannot deliver so many changes that they promise. It all sounds great on paper and makes wonderful headlines, but it needs paid for. Anything that departs from a fairly narrow viewpoint suffers at the ballot box.