Independence?

jj_5

Big_Graeme wrote: »

That's better.

I think most people will take anything that is free, is it right that those earning a fortune have their medicines free when the NHS is so strapped for cash?



Oh I have no doubt Scotland can, I don't think it should, I really don't think the figures stack up and there are many questions unanswered.



Expert and Cameron in the same sentence, not something you see everyday.
There are also many so called experts who rise sound questions that are not being answered, a blanked "well sort that out AFTER the vote" just doesn't cut it on tax, social security and defense.

Haha your David Cameron comment tickled me fair play! I will further qualify by referring to some real experts, The Financial Times quoted recently:

'An independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK'

'Scotland's GDP per head is bigger than that of France'

'Excluding the North Sea, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy'

With those credentials I can't see us being any worse off than we are now.

Your comment on Medicines is fair enough but it's more of a policy question really, kind of irrelevant to independence. If you didn't want free prescriptions for all you could just vote for a party advocating different policies.

You've said you believe Scotland can but 'the figures don't stack up' I find that a bit of a contradiction, if you believe we can the figures must stack up?

With Independence we will get a government which more accurately reflects the views of the Scottish electorate, and is more accountable to it.

Moving from First Past the Post (at Westminster) to the Additional Member System we have at Holyrood means we will live in a more democratic society aswell.

Difficult for me to respond to the 'questions that are not being answered' without knowing which ones in particular you want answered

Thanks for debating in a non-abusive manner it's refreshing

Buzby

There has been a steady progression of folk offering 'doubts' about independence. The most recently today where scientists doubt the continuation of their research grants in an independent Scotland. This will continue apace up to September 17th, they have their agenda and there will be a steady stream of doubts all aimed at putting fear into those that wish an independent Scotland will be the outcome.

the recent local elections in E&W has the opposite effect, we can see very clearly the immigration issue being used to steer a different referendum into a big OUT. Something that Scotland would find detrimental, and makes it crystal clear that if we vote to stay IN the UK, we'll be out with certainty of our votes being counted, but largely ignored like all our other voting preferences.

Better yet, we have a BBC that reports on news items that are irrelevant as we have our own Legal, Education and Government much of it of no interest - and it goes on. By going our own way, we both benefit as you get everything from news and weather that has relevance to you without worrying about the sensibilities of the other nation.

Of course there cannot be an answer for every question, it will depend on negotiations that Westminster simply does not wish to be involved in, we get drip fed tidbits - if we cannot use Sterling, and it really isn't bullying - then we'll have an alternative. Indeed £STG could only ever be an interim measure as fiscal control is needed to be a success.

I'm proud of what this government has done, and I cannot say that for Westminster. I do hope a YES vote will prevail, and will do all I can to ensure this outcome.

Big_Graeme

jj_5 wrote: »

You've said you believe Scotland can but 'the figures don't stack up' I find that a bit of a contradiction, if you believe we can the figures must stack up?

No, no contradictions. I do think Scotland can do it, it would be an insult to say we can't however I believe we are better off with Devo Max, the best of both worlds with the back up of being part of a union that gives us the presence on the world stage.

I've long believed that there should be national governments in each of the home nations (even splitting down England into North and other regions) so Welsh MP's don't vote on Scottish matters, with an elected second chamber for the whole of the UK to cover non-devolved matters and things like defence that over arch the whole nation.

Giving each nation tax raising powers in the areas of income tax and land taxes (which need reforming anyway) will allow devolved governments to pay for what ever the people think are important.

What we have at the moment is a half priced list of would likes, we don't know how much it is going to cost to set up a new tax system or how it would run, there have been no promises on benefits or pensions going forward, we still have questions over the currency and EU membership too.

jj_5 wrote: »

Thanks for debating in a non-abusive manner it's refreshing

:beer:

jj_5

Big Graeme;65605944]No, no contradictions. I do think Scotland can do it, it would be an insult to say we can't however I believe we are better off with Devo Max, the best of both worlds with the back up of being part of a union that gives us the presence on the world stage.

With independence we could voice our own concerns within the EU/Nato or other organisations, does that not sound better?

Devo-Max does not solve the single biggest issue for me in the whole debate, which is that foreign affairs would be left at Westminster's disposal.

It's also not on the table, appears to carry all of the risks associated with independence with less of the actual benefits

(being able to choose your own currency, choosing not going into foreign wars, deciding to remove nuclear weapons)

I've long believed that there should be national governments in each of the home nations (even splitting down England into North and other regions) so Welsh MP's don't vote on Scottish matters, with an elected second chamber for the whole of the UK to cover non-devolved matters and things like defence that over arch the whole nation.

Giving each nation tax raising powers in the areas of income tax and land taxes (which need reforming anyway) will allow devolved governments to pay for what ever the people think are important.

I would like this too, but like above, it's not on the table unfortunately. The north east were offered devolution not long ago and rejected it.

What we have at the moment is a half priced list of would likes, we don't know how much it is going to cost to set up a new tax system or how it would run, there have been no promises on benefits or pensions going forward, we still have questions over the currency and EU membership too.

"If Scotland does become independent, this will have no effect on your state pension - you will continue to receive it just as you do at present."

This is a direct quote from the Department of Work and Pensions, it can be found here:

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/daily-digest-state-pensions-will-be-paid-independent-scotland-and-cameron-toxic-no-campaign

I think that pretty much answers your question on pensions:D

On Currency, We will be using the pound, the only question is whether there will be a currency union or not.

Nobody who is qualified and impartial has explained why a currency union is not in the UK's best interests, Professor of Economics Leslie Young of The Cheung Kong School of Business (impartial and well-qualified) has had this to say however:

"There may be good reasons for the UK to reject a currency union with an independent Scotland, but none can be found in the Treasury letter. Yet, that letter is the key justification for the stance of the UK government."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/23/currency-union-independent-scotland-backing

zagubov

jj_5 wrote: »

With independence we could voice our own concerns within the EU/Nato or other organisations, does that not sound better?

Devo-Max does not solve the single biggest issue for me in the whole debate, which is that foreign affairs would be left at Westminster's disposal.

It's also not on the table, appears to carry all of the risks associated with independence with less of the actual benefits

(being able to choose your own currency, choosing not going into foreign wars, deciding to remove nuclear weapons)



I would like this too, but like above, it's not on the table unfortunately. The north east were offered devolution not long ago and rejected it.



"If Scotland does become independent, this will have no effect on your state pension - you will continue to receive it just as you do at present."

This is a direct quote from the Department of Work and Pensions, it can be found here:

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/daily-digest-state-pensions-will-be-paid-independent-scotland-and-cameron-toxic-no-campaign

I think that pretty much answers your question on pensions:D

On Currency, We will be using the pound, the only question is whether there will be a currency union or not.

Nobody who is qualified and impartial has explained why a currency union is not in the UK's best interests, Professor of Economics Leslie Young of The Cheung Kong School of Business (impartial and well-qualified) has had this to say however:

"There may be good reasons for the UK to reject a currency union with an independent Scotland, but none can be found in the Treasury letter. Yet, that letter is the key justification for the stance of the UK government."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/23/currency-union-independent-scotland-backing

London was offered an Assembly and Mayor as part of the devolution process for London and they voted yes; I was one of the yes voters.

I wonder what would have happened if they offered say Yorkshire devolution, or gave England a parliament in the North.

jj_5

London was offered an Assembly and Mayor as part of the devolution process for London and they voted yes; I was one of the yes voters.

I wonder what would have happened if they offered say Yorkshire devolution, or gave England a parliament in the North.

I think they should, but I really dont think they will

mountainofdebt

Here's hoping sense will prevail and you'll stay within the UK.

jj_5

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Here's hoping sense will prevail and you'll stay within the UK.

Unfortunately I think for political reasons the only sensible option is independence. Scotland is generally more left-wing than the rest of the UK so to stay in a Union where 6 of the last 11 elections have been won by the Tories is illogical.

Added to this the current Labour and Lib Dem parties might aswell be Tories with different coloured ties on.

The 3 parties are so out of touch with the electorate that even English voters think a political revolution is needed. Hence the UKIP victories at the European elections.

The last thing Scots want is UKIP getting anywhere near government. Apart from the racism, I believe they are on record as saying they'd like to shut down the Scottish Parliament.

With Independence we can remove nuclear weapons and spend our undoubted wealth (GDP per head is bigger than rUK, France and Japan, and equal to Italy's excluding oil and gas*) on things which are important to the Scottish electorate.

*Source Financial Times.

mountainofdebt

jj_5 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think for political reasons the only sensible option is independence. Scotland is generally more left-wing than the rest of the UK so to stay in a Union where 6 of the last 11 elections have been won by the Tories is illogical.

Added to this the current Labour and Lib Dem parties might aswell be Tories with different coloured ties on.

The 3 parties are so out of touch with the electorate that even English voters think a political revolution is needed. Hence the UKIP victories at the European elections.

The last thing Scots want is UKIP getting anywhere near government. Apart from the racism, I believe they are on record as saying they'd like to shut down the Scottish Parliament.

With Independence we can remove nuclear weapons and spend our undoubted wealth (GDP per head is bigger than rUK, France and Japan, and equal to Italy's excluding oil and gas*) on things which are important to the Scottish electorate.

*Source Financial Times.

But why vote for something when there are so many unknowns.

What would the currency would the Scots ? All the main political parties have said that it wouldn't be Sterling and if they went for the Euro - well that would be akin to swapping Westminster for Berlin

What about EU membership? General consenus seems to be that wouldn't be an automatic right.

Personally I think there's a strong danger that people will vote yes simply as a swipe against David Cameron and not think about the law of unintended consequences.

zagubov

Big_Graeme wrote: »

No, no contradictions. I do think Scotland can do it, it would be an insult to say we can't however I believe we are better off with Devo Max, the best of both worlds with the back up of being part of a union that gives us the presence on the world stage.

I've long believed that there should be national governments in each of the home nations (even splitting down England into North and other regions) so Welsh MP's don't vote on Scottish matters, with an elected second chamber for the whole of the UK to cover non-devolved matters and things like defence that over arch the whole nation.

Giving each nation tax raising powers in the areas of income tax and land taxes (which need reforming anyway) will allow devolved governments to pay for what ever the people think are important.

What we have at the moment is a half priced list of would likes, we don't know how much it is going to cost to set up a new tax system or how it would run, there have been no promises on benefits or pensions going forward, we still have questions over the currency and EU membership too.

mountainofdebt wrote: »

But why vote for something when there are so many unknowns.

What would the currency would the Scots ? All the main political parties have said that it wouldn't be Sterling and if they went for the Euro - well that would be akin to swapping Westminster for Berlin

What about EU membership? General consenus seems to be that wouldn't be an automatic right.

Personally I think there's a strong danger that people will vote yes simply as a swipe against David Cameron and not think about the law of unintended consequences.

All perfectly sensible. However I think that the currency and EU membership "questions" are largely irrelevant. The people raising them aren't neutral and have lost all credibility. Nobody believes them on the currency and any glance at a map will make it clear that the EU can't afford to lose Scotland.
Of course that side of things is never described as the MSM is pretty squarely for the NO campaign.