A Yes vote means better jobs for young people in Scotland

kabayiri

I believe Scotland will see a resurgence in industry regardless of independence, just as I believe this will happen for other Northern regions in the UK.

Why? In a word : energy. I believe we have no choice but to embrace fracking to guarantee a measure of energy security. This will provide a foundation for attracting companies and investment. Certainly, the NW region needs this.

It's easy to assume that the pure technicality of being an independent country provides a host of benefits. It does not. It marks the beginning of a long and difficult road to potential prosperity.We can achieve much greater change by embracing a changed cultural attitude. For example, new entrants to the workplace will have to compete much harder to avoid losing out to immigrant workers. This is a good thing in the long run.

A No in the independence vote doesn't mean you just give up with aspirations towards better jobs in the community. A No vote can be a trigger for change every bit as powerful as a Yes vote.

tberry6686

I don't see any reason why fracking will have any impact on Scottish industry at all (possibly a tiny impact in Aberdeen due to the oil/gas expertise there). Not everywhere in the UK will have fracking, the shale required is mostly in England and Wales, Scotland has very little of it due to its different geological history to the rest of the UK.

IveSeenTheLight

N1AK wrote: »

I think they're clear signs of issues but if anything they should make a rational person think a vote for independence is even less likely. Why is that so, it does sound rather counter-intuitive right? Because if people already don't trust Westminster and they still are polling against independence then you're unlikely to sway them on that issue. If Scots trusted Westminster and were close to voting for independence then attacking that trust would be a potential strategy.

That's one way of analysing it I suppose.

I guess it depends if people consider that they distrust Westminster, prefer Holyrood and consider that this is an opportunity to address that.

IveSeenTheLight

I agree with most of your post but if I can focus on this paragraph.

kabayiri wrote: »

A No in the independence vote doesn't mean you just give up with aspirations towards better jobs in the community.

That's true, aspirations will not change

kabayiri wrote: »

A No vote can be a trigger for change every bit as powerful as a Yes vote.

This is where I disagree with.
There are fundamental differences over the ability of the Scottish government from being Independent or remain as devolved.

I refer back to the point where the Scottish government wanted to kick off 300 shovel ready infrastructure plans which was rejected, however infrastructure in the South East and London continue to be planned in.

Surely only an independent Scotland can make the decisions which benefit the Scottish people best

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I agree with most of your post but if I can focus on this paragraph.




That's true, aspirations will not change


This is where I disagree with.
There are fundamental differences over the ability of the Scottish government from being Independent or remain as devolved.

I refer back to the point where the Scottish government wanted to kick off 300 shovel ready infrastructure plans which was rejected, however infrastructure in the South East and London continue to be planned in.

Surely only an independent Scotland can make the decisions which benefit the Scottish people best

Is that why the USA is just a backward third world country?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I refer back to the point where the Scottish government wanted to kick off 300 shovel ready infrastructure plans which was rejected, however infrastructure in the South East and London continue to be planned in.

I read about that in the letter you linked to and in a couple of other places.

I wonder if things have gotten a little confused:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/03/shovelready09032012
(March 2012)

This lists a little under 40 projects all of which, as far as I can tell, have been agreed but which the Scottish Government wanted to start in 2012 rather than awaiting the planned start date.

The main projects are listed as:

* Work on Ullapool Pier, worth £4m
* £13m for University of Glasgow - Centre for Virology Research
* Work on Inverness Campus, worth £6m
* £37m for Clyde Gateway developments at Bridgeton Cross, Dalmarnock Cross, Rutherglen and Shawfield.

So how are these projects going?

Ullapool Pier
http://www.ullapool-harbour.co.uk/pier-extension-2014-2/

2014 sees the largest construction project in years on Ullapool Harbour. Preparations are underway to facilitate the arrival of the new Ullapool-Stornoway ferry the MV Loch Seaforth, which replaces the MV Isle of Lewis.

So going ahead as planned.

As far as I can tell, the original plan for the Scottish Government to invest in the CVR was a 5 year plan starting in 2009. Seems to make little point in ending that early!
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2009/july/headline_124465_en.html

Again, going ahead as planned

Inverness Campus:
http://www.invernesscampus.co.uk/development-timeline/
Started in 2012

Clyde Gateway:
I can't find whether this investment has happened or not.

So at least 3 out of the 4 'shovel ready' priority projects of the £300,000,000 have started.

It's funny that when we start looking into these Nationalist claims they start melting away like a Paddle Pop in a Broken Hill summer.

Any pointers to the 300 or is it a meme gotten out of control do you think?

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

So going ahead as planned.

Going ahead as planned, yes, but the Scottish Government wanted to fast track to start early and was stopped by Westminster.

Generali wrote: »

Any pointers to the 300 or is it a meme gotten out of control do you think?

The 300 projects is quoted in a number of sources I linked.
I would understand why they may not list absolutely every project, but the major ones.

In reflection, and reviewing the direct source,: -
Infrastructure projects worth more than £300 million could get underway now if the UK Government gives Scotland the green light

It seems that this was £300 Million of Infrastructure Project being brought forward (as opposed to 300 independent projects) at the request of the Scottish Government which was rejected by Westminster.

Whether this is the right thing to do or not is irrelevant rather than the point that Scotland is being restricted in it's efforts to boost the economy of Scotland and for the people of Scotland..

Those choices need to reside in Scotland hence why we need Independence to be free to make bold choices on what is best for the people of Scotland.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is that why the USA is just a backward third world country?

I do not know enough to comment on the United States and how its differing states are impacted therefore I am not understanding your point?

Are you in effect detailing a case for a United States of Europe?
or maybe each county in the UK to become an separate state of the UK?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Going ahead as planned, yes, but the Scottish Government wanted to fast track to start early and was stopped by Westminster.



The 300 projects is quoted in a number of sources I linked.
I would understand why they may not list absolutely every project, but the major ones.

In reflection, and reviewing the direct source,: -
Infrastructure projects worth more than £300 million could get underway now if the UK Government gives Scotland the green light

It seems that this was £300 Million of Infrastructure Project being brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government which was rejected by Westminster.

Whether this is the right thing to do or not is irrelevant rather than the point that Scotland is being restricted in it's efforts to boost the economy of Scotland and for the people of Scotland..

Those choices need to reside in Scotland hence why we need Independence to be free to make bold choices on what is best for the people of Scotland.

Scotland already has tax raising powers that it has never used.
why didn't it use them to start the projects early?

Aberdeed needs the ability to run their own projects and needs independent otherwise it is restricted in its efforts to boost its economy by Edinburgh. It needs independence to make the bold choices for the people of Aberdeen.

It also shows why USA is such an unsuccessful country with each part being restricted by Washington.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Scotland already has tax raising powers that it has never used.
why didn't it use them to start the projects early?

I'll link the answer

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/news-calman.htm

Devolved taxation in Scotland
The Scotland Act 2012 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax to be administered by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for Scottish taxpayers. It is expected to apply from April 2016. The Act also fully devolves the power to raise taxes on land transactions and on waste disposal to landfill – it is expected that this will take effect in April 2015, at which point the existing Stamp Duty Land Tax and Landfill Tax will not apply in Scotland. The Act also provides powers for new taxes to be created in Scotland and for additional taxes to be devolved.

So Scotland is using some of the powers that it can.

Other reasons range from the costs to set up would potentially outweigh the limited gain it can make. Better to wait for full fiscal autonomy

Other reasons are that the limited powers represent low voter appeal i.e. the SNP once suggested the "penny for Scotland" to override a penny reduction by Westminster. This did not go down well with voters.

Generating tax (as with the UK), politically is better done stealthily rather than the headline tax revenues that Scotland has been given power to do so.

Why is it that only certain limitations have been provided and why those particular options?