The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Mistermeaner

baldelectrician wrote: »

From a different angle
Unionism has dealt Scotland with an economy that is ran with a London and SE England agenda.
Westminster cannot run a UK economy with only Scottish interests first and foremost (as it should), only a Scottish Government (of whatever party in power) will run a Scottish economy solely for the benefit of Scotland.


This is the argument for independence in a nutshell


The unionist argument is that (because of Unionist failed policies) Scotland's economy is a basket case- can we have another 300 years to perfect it?
Too wee, too poor too stupid argument again.

Care to answer the 5 point question then?

elantan

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Care to answer the 5 point question then?

It really must be frustrating for you not getting what you want, try not getting what you want for 307 years and maybe then I might answer your question ... till then I will keep smiling every time you ask it

baldelectrician

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Care to answer the 5 point question then?

Yep
Point 5:

Borrowing will be needed (just as the UK does), the difference after independence will be that ALL the monies that come from Scotland will be allocated to Scotland (unlike at present where sweeping generalisations are made)
For example- supermarkets with head offices outside Scotland (most of them) have their receipts shown as non-Scottish income.


We will control the minimum wage- which means Scotland can adopt the actual real living wage.
The adoption of the living wage will have a positive impact on peoples income as well as sharply cutting the tax credit bill (people earning more won't need tax credits)


It's all about doing things in a better way, not keeping the same old ways......
For example we could scrap PFI, this would save billions.

Mistermeaner

Nice totally unworkable but lovely in its inocence. Points 1 - 4?

And eletan your ignorance clearly is bliss. You are lucky the majority of Scots are not as stupid as you. That's not an insult by the way. That's a fact

Thrugelmir

baldelectrician wrote: »

Yep
Point 5:

Borrowing will be needed (just as the UK does), the difference after independence will be that ALL the monies that come from Scotland will be allocated to Scotland (unlike at present where sweeping generalisations are made)
For example- supermarkets with head offices outside Scotland (most of them) have their receipts shown as non-Scottish income.


We will control the minimum wage- which means Scotland can adopt the actual real living wage.
The adoption of the living wage will have a positive impact on peoples income as well as sharply cutting the tax credit bill (people earning more won't need tax credits)


It's all about doing things in a better way, not keeping the same old ways......
For example we could scrap PFI, this would save billions.

What's new? This is regurgitated old labour policy of the 70/80's. Akin to what Corbyn would like to implement.

HornetSaver

Shakey - do you think Scotland would have voted Yes in 2014 if the SNP had been more frank about the short-term challenges of independence?

We will never know if Yes were right about Scotland's long term prospects, not even if Scotland votes Yes in a future referendum. I say that because the starting situation will be different in future to what it would have been had Scotland gone independent this month (the proposed date of independence when the referendum was held). But most people on both sides of the debate had a pretty good idea that the short term situation would be difficult (the question was simply whether it would be a temporary but necessary process, or armageddon).

There's no doubt that politically England and Scotland are very different, and that was true even when Labour were the dominant party north of the border and also had a majority of English seats. But I can't help but feel that the American-style "you must never say anything that undermines your position" approach to referenda hurts the change side of a referendum in all parts of this island, and that it will do so again in June.

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

Shakey - do you think Scotland would have voted Yes in 2014 if the SNP had been more frank about the short-term challenges of independence?

We will never know if Yes were right about Scotland's long term prospects, not even if Scotland votes Yes in a future referendum. I say that because the starting situation will be different in future to what it would have been had Scotland gone independent this month (the proposed date of independence when the referendum was held). But most people on both sides of the debate had a pretty good idea that the short term situation would be difficult (the question was simply whether it would be a temporary but necessary process, or armageddon).

There's no doubt that politically England and Scotland are very different, and that was true even when Labour were the dominant party north of the border and also had a majority of English seats. But I can't help but feel that the American-style "you must never say anything that undermines your position" approach to referenda hurts the change side of a referendum in all parts of this island, and that it will do so again in June.

To your first question. If they'd felt free to list some challenges/if's/but's and it won't all be rosy in the garden.. then yes, more people might have voted Yes. Not enough to make a difference though I don't think.

*Imho the SNP were bounced into the referendum unexpectedly in 2011. Just 8 weeks before the 2011 Holyrood election the polls were sitting firmly in Labour's favour ( 44% to 29% !). A majority for any party in Holyrood unthinkable due to the PR system. Their overall majority was as unexpected to them as it was to anyone else. So was the clear run to hold a referendum.

Salmond has said on many occasions now that he wasn't prepared for the onslaught of negativity towards him and the overall Yes campaign. And that he thought the media would treat things just like an election campaign.

If the SNP had came out with the slightest hesitation about anything it would've been plastered all over the newspapers and media for weeks afterwards. There is absolutely no doubt that the SNP and the Yes campaign knew there may be challenges ahead with a Yes vote. The problem would've been outlining even the slightest short term challenge against a backdrop of total armageddon being painted anyway. It would've been suicide ( same for the Leave EU side now ).

He said in an interview a few days ago that they're working on a far more robust economic case for any future referendum. I doubt they'll make the same mistakes again. Currency, and pensions will be front and foremost. Low oil prices acknowledged as not the best.

On the other side, BetterTogether will not exist next time either. Or if it does, it will be solely London based, or run by the Conservative party ( if they can be bothered ). The Labour party paid far too high a price last time round, and they're still paying dearly for it now it seems going by today's latest poll. They're down to their core 'always voted Labour' voters. As are the Tories, but they are at least savvy enough and totally honest about hoovering up those voters who value the union over any political party. The only unionist party in town.

BREAKING: #sp16 poll Seat projection:
SNP 70
Tories 22
Labour 21
Green 9
Lib Dems 6
Ukip 1

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shock-poll-think-its-over-7587595#M2LuVuBflH7RK4TZ.97

There was also a massive conflation with the SNP/Salmond and that if there's independence, the SNP/Salmond will be in power forever. When the opposite is most likely true. It's only independence that holds the left and right wings of the SNP together so firmly. Sturgeon can't be demonised the same way Salmond was either. She's too well liked.

* I think the Tories have been bounced into an EU referendum far sooner than they wanted on the same grounds. An unexpected majority when they expected at best a coalition right up until 10pm on the night of the General Election.

Shakethedisease

Regina_Falange wrote: »

I am a born and bred Scot who has lived in Scotland all my life however, I consider myself British. I voted against Independence as I 100% believe Great Britain is much better together. However, no matter what the SNP supporters will never, ever let Independence drop until Scotland is an independent country. Even 18 months on post September 2014 the people who voted No still proudly say they did albeit in a whisper as the backlash from SNP and An Independent Scotland supporters is a continuing nightmare.

Hand on heart, if there was a Independent referendum in Scotland tomorrow I know that our Great Britain will be will be gone in a heartbeat and an uncertain future awaits the majority of us.

What really saddens me is many of my fellow British countrymen/women seem to think that all Scots support our SNP government and it's policies and beliefs and we cannot wait for the day Scotland distances itself from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Trust me, many of us don't.

It's perfectly fine to hold that view. Many Scots feel just as you do.

HornetSaver

Agree with pretty much all of your response to be honest.

Though I'd quibble with this bit:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If the SNP had came out with the slightest hesitation about anything it would've been plastered all over the newspapers and media for weeks afterwards. There is absolutely no doubt that the SNP and the Yes campaign knew there may be challenges ahead with a Yes vote. The problem would've been outlining even the slightest short term challenge against a backdrop of total armageddon being painted anyway. It would've been suicide ( same for the Leave EU side now ).

So surely the trick is to do it early?

Factually you're right, Leave EU are in the same situation now as Yes Scotland were from, say, the Salmond-Darling debates onwards. By putting the downsides out there late on, floating voters would be terrified by the revelation that a vote to change would involve... change. As ridiculous as that last sentence reads, I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, that really is the psychology involved in the immediate run-up to a referendum.

But Leave are in that situation now because, as with Yes in Summer 2014, it's now too close to the referendum for them to put something like that out there. If the fact that there would be transitional hurdles had been put out there in a frank but understated way in 2014-15 (or by the SNP in 2012-13) surely it would be an irrelevance in swaying last minute voters towards remain (or No)? Those who would not accept the risks of upheaval at any cost already having made their minds up to vote remain early on (rather than showing up as undecideds despite unconsciously always being committed to voting for the more cautious option), whereas the last minute floating voters would be swayed by last minute twists and turns. EDIT Which in the case of the Scottish referendum, would most likely have favoured Yes.

Mistermeaner

I'm just amazed that none of 4 vocally supportive independence supporters on here can illustrate their vision for I Scotland on the basis of the 5 key points of the nations finances. Bizarre to say the least.

He's my vision on the same 5 points for the uk:

- Barnett: abolished to zero. Scotland needs to stand on its own and people of Scotland need to see for themselves the benefits they get from the rest of uk to be able to make an informed decision about what the SNP are doing for them. Reducing this spend will help the overall deficit for uk

- debt: split on a per capita basis but then Scotland and rouk responsible for paying down (or otherwise) their own shares.

- public spending - reduced. We cannot afford all the things we currently pay for and state is overly bloated. I would abolish public sector db pensions. Privatise more and introduce charges at point of use for numerous public services... Including health.

- taxation: should be lower, particularly 40% band. Rather than taxing people choose to pay at point of use. More personal responsibility and less state dependence. I would however tax consumption more.

- borrowing: all above being well the deficit should reduce, primarily on the back of lower spending.