Everyone Vote in Scotland Independance

[markturner]

Voting should be compulsory in this country, then we would not have the unfair situation we have now, where we can be governed by people who only 20 or 30% of the population voted for. It should be the same in any vote, all concerned should vote, in a union ballot, an election, anything. Then truly, the result would be fair. And proportional representation would be fairer still. Too long the system in this country has been in need of overhaul.

In relation to Scotland, I think it will be bad for both countries in the long run. It's a shame that the events of 4 or 500 years ago still fester deeply within many Scots and that self serving politicians like Alex Salmond see this as a way to further their own ambition.

 

[deema]

My nievity may be showing through, so I will apologise if my suggestions are found to be wanting in areas. Any corrections would be appreciated.

Having read everything I can on the subject, Scotland appears to have an extremely privileged position compared to the rest of the UK. It has the ability to create its own laws, and ignore those from Westminster, but not the EU. It has the ability to generate its own taxes. It has a pool of money that it is allocated that is larger than the taxes that are raised and autonomy to determine how these are spent. It has complete control of the Scotish NHS. It has free university places, it has free old age care.

The reason for bringing this up, is I'm unclear what it is that Scotland needs in addition to the freedoms it already enjoys. In fact I'm sure that there are many in Scitland who do not actually realise what powers the Scotish Parliamnt actually has.

I think most would agree that defence of the Island as a whole is something we should all participate in rather be separate. Energy Independance is a goal most countries would like to attain. The main deposits of shale gas and oil lie underneath soil outside of Scotland. With the North sea oil and gas drying up sharing in the bounty of Fracking (regardless of the pros and cons for the process, if it comes to cheap(re) energy, we will all eventually accept the inevitable) is a highly attractive prospect.

If we were to take out the personal interests of the politicians, and look at the facts, it would seem that Scotland has a very good deal at the moment, something that I don't believe many Scott's are aware of.

 

[RogerS]

Yet again, Deema, a first rate post, mate and spot on.

The answer is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, SVP - Salmond's Vanity Project. Appealing to hearts (the Yes vote) and not the thinkers (the No vote).

 

[Silverbirch]

As a Better Together supporter, it pains me to say so, but, sadly, the SNP have been much more skilled at getting their message across than has been the case with some rather lacklustre NO campaigning .
Yes, they are mainly appealing to emotion, not logic.
Having won over converts by playing on these emotions, they have a compliant audience only too willing to believe the selective and partial "facts" which are presented to them.

Ian

 

[NickWelford]

I have to commend Mr Deema on a series of well thought out, non emotional, comments that seem extremely sensible to me.

 

[doorframe]

This a polite request to all those that are making totally logical, rational, sensible and correct posts about why Scotland is better off sticking with the rest of us.....

Keep it quiet!

Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

 

[RogerS]

My nievity may be showing through, so I will apologise if my suggestions are found to be wanting in areas. Any corrections would be appreciated.

Having read everything I can on the subject, Scotland appears to have an extremely privileged position compared to the rest of the UK. It has the ability to create its own laws, and ignore those from Westminster, but not the EU. It has the ability to generate its own taxes. It has a pool of money that it is allocated that is larger than the taxes that are raised and autonomy to determine how these are spent. It has complete control of the Scotish NHS. It has free university places, it has free old age care.

The reason for bringing this up, is I'm unclear what it is that Scotland needs in addition to the freedoms it already enjoys. In fact I'm sure that there are many in Scitland who do not actually realise what powers the Scotish Parliamnt actually has.

I think most would agree that defence of the Island as a whole is something we should all participate in rather be separate. Energy Independance is a goal most countries would like to attain. The main deposits of shale gas and oil lie underneath soil outside of Scotland. With the North sea oil and gas drying up sharing in the bounty of Fracking (regardless of the pros and cons for the process, if it comes to cheap(re) energy, we will all eventually accept the inevitable) is a highly attractive prospect.

If we were to take out the personal interests of the politicians, and look at the facts, it would seem that Scotland has a very good deal at the moment, something that I don't believe many Scott's are aware of.

I'd really welcome any comments from the Yes camp as to what benefits they see.

 

[Silverbirch]

Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

Now that's not very nice! :shock:

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Emotionally I support the union and think we would both be the poorer without it. However the price that Salmond will exact if he loses makes me wonder if we would actually be better off without them. It's worth remembering that Scotland is approx 8% of the UK (GDP, population) and the rest is 92%. The quantifiable impact of these changes is a hugely more important issue north of the border - for the rest of us it is nearly business as usual!

It is not possible to confidently project 10 or 20 years hence in a "steady state" what the right action is now. Fine changes to complex assumptions related to oil prices/production, unemployment, interest rates etc etc can provide any answer wanted.

What is fairly clear is that the 3 - 5 year horizon will be troubled for Scotland with major unresolved issues - currency, EU, business relocation south. They also need to set up all the machinery of an independent state - tax, defence, foreign office, media, DVLA(S), bank regulation etc. Expectations have been raised for a fairer better Scotland with increased public services which need to be paid for. Not all of this will go as well as the SNP promise. I think that there will (at best) be some public distress north of the border that expectations are not met following a YES. In a worst case they will bitterly regret a catastrophic decision.

I find it extraordinary that so many people can unquestioningly accept the independence proposition when so much is unresolved, unclear or beyond the direct control of an independent Scotland. Credit is due to AS for his performance and presentation, even though his arguments rely upon unparalleled optimism and selective use of data.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Please don't give them ideas about changing their minds. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

Now that's not very nice! :shock:

Apposite, though.

 

[Silverbirch]

Emotionally I support the union and think we would both be the poorer without it. However the price that Salmond will exact if he loses makes me wonder if we would actually be better off without them. It's worth remembering that Scotland is approx 8% of the UK (GDP, population) and the rest is 92%. The quantifiable impact of these changes is a hugely more important issue north of the border - for the rest of us it is nearly business as usual!

It is not possible to confidently project 10 or 20 years hence in a "steady state" what the right action is now. Fine changes to complex assumptions related to oil prices/production, unemployment, interest rates etc etc can provide any answer wanted.

What is fairly clear is that the 3 - 5 year horizon will be troubled for Scotland with major unresolved issues - currency, EU, business relocation south. They also need to set up all the machinery of an independent state - tax, defence, foreign office, media, DVLA(S), bank regulation etc. Expectations have been raised for a fairer better Scotland with increased public services which need to be paid for. Not all of this will go as well as the SNP promise. I think that there will (at best) be some public distress north of the border that expectations are not met following a YES. In a worst case they will bitterly regret a catastrophic decision.

I find it extraordinary that so many people can unquestioningly accept the independence proposition when so much is unresolved, unclear or beyond the direct control of an independent Scotland. Credit is due to AS for his performance and presentation, even though his arguments rely upon unparalleled optimism and selective use of data.

Very well put! The only point with which I would take issue is your use of "we" and "them". Those of us who are opposed to separation see ourselves as being "we". Where the SNP have been successful is in emphasising and misrepresenting this largely non-existent difference.

Ian

 

[finneyb]

Interesting comment on BBC Radio 4 More or Less programme ' Understanding the Scottish referendum polls ' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcfml

Basically, the pollsters have little confidence in the accuracy of the polls - with Elections they have historical data with which to refine their polling results - the referendum has no historical data therefore significantly less confidence in the results.

Brian

 

[deema]

Business needs certainty. If you are going to invest your money in shares or start up your own business you are more inclined to do so if you believe the economic conditions are going to either remain stable or improve. The potential separation of Scotland from the UK creates a great deal of uncertainty on both sides of the potential border. Should the YES vote be successful, we will enter into a period in which no one can predict what will actually be decided over many parts of the two economies that will emerge. As a consequence there will be little appetite for investment until things become clearer. So far I have focused on the perils that Scotland may face, to a lesser extent the rest of the UK will equally be affected. Most opinions seem to agree that the English, Welsh and Irish economies will stall and may indeed see the return of recession not because the underlying economy is in a bad shape, in fact it's it rather good shape at the moment, but rather as a consequence of the unwillingness to invest until the value of sterling as ascertained again and has some history of monetary trading. The entirety of the UK will be affected by this vote, and I think its in everyone's interests to let your views be known. Everyone faces the prospect of stumbling into a recession as a consequence of the vote. Only a significant No vote will give assurance to the markets that the issue of Independance is removed from the political agenda for at least a generation. Anything less will see it bubbling up to the surface at every occasion and influencing political decisions to a larger extent than any form of political representation would justify, including proportional representation. This rightly will make the UK a zone where international business would prefer to avoid. We will potentially be seen to have the stability of a third world state. One which the value of sterling may change dramatically at any point if a vote is reserected. If your deciding to place a major investment such as a car plant for instance, you are looking into future decades, and not at the next few years. There are plenty of stable countries within the Euro zone only too willing to woe potential investment if the UK is seen as unstable. At the moment it is seen as a rising star in the Euro zone, the first to balance its budget with the fastest GDP growth rate. All placed at jeopardary by a vote carried out by a tiny minority of those within the United Kingdom.

 

[RossJarvis]

Bearing in mind that King James VI of Scotland was King James I of England, aren't they technically kicking the rest of the UK out if the yes vote goes through?

 

[RogerS]

Deema, it is already happening. EPFR, the funds data provider said it tracked an outflow of $672 million this week from UK equity funds, the second biggest total since its records began in 2001. Not good news. Union Investment, one of Germany's biggest asset managers announced that it was reducing its holdings of UK equities and bonds. Quote "For the capital markets, the independence of Scotland poses no opportunities, only risks".

I guess we're still waiting a reply from any Yes campaigners to your eloquent post earlier.

 

[RogerS]

Forgot to add that over 8000 jobs at HMRC Cumbernauld are at risk as current UK law states that personal data of individuals must reside in the UK. No incentive for HMRC or HMG to change the law were Scotland to vote Yes.

 

[RogerS]

A few interesting articles from the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1c2c1ea0-3b64 ... abdc0.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67017a0a-390d ... edition=uk

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ff9344d4-39fc ... abdc0.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/443a23d6-3841 ... abdc0.html

 

[Ring]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiXDbgnc4M


=D> =D> =D> =D>

 

[RogerS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buiXDbgnc4M


=D> =D> =D> =D>

What a load of tosh! The Yes camp must be really desperate.

Now, can anyone from the Yes camp refute the excellent line of reasoning advocated by Deema?

 

[StevieB]

Scotland doesn't currently have the ability to fully set it's own tax rates, particularly business and corporate tax rates. If it wanted to attract investment by lowering corporation tax (as Ireland did some years ago, albeit with dire consequences!) then it could only do so as an independent country to the rest of the UK. The general feeling between Scotland and the rUK is very much the same as that of countries within the Eurozone - fiscal policy is not currently best managed for each country independently, but for overall eurozone stability. Scotland feel fiscal policy in the UK is not best managed for the benefit of Scotland, but for the UK as a whole (and in recent times this has become synonymous with the banking crisis and bank bail-outs). Now whether you believe Scotland has the assets to be able to survive as a strong independent country rather depends on how much oil you think can be extracted from under the North sea, how long it will last, where the tax revenues from it will flow to and what these revenues will be. Current estimates suggest Scotland would be better off as things stand, but that North Sea oil is a finite resource and revenue from it will drop over time. Thus additional (new) income streams need to be sourced - how quickly depends on how how much oil you estimate there is.

For me, both sides are guilty of either rose tinted spectacles (Yes campaign) or a certain amount of scaremongering (No campaign). Things will neither be as good as the Yes side claim, nor as bad as the No side claim. As stated previously, this vote has an added emotional dimension due to the recent recession and a general dissatisfaction with politicians, London, banks, bail-outs, wage freezes and so on. The surge in the yes vote is as much a chance to give England a kicking as it is a cry for freedom. Be careful what you wish for - you may just get it. As much as the yes campaign ignores answering the important questions, the No campaign has been guilty of some spectacular complacency as until very recently the polls suggested a convincing 'no' result. I don't think either campaign has been particularly 'dirty', but Alex Salmon has given a number of open goals that the no campaign have failed to exploit. They focused on a currency union, but there are many other opportunities that have been missed or ignored (Joining NATO and Europe, cost of stated policies such as free University education to all of Europe except rUK, free NHS, pension provision, rising healthcare costs to name but a few - all have been mentioned but none in the detail they might have been). I am far from convinced that a failed chancellor in Alastair Darling, so closely aligned to Gordon Brown as a failed prime minister (by most peoples standards) was the right choice to head the 'better together' campaign anyway, but perhaps his appeal is greater in Scotland that in England?

Whether the outcome is yes or no, either way it is going to cost the UK a packet of money - either in the costs of hiving off Scotland if it's a yes, or in increasing the subsidy to Scotland to prevent further dissent if it's a no. The former will take longer and be more uncertain than the latter. On that basis it is a no-win situation as either way our taxes will end up paying for either outcome.

Steve