Scottish independence

[Chippy_boy]

I wasn't joking.

You should have been.

As an aside was anyone here apalled at that poor kid with a brain tumour whose parents have had to taken him to the Czech Republic for treatment. The Czech Republic, FFS. Where they have better medical facilities than we do. And what's their basic rate of tax? 15%. Higher rate? 22%.

They don't have better medical facilities, they have cheaper private healthcare options because the country is so much poorer.

Fair enough, I am no expert on the Czech Republic.

 

[Helmet Cole]

All these banks and businesses threatening to relocate/put up prices in the event of independence proves once and for all that Scotland is a fucking money pit and we'd be better off if they fucked off and voted 'yes'. Let's hope the good folk of the proud nation of Scotland have the courage to bale out of the uk.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I know you're joking but that's the point mate. If you are a wealthy society, you can have the BEST public health provision, and the BEST public transport and every else. A wealthy economy can afford these things, a poor economy burdened with too much taxation and debt cannot. It's a bit of a paradox but it is nevertheless true and proven countless times here in the UK and the world over, that you increase government income by cutting taxes. You get a more wealthy economy but cutting public spending, and when you have a wealthy economy you can spend more on public services.

Of course you are right in that we can't just stop spending overnight or our hospitals would shut and we need them now. So it's a balance, and an imperfect one. No-one wants to make difficult lives even more difficult. But the goal has to be a mre vibrant economy and that means cutting taxes - or at the very very minimum not increasing them - keeping interest rates low, and cutting red tape to allow our businesses to invest and to thrive.

I wasn't joking.

You should have been.

As an aside was anyone here apalled at that poor kid with a brain tumour whose parents have had to taken him to the Czech Republic for treatment. The Czech Republic, FFS. Where they have better medical facilities than we do. And what's their basic rate of tax? 15%. Higher rate? 22%.

There's a separate thread for that unfortunate case, but obviously you are using it as a side swipe at the NHS. The decision for treatment isn't always based on cost but also on suitability and none of us on here are privy to the facts - one could also query why the closer centres in France, Germany and Switzerland aren't being used. Incidentally the Christie will have this treatment in 4 years time.

Anyway we're off topic - haggis, Clare Grogan, Mars Bars. That's better.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

I wasn't joking.

You should have been.

As an aside was anyone here apalled at that poor kid with a brain tumour whose parents have had to taken him to the Czech Republic for treatment. The Czech Republic, FFS. Where they have better medical facilities than we do. And what's their basic rate of tax? 15%. Higher rate? 22%.

There's a separate thread for that unfortunate case, but obviously you are using it as a side swipe at the NHS. The decision for treatment isn't always based on cost but also on suitability and none of us on here are privy to the facts - one could also query why the closer centres in France, Germany and Switzerland aren't being used. Incidentally the Christie will have this treatment in 4 years time.

Anyway we're off topic - haggis, Clare Grogan, Mars Bars. That's better.

Mmmmmm Clare Grogan

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

You should have been.

As an aside was anyone here apalled at that poor kid with a brain tumour whose parents have had to taken him to the Czech Republic for treatment. The Czech Republic, FFS. Where they have better medical facilities than we do. And what's their basic rate of tax? 15%. Higher rate? 22%.

They don't have better medical facilities, they have cheaper private healthcare options because the country is so much poorer.

Fair enough, I am no expert on the Czech Republic.

Good point though......why are we providing 'aid' to the Czech Republic when they have the facility to provide better health care than we can in the UK? ..And lets be honest and truthful here the only reason the kid was denied this treatment (as are sooooo many others) was simply because of cost.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Personally, I couldn't give a toss.

It will be an absolute, complete, total and unmitigated disaster for Scotland if they vote yes, a mere temporary minor inconvenience for the rest of the UK, at worst.

In short, Scotland will lurch further to the left, spend even more money they don't have on welfare bollocks, and their economy will spiral down to sub Greece levels. The UK, freed of the burden of theses malingering lefties will rebound positively, with a 50 MP swing to the right.

And Scots will lose the pound. The fat dunce Hammond is too thick to understand that you can't share a currency without having the same interest rates, same fiscal policies and a common central bank. So the twat can't have independence and a shared currency. Having a shared currency means not being independent. The entry requirement for the Euro was convergence remember, not divergence. And look what a disaster it's been for Greece et al with economies that were not well converged. So, independence = no pound.

They can have their "Scottish Pound" or "Scottish Dinar" or "Scottish Peseta" or what the fuck the twit wants to call it, but it can't be a UK pound. Their dismal new currency will plummet on the currency markets as anyone with half an ounce of brain and a quarter of an ounce of wealth moves their money out into the safety of Euros or Dollars or Pounds. I mean, you'd need shit for brains to leave your life saving in Scottish Dinars wouldn't you, watching them spiral down into the dirt. As their currency plummets, their exports will bizarrely do OK, but since that only means haggis and Clan Dew, so fucking what. They will have galloping inflation as the cost of imports and raw materials soar. It's a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.

Do I care? Not a fucking jot. We should erect a fucking great big wall and barbed wire fence and make them need a visa to visit. If we can tow the country a few hundred miles north, even better. The Scottish MP's who have enjoyed fucking over our economy for the last 100 years should be tarred, feathered and sent packing north at soonest opportunity. Good riddance to them. That would be a huge positive for sure.

And when the Scottish economy has bottomed out and they have their 50% unemployment and national debt at 200% of GDP and interest rates of 30%, don't DARE come cap in hand to the rest of the UK to bail them out.

Independence? Good luck with that.

Getting the protagonist's name right? Good luck with that.

You have clearly spent a considerable amount of time trying to put together, what you thought would come across as cogent, well-informed comment. And yet, and yet..."Hammond".

And your grammatical grasp, whilst trying incredibly hard to portray a well-educated, well-informed polemic, falls flat on it's (sic) five year old arse with such gems as "Scottish MP's" - you weren't quite sure on the apostrophe were you? Should it be there? Hmmmm, best to put one in just in case. And so, you reveal you're (sic) true-self: a child. Stick to The Beano. Youll (sic) love it.

In true Salmond style.
An utterly irrelevant snide response.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I wasn't joking.

You should have been.

As an aside was anyone here apalled at that poor kid with a brain tumour whose parents have had to taken him to the Czech Republic for treatment. The Czech Republic, FFS. Where they have better medical facilities than we do. And what's their basic rate of tax? 15%. Higher rate? 22%.

There's a separate thread for that unfortunate case, but obviously you are using it as a side swipe at the NHS. The decision for treatment isn't always based on cost but also on suitability and none of us on here are privy to the facts - one could also query why the closer centres in France, Germany and Switzerland aren't being used. Incidentally the Christie will have this treatment in 4 years time.

Anyway we're off topic - haggis, Clare Grogan, Mars Bars. That's better.

No, really I am not. The NHS does an incredible job and it's full of incredible people, but it's underfunded. I'd like us to give the NHS even more money, but we can't afford it. The question therefore becomes, how DO we get into a position where we CAN afford it. (And by the way, I think Christies is bloody brilliant! Shame it's not like that everywhere in the UK and I can assure you it is not.)

And I agree it's a bit off topic. But not entirely. The Yes vote is a vote for an idiot who thinks he can spend his way to prosperity. We all know how that would end.

 

[Matty]

If Scottish independence was a vote being undertaken based upon the facts, and with a sensible assessment of what makes the most sense for Scotland as a country then the no vote would absolutely walk this and independence wouldn't even be a remote possibility. However that's not how this is working. The yes vote is one which is being ruled by the heart and not the head, Salmond has repeatedly failed to argue successfully that Scotland would be "better off" as an independent country and his statements and assertions have been demonstrated to be wild conjecture and pie in the sky thinking with no actual basis in reality. Yet still the vote is too close to call. The Scottish people are not morons, so if this was a purely fact driven, intellectual matter then Salmond's campaign would have faltered long ago, the very fact it hasn't is a demonstration of the emotions behind this decision. The Scots need to realise though that, after the emotions have died down, if they do vote for yes then it's the realities that they have to deal with. The currency issues, the taxation issues, the debt, all the future financial, social and political changes that will need to take place, these are the things they'd actually need to figure out because make no mistake about it, Salmond is winging it at present in the hope he can play on the emotions enough to get him over the line. Once the votes are cast, and the decision is made, then he's got his way, and then he can worry about what happens next. Even if all his assertions turn out to be false, which is a distinct possibility, Scotland will still be on the road to independence so, ultimately, he gets his way without having to actually back up any of his promises/statements.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

If Scottish independence was a vote being undertaken based upon the facts, and with a sensible assessment of what makes the most sense for Scotland as a country then the no vote would absolutely walk this and independence wouldn't even be a remote possibility. However that's not how this is working. The yes vote is one which is being ruled by the heart and not the head, Salmond has repeatedly failed to argue successfully that Scotland would be "better off" as an independent country and his statements and assertions have been demonstrated to be wild conjecture and pie in the sky thinking with no actual basis in reality. Yet still the vote is too close to call. The Scottish people are not morons, so if this was a purely fact driven, intellectual matter then Salmond's campaign would have faltered long ago, the very fact it hasn't is a demonstration of the emotions behind this decision. The Scots need to realise though that, after the emotions have died down, if they do vote for yes then it's the realities that they have to deal with. The currency issues, the taxation issues, the debt, all the future financial, social and political changes that will need to take place, these are the things they'd actually need to figure out because make no mistake about it, Salmond is winging it at present in the hope he can play on the emotions enough to get him over the line. Once the votes are cast, and the decision is made, then he's got his way, and then he can worry about what happens next. Even if all his assertions turn out to be false, which is a distinct possibility, Scotland will still be on the road to independence so, ultimately, he gets his way without having to actually back up any of his promises/statements.

The best analysis I've seen anywhere was on another forum where someone described that most Yes voters are people disillusioned with their own lives and fancy a roll of the dice to see if they can improve their lot. Of course there's as much chance of hitting a snake as there is a ladder.

 

[Matty]

If Scottish independence was a vote being undertaken based upon the facts, and with a sensible assessment of what makes the most sense for Scotland as a country then the no vote would absolutely walk this and independence wouldn't even be a remote possibility. However that's not how this is working. The yes vote is one which is being ruled by the heart and not the head, Salmond has repeatedly failed to argue successfully that Scotland would be "better off" as an independent country and his statements and assertions have been demonstrated to be wild conjecture and pie in the sky thinking with no actual basis in reality. Yet still the vote is too close to call. The Scottish people are not morons, so if this was a purely fact driven, intellectual matter then Salmond's campaign would have faltered long ago, the very fact it hasn't is a demonstration of the emotions behind this decision. The Scots need to realise though that, after the emotions have died down, if they do vote for yes then it's the realities that they have to deal with. The currency issues, the taxation issues, the debt, all the future financial, social and political changes that will need to take place, these are the things they'd actually need to figure out because make no mistake about it, Salmond is winging it at present in the hope he can play on the emotions enough to get him over the line. Once the votes are cast, and the decision is made, then he's got his way, and then he can worry about what happens next. Even if all his assertions turn out to be false, which is a distinct possibility, Scotland will still be on the road to independence so, ultimately, he gets his way without having to actually back up any of his promises/statements.

The best analysis I've seen anywhere was on another forum where someone described that most Yes voters are people disillusioned with their own lives and fancy a roll of the dice to see if they can improve their lot. Of course there's as much chance of hitting a snake as there is a ladder.

I've got to say, I think the amount of snakes far exceeds the ladder quota when it comes to Scottish independence, and they're fucking big snakes too.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

If Scottish independence was a vote being undertaken based upon the facts, and with a sensible assessment of what makes the most sense for Scotland as a country then the no vote would absolutely walk this and independence wouldn't even be a remote possibility. However that's not how this is working. The yes vote is one which is being ruled by the heart and not the head, Salmond has repeatedly failed to argue successfully that Scotland would be "better off" as an independent country and his statements and assertions have been demonstrated to be wild conjecture and pie in the sky thinking with no actual basis in reality. Yet still the vote is too close to call. The Scottish people are not morons, so if this was a purely fact driven, intellectual matter then Salmond's campaign would have faltered long ago, the very fact it hasn't is a demonstration of the emotions behind this decision. The Scots need to realise though that, after the emotions have died down, if they do vote for yes then it's the realities that they have to deal with. The currency issues, the taxation issues, the debt, all the future financial, social and political changes that will need to take place, these are the things they'd actually need to figure out because make no mistake about it, Salmond is winging it at present in the hope he can play on the emotions enough to get him over the line. Once the votes are cast, and the decision is made, then he's got his way, and then he can worry about what happens next. Even if all his assertions turn out to be false, which is a distinct possibility, Scotland will still be on the road to independence so, ultimately, he gets his way without having to actually back up any of his promises/statements.

The best analysis I've seen anywhere was on another forum where someone described that most Yes voters are people disillusioned with their own lives and fancy a roll of the dice to see if they can improve their lot. Of course there's as much chance of hitting a snake as there is a ladder.

I've got to say, I think the amount of snakes far exceeds the ladder quota when it comes to Scottish independence, and they're fucking big snakes too.

I think you made a very good point in your assessment above that for many scots the choice was seen as an opportunity to get rid of the English rather than a genuine opportunity for an independent country because if the latter had been the case and people were looking at it logically, the no votes would have it by a landslide. I think the yes vote is even only because of sentiment and it's this that surprised the MP's and caused the late scramble earlier this week.

In the likely event of the no vote winning through I think this definitely damages the relationship between Scotland and England going forward. I certainly won't view them the same way, after all the popular vote has it that nearly 50% of the population wants away...

 

[Matty]

The best analysis I've seen anywhere was on another forum where someone described that most Yes voters are people disillusioned with their own lives and fancy a roll of the dice to see if they can improve their lot. Of course there's as much chance of hitting a snake as there is a ladder.

I've got to say, I think the amount of snakes far exceeds the ladder quota when it comes to Scottish independence, and they're fucking big snakes too.

I think you made a very good point in your assessment above that for many scots the choice was seen as an opportunity to get rid of the English rather than a genuine opportunity for an independent country because if the latter had been the case and people were looking at it logically, the no votes would have it by a landslide. I think the yes vote is even only because of sentiment and it's this that surprised the MP's and caused the late scramble earlier this week.

In the likely event of the no vote winning through I think this definitely damages the relationship between Scotland and England going forward. I certainly won't view them the same way, after all the popular vote has it that nearly 50% of the population wants away...

It might actually be in Britains best interests at this stage for the Scots to get independence. The status quo won't exist regardless of the vote outcome as we've already said that if the no vote wins we'll be giving Scotland a whole host of powers and rights anyway, so Salmond even if he loses will still be able to enact some of his socialist policies, but without the burden of having to deal with failure. If he spends beyond his means, which his plans will do, then he'll simply blame England when it goes pear shaped and it'll be up to Britain to bail him out financially. It might, at this stage, be best for Britain if he gets independence, then when his policies fail and his economy hits the ropes he'll have to deal with the consequences himself.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't think its anti-English per se that's driving it. It's a fundamental divergence of politics and a feeling of disenfranchisement that has been going on for decades.

You only have to look at the Tory MP count north of the border to understand the different political leaning in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole where the conservatives gained the greatest share of the vote at the last electon. You take Scotland out of the equation and the Tory majority in the rest of the UK would have been even greater. My point being that the difference between political leanings north and south is even bigger than is at first apparent.

That being the case, you can only imagine how frustrating it must be for many to have a Tory government - that hardly anyone Scottish voted for - imposed upon them. In that context, the desire to break away and sod the consequences, must be quite strong.

But you have to ask yourself why is everyone in Scotland leaning so heavily to the left, whereas in the south and especially in the home counties, the opposite is true? Of course it's about poverty and lack of opportunity. Put people in a surrounding of high unexployment, low wages, poor housing and limited aspiration and they vote for the party on the left. It's as simple as that, because they think they will get more "benefits" - I use the word in the broad sense - from the more socialist parties, and they are probably correct.

That such a gulf exists between north and south, must be seen as a failure. A failure of successive governments to run our Kingdom as a coherent whole and therefore to invest as needed to minimise this huge disparity. We have brought this unrest on ourselves.

 

[Mike D]

It's all starting to unravel for the slippery Samond right at the crucial moment. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...claims-come-under-furious-attack-9727762.html

I think we all know he's been telling a few porkers on oil reserves and NHS but.......

Alex Salmond’s vote-winning claim that only leaving the Union could save the NHS in Scotland was in danger of unravelling on Thurday night as key arguments of the Yes campaign came under sustained attack from leading economists and business leaders.

Research published by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank found that the devolved Holyrood government currently spent less on the health service in real terms than its English equivalent - undermining Mr Salmond’s claim that Westminster government posed a threat to the NHS.

“It is hard to see how independence could allow Scotland to spend more on the NHS than would be possible within a Union where it will have significant tax raising powers and considerable say over spending priorities,” the authors concluded.

“A combination of the eventual fall in oil revenues and an ageing population could make for a tougher fiscal outlook for Scotland than the rest of the UK and hence less room for additional spending on things like the NHS.”

 

[Chippy_boy]

I've got to say, I think the amount of snakes far exceeds the ladder quota when it comes to Scottish independence, and they're fucking big snakes too.

I think you made a very good point in your assessment above that for many scots the choice was seen as an opportunity to get rid of the English rather than a genuine opportunity for an independent country because if the latter had been the case and people were looking at it logically, the no votes would have it by a landslide. I think the yes vote is even only because of sentiment and it's this that surprised the MP's and caused the late scramble earlier this week.

In the likely event of the no vote winning through I think this definitely damages the relationship between Scotland and England going forward. I certainly won't view them the same way, after all the popular vote has it that nearly 50% of the population wants away...

It might actually be in Britains best interests at this stage for the Scots to get independence. The status quo won't exist regardless of the vote outcome as we've already said that if the no vote wins we'll be giving Scotland a whole host of powers and rights anyway, so Salmond even if he loses will still be able to enact some of his socialist policies, but without the burden of having to deal with failure. If he spends beyond his means, which his plans will do, then he'll simply blame England when it goes pear shaped and it'll be up to Britain to bail him out financially. It might, at this stage, be best for Britain if he gets independence, then when his policies fail and his economy hits the ropes he'll have to deal with the consequences himself.

I quite agree Matty. That's why I am somewhat ambivalent (funny how a bottle of wine can change my language from "somewhat ambivalent" to "couldn't give a toss" ;-)) as to the outcome.

On the one hand, I do think it's a shame to see the break-up of the UK after all these centuries. And independence IS doomed to failure and I have no wishes to see anyone in further hardship as the result of a misguided few and misled many.

But on the other hand, if they are hell bent on this road to destruction, better to let them get on with it than drag the rest of us down with it. The rest of the UK will do just fine without Scotland, and in many respects might actually be better off.

 

[baildon blue]

Good news for the Tories if Scotland does go it alone .
It will be the end of democracy in the UK .
We will be like North Korea .

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Good news for the Tories if Scotland does go it alone .
It will be the end of democracy in the UK .
We will be like North Korea .

There'll be a LibLabGreenPlaidCymruMonsterRavingLoonyParty pact in power for years, don't worry.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Good news for the Tories if Scotland does go it alone .
It will be the end of democracy in the UK .
We will be like North Korea .

You're having a laugh. David Cameron is more left wing than Tony Blair.

 

[cibaman]

I don't think its anti-English per se that's driving it. It's a fundamental divergence of politics and a feeling of disenfranchisement that has been going on for decades.

You only have to look at the Tory MP count north of the border to understand the different political leaning in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole where the conservatives gained the greatest share of the vote at the last electon. You take Scotland out of the equation and the Tory majority in the rest of the UK would have been even greater. My point being that the difference between political leanings north and south is even bigger than is at first apparent.

That being the case, you can only imagine how frustrating it must be for many to have a Tory government - that hardly anyone Scottish voted for - imposed upon them. In that context, the desire to break away and sod the consequences, must be quite strong.

But you have to ask yourself why is everyone in Scotland leaning so heavily to the left, whereas in the south and especially in the home counties, the opposite is true? Of course it's about poverty and lack of opportunity. Put people in a surrounding of high unexployment, low wages, poor housing and limited aspiration and they vote for the party on the left. It's as simple as that, because they think they will get more "benefits" - I use the word in the broad sense - from the more socialist parties, and they are probably correct.

That such a gulf exists between north and south, must be seen as a failure. A failure of successive governments to run our Kingdom as a coherent whole and therefore to invest as needed to minimise this huge disparity. We have brought this unrest on ourselves.

Ironically independence might bring something of a revival for the Scottish Conservative Party. They actually poll higher than people might think, it just doesn't translate into seats. I'm not so sure that the Scots are as anti Tory as they're made out. They are definitely vehemently against English Tories, whether they be Thatcher or Eton toffs. But once the English tories are taken out of the picture the Scottish tories might do much better.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't think its anti-English per se that's driving it. It's a fundamental divergence of politics and a feeling of disenfranchisement that has been going on for decades.

You only have to look at the Tory MP count north of the border to understand the different political leaning in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole where the conservatives gained the greatest share of the vote at the last electon. You take Scotland out of the equation and the Tory majority in the rest of the UK would have been even greater. My point being that the difference between political leanings north and south is even bigger than is at first apparent.

That being the case, you can only imagine how frustrating it must be for many to have a Tory government - that hardly anyone Scottish voted for - imposed upon them. In that context, the desire to break away and sod the consequences, must be quite strong.

But you have to ask yourself why is everyone in Scotland leaning so heavily to the left, whereas in the south and especially in the home counties, the opposite is true? Of course it's about poverty and lack of opportunity. Put people in a surrounding of high unexployment, low wages, poor housing and limited aspiration and they vote for the party on the left. It's as simple as that, because they think they will get more "benefits" - I use the word in the broad sense - from the more socialist parties, and they are probably correct.

That such a gulf exists between north and south, must be seen as a failure. A failure of successive governments to run our Kingdom as a coherent whole and therefore to invest as needed to minimise this huge disparity. We have brought this unrest on ourselves.

Ironically independence might bring something of a revival for the Scottish Conservative Party. They actually poll higher than people might think, it just doesn't translate into seats. I'm not so sure that the Scots are as anti Tory as they're made out. They are definitely vehemently against English Tories, whether they be Thatcher or Eton toffs. But once the English tories are taken out of the picture the Scottish tories might do much better.

They couldn't do MUCH worse, could they ;-) !