UKH

How much of England will choose to join us? After all this is not just a Scotland/England debate. It's London vs the rest of the U K.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

poor troll. 1/10.

In reply to henwardian:

-1/10, surely?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

I'm half tempted by the thought of moving north if the warm and fuzzy collectivity the Yes people are talking about becomes reality.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

If the vote is "No" but a close run thing, it also raises issues of greater regional powers for Scotland and thus I think it raises those issues for the larger regions of England as well. So either way, the political conversation has been hightened wherever you live. I think that is healthy politics. It certainly feels like that here in Scotland.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


You'll never get me wearing a tartan skirt or puffing into bagpipes, although I have been seduced by Single Malt....

In reply to Trangia:

Perhaps there won't be complete genetic modification { been watching Prometheus recently!} but maybe just a bit politically?......

If it all goes off like Baron Greenback says it will then the Mayor of Berwick will be threatening to close the border unless the Scots do more to deter all the migrants.

In reply to Trangia:


To be honest I am hoping that a Yes vote will see all these single malts disappear from the offie to be replaced by some nice caribbean rum varieties. I can't really be arsed with all the snobbery surrounding whisky, sometimes I like a glass of scotch with ice and coke but rum is far more pleasant.

In reply to Clarence:


You, Sir, are a miserable Philistine!

In reply to Trangia:

I'm not a Philistine, I'm a self-hating Scot!

In reply to MargieB:

>... I think that is healthy politics. It certainly feels like that here in Scotland.

If you feel Alex and co lying their faces off and deceiving a nation is healthy then yes....

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Was just considering what happens at the next general election - post referendum, pre-independence - but it seems the Guardian has already beaten me to it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-genera...

As to the OP - I can see you point. Can't we just give independence to Bullingdon Land and the rest of us could live happily.

In reply to MargieB:


That's already been tried and they're not interested... they've got more sense. Even as it is Britain is a small to medium sized country, Parliament is quite enough. Anyway it's hard enough to find people willing to stand for existing democratic seats.

In reply to PeterM:
Actually, I think its revealed a lot of B...sh.t and made people have a good look at things from a none sentimental viewpoint and I think that is healthy!
I've been enjoying the more charged atmosphere here in the highlands, the only problem is when you are at the top of the high street, knowing your sausages are for sale at the bottom, you have to roll up your sleeves and dodge the scrum of leaflet thrusters!! It's Saturday and I have to run the gauntlet again today....

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
What a bloody daft assumption. England wants shot of the savages. ;oP

In reply to MargieB:

I think it has created a lot more nonsense than before. All these promises form both sides of the argument are pointless, as either way no one knows what will be. It depends on what politicians get voted in, where as most yes supporters are trotting out SNP policies. What if we go independent and then vote in a conservative government?! What if 5 years down the line the rest of the UK take a much more left turn?! There's very little certainty about any of it, and there are so many things put across as fact.

In reply to Clarence:

you should choose better whisky drinking friends. Some are significantly better with water, warm, cool though I wouldn't add juice to a malt.
I love both and personal fave rum from a supermarket non connoisseur (hard word to spell right) perspective is Woods rum and coke (non diet). Classic OVD is fab and I deplore any barstaff who ask if it is a Bacardi or dark rum I want when I ask for a rum and coke. Maybe I am snob after all!!

Anyhoo back on debate an interesting fairly impartial article here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

my brother works in the city and not entitled to a vote and says "The financials are amazingly in your favour which is why you're getting such a vicious and threatening kicking from the Better Together lot. I've christened their strategy the Battered Wife Strategy: you're shit, you're worthless, nobody'll take you in and all masking the fact it's the other side that'll lose and you'll gain."

Hence stock market wobbles too.

In reply to girlymonkey:

It has been less than satisfactory as a referendum, I totally agree, because the only starting point was there was a vague discontent { that has been exposed and its been simmering for years} - but I would have preferred more concrete options from both sides: It's been "creatively" discussed as the time has passed from the YES side, and certainly from the NO side the gate has nearly closed, and the No campaign is only now tapping into that original dissatisfaction and firming up policies, which should have been done from day one. Its politics on the hoof, but it has been interesting and people talk in the street plus are quite good humoured,[ at least here in Inverness }and its reconnected many people with politics.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Geographically speaking Englands northern counties are closer to Edinburgh than they are to London. In particular Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Co Durham, Teeside and Cumbria have suffered a similar major decline in traditional heavy industries so have a lot more in common with their neighbours to the North than with the English Shire counties.

Whilst I have no wish to the see the United Kingdom broken up, being a Geordie of Scots ancestry, with a Scottish wife and who has lived on both sides of the border, I've witnessed first hand the industrial decline and have been dismayed at the lack of investment in the North and Scotland over the past 40 years - particularly in terms infrastructure.

Having spent most of my working life travelling extensively in the North of England and Scotland, a fraction of the billions being spent on projects like Crossrail and the expansion of Heathrow - not to mention HS2 - could have been invested with greater effect to the nation as a whole if it had been spent north of Manchester! There are still no cross country Dual Carriageway / Motorway links between the M62 and the M8 in Scotland, and there are still single carriageway sections of the main London - Edinburgh trunk road (The A1) north of Newcastle.

With better infrastructure, business and people would have been happier to locate in the North - given the ease of access to some wonderful open countryside and coastline - and with the extra space available for development, would have meant that the housing market would not have become so overheated.

In reply to John Stainforth:


Troll? I'm undecided whether to vote 'Yes' or 'No'

In reply to Greenbanks:

As I've said before, I'm a Scot living in England and don't have a vote, I do keep in touch with Scottish friends and relatives.

I said, on one of the many referendum threads, that I thought the " No " camp would prevail.

Now I think that the tide is turning. I've had lots of Facebook links etc. from the people that I would expect to be " Yes " voters but I'm now getting comments from unexpected sources ( like my niece ) asking why she should be accepting bribes from the better together campaign and my parents, now in their eighties and life long Labour voters who are " sick of that lot down there and their lies and promises"

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Couldn't have summed it up better myself.

I'm still undecided but leaning heavily towards yes. If only the BT campaign had argued they would tackle lack of investment and an outdated governance structure (house of lords anyone?)

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Good article in the Times today (Tuesday) setting out the probable steps following a Yes vote. (With quite a lot of 'Establishment' scare-mongering thrown in)

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

I think (some) of the England fans have made their position clear here...warning: a bit sweary

youtube.com/watch?v=dTYuCvuQmrw&

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

How wonderful for all. Scotland is going to split away or whatever. Great news for the world - after all history is full of cases countries splitting into smaller bits. And it's always gone so well, hasn't it.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Whatever way it goes we won't get rid of Salmonds face on Tv blaming the 'Westminster elite' for every wrong in said named country

I think the "new proposals" for more devolutioon are actually worse.

Let's have a look at the one from the Labour party:


"As we made clear in our interim report,the Barnett formula should remain as the funding mechanism for public services in Scotland.
Under our proposal, as is the case under the Scotland Act, the Barnett grant will be reduced to take account of the fact that the Scottish Parliament will have a revenue stream of its own.
As a result the Scottish Parliament will be funded partly by grant calculated under the Barnett formula and partly by its own resources – principally Scottish income tax payers. "

This means that any new revenue streams generated in Scotland through higher taxation could potentially be offset by a reduction of the block grant.

Indeed after checking the current funding arrangement this seems to be already the case:

"if levels of self-financed expenditure generated by a devolved administration grow significantly more rapidly than comparable expenditure in England over a period and in such a way as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the management of the United Kingdom economy, it will be open to the United Kingdom Government to take the excess into account in considering the level of grant to the devolved administrations. This principle will not apply to the Scottish Variable Rate of Income Tax"

That would mean higher taxes in Scotland for overall the same budget for the Scottish Parliament.

I hope I'm wrong but I think we are about to get shafted well and good.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The key sentence is 'This principle will not apply to the Scottish Variable Rate of Income Tax'. This variable rate is current ability to vary tax by 3p in the pound, which is about to change so that only 10p of the current 20p income tax rate will be set by the UK Govt with the Scottish Govt getting the rest, and having the ability to vary this up and down as they choose.

Your second extract comes from, I think, legislation about the (new) ability for the Scottish Parliament to borrow to finance spending. It's essentially saying that if the expenditure funded by borrowing grows to the point it destabilises the safeguards built in to ensure a stable currency, the UK Govt can cut spending accordingly. But it seems to specifically rule out the possibility of the UKGovt cutting the Scottish grant as Scottish taxes rise (or indeed increasing them as they fall).

In reply to mav:

I agree but we already have the SVR, the point if for all other taxes, if we are getting any of them devolved and we choose to raise new revenues from them, we risk a reduction of the block grant. Most likely under these condition these "new powers" will be effectively unusable.



No no it's not about borrowing, there is a similar condition for borrowing but this explained in a different paragraph of the Statement of Funding. This paragraph is clearly about new revenues generated by the Scottish parliament (except the SVR). The aim of that seem to be that they want to ensure that spending is more or less in line with UK targets, regardless of where the money comes from.


That's the general problems with the offer of more devolution, is that even if we can be assured we can be given new powers, there is no reassurance that they won't cut funding, effectively making all these new shiny powers fairly unusable.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Are you absolutely sure about this? On what grounds would the block grant be reduced? I'm also taken aback by the fact that scotland was duped into thinking we had any powers at all. That would mean the scottish government are/were colossally stupid. The block grant theory is used so scotland does not have to pay more in income tax - despite the fact it might actually benefit scotland. Politically tax raising is suicide and people are inherently selfish.

In reply to PeterM:

I double checked and it seems to be the case. Apparently the ground is that they don't want Scotland spending in public services to overtake too much that of the UK, even if the extra funds are being raised locally.
Effectively it's a way for Westminster to say, if you start actually using your powers a bit too much, we'll reduce your funding.

That is the major problem with the different devolution offers, whatever new powers we'll get, by controlling the funding Westminster has huge leverage to prevent the Scottish Parliament actually using them.

Only a federal system would guarantee funding a some form of fiscal autonomy, but there isn't any such proposal on the table.

In reply to RomTheBear:

- "Apparently"? Lets not use 'facts' now. Scotland would still be contributing the same. It would not be keeping up to 3p of every 22p taken in lower rate IT. It would be in addition. Sounds like a bit of scaremongering so the scottish parliament don't have to put their (our) money where their mouth is and can continue the centuries old tradition of playing the victim to the english oppressor.

Actually, thinking about it, it would have been an instant vote winner for the Yes campaign had it been so r.e. reduction of the block grant. I might have even voted yes if this had been the case, but there seems to be nothing to back that theory up and the SNP have not mentioned it. Anyway, come Independence , should that nightmare befall us, I will expect to be paying more income tax for the same or less services, and I'm pretty sure my council tax will go up next year.

In reply to PeterM:

Well it is there in the Statement of Funding. If you have another interpretation it's welcome but it looks pretty clear to me.


I am surprised too it wasn't mentioned but maybe it;s because they simply already agreed to that deal as part of the Scotland Act.
What is clear to me is that as long there is a threat that funding will be reduced, the actual use of new powers is at the mercy of Westminster's goodwill.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

When Scotland votes Yes:
Mount Snowdon (sic) will become the highest mountain in the country.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
I was recently pointed to http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26217304

Apologies if it's been done before.

Barossa says Scotland will have to apply for EU membership & that (at around 07:15) 'it will be extremely difficult or even impossible for a new [EU] member to come out of an existing member state'. (Spain would object)

Old news I appreciate, but would Scotland really have to go through the full accession process?

In reply to blurty:




Seems to be just one of many things Scotland has not the first clue about how it'll work. Looks like we may find out soon enough.