Friday Thread: If Scotland vote YES will TWH have to leave?

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

It's up to whatever Scottish government we elect to make it an attractive place to live and work. The quality of life can be better away from the big cities and congestion down south so it's mainly the financial elements that need to be improved. It's not insurmountable and we will have the powers to do something about it.

Excuse me if I say that's a wishy-washy reply. I'm not sure what these additional powers are going to be. NHS and education are already fully devolved. I'm not sure about Police Scotland. Companies are already able to hire scarce skills from anywhere in the world pretty much (I hired people from Mexico, India and USA). Persuading people that they want to come and take the risk - there's the problem. It's just going to be that much harder to persuade other UK people they want to come and those that are here that they want to stay (starting with Mrs MRS)

At the moment we don't have the powers to do much about it. Immigration policy is not devolved and although the NHS is we don't have the power to decide whether we spend a billion on the NHS or a billion on nuclear weapons.

Why do you think we are better together? Are we better together or is it just status quo together?

I don't know what powers you think are currently missing to attract qualified consultants to the Highlands' main hospital in vacant positions? Same goes for nurses, teachers and police?

The status quo isn't good enough but independence can ONLY make this issue worse - especially in the next 3-5 years. And it's a vicious circle - without skills, there's decline and, with decline, comes difficulties in attracting the skills. This is the exact opposite to somewhere like Cambridge where success is building success upon success

aberdeen_lune

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

I admire your blind faith.

It also scares me sh!tless

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

I admire your blind faith.

It also scares me sh!tless

Yes it is a bit of a leap of faith and you can never trust politicians. We will be able to have our say at the ballot box at the next election so they will be held accountable.

EKE_38BPM

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

I admire your blind faith.

It also scares me sh!tless

Yes it is a bit of a leap of faith and you can never trust politicians. We will be able to have our say at the ballot box at the next election so they will be held accountable.

But if Yes wins and it turns out to be terrible, you can't vote to rejoin the UK, can you?

aberdeen_lune

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

I admire your blind faith.

It also scares me sh!tless

Yes it is a bit of a leap of faith and you can never trust politicians. We will be able to have our say at the ballot box at the next election so they will be held accountable.

But if Yes wins and it turns out to be terrible, you can't vote to rejoin the UK, can you?

It's not good to go back anyway. Surely it's better to stand on your own feet and make the most of what you have rather than being a small part of something you have very little say in.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Yes we seem to be suffering from a lack of investment in the important things like health. I don't see that improving in Scotland at all under a Westminster government. I predict a steady decline if we stay together. If Scotland has it's own government ( not a toothless devolved one) then there will be a big change with policies focused on improving things. There will of course be growing pains and lots of issues to overcome but in the long term things should improve.

I admire your blind faith.

It also scares me sh!tless

Yes it is a bit of a leap of faith and you can never trust politicians. We will be able to have our say at the ballot box at the next election so they will be held accountable.

But if Yes wins and it turns out to be terrible, you can't vote to rejoin the UK, can you?

It's not good to go back anyway. Surely it's better to stand on your own feet and make the most of what you have rather than being a small part of something you have very little say in.

Oh! So an independent Scotland won't be looking to join the EU then. Well, every day's a school day round here...

surrey_commuter

banks will move but will only be loss of a few thousand (highly paid jobs) and whatever corporation tax they pay.

MRS 's point is that uncertainty is bad (sorry if I am wrong)

There is obviously a lot of scaremongering but as part of rUK will my prices at the PO and John Lewis go down now that we are no longer cross subsidising Scotland?? I think we all know the answer to that

personally I hope they leave and take the royals with them

Sewinman

Rick Chasey wrote:

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

:roll: I'm just saying it's more fundamental than ratings.

Not sure what your point is. You said at first they're basically already in London. Yep, agreed.

And that being a British bank carries advantages. Yes, and those advantages in the stable and prestigious environment they're in are reflected in the rating, which is what their counterparties actually care about.

The move from Scotland is largely ceremonial. Unless they don't do it, in which case it's a huge change not to change.

The initial point was that those using 'Scottish' banks 'leaving Scotland' as a result of independence are scaremongering since they were never really there.

Why is it scare-mongering? They are currently legally registered in Scotland. Their view is that their credit rating (the foundation of their business) would tank in an independent Scotland if they keep it that way. Why do they think that? Because they would not be guaranteed by the BoE and be legally registered in a country which currently has no credible currency solution, credit history or reserves. If you extrapolate that thinking to an individual's savings/house/mortgage and their ability to borrow - then that would certainly scare the hell out of me!

meanredspider

I do seriously understand why the Scots want independence - I've learned a lot about the Scot's psyche in the last 10 years. But the future will, I believe, be a hard jolt to reality. And the funny thing is that the English will no longer be to "blame" (for the first time in however many hundreds of years) - unless, of course, the Scots keep the pound in which case Scotland will still be beholden to England anyway. In a nod to the Auld Alliance: "Plus ca change..."

meanredspider

Maybe the staffing issues in Inverness are far from unique and closer to "home" than maybe you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-29174406

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Maybe the staffing issues in Inverness are far from unique and closer to "home" than maybe you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-29174406

That's been the case for a while. The high living costs here don't help.

If we had more money to spend on health these issues could be sorted.

Just think how many consultants we could pay for off the savings doing away with a second house (how much does 470 odd Lords cost) and savings on nukes which will never be used.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Maybe the staffing issues in Inverness are far from unique and closer to "home" than maybe you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-29174406

That's been the case for a while. The high living costs here don't help.

If we had more money to spend on health these issues could be sorted.

Just think how many consultants we could pay for off the savings doing away with a second house (how much does 470 odd Lords cost) and savings on nukes which will never be used.

So you'd solve the problem by paying NHS consultants more than the £100+ grand they typically earn? Just to work in Aberdeen and Inverness? Wouldn't that just put more pressure on housing costs for teachers, nurses and police? Or would you just pay them more too? I recently read that the NHS is one of the 10 biggest employers in the world. What does throwing more money at wages do to help?

And taking Trident away is an interesting concept since it pays quite a few people in Scotland - I don't think it's the magic panacea that is claimed. And those 470 lords jobs will soon be swallowed up by the replication of other civil servants (DVLA, Passport Office, Armed Forces, Air Traffic, Inland Revenue, Prison Service, Probation Service etc - I'm sure we can find a few hundred jobs in administering that lot).

anonymousblackfg

Aberdeen lune I agree a lot of places have mutters, some more extreme than others. But for all of this I am very pro independence, it's a cracking piece of experimentation that will give me my holiday home for a couple of goats and some canned goods.

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Maybe the staffing issues in Inverness are far from unique and closer to "home" than maybe you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-29174406

That's been the case for a while. The high living costs here don't help.

If we had more money to spend on health these issues could be sorted.

Just think how many consultants we could pay for off the savings doing away with a second house (how much does 470 odd Lords cost) and savings on nukes which will never be used.

So you'd solve the problem by paying NHS consultants more than the £100+ grand they typically earn? Just to work in Aberdeen and Inverness? Wouldn't that just put more pressure on housing costs for teachers, nurses and police? Or would you just pay them more too? I recently read that the NHS is one of the 10 biggest employers in the world. What does throwing more money at wages do to help?

And taking Trident away is an interesting concept since it pays quite a few people in Scotland - I don't think it's the magic panacea that is claimed. And those 470 lords jobs will soon be swallowed up by the replication of other civil servants (DVLA, Passport Office, Armed Forces, Air Traffic, Inland Revenue, Prison Service, Probation Service etc - I'm sure we can find a few hundred jobs in administering that lot).

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

I don't think you've quite grasped the point. The jobs exist and they're well-paid - just no-one wants to live in Aberdeen or Inverness (if it were just the house cost, Inverness would be fine - houses are cheap here). Now throw up a border and see what that does to demand for jobs in the two cities.

rjsterry

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Just think how many consultants we could pay for off the savings doing away with a second house (how much does 470

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hangers on.

I'm assuming you're not so naive as to think that MSPs are somehow more virtuous than MPs south of the border. As for doing away with an upper house, here's a list of countries with unicameral governments.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#National

Sewinman

Where are you going to borrow money from? The banks have clearly showed that they view Scotland as uncreditworthy.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

UndercoverElephant

rjsterry wrote:

As for doing away with an upper house, here's a list of countries with unicameral governments.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#National

Easy to look at the nutter-states, but Iceland, Norway, Finland and New Zealand look pretty OK to me. I would prefer to have something like the Law Lords to keep an eye on the legalities, though.

Sewinman wrote:

Where are you going to borrow money from? The banks have clearly showed that they view Scotland as uncreditworthy.

That's rubbish, S&P say we'd qualify for their "highest economic assessment". Plenty if oil, see.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26602997

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

UndercoverElephant

YIMan wrote:

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

Lower corporation tax, make immigration easier, grants for industries and businesses that are willing to retrain people.

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

I don't think you've quite grasped the point. The jobs exist and they're well-paid - just no-one wants to live in Aberdeen or Inverness (if it were just the house cost, Inverness would be fine - houses are cheap here). Now throw up a border and see what that does to demand for jobs in the two cities.

I don't agree with your assessment. Inverness is a good place to live same with Aberdeenshire. We are competing for the best talent so need to make the posts more attractive.

Why did you move to Scotland if you think it's not its a great place to live?

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

So you'd solve the problem by paying NHS consultants more than the £100+ grand they typically earn? Just to work in Aberdeen and Inverness? Wouldn't that just put more pressure on housing costs for teachers, nurses and police? Or would you just pay them more too? I recently read that the NHS is one of the 10 biggest employers in the world. What does throwing more money at wages do to help?

According to Better Together, that will not be a problem.
As the oil runs out the oil workers inflated pay will go, as will the workers, and housing prices will drop.

Negative equity? Always a good way to trap employees.

There is always a silver lining, and two sides to a coin.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

YIMan

UndercoverElephant wrote:

YIMan wrote:

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

Lower corporation tax, make immigration easier, grants for industries and businesses that are willing to retrain people.

What's the plan though? How many people will lose their jobs? Which industries and businesses need that many more people based on what demand? Who will pay to retrain them? You can't suddenly invent an alternative naval/nuclear/engineering industry, so what are those people going to do?

Having a strategy is very different from having a well thought out roadmap and set of plans that enable you to realise your strategy. A strategy without a plan is just a pipe-dream.

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

YIMan

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

So the plan is all the people in those industries are going to be re-employed in a Scottish navy/naval base? Sounds good, how much will that cost then and who will pay for it?

aberdeen_lune

PBlakeney wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

So you'd solve the problem by paying NHS consultants more than the £100+ grand they typically earn? Just to work in Aberdeen and Inverness? Wouldn't that just put more pressure on housing costs for teachers, nurses and police? Or would you just pay them more too? I recently read that the NHS is one of the 10 biggest employers in the world. What does throwing more money at wages do to help?

According to Better Together, that will not be a problem.
As the oil runs out the oil workers inflated pay will go, as will the workers, and housing prices will drop.

Negative equity? Always a good way to trap employees.

There is always a silver lining, and two sides to a coin.

The oil will run out at some point so alternative energy industries need to be built up. When I started in the oil industry in 92 the oil was just about to run out. Now developments are under construction which are forecast to last to 2050. Remember the Forties field was built to last 25 years in the mid seventies it's still going strong. There are new developments being planned east of Shetland and no doubt more to be discovered. So when will it run out? No one knows. Decommissioning for a field takes around 10 years so there's more work, jobs and a boost to the local economy.

So I will be in negative equity around 2060 at the earliest. Funny that as my mortgage only has a couple of years to run. Even taking out a 35 year mortgage today it will be paid off before the oil industry is dead and that's the earliest likely date. New technology, higher oil prices and new discoveries will only extend the date.

aberdeen_lune

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

YIMan wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

The pressure is already on housing here with the oil industry. A few consultants won't make much impact.

We would also save on our share of cost of 650 Westminster MPs and their inflated expenses and hanger ons.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons base and stockpile is not a smart way to create jobs.

What's the "smart way" plan then, to replace the jobs that will be lost directly and indirectly at Faslane, Coulport, Dounreay, Rosyth etc?

There's better ways to create growth and jobs. How much does a nuclear weapons related job cost the public purse? Ten million per job perhaps? Not a great way to spend public money in my opinion.

Fine, I'm asking what those ways are. In other words, what's the plan (Alex?)?

It would be the Scottish navy's base we would need one to protect our waters.

So the plan is all the people in those industries are going to be re-employed in a Scottish navy/naval base? Sounds good, how much will that cost then and who will pay for it?

Who do you think will pay for it? Here's some multiple choice options:
A) The Russians
The Americans
C) The English
D) The EU
E) The Scots

How much will it costs certainly a fraction of the bill for the replacement of Trident. Remember we will get our share of the Royal Navy's fleet.