Friday Thread: Scottish Referendum a UKIPY preview?

Broono83

Had to laugh at the patronising bean analogy. I'm glad we are safe from the prospect of a budget deficit in the UK! The UK government would never spend more beans than it had would it? Definitely not trillions of them.

Still, in a few weeks we'll be hanging out of the back of the USA playing empire in the middle east again shooting the guys we just armed in a war we cant afford so everyone will have something else to talk about.

itboffin

very good point, did you know that previous senior UK military leaders used plans from ancient campaigns to help forecast and plan modern warfare, well they did and perhaps still do.

because we never learn by our mistakes.

Sadly i think you're forecast will be very true all too soon, the sabers are rattling and the press machines in motion.

pblakeney

You gentlemen are all talking bollocks.

First.Aspect

unixnerd wrote:

Perhaps the disaffected "Scots" should take a bit of a look around before spraffing off about how hard done by they are.

We're not the ones who are hard done by, YOU are (see above list)! Can't you see that? 45% wanted to leave because we don't want to end up going the same way against our will. We have a parliament that prioritises the things that are really important in a fair society (within the budget you let us have). YOUR parliament doesn't.

You didn't spot that I live in Scotland, no? They are both "our" parliaments and, right now at least, they have different pholosophies on fairness. I didn't vote for the Tories or the SNP, but that's the nature of democracy, isn't it?

elbowloh

unixnerd wrote:

You know, it's not that we want to be special or different in Scotland. We don't think we're better than England (I'll admit your beer is generally superior). What we want is YOU to be like US and have the same values we all used to have in this country before Thatcher waved a wad of notes at you.

We want you to have:

The right to roam, free access to the land
Free health care and prescriptions
Free education
Free personal care for the elderly
Housing that normal people can afford (actually we'd like more of that too)
More new council houses
More police on the streets (1000 more since 2007)

It's almost like you think all English people are money grabbing Tories. There are many millions of people in England who want all that stuff too, yes even those of us who live in the South East/London - we're not all millionaire bankers. Remember in the last Genera election the Tories did not win an outright majority, hence the coalition.

It would be great if all like-minded citizens of the whole of the UK could work together to achieve these things.

unixnerd

It would be great if all like-minded citizens of the whole of the UK could work together to achieve these things.

I agree, you need to stand up and demand them them. The politicians won't give them away unless they're forced to.

bompington

unixnerd wrote:

It would be great if all like-minded citizens of the whole of the UK could work together to achieve these things.

I agree, you need to stand up and demand them them. The politicians won't give them away unless they're forced to.

Yep. I demand all those things, free, and also free packed lunches, free holidays in the sun, free biros and free handlebar tape. I think it's disgraceful that all those politicians are sitting on all this stuff that they could just hand out for free to everyone.

Or alternatively, people (especially in Scotland) need to work out that nothing is free, and that all the cloud-cuckoo-land promises of the Yes campaign were never going to happen. Basically, it got so far in large measure by saying "yes" to more or less anything, but mostly to spending non-existent money.

unixnerd

Well we seem to have them free in Scotland at the moment and most folk think that free education and health care are fundamental rights. I didn't have to pay tuition fees at uni, why should today's youth? You don't seriously want to end up in a situation where the sick have to pay to use the NHS?

Sewinman

It is free because the English pay for it!

unixnerd

It is free because the English pay for it!

Not that one again. We pay more tax per head in Scotland than you do in England and get less back as a percentage. It is us who subside you. Try not to believe the myths some of the parties put about to benefit themselves. Also, don't forget that even within England resources allocated from the Barnett Formula differ by region.

Sewinman

I am welsh, please send me my cheque! What hard facts are you basing your view on?

seajays

unixnerd wrote:

It is free because the English pay for it!

Not that one again. We pay more tax per head in Scotland than you do in England and get less back as a percentage. It is us who subside you. Try not to believe the myths some of the parties put about to benefit themselves. Also, don't forget that even within England resources allocated from the Barnett Formula differ by region.

Individuals don't though. This is back to the "oil" question again and how it is apportioned. If you calculate it using oil revenues on a geographic basis then divide that by population then yes, as you say, the figure is a higher share. If you calculate it on a population basis then people living in Scotland "pay" basically the same as the rest of the UK. Remember though that the oil revenue taxes are paid by privately owned multinational companies operating here - not individual people living in Scotland.

Of course North Sea Oil really came in in the 1970's, so Scotland prior to then would not have been paying a higher share (for the previous 250 years...?). Either way, oil prices are variable, predicted to continue to decline by the OECD, and inevitably are finite. Not something to plan to rely on for the next 300 years.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

It is free because the English pay for it!

Not that one again. We pay more tax per head in Scotland than you do in England and get less back as a percentage. It is us who subside you. Try not to believe the myths some of the parties put about to benefit themselves. Also, don't forget that even within England resources allocated from the Barnett Formula differ by region.

I'm interested in this because it seems to fly in the face of observation. Scotland is far less densely populated than the rest of the UK therefore there are a lot of expenses that are spread over far fewer people. Roads, for example. Healthcare is another - it costs a fortune to transport and accommodate people from the Highlands and Islands attending hospitals in the major cities. There are so many examples from schools to police. Additionally, people in Scotland are less healthy. That brings us to one of the few upsides that I'm aware of: life expectancy in Scotland is lower so there's less pension and old age costs.

Is there the source of data regarding the higher tax but lower percentage that I can look at?

elbowloh

Under the Barnett Formula, less is spent per capita on people in England than any of the other nations in the UK, with Scotland getting the second highest after NI. It's roughly 20% higher in Scotland than in England.

seajays

meanredspider wrote:

Is there the source of data regarding the higher tax but lower percentage that I can look at?

It's all down to oil (individuals in Scotland don't pay higher tax): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267 - and we ALL (Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) are still spending beyond our means - even including oil revenues!

rick_chasey

Why does the 'Scots don't know what they're losing out - we [England] subsidise them massively' argument always get used by Unionists?


Something I've noticed in the office.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why does the 'Scots don't know what they're losing out - we [England] subsidise them massively' argument always get used by Unionists?


Something I've noticed in the office.

To be fair, Alex Salmond used the reverse quite heavily in the debate prior to the referendum. If oil revenue is the source of the difference, that at least makes some sense. Where it should legitimately sit is another question.

unixnerd

SNP just hit 60,000 members, up from 25,000 on the 18th. Peaking at up to 1500 an hour (that's all the servers can handle). They've had to set up emergency phone lines for those who can't get through to the website (www.snp.org/join). Scottish Greens are set to treble in size too.

What happens if the SNP becomes the biggest party in the UK? We'd need about 180,000 to beat Labour or 150,000 for the Tories.

rick_chasey

unixnerd wrote:

SNP just hit 60,000 members, up from 25,000 on the 18th. Peaking at up to 1500 an hour (that's all the servers can handle). They've had to set up emergency phone lines for those who can't get through to the website (http://www.snp.org/join). Scottish Greens are set to treble in size too.

What happens if the SNP becomes the biggest party in the UK? We'd need about 180,000 to beat Labour or 150,000 for the Tories.

Fptp won't let that happen.

It will most likely guarantee a Tory govt for UK.

unixnerd

That's exactly the problem with the West Lothian Question, which I think even most Scots would say is unfair and not thought out. If Labour agree to our MPs (and presumably Welsh / Irish) not voting on English issues they lose a chunk of votes. It's all a bit of a mess.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

What happens if the SNP becomes the biggest party in the UK? We'd need about 180,000 to beat Labour or 150,000 for the Tories.

Nothing. The size of the party means absolutely nothing. In fact, as above, support for SNP probably means that a Tory government is likely to get in again as Labour and Lib Dem are the likely losers. With Salmond going, I don't really think SNP has much of a future.

unixnerd

He's more stepping to the side than going, Nicola will do a great job. I think the SNP is merely getting started.

Everyone at work is talking about politics, there's a buzz in the air. Quite a few folk in the office joined the party over the last few days and there's a feeling to wanting to get involved. One friend has volunteered to help at a food bank, another is planning to get involved in reporting local council meetings to Facebook. Folk are looking for an outlet for their new found enthusiasm, long may it last.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

He's more stepping to the side than going, Nicola will do a great job.

She might but she's far less popular. Lots of people have a grudging respect for Salmond 's political skills. The same people can't stand Sturgeon. For many people, the SNP IS Alex Salmond

unixnerd

She's certainly not as well known, especially outside of Scotland. I didn't know what to make of her until I saw her on Question Time about 18 months ago, she really impressed me.

A big handicap for BOTH sides in this process is that whilst the SNP and other Scottish politicians have been thinking about this whole area for a very long time southern politicians and the media have only just woken up to it. As a result many of the issues are not well understood (how many south of the border realise that the Barnett formula applies to parts of England too?). This is a problem as we need fairness for the less prosperous parts of England just as much as we do for Scotland.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

She's certainly not as well known, especially outside of Scotland. I didn't know what to make of her until I saw her on Question Time about 18 months ago, she really impressed me.

A big handicap for BOTH sides in this process is that whilst the SNP and other Scottish politicians have been thinking about this whole area for a very long time southern politicians and the media have only just woken up to it. As a result many of the issues are not well understood (how many south of the border realise that the Barnett formula applies to parts of England too?). This is a problem as we need fairness for the less prosperous parts of England just as much as we do for Scotland.

But those that do know her (I count myself amongst them) absolutely can't stand her - I don't know anybody that has a good word for her. She lacks the charisma of Salmond and, I think, the political wit. She's simply not engaging.

I actually don't think you're right on this other point either. I think it's just a very difficult problem to solve to everyone's satisfaction - the West Lothian question is a classic case in point - all the solutions seem to have a flaw. More devolved government, though, has to come at some price or other. I think it's also interesting that, despite the SNP claiming that politics are skewed by the Westminster bubble, they do a very poor job of taking into account the needs of the remote northern parts of Scotland - support for the Yes campaign seemed to get thinner the further you got from the Central Belt. There's something quite ironic in that. Some animals are more equal than others...

unixnerd

I must admit to being surprised by the Orkney and Shetland vote. But on reflection those were Liberal strongholds in the past. In the Highlands there is a strong tradition of independent (from a main party, not pro-independence) councillors and I think local personalities often hold sway. This might go part of the way to explaining it. But I'd be very interested to hear from a local. Been to work in Shetland and had my honeymoon in Orkney, both fantastic places.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

I must admit to being surprised by the Orkney and Shetland vote. But on reflection those were Liberal strongholds in the past. In the Highlands there is a strong tradition of independent (from a main party, not pro-independence) councillors and I think local personalities often hold sway. This might go part of the way to explaining it. But I'd be very interested to hear from a local. Been to work in Shetland and had my honeymoon in Orkney, both fantastic places.

And Aberdeen? I thought it also interesting that the home of "Scotland's Oil" so clearly threw out the idea of it being Scotland's - and in Alex's back yard too.

In fact only the most run-down parts of Scotland were clearly pro-independence and, even then, by majorities dwarfed by Aberdeen and the surrounding areas. I guess these votes were led by the idea that anything must be better than what they have.

The other interesting thing about more devolution is that it will make the prospect of Scotland becoming independent in the future even more remote as there will be even less to gain and every bit as much to lose - especially as oil dwindles and shale gas grows.

unixnerd

I work in Aberdeen and wasn't at all surprised by the No vote. Firstly there are a lot of English people who live here and work in the oil business. Secondly and as you rightly say it's very well off, wealthy people are more likely to vote for the status-quo and the poor for anything that might benefit them - that's just human nature. But still, whilst not 50% the Yes vote here is more than most governments get at a general election and the turnout was excellent.

I had lunch with a last minute No voter, what finally swayed him was "the vow" from the three wise men. If they fail to deliver he won't be a No next time.

meanredspider

unixnerd wrote:

I work in Aberdeen and wasn't at all surprised by the No vote. Firstly there are a lot of English people who live here and work in the oil business. Secondly and as you rightly say it's very well off, wealthy people are more likely to vote for the status-quo and the poor for anything that might benefit them - that's just human nature. But still, whilst not 50% the Yes vote here is more than most governments get at a general election and the turnout was excellent.

I had lunch with a last minute No voter, what finally swayed him was "the vow" from the three wise men. If they fail to deliver he won't be a No next time.

But it was a two-horse race. You could reverse that argument and say, in an election, a lot more people don't get what they want than the Yes vote. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

And, yes, a lot of English probably do work in Aberdeen. As they do at Raigmore and LifeScan. The driving examiners up here are English. Quite a lot of the teachers are too. 3 out if 4 oncologists that treated my son were English. That's kinda the point - Scotland's key services and industries are heavily supported by English skills. It's one of the key reasons, for me at least, why independence is a nonsense. Far better that the entire UK works together to do the best for the UK. Not every aspect will suit everyone all of the time but that's just fanciful.

First.Aspect

unixnerd wrote:

I work in Aberdeen and wasn't at all surprised by the No vote. Firstly there are a lot of English people who live here and work in the oil business. Secondly and as you rightly say it's very well off, wealthy people are more likely to vote for the status-quo and the poor for anything that might benefit them - that's just human nature. But still, whilst not 50% the Yes vote here is more than most governments get at a general election and the turnout was excellent.

I had lunch with a last minute No voter, what finally swayed him was "the vow" from the three wise men. If they fail to deliver he won't be a No next time.

Or you could alternatively cast this as the less well off have less to lose.

You clearly think "the English" in Aberdeen swayed the vote. Does the residence in Scotland of people not born there and their entitlement to vote on its future not mean that they are "Scots", or are "the Scots" only people with a particular accent who use words such as "outwith" and "stromash"?

This inadvertant reference to a "them" amongst "us" in "your country" is an example of just why I found the Yes side's rhetoric so offensive.