Of course there is - there has been all along. Project fear, and all that - all doom and gloom and the world is going to end and you'll all be poverty-stricken if you make the wrong choice - the economy will inevitably collapse completely, a new great depression, and so on. That's what much of 'Better Together' has been all about from day one - make the people too afraid to vote 'Yes'. Nobody should be under any illusion about the road ahead if they do vote 'Yes', of course - it ain't going to be the land of milk and honey (that some in the 'Yes' camp have at times portrayed), and there are certainly big risks and dangers. It will be a rough ride, and there will be tough choices, but they are right to say that the future will be in their own hands - as long as they understand the real risks, that's up to them. However, it is nonsense to suggest or imply that Scotland cannot possibly survive and thrive as an independent country - many other countries of similar size already do, and Scotland certainly wouldn't be going to start any worse off than they are. On the other side, of course, we've had nonsense like the 'them Londoners are coming to steal our hospitals' rubbish - that the NHS is England is being privatised and Scotland will have to follow unless it's independent. That is a lie. A total lie, based on a lie, and nothing but the same kind of scaremongering that 'Better Together' have engaged in. As I said, nobody has been covering themselves in glory, and that's not been good for having an honest, adult debate about an obviously very important issue.
Just wanted to give an update. Polls don't last for long at the moment and this seems to be a one off. There was a similar one off which put yes on 54% but it seems it is still the same absolutely neck in neck. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e1459005.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_09_13 Obviously there are people who have not made up their minds yet which I find perfectly understandable. Some people say they do not think they will decide till they are in the booth and likely there are some groups who just do not get nabbed for a poll. Anyway as it is now, anyone can still win.
Hi Cenydd, hope you are keeping well Gosh! Never heard that one!! I noticed this earlier. I haven't looked into this myself but I knew I had seen an article which suggested that people who do not understand this is the truth are missing the point. I am well too tired right now to concentrate on reading it but thought I would let you have a look. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...gnores-the-key-risk-to-the-nhs-within-the-uk/
Very well, thank you! The fundamental flaw in the argument is the suggestion that the NHS in England is being 'privatised'. It isn't. The rest of it doesn't apply, because it's based on a complete fallacy to begin with. All that has been happening, and for several decades, and across the UK, is that some services have been 'contracted out' to private providers rather than directly run by the NHS (in the interests of efficiency, supposedly, though that may be a matter of opinion, obviously) - the services are still paid for by the NHS, and the funding for that still goes to Scotland via the Barnett formula (and the Scottish parliament already has complete control of the NHS in Scotland, and how funding is allocated to it from the overall budget). There is absolutely no prospect of the NHS itself being abandoned in favour of a private system, though, and the Scottish parliament being therefore 'robbed' of NHS funding on that basis - none at all. It's a red herring, and the 'Yes' campaign must know that - in fact, even Labour had to admit that funding of the NHS has continued to rise under the current coalition government, and therefore the funding to Scotland on the basis of NHS spending through Barnett has also consequently risen. The 'save our NHS' stuff coming from the 'Yes' campaign is simply not based in reality - it's scaremongering about a supposed 'threat' that doesn't actually exist at all.
Glad to hear it! I have heard this discussed in passing - Better Together having a go at Salmond saying spending on this is in control of the Scottish Government through the Barnett formula. The article I linked speaks of a report concerning the funding to Scotland and also an apparent speech Brown gave saying he was 'going to nail the lie' concerning what the SNP has said re the possible need to privatise the NHS in Scotland and it is only from that that I will speak. The argument is that privatisation of the English health service would result in a severe reduction in the amount of money given to Scotland through the Barnett Formula – health currently amounting to a third of that money. They argue that said report does not examine the impact of privatisation when that privatisation means parts of the NHS being left to the payment of the individual or them taking out other insurance, This aspect you believe will never happen in England and they say the report did not even inquire into it. I am guessing this is what people are basing their arguments on. They agree with you that if England stays with privatisation which still continues providing freely at the point of need then there is no problem to Scotland. Where the difference is in belief in whether this will change so that some aspects will not be available freely at the point of need in England. If this happens they argue that due to health being such a large part of the Scottish budget it would be unlikely that Scotland would be able to continue providing a totally free at the point of need service. I think they have a good point in suggesting that the 2012 English Act removing the Government's responsibility for a duty of care makes that likely. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...gnores-the-key-risk-to-the-nhs-within-the-uk/ What possible reason would there be for bringing in such an act if it were not to pave the way for the possibility to make some aspects of English health or to be frank even all, subject to being paid for at the point of delivery. They believe that this will begin with some people volunteering to go private due to queues, ageing population, restraints due to English budget etc and that this itself will result in some services becoming less available. This then will result in those with sufficient money taking out private insurance for the extras resulting eventually in a private service for those who can pay and a 'Cinderella' service for those who cannot. They say that the Private Finance initiative brought in by Brown, though initiated by Major, is putting a severe strain on provision due to it's extra costs and reduced capacity and that these pressures are already adversely affecting NHS provision. They also point out that the budget for health is based on population relative growth and Scotland is already due for a cut in 2018 and go into the problem of using tax to supplement this shortfall believing it is something which will need to continually rise due to technical faults in the Calman income tax arrangements. They also point out that the belief that Scotland had other priority's than health due to it's expenditure decreasing while England's is rising is false. In reality Scotland's spending is already per capita 6.4% higher than that of England. I do not find I can agree with your assurances that England will not go in the direction the article says creating these two types of service for the rich and not so rich. The reality of privatising health services is doing what it always was believed it would do putting prices up. Laws are only brought in for a reason and England has already brought in a law which allows them not to be responsible for Universal health care in England. It seems therefore that Salmond's claims are not without credence.
It is, because the Barnett formula favours Scotland and provides it with advantageous funding compared with England, and most significantly with Wales (Wales being much poorer than Scotland and England overall, and being funded less because the formula takes no account of need). Scotland would need to fill that hole in the budget, of course, but that is certainly not impossible to do. The spending is already devolved, obviously, and Scotland can already set its own spending priorities and allocate more of its budget to the NHS than England. No English party will ever stand on a platform of privatising the NHS - it would be electoral suicide, and they know it. Only a few radical, extremist Tories would ever support such a thing anyway even in private, and almost all of them keep very quiet about it because they know that it is not something that would ever gain public support. It's just not going to happen. There are potential advantages to independence, but that argument is extremely weak, to say the least. It is, however, something that can be used to scare people because anything to do with the NHS suffering always will. Labour are in a tough position on that in the 'Better Together' campaign, because the SNP are turning their own scaremongering argument from Westminster (that the Tories are about to destroy the NHS and privatise it all) against them - Darling has had to admit that NHS spending has risen under this government, which directly contradicts what his part has been saying down south - from that point of view it's an effective ruse to disrupt 'Better Together', but it still isn't really based in reality. Probably one of the strongest arguments for a 'Yes' vote, and one which isn't heard so much because it's a little more 'technical' in some ways, is about the EU. Now obviously there is dispute about how and when Scotland would become an EU member, but the reality is that it will be negotiated on a pretty fast track - it's not in the EU's interests to keep Scotland out for long. However, what happens in the event of a 'No' in this referendum, and a 'Yes' vote in a subsequent EU membership referendum for the whole UK - that is by no means an unlikely scenario, and would see Scotland out of the EU permanently against its own wishes (all the evidence suggests that Scotland is far more pro-EU than England, and even requires immigration to a greater level in order to prosper). Of course, an independent Scotland in the EU with a rump UK out of it probably would result in 'border guards' placed by England on the border to prevent immigration 'by the back door' (as has been suggested), but even if that did happen, who cares?! Leaving the EU would be a massive economic risk for the UK, and probably a bigger risk than Scotland's in leaving the UK (assuming it could quickly gain EU membership, which it almost certainly would).
Arguable the Barnett formula gives more to Scotland than some places because of the vast area which needs to be covered and that is apparently because it did take account of need. NI of course gets the most and of course it does not have the problem of vast distances to travel. Obviously a reduction in the Barnet formula is a plus for Independence. The article I gave you argued that it would be very difficult to keep funding because of problems in the Calman tax arrangements. Here is what the article says on that. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...gnores-the-key-risk-to-the-nhs-within-the-uk/ There is no need to make it an election pledge. You are ignoring the issues I mentioned. Firstly their is now a law in England which allows her not to be responsible for Universal Health Care. Secondly it is already known that financing private services is more costly or less good and clearly leads to a less integrated service. Due to the lack of integration it is very easy for little bits to drop out or not be brought in. I noticed for instance serious concern over changes being made in England towards cancer care. All that is necessary is for what is offered on the NHS to be of a standard those with enough cash do not like, to get them moving out. In time that would result in the Cinderella effect for those with less cash. Many many changes have been in during the last decades that prior to them being brought in were considered non starters. We have I would suggest already accepted the position that health has advanced so much we can not have everything. It is not difficult to gradually expand that and it requires no one saying anything in an election promise. I have just been listening to the Andrew Marr show and Salmond spoke of another issue concern privatisation of the NHS. He was speaking about this new arrangement with the US and the EU where if I got it right part of that agreement was that the NHS would have to put things out to tender and allow private US contracts on this. However he said that this only applied where such things were going on anyway which he said was the situation in England but not Scotland. Scotland would be subject to this if she stayed in the UK but not if she left. I disagree While I agree it is scaremongering, I think it is based on likely reality and so definitely something to inform the Scottish people of. You seem to base your argument on a weird trust in politicians doing what they say and not being sneaky!! Privatisation is definitely a possibility. Not total. There will always be some health care for those who cannot take out insurance but privatisation is definitely the direction in which things are moving. Hence it is argumentative to blame the SNP for scaremongering over this. The position which is leading to this was, by the way, brought in by Labour Gordon Brown - I am not suggesting his intent was for this to give rise to a two tier health service but it certainly is too open to this which to be frank, aught to have been spotted. Ok I know nothing about this. The article from Bella said English NHS spending was rising but not Scottish. It is an argument but I wouldn't say it is the most important thing which Independence can give - but yes you are right it is a good argument and would leave Scotland even more out on her own with a right moving England. Other important issues are foreign policy and the ability to represent ourselves. Scotland has become very political in the last few years and without independence is going imo to be seriously restrained. There are lots of interesting ideas on how we can move here which I do not think would see the light of day if we remain part of the UK. Personally I believe we have moved too far away from England politically over the last 3 decades and probably even more so during the last three years. All you say there is true. From up here however there is a lot more to it than that.
To be fair, the information has come from independent economic experts and was in response to Salmond's blithe assumption that independence will be seamless. That things will be exactly the same, with a lot of extra jam tomorrow ...not to mention his outrageous cherry picking of the UK's assets which included the currency ( certainly not an asset).. Scotland absolutely will be starting off a lot worse. That is without doubt. Scotland cannot be compared to other countries of similar size,who have their own currency and own lender of last resort. Whether or not Scotland can make a recover, nobody knows, but it certainly won't be without tax hikes and austerity measures - something Salmond is denying. Of course it's a lie, but what kind of scremongering have Better Together been putting out? I personally believe they've gone the wrong way about it , by claiming the UK is wonderful, when it most certainly is not without problems. Everyone should look at the facts and listen to independent experts.
Iceland was a very different kettle of fish to Scotland, allowing their banks to fail is not the same as not paying your debts. The debt is Scotland's not the banks ie it is a debt held by the Scottish people/givernment not it's banks. without the oil revenue the figures simply don't add up and North Sea oil revenue has been dropping year on year .. even though the Scottish governments plans for independence rely on generating more than double the amount of North Sea tax. Deloitte showed that exploratory drilling in the UK continental shelf fell by 58pc in the second quarter, with just seven new wells sunk, compared with 17 wells in the same period a year earlier. It emerged in February that production from the North Sea could fall this year to its lowest level since the early 1970s. A report by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries suggested North Sea output could drop to 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude. https://fullfact.org/scotland/what_will_happen_to_north_sea_oil_gas_scottish_independence-33696 I can only go by what the main players in the game are saying and those players are the people who would make the decision on whether Scotland gets an automatic entry into the EU or not, and it would seem that there are significant splits in that ergo AS stating that Scotland WILL be a member of the EU is not really detailing the full facts of the matter, more so pandering to what he hopes will be the case. I take very little notice of polls as they seem to change on a daily basis .. but in the end Scotland will vote one way or another and I just hope that which ever way it goes it does not lead to only more "bad blood" between nations.
Scotland would have to join the EU as a new member state, adopt the euro and commit itself to joining the Single European State. Nobody knows how long it would take, but that is a certainty. There would be no independent Scotland. An independent Scotland might therefore decide not to join the EU, as those term would not be negotiable. ( that's not scaremongering, that's the actuality.) Now, you're probably right that in the future, the UK would vote to leave the EU rather than have to use the euro and sacrifice our sovereignty to the Single European State. Maybe not, because there might be something in it for us, but it would have to be a hell of a lot.
It is not our debt. The UK has claimed total liability....and I would say very similar to Iceland. Iceland owed us a lot of money, now you say it is just the banks. See how easy it is to present. not true it fluctuates each year. I think 2008 was the best year. Oil is dependent on the price of oil not on the reserve. I have looked into this sufficiently to know that as I said before our oil is fine to get us started and certainly in years when the price is high for investment. It is sufficient. We do not need or expect to only live off our oil. There are so many 'emerged' stories my head spins. It is not our total economy. The lowest estimates that I have seen suggest we can count on it for the next 25 years. As I have already said the price does change. In the 70's I think at one time it was as low as $13 or less per barrel, now it is around $100 a barrel and has been as high as $148 - in 2008 of course. Like I said go to different places and you will get different stories. Talking about oil is the most boring thing there is. There is sufficient to help us for the next 25 years possibly considerably longer. Reports on it are very subject to spin. As I told you before Oil is not now Scotland's one source of income and it certainly will not be in the future, regardless of how much we find. Not really. I have heard the people who organise everyone, not people who are on a spin for their own wants and entry to the EU even within the 18 months is as near as certain possible. One of the pluses for Independence of course due to you people wanting out. Well Scotland has made her position very clear, We want to be good neighbours. The English team got a massive roar when it entered the Commonwealth games. If there are problems I suspect they are going to come from your side of the border. The kind of action such as in the OP when people are being given false information to create tension and are encouraged to hate us clearly is dangerous. I was reminded of the way some English speak in another forum when I came upon that story. However I also know there are many English who understand the political nature of Independence and are supportive and I suspect a lot more will become so when they see what we are about.
You are part of the UK, so it is your debt...and once again, the situation does not compare to Iceland. Refusing to bail out the banks and reneging on debt are totally different things.
Which people would they be? Even if Scotland was admitted to the EU in as little as 18 months, it would not be on the same terms. You would be signing up to using the Euro and joining the Schengen Treaty, which, as you pointed out earlier, would result in strict border controls between England and Scotland. It's also very much on the cards you would be committing yourselves to becoming a member state of the EU Federation of Nation States ( a Single European State) All that is fine, if it is what you want. So long as you know.
The EU would require a unanimous vote on a new state's ascension to the EU which means that the UK could actually block Scotland and I think even Spain has hinted that it would do the same. I'm just adding some food for thought
The UK won't block Scotland's entry, but it's possible some other countries will. I've avoided that argument because there's nowhere for it to go, really.
Plenty of problems coming from your side, which more or less started when Salmond claimed the UK were bullies for pointing out there would be no currency union.
And some of those countries got to that point after going through a process of Independence from another country, including developing their own currency and economic arrangements after previously using those of that other country. There are warnings to be heeded about the dangers and difficulties of that process, of course, but what makes it somehow impossible for Scotland when it was possible for, for example, New Zealand?
There is no comparison. New Zealand's independence happened gradually. Nobody is saying it's impossible for Scotland to become independent, Of course it is. Its just not going to be the way the Yes brigade have been claiming. I understand letters have gone out from them telling Scottish people not to worry about their pensions, because the Scottish government guarantee they will be paid in exactly the same way and in sterling. They claim the British government has agreed, when it has done no such thing. In other words, they're lying. They have lied all along.
Scotland's independence would happen over a period of time, through a period of negotiation - plenty of time for them to sort issues out, even if it will be a difficult process (which it will, of course). I agree. However, it's also not likely to be exactly the doom and disaster that the No brigade have been warning either. If it happens, the reality will be somewhere between the two. Nobody should be under any illusion that it will be easy (and actually those I have spoken to from the 'Yes' campaign are very well aware of that), but neither should anybody be under any illusion that it's going to be a complete and utter disaster either. It will be a long road. Some things will go wrong. Some things will go right. some things will get worse. Some things will get better. Whether it works out overall as an 'improvement' depends both on the decisions made by the Scottish government (and democratically by the people, of course), and depends on your point of view - it may well be that, for example, that Scotland is 'worse off' financially overall, but then it would also be that it is 'better off' in terms of being able to manage itself according to its own needs and nobody else's.
The period of negotiation will take years, certainly longer than the 18 months or so Salmond is claiming, but independence itself will not happen gradually over a period of time The thing is, it could well be all the doom and gloom the better off lot are claiming. It really could. The yes campaign are telling lies all across the board. Why would they do that if what you say is true? Maybe some of the people of Scotland would agree it's worth making what could be very painful sacrifices in order to become independent, but the yes campaign know that there is nowhere enough . All politicians lie. I myself have said never again will I vote Labour and I went on to vote Lib-Dem. That's the last time I'll do that. I have the choice next year.... but if people vote yes believing the lies, they won't be able to say that. So long as they really know what they are voting for.
Potentially, at the extreme, it could. It could also be the land of milk and honey promised by the 'Yes' campaign. Neither is impossible. Neither is very likely either! Contrary to popular opinion and the spin of the media, people do not suddenly turn from passionate believers who want to make the world a better place to inhuman lying monsters the moment they are elected. It might be unpopular to say so, but most politicians enter politics to do what they think is right, and most of them continue to do that once elected, even if I may disagree with what some of them see as 'right' or the way they seek to solve 'problems'. Many of them work extremely hard to stand up for what they believe in and help their constituents with their problems - not all of them do, of course, but many of them do. People don't become 'monsters' when they become 'politicians' - that's mostly just a simplistic matter of blaming 'the man' instead of spending the time actually seeing what is going on. It's a convenient and simple answer, and a popular one of course, but it doesn't reflect reality. Nobody should get sucked in by the media's limited and skewed reporting of brief soundbites - there's much more to 'politics' than that.
In 1979 when there were calls for a Scottish Assembly, Westminster warned that would cause the steel industry to collapse, the pits would close, the shipyards would die, our car plant would close etc etc. There was no assembly and guess what. In the eighties, The Steel industry went, the pits closed, the car plant went and the shipyards died. Trust Westminster with a no vote and it's empty promises, I think not.
The former would eb a fat chance, the latter is a real possibility. It doesn't help that Salmond keeps lying, I never claimed they did, but politicians all lie or at the very least prevaricate. That's the nature of politics. Salmond is claiming there will be a currency union, with just three days to go.
The 1979 referendum, and what happened after it (including the promise of more powers for Scotland that never emerged, of course) is a bigger factor in this vote than I think many give it credit for. - - - Updated - - - So why complain when Salmond is apparently a little 'economical with the truth'? Even more importantly, why assume that the other side are not doing the same?
I doubt it. - - - Updated - - - You give him too much credit. He's lying his socks off. By the "other side", do you mean the British government? Why on earth would iUK want a currency union with a foreign country?
