Will you vote for independence?

[danny la rouge]

They reckon they had 50 CEO's involved on their white paper response. CBI is 240,000 businesses across UK and estimates 500,000 employed in Scotland

This is the problem. Are they counting each member organisation's employees as members? How many businesses/quangos/public bodies/organisations actually is that?

 

[gosub]

I am guessing they are puffing up their figures whichever looks best. So the employees are all members but it doesn't give more of a breakdown than that. That white paper response even has a bit on higher education so I'd guess at least one Uni took part, what's the betting Robert Dean (never heard of it)

 

[butchersapron]

I am guessing they are puffing up their figures whichever looks best. So the employees are all members but it doesn't give more of a breakdown than that. That white paper response even has a bit on higher education so I'd guess at least one Uni took part, what's the betting Robert Dean (never heard of it)

No employees are members unless they join themselves. You're doing their puffing up for them with that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I am guessing they are puffing up their figures whichever looks best. So the employees are all members but it doesn't give more of a breakdown than that. That white paper response even has a bit on higher education so I'd guess at least one Uni took part, what's the betting Robert Dean (never heard of it)

You mean Robert Gordon University? It's a university in Aberdeen. Founded 1750. Used to be RGIT (institute of technology) until 1992.

 

[gosub]

Old poly then. Don't get to Aberdeen much (twice from memory)

 

[danny la rouge]

Old poly then. Don't get to Aberdeen much (twice from memory)

Bit more than a poly. Had huge consultancy connections with North Sea oil industry from the beginning.

 

[butchersapron]

God, imagine the dust-up post independence when all these players demand their bit of the pie.

 

[danny la rouge]

Reports saying SQA now resigning from CBI over referendum stance.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

As usual, each side is doing an excellent job of promoting the other side. Latest example for me is the the current SNP ppb which can be found here

A frequent and justified complaint of the No campaign is their ad hominem attacks on the other side, but this one just about breaks out the top hats, cloaks and moustaches in their portrayal of the evils done whilst "ruled by Westminster" (30s) and highlights how this rule dragged us into an unjust war in Iraq (1m16s). Then it's a particularly saccharine bit of spiel where Alex Salmond asks who we trust, the politicians of Westminster, or people from Scotland.

One slight problem. The sinister politician from Westminster who's pictured when referring to Iraq is Tony Blair. Born in Glasgow, grandparents Glaswegians, went to school in Edinburgh, etc. Who was the successor to John Smith (born Dalmally) and was then replaced by Gordon Brown (born Giffnock)

So can someone please explain to me just why they qualify as sinister politicians of Westminster, and just what distinguishes them from the good honest Scottish folk that will replace them? Also, can someone explain why they say that a No vote will see Uni fees applied in Scotland

And for the love of fuck did they have to resurrect that shit awful Big Country tune from the 80s Tennents ads. It's just a short step from there to Hue and Cry staging a comeback.

 

[gosub]

Caught the tail of that yesterday, was surprised they were talking about September when the ballot paper for the EUro elections is what came through the door last week

 

[geminisnake]

Also, can someone explain why they say that a No vote will see Uni fees applied in Scotland

Uni fees are applied south of the border, if we vote no and Westminster disband Holyrood there will be nothing to stop fees being applied up here. The rUK are already miffed that we get 'free' Uni and prescriptions, at least that is how it's portrayed in the media.

 

[spring-peeper]

Uni fees are applied south of the border, if we vote no and Westminster disband Holyrood there will be nothing to stop fees being applied up here. The rUK are already miffed that we get 'free' Uni and prescriptions, at least that is how it's portrayed in the media.

Do you get free prescriptions and university?

 

[butchersapron]

That's the sort of telling that leads me to support no gemini.

 

[equationgirl]

i am well aware Unis motetise their research, and that foreign students bring money into the country and I wouldn't dismiss them as unimportant. However the revenue streams that stem from being part of UK sausage factory of education is a majority share of their income, a bun fight with SAAS and they are all fucked which is why they want to stay neutral. The guardian article that points to the decsion being made 3 weeks ago also gives a clue as to why they are in the CBI- not as to give clout for them as estemed parts of the education industry (presume they have better tailored ways of doing that (and if they didn't they will soon)) but to help find business partners and jobs for their graduates.

Here's the accounts income summary from the University of Glasgow from the year 2011-2012:

Income £000
Funding body grants 143,891
Tuition fees and education contracts 99,604
Research grants and contracts 124,351
Other income 65,041
Endowment and investment income 6,952
Total income 439,839




Funding body grants will include the funding stream from SHEFCE or whatever they're called at the moment. Which is not a majority share as you claim, at least for Glasgow. I expect Edinburgh and Aberdeen would present a similar picture.

 

[equationgirl]

They reckon they had 50 CEO's involved on their white paper response. CBI is 240,000 businesses across UK and estimates 500,000 employed in Scotland, so thats 2 people per company on average strip out the quangos and the unis theres not a lot left. Here's hoping Federation of Small Businesses brings its A game

You can't divide the number of UK companies by the number of employees in Scotland. That's not right.

You either need the number of people employed by those businesses in the UK as a whole, OR the number of companies that belong to the CBI in Scotland. Your figure of 2 people per company on average is therefore meaningless.

 

[equationgirl]

I am guessing they are puffing up their figures whichever looks best. So the employees are all members but it doesn't give more of a breakdown than that. That white paper response even has a bit on higher education so I'd guess at least one Uni took part, what's the betting Robert Dean (never heard of it)

No such institution in Scotland. You might mean Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen.

 

[geminisnake]

Do you get free prescriptions and university?

Yes, afaik. Everyone gets free prescriptions. Iirc you get your fees paid and a Student Grant/Allowance if you've got free years left. Son would only get 2 yrs Uni paid as he did a 2 yr Higher Ed course. You get 4 yrs total iirc.

 

[DotCommunist]

you get free scripts in england too, you just tick the 'I'm on JSA' box and nobody ever asks for proof.

 

[spring-peeper]

Yes, afaik. Everyone gets free prescriptions. Iirc you get your fees paid and a Student Grant/Allowance if you've got free years left. Son would only get 2 yrs Uni paid as he did a 2 yr Higher Ed course. You get 4 yrs total iirc.

Very nice

 

[Quartz]

you get free scripts in england too, you just tick the 'I'm on JSA' box and nobody ever asks for proof.

I was asked. Just the once, though.

 

[Quartz]

We get eye checkups paid through general taxation in Scotland too.

 

[DotCommunist]

I was asked. Just the once, though.

'Oh, I'll just go home and fetch a letter for proof'

IE
I'll be finding a less nosy chemist.

 

[spring-peeper]

you get free scripts in england too, you just tick the 'I'm on JSA' box and nobody ever asks for proof.

In Canada, only welfare recipients get their drugs for free.

One of the requirements for a good job is that the company provides "benefits". Minimum benefits are health care - dentist, medical specialists and prescription drugs.

Three of my four children have jobs with benefits.

If you are a member of the working poor, you shoulder the additional burden of making sure you have enough money for your childrens drugs and dental work.



If you want your child to go to post-secondary school, start saving as soon as the child is born. Other than offering loans to the students, the costs are your families responsibility. (This does not apply to the province of Quebec.)

I like your system better.

 

[butchersapron]

That is our system.

 

[danny la rouge]

Also, can someone explain why they say that a No vote will see Uni fees applied in Scotland.

I haven't seen their broadcast yet, but I can explain your query. There are two aspects. First, the Barnett formula which calculates the grant from Westminster to the devolved Holyrood parliament does so as a percentage of public spending south of the Border. Therefore if public spending on, for example, the NHS (as opposed to that raised by private finance) in England goes down, then that decreases the bloc grant available to Holyrood. Holyrood makes its own decisions on spending priorities, but with a decreasing pot would have to cut somewhere. Secondly, if Labour win the subsequent Holyrood election after a No vote, they have already signalled they'd look again at prescription charges and tuition fees. And by "look again", they mean "reinstate".

 

[Lemon Eddy]

So if Labour in Scotland gets voted in to Holyrood parliament, they will cut prescription charges and tuition fees. But if they get voted in as an independent Scottish government, they wouldn't?

Really?

 

[danny la rouge]

So if Labour in Scotland gets voted in to Holyrood parliament, they will cut prescription charges and tuition fees. But if they get voted in as an independent Scottish government, they wouldn't?

Really?

Yes, first of all because the Barnett formula wouldn't apply in an independent Scotland; it'd raise its own treasury finances. The pot would not be tied to Westminster spending cuts.

Secondly, Scottish Labour would itself not be tied to UK Labour's priorities. Miliband and Balls have said they will continue with the Tory austerity. In continued devolution, Scottish Labour would be tied to that.

 

[danny la rouge]

As usual, each side is doing an excellent job of promoting the other side. Latest example for me is the the current SNP ppb which can be found here

A frequent and justified complaint of the No campaign is their ad hominem attacks on the other side, but this one just about breaks out the top hats, cloaks and moustaches in their portrayal of the evils done whilst "ruled by Westminster" (30s) and highlights how this rule dragged us into an unjust war in Iraq (1m16s). Then it's a particularly saccharine bit of spiel where Alex Salmond asks who we trust, the politicians of Westminster, or people from Scotland.

One slight problem. The sinister politician from Westminster who's pictured when referring to Iraq is Tony Blair. Born in Glasgow, grandparents Glaswegians, went to school in Edinburgh, etc. Who was the successor to John Smith (born Dalmally) and was then replaced by Gordon Brown (born Giffnock)

So can someone please explain to me just why they qualify as sinister politicians of Westminster, and just what distinguishes them from the good honest Scottish folk that will replace them? Also, can someone explain why they say that a No vote will see Uni fees applied in Scotland

And for the love of fuck did they have to resurrect that shit awful Big Country tune from the 80s Tennents ads. It's just a short step from there to Hue and Cry staging a comeback.

OK, I've seen it now. It had the cringe-inducing tone of all PPBs, but I didn't see any ad hominems at all.

None of the stuff about UK inequality, the widening gap between rich and poor, is ad hominem; it's true, and makes me angry. The stuff about Blair dragging the UK into illegal wars is also true. I don't have a problem with any of that; it's been said every day for years on these boards.

However, you're misunderstanding the point when you say the SNP have forgotten where Blair was born. The SNP isn't an ethnic nationalist party; it doesn't have a problem with where any Westminster Prime Minster was born. It's criticism of Blair has nothing to do with his ethnicity, it is to do with the way Scotland is, in their view, (mis)represented by Westminster.

I agree with you about Big Country, though. Dire.

 

[DotCommunist]

Should have gone with Men at Work 'Land down Under'

 

[danny la rouge]

Game over. Chomsky come down in favour of Scottish independence: http://en.ria.ru/world/20140424/189345058/INTERVIEW-Chomsky-Favors-Scottish-Independence.html