Will you vote for independence?

[8ball]

I loathe and despise the SNP more that I have ever despised anything in my life. They are prepared to jeopardise the well-being of the nation to follow their own political goals, irrespective of the damage done.

So they're like Tories but with political goals.

 

[gosub]

The best thing that pair can do for the NO! campaign is stay in London, and keep their mouths shut.

Agree, but having called for full engagement at his conference looks wrong to decline TV debate with Salmond

 

[danny la rouge]

As you wish. I have noticed that when you start to ask the pro independence lot really difficult questions, like, where is the money coming from to fund your pip-dreams, they go quiet.

No, they don't. You just don't like the answers. Because a), you are a Unionist, and don't want Scotland to be independent, and b), you are a Tory, and don't like tax payers money being spent on the kinds of things that many people (north and south of the border) actually do want public money spent on.

The problem for you is that in order to oppose Scottish independence, you are taking the tack that Scotland can't afford independence - unlike other countries of its size, like Denmark, Norway, Finland, or the scores of independent countries smaller than Scotland, such as New Zealand, or the current incumbent of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Lithuania.

Of course Scotland can afford independence. Suggesting it can't is ludicrous. The question is should it?

Even a very simple question, to which, at this point in the game, they should know the answer, 'How much will it cost to set up and run a Scottish version of HMRC?', answer there is none. This tells me that either, they know, but the cost is such, that they will not release it, or, they genuinely don't know, which is frightening.

Fiscal Commission Working Group - Principles for a Modern and Efficient Tax System in an Independent Scotlandhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/10/4839/0

Implementation and transition is from 5.68 on.

They couldn't even come up with the funds to enable them to alter the income tax rate in Scotland, something which has been within their remit since they were elected.

What? Who couldn't do what? No Holyrood government, since its inception in 1999, has chosen to vary the basic rate of income tax up or down by 3p in the pound. There are all sorts of reasons that the Labour administrations up to 2007 didn't do it. And in 2007, the SNP minority government chose not to continue to pay HMRC for a system that the devolved parliament wasn't using or planning to use.

But then, you don't like devolution, either. So, you aren't going to like any of the decisions they take.

I loathe and despise the SNP more that I have ever despised anything in my life.

I know. But that doesn't make them Nazis. It's a term that actually means something.

They are prepared to jeopardise the well-being of the nation to follow their own political goals, irrespective of the damage done.

Doesn't every government? They want independence. You don't.

If they win the referendum, Scotland cannot go back to being a part of the UK.

Good.

Scottish Maoist or Stalinist party would actually be more accurate.

No it wouldn't. You're just making yourself look stupid.

 

[geminisnake]

North West Glasgow Food Bank welcoming donations of new and good condition toys fir children attending Christmas dinner at Food Bank.Also anything else you might have that will make Christmas special is welcomed. Check out website for details. I know it's terrible that in 2013 we need this service but supporters and workers will, with help, make Christmas magical

But we're better together?? Are we fuck!!!

 

[Quartz]

I've managed to download the whole document and have read up to page 12. So far it's more of a manifesto of what a post-independence SNP government would do.

 

[butchersapron]

I've managed to download the whole document and have read up to page 12. So far it's more of a manifesto of what a post-independence SNP government would do.

What does it say about a constitutional convention? Anything? Or does it say the SNP will write the new constitution and that's the end of it?

 

[Quartz]

What does it say about a constitutional convention?

I'm on page 12 of over 600.

 

[butchersapron]

I'll save you some time then. It says that's what will happen after a yes vote. It doesn't say the SNP will write and impose a new constitution.

 

[8ball]

I don't really want Scotland to go independent for admittedly irrational reasons, but I'd be kind of interested to see what kind of retaliation Scotland would face if it went independent and strayed markedly off the path of neoliberalism.

 

[Quartz]

I've read further and the argument is becoming better, but they refer to the distance of Westminster while ignoring the distance of the EU parliament. And they cite the success of Norway but forget that it isn't in the EU. (And yes, I know it's in EFTA.)

 

[Sasaferrato]

Why bother? I'm sure the rump UK HMRC will do it - for a fee.

If the rump gets any smaller, the trousers will fall off. Half of my time is spent doing clerical work that should have been done before the case gets to me. TC is in meltdown also. The cases aren't being transferred to the main debt system, which doubles our work. Of course, this leads to enquiries about why our 'calls per hour' are low.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I've read further and the argument is becoming better, but they refer to the distance of Westminster while ignoring the distance of the EU parliament. And they cite the success of Norway but forget that it isn't in the EU. (And yes, I know it's in EFTA.)

Scandinavia has had had to have a major rethink about its welfare system.

 

[Sasaferrato]

So they're like Tories but with political goals.

Hard one to answer really, they are certainly as incompetent as the Tories, but in different ways.

 

[Sasaferrato]

No, they don't. You just don't like the answers. Because a), you are a Unionist, and don't want Scotland to be independent, and b), you are a Tory, and don't like tax payers money being spent on the kinds of things that many people (north and south of the border) actually do want public money spent on.

The problem for you is that in order to oppose Scottish independence, you are taking the tack that Scotland can't afford independence - unlike other countries of its size, like Denmark, Norway, Finland, or the scores of independent countries smaller than Scotland, such as New Zealand, or the current incumbent of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Lithuania.

Of course Scotland can afford independence. Suggesting it can't is ludicrous. The question is should it?


Fiscal Commission Working Group - Principles for a Modern and Efficient Tax System in an Independent Scotlandhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/10/4839/0

Implementation and transition is from 5.68 on.

What? Who couldn't do what? No Holyrood government, since its inception in 1999, has chosen to vary the basic rate of income tax up or down by 3p in the pound. There are all sorts of reasons that the Labour administrations up to 2007 didn't do it. And in 2007, the SNP minority government chose not to continue to pay HMRC for a system that the devolved parliament wasn't using or planning to use.

But then, you don't like devolution, either. So, you aren't going to like any of the decisions they take.

I know. But that doesn't make them Nazis. It's a term that actually means something.

Doesn't every government? They want independence. You don't.

Good.

No it wouldn't. You're just making yourself look stupid.

Wrong.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Danny, Scotland's share of the National Debt is equivalent to 80% of GDP. Until you actually have a grasp of the economics, I would refrain from comment were I you.

 

[Sasaferrato]

North West Glasgow Food Bank welcoming donations of new and good condition toys fir children attending Christmas dinner at Food Bank.Also anything else you might have that will make Christmas special is welcomed. Check out website for details. I know it's terrible that in 2013 we need this service but supporters and workers will, with help, make Christmas magical

But we're better together?? Are we fuck!!!

I am withdrawing completely from this thread. I don't agree with you, but certainly don't want to fall out with you, or indeed with many others who hold the opposing view.

Edited to add:

This year, as I do every year, I give about £50.00 worth of new toys to the West Lothian toy appeal. I do so with a heavy heart, because I think it is a damnable situation that children in this area in 2013 are in such need.

 

[butchersapron]

Danny, Scotland's share of the National Debt is equivalent to 80% of GDP. Until you actually have a grasp of the economics, I would refrain from comment were I you.

And with that vague statement unbacked i leave.

 

[gosub]

Danny, Scotland's share of the National Debt is equivalent to 80% of GDP. Until you actually have a grasp of the economics, I would refrain from comment were I you.

BBC have it between 38%-62%

 

[danny la rouge]

Danny, Scotland's share of the National Debt is equivalent to 80% of GDP. Until you actually have a grasp of the economics, I would refrain from comment were I you.

And? Are you going to come up with any implications or even arguments?

You'd need to tell me where that figure comes from, but let's suppose it's correct, it compares very favourably with the UK's debt of 91% of total GDP. (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/government_finance_statistics/data/main_tables)

And before casting about accusations that other people don't understand economics, you'd need to explain why the UK can have its own government with a debt of 91% of GDP, but Scotland can't with a debt of 80% of GDP. What would be the cost of servicing Scotland's debt, if it was 80%? At the moment it costs the UK around 3% of GDP annually to service its 91% of GDP debt.

I know you feel strongly about remaining in the Union, but at least try to make sense.

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't really want Scotland to go independent for admittedly irrational reasons, but I'd be kind of interested to see what kind of retaliation Scotland would face if it went independent and strayed markedly off the path of neoliberalism.

Well even if Scotland became independent (and it's looking unlikely) it's not going to "stray off the path of neoliberalism".

On a more sensible point, danny la rouge (and other Scottish posters) the Guardian has a story about Salmon going for a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on nuclear weapons. I'm not so much interested in the policy as whether by going for a not shaking the boats campaign (monetary union, remaining part of NATO etc) will work for the pro-indendence/SNP? I"m obviously miles away but I would have thought that there's a danger in this that they sell the changes independence will bring as being so small that people will think what's the point. Or is the Pro-Indy vote sewed up so tightly that they can afford to ignore them (to a large extent) and just concentrate on trying to win over the don't knows?

 

[Quartz]

Well even if Scotland became independent (and it's looking unlikely) it's not going to "stray off the path of neoliberalism".

If you look at the Political Compass, you'll see that the SNP are well to the Left of the Tories and Labour and markedly less authoritarian.

 

[ska invita]

. I'm not so much interested in the policy as whether by going for a not shaking the boats campaign (monetary union, remaining part of NATO etc) will work for the pro-indendence/SNP? I"m obviously miles away but I would have thought that there's a danger in this that they sell the changes independence will bring as being so small that people will think what's the point. Or is the Pro-Indy vote sewed up so tightly that they can afford to ignore them (to a large extent) and just concen

keeping the monarchy must be part of the gently gently approach too. Its good politics i think, in the sense that the key thing is to get independence - once thats there these other steps are sure to follow over time. I think if you want independence that vote is, as you say, in the bag, so you have to make it as palatable as possible to a wider electorate. Alex S seems to be very good at the modern political game

*Independence is not a small change

 

[butchersapron]

If you look at the Political Compass, you'll see that the SNP are well to the Left of the Tories and Labour and markedly less authoritarian.

Oh god.

 

[ska invita]

edit: already linked

 

[DexterTCN]

I am withdrawing completely...

I support your right to do that

 

[redsquirrel]

If you look at the Political Compass, you'll see that the SNP are well to the Left of the Tories and Labour and markedly less authoritarian.

Tell us again how Cameron is a socialist.

 

[DotCommunist]

even genghis khan would get a left axes on political compass

 

[danny la rouge]

If you look at the Political Compass, you'll see that the SNP are well to the Left of the Tories and Labour and markedly less authoritarian.

The problem with the Political Compass as a yardstick (and, indeed, the traditional Left-Right continuum) is that it bases its measure on an aggregation of discrete items. The more of these you have the more left or right you are.

It isn’t so much that it’s badly calibrated (which, even by their own light it is), but that it’s an apolitical way of seeing political persuasion.

It doesn’t even view political persuasion as analogous to a syndrome. In a syndrome, we are able to see signs that tend to be associated, that tend to form a cluster. If you have enough of those signs, then you can have the diagnosis. Rather, the measures of the Political Compass are often independent and distinct, and need form no part of a coherent whole.

And that, for me, is what makes it an apolitical world-view. Socialism, for example, may have many definitions for many people, but for each of them what it ought to do is form a philosophy upon which you can base a programme.

So let’s apply that measure to Salmond. Not what are his individual offerings, but what is his programme? Well, the raison d-etre of his party is to campaign for Scottish independence. That doesn’t necessarily tell us where to locate his philosophy. And that is exactly the SNP’s problem. It has no necessary philosophical underpinning.

You don’t even need to form a party for that. It’s a pressure-group goal, like nuclear disarmament; you don’t need to be a socialist, or a liberal, or a conservative to support that one goal: an independent Scotland. In fact, you could form a party from all those many people, all projecting their vastly differing aspirations on party policy.

And that’s exactly what happened, and that’s why in the late 60s their then leader, Billy Wolfe, decided he had to clearly define what kind of a party the SNP was, partly so the public could see a coherent programme, but also so his members would know what it was! He set out their table as a social democratic party. He was helped in this by a core of CND-marching young things. Because he was operating in the 70s, he was wont to compare his party’s position with European contemporaries, and often compared the SNP’s policy programme with that of Willy Brandt.

So they had positioned themselves (although various wings within the party remained, as the bitter fall-outs during their wilderness era in the 80s showed).

But that was before devolution, and before they held power in Holyrood, first as a minority government, then, in their current term, with an outright majority.

It is my view that Salmond, in his quest for constitutional change, has become more opportunist. He has undone some of what Wolfe did, in order to be all things to all people. He is courting business, because he doesn’t want to frighten the horses ahead of constitutional change, but he also wants to hold out the populist baubles: free prescriptions, for example, but also – for the heart and soul of his party – nuclear disarmament.

So, yes, we do get these baubles, but there is also a core of “pro-business” neoliberalism. This may seem a contradiction, but not if your remember that the SNP is, in the last analysis, still a pressure group.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not so much interested in the policy as whether by going for a not shaking the boats campaign (monetary union, remaining part of NATO etc) will work for the pro-indendence/SNP?

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing.

I'm not convinced it'll work. Because I don't think he'll win people over this way. Most people have pretty much made up their minds, and aren't going to be persuaded. They are either Yes or No. The question is, will they turn out to vote?

I'm busy irl atm, so I'll come back to that if it's OK.

 

[Quartz]

The problem with the Political Compass as a yardstick (and, indeed, the traditional Left-Right continuum) is that it bases its measure on an aggregation of discrete items. The more of these you have the more left or right you are.

Well yes, but as long as you recognise that, you can take it and move on.

It is my view that Salmond, in his quest for constitutional change, has become more opportunist. He has undone some of what Wolfe did, in order to be all things to all people. He is courting business, because he doesn’t want to frighten the horses ahead of constitutional change, but he also wants to hold out the populist baubles: free prescriptions, for example, but also – for the heart and soul of his party – nuclear disarmament.

So, yes, we do get these baubles, but there is also a core of “pro-business” neoliberalism. This may seem a contradiction, but not if your remember that the SNP is, in the last analysis, still a pressure group.

I really don't see it that way. For me the SNP is about power. They want power and that power will come through an independent Scotland. Will Scotland benefit from giving them that power? I don't know. I'm still only on chapter 2.