" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence. "A vote for independence will be a vote for a Scotland that is poorer, more unstable and will require deeper cuts in public spending than if it remains part of the UK."
He is of course right and I am surprised that some normally sensible posters are suggesting otherwise. To suggest that a country can do better coming out of a successful and large open market is economic imbecility of the first order. England will suffer too but pure demographics suggest that the negative consequences for Scotland will be at least 10x as great as they are for rUK. We are simply losing so much more.
That such a discussion can even be taking place at this stage is a direct consequence of the failure to adequately emphasise the benefits of the Union. We need to remind Scots that they are founder members of one of the greatest Unions of people in history.
It all depends on this offer of Federalism. If it's done properly, and generously, then everyone gains - and Scotland will vote NO.
If it's hedged and cack handed then it will probably be YES.
My guess is, given the sorry handling of Devolution and Indyref by both Labour and Tories, that it will be the latter. Incidentally a bit of research shows that it was Osborne, the "near perfect" chancellor, who ruled out Devomax. Which they are now offering, too late, and in extremis.
Nonetheless Cameron must take the blame. And he will. He will resign following a YES, as I might have previously mentioned.
I really feel like you're misreading the situation. If there really has been this huge recent swing, it certainly hasn't been driven by any new information. That means- assuming it's both real and won't dissipate by polling day- it's driven by a combination of emotion and narriative. Offers of federalism won't dent either of those.
Exactly right. Emotion is driving any change and note that Panelbase has found no change in a month, so the presence of change may be greatly exagerrated.
It all depends on this offer of Federalism. If it's done properly, and generously, then everyone gains - and Scotland will vote NO.
If it's hedged and cack handed then it will probably be YES.
There will not and can not be any change in the "No" offering, they've nailed their colours to the mast and argued their case for the past 3 years. To blink now and offer more would be fatal. It'd be an admission of impending defeat. They can't take a step back.
Their only chance it to stand firm and hope for the best.
They have to circle the wagons , it is Custer's last stand but without them having the charisma.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
Yes surging, as expected. Once in a generation opportunities hit home late. The now or nevers will pack out the yes vote and see it over the line. The Union is dead, long live the loose association.
Woolie , lifetime never mind generation.
So if it's no you will shut up for 58.2 years or what ever the current Scottish life expectancy is ?
Flash I am beyond the threshold already and hope to have a few good years in an Independent Scotland. You are the first on here to ask me not to post , many have asked if I would be staying after the vote. Perhaps Mike will have a referendum on it and you can all vote on it. I am sure like YES I would prevail.
Says the clown who demands that a foreign government should pay his pension post independence. No debt means no assets: 'Wee Eck' is a peronist and your pension is toast.
:muppet-watch:
Mad English Nationalist wakes up in a stupor and adds his racist bile. Keep polishing those boots.
Which participant in this conversation mentions nationality (let alone race) whilst deglazing his greenhouse? I should not repost this (other for general amusement) but would suggest some self-awareness training is required for the party involved....
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence. "A vote for independence will be a vote for a Scotland that is poorer, more unstable and will require deeper cuts in public spending than if it remains part of the UK."
He is of course right and I am surprised that some normally sensible posters are suggesting otherwise. To suggest that a country can do better coming out of a successful and large open market is economic imbecility of the first order. England will suffer too but pure demographics suggest that the negative consequences for Scotland will be at least 10x as great as they are for rUK. We are simply losing so much more.
That such a discussion can even be taking place at this stage is a direct consequence of the failure to adequately emphasise the benefits of the Union. We need to remind Scots that they are founder members of one of the greatest Unions of people in history.
David you have been peddling that snake oil for 3 years, you have been found wanting. BT have cried wolf far too often for anyone to believe them now.
'Ukip under fire for asking far-right Swede to Scotland' - UKIP in Scotland has been criticised after it gave a platform to an MEP from a far-right party formed by white supremacists
A high-ranking politician from the Sweden Democrats, whose members used to attend meetings in Nazi-style uniforms, addressed a Ukip a meeting in Edinburgh recently.
... [UKIP] will make a major contribution to the independence referendum this coming Friday when leader Nigel Farage fronts a pro-Union rally.
... Figures in Better Together, the official No campaign, are also said to be angered by the event, as it threatens to tarnish the image of the mainstream effort to keep Scotland in the Union.
The Sunday Herald can now reveal Ukip Scotland's association with far-right European politics. In June, it emerged Ukip was part of a wider European Parliament group that included what one Liberal Democrat source described as the "dregs" of the far right.
The Europe of Freedom and Democracy group includes the Sweden Democrats, founded in 1988 by racists and a former member of the Waffen SS.
It was only in 1995 that the party banned its members from wearing Nazi dress to meetings.
IScotland could get very unpopular indeed for a while.
Some GBP/USD weakness is being blamed on them already - people have noticed their holidays are more expensive.
If the FTSE sells off then people will realise that their pensions are going to be hurt.
It's not impossible that interest rates will rise annoying mortgage holders.
It's certain that the separation will cost lots of money to organise, and thus more austerity, higher taxes, or both, will be on the cards.
Finally in 2015 if the vote is close the Scottish MPs could foist a Labour government on us when most people have voted Tory.
I hope none of these occur, and the best way to ensure that is for the Scots to vote no.
If they vote yes it could be messy, and I'm pretty sure that they'll want to come back in ten years anyway when they've become an economic basket case. We'll say no of course, and the freshly built statues of Salmond will start getting torn down.
I got my Euros this morning , could be a turgid day in markets tomorrow , especially now George has backed himself into a real corner. Wonder if there will be odds on when the CU climbdown occurs, before or after the YES vote.
Ha ha.
There will be no currency union. You can use Sterling, but it won't be backed by a lender of last resort. It's that simple.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
No-one will believe any lies they come out with. They have had years to offer something and if they do it now will be seen as even bigger yellow bellies than currently. We all know they would sell their granny and no way will anyone be taken in with any false offers.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
Indeed. Wales has no oil, whisky, financial services or anything too much to crow about. They are hugely more in deficit (taxes contributed vs public spending received) than Scotland. And look how good they are at managing their own schools n hospitals. An independent lefty Wales would not circle the bowl as it descended into hell - it would be a dive off a cliff.
But if they want it and resent the English so much - I'm game.
No indication from my Cardiffian world that Wales is going anywhere. Yet to come across anyone thinking independence is remotely a good idea, not that it's even a topic brought up at all often really. The economics really is crushing. Essentially Cardiff (with a fair whack of public sector jobs subsidised by London), Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan are about UK GDP per capita average I'd think, the rest well below. Some bits are probably Portugal/Greece levels.
As you say, it wouldn't bother circling the drain before going down the tubes.
Looks as if we need to encourage Scottish businesses shifting southerly, to relocate to the principality.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
No-one will believe any lies they come out with. They have had years to offer something and if they do it now will be seen as even bigger yellow bellies than currently. We all know they would sell their granny and no way will anyone be taken in with any false offers.
I think you're right. My previous post should have said 'consequences of a Yes vote'.
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
'Ukip under fire for asking far-right Swede to Scotland' - UKIP in Scotland has been criticised after it gave a platform to an MEP from a far-right party formed by white supremacists
A high-ranking politician from the Sweden Democrats, whose members used to attend meetings in Nazi-style uniforms, addressed a Ukip a meeting in Edinburgh recently.
... [UKIP] will make a major contribution to the independence referendum this coming Friday when leader Nigel Farage fronts a pro-Union rally.
... Figures in Better Together, the official No campaign, are also said to be angered by the event, as it threatens to tarnish the image of the mainstream effort to keep Scotland in the Union.
The Sunday Herald can now reveal Ukip Scotland's association with far-right European politics. In June, it emerged Ukip was part of a wider European Parliament group that included what one Liberal Democrat source described as the "dregs" of the far right.
The Europe of Freedom and Democracy group includes the Sweden Democrats, founded in 1988 by racists and a former member of the Waffen SS.
It was only in 1995 that the party banned its members from wearing Nazi dress to meetings.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
A problem with federalism is that if you take a simple view ... England, Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland ....... there are two big land areas ..... England & Scotland and two small. However, population-wise there’s one giant, England, one small, Scotland, and two even smaller. England could be divided up (Wessex, Anglia etc) but there seems to be resistance to that.
LOL, cowardy custard George and his pal the great clunking dimwit, what a rum pair of ne'erdowells. Could you get a more toxic partnership in the world Brown/darling paired up with the Bullingdon boys, a marriage made in hell.
Yes, I can see the markets being turbulent next week. I am going to sell my Scottish shares for present. I may buy them back in a few months.
Last year I got burnt by Ed Milibands power price cap pledge over my SSE shares, so some thinking to do there too.
In the current febrile political atmosphere there is likely to be a lot of shorting of Scotland, but maybe some bargains to be had once the dust settles.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
Yes surging, as expected. Once in a generation opportunities hit home late. The now or nevers will pack out the yes vote and see it over the line. The Union is dead, long live the loose association.
Woolie , lifetime never mind generation.
So if it's no you will shut up for 58.2 years or what ever the current Scottish life expectancy is ?
Flash I am beyond the threshold already and hope to have a few good years in an Independent Scotland. You are the first on here to ask me not to post , many have asked if I would be staying after the vote. Perhaps Mike will have a referendum on it and you can all vote on it. I am sure like YES I would prevail.
But we'd hate to detain you from the delights of scottishpoliticalbetting.com, where you can endlessly discuss the odds on Dundee closing its last bus stop as the money runs out. Don't let us keep you here, trapped with bitter Englishmen.
After a YES, we expect you to go. Sad, but true. Tears may be shed, but there it is.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
Why stop at Ireland? Bring in a bunch more countries too. Set up a civil service in Brussels, a court in Luxembourg, a parliament in - can't decide - a central bank in Frankfurt...
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
I can remember my shock and depression at the Cleggasm, similar to the depression I felt last night (partly alleviated by Panelbase). Let's hope OGH is right.
O/T I see Matthew Parris' article on Clacton is being roasted.
I suspect from conversations that it’s one of those policies which seems OK until you actually come face to face with a sad (or hard) case. Not paying JSA to people who don’t turn up daily at Jobcentres sounds OK, until you come across claimants who live a £5 bus-ride from a Centre!
I was talking to someone yesterday heavily involved in church social work who said they'd been rehabilitating someone who'd been out of work for 20 years for various reasons, by giving them increasing voluntary work responsibilities, and they thought she would soon be able to find paid work with their recommendation. However, it had been a major problem that she had to keep reporting to the job centre several miles away instead of doing the (voluntary) job.
More generally, they'd tried to cooperate with the companies given incentives to find work for JSA claimants, but found that they were only interested in people finding jobs which were immediately >30 hours/week (because that's what the company gets paid for), and for most long-term unemployed, a gradual reintroduction to work is more realistic.
He wasn't party political and didn't blame anyone in particular, but just felt that government policies showed an obvious misunderstanding of the causes of long-term unemployment and how they might be addressed.
'Ukip under fire for asking far-right Swede to Scotland' - UKIP in Scotland has been criticised after it gave a platform to an MEP from a far-right party formed by white supremacists
A high-ranking politician from the Sweden Democrats, whose members used to attend meetings in Nazi-style uniforms, addressed a Ukip a meeting in Edinburgh recently.
... [UKIP] will make a major contribution to the independence referendum this coming Friday when leader Nigel Farage fronts a pro-Union rally.
... Figures in Better Together, the official No campaign, are also said to be angered by the event, as it threatens to tarnish the image of the mainstream effort to keep Scotland in the Union.
The Sunday Herald can now reveal Ukip Scotland's association with far-right European politics. In June, it emerged Ukip was part of a wider European Parliament group that included what one Liberal Democrat source described as the "dregs" of the far right.
The Europe of Freedom and Democracy group includes the Sweden Democrats, founded in 1988 by racists and a former member of the Waffen SS.
It was only in 1995 that the party banned its members from wearing Nazi dress to meetings.
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in short supply. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Brainwashed to parrot the BT lies or just mendacious and happy to lie and rubbish Scotland at all costs.
I know, it's really, really beyond obvious that noone can predict whether Scotland will be better or worse off in the long run as a result of independence. And he pretends he knows. We can all draw some not complicated conclusions from that.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
So no Treasury, BoE, MoD etc briefing, and any possible devomax statement or statements will depend on the trust and personal esteem felt for the pols making them? Excellent!
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
Tories prefer to just take £20 a week off the poor and disabled to redistribute to their chums.
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
Why stop at Ireland? Bring in a bunch more countries too. Set up a civil service in Brussels, a court in Luxembourg, a parliament in - can't decide - a central bank in Frankfurt...
Very drole... But seriously, the reason the UK has no influence in the EU is that we have no vision so we are left trailing behind Germany and France. Whether or not its realistic, at least France has a grand strategy for its future.
The loss of Scotland would be the final nail in the coffin for Britian's post-war decline.
:-) That was yesterday, after we had delivered our youngest to Uni. After I'd finished dusting off my hands I noticed the Mrs Gadfly had become inconsolable. I never did get to the bottom of what had upset her ;-)
Have you changed the locks yet?
Yup! And I've blocked his phone number.
Am driving mine 200 miles next week - so no chance of weekends home with the washing. :-)
If federalism is to be offered then it has to be in a form that could in theory accommodate the whole of the British Isles (including the Republic of Ireland).
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
Why stop at Ireland? Bring in a bunch more countries too. Set up a civil service in Brussels, a court in Luxembourg, a parliament in - can't decide - a central bank in Frankfurt...
Gaijin:
Too much Saki! Comprehension is more important than just reading....
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
So no Treasury, BoE, MoD etc briefing, and any possible devomax statement or statements will depend on the trust and personal esteem felt for the pols making them? Excellent!
Failing to agree on what 'no' meant was probably the biggest strategic error of BT and probably Labour is most to blame for that (certainly their offering would seem to be by far the least likely to attract wavering voters).
Mr. Divvie, long said that yes means (at the 2015 election) it's springtime for the SNP and Conservatives (ahem, on different sides of the border).
Mr. Tokyo, that's true, but the timescale is impossible, as offered by Salmond, and the costs of several billion won't be welcomed by the UK.
In the event of YES I would hope the Cons immediately turn ultra Hawkish on Scotland - not a penny more should be the mantra.
That should be the case in the event of 'No' too.
LOL, and you numpties wonder why it is YES
I'm pro Yes Malcolm.
You hide it well
You don't get it do you?
I wish for Scotland to be independent, and remain upset that England, Wales and NI weren't allowed to vote too
Is that simple enough for you?
Yes and as it is none of your business you should not be so bitter and twisted that you do not have a vote. Not a nice trait to wish evil on people due to them having a democratic vote.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Yes surging, as expected. Once in a generation opportunities hit home late. The now or nevers will pack out the yes vote and see it over the line. The Union is dead, long live the loose association.
Woolie , lifetime never mind generation.
So if it's no you will shut up for 58.2 years or what ever the current Scottish life expectancy is ?
Flash I am beyond the threshold already and hope to have a few good years in an Independent Scotland. You are the first on here to ask me not to post , many have asked if I would be staying after the vote. Perhaps Mike will have a referendum on it and you can all vote on it. I am sure like YES I would prevail.
But we'd hate to detain you from the delights of scottishpoliticalbetting.com, where you can endlessly discuss the odds on Dundee closing its last bus stop as the money runs out. Don't let us keep you here, trapped with bitter Englishmen.
After a YES, we expect you to go. Sad, but true. Tears may be shed, but there it is.
Sean, You will be very disappointed then
On second thoughts it might be fun to watch you go into Rant Mode Alpha, as Scotland slides into quick and deep recession, there is no currency union on your terms, and jackals eat the famished bairns of Ballantrae. So, yes, stick around.
I would miss your sweet nothings too much to leave
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
His economic policies were mince too. Had an interesting fantasy to sell though. Only cost a few million lives.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
So no Treasury, BoE, MoD etc briefing, and any possible devomax statement or statements will depend on the trust and personal esteem felt for the pols making them? Excellent!
Failing to agree on what 'no' meant was probably the biggest strategic error of BT and probably Labour is most to blame for that (certainly their offering would seem to be by far the least likely to attract wavering voters).
I love Ed Miliband. He is my favourite politician of the current crop. If I ever met him I'd be damn tempted to give him a snog.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
So no Treasury, BoE, MoD etc briefing, and any possible devomax statement or statements will depend on the trust and personal esteem felt for the pols making them? Excellent!
Failing to agree on what 'no' meant was probably the biggest strategic error of BT and probably Labour is most to blame for that (certainly their offering would seem to be by far the least likely to attract wavering voters).
I love Ed Miliband. He is my favourite politician of the current crop. If I ever met him I'd be damn tempted to give him a snog.
Out of interest what exactly did you do with your Sterling?
Myself I bought gold.
I've gone for a mix of things. Am slightly wary of gold.
As we're lucky enough at work to have loads of invoicing out there in Euros yet to be paid a spot of Sterling weakness (or even a full blown crisis please) combined with soaring gilt yields ( all that uncertainty ) to reduce pension burdens would be just what we wanted.
I was talking to someone yesterday heavily involved in church social work who said they'd been rehabilitating someone who'd been out of work for 20 years for various reasons, by giving them increasing voluntary work responsibilities, and they thought she would soon be able to find paid work with their recommendation. However, it had been a major problem that she had to keep reporting to the job centre several miles away instead of doing the (voluntary) job.
More generally, they'd tried to cooperate with the companies given incentives to find work for JSA claimants, but found that they were only interested in people finding jobs which were immediately >30 hours/week (because that's what the company gets paid for), and for most long-term unemployed, a gradual reintroduction to work is more realistic.
He wasn't party political and didn't blame anyone in particular, but just felt that government policies showed an obvious misunderstanding of the causes of long-term unemployment and how they might be addressed.
Hmmm,
Maybe give benefit recipients state-funded travel-cards. All monitored - a'la Oyster - and see what happens...?
I would imagine that the data would result in a drop in the unemployment numbers and an expansion of "Community-Orders". Might get the help directed to where it is most needed though!
Not sure where I would place this on the liberal perspective. Would Gormless McBruin need to have one...?
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
Well it needn't. It's to do with the fact that people rent from public landlords for far longer periods of time than they do from private ones, and in particular there are low income households whose children leave home and the public landlord's stock is the wrong "shape" (not enough one-bedroom flats) to deal with the consequences, so that even if people would like to downsize to a cheaper home, they can't.
One solution might be to abolish social housing altogether and merely allow people to claim housing benefit. It is generally assumed that the hardship that the transition would cause makes this politically impossible. I'm not so sure: I reckon the stock of compassion in the average voter is pretty low these days.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
I wouldn't argue with any of that, Doc. But what I don't get is why the level of benefit should depend on who a person's landlord is.
Mr. Divvie, long said that yes means (at the 2015 election) it's springtime for the SNP and Conservatives (ahem, on different sides of the border).
Mr. Tokyo, that's true, but the timescale is impossible, as offered by Salmond, and the costs of several billion won't be welcomed by the UK.
In the event of YES I would hope the Cons immediately turn ultra Hawkish on Scotland - not a penny more should be the mantra.
That should be the case in the event of 'No' too.
LOL, and you numpties wonder why it is YES
I'm pro Yes Malcolm.
You hide it well
You don't get it do you?
I wish for Scotland to be independent, and remain upset that England, Wales and NI weren't allowed to vote too
Is that simple enough for you?
Yes and as it is none of your business you should not be so bitter and twisted that you do not have a vote. Not a nice trait to wish evil on people due to them having a democratic vote.
Are you deluded? I want you to be independent I agree with your wishes. And that's evil?
You'll be blaming the ills of an independent Scotland on rUK next, like a Scottish Mugabe.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
LOL, you are a big feartie
No Malcolm, I am worried about my fellow citizens who need help and support. I am reasonably well paid and can provide for my family. Of course I will end up paying more tax on less income but we will not go hungry.
The inevitable cuts in public spending will hurt the poor, the disabled, the old and the ill. They always do.
Tories prefer to just take £20 a week off the poor and disabled to redistribute to their chums.
Corporation-Tax at 12% will be funded from and benefit whom...?
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
LOL, you been looking in your crystal ball then. As any fool would know tax policy would be set to maximise jobs and income. I have never seen or heard of this mythical 12% you speak of oh wise one
I suspect from conversations that it’s one of those policies which seems OK until you actually come face to face with a sad (or hard) case. Not paying JSA to people who don’t turn up daily at Jobcentres sounds OK, until you come across claimants who live a £5 bus-ride from a Centre!
I was talking to someone yesterday heavily involved in church social work who said they'd been rehabilitating someone who'd been out of work for 20 years for various reasons, by giving them increasing voluntary work responsibilities, and they thought she would soon be able to find paid work with their recommendation. However, it had been a major problem that she had to keep reporting to the job centre several miles away instead of doing the (voluntary) job.
More generally, they'd tried to cooperate with the companies given incentives to find work for JSA claimants, but found that they were only interested in people finding jobs which were immediately >30 hours/week (because that's what the company gets paid for), and for most long-term unemployed, a gradual reintroduction to work is more realistic.
He wasn't party political and didn't blame anyone in particular, but just felt that government policies showed an obvious misunderstanding of the causes of long-term unemployment and how they might be addressed.
Our CAB Chair was discussing emergency support with a County Council rep (not a councillor) recently and the question of sites for distribution of the new “credit card” was raised. District Council offices were suggested and our Chair asked how were claimants in our somewhat rural area to get there. "On the bus" was the reply. "With no money?” “Surely everyone’s got enough for a bus fare!” came from the Council rep!
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
I wouldn't argue with any of that, Doc. But what I don't get is why the level of benefit should depend on who a person's landlord is.
It doesn't. It's just that the people who the Bedroom Tax is impoverishing are all social housing tenants, for the reason I gave in my previous post.
Yes and as it is none of your business you should not be so bitter and twisted that you do not have a vote. Not a nice trait to wish evil on people due to them having a democratic vote.
Oh dear, stop digging....
England voted for a Conservative government. Now youse Scots are bawling that the government has not been elected by a minority interest. Logic and consequences must pass you by every second, of every hour, of every day....
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
LOL, you are a big feartie
No Malcolm, I am worried about my fellow citizens who need help and support. I am reasonably well paid and can provide for my family. Of course I will end up paying more tax on less income but we will not go hungry.
The inevitable cuts in public spending will hurt the poor, the disabled, the old and the ill. They always do.
If you take the pessimistic BT view you may be correct. If you take the optimistic YES view where people will get stuck in and do something about it then it can all be different as a myriad of other small countries show. Being afraid of the dark is never good.
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
I wouldn't argue with any of that, Doc. But what I don't get is why the level of benefit should depend on who a person's landlord is.
Phasing it out as I suggest would bring it into line. Private sector renters tend to be more mobile, so I would not suggest restoring it for them.
Generally welfare reform (like pensions) needs to be trailed far enough in advance that people can have time to plan.
If Scotland splits will mobile phone users facing roaming charges when they use their mobiles in the different countries?
The Unionists have already tried that scare story Mike.
- "A senior Tory MSP described the claim that mobile phone bills could rise under Scottish independence as "silly".
Reacting on social networking site Twitter, Scottish Conservatives deputy leader Jackson Carlaw wrote: "Some of the arguments against #indy are becoming a bit silly."
Clarifying that he was referring to the mobile phone warning, he also urged the pro-union camp to "win playing at the highest level"."
Yes and as it is none of your business you should not be so bitter and twisted that you do not have a vote. Not a nice trait to wish evil on people due to them having a democratic vote.
Oh dear, stop digging....
England voted for a Conservative government. Now youse Scots are bawling that the government has not been elected by a minority interest. Logic and consequences must pass you by every second, of every hour, of every day....
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
As you rightly point out there is a democratic deficiency in the UK, a dictatorship in fact and people like you would prefer it to stay that way.
It's worth remembering that the Cleggasm did deliver the LDs one million extra votes, but in the wrong places. That does not matter in a referendum.
The big difference between the Labour bedroom tax and the Tory one is that the latter was applied retrospectively to existing tenancy agreements. The former was not.
Rather than humiliating themselves further by vainly offering the Scots what they could have offered them months or even years ago, our political masters would be better off focusing on what they are going to do with the rUK once Scotland goes. They won't, of course. That would be far too sensible and grown-up. It is hard to believe that the dissolution of the Union is to be overseen by Dave and George and Ed and Ed and Nick on one side and Eck on the other. It's like a cartoon gone wrong.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
LOL, you are a big feartie
No Malcolm, I am worried about my fellow citizens who need help and support. I am reasonably well paid and can provide for my family. Of course I will end up paying more tax on less income but we will not go hungry.
The inevitable cuts in public spending will hurt the poor, the disabled, the old and the ill. They always do.
If you take the pessimistic BT view you may be correct. If you take the optimistic YES view where people will get stuck in and do something about it then it can all be different as a myriad of other small countries show. Being afraid of the dark is never good.
The Sunil on Sunday asks if unstable countries like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq can be independent nations, then why can't Scotland?
Well I am off to the Airshow , lovely sunny day and should be nice to see Vulcan , Lancaster, etc. last airshow as a British subject , next one I will be a free man.
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
It's not clear whether the guy is kidding himself or just outright lying. He hasnt a clue how Scotland will do relative to staying in the union in the long term.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
Gandhi:
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
David is confused re why the plebs do not just keep eating cake and getting on with their lot
David is worried there will be a lot less cake for the plebs to eat.
LOL, you are a big feartie
No Malcolm, I am worried about my fellow citizens who need help and support. I am reasonably well paid and can provide for my family. Of course I will end up paying more tax on less income but we will not go hungry.
The inevitable cuts in public spending will hurt the poor, the disabled, the old and the ill. They always do.
If you take the pessimistic BT view you may be correct. If you take the optimistic YES view where people will get stuck in and do something about it then it can all be different as a myriad of other small countries show. Being afraid of the dark is never good.
The Sunil on Sunday asks if unstable countries like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq can be independent nations, then why can't Scotland?
Sunil, you are on the ball on this one, with the good guys.
LOL, you been looking in your crystal ball then. As any fool would know tax policy would be set to maximise jobs and income. I have never seen or heard of this mythical 12% you speak of oh wise one
: Sad-Little-Englander-emigrant:
So Salmond will not compete with Ireland (Republic of; not the Scottish orphan)? You need to read more and learn comprehension I would suggest.
It is a known fact that the peronist will try to undercut Westminster to attract business to 'Mite-e-Scotland'. A brave attempt maybe but it will need to be funded (and it will not be funded under his fantasy defence plan[sic]).
Oh, for your information, my second home in Bedfordshire does not make me an emigrant. Not unless you follow the rantings of a lawyer (from Six-fingershire) and his delusions of London....
Re-reading Casino's original comment, support for the Bedroom Tax was, he said, only given by "a couple" of people. It may be that those particular individuals don't support the principles of social housing or progressive taxation either. They've every right to their views, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves into supposing that they're widely shared in Britain as a whole.
What I don't understand about the so called "Bedroom tax" is that is only held to be obnoxious when applied to people who rent from a public landlord. If a person rents from a private landlord the same "tax" is applied and that is held to be right and proper. The fact that two people in identical circumstances will get different levels of benefit depending on who their landlord is strikes me as bizarre.
I support the removal of the spare room subsidy. It is clear that we do not have enough social housing to go around and part of the solution is to reallocate existing housing.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
I wouldn't argue with any of that, Doc. But what I don't get is why the level of benefit should depend on who a person's landlord is.
Phasing it out as I suggest would bring it into line. Private sector renters tend to be more mobile, so I would not suggest restoring it for them.
Generally welfare reform (like pensions) needs to be trailed far enough in advance that people can have time to plan.
I agree. Only two problems:
(1) This means that Chancellors can't use welfare reform as part of the way they deal with to-day's debts and deficits;
(2) People who feel vindictive towards those who are poorer than they are also have votes.
Anyway, good morning everyone: hope to see you all to-morrow.
As several people on Twitter have pointed out, wouldn't any announcement of hard and fast devomax/federalism plans be breaking the purdah rules? Suggests that whatever is produced will be more fuzzy waffle.
You cant purdah a political party. You purdah Governments (well, their officials). Each of the three unionist parties have their own versions of further devolution (not sure whether any of them qualifies as Devomax but then it was never entirely clear what Devomax was) and they are free to advertise / change them whenever they want. How Labour gets over the embarrassment of being seen to not trust the Scots to vary their own tax rates is difficult to guess.
So no Treasury, BoE, MoD etc briefing, and any possible devomax statement or statements will depend on the trust and personal esteem felt for the pols making them? Excellent!
Failing to agree on what 'no' meant was probably the biggest strategic error of BT and probably Labour is most to blame for that (certainly their offering would seem to be by far the least likely to attract wavering voters).
I disagree with that. Had 'No' put forward a unified political case for 'afters', it would simply have done the SNP's bidding, in dividing Scottish politics into permanent Yes and No camps, and in the process diminished the broad alliance of No. If Yes does win, it will not be because No has not put forward an alternative (there is no need for just one; a referendum is not a choice between two options, it is a choice between one and the rest), it will be because they have not discredited the proposal for independence advanced.
Has anyone warned Warren Buffet that SeanT is playing the financial markets ?
And has anyone explained to our bewailing BritNat that he could hedge his finances by betting on a YES vote and/or on Cameron resigning , both on which he seems confident off.
Now lets assume that there is a YES vote and the economic turmoil and recession predicted consequently does happen.
I hope everyone remembers that we're already running a £100bn budget deficit, do we let it rise to £200bn so that everyone can keep buying the imported tat and taking the foreign holidays they feel it is now their right to have ?
What was that phrase about mending roofs and shining suns ?
England voted for a Conservative government. Now youse Scots are bawling that the government has not been elected by a minority interest. Logic and consequences must pass you by every second, of every hour, of every day....
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
As you rightly point out there is a democratic deficiency in the UK, a dictatorship in fact and people like you would prefer it to stay that way.
: sad-little-englander-emigrant.
Hmmm,
I joined this forum over seven-years ago as a supporter of Scots [Welsh and Ulster-Scots] independence. From the start you have called me a racist and - oxymoron be it - a unionist. Either you are a 'unionist-spannah' or you are resident in a Bath 'nut-house'.
Well, you are entertainment at least (one surmises)....
Comments
He says:
" The economics of independence are not close at all. Scotland will be worse off in the short-term, the medium term and in the long term if it votes for independence.
"A vote for independence will be a vote for a Scotland that is poorer, more unstable and will require deeper cuts in public spending than if it remains part of the UK."
He is of course right and I am surprised that some normally sensible posters are suggesting otherwise. To suggest that a country can do better coming out of a successful and large open market is economic imbecility of the first order. England will suffer too but pure demographics suggest that the negative consequences for Scotland will be at least 10x as great as they are for rUK. We are simply losing so much more.
That such a discussion can even be taking place at this stage is a direct consequence of the failure to adequately emphasise the benefits of the Union. We need to remind Scots that they are founder members of one of the greatest Unions of people in history.
After I'd finished dusting off my hands I noticed the Mrs Gadfly had become inconsolable.
I never did get to the bottom of what had upset her ;-)
From an English perspective one of the attractive consequences of a No vote would be some serious rethinking about the rest of the UK's constitutional arrangements and place in the world.
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
- UKIP in Scotland has been criticised after it gave a platform to an MEP from a far-right party formed by white supremacists http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-under-fire-for-asking-far-right-swede-to-scotland.25254343
There will be no currency union. You can use Sterling, but it won't be backed by a lender of last resort. It's that simple.
Out of interest what exactly did you do with your Sterling?
Myself I bought gold.
It's panic stations
I love it how the press "can now reveal" stuff that has been in the public domain for donkeys' years.
England could be divided up (Wessex, Anglia etc) but there seems to be resistance to that.
Any ideas as to how that circle is to be squared!
Revolt on the Right @RevoltonRight 1h
"Panicking Tory MPs demand that Nigel Farage be made Deputy Prime Minister" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746282/Panicking-Tory-MPs-plot-deal-Ukip-demand-Farage-Deputy-PM.html …
- "the danger for Better Together is that over the next 11 days the momentum becomes a tidal wave."
One only has to look at how many outside Scotland want them to be independent to realise why.
Yes, I can see the markets being turbulent next week. I am going to sell my Scottish shares for present. I may buy them back in a few months.
Last year I got burnt by Ed Milibands power price cap pledge over my SSE shares, so some thinking to do there too.
In the current febrile political atmosphere there is likely to be a lot of shorting of Scotland, but maybe some bargains to be had once the dust settles.
http://www.mumsnet.com/politics/mumsnetters-on-scottish-referendum
That'll do wonders for Alistair Darling's shit creek efforts. An orange paddle was not high on his wish-list.
A lovely pair on screen
It is really not that complicated. At the moment Scotland runs a larger deficit than rUK including the oil revenues. Those oil revenues are in long term decline. Scotland will need to cut more than rUK to eliminate that deficit and the amounts involved will bring the average income of Scots (which is currently inflated by the higher public spending) below that of rUK
But this is only the most direct consequence and not, in my opinion, the most important one. When Czechoslovakia broke up the amount of what had previously been internal trade collapsed. This is consistent with work done on the US/Canadian border. Borders inhibit trade. It is just a fact.
It is almost inevitable that exports from Scotland to rUK would suffer significant negative consequences from no longer being a part of the same legal unit and again we would suffer disproportionately. I think we will also lose about half of our financial services, roughly 4% of GDP. We also risk losing other internationally traded companies who will be worried about our status within and access to the EU.
So an independent Scotland would be faced with a fairly serious recession which will greatly aggravate the underlying issue of the deficit. rUK will not escape damage either but the risks are completely asymmetrical given the relative sizes.
In the long term we will have a much more limited internal market. We will have less and less oil revenue to compensate. We will probably have membership of the EU on less favourable terms. It really doesn't take an economic genius to work out that is not a better scenario.
If being Scottish trumps all that then fair enough. But we are being sold a fantasy.
More generally, they'd tried to cooperate with the companies given incentives to find work for JSA claimants, but found that they were only interested in people finding jobs which were immediately >30 hours/week (because that's what the company gets paid for), and for most long-term unemployed, a gradual reintroduction to work is more realistic.
He wasn't party political and didn't blame anyone in particular, but just felt that government policies showed an obvious misunderstanding of the causes of long-term unemployment and how they might be addressed.
Well, BT has relaunched their catastrophic No Shared Pound campaign about twenty times now. I'm expecting relaunch No.21 any day now.
Where it went wrong is in the implementation, and this has been an own goal for the coalition. The phasing out of the subsidy should have taken place over a few years, as smaller properties become available in these localities.
I wish for Scotland to be independent, and remain upset that England, Wales and NI weren't allowed to vote too
Is that simple enough for you?
The loss of Scotland would be the final nail in the coffin for Britian's post-war decline.
:-)
Gaijin:
Too much Saki! Comprehension is more important than just reading....
- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Not many folk can say that!
How Britain Became a Global Exporter of Terrorism
It's an ill wind and all that.....
Maybe give benefit recipients state-funded travel-cards. All monitored - a'la Oyster - and see what happens...?
I would imagine that the data would result in a drop in the unemployment numbers and an expansion of "Community-Orders". Might get the help directed to where it is most needed though!
Not sure where I would place this on the liberal perspective. Would Gormless McBruin need to have one...?
One solution might be to abolish social housing altogether and merely allow people to claim housing benefit. It is generally assumed that the hardship that the transition would cause makes this politically impossible. I'm not so sure: I reckon the stock of compassion in the average voter is pretty low these days.
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
You'll be blaming the ills of an independent Scotland on rUK next, like a Scottish Mugabe.
The inevitable cuts in public spending will hurt the poor, the disabled, the old and the ill. They always do.
: Sad-Little-Englander-emigrant:
England voted for a Conservative government. Now youse Scots are bawling that the government has not been elected by a minority interest. Logic and consequences must pass you by every second, of every hour, of every day....
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town:
5 polls fieldwork 1st September to 7th September inclusive:
Lab 35.9 (-0.1)
Con 32.8 (+0.6)
UKIP 14.7 (+0.2)
LD 7.3 (-0.5)
(in brackets changes from last week's ELBOW)
And here are changes from the first ELBOW from 17th August (10 polls fieldwork 10th to 15th August inclusive):
Lab -0.2
Con -0.4
UKIP +1.6
LD -1.5
The other ELBOW figures:
17th Aug (10 polls 10th to 15th)
Lab 36.2
Con 33.1
UKIP 13.1
LD 8.8
24th Aug (8 polls 17th to 22nd)
Lab 37.1
Con 33.5
UKIP 13.0
LD 8.5
31st Aug (9 polls 25th to 31st)
Lab 36.0
Con 32.2
UKIP 14.5
LD 7.8
Being afraid of the dark is never good.
Generally welfare reform (like pensions) needs to be trailed far enough in advance that people can have time to plan.
But we need the "gold standard"
- "A senior Tory MSP described the claim that mobile phone bills could rise under Scottish independence as "silly".
Reacting on social networking site Twitter, Scottish Conservatives deputy leader Jackson Carlaw wrote: "Some of the arguments against #indy are becoming a bit silly."
Clarifying that he was referring to the mobile phone warning, he also urged the pro-union camp to "win playing at the highest level"."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-23112568
: sad-little-englander-emigrant.
It's worth remembering that the Cleggasm did deliver the LDs one million extra votes, but in the wrong places. That does not matter in a referendum.
The big difference between the Labour bedroom tax and the Tory one is that the latter was applied retrospectively to existing tenancy agreements. The former was not.
Rather than humiliating themselves further by vainly offering the Scots what they could have offered them months or even years ago, our political masters would be better off focusing on what they are going to do with the rUK once Scotland goes. They won't, of course. That would be far too sensible and grown-up. It is hard to believe that the dissolution of the Union is to be overseen by Dave and George and Ed and Ed and Nick on one side and Eck on the other. It's like a cartoon gone wrong.
A bit of fun at the end of today's poll.
On a different subject...
Have you personally ever filmed or
photographed yourself having sex?
The most YES replies comes from the LibDems - following Clegg's self-confession or a different sort of Cleggasm?
twitter.com/Casumptious/status/508388641400688640
Are BT finally accepting UKIP into their fold with only 11 days to go?
Who next? Britain First?
twitter.com/YesScotland/status/488038947168452608?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=traquir&utm_content=504314997389164544
It is a known fact that the peronist will try to undercut Westminster to attract business to 'Mite-e-Scotland'. A brave attempt maybe but it will need to be funded (and it will not be funded under his fantasy defence plan[sic]).
Oh, for your information, my second home in Bedfordshire does not make me an emigrant. Not unless you follow the rantings of a lawyer (from Six-fingershire) and his delusions of London....
(1) This means that Chancellors can't use welfare reform as part of the way they deal with to-day's debts and deficits;
(2) People who feel vindictive towards those who are poorer than they are also have votes.
Anyway, good morning everyone: hope to see you all to-morrow.
And has anyone explained to our bewailing BritNat that he could hedge his finances by betting on a YES vote and/or on Cameron resigning , both on which he seems confident off.
I hope everyone remembers that we're already running a £100bn budget deficit, do we let it rise to £200bn so that everyone can keep buying the imported tat and taking the foreign holidays they feel it is now their right to have ?
What was that phrase about mending roofs and shining suns ?
: sad-little-englander-emigrant.
Hmmm,
I joined this forum over seven-years ago as a supporter of Scots [Welsh and Ulster-Scots] independence. From the start you have called me a racist and - oxymoron be it - a unionist. Either you are a 'unionist-spannah' or you are resident in a Bath 'nut-house'.
Well, you are entertainment at least (one surmises)....
:unckie-malc-clown-about-town: