Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “An independence referendum is like a normal election on st

13

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    isam said:

    Another Tory MP backs the idea that hospital car park charges should be scrapped

    Bad idea said the Tories on here when Ukip called for it

    http://m.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11412943.Politicians_back_campaign_to_scrap_hospital_car_park_charges/

    I notice that the Gazette didn't mention that this campaign was supported by UKIP.
    Where will the money come from to fill the gap in the hospital budget?

    UKIP has a magic money tree!
    Tory mp for Harlow is leading the debate in the commons backed by Frank Field! You have to try and stop going onto auto pilot just to knock whatever Ukip say!
    I'd rather we have a sensible conversation about what we want from the health service, how we structure it (DGHs are a classic example of "I wouldn't start from here") and how we are going to pay for it.
    Good post. That said, does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion as well as a somewhat randon irritant, as you say.

    To open a different front, what proportion of airport revenue comes from fees from parking operators? The price must be ludicrously disproportionate to the cost of provision of a space of land and some low-quality bus shuttle and cleaning services, to the point that a low-cost holiday may cost less than the fee to park. Coupled with the other ripoffs at British airports (£1 for 10 minutes internet access, exorbitant food etc.) we're clearly subsidising the actual cost of running the airport in diverse ways that aren't as common abroad (e.g. at most airports around the world, internet access is usually free). That's not a terrible thing, necessarily - it enables smart travellers who avoid all the rip-offs to travel more cheaply than elsewhere - but it's an example of a distorted market.
    How can you say

    "Good post"

    to a post that claims

    "parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"

    then say

    "does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,654

    Pulpstar said:

    Not for yourself or DavidL (Wrt the Scottish question) but one of my colleagues is undecided UKIP/Lib Dem and it "depends on the freebies" (Free school meals is keeping her just about in the Clegg camp I think). So there are those who it may swing their vote.

    Well at least she knows what she wants, which is more than most voters!

    To be fair, though, the cost of school meals can be a pretty substantial item on the budget for families on modest incomes.
    But those on benefits were already getting them free. This is a middle class subsidy. The evidence of educational advantage was quite strong but this is the only basis on which a quite regressive allocation of resources could be justified. I have my doubts but we will see.

    Similarly, means testing prescriptions seems a much fairer way of providing additional funding to the health service than universal parking charges which in many ways are just a tax on the sick and the poor.

    (Reminds me of a U2 song: "Don't believe it when they tell me that there ain't no cure, The rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor.")

    We abolished prescription charges in Scotland completely and the result is that there is less money available for cancer drugs. There are, of course, no cost free options outwith Milibandland but it is regrettable that politicians are so rarely held to account for the consequences of the choices that they make.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2014
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11037883/Pensions-tax-relief-will-be-cut-after-the-election-whoever-wins.html

    Yet more reports the tories are preparing to steal our money - which George Osborne is doing nothing to dispel.

    The chancellor is so toxic to the core support, even his own MPs are speaking out against him. See Mark Field in City AM on reports of a stitch up with Carney.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    isam said:

    Another Tory MP backs the idea that hospital car park charges should be scrapped

    Bad idea said the Tories on here when Ukip called for it

    http://m.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11412943.Politicians_back_campaign_to_scrap_hospital_car_park_charges/

    I notice that the Gazette didn't mention that this campaign was supported by UKIP.
    Where will the money come from to fill the gap in the hospital budget?

    UKIP has a magic money tree!
    Tory mp for Harlow is leading the debate in the commons backed by Frank Field! You have to try and stop going onto auto pilot just to knock whatever Ukip say!
    No one is knocking what UKIP is saying per se (outraged victimhood seems to be your standard response to any criticism).

    The point is that parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals.

    There is a good case for abolishing them - it's basically a somewhat random hidden charge for healthcare - but if you do so then either savings need to be found (in the NHS or elsewhere) or taxes have to rise. And no, @MikeK, "clamping down on health tourism" won't do as an answer - it's as credible as the Tories "cutting red tape" or Labour's "funded by the banker's tax": a stock answer that means nothing.

    I'd rather we have a sensible conversation about what we want from the health service, how we structure it (DGHs are a classic example of "I wouldn't start from here") and how we are going to pay for it.
    Good post. That said, does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion as well as a somewhat randon irritant, as you say.

    To open a different front, what proportion of airport revenue comes from fees from parking operators? The price must be ludicrously disproportionate to the cost of provision of a space of land and some low-quality bus shuttle and cleaning services, to the point that a low-cost holiday may cost less than the fee to park. Coupled with the other ripoffs at British airports (£1 for 10 minutes internet access, exorbitant food etc.) we're clearly subsidising the actual cost of running the airport in diverse ways that aren't as common abroad (e.g. at most airports around the world, internet access is usually free). That's not a terrible thing, necessarily - it enables smart travellers who avoid all the rip-offs to travel more cheaply than elsewhere - but it's an example of a distorted market.
    By the way

    Paul Nuttall ‏@paulnuttallukip · 1h
    UKIP National Conference 2014 tickets now available http://www.ukip.org/doncaster #ukip

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I'm sure Kowshar Husseins family are pleased to see their sons killers are having a hard time of it while their boy lays 6ft under

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727525/Murderer-posts-photo-birthday-cake-cell-Investigation-launches-Wandsworth-killer-three-inmates-uploaded-pictures-Facebook.html#ixzz3AjtPJuWa
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    taffys said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11037883/Pensions-tax-relief-will-be-cut-after-the-election-whoever-wins.html

    Yet more reports the tories are preparing to steal our money - which George Osborne is doing nothing to dispel.

    You think the Chancellor should come out and denounce any blog / column that claims he might do something he may or may not have any intention to do within 24 hours of their claiming it? When would he have time to actually run the Treasury?

    I would have thought that each party will be forced to be pretty explicit about their intentions for pension tax relief ahead of the next GE. Lots of people will be looking at it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited August 2014
    DavidL said:

    But those on benefits were already getting them free. This is a middle class subsidy.

    Actually I think that's not quite right (depending on your definition of the 'middle class'). The people who really get hit badly are lowish-income families who are just above the maximum threshold for benefits, who suddenly find they are ineligible for free school meals, free prescriptions, and a range of other benefits.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    taffys said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11037883/Pensions-tax-relief-will-be-cut-after-the-election-whoever-wins.html

    Yet more reports the tories are preparing to steal our money - which George Osborne is doing nothing to dispel.

    The chancellor is so toxic to the core support, even his own MPs are speaking out against him. See Mark Field in City AM on reports of a stitch up with Carney.

    What is the issue you most concerned with ?

    If giving higher rate tax relief on pensions is costing the country £40bn+, surely this is something that should be looked into. The saving that would be made by limiting the relief to the standard tax rate would be substantial.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    David, serious question , can you elaborate and explain on your quote "sell the UK, our shared values, our role in the world, the opportunities that we have together".
    Be interested to see if you can come up with anything positive.


    I have also seen what happens to small countries in the EU like Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Their views and interests simply do not count and get overridden by those that matter in their own selfish interests. As part of the UK we are one of the countries that matter.

    On shared values I think that the peoples of the UK have so much more in common that divides them. We all support the welfare state and universal health care, the differences between the parties on this are much, much smaller than the extent to which they are in agreement. I really do not believe the differences of view between a tory government in the UK and a more left leaning electorate in Scotland are particularly meaningful in the big picture. Is it really worth even thinking about breaking up the Union because the tories think free health care is more efficiently delivered by private companies instead of state employees? Surely not.

    For me Scottish nationalism is based on a narrow, parochial view of the world, a frankly old fashioned view that seems quaint in the internet age. Pride in your country is perfectly respectable but we would be giving up so much to make a point that is barely worth making in the first place. We are part of something bigger, better and more successful. We would be crazy to give it up.


    David, thanks for that , as you would expect I disagree of course.

    I think it has had its day and do not see why we would not have open access without union , it would still be in everyone's best interests. We will never be "abroad" in respect to geography of Britain.
    World stage is just not an argument , UK's days as being anything are gone and most of what we do causes trouble in the world, plus Scotland has no say in it so redundant completely.
    Shared values is just a platitude and our values will not change one iota when independent, in fact it would help in Scotland because it would mean all our values counted and not just Tories, you are seeing that through Tory spectacles only.
    Most of the small countries you omit and some of those you include are doing very much better than the UK so very flawed position there. If you look at the top 20 countries , the majority of successful wealthy , happy countries are small. In this regard the UK is an also ran.
    On your last point you are completely wrong , we would be gaining so much , the UK may be bigger than Scotland but it is not better and it is not successful.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    hucks67 said:


    The saving that would be made by limiting the relief to the standard tax rate would be substantial.

    That was Lib Dem policy. It didnt happen under the Coalition. Presumably because the Tory part of the Coalition wouldnt agree to it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    To amplify DavidL's points, a good example is scientific research.

    Scotland of course has a wonderful history in scientific research and its universities punch above their weight. They take more science grants per head than English or Welsh universities.

    An independent Scotland would have to make up that shortfall, and also find the subscriptions for scientific organisations like CERN, ESA and ESO.

    Not all small European countries are members of CERN (Ireland isn't). Not all small European countries are members of ESA or ESO (Norway isn't).

    It is not cost-effective if you have a small scientific community to join these costly organisations.

    But, if you don't, the price you pay is that your scientific talent moves away to the rUK, to the US, to continental Europe. You become a scientific backwater.

    I'd guess there is a minimum size for a country to maintain a really thriving and active scientific research base -- the smallest country I can think of that does is Switzerland (pop. 8 million).

    This was discussed by academics yesterday on radio , it would make a difference of £30M , hardly earth shattering.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    edited August 2014

    malcolmg said:



    That would be where he got his numbers , or maybe Financier provided them. Both are world experts it seems

    Well, a quarter of a century in the oil and gas industry would appear to make me what passes for an expert round these parts....

    Tell us, malcolmg, what are you an expert in - other than infantile abuse?

    You should try writing like an expert then , rather than peddling drivel that a 5 year old could have parroted from duff unionist sources.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    hucks67 said:

    taffys said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11037883/Pensions-tax-relief-will-be-cut-after-the-election-whoever-wins.html

    Yet more reports the tories are preparing to steal our money - which George Osborne is doing nothing to dispel.

    The chancellor is so toxic to the core support, even his own MPs are speaking out against him. See Mark Field in City AM on reports of a stitch up with Carney.

    What is the issue you most concerned with ?

    If giving higher rate tax relief on pensions is costing the country £40bn+, surely this is something that should be looked into. The saving that would be made by limiting the relief to the standard tax rate would be substantial.

    Pension contributions are deferred income, and the tax relief should be the same as the income tax rate applicable.

    Unless you also plan to abolish higher rate tax on pension income as well!

    We need incentives for people to pay their own way in retirement. Many cannot save in their 30's when buying a house and having young families and pay in more when they reach peak earnings in their 40's and 50's.


  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494
    isam said:


    How can you say

    "Good post"

    to a post that claims

    "parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"

    then say

    "does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"

    True, I'm a bit doubtful about that bit of the post, but agree with the general theme that parking charges are a somewhat random tax on hospital use and this sort of thing should be looked at in a wider review of what the hospitals do and how they get the money to do it.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The saving that would be made by limiting the relief to the standard tax rate would be substantial.

    The initial saving perhaps, but the massive disincentive to save for retirement will cost the state more in the long run. Much more.

    Plus where's the reward for working hard to actually get into the upper tax bracket to take advantage of the relief?

    Never mind. The state will steal what it needs from bank accounts after Osborne allows HRMC to become judge and jury next year.

    Conservative? no way. If these become policies the conservatives are heading for defeat. Big time.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs. Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. I doubt if you would consider sending me your salary and having me choose how your money was spent.
    The union is undemocratic in that we do not get the government we vote for on most occasions.
    Smaller countries can be much more nimble and responsive to changing circumstances as shown by most of the top 20 countries being similar in size to Scotland.
    It will be a much fairer country, given UK is one of the most unequal countries on the planet
    We will get rid of nuclear weapons and will no longer be forced to take part in illegal wars
    That will do for starters.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    taffys said:



    Plus where's the reward for working hard to actually get into the upper tax bracket to take advantage of the relief?

    Perhaps the most bizarre defence of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions we'll ever see.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    hucks67 said:

    taffys said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11037883/Pensions-tax-relief-will-be-cut-after-the-election-whoever-wins.html

    Yet more reports the tories are preparing to steal our money - which George Osborne is doing nothing to dispel.

    The chancellor is so toxic to the core support, even his own MPs are speaking out against him. See Mark Field in City AM on reports of a stitch up with Carney.

    What is the issue you most concerned with ?

    If giving higher rate tax relief on pensions is costing the country £40bn+, surely this is something that should be looked into. The saving that would be made by limiting the relief to the standard tax rate would be substantial.

    Pension contributions are deferred income, and the tax relief should be the same as the income tax rate applicable.

    Very many people get tax relief at higher rate and pay standard rate on the resulting income (as well as getting 25% tax free). Which is probably why the Lib Dems want to abolish it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Not for yourself or DavidL (Wrt the Scottish question) but one of my colleagues is undecided UKIP/Lib Dem and it "depends on the freebies" (Free school meals is keeping her just about in the Clegg camp I think). So there are those who it may swing their vote.

    Well at least she knows what she wants, which is more than most voters!

    To be fair, though, the cost of school meals can be a pretty substantial item on the budget for families on modest incomes.
    But those on benefits were already getting them free. This is a middle class subsidy. The evidence of educational advantage was quite strong but this is the only basis on which a quite regressive allocation of resources could be justified. I have my doubts but we will see.

    Similarly, means testing prescriptions seems a much fairer way of providing additional funding to the health service than universal parking charges which in many ways are just a tax on the sick and the poor.

    (Reminds me of a U2 song: "Don't believe it when they tell me that there ain't no cure, The rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor.")

    We abolished prescription charges in Scotland completely and the result is that there is less money available for cancer drugs. There are, of course, no cost free options outwith Milibandland but it is regrettable that politicians are so rarely held to account for the consequences of the choices that they make.

    David, that is blatant rubbish , the administration costs of prescriptions almost matched the cost of the drugs , it is almost a wash to not charge for them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,284
    edited August 2014

    DavidL said:

    But those on benefits were already getting them free. This is a middle class subsidy.

    Actually I think that's not quite right (depending on your definition of the 'middle class'). The people who really get hit badly are lowish-income families who are just above the maximum threshold for benefits, who suddenly find they are ineligible for free school meals, free prescriptions, and a range of other benefits.
    Experience of trying to collect the charge suggests that the people hardest hit are who would just about qualify for exemption and don’t fall sick often. Especially late in the month when spare cash is at it’s lowest.
    Another group is asthmatics with three or four items every couple of months. They can buy a prepayment certificate, but that’s pricy as well
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2014
    isam said:

    I'm sure Kowshar Husseins family are pleased to see their sons killers are having a hard time of it while their boy lays 6ft under

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727525/Murderer-posts-photo-birthday-cake-cell-Investigation-launches-Wandsworth-killer-three-inmates-uploaded-pictures-Facebook.html#ixzz3AjtPJuWa

    The decision to ban prisoners from receiving books was absolute madness IMO. Books are one of the few items they ought to be allowed to have. Ban everything else.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Charles said:

    O/T

    Anyone have a view on Michelle Donelan, the Tory PPC for Chippenham? Is she vaguely sensible?

    http://michelledonelan.co.uk/about/

    Any reason why you ask the question of her in particular? (Unless you live in the Chippenham constituency).
  • DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    David, serious question , can you elaborate and explain on your quote "sell the UK, our shared values, our role in the world, the opportunities that we have together".
    Be interested to see if you can come up with anything positive.
    The UK has been a successful Union for over 300 years. It has given Scots endless opportunities that we would not have had without access to the British empire. It still does. We currently have a home market of 65m people. It is very, very easy to expand into that market without any of the complexities that come from being "abroad". Examples around the world show that would not be the case where there was a genuine border.

    These opportunities give employment to tens of thousands of Scots in most of our successful industries. They benefit directly and immediately from the Union.

    On the world stage the UK has generally been a force for good and decency. Like all countries we have made mistakes, Iraq being the most serious one recently, but we are an important voice for democracy, tolerance, decency and respect. The voice of rUK would be diminished by losing Scotland and Scotland itself would become completely irrelevant on the world stage. There may be some who think that a quiet life is a better life but I like being part of a country that can actually make a difference.

    I have also seen what happens to small countries in the EU like Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Their views and interests simply do not count and get overridden by those that matter in their own selfish interests. As part of the UK we are one of the countries that matter.

    On shared values I think that the peoples of the UK have so much more in common that divides them. We all support the welfare state and universal health care, the differences between the parties on this are much, much smaller than the extent to which they are in agreement. I really do not believe the differences of view between a tory government in the UK and a more left leaning electorate in Scotland are particularly meaningful in the big picture. Is it really worth even thinking about breaking up the Union because the tories think free health care is more efficiently delivered by private companies instead of state employees? Surely not.

    For me Scottish nationalism is based on a narrow, parochial view of the world, a frankly old fashioned view that seems quaint in the internet age. Pride in your country is perfectly respectable but we would be giving up so much to make a point that is barely worth making in the first place. We are part of something bigger, better and more successful. We would be crazy to give it up.


    Or, to put it in the only way that resonates north of Hadrian's Wall: English money.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
    You're the one adding together different questions to draw your own warped conclusions - I'm simply reporting the data. which is the Scots are significantly keener on a deal to leave Trident in Scotland than is rUK....(28 vs 17).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    edited August 2014

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    They are not countries, but technically they along with any other area , region , city , town could potentially be short changed. However given the Scottish Government has already stated it will look to improve current position it would not seem to be an issue at this point.
    Also they do not send all their revenue to another country and get a "share " back. They get money allocated from central government as a % of overall revenue and raise local taxes, so completely different.
  • malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
    You're the one adding together different questions to draw your own warped conclusions - I'm simply reporting the data. which is the Scots are significantly keener on a deal to leave Trident in Scotland than is rUK....(28 vs 17).
    Only if you use partial numbers, being obtuse does not help your omission.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    isam said:

    Another Tory MP backs the idea that hospital car park charges should be scrapped

    Bad idea said the Tories on here when Ukip called for it

    http://m.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11412943.Politicians_back_campaign_to_scrap_hospital_car_park_charges/

    I notice that the Gazette didn't mention that this campaign was supported by UKIP.
    Where will the money come from to fill the gap in the hospital budget?

    UKIP has a magic money tree!
    Tory mp for Harlow is leading the debate in the commons backed by Frank Field! You have to try and stop going onto auto pilot just to knock whatever Ukip say!
    No one is knocking what UKIP is saying per se (outraged victimhood seems to be your standard response to any criticism).

    The point is that parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals.

    There is a good case for abolishing them - it's basically a somewhat random hidden charge for healthcare - but if you do so then either savings need to be found (in the NHS or elsewhere) or taxes have to rise. And no, @MikeK, "clamping down on health tourism" won't do as an answer - it's as credible as the Tories "cutting red tape" or Labour's "funded by the banker's tax": a stock answer that means nothing.

    I'd rather we have a sensible conversation about what we want from the health service, how we structure it (DGHs are a classic example of "I wouldn't start from here") and how we are going to pay for it.
    we're clearly subsidising the actual cost of running the airport in diverse ways that aren't as common abroad (e.g. at most airports around the world, internet access is usually free).....
    What a strange comment given that the "we" in question are the users of the airports, who else would be meeting the cost of running the airport? Heathrow is still treated as a regulated airport due to its market share and is only allowed to make the return agreed with the CAA on it's regulated asset base... Accordingly, it seeks any way it can to make an above expected margin on the incidental services between the five yearly CAA reviews... Car parking, retail, advertising, VIP services, longes etc..

    Having said that, Heathrow suffers from having been ahead of the curve with internet access a entering a really poor contract with a US service provider before the market matured... The current management would I'm sure love to provide free WiFi if the CAA allowed the investment in assets and the contractual stuff could be sorted.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    David, serious question , can you elaborate and explain on your quote "sell the UK, our shared values, our role in the world, the opportunities that we have together".
    Be interested to see if you can come up with anything positive.


    On shared values I think that the peoples of the UK have so much more in common that divides them. We all support the welfare state and universal health care, the differences between the parties on this are much, much smaller than the extent to which they are in agreement. I really do not believe the differences of view between a tory government in the UK and a more left leaning electorate in Scotland are particularly meaningful in the big picture. Is it really worth even thinking about breaking up the Union because the tories think free health care is more efficiently delivered by private companies instead of state employees? Surely not.

    For me Scottish nationalism is based on a narrow, parochial view of the world, a frankly old fashioned view that seems quaint in the internet age. Pride in your country is perfectly respectable but we would be giving up so much to make a point that is barely worth making in the first place. We are part of something bigger, better and more successful. We would be crazy to give it up.


    Or, to put it in the only way that resonates north of Hadrian's Wall: English money.

    Ha Ha Ha
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Not for yourself or DavidL (Wrt the Scottish question) but one of my colleagues is undecided UKIP/Lib Dem and it "depends on the freebies" (Free school meals is keeping her just about in the Clegg camp I think). So there are those who it may swing their vote.

    Well at least she knows what she wants, which is more than most voters!

    To be fair, though, the cost of school meals can be a pretty substantial item on the budget for families on modest incomes.
    But those on benefits were already getting them free. This is a middle class subsidy. The evidence of educational advantage was quite strong but this is the only basis on which a quite regressive allocation of resources could be justified. I have my doubts but we will see.

    Similarly, means testing prescriptions seems a much fairer way of providing additional funding to the health service than universal parking charges which in many ways are just a tax on the sick and the poor.

    (Reminds me of a U2 song: "Don't believe it when they tell me that there ain't no cure, The rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor.")

    We abolished prescription charges in Scotland completely and the result is that there is less money available for cancer drugs. There are, of course, no cost free options outwith Milibandland but it is regrettable that politicians are so rarely held to account for the consequences of the choices that they make.

    David, that is blatant rubbish , the administration costs of prescriptions almost matched the cost of the drugs , it is almost a wash to not charge for them.
    Malcolm, you're forgetting to add also the savings in other medical care of making sure folk get the medicines they need.

  • malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs.
    Malc,
    Out of interest does this mean you support a Brexit (or a Scexit?).
    Actually a YES is a Scexit isn't it? Until you are re-admitted with the Euro and get to do WTF you are ordered to by Brussels.
    I'm, with you here. I believe absolutely that countries should govern themselves independently. Our only disagreement seems to be what country we are talking about (UK/Scotland)!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Lib Dems have 'Neanderthal views on diversity', says Hackney Heroine
    Pauline Pearce has quit the race to become the Liberal Democrat president because of the party's 'underhand racism', she says"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11039702/Lib-Dems-have-Neanderthal-views-on-diversity-says-Hackney-Heroine.html
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    The cost of CERN subscription would be ~ 13 Million euros annually. The question is whether such a huge cost is justified for the small number of users in an independent Scotland (basically a handful of particle physicists at Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities).

    Some small countries (like Denmark) are members of CERN, some (like Ireland) are not.

    However, I was not primarily talking about money. The more general point is that in scientific research, size matters. The bigger the scientific community in a country, the more vibrant it is, the more it can attract funds, international grants and personnel from elsewhere.

    Kelvin and Rankine made Glasgow one of the centres of world physics and engineering for twenty years. But, then, Glasgow was one of the hubs of a rich and powerful Empire.

    Scientific research is always dominated by big and rich institutions in big and rich countries. That is just a fact of life.

    Just like football is dominated by big and rich clubs in big and rich leagues.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598
    The mention of Linda Colley reminds me that (in case nobody else has mentioned it, forgive me if it has been) this has just been published, gratis at the moment. Quite an interesting read on how to dissolve the Treaty of Union and on the UK Gmt's doctrine of independent Scotland as a state de novo.

    http://lril.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/12/lril.lru007.full.pdf
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,976

    To amplify DavidL's points, a good example is scientific research.

    Scotland of course has a wonderful history in scientific research and its universities punch above their weight. They take more science grants per head than English or Welsh universities.

    An independent Scotland would have to make up that shortfall, and also find the subscriptions for scientific organisations like CERN, ESA and ESO.

    Not all small European countries are members of CERN (Ireland isn't). Not all small European countries are members of ESA or ESO (Norway isn't).

    It is not cost-effective if you have a small scientific community to join these costly organisations.

    But, if you don't, the price you pay is that your scientific talent moves away to the rUK, to the US, to continental Europe. You become a scientific backwater.

    I'd guess there is a minimum size for a country to maintain a really thriving and active scientific research base -- the smallest country I can think of that does is Switzerland (pop. 8 million).

    To quote from an interview with the (Scottish) Chief Scientific Adviser to outgoing European Commission President Manuel Barroso

    The first question is simple: what would change for science in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote in September?

    “I wouldn’t immediately see what would change in as much as science is a collaborative process. Science which is only of interest to the person on the bench next to you is not normally of great importance. If you look at the scientific effort of Scottish research, this is something I did while I was in Scotland, which was commission the first report to look at what is the impact of the science done in Scotland compared to the rest of the world.

    “Obviously we were utterly delighted at the time, this was in 2007, to be able to demonstrate that by independent analysis, relative to GDP, the impact of science done in Scotland was number one in the world. That is just mind blowing.

    “On the 19th of September I don’t see that changing because if I am in China or in North America, I want to work with the best and if the best are in Scotland, I’m still going to work with the best.”
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited August 2014
    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
    You're the one adding together different questions to draw your own warped conclusions - I'm simply reporting the data. which is the Scots are significantly keener on a deal to leave Trident in Scotland than is rUK....(28 vs 17).
    Only if you use partial numbers, being obtuse does not help your omission.
    I'm quoting numbers from the YouGov tables:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Post a link to your source?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs.
    Malc,
    Out of interest does this mean you support a Brexit (or a Scexit?).
    Actually a YES is a Scexit isn't it? Until you are re-admitted with the Euro and get to do WTF you are ordered to by Brussels.
    I'm, with you here. I believe absolutely that countries should govern themselves independently. Our only disagreement seems to be what country we are talking about (UK/Scotland)!
    Afternoon Patrick, as part of UK I see Scotland as a region not a country and we are getting stuffed. I am not desperately EU minded but being in EU and giving them a small proportion of your budget and supposedly getting some benefits of open market , etc , etc seems an awful lot better than giving all our cash to Westminster and getting put over the table and being well and truly shafted.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2014
    Recently the media has picked up on the facts that UKIP is now receiving more donations than the LDs and has almost the same number of members. But I think it's notable that they have also selected more candidates. This is despite the fact that LD selections include most of their MPs.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Salmond offered RBS help in bank takeover

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-offered-rbs-help-in-bank-takeover-1-820459

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598
    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs.
    Malc,
    Out of interest does this mean you support a Brexit (or a Scexit?).
    Actually a YES is a Scexit isn't it? Until you are re-admitted with the Euro and get to do WTF you are ordered to by Brussels.
    I'm, with you here. I believe absolutely that countries should govern themselves independently. Our only disagreement seems to be what country we are talking about (UK/Scotland)!
    Not a Scexit, as you put it, as the tune has changed very considerably now Mr Barosso (sp.?) is no longer there. In any case the No campaign seem to have gone very quiet on the EU issue of late: one wonders why [irony green light].

    In any case, however, I think your perfectly fair question can be answered by saying that Scots would quite like to make up their oen mind about the EU on due course - one way or another - without the rest of the UK making it up for them, in the light of what the Scots can negotiate to meet their needs (and this could go either way).

    Anyone familiar with the history of Scottish fishing and farming and the effect of London's decision making on them would immediately grasp the point. I am still surprised that Whitehall should have been so unwise as to divert the recent EU grant specfically intended for Scotish farmers to other parts of the UK during the referendum campaign.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197


    The cost of CERN subscription would be ~ 13 Million euros annually. The question is whether such a huge cost is justified for the small number of users in an independent Scotland (basically a handful of particle physicists at Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities).

    Some small countries (like Denmark) are members of CERN, some (like Ireland) are not.

    However, I was not primarily talking about money. The more general point is that in scientific research, size matters. The bigger the scientific community in a country, the more vibrant it is, the more it can attract funds, international grants and personnel from elsewhere.

    Kelvin and Rankine made Glasgow one of the centres of world physics and engineering for twenty years. But, then, Glasgow was one of the hubs of a rich and powerful Empire.

    Scientific research is always dominated by big and rich institutions in big and rich countries. That is just a fact of life.

    Just like football is dominated by big and rich clubs in big and rich leagues.

    Yes that will be why nearly all the successful and wealthy countries are small then.
    World class universities will still attract world class research. Lots of countries seem to be doing an awful lot better than Scotland is under the UK, so I will go with reality and hope we take our chances.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    Arise Sir Fred and let me sign that dodgy deal for you said the clever unionist(s)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598
    edited August 2014

    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Get what in the neck , an injection.
  • Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Salmond offered RBS help in bank takeover

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-offered-rbs-help-in-bank-takeover-1-820459

    Salmond boasted in front of an American audience in 2008; " With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term. ".
    Once they failed they became London banks in Salmond's fantasy world.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Carnyx said:

    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?


    not all the separatists are such models of charm, sweetness and light as your good self.

    As we see here.

    Daily, and frequently hourly.....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
    You're the one adding together different questions to draw your own warped conclusions - I'm simply reporting the data. which is the Scots are significantly keener on a deal to leave Trident in Scotland than is rUK....(28 vs 17).
    Only if you use partial numbers, being obtuse does not help your omission.
    I'm quoting numbers from the YouGov tables:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Post a link to your source?
    I was using the numbers you posted , but not selecting bits and pieces to suit my argument , I was using all of them.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Salmond offered RBS help in bank takeover

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-offered-rbs-help-in-bank-takeover-1-820459

    What a turnip, Unionists signed the deal and knighted him, just before they bankrupted the UK.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Carnyx said:

    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?


    not all the separatists are such models of charm, sweetness and light as your good self.

    As we see here.

    Daily, and frequently hourly.....

    Who was it doing the cursing and swearing and hurling insults I may ask
  • Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Exactly and they were done under UK regulations , signed off in London by unionists. Scotland had NO say in the matter.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Yes is lost, it's the non-Scots born who will get it in the neck:

    Place of birth (yes/no excl DK)
    Scot: 46/54
    rUK: 27/73
    XUK: 31/69


    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?


    not all the separatists are such models of charm, sweetness and light as your good self.

    As we see here.

    Daily, and frequently hourly.....

    Who was it doing the cursing and swearing and hurling insults I may ask
    You wouldnt believe it, malcolmg, but sometimes it even happens here on pbc!

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    On Trident - while the Scots are pretty evenly split on Scrap (27), shift to rUK (30) leave in a Scotland in deal (28), rUK has no such confusion - shifting to rUK is preferred (46) almost 3:1 vs scrapping (17) or leaving in Scotland (17).....if it's our toy, we'll have it...

    You have a strange notion on numbers, it is 2:1 to get rid in Scotland , not quite how you try to portray it. Your other one is 46:34 again not quite how you try to manipulate the numbers. Usual economy with the truth.
    You're the one adding together different questions to draw your own warped conclusions - I'm simply reporting the data. which is the Scots are significantly keener on a deal to leave Trident in Scotland than is rUK....(28 vs 17).
    Only if you use partial numbers, being obtuse does not help your omission.
    I'm quoting numbers from the YouGov tables:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nc8vsimg82/Times_Scotland_Results_140815_Monday.pdf

    Post a link to your source?
    I was using the numbers you posted , but not selecting bits and pieces to suit my argument , I was using all of them.
    adding apples to oranges to get bananas......Bit like Salmond's currency plan......

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    sarissa,

    "On the 19th of September I don’t see that changing because if I am in China or in North America, I want to work with the best and if the best are in Scotland, I’m still going to work with the best".

    The key to this to retain the best in Scotland.

    There are a number of reasons why Scotland is a very good place to do research now. It benefits from being part of the UK, and it benefits from punching above its weight in getting national and international grants, and it benefits from international subscriptions such as CERN, ESO/ESA and EMBL, and so on.

    An independent Scotland can of course retain all this, but with extra expense and extra effort. That is my point.


  • So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Exactly and they were done under UK regulations , signed off in London by unionists. Scotland had NO say in the matter.
    And it would have been signed off by Salmond in an iScotland. As demonstrated by his attitude over many years.


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Exactly and they were done under UK regulations , signed off in London by unionists. Scotland had NO say in the matter.
    And it would have been signed off by Salmond in an iScotland. As demonstrated by his attitude over many years.


    My granny would have been my grandpa if she had had testicles. Deal in reality and not fairy tales. Signed off by unionists in London under London control just before bankrupting the UK.
  • malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Exactly and they were done under UK regulations , signed off in London by unionists. Scotland had NO say in the matter.
    And it would have been signed off by Salmond in an iScotland. As demonstrated by his attitude over many years.


    My granny would have been my grandpa if she had had testicles. Deal in reality and not fairy tales. Signed off by unionists in London under London control just before bankrupting the UK.
    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?

  • Shadsy is seldom wrong

    Thirty days to go and although there have been a number of mildly encouraging polls for the YES camp over recent days, the odds of a nationalist victory are now out to 5/1, almost the biggest price it has ever been in the two and a half years since Ladbrokes started betting on a referendum outcome. Back in January 2012 when we opened our book, we made a YES vote just 5/2. The only time it was ever shorter was in April of this year, when it briefly dipped to 9/4.

    http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/latest-news-from-the-indyref-betting-markets/
  • Bah, Shadsy is using my line, comparing the Nats to Romney and Ron Paul Supporters

    1. The polls are wrong. It’s certainly a possibility that none of the pollsters are accurately reflecting public opinion, given that they have very little experience of events like this in the UK. There is a section of the YES movement who have embraced a “polling denial” standpoint and criticised the methodology as being unable to pick up the real “feeling on the ground” or that canvassing returns are painting a totally different picture. This reminds me of certain Republican leaning commentators before the 2012 US Presidential election, who preferred to rely on the anecdotal evidence of campaign crowds and yard signs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    More from YouGov.....those lying Unionists......

    Campaign Honest (net)
    Yes: -2
    No: -2
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    AndyJS said:

    "Lib Dems have 'Neanderthal views on diversity', says Hackney Heroine
    Pauline Pearce has quit the race to become the Liberal Democrat president because of the party's 'underhand racism', she says"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11039702/Lib-Dems-have-Neanderthal-views-on-diversity-says-Hackney-Heroine.html

    Quite something from someone who wrote this

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11014543/White-hipsters-not-black-looters-are-now-threatening-post-riots-London.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    There is a section of the YES movement who have embraced a “polling denial” standpoint and criticised the methodology as being unable to pick up the real “feeling on the ground” or that canvassing returns are painting a totally different picture. .

    Comical James and his groupies....chortle.........

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    edited August 2014

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?


    Don't mock the Prophet Salmond (PBUH)

    Lest you forget his most famous comment upon Sterling, which makes his desperation to keep sterling no way amusing.

    Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

    Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics. ''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,'' he said.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments.
    I presume there would be licencing in both countries, but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    I currently have my account in a Spanish bank under UK regulation but Spanish rules , so what is the big deal. They shuffle a few brass plates about and nothing changes.
    Obviously it would be very clear what currency you were dealing with in a Scottish bank. Most likely we would take BOS and Halifax would register for rump. Nat West would do same. It is a no brainer and no hassle.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
    Silly Billy, have you looked at GDP numbers , both trash the UK.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?


    Don't mock the Prophet Salmond (PBUH)

    Lest you forget his most famous comment upon Sterling, which makes his desperation to keep sterling no way amusing.

    Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

    Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics. ''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,'' he said.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
    Lots of people in Westminster have had same opinion at various times. Just shows the stature of the man that he can move with the times and not get stuck in idealistic jingoism like some in the UK do.
  • malcolmg said:

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?


    Don't mock the Prophet Salmond (PBUH)

    Lest you forget his most famous comment upon Sterling, which makes his desperation to keep sterling no way amusing.

    Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

    Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics. ''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,'' he said.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
    Lots of people in Westminster have had same opinion at various times. Just shows the stature of the man that he can move with the times and not get stuck in idealistic jingoism like some in the UK do.
    You mean, he's been making an idiot of himself for over fifteen years when it to comes the currency of Scotland and the pound.

    I think the phrase for Alex is always wrong, never learns.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited August 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate?

    74% excluding the Don't knows.....

    That one?

    Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....

  • malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate? 74% excluding the Don't knows.....That one? Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....

    But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Exactly and they were done under UK regulations , signed off in London by unionists. Scotland had NO say in the matter.
    And it would have been signed off by Salmond in an iScotland. As demonstrated by his attitude over many years.


    My granny would have been my grandpa if she had had testicles. Deal in reality and not fairy tales. Signed off by unionists in London under London control just before bankrupting the UK.
    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?

    Now you are down to acting like a 10 year old, give up and stop digging. Putting it in bold does not make you clever.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited August 2014

    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888
    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate? 74% excluding the Don't knows.....That one? Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....

    But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
    And they certainly don't need a vote on it either......according to Salmond anyway.....

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888
  • Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments.
    Indeed. In the ratio 92/8 - but only after actual independence. Meanwhile all the decisions around what to do would be made by a certain G.Osborne esq. A new Scottish government would find itself the proud owner of 8% of an English corporation with all its key divisions registered in England.


    ... but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    You are in denial. That is not a river in Egypt. It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure. All the main parties have unequivocally vetoed it. Labour have even promised to put this in their manifesto already. Tory and LibDem will surely do the same. The pound is the UK's currency and leaving the UK means leaving the pound. You ARE going to need that Plan B.
    (Actually you aren't ......) :-)
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
    Silly Billy, have you looked at GDP numbers , both trash the UK.
    Ireland's GDP numbers are grossly distorted by the presence of multi-nationals. GNP is a far better measure. Though I dont think that anyone could doubt that Ireland has done a lot better than the UK since independence (as in the gap between the two was very significant back then and is quite narrow now) though that hides a terrible time in the first decades after independence (never get into a trade war with your biggest partner) followed by exceptional growth in the last two decades (well, except for the crash).

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    edited August 2014

    And they certainly don't need a vote on it either......according to Salmond anyway.....

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888

    See, this is why I would love a Yes vote.

    To see Salmond try and force a currency union.

    It would be even funnier than the time Salmond made himself look like a liar and a complete numpty, when he tried to hide the secret legal advice he had about an independent Scotland's automatic membership of the EU, which then turned out not to exist.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?


    Don't mock the Prophet Salmond (PBUH)

    Lest you forget his most famous comment upon Sterling, which makes his desperation to keep sterling no way amusing.

    Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

    Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics. ''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,'' he said.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
    Lots of people in Westminster have had same opinion at various times. Just shows the stature of the man that he can move with the times and not get stuck in idealistic jingoism like some in the UK do.
    You mean, he's been making an idiot of himself for over fifteen years when it to comes the currency of Scotland and the pound.

    I think the phrase for Alex is always wrong, never learns.
    Seems rather strange remark. At the time he said that the EURO was looking good and it probably seemed a good idea that it would benefit Scotland. You do not mention all the great fiscal whoppers from the Tories and Labour I see.
    His position now is correct and we will stay with the pound at this point.
    Do you think joining the ERM was a good thing perhaps, or dropping bank regulations or the myriad other disasters actually implemented by halfwits in Westminster.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Patrick said:

    It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.

    You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.

    Oh, you were one of them!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888
    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate? 74% excluding the Don't knows.....That one? Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....

    But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
    And they certainly don't need a vote on it either......according to Salmond anyway.....

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888
    You get more like a parrot every day. You are English it does not affect you , chill out and get a life.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,163
    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs.
    Malc,
    Out of interest does this mean you support a Brexit (or a Scexit?).
    Actually a YES is a Scexit isn't it? Until you are re-admitted with the Euro and get to do WTF you are ordered to by Brussels.
    I'm, with you here. I believe absolutely that countries should govern themselves independently. Our only disagreement seems to be what country we are talking about (UK/Scotland)!
    Afternoon Patrick, as part of UK I see Scotland as a region not a country and we are getting stuffed. I am not desperately EU minded but being in EU and giving them a small proportion of your budget and supposedly getting some benefits of open market , etc , etc seems an awful lot better than giving all our cash to Westminster and getting put over the table and being well and truly shafted.
    Paying your subs and getting into the free market? What year are we in when this is a valid description of the EU -1976?


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068
    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    Both countries have been through a more torrid time than the UK lately.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?

    Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax.

    Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!

    I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!

    The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.

    your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate? 74% excluding the Don't knows.....That one? Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....

    But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
    We will find out soon enough who has the cojones.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
    Silly Billy, have you looked at GDP numbers , both trash the UK.
    You just parrot SNP drivel. Why do you think 200,000 young people have left Eire since the Celtic Tiger came to grief?

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Neil said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
    Silly Billy, have you looked at GDP numbers , both trash the UK.
    Ireland's GDP numbers are grossly distorted by the presence of multi-nationals. GNP is a far better measure. Though I dont think that anyone could doubt that Ireland has done a lot better than the UK since independence (as in the gap between the two was very significant back then and is quite narrow now) though that hides a terrible time in the first decades after independence (never get into a trade war with your biggest partner) followed by exceptional growth in the last two decades (well, except for the crash).

    Neil, it has to be kept simple for Monica, it will take her at least a week to discover those numbers. You prove my point though , the frothers on here are delusional.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    "Deal in reality and not fairy tales."

    Excellent message - now just ensure Salmond gets it, ok?


    Don't mock the Prophet Salmond (PBUH)

    Lest you forget his most famous comment upon Sterling, which makes his desperation to keep sterling no way amusing.

    Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

    Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics. ''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,'' he said.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
    Lots of people in Westminster have had same opinion at various times. Just shows the stature of the man that he can move with the times and not get stuck in idealistic jingoism like some in the UK do.
    You mean, he's been making an idiot of himself for over fifteen years when it to comes the currency of Scotland and the pound.

    I think the phrase for Alex is always wrong, never learns.
    Seems rather strange remark. At the time he said that the EURO was looking good and it probably seemed a good idea that it would benefit Scotland. You do not mention all the great fiscal whoppers from the Tories and Labour I see.
    His position now is correct and we will stay with the pound at this point.
    Do you think joining the ERM was a good thing perhaps, or dropping bank regulations or the myriad other disasters actually implemented by halfwits in Westminster.
    The point you miss, he's wrong then, and he's wrong now, on the fundamental issue of the currency.

    When has he ever been right on the currency?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Neil said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    Being at the mercy of a partner 10 times your size means that you will be ignored nearly all the time. Decisions will always be taken to suit the larger party and there is no way a small partner can flourish in these circumstances. .
    I guess the same applies to Orkney and Shetland?
    Malcolm should thank his lucky stars that Scotland had a larger partner, otherwise the RBS and BoS disasters would have sunk Scotland for decades. As they say no good deed goes unpunished.
    In an independent Scotland, assuming a competent central bank, the deals that sank RBS wouldn't have happened...
    Dear Sir Fred,
    Yours for Scotland
    Alex
    Darien dream on Rexel56.
    The deals could t have been done by a bank in an independent country the size of Scotland.

    Tell that to the ruined Irish and Icelandic banks.

    Is that the two countries that are both doing better than the UK. You are not too bright are you.
    No they aren't. Isn't it a bit early to start an arc of prosperity revival ?
    Silly Billy, have you looked at GDP numbers , both trash the UK.
    a terrible time in the first decades after independence (never get into a trade war with your biggest partner)
    That looks like Salmond's plan B - no currency union - no share of the debt.....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Ok Malcolm. Your turn. Why should I vote yes?

    David,.....
    For me the main reason is that you should always run your own affairs.
    Malc,
    Out of interest does this mean you support a Brexit (or a Scexit?).
    Actually a YES is a Scexit isn't it? Until you are re-admitted with the Euro and get to do WTF you are ordered to by Brussels.
    I'm, with you here. I believe absolutely that countries should govern themselves independently. Our only disagreement seems to be what country we are talking about (UK/Scotland)!
    Afternoon Patrick, as part of UK I see Scotland as a region not a country and we are getting stuffed. I am not desperately EU minded but being in EU and giving them a small proportion of your budget and supposedly getting some benefits of open market , etc , etc seems an awful lot better than giving all our cash to Westminster and getting put over the table and being well and truly shafted.
    Paying your subs and getting into the free market? What year are we in when this is a valid description of the EU -1976?


    It has to be kept simple for the frothers on here, they are easily confused.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,163
    Neil said:



    Ireland's GDP numbers are grossly distorted by the presence of multi-nationals. GNP is a far better measure. Though I dont think that anyone could doubt that Ireland has done a lot better than the UK since independence (as in the gap between the two was very significant back then and is quite narrow now) though that hides a terrible time in the first decades after independence (never get into a trade war with your biggest partner) followed by exceptional growth in the last two decades (well, except for the crash).

    Ireland has been heavily subsidised by the EU over the years (to reduce its dependency on the UK), and it has wisely chosen to compete by making itself into a low tax economy. Scotland would not be the same because a) the EU has no money left, and what money it does have will be going to prop up places like Ukraine and Bulgaria, and stave off euro collapse. And b) despite vague mentions of 'simplifying' Scotland's tax system, Salmond would have to make good on vast promises made to those who want to 'get the Tories out' and think they are voting for a land of socialist milk and honey. Given the poltical make up of the two countries it's actually far more likely that England will become the 'tiger' economy, leaving Scotland behind.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197
    Patrick said:

    Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments.
    Indeed. In the ratio 92/8 - but only after actual independence. Meanwhile all the decisions around what to do would be made by a certain G.Osborne esq. A new Scottish government would find itself the proud owner of 8% of an English corporation with all its key divisions registered in England.


    ... but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
    You are in denial. That is not a river in Egypt. It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure. All the main parties have unequivocally vetoed it. Labour have even promised to put this in their manifesto already. Tory and LibDem will surely do the same. The pound is the UK's currency and leaving the UK means leaving the pound. You ARE going to need that Plan B.
    (Actually you aren't ......) :-)

    Patrick your gullibility is refreshing , you mention Labour and promise in the same sentence. Plus who would trust a Tory , more reverse gears than Italian tanks and especially a lying Lib Dem. The Scottish banks will be covered with the Scottish share of the BofE and the English part with their share, it is a simple concept and they will have some agreed rules around how much each side can borrow etc.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    Malcolmg,

    If I were Scottish and lived in Scotland, I'd vote for independence. To get away from London and for the excitement and exhilaration. But being English, I'd be sorry to see Scotland go.

    However if you do decide yes, you can whistle for the currency. Sorry, mate, but that's human nature
  • Neil said:

    Patrick said:

    It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.

    You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.

    Oh, you were one of them!
    You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
This discussion has been closed.