The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

29000 Shipbuilding jobs are lost. Since the 1970s yards have been privatised, by westminster and the yards that remain are now solely reliant on defence contracts from Westminster. In dicko troll logic this is the fault of a devolved government with no control over defence spending.

I may need to wear some tena men if this comedy gold continues...

Eh? The yards were always in private ownership.

You need to learn your local history. Look up John Browns, Yarrow Shipbuilder Ltd, Fairfields, Alex Stephens, Charles Connell and Co, Scott Lithgows, etc, not one was ever Government owned

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

What power does the Scottish Government have in regards to shipbuilding, I honestly don't know, can you tell me?

None, absolutely none. That's why their attempts to discredit the UK government using the shipbuilding industry is utter nonsense. Right now we still have a Scottish Shipbuilding industry for one reason and one reason only. Gordon Brown - the then Labour UK Prime Minister - placed a £1Bn order that saved Rosyth from closure and which put work the way of BAE Systems in the Clyde. Without that UK Government order the order books would have been empty and the yards would have closed.

If Scotland votes for Independence it is highly speculative that the UK Government would continue to support the Scottish Shipbuilding Industry and the SNP have already pledged to cut the defence budget right back. (Remember our discussion yesterday about not being able to spend the same money twice - well Professor Dunleavy's figures included an offset which was the defence budget cuts.) So how will this save shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde or Rosyth once the current contract is complete?

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[salmonbuddie]

UiE never built a ship in its existence, nor did Lewis Offshore or RJC. They were offshore construction facilities which struggled and died after the bulk of the North Sea installations were complete. So much for your history, StuD, time for a resit.

Edited June 24, 2014 by salmonbuddie

[Stuart Dickson]

None? So job losses have nothing to do with devolution then.

They are not trying to use the shipbuilding industry to discredit the UK Government, they are pointing out the lies that have come from the UK government - there's a thought, do you work for the UK Government?

Highly speculative? So you are not saying that they won't?

We don't have discussions - I'm just here to point out your lies, you know, like that Scottish Government report you had from 1998.

EDIT: Grammar.

You don't need to take my opinion on this one - instead take the word of the experts.

Rosyth owners Babcock tell workers that if Scotland becomes Independent that would be the end of Royal Navy contracts.

[Stuart Dickson]

UiE never built a ship in its existence, nor did Lewis Offshore or RJC. They were offshore construction facilities which struggled and died after the bulk of the North Sea installations were complete. So much for your history, StuD, time for a resit.

Semantics!

You are right but your attempt at diverting from Tony's hideous error is frankly obvious. The closure of shipbuilding yards had absolutely f**k all to do with privatisation and everything to do with the fact that the yards couldn't compete in terms of quality or price for almost any type of vessel. It's probably yet another Scottish Industry collapse where the Trade Unions and their members behaviour wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.

[Charlotte Saint]

Eh? The yards were always in private ownership.

You need to learn your local history. Look up John Browns, Yarrow Shipbuilder Ltd, Fairfields, Alex Stephens, Charles Connell and Co, Scott Lithgows, etc, not one was ever Government owned

Wasn't Scott Lithgow part of British Shipbuilders?

[Stuart Dickson]

Wasn't Scott Lithgow part of British Shipbuilders?

Looks like you are right Charlotte and I'm wrong. Some of the others were Nationalised too.

Reading up on it Tony Benn, and the UK Labour Government, passed an act of parliament to nationalise a number a shipbuilding companies in 1977 under the name of British Shipbuilders. The Nationalised company then closed half of the shipyards by 1982 to reduce over capacity and in 1983 they sold off all the remaining assets. I guess this was the 70's equivalent of the Scottish Government buying Prestwick Airport or the Treasuries Banking Bailout.

See I can admit when I get it wrong. It still doesn't make Tony's point valid though. The shipbuilding industry was going down the toilet prior to Nationalisation and the yards were being closed at an alarming rate when they were Nationalised. There was no reason for the taxpayer to continue propping up an ailing, failing and uncompetitive industry.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Wasn't Scott Lithgow part of British Shipbuilders?

British Shipbuilders was who I was thinking of. You might also notice that I never said that privatisation was responsible for the job losses, just that it was Westminster that privatised the industry. Just as Westminster also nationalised the shipyards.

Factual inforation, not opinion. Not a hideous error either as far as I can see...

[FTOF]

No you never. The Scottish Parliament first sat on 12th May 1999.

It wasn't called The Scottish Government at that point either.

How many times can one person be wrong?

[salmonbuddie]

Semantics!

You are right but your attempt at diverting from Tony's hideous error is frankly obvious. The closure of shipbuilding yards had absolutely f**k all to do with privatisation and everything to do with the fact that the yards couldn't compete in terms of quality or price for almost any type of vessel. It's probably yet another Scottish Industry collapse where the Trade Unions and their members behaviour wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.

I've already taken you to task on the quality side with UiE, there was never, ever, anything wrong with the quality of the product. "Outstanding" was the word used by Exxon. You going to admit you are (and were) wrong about that?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Where is the badger?

Seems darling has now refused to debate with Salmond only 2 days after agreeing to it. Lets not forget that for months we have been told by Better Together, No Thanks that darling was ready for debate "anytime, anywhere". The quotes are Danny Alexander's

So has anyone seen the Martini girl???

[Guest TPAFKATS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28000740

Does this make Mike Dailly a nasty monstering BritNat(zi)

Classy response from Scottish Government - We accept the apology and view the matter as closed. Well, you wouldnt want to keep the story running across the mainstream media for a fortnight...

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Just to clarify the situation:-

Salmond agreed to debate with Cameron, not Darling on 16th July. Failing this, he said he would debate with a Better Together, No Thanks! nominee after the Commonwealth Games.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Good old Renfrewshire council Labour. Terry Kelly et al...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/council-gets-tough-election-posters-3755238

[Stuart Dickson]

I see the Scottish Parliament is to end the right of working class council tenants to get on the property ladder.

"A Fairer Society" my arse!

[Stuart Dickson]

A new survey of experts commissioned by the University of Edinburgh has confirmed that an independent Scotland could no longer charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students tuition fees.

In their White Paper manifesto for breaking up the UK the Nationalists asserted that even though it is not allowed under EU law, an independent Scotland would get special dispensation from the EU to charge students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

This policy was widely criticised by a number of experts including the EU Commissioner for Education, Androulla Vassiliou . Ms Vassiliou said that no EU country charges students from another EU nation, and said at the time that the policy was "without precedent." The EU Commissioner also confirmed that discrimination based on nationality would be illegal under EU law.

EU Commissioner for Education Androulla Vassiliou said:

"According to the information available to the Commission, no member state is charging different university tuition fees to EU students not residing within its territory."

"Conditions of access to education, including tuition fees, fall within the scope of EU law and any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited in such matters."

Ms Vassiliou added that any differences in treatment could be seen as a "covert form of discrimination" on the grounds of nationality.

This latest expert survey confirms that the nationalist tuition fees policy would be entirely unworkable.

Reacting to the new Edinburgh University survey, Scottish Conservative education spokeswoman Mary Scanlon MSP said:

“This is yet another example of experts lining up to dismiss more claims from the SNP’s White Paper.

“We’ve always known that European law could not be clearer on this issue.

“An independent Scotland would not be able to discriminate between different national groups, and that has been confirmed in this in-depth study.

“It also seems Mike Russell’s warning about a flood of students from the rest of the UK fleeing here to avoid paying student fees is completely wide of the mark.

“Sensible voices in this debate know the issue of funding has to be looked at and that some form of student contribution is necessary.

“To preserve Scotland’s status as a world leading provider of higher education we must place our universities on a sustainable financial footing and ensure that their autonomy from the Scottish Government is preserved.”

WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY

Jan Figel, a former deputy prime minister of Slovakia who was European Commissioner for Education, Training & Culture, said of the SNP’s plan to charge students from elsewhere in the UK tuition fees:

“This would be illegal. This would be a breach of the treaty.”

“If Scotland is an EU member state, from that day on it must apply the non-discriminatory rule which is linked to the free movement of persons ... It must apply the same treatment for English and Welsh citizens as it does for Scottish [citizens].”

“They should inform people in order to [help them] make informed decisions and mature decisions. People need to be well prepared for something historical, decisive and influential for their future,” he said. Mr Figel said the only way Scotland could continue charging English students would be either to leave the EU or convince every member state to approve a new clause to the Accession Treaty.”

“I cannot imagine as a politician or former EU Commissioner that in the sensitive area of educational openness, access and non-discrimination, the 28 countries would allow this sort of clause.”

A spokesperson for the European Commission said that charging students from other EU states tuition fees is illegal under EU law:

“Unequal treatment based on nationality (or on residence, which in many cases is de facto based on nationality) is regarded as discrimination which is prohibited by Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, whenever such treatment falls within the scope of Treaty. This is the case for the conditions of access to education, including tuition fees.”

Paul Beaumont, Professor of European Union and Private International Law at the University of Aberdeen, says:

“It is hard to see the Court of Justice of the EU accepting the Scottish Government’s arguments as to how this overt discrimination against students from rUK can be justified. There is therefore a substantial hole in the Scottish Government’s plans for funding higher education in Scotland.”

Niamh Nic Shuibhne, Professor of European Union Law at the University of Edinburgh, has argued:

“the Scottish Government would face an extremely steep uphill battle to convince the EU institutions that it should be entitled to retain a practice involving systemic direct discrimination against one particular cohort of EU citizens.”

David Caldwell, the former Director of Universities Scotland , said:

“The SNP’s White Paper idea of charging tuition fees to students from the UK in an independent Scotland – while making no charge for those living in Scotland and all other EU countries – now appears a non-starter.”

“This is too vital an issue to be left in doubt. The Scottish Government must publish any legal advice it has. Our students deserve nothing less.”

Jim Sillars, former SNP Deputy Leader , also said today that a separate Scotland would not be able to charge students from elsewhere in the UK tuition fees:

"If you're talking in the context of the European Union, English students will be legally entitled to what a Polish student gets, which is free fees. This would go to the European Courts of Justice."

Giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert in EU law said:

“The UK government not only has to continue to represent Scotland but also the rest of the United Kingdom. So it’s not a question of it acting in bad faith if it doesn’t put everything which the Scottish Government would like it to do so. For example one of the things being suggested in the White Paper is that Scotland should be able post-independence to charge university fees for people who are living in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now that would be, post-independence and post continued membership of the European Union, direct discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited as a matter of a fundamental principle of EU law. It would only be a possibility if there was specific treaty amendment to allow Scottish universities to discriminate on grounds of nationality against rest of the UK as opposed to other EU nationals, and without that you would be very hard pressed to maintain the policy which the Scottish government says it will do, of charging the English university fees but not home students and not the rest of the European Union. How can one expect the United Kingdom government in any pre-negotiations to say we would like you on behalf of Scotland to allow a treaty amendment which would allow effectively a discrimination against all the other people we happen to represent in the rest of the United Kingdom.That is not going to happen. So there are tensions clearly in any suggestion of going down article 48 because there are competing interests of potentially two different member states.”

Yet another White Paper pledge debunked by experts - note one of the debunkers is none other than former SNP Deputy Leader Jim Sillars. Will any of the White Paper assertions ever be proved accurate?

Edited June 25, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[flyingscot]

Good old Renfrewshire council Labour. Terry Kelly et al...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/council-gets-tough-election-posters-3755238

To be fair election posters should be banned from Lampposts and street furniture.

I see the Scottish Parliament is to end the right of working class council tenants to get on the property ladder.

"A Fairer Society" my arse!

To be honest it's probably run it's course. Definite need for more council housing these day though.

[Stuart Dickson]

To be honest it's probably run it's course. Definite need for more council housing these day though.

I don't think it's run it's course. For me the policy needs reviewed but not scrapping altogether. As a nation we should still be encouraging home ownership for all and we should continue to sell off existing housing stock in order to raise revenue to fund the construction of better quality, more energy efficient, new builds both for sale and for social rent.

The failing of the initial policy was that revenue from the sale of those properties was never ring fenced for housing. There were probably a good many reasons for that, not least Local Authority Debt levels, but it's not too late to fix that.

[beyond our ken]

To me, the whole concept of independence is less about nationalism and more about saving Scotland, and maybe the rest of the UK, from the road to hell that the career politicians in Westminster are driving us down. Irivine Welsh wrote the article below in yesterday's London Evening Standard and i wish it was repeated across every outlet in Scotland.

Something strange and beautiful is happening in Scotland. The country is reinventing itself from the inside out. People are talking about their futures as if they actually have them. It’s that exhilarating, intoxicating and occasionally exasperating phenomenon at work: welcome back participatory democracy. How these islands have missed you.

To recap what’s happened in your absence: everything has been set up in favour of a small, transnational global elite. Most citizens are being or have already been reduced to the level of poorly paid, debt-ridden servitude. Yes, many are still unemployed, but many more are underemployed, overemployed and set to work on barely liveable wages.

Within this context, looking at traditional indices of economic prosperity like unemployment rates, inflation, GNP is severely limited, as those don’t account for the reality of the past 35 years. The growing penury and financial instability suffered by everyone outside of society’s elites is the true political narrative of our times. It needs to be addressed locally and globally.

This hasn’t happened in the UK. The main political parties remain complicit in the transfer of resources from our citizens to this super-rich elite, under the advocacy of a private media, and through the constant lobbying of elected representatives. The “pragmatism” touted by politicians is one that solely addresses how to manage this movement of resources to the wealthy, through the constant rewarding of their corporate emissaries.

As a nation state the United Kingdom was an imperialist construct, and to this day it retains these undemocratic trappings: a hereditary principle, an unelected second chamber, no written constitution and a ruling elite drawn from a narrow, privately educated strata of society.

In Scotland, voters have traditionally sent a block of Labour MPs to Westminster to represent them. Labour originated in Scotland as the party of Keir Hardie and had a strong home rule ethos. As it grew from a party of protest to one of power, Labour changed its view: the best way to govern was to send representatives down to London. Thus a career structure emerged, whereby “ambitious” politicians could move from local council to a safe Labour seat, then perhaps become a minister. When the party lurched to the Right in the Eighties, it was usurped on the “Left” by the SNP, a bourgeois nationalist party which had taken on social-democratic trappings.

Since then we’ve seen the rapid de-industrialisation of Britain, the sale of national assets, the dismantling of the welfare state, the squandering of oil revenues on dole payments and bread-and-circus foreign wars, and the steady erosion of the democratic, participatory spirit in politics.

Politicians changed. They were less likely to have trade union, industry or even professional backgrounds, more inclined to be career politicians, and people are now more alienated from them than ever. These changes took place under both Labour and Conservative governments.

Now Scotland, through the independence debate, is leading the way in the reassertion of the democratic ethos. The actual result of the referendum in September, while massively important, is less significant than the fact that this process has gained such traction. Whether Scotland votes Yes or No, its people have got used to having a say in how their lives are run, outside of the self-interested and morally bankrupt party system. The drive for more of the same will continue.

English protest politics have been of the Right in recent years: “Eurosceptic” Conservatives, Ukip, the BNP and EDL. But without the distraction of Scotland, England will have to look seriously at what it is and what it aspires to be. I would expect that narrative to change and the country to shake off its weary attachment to the cabal of centre-Right/Right-wing parties and their tired platitudes. Rather than enabling its political progression, Scotland holds England back by sending it more lobby-fodder careerists invested in zero substantive change.

The Yes campaign’s biggest strengths are its vigorous grass-roots support, mainly from people who have felt disenfranchised by party politics. They are bolstered by the activities of the No campaign, with its unappetising coalition of the elite, the self-interested and the perennially servile, with the honourable but misguided exception of those who still believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that the British state can deliver social progress and economic justice.

The No campaign’s main asset is people’s intrinsic fear of change. The anti-independence campaign is, in tone and substantive argument, the same as any other throughout history. It seeks to make administrative procedural arrangements of varying awkwardness into compelling reasons for maintaining the status quo. The same arguments, citing different processes, were used in America, Africa and Ireland (and practically every independent nation in the world) with the same dire consequences predicted if they were ignored. Of course they were, and yes, life went on much the same as ever.

It isn’t in the nature of any state to want to cede territory but it begs the broader question: why is the British Establishment so desperate to keep Scotland? Well, if there’s a Yes vote, north of the border instantly gets rid of the hereditary second chamber, the City of London and Britain’s public-school elites, all those forces superfluous to good government but expensively grandfathered into our current system. There will also be a proper constitution drawn up, conferring citizen rights and designating responsibilities. It’s inevitable that people in England will then look north and think: “I fancy a bit of that.”

So Scottish independence is about a lot more than self-determination for that country: it is about the genuine modernisation of these islands’ political systems, conducted through the restitution of participative democracy. I don’t know whether September will offer up a vote of hope or fear. But I am convinced that those who pushed themselves to the forefront of the debate on their futures are unlikely to cede that power back to the elites, as represented by the Camerons, Cleggs and Milibands of this world. And that might be contagious.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The Grand Orange Lodge are the latest organisation to register with the Electoral Commission as participants in the campaign.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

On what side?

Same side as the Pope...if you believe how the bbc report stuff!

[salmonbuddie]

Same side as the Pope...if you believe how the bbc report stuff!

History repeats itself.....1690 all over again!

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Stopping the right to buy was announced last year - what's the point in bringing it up now.

Why are you claiming that it is only working class council tenants? Are you saying that upper class council tenants will still be able to buy their homes? As you will be aware the "class" system has f**k all to do with money, home ownership or ability and everything to do with "who yer daddy wis".

Stuart does not understand that there is a shortage of council rent housing . Not surprised he does not understand that basic need given he lives in a higher plane than everyone else ! ! !

[Stuart Dickson]

Stopping the right to buy was announced last year - what's the point in bringing it up now.

Why are you claiming that it is only working class council tenants? Are you saying that upper class council tenants will still be able to buy their homes? As you will be aware the "class" system has f**k all to do with money, home ownership or ability and everything to do with "who yer daddy wis".

The decent members of the Scottish Parliament attempted to block the moves to scrap Right to By but as usual they were rode roughshod over by the autocrats

[Stuart Dickson]

I see staunch SNP supporter and donor Brian Soutar - you know the homophobic one who funded a silly referendum in Scotland to try to block the Scottish Parliaments attempts to repeal the anti gay Section 28 law - has today warned Stagecoach shareholders of the "risks" of Independence and how it will adversely affect the performance of the business. Apparently he's donated £100,000 to "Christians For Yes" and he's pledge to meet £ for £ every penny the SNP manages to raise up to £1m - I presume that is IF Independence doesn't bankrupt him first....