The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

No it doesn't, its strategic value as a North Atlantic support base is not reduced by removal of nuclear weapons. Remind me again what NATO stands for? Operation Warrior is run every year, I can see the number of international warships that use Faslane from my office window.

The SNP will not be the party in power after independence so you're wrong again on that one, too. Not that you'll ever admit it, can't make up my mind if that makes you childish or a troll.

Why won't the SNP be the party in power post Independence? As far as I am aware it's in the statute book that Scottish governments serve for five years. The referendum is in 2014, the next Scottish Election isn't until 2016. Are you saying the SNP will resign en masse once the votes for the referendum have been counted?

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Faslane is obviously a key base. If you take nuclear submarines out of Faslane, you need to find another place to put them. As I say I'd venture that it would be the first thing the SNP would surrender in negotiations. Nuclear subs and weapons will still be on the Clyde.

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart, you know I'm a supporter of the yes campaign and I've had a few chuckles on this thread reading the way you have run rings round the no fans.

Just going to pick you up on this comment however - as I don't actually know the stats much.

The fact that Scotland spends more than it takes in and is running up a budget deficit doesn't mean that we are being subsidised by the rest of the UK surely? Surely the rest of the UK is also spending more than it brings in in taxes and is also running up a budget deficit?

I suppose the question is, are we running up more of a defcit than the rest of the UK?

Scotlands deficit is growing whilst the rest of the UK's has fallen. That's where the problem lies. Scotland is bucking the trend across the UK in a very negative manner and if Scotland was stood on it's own it would be a very costly situation for us all to be in. It's also totally unnecessary, if the SNP had followed their own, much vaunted, Laureate advisers advice they wouldn't have over estimated the value of Crude Oil by such a large margin.

[thepaisleypanda]

Why won't the SNP be the party in power post Independence? As far as I am aware it's in the statute book that Scottish governments serve for five years. The referendum is in 2014, the next Scottish Election isn't until 2016. Are you saying the SNP will resign en masse once the votes for the referendum have been counted?

The referendum is in 2014 (September)

Independence day will not be until April 2016

Scottish Parliamentary elections - May 2016 - The Government will be dissolved during Purdah period, so, in fact, there is a chance the SNP will never be in Government in an independent Scotland!

Do keep up Dicko!

[salmonbuddie]

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Faslane is obviously a key base. If you take nuclear submarines out of Faslane, you need to find another place to put them. As I say I'd venture that it would be the first thing the SNP would surrender in negotiations. Nuclear subs and weapons will still be on the Clyde.

But you agree that taking them out does not reduce Faslane's strategic importance to NATO? Good, you'll understand why removing the nukes will not be surrendered by whatever party is in power when those negotiations happen, then. Unless, of course, a government has been elected with a manifesto promise that they won't be removed, that's democracy for you.

[Isabella Duke]

No we are not. Scotland's deficit is below that of the UK.

Obviously in absolute terms, but what about relatively?

[Isabella Duke]

Scotlands deficit is growing whilst the rest of the UK's has fallen. That's where the problem lies. Scotland is bucking the trend across the UK in a very negative manner and if Scotland was stood on it's own it would be a very costly situation for us all to be in. It's also totally unnecessary, if the SNP had followed their own, much vaunted, Laureate advisers advice they wouldn't have over estimated the value of Crude Oil by such a large margin.

That doesn't really answer the question.

Scotland's deficit may well be growing and the rUK may well be declining - but that still doesn't tell me whether we are being subsidised by the rUK. Our deficit relative to rUK may still be smaller?

[Isabella Duke]

Stopped reading....

Right.

There.

^^^^^^ hit a raw nerve

[Isabella Duke]

The referendum is in 2014 (September)

Independence day will not be until April 2016

Scottish Parliamentary elections - May 2016 - The Government will be dissolved during Purdah period, so, in fact, there is a chance the SNP will never be in Government in an independent Scotland!

Do keep up Dicko!

Why are you using the St. Mirren badge to make a political statement in your avatar?

What has St. Mirren got to do with it?

Or has your avatar nothing to do with it?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Isabella Duke

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Scotland doesn't receive oil revenues, they flow direct to Westminster treasury.

[oaksoft]

Obviously in absolute terms, but what about relatively?.

I was talking relative amounts. Talking about absolute amounts would be daft.

[salmonbuddie]

Why are you using the St. Mirren badge to make a political statement in your avatar?

What has St. Mirren got to do with it?

Or has your avatar nothing to do with it?

^^^^^^ hit a raw nerve

Thanks for making it easy.

[thepaisleypanda]

Im a St Mirren supporter and a Yes supporter!

Simple enough!

[bluto]

Im a St Mirren supporter and a Yes supporter!

Simple enough!

You'd have to be simple to vote that way.

[salmonbuddie]

As opposed to suave & sophisticated like StuD, you mean? I'll stick to simple, thanks.

[Stuart Dickson]

That doesn't really answer the question.

Scotland's deficit may well be growing and the rUK may well be declining - but that still doesn't tell me whether we are being subsidised by the rUK. Our deficit relative to rUK may still be smaller?

Scots are being subsidised ID, no matter how you look at it.

More money per head of population is spent by Westminster on Scotland than is spent in England, Northern Ireland or Wales.

In previous years the SNP claimed - because it suited them - that Scots were due this because all of the North Sea Oil Revenues belonged to Scotland. The UK Treasury will always dispute this, especially given the territorial waters boundary that is an extension of the UK land border. Nationalists claim Westminster stole it from the Scots but then they would wouldn't they.

Even that argument doesn't stand up this year because the Scottish Government managed to completely blow it's budget by £12Bn - a huge deficit and a much larger proportion of the overall UK deficit than we should have had per head of population, and this year total spending has overtaken the net revenue from Scotland even including all the revenues from North Sea Oil.

Now if you take Jim Sillars view on the economy Scotland is being subsidised anyway because as he correctly pointed out - the UK Treasury has been funding a large part of the UK deficit through Quantitative Easing. Sillars says that this in effect means that the UK Treasury is one of the main creditors owed money by the UK Government. In effect we are in debt to ourselves. The UK Treasury has already guaranteed all Sterling debt regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote. I suppose the idea is that Scotland will take on a level of debt which has still to be negotiated after separation however at the moment it's a bit like the man in a divorce case agreeing to continue to pay the mortgage for their cheating partner while negotiations for a settlement rage on.

I'm probably not explaining it very well but all the economic analysts and experts are in agreement this year. Scotland is spending way beyond it's means and it couldn't afford it's current spending levels against net revenue if it was an Independent country.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Charlotte Saint]

Scots are being subsidised ID, no matter how you look at it.

More money per head of population is spent by Westminster on Scotland than is spent in England, Northern Ireland or Wales.

In previous years the SNP claimed - because it suited them - that Scots were due this because all of the North Sea Oil Revenues belonged to Scotland. The UK Treasury will always dispute this, especially given the territorial waters boundary that is an extension of the UK land border. Nationalists claim Westminster stole it from the Scots but then they would wouldn't they.

Even that argument doesn't stand up this year because the Scottish Government managed to completely blow it's budget by £12Bn - a huge deficit and a much larger proportion of the overall UK deficit than we should have had per head of population, and this year total spending has overtaken the net revenue from Scotland even including all the revenues from North Sea Oil.

Now if you take Jim Sillars view on the economy Scotland is being subsidised anyway because as he correctly pointed out - the UK Treasury has been funding a large part of the UK deficit through Quantitative Easing. Sillars says that this in effect means that the UK Treasury is one of the main creditors owed money by the UK Government. In effect we are in debt to ourselves. The UK Treasury has already guaranteed all Sterling debt regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote. I suppose the idea is that Scotland will take on a level of debt which has still to be negotiated after separation however at the moment it's a bit like the man in a divorce case agreeing to continue to pay the mortgage for their cheating partner while negotiations for a settlement rage on.

I'm probably not explaining it very well but all the economic analysts and experts are in agreement this year. Scotland is spending way beyond it's means and it couldn't afford it's current spending levels against net revenue if it was an Independent country.

finally, you've said something i agree with.

[BoWSaint]

Scots are being subsidised ID, no matter how you look at it.

More money per head of population is spent by Westminster on Scotland than is spent in England, Northern Ireland or Wales.

In previous years the SNP claimed - because it suited them - that Scots were due this because all of the North Sea Oil Revenues belonged to Scotland. The UK Treasury will always dispute this, especially given the territorial waters boundary that is an extension of the UK land border. Nationalists claim Westminster stole it from the Scots but then they would wouldn't they.

Even that argument doesn't stand up this year because the Scottish Government managed to completely blow it's budget by £12Bn - a huge deficit and a much larger proportion of the overall UK deficit than we should have had per head of population, and this year total spending has overtaken the net revenue from Scotland even including all the revenues from North Sea Oil.

Now if you take Jim Sillars view on the economy Scotland is being subsidised anyway because as he correctly pointed out - the UK Treasury has been funding a large part of the UK deficit through Quantitative Easing. Sillars says that this in effect means that the UK Treasury is one of the main creditors owed money by the UK Government. In effect we are in debt to ourselves. The UK Treasury has already guaranteed all Sterling debt regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote. I suppose the idea is that Scotland will take on a level of debt which has still to be negotiated after separation however at the moment it's a bit like the man in a divorce case agreeing to continue to pay the mortgage for their cheating partner while negotiations for a settlement rage on.

I'm probably not explaining it very well but all the economic analysts and experts are in agreement this year. Scotland is spending way beyond it's means and it couldn't afford it's current spending levels against net revenue if it was an Independent country.

No they aren't.

You keep banging on about this deficit over 1 year. Here are some numbers over a longer period of time to get a clearer picture. I remember recently the Daily Mail (you can guess where this is going...) claiming that global warming was a myth because arctic ice had grown in size over the last 12 months, which by surface area was true, but it was using a historically record breaking low figure for a bench mark and short timescale to twist the statistics and of course surface area means nothing and the overall trend is dramatically decreasing and the Daily Mail article was a load of rubbish.

There are plenty of studies out there that show that Scotland would not only be financially stable but could be significantly wealthy after independence.

I hate to repeat myself but if we are, as you claim, such a massive drain on the UK, why are they the ones campaigning so hard to keep us? Sentimentality and brotherly love?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

No they aren't.

You keep banging on about this deficit over 1 year. Here are some numbers over a longer period of time to get a clearer picture. I remember recently the Daily Mail (you can guess where this is going...) claiming that global warming was a myth because arctic ice had grown in size over the last 12 months, which by surface area was true, but it was using a historically record breaking low figure for a bench mark and short timescale to twist the statistics and of course surface area means nothing and the overall trend is dramatically decreasing and the Daily Mail article was a load of rubbish.

There are plenty of studies out there that show that Scotland would not only be financially stable but could be significantly wealthy after independence.

I hate to repeat myself but if we are, as you claim, such a massive drain on the UK, why are they the ones campaigning so hard to keep us? Sentimentality and brotherly love?

Of course you could also argue that if we weren't financially stable it wouldn't be any different from being part of the UK

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Now if you take Jim Sillars view on the economy Scotland is being subsidised anyway because as he correctly pointed out - the UK Treasury has been funding a large part of the UK deficit through Quantitative Easing. Sillars says that this in effect means that the UK Treasury is one of the main creditors owed money by the UK Government. In effect we are in debt to ourselves. The UK Treasury has already guaranteed all Sterling debt regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote. I suppose the idea is that Scotland will take on a level of debt which has still to be negotiated after separation however at the moment it's a bit like the man in a divorce case agreeing to continue to pay the mortgage for their cheating partner while negotiations for a settlement rage on.

I try not to quote the troll, however I believe this to be a definitive example of forum meltdown beginning...dicko has reached critical mass!

[Stuart Dickson]

No they aren't.

You keep banging on about this deficit over 1 year. Here are some numbers over a longer period of time to get a clearer picture. I remember recently the Daily Mail (you can guess where this is going...) claiming that global warming was a myth because arctic ice had grown in size over the last 12 months, which by surface area was true, but it was using a historically record breaking low figure for a bench mark and short timescale to twist the statistics and of course surface area means nothing and the overall trend is dramatically decreasing and the Daily Mail article was a load of rubbish.

There are plenty of studies out there that show that Scotland would not only be financially stable but could be significantly wealthy after independence.

I hate to repeat myself but if we are, as you claim, such a massive drain on the UK, why are they the ones campaigning so hard to keep us? Sentimentality and brotherly love?

Oh FFS, stop quoting Natsi propaganda websites and I might get beyond the URL.

Here's a far more balanced fact based article written by the excellent Stephanie Flanders of the BBC

[thepaisleypanda]

[thepaisleypanda]

You'd have to be simple to vote that way.

I know, but the 2 cup wins I have witnessed were pretty good!!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I dont know what's worse - quoting a bbc journo as writing a facts based article or not actually knowing that the author no longer works in journalism..

[Stuart Dickson]

I dont know what's worse - quoting a bbc journo as writing a facts based article or not actually knowing that the author no longer works in journalism..

....or not knowing that she does indeed still work in journalism and for the BBC on Radio 4 as well as holding down a £400k per year job at JP Morgan.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

freelancing as an "expert analyst" isnt being a journalist.

Also, stating she's fantastic just because you agree with her...