saintnextlifetime Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lord Lang of Monkton. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10607633/Scottish-independence-would-dishonour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lord Lang of Monkton. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10607633/Scottish-independence-would-dishonour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html As much of a wanker as forsyth Wee ruthie davidson has been distancing herself from the wanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 As much of a wanker as forsyth Wee ruthie davidson has been distancing herself from the wanks... It equates to sheer arrogance and a lack of respect for , just about everyone. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 But it wouldn't be our debt would it? You've consistently claimed that when we walk away we walk away from ownership of everything such as our NATO membership, EU membership, the Bank of England, the Pound, the Queen and everything else. Except the debt. That we apparently keep hold of? Aye right. This is where you are deliberately being misleading. We either have a share of everything or nothing. You can't cherry pick. Oh and BTW be a good boy and answer cockles above. He raises a good question. The Treasury has already answered the question. The UK will take responsibility for all the government bonds issued to date. An Independent Scotland will take their share of the debt by issuing government bonds to the UK Treasury. If Scotland was then to default on these bonds you'd quickly find interest rates rising , as it has done in Greece, Spain and Portugal as your credit rating falls through the floor. Incidentally there is no one at the SNP claiming that Scotland can just turn it's back on debt , it's just the really stupid nationalists who don't have an basic understanding of the economy that keep coming back with this shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Tony, just one thing - Scotland has always retained certain aspects of sovereignty, not only post-devolution issues, so what you said is pretty misleading. For example, although still having to remain within the confines of the ECHR, Scotland has always retained the right to legislate for all aspects of the criminal law for itself, and has its own criminal procedures and criminal justice system. Our system in that aspect is hugely different to that in the rest of the UK. That's just one example, but a pretty huge one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The Treasury has already answered the question. The UK will take responsibility for all the government bonds issued to date. An Independent Scotland will take their share of the debt by issuing government bonds to the UK Treasury. If Scotland was then to default on these bonds you'd quickly find interest rates rising , as it has done in Greece, Spain and Portugal as your credit rating falls through the floor. Incidentally there is no one at the SNP claiming that Scotland can just turn it's back on debt , it's just the really stupid nationalists who don't have an basic understanding of the economy that keep coming back with this shite I have highlighted the important word in this statement; a word which you seem to have ignored in your prophecy of doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The reality of keeping the pound relies on some form of political union - simple fact! If in a separated state, England decide to go to fight some further crusade, argue with Europe over some trade issues or take any measures fiscally that affect the £ then it follows that the pound in the Scottish pocket would also be affected. It is a complete nonsense that the Yes campaign think they can wash over that argument. It's either full separation, or it's not, you can't have it both ways. Don't get me started on the Yes vote's 'policies' on defence and the NHS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) The reality of keeping the pound relies on some form of political union - simple fact! If in a separated state, England decide to go to fight some further crusade, argue with Europe over some trade issues or take any measures fiscally that affect the £ then it follows that the pound in the Scottish pocket would also be affected. It is a complete nonsense that the Yes campaign think they can wash over that argument. It's either full separation, or it's not, you can't have it both ways. Don't get me started on the Yes vote's 'policies' on defence and the NHS! The word you are struggling with is "independence". I don't really know what "separation" means. It doesn't appear in the question we're being asked to vote on. You do know that calling it by its correct name won't automatically make it happen don't you? Don't worry, you can't jinx "it which shall not be named" by ….er…..naming it. This isn't Hogwarts. Edited January 31, 2014 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Why don't the 'yes' campaign treat independence like Danny Lennon treats signings? Get independence in on loan, and if it works out, great. Try to keep it. If it turns out to be shite, simply send it back down South. Gets my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Tony, just one thing - Scotland has always retained certain aspects of sovereignty, not only post-devolution issues, so what you said is pretty misleading. For example, although still having to remain within the confines of the ECHR, Scotland has always retained the right to legislate for all aspects of the criminal law for itself, and has its own criminal procedures and criminal justice system. Our system in that aspect is hugely different to that in the rest of the UK. That's just one example, but a pretty huge one. But it is still "managed" through the palaces of Westminster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The reality of keeping the pound relies on some form of political union - simple fact! If in a separated state, England decide to go to fight some further crusade, argue with Europe over some trade issues or take any measures fiscally that affect the £ then it follows that the pound in the Scottish pocket would also be affected. It is a complete nonsense that the Yes campaign think they can wash over that argument. It's either full separation, or it's not, you can't have it both ways. Don't get me started on the Yes vote's 'policies' on defence and the NHS! What issue would there be with Nhs? I thought it had been separate in Scotland since its inception? Although I'm not old enough to remember back to 1948. It's certainly been a devolved matter since, well devolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) I have highlighted the important word in this statement; a word which you seem to have ignored in your prophecy of doom. It's not a prophesy of doom, just a statement of fact. For what it's worth I don't think an Independent Scotland would default on it's debt but then I'm also not the one claiming that if England acts the c**t Scotland can just walk away from their share of the National Debt. That's completely wrong. Of course Scotland would be moving into a market place where instead of having a long standing honourable track record that has earned a AAA credit rating, to a market place where they've no track record, no credit rating and where they'd be hoping that the Rest of the UK support it with cheap interests rates to keep them away from Wonga. Michael Portillo made an excellent point last night on the This Week programme. With Alex Salmonds pals at the Royal Bank Of Scotland - you know the ones Salmond was never done sucking up to and who he offered to assist in any way he could to buy ABN Amro - having run up yet another £8Bn of losses this year one really does have to wonder how Scotland would have coped with the crisis had it been Independent back then. Edited January 31, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 oaksoft Posted Today, 10:03 The word you are struggling with is "independence". I don't really know what "separation" means. It doesn't appear in the question we're being asked to vote on. You do know that calling it by its correct name won't automatically make it happen don't you? Don't worry, you can't jinx "it which shall not be named" by ….er…..naming it. This isn't Hogwarts. Actually if you read my post it says; "in a separated state, England decide to ........................ etc etc" I have no issue with the word independence, and for the sake of pedantry, I'm happy to say: "It's either full independence, or it's not" In the case of the separation of the countries but not the pound, the influence of the remainder of the UK's actions must have an over-riding effect on what happens to how the pound operates, or indeed functions on the international money markets. The Scottish pound will not be any different in value to the UK pound so if external actions taken by the remainder of the UK affects that pound's strength then Scotland has to meekly follow as our influence of the pound will be minimal. My reference to the NHS in Scotland refers to the fact that within Scotland nearly 23% of the working population works for the state out of the total working population of just over 2.5m. Yes the NHS is presently funded from within Scotland, but that will be partly funded through the payments currently received from Westminster. The high government employment rate, means that it is the remaining 78% of the population that has to fund the NHS and whatever defence system / force that the Scottish Government would support. I struggle to see that the current £11.5 billion budget for the NHS in Scotland can be covered in the long term from solely within Scotland coupled with the ageing population demands that will be thrown at the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 oaksoft Posted Today, 10:03 The word you are struggling with is "independence". I don't really know what "separation" means. It doesn't appear in the question we're being asked to vote on. You do know that calling it by its correct name won't automatically make it happen don't you? Don't worry, you can't jinx "it which shall not be named" by ….er…..naming it. This isn't Hogwarts. Actually if you read my post it says; "in a separated state, England decide to ........................ etc etc" I have no issue with the word independence, and for the sake of pedantry, I'm happy to say: "It's either full independence, or it's not" In the case of the separation of the countries but not the pound, the influence of the remainder of the UK's actions must have an over-riding effect on what happens to how the pound operates, or indeed functions on the international money markets. The Scottish pound will not be any different in value to the UK pound so if external actions taken by the remainder of the UK affects that pound's strength then Scotland has to meekly follow as our influence of the pound will be minimal. My reference to the NHS in Scotland refers to the fact that within Scotland nearly 23% of the working population works for the state out of the total working population of just over 2.5m. Yes the NHS is presently funded from within Scotland, but that will be partly funded through the payments currently received from Westminster. The high government employment rate, means that it is the remaining 78% of the population that has to fund the NHS and whatever defence system / force that the Scottish Government would support. I struggle to see that the current £11.5 billion budget for the NHS in Scotland can be covered in the long term from solely within Scotland coupled with the ageing population demands that will be thrown at the system. It's not pedantry. Independence is what it is. It's not separation. That word is deliberately used to misrepresent what is happening. The word "traitor" will be getting bandied about soon….oh hang on it already has - the Tory peer wasn't it who said we were disrespecting the war dead? As for your facts and figures? I'm not disputing any of them because I don't know exactly what numbers are actually factual and which have been spun. Either way it's not relevant. I support independence on ideological grounds and I'm quite prepared to handle any problems as, when and if they occur in exactly the same way as I did when I left home and started looking after my own affairs. One final note, yes the NHS is funded through money coming from the Barnett Formula. We receive less than we raise in revenues. This isn't disputed although historically the Tories tried to use all sorts of statistical trickery to pretend we were a drain. Independence therefore means we'll have more money. Quite why you think having more money will cause problems for the continued running of the NHS is anyone's guess. And I'll ask again. If Scotland is believed to be a drain on the UK, why is Westminster so desperate to hold onto us? That should ring alarm bells for everyone up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groucho Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Talking of the NHS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Talking of the NHS Oh FFS. The NHS has always used private companies to supply it. Drugs are sold to them by private companies. The same is true of all the machinery, beds, equipment etc, etc. The reason they use private companies to supply those goods and services is because it is cheaper and offers better value for money to the service than if they went into production making those things. There is nothing wrong with extending that long standing practice to use private companies to provide more cost efficient services than what the NHS can do in house. Indeed it's good practice and it's exactly the sort of thing that might just prolong the life of the NHS a bit longer. An Independent Scottish government is far less likely to be able to afford to continue to offer existing service - private or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 An Independent Scottish government is far less likely to be able to afford to continue to offer existing service - private or not. It should be interesting to see your justification for this drivel. I wonder just how much conjecture and made up "facts" you can fit into your usual long winded simian like response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Oh FFS. The NHS has always used private companies to supply it. Drugs are sold to them by private companies. The same is true of all the machinery, beds, equipment etc, etc. The reason they use private companies to supply those goods and services is because it is cheaper and offers better value for money to the service than if they went into production making those things. There is nothing wrong with extending that long standing practice to use private companies to provide more cost efficient services than what the NHS can do in house. Indeed it's good practice and it's exactly the sort of thing that might just prolong the life of the NHS a bit longer. An Independent Scottish government is far less likely to be able to afford to continue to offer existing service - private or not. So it's being privatised by 1000 cuts then. Therefore there is truth in that poster. As FTOF says above I love it when you spout stuff like that last sentence as though it's factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Scotland pays more to HM Treasury than it receives back in barnett formula "pocket money" Scotland has a higher GDP than the UK An independent Scotland is planning to change how it spends its money, ie by not replacing trident, therefore spending that money on other services. Taking this into account its obvious that we couldn't afford the services that we currently provide - at least if you live in Dickoland its obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) It's not a prophesy of doom, just a statement of fact. For what it's worth I don't think an Independent Scotland would default on it's debt but then I'm also not the one claiming that if England acts the c**t Scotland can just walk away from their share of the National Debt. That's completely wrong. In theory its not completely wrong - granted its not likely to happen but it is possible and allows a stronger hand when Scotland is negotiating settlements. Of course Scotland would be moving into a market place where instead of having a long standing honourable track record that has earned a AAA credit rating, to a market place where they've no track record, no credit rating and where they'd be hoping that the Rest of the UK support it with cheap interests rates to keep them away from Wonga. You seem to be implying that UK currently has a AAA credit rating? The wonga stuff is just nonsense Michael Portillo made an excellent point last night on the This Week programme. With Alex Salmonds pals at the Royal Bank Of Scotland - you know the ones Salmond was never done sucking up to and who he offered to assist in any way he could to buy ABN Amro - having run up yet another £8Bn of losses this year one really does have to wonder how Scotland would have coped with the crisis had it been Independent back then. Michael Portillo also made a good point about Scotland being capable of being an independent country and it being very harmful to England. How many times does it have to be said that teh banking crisis was not a Scottish phenomenon, it was worldwide. The Scottish government would not be responsible for debts incurred by a scottish company. The UK government chose to bail out uk banks, the US also chose to do this. They actually pumped more money in that UK government. Edited February 1, 2014 by TPAFKATS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-could-become-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Oh FFS. The NHS has always used private companies to supply it. Drugs are sold to them by private companies. The same is true of all the machinery, beds, equipment etc, etc. The reason they use private companies to supply those goods and services is because it is cheaper and offers better value for money to the service than if they went into production making those things. There is nothing wrong with extending that long standing practice to use private companies to provide more cost efficient services than what the NHS can do in house. Indeed it's good practice and it's exactly the sort of thing that might just prolong the life of the NHS a bit longer. An Independent Scottish government is far less likely to be able to afford to continue to offer existing service - private or not. Here we go again! In case you had not noticed the NHS, set up in 1948, was never designed to manufacture drugs, machinery, beds or equipment. Its raison d'etre was, and still is, to provide health care to the population of the UK. Perhaps if you took a look at what is happening in NHS England you would see that, while private health care companies are making money, they are usually doing this by cutting costs by cutting staff numbers and reducing their terms and conditions of service. Medical opinion in England is that these changes have not produced the desired results and that patient care has suffered. There is really no evidence that they are reducing the cost to the government, and the profits made by the private health care firms are not available to be re-invested in the NHS but go to the owners of these businesses who, of course, are supporters and funders of the Conservative Party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Report in today's Financial Times ( Independence Debate: Scotland by numbers) explaining how, amongst other things, Scotland would be 11% better off than UK immediately post independence. Can't link as it's online site is subscription only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Report in today's Financial Times ( Independence Debate: Scotland by numbers) explaining how, amongst other things, Scotland would be 11% better off than UK immediately post independence. Can't link as it's online site is subscription only. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0 Do you mean this. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Can't get anywhere with that link, snlt, try this instead http://archive.is/vcQ78 Hopefully it puts that part of the debate to rest. I doubt it, though...... Edited February 3, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.