The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[FoolPhysio]

Rubbish.  What his proposition implies is that once people have voted for separation they don't want to go back.  I agree with you when you say "You can't simply say "Well look chaps, if you vote for separation, then that will make it good so therefore it is good, so therefore vote for it".  That doesn't hold water." - But that is not what is being said by the separatists.  What is being said is that if you think it is a good idea, vote for it because others who have had the courage to vote for change have not lived to regret it.

 

Interesting choice of word here DD. The implication being that those who vote NO do not have courage and therefore are . . . cowards?

I am not averse to use of over-exaggeration, perhaps not as good as Paxman granted, but this is exactly the kind of terminology used by the SNP for decades and now by the YES campaign to make people vote for them by using rhetoric that implies if you don't, you are less of a Scot or worse, a traitor to your people. Or even less of a human being.

Still like your posts on ICT matters though!

[Yngwie]

Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well.

The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

 

Ah, but what if the football club tempted Mr Jones by offering him a season ticket at the Under-18 price, even though he wouldn't be entitled under normal circumstances?!

 

[PullMyFinger]

Votes for 16 & 17 year olds on the agenda today.

 

I really pity them being exposed to the self loathing crap that comes from agent Bummerman.

[Charles Bannerman]

Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well.

The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

Ah, but what if the football club tempted Mr Jones by offering him a season ticket at the Under-18 price, even though he wouldn't be entitled under normal circumstances?!

If you mean Salmond's attempted dodge to draw in the 16 and 17 year olds by offering "jam tomorrow" because he thought he could grab their vote before they became politically mature, even that has emerged as misconceived. A fairly recent poll seemed to indicate that a lot of these youngsters are smarter than he thought and are not going to be taken in by his increasingly transparent propaganda as the separatist case fails more and more dismally to pass scrutiny in the face of reality.

Among the increasing symptoms of that will be Salmond bellowing louder and louder when he addresses the Parliament and his supporters becoming progressively more abusive to the increasing majority who do not agree with them.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[PullMyFinger]

 

Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well.

The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

Ah, but what if the football club tempted Mr Jones by offering him a season ticket at the Under-18 price, even though he wouldn't be entitled under normal circumstances?!

  If you mean Salmond's attempted dodge to draw in the 16 and 17 year olds by offering "jam tomorrow" because he thought he could grab their vote before they became politically mature, even that has emerged as misconceived. A fairly recent poll seemed to indicate that a lot of these youngsters are smarter than he thought and are not going to be taken in by his increasingly transparent propaganda as the separatist case fails more and more dismally to pass scrutiny in the face of reality.

Among the increasing symptoms of that will be Salmond bellowing louder and louder when he addresses the Parliament and his supporters becoming progressively more abusive to the increasing majority who do not agree with them.

 

So if you have a higher intelligence you are more likely to vote no?

 

Feck off you patronising ****.

 

It is only right and proper that those who are considered old enough to leave school, work, pay taxes, should be eligible and encouraged to vote.

[Alex MacLeod]

How else do I explain what seems to me to be a perfectly obvious observation in logic?

 

Scotland has not voted for separation and all the indications are, as any case presented for it crumbles more and more as the weeks go by, that it will not do so. That is because people are clearly unconvinced by the notion of breaking away.

It is therefore completely illogical to quote completely different scenarios where other groups HAVE decided this is in their best interests so you can make the case that it would also be in the best interests of Scotland.

Just because the Slovaks might like it, this doesn't mean to say that it is in the best interest of the Scots.

 

Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well.

The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

I must read the wrong papers. I have seen no evidence to say anything is crumbling. All I've seen so far is one group arguing a point and another counter-arguing it. Neither of those groups are able to put hard facts on the table though.

 

Back to your football analogy. Mr Austria and Mr Switzerland tried out a league system that failed for them but Mr Scotland has taken their reasoning on board, and is going to try the same anyway, believing that knowing the reasons for previous failure can promote success. So to sum up.........we dont know if any other country has failed in its ambitions to become a free state but if they have then what was their reason for failure and can that reason be rectified in a way as to promote success?

[PullMyFinger]

I'd just like to add that if/when a yes vote happens I will be seeking out Mr Bummerman to give it a massive GIRFUY in his face.

 

*For avoidance of any doubt this will be in a non-threatening "where's yer sicko sheltering buckled aunty now?" kind of way.

[FoolPhysio]

All I've seen so far is one group arguing a point and another counter-arguing it. Neither of those groups are able to put hard facts on the table though.

Totally agree. There was a vox-pop on the radio this morning that had a young lad say they needed more details for the case from both sides before he could make an informed decision. Apart from demonstrating a mature outlook, it was a plea that is echoed by those significantly older but unfortunately more experienced to know that this will turn out to be a forlorn hope.

As I said right at the beginning of this, our opposing views are based on subjective conjecture and not on hard facts, because it simply cannot be. Scotland both pays into and receives from a central pot - it is almost impossible to say how much we would have to pay for Embassy coverage based on what it costs now, as we have no idea where and to what extent the UK is currently represented, not do we know if we would want to simply duplicate what is there now. For example, there is significant difference between an embassy and a consulate in terms of cost and capability. Would Scotland just set up mirror diplomatic representations where there are UK facilities? Would the UK offer a shared option where Scotland takes on some and still allows nationals from both the same protection / service, and vice versa? Would Scotland want to just set up consulates where there are UK embassies, and keep cost low (risky option as it may allow foreign nationals to access visa services but doesn't give diplomatic representation in the same way as an Ambassador does). Up shot is - we don't know. More worryingly, is this even being considered? If yes - then where is the option being presented? If not - then what is the point of separation if we do not have adequate representation abroad?

Just one of many "what if's" that cannot be answered. Until it is too late and it turns out not to be jam tomorrow after all.

[FoolPhysio]

But to support my point above, this is where the UK has representation and to what level:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/find-an-embassy/

[Yngwie]

There was a vox-pop on the radio this morning that had a young lad say they needed more details for the case from both sides before he could make an informed decision.

 

These kids just need to join CTO to get a reasoned and mature debate:

 

Among the increasing symptoms of that will be Salmond bellowing louder and louder when he addresses the Parliament and his supporters becoming progressively more abusive to the increasing majority who do not agree with them.

 

 

Feck off you patronising ****.

 

[Alex MacLeod]

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

[+DoofersDad]

Rubbish.  What his proposition implies is that once people have voted for separation they don't want to go back.  I agree with you when you say

"You can't simply say "Well look chaps, if you vote for separation, then that will make it good so therefore it is good, so therefore vote for it".  That doesn't hold water." -

But that is not what is being said by the separatists.  What is being said is that if you think it is a good idea, vote for it because others who have had the

courage

to vote for change have not lived to regret it.

 

Interesting choice of word here DD. The implication being that those who vote NO do not have courage and therefore are . . . cowards?

I am not averse to use of over-exaggeration, perhaps not as good as Paxman granted, but this is exactly the kind of terminology used by the SNP for decades and now by the YES campaign to make people vote for them by using rhetoric that implies if you don't, you are less of a Scot or worse, a traitor to your people. Or even less of a human being.

Still like your posts on ICT matters though!

There is a big difference between lacking courage and being a coward.  The fact is that it often does take courage to embrace change whether it be in the politics or personal matters.  Take someone in a steady job living in a comfortable house who gets an offer of a job somewhere else which whilst offering lots of potential, lacks security.  You need courage to take the risk.  Some will decide that they don't want to take the risk for whatever reason and will settle for what they have.  It doesn;t make them cowards - it just means they have a different attitude to risk.

 

We know what it is like being part of the UK and most people will think it's OK.  Some of those people like the idea of independence and will think things could be better but are worried that there are too many uncertainties to risk it - so they will vote no.  Better the devil you know and all that.  That is actually an important point because it explains the drop in the polls for independence.  Previously people who liked the concept would say they would vote for independence but now that they have the chance to make that reality they are not prepared to take the risk.

 

The challenge for the "Yes" campaign is twofold.  Firstly they need to sell the concept and secondly they need to convince people that the risk is worth taking - and for most people that means they need to be convinced that it actually isn't much of a risk at all.

 

This brings us back to the very reasonable question that Kingsmills asks because as Charles knows all too well, the fact is that in other countries where people have voted for change, they haven't lived to regret it.  In other words, it was a risk worth taking.  And if those who are attracted by the arguments of the "Yes" campaign can be persuaded that the risk of voting "Yes" are small, then the tide will turn and Independence will be a very real possibility.

 

I should say that I say all this as a genuine undecided voter.  I may be seen to be siding with the "Yes" campaign here but that is only because the arguments of the other side on this point simply don't wash.  If Charles or others in the "No" camp wish to gain the vote of another floating voter it would be a good idea to provide a nice long list of countries in answers to Kingsmill's straightforward and very pertinent question.

 

On the subject of the "No" camp I see Lionel Messi is voting with his feet again.  A couple of cracking goals for Barcelona tonight.

[Charles Bannerman]

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

So this "separate" Scotland doesn't want or can't afford, to have its own embassies either.

We already know it wants to use its next door neighbour's currency (£ sterling) so wouldn't want or couldn't have its own monetary policy and control.

As for the SNP's "arc of prosperity" economic model, they suddenly realise "**** boys, Ireland and Iceland have gone belly up so let's just say Norway's wonderful instead." 

Then we hear this week that Mr Salmond wants Scots to be entitled to dual citizenship with the UK, presumably so they can also scrounge other facilities from them. (Sides... butter... both.... bread!)

Defence policy is non existent and totally anonymous and there's been no answer about Faslane.

And it's all predicated on the jam tomorrow of the SNP's latest interestingly timed creation, the "second oil boom" where they scrupulously avoid questions about unreliably priced oil lasting for mere decades while separation is for ever.

 

This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do......

 

What kind of "Wee Pretendy Country"  do Salmond and his chums think they can con us into voting for? Their proposals for separation read more like a business plan for Trotters' Independent Trading!!!

 

And, as Yngwie also observes... in traditional SNP fashion, as electoral prospects decline and arguments are lost, abuse of political opponents gets louder and louder.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[PullMyFinger]

There was a vox-pop on the radio this morning that had a young lad say they needed more details for the case from both sides before he could make an informed decision.

 

These kids just need to join CTO to get a reasoned and mature debate:

 

>Among the increasing symptoms of that will be Salmond bellowing louder and louder when he addresses the Parliament and his supporters becoming progressively more abusive to the increasing majority who do not agree with them.

 

 

Feck off you patronising ****.

 

 

I'd just like to point out that I am not a supporter of Alex Salmond, I am a supporter of Independence for Scotland. It's a bit like saying CB is a supporter of David Cameron.

[PullMyFinger]

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

So this "separate" Scotland doesn't want to have its own embassies either.

We already know it wants to use its next door neighbour's currency (£ sterling) so doesn't even have its own monetary policy and control.

As for the SNP's "arc of prosperity" economic model, they suddenly realise "**** boys, Ireland and Iceland have gone belly up so let's just say Norway's wonderful instead." 

Then we hear this week that Mr Salmond wants Scots to be entitled to dual citizenship with the UK, presumably so they can also scrounge other facilities from them.

Defence policy is non existent and totally anonymous and there's been no answer about Faslane.

And it's all predicated on the jam tomorrow of the SNP's latest interestingly timed creation, the "second oil boom" where they scrupulously avoid questions about oil lasting for mere decades while separation is for ever.

 

What kind of "Wee Pretendy Country"  do Salmond and his chums think they can con us into voting for?

 

This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do......

 

And, as Yngwie also observes... in traditional SNP fashion, as electoral prospects decline and arguments are lost, abuse of political opponents gets louder and louder.

Do you write Joanne Lamont's speaches Chucky?   The laughable thing about her is that shei s a marked improvement on Iain Grey (sic)

Let's deconstruct your post.

Embassies? We already have embassies all around the world, we could continue to use them, sharing the running costs with our closest ally. Alternatively we could sell or rent our share of the embassies and then find alternative facilities. It should be observed though that as a member state of the EU our citizens would be entitled to make use of the facilities of any other member state should the need arise.

 

Monetary policy and monetary union are not the same thing. As an internationally tradable currency sterling is the obvious choice for us to use immediately following a yes vote. A new currency would create uncertainty and we wouldn't want that would we Chuck? We would then be in a position to create our own currency after a few years if we so wished or join the Euro if it has recovered enough. These choices should be made by the population and not the political "elite".

 

Arc of prosperity? Have you even thought that through Chuck? Iceland is on the up because they let their banks fail which is what we should have done. Norway has 140% of it's GDP invested in foreign countries, think about that for a minute........Hundreds of billions of pounds invested. They have no deficit, AAA rating? They probably don't have any credit rating, why would they? They don't need it. Yes Chuck Norway is wonderful. Have you seen the news last week? Oil revenues in Scotland would be so much that it is feared, yes people FEARED we'd have to pay more to the EU. So don't go for that job @ £100000 per annum because you'll pay a lot more tax than having a job @ £10000. Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

Dual citizenship is a no brainer, really. I can't see the issue there at all. Scroungers? Ah there it is Johanne, leader of the "peoples party" in Scotland. So Scottish Labour would do what to universal benefits?

 

How very dare you put SNP and "jam tomorrow" together! Jam tomorrow is a term coined by supporters of independence following the devolution referendum in the 70s when the westminster government rigged the vote. When else has there been a minimum of 40% of the electorate (including those who had died since the last census) required for any outcome? Scotland was promisedt hat things would get better. Poll tax, pit closures, steelwork closures, shipyard closures were what followed. Jam tomorrow, and what is happening now Chuck?

 

Seperation is forever? Scary stuff Chuck. We have been independent or seperate as you like to call it before. Borders change, people change, countries change,everything changes, if we don't change everyone else will leave us in their wake. Change is good, if we work together we can make this a country that delivers for all it's citizens and not just those who have.

 

Wee pretendy country? Please try to be more patronising, it really helps undecided voters to see the too wee, too poor, too stupid argument appear again and again even after the Westminster parties have debunked the myth. I resent that a public servant who is also paid by the BBC (scum) thinks he is entitled to be such a troll on a public website. If he used a pseudonym it would be less annoying. Have you checked your contract lately Chuck?

 

 

This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do......

 

What does this even mean? If that's the best you can do?

 

And yes we will get louder and louder and louder until our message is heard and all the lies and disingenious claims from the no camp are disproved and the people of Scotland have the tools they need to make an informed choice in autumn 2014.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

So this "separate" Scotland doesn't want to have its own embassies either.

We already know it wants to use its next door neighbour's currency (£ sterling) so doesn't even have its own monetary policy and control.

As for the SNP's "arc of prosperity" economic model, they suddenly realise "**** boys, Ireland and Iceland have gone belly up so let's just say Norway's wonderful instead." 

Then we hear this week that Mr Salmond wants Scots to be entitled to dual citizenship with the UK, presumably so they can also scrounge other facilities from them.

Defence policy is non existent and totally anonymous and there's been no answer about Faslane.

And it's all predicated on the jam tomorrow of the SNP's latest interestingly timed creation, the "second oil boom" where they scrupulously avoid questions about oil lasting for mere decades while separation is for ever.

 

What kind of "Wee Pretendy Country"  do Salmond and his chums think they can con us into voting for?

 

This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do......

 

And, as Yngwie also observes... in traditional SNP fashion, as electoral prospects decline and arguments are lost, abuse of political opponents gets louder and louder.

Do you write Joanne Lamont's speaches Chucky?   The laughable thing about her is that shei s a marked improvement on Iain Grey (sic)

Let's deconstruct your post.

Embassies? We already have embassies all around the world, we could continue to use them, sharing the running costs with our closest ally. Alternatively we could sell or rent our share of the embassies and then find alternative facilities. It should be observed though that as a member state of the EU our citizens would be entitled to make use of the facilities of any other member state should the need arise.

 

Monetary policy and monetary union are not the same thing. As an internationally tradable currency sterling is the obvious choice for us to use immediately following a yes vote. A new currency would create uncertainty and we wouldn't want that would we Chuck? We would then be in a position to create our own currency after a few years if we so wished or join the Euro if it has recovered enough. These choices should be made by the population and not the political "elite".

 

Arc of prosperity? Have you even thought that through Chuck? Iceland is on the up because they let their banks fail which is what we should have done. Norway has 140% of it's GDP invested in foreign countries, think about that for a minute........Hundreds of billions of pounds invested. They have no deficit, AAA rating? They probably don't have any credit rating, why would they? They don't need it. Yes Chuck Norway is wonderful. Have you seen the news last week? Oil revenues in Scotland would be so much that it is feared, yes people FEARED we'd have to pay more to the EU. So don't go for that job @ £100000 per annum because you'll pay a lot more tax than having a job @ £10000. Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

Dual citizenship is a no brainer, really. I can't see the issue there at all. Scroungers? Ah there it is Johanne, leader of the "peoples party" in Scotland. So Scottish Labour would do what to universal benefits?

 

How very dare you put SNP and "jam tomorrow" together! Jam tomorrow is a term coined by supporters of independence following the devolution referendum in the 70s when the westminster government rigged the vote. When else has there been a minimum of 40% of the electorate (including those who had died since the last census) required for any outcome? Scotland was promisedt hat things would get better. Poll tax, pit closures, steelwork closures, shipyard closures were what followed. Jam tomorrow, and what is happening now Chuck?

 

Seperation is forever? Scary stuff Chuck. We have been independent or seperate as you like to call it before. Borders change, people change, countries change,everything changes, if we don't change everyone else will leave us in their wake. Change is good, if we work together we can make this a country that delivers for all it's citizens and not just those who have.

 

Wee pretendy country? Please try to be more patronising, it really helps undecided voters to see the too wee, too poor, too stupid argument appear again and again even after the Westminster parties have debunked the myth. I resent that a public servant who is also paid by the BBC (scum) thinks he is entitled to be such a troll on a public website. If he used a pseudonym it would be less annoying. Have you checked your contract lately Chuck?

 

 

>This referendum is to a large extent about Scotland acquiring control over foreign policy, defence, economic policy and monetary policy. Look Alec, if that's the best you can do......

 

What does this even mean? If that's the best you can do?

 

And yes we will get louder and louder and louder until our message is heard and all the lies and disingenious claims from the no camp are disproved and the people of Scotland have the tools they need to make an informed choice in autumn 2014.

 

.I can see you painting your face blue and white and bellowing in Scots with an Australian accent as you write!

[PullMyFinger]

Scotland pays £325 million in licence fees and only £100 million is spent here.

[starchief]

what terrible arguments from pro and anti.  Fear mongering, baiting and chest beating.  I dont see much in there to convince me either way.

[Charles Bannerman]

what terrible arguments from pro and anti.  Fear mongering, baiting and chest beating.  I dont see much in there to convince me either way.

Starchief... it's not a case of fear mongering. We currently exist in a system which works pretty well and certainly gives us better lives than in very many other countries. Unfortunately the separatists seem to expect the other side to "justify the positives" of a status quo which has been there for generations and has been proved to be pretty successful. Well there you go. It works! QED.

It is therefore up to them to persuade us that what they are proposing is better. So far they have failed woefully, as I have been at pains to demonstrate in post #38 among others.

Demonstrating that what the separatist lobby is offering - or failing to offer - is inadequate in relation to what we have already isn't scare tactics. It's simply an exposure of how totally threadbare their case is.

Unfortunately, when challenged and exposed, Salmond and chums simply revert to their default setting of shouting very loud - in this case that their opponents are being "negative".

 

If it ain't really broke, don't try to fix it - especially when the manual for fixing it is as woeful as the SNP are coming up with.

[PullMyFinger]

Seeing as I've been kicked off another thread for being abusive to a certain individual I will restrain myself and focus on the issues at hand.

 

The incumbent government in Scotland are setting out their view of how they envisage an independent Scotland performing economically and socially.

 

I will place little snippets in here from time to time and I have no doubt there will be some absolute whoppers too.

 

Interesting to see that of all the LibDem MPs in Scotland a recent poll only has them retaining the Northern Isles. Well played Danny Alexander.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/marginal-territory-the-seats-that-will-decide-the-next-election/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=marginal-territory-the-seats-that-will-decide-the-next-election&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=272f018239-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

 

STURGEON COMMITS SNP TO ENSHRINE LOCAL GOVT IN CONSTITUTION

 

A 'YES' VOTE WILL USHER NEW ERA OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY

 

Addressing the conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) in St Andrews today (Friday 8th March 2013) - during a session on the referendum debate - Scottish National Party Depute Leader and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon set out two key themes supporting a Yes vote.

 

First, the Scottish Government and local government will work best together when pursuing a proactive policy agenda to improve services for local people, rather than having to mitigate damaging policies from Westminster - such as the Bedroom Tax and cut to Council Tax benefit - by governments that the people of Scotland didn't vote for.

 

Second, independence is the only constitutional option which enables the role and status of local government to be enshrined in a written constitution - as is mainstream in the rest of Europe - and Ms Sturgeon committed the SNP to supporting this for the Constitution of an independent Scotland.

 

Ms Sturgeon said:

 

"Since coming to office in 2007, this government has sought to respect Scotland's proud tradition of local government by working together on the basis of 'parity of esteem'.

 

"And we have achieved much together in difficult times.

 

"The Concordat gave a new lease of freedom to local decision making by ending unnecessary ring-fencing, correcting a top-down approach to governing Scotland that was in many ways a hangover from the pre-devolution days.

 

"I believe that where we have worked together, we have worked well.

 

"This week, a £40 million package was announced to help families into hundreds of new social homes, and support up to 700 jobs in construction and related sectors over the next two years.  It will help realise our ambition of 5,000 council homes as part of wider plans to deliver more than 30,000 affordable homes during this Parliamentary term.

 

"Last week, councils were allocated £33 million from the newly created Scottish Welfare Fund to provide Community Care Grants and Crisis Grants for disabled people, older Scots, lone parents and other vulnerable groups - including an additional £9.2 million to reinstate funding cuts by Westminster.

 

"Last year, we announced with Cosla an agreement to jointly cover the

£40 million cost of Westminster's 10 per cent cut to Council Tax Benefit resources in 2013/14, protecting the income of over half-a-million Scots.  Neither the Scottish nor local government would allow the lowest income people in Scotland currently receiving council tax benefit - including pensioners, those who cannot work because of disability, carers and people who receive tax credits - to suffer from this Westminster cut, and we worked together to protect them.

 

"But for as long as the key levers of welfare and economic policy are held at Westminster, too much of our joint work has to be focused on reacting to policy decisions over which we have no control, and which we don't even agree with.

 

"That is bad for people in Scotland - and therefore I believe it is bad for local democracy and government in Scotland.

 

"The 'Bedroom Tax' is a particularly acute and harmful illustration of my point.  In the House of Commons debate last week, over 90% of Scotland's MP who turned up for the debate opposed it - only 4 MPs supported it.

 

"Part of the job of councils is to empty the bins.  But it is not the job of local government to clear up after the rubbish policies generated by a remote Westminster government that appears clueless about the damage to families and society being wreaked by its ideology-driven social policies.

 

"There is a better way - and a better job to be done.

 

"I believe that a proactive, shared Scottish policy agenda will always be better than reacting to divisive Westminster policies - and that therefore local government will work in the best interests of local people in an independent Scotland.

 

"While this devolved administration has always sought to put our commitment to 'parity of esteem' with local government into action, we can go further with independence - and only with independence.  That is why a Yes vote is so important.

 

"The Scottish Government has launched proposals for the transition to an independent Scotland if we achieve a Yes vote next year - including a process to involve the whole of Scotland in preparing a modern, written Constitution to enshrine key rights and protections.

Political parties, civic Scotland, local government representatives, and above all the people, will shape a 21st century constitution for a 21st century Scotland.

 

"As well as the other measures which we have advocated - such as free healthcare, education and a ban on nuclear weapons - the SNP will also propose that Scotland's Constitution should guarantee the status and rights of local government.  The role of Scottish local authorities should be entrenched in a written Constitution - a democratic settlement that only independence offers.

 

"Such constitutional protection is mainstream in developed democracies such as "Germany, Denmark, and Sweden - once again, it is the UK which

is the exception.   We believe this should also be the case in a

modern, independent Scotland - and I look forward to having productive discussions on further details with representatives and champions of local government in Scotland."

 

ENDS

 

SNP Comms

 

My take on the bedroom tax is that it's totally impractical. How long until someone sues their council for not rehousing them into a smaller home?

It is an unfair tax on the vulnerable in our society being imposed by a government that wasn't voted for by the people of Scotland.

 

A constitutition I'm not so sure about, what's the point of it? In America it is used to defend the citizens right to bear arms and their right to free speech but look at the nutjobs they have getting airtime on television. It has it's good points too but in this day and age is it necessary or is it just an excuse to get people involved in the debate? I'd say the latter and if it works we'll have a better informed electorate and that can't be a bad thing. Nae bad at aw'.

[Kingsmills]

So your argument basically boils down to "better the devil you know".

[Joe DiMaggio]

I wonder if the unionists could provide a comprehensive list of those nations who have become independent states who would, after taking responsibility for their own affairs, wish to revert to their former status ?

There's a logical fallacy in that post Kingsmills. You are clearly trying to use it to suggest that separation would be "good" for Scotland. But what you are doing is to take as a "given" a scenario which has not actually come to pass before using that to assert that this scenario, on the basis of what you claim other countries think, would therefore be a good thing for Scotland. In short, you are trying to presume the outcome you seek as a lever to justify that outcome. That - as the universe's most famous Vulcan would say - "is not logical captain". You cannot use presumption of a situation in order to justify it.

Or would you accept in court the prosecution saying "On the assumption that this man is guilty of this crime, it is clear that he has the expertise to commit it so the jury must convict m'lud"?

The reality is that Scotland has not voted for separation and has never, in decades of polling, really looked like doing so. The least far it has come from that in the polls was in the immediate aftermath of Salmond getting his overall majority. But now people are clearly getting wise to him and his policies. So as the separatist case progressively unravels on the basis of monetary policy, defence, foreign policy, citizenship, the volatility of the price of the finite asset of oil etc etc, they are progressively reverting to common sense.

I see today that we have got "Nats predict 'new oil boom' as referendum approaches shock" headlines. Well they would... wouldn't they?

In the highly unlikely event of a "yes" vote for separation in the autumn of 2014 (yes folks - we've got another 19 months of this tedious crap to suffer before our lives can return to normal!) then that would be a unique departure from what has been, albeit not directly voted for, the settled will of the Scottish people for a very, very long time. As such, this would represent no more than an extremely unfortunate rush of blood to the head which - in the context of your original statement - would provide the classic counter example of "separate in haste, repent at leisure."

I think this post has over taken any drivel that Mahino has ever written.

 

'The reality is that Scotland has not voted for separation' The Scottish people also never voted for union and if it had the oppertunity in 1707  then it would never had happened.

 

'I see today that we have got "Nats predict 'new oil boom' as referendum approaches shock' Actually it was the oil industry and experts that predicted a new oil boom. The SNP just took the figures from them and also did not just use the top end figures. That was a pretty pathetic, petty and baseless argument you tried to make there.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Just because the Slovaks might like it, this doesn't mean to say that it is in the best interest of the Scots.

 

Mr Smith went to a football match and liked it so much that he bought a season ticket. As a result, Mr White assumes that it will be in Mr Jones' interests to buy one as well.

The only problem is that Mr Jones is a rugby fan with no interest at all in football.

 

Actually I take my last statement back, this is biggest amount of drivel I have read here.

 

Scotland is lagging behind other northern European nations in terms of gdp per capita, standard of living, health etc and we have more resources and potential than many of them. That is a comparitive argument to make also that none of the nations that have become independent from London rule actively seek to return.

[Charles Bannerman]

'The reality is that Scotland has not voted for separation' The Scottish people also never voted for union and if it had the oppertunity in 1707  then it would never had happened.

Nor did they vote for Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian and Pictland to join together to become Scotland in the first place - largely because voting was no more an option then than it was in 1707. Nor probably would the people of Pictland have voted to become part of Scotland if they had anticipated the central belt domination and neglect they would suffer - which is a further good reason for no Highlander to vote yes next year and have all their affairs run from Edinburgh. (And the "well it's better than being dominated from London" response to that has been anticipated - and rejected!)

Looking at the longer passage of history - the bigger picture -  Scotland, England, Wales and to a lesser extent Ireland were arguably just transitional stages in between Strathclyde etc up here and Mercia, Northumbria, Wessex etc down there agglomerating into Great Britain. The next step in this historical evolution is further agglomeration into Europe and the current debate is how far we want to become involved in that.

But if the separatists want to turn the clock back, why stop at Scotland? Why not go further than that to Scotland's predecessor states because then you can claim that "It's Pictland's Oil" and we don't have to share it with them down there!

If the UK was ever going to be broken up, then there's actually a stronger north case for independence for the Highlands and Islands than there is for independence for Scotland.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[Charles Bannerman]

STURGEON COMMITS SNP TO ENSHRINE LOCAL GOVT IN CONSTITUTION

 

A 'YES' VOTE WILL USHER NEW ERA OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY

So this will be the Local Government on which the SNP is currently imposing a Council Tax freeze and hence preventing it from providing adequate local services? It rather more looks to me as if the SNP actually wants to cut both Westminster and local authorities out of the equation and concentrate all the power on itself in Edinburgh.