Scottish Independence.....

Grasshopper said:
It's true that we'd have all the benefits of setting our own tax rates, determing the distribution of the wealth etc, but we get 95% of that under Indie-Lite/Devo-Max anyway.........without the economy-ruining costs associated with the creation of an Independent State (which, as we have already established, would be 'independent' in name only)
Click to expand...

which will never happen.
 
Can't see that much tax freedom being allowed or wanted under "indie lite" .

Vat, corporation tax and income tax as well as NI will surely have to stay at the same levels. Duties such as fuel and fags too
 
Last edited:
I hope the Scots agree to take on the bill for this ridiculous 'Independence' vote, following its predictable defeat.

By my reckoning a few hundreds of millions - lets slice that off the Barnet Formula.


MR2
 
montyracing2 said:
I hope the Scots agree to take on the bill for this ridiculous 'Independence' vote, following its predictable defeat.

By my reckoning a few hundreds of millions - lets slice that off the Barnet Formula.


MR2
Click to expand...

Presumably there would be a discount to offset the costs of the failed 'Adopt Proportional Representation' referendum costs, from earlier in this Parliament?

All for one and one for all, eh? :D
 
Aye, Grassy, in that you're correct. But its just a casae of good numpties following bad ones.

I must admit to wanting the 'yes' campaign to succeed. Simply to see how an 'efficient' government would work. Uk figure of £2 billion dismissed by King Alex who suggests £200 million (I think that equates to 80p per week per scot less than a bag of chips!).


MR2
 
Appreciate there's a degree of tongue-in-cheek there, Monty, but the notion that an Independent Scottish Government would be remotely "efficient" is so ridiculous, that it's almost gone full-circle to tickle the ar*se of "sublime"!! :D

The one major Project over which they've had direct management control, is the Parliament building.

Being in the Project Management dodge myself, I can generally expect to be handed my cards, if I can't deliver within a 15% budget tolerance. The Parliament Building was TEN times over budget; the original £40M estimate somewhat under-estimating the final total of £414M.

Between them, I wouldn't put an MSP - or the litany of wannabe Scottish councillors desperate to have a shot at the 'big time' - in charge of running a bath. They could receive every concession, have every economic wind blow their way, and we'd still be staring at an IMF bailout in 2019.

They are thoroughly fu*cking useless; something exposed during Salmond's fumbling performance when put head-to-head against someone with some actual experience and gravitas.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Neil is not usually someone I warm to but his prog last night was interesting and balanced if perhaps a tad hyperbolic at times

Suffice it to say an enormous can of giant slimy worms will be opened should the ayes have it next month...IMVHO

Has the giant slimy Salmond actually considered the rather more involved and lingering consequences of independence, or has his focus been solely on simplistic September 18th?
 
Good to see you, Drone.

Salmond is driven by his own sense of destiny, and the usual myopia associated with a Nationalist stance. Independence at any cost appears to be the order of the day.

Agreed on the BBC2 outing by A. Neill last night......the most salient-point being that rUK would be perfectly entitled (indeed compelled) to drive as hard a bargain as possible during cessation negotiations......which is somewhat at odds with the Fat Man's assertion that it will be a big palsy-walsy doddle.
 
Last edited:
You would need to be mentally retarded to believe in Salmond's economic and currency arguments.

Scottish people aren't coming across great - they voted this clown in (no leader have I ever seen in countries I've lived in has been so stupid) and nearly half of those voting clearly can't understand very basic economics.

Hilarious to see Salmond still threatening not to pat debts. A yes vote would be hilarious just to see the reaction of the lenders to the new state.
 
Darling asking all the wrong questions.

As soon as Salmond mentioned Norway, he should have been ramming "45% minimum-rate tax" down his throat. That's how to win the currency argument, not prattling-on about "Plan B".
 
I suspect he deliberately avoided the question.

I only saw the last 18 minutes but if they were representative of the whole shebang then it was a poor debate with a very poor host/umpire/chair whatever Campbell was.

Darling was very disappointing and made Salmond look good but the Yes people appeared to have got at their supporters before hand and urged them to cheer and clap his every utterance while the BG supporters were more reserved. The Yes supporters appeared, therefore, to outnumber substantially the No supporters and will have influenced the impression that Salmond did well.

It wasn't good viewing [based on that sample].
 
Hamm said:
You would need to be mentally retarded to believe in Salmond's economic and currency arguments.

Scottish people aren't coming across great - they voted this clown in (no leader have I ever seen in countries I've lived in has been so stupid) and nearly half of those voting clearly can't understand very basic economics.

Hilarious to see Salmond still threatening not to pat debts. A yes vote would be hilarious just to see the reaction of the lenders to the new state.
Click to expand...

Lending would not even get off the first block. Bond prices would be sky high given that the new state refuses to take on it's responsibilities . Effectively they would start I default

Interest rates would then of course go through the roof. Not only that the new state would certainly need to borrow heavily from the outset. Tax would rocket

Businesses would quickly relocate over the border. Incentives to do so would be ramped up. Huge unemployment would follow with a further strain on spending and heavily reduced tax receipts

Amy attempt to join the eu would be met with laughter. The uk would block and block and block ad infinitum

The rest of the uk would respond very agreesively indeed and do everything possible to wreck trade with the new state . Rightly so. They need our trade more than we need theirs and it would be catastrophic. Only the alcohol and deep fat fryer industries would be at a loss

It's an extremely arrogant and moronic suggestion
 
Last edited:
Salmond was evoking Norway last night......conveniently forgetting to mention their entry-level tax-rate of 45%.

Norway is his latest example of a 'successful, independent, small nation'......after previously evoking Ireland and Iceland as similar paragons.

The guy is a total fraud.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with 45% tax in the right context, ie high employment, world-leading standard of living, public services, state pensions etc etc.

However, there are cultural issues involved in this as most people in Britain baulk at the very mention of high taxation.

It should be like asking do you want to pay 99p for a McDonalds hamburger or £2 for steak, potatoes & two veg. But it's not. It's more like being used to paying the 99p cos you only have £1.50 in your pocket so the steak will always be out of reach.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Lending would not even get off the first block. Bond prices would be sky high given that the new state refuses to take on it's responsibilities . Effectively they would start I default

Interest rates would then of course go through the roof. Not only that the new state would certainly need to borrow heavily from the outset. Tax would rocket

Businesses would quickly relocate over the border. Incentives to do so would be ramped up. Huge unemployment would follow with a further strain on spending and heavily reduced tax receipts

Amy attempt to join the eu would be met with laughter. The uk would block and block and block ad infinitum

The rest of the uk would respond very agreesively indeed and do everything possible to wreck trade with the new state . Rightly so. They need our trade more than we need theirs and it would be catastrophic. Only the alcohol and deep fat fryer industries would be at a loss

It's an extremely arrogant and moronic suggestion
Click to expand...

I would like to see a yes vote just to see this unfurl - it would be as funny a political story as any in our lifetimes, and the people would only have themselves to blame.

This is really, really basic stuff. Clearly we agree on them starting in default. Threatening to not pay your debts is never, ever an option. We can all have our opinions on Cameron, Merkel, Hollande et al but none of these would make such a basic error. He is not fit to lead a community centre let alone a country.

Scotland would no longer be a first world country in the way it is now and would deserve everything it gets. This whole process is laughable - how can even 10% of people vote for him?

Darling got flustered a few times last night (as he did in the first debate) but isn't a naturally good at debating. A good, clever man, but that isn't (seemingly) what people wanted.
 
I like Darling but yes hes effectively an administrator and a good one too. He passionately believes in the argument but is not a natural. Its a bit like getting the company accountant involved in a sales prospect.

it was some economist they trotted out to spout this rubbish about the debt default. they had to loosen the straightjacket first

I didnt see the debate but its a testament to Darlings weakness in this area that he didnt destroy Salmond. Im not saying he should have been screaming "you stupid fat cnt" at him continuously but he should have had him blubbing like a lardy baby with unchanged nappies
 
Last edited:
The 'debate' was much the same as the last one - only this time the Fat Man was more sure-footed, and cranked-up the tartan-bombast to drown-out Darling's more studious offerings.

Salmond won the battle, but the war looks an increasingly forlorn hope. Polls today suggest Yes and No have both put on a percentage-point in the aftermath, which further suggests the Don't Knows might split more or less evenly......in which case, it's game-over. It will take an unprecedented swing for Yes to prevail, and history tell us that the closer polling-day encroaches, the more likely people are to vote for retention of a given status-quo.
 
clivex said:
Businesses would quickly relocate over the border. Incentives to do so would be ramped up. Huge unemployment would follow with a further strain on spending and heavily reduced tax receipts
Click to expand...

And most likely, OUR border. Scotland along with NL was Ireland's only real competitor for decades for Silicon Valley non-services FDI. With the questionable economic model advocated by Salmond I reckon it will be a coup de gras for mobile capital into Scotland.

I have no emotional attachment to either side of the argument, but the business and economic plan looks very shaky on the YES side.
 
an capall said:
And most likely, OUR border. Scotland along with NL was Ireland's only real competitor for decades for Silicon Valley non-services FDI. With the questionable economic model advocated by Salmond I reckon it will be a coup de gras for mobile capital into Scotland.

I have no emotional attachment to either side of the argument, but the business and economic plan looks very shaky on the YES side.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's not the global environment (and won't be ever again)to start taking big chances with a nations competitiveness
 
Not sure if the debate on Beeb2 last night was shown south of the border, but Charlie Kennedy did an outstanding job exposing the Yes campaign's (in the shape of spluttering idiot John Swinney) currency position, and particularly their threat to default on the debt.

He rightly stated "Forget London....on Day One, the international markets would have Scotland for breakfast, lunch and dinner".

Kennedy has been by far the most lucid, composed and studied contributor to the debate thus far - I can only assume he is proper back on the soup.
 
Last edited:
See what i mean? Ginger and alcoholic.


In truth it was a great shame that it got a grip of him. Always thought he was a more than decent political talent.
 
Back
Top