September 18th, Scotlands date with destiny...

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: stumason

Secondly - the NHS in Scotland is a devolved issue, so is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Any attempts to blame anything that happens in NHS Scotland on Westminster is entirely misleading and is just scaremongering.

And if London decides to cut Scotland's Pocket money "Again" we will see how devolved the NHS in Scotland really is.
They are already talking about a £10 fee for each night spent in a Hospital bed.
The question is how long before we have to pay cash for our treatment.

When you mean "cut", do you mean cut it down so the per-person spending is only "a lot" higher than the per-person spending in England, or right the way down to being only "slightly higher" than the per-person spending in England?

a reply to: EvillerBob
Which I exactly why we should have independence, Scotland can raise its own taxes and spend its own money on what it wants. For example hospitals rather than nukes. No more complaints from either side of the border.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: stumason

Secondly - the NHS in Scotland is a devolved issue, so is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Any attempts to blame anything that happens in NHS Scotland on Westminster is entirely misleading and is just scaremongering.

And if London decides to cut Scotland's Pocket money "Again" we will see how devolved the NHS in Scotland really is.
They are already talking about a £10 fee for each night spent in a Hospital bed.
The question is how long before we have to pay cash for our treatment.

When you mean "cut", do you mean cut it down so the per-person spending is only "a lot" higher than the per-person spending in England, or right the way down to being only "slightly higher" than the per-person spending in England?

When you take into account the OIL and Gas revenue that Scotland generates we actually send down more than we get back...a lot more. Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK not the other way around. Here

Scotland's best option would be to have a currency union for around five years followed by an appraisal.

I wonder why no one mentions the benefits England might gain from Scottish independence. Perhaps there are none. I wonder too what they would lose really.

I don't think Salmond wants to talk about a plan B as he is too politically astute to be dragged into the meanderings of alternative currencies. Why would he when he knows that there will be currency union.

The campaign against independence has to be based on fear as there are no positives in remaining in the UK. In fact it is England that has always been the beneficiary.

There is also the scare tactic of not getting into Europe...as if they won't drag us in, which they will.

Just to add...lest ye think differently.

Monetary union and Europe aren't my cup of tea but one step at a time. Independence first...

originally posted by: midicon
I wonder why no one mentions the benefits England might gain from Scottish independence. Perhaps there are none. I wonder too what they would lose really.

I did, here:
Benefits for England if Scotland votes for independence - list yours here

...but a few emotionally fragile Scots focused on a solely imagined racist card in the thread and whinged about it as if I deserved being reported to the police, Lol, I offered to report myself to an English police station if they wanted to PM me a crime reference number following a formal complaint but they decided on not being silly if it meant leaving their keyboard. No mods chastised me either so I found it all the more amusing dealing with the responses...it was in the 'Rant' forum FFS, but then some folk will always find something to whinge about even if it's regarding the sky being blue.

a reply to: grainofsand
Considering Football teams in England get 30x more ££££ for being relegated than we get for winning the league up here you wonder why the football is Garbage.

Scottish Teams need to be in Europe to make a few quid. Champions League Group stages generates around £15-20 Million.

Englands relegated teams get a £30 million windfall. if it wasn't for Sky's ££££££££ and Foreign Players, English football would be Garbage as well. The last World Cup proved that.

a reply to: grainofsand

I read the first page of your link...all seems a bit mad and petty.

I think Scotland will be better off being independent. We are a socialist country really and we could perhaps build a better society. It doesn't have to be about anti...or nationalistic sentiment, that just de-values any conversation.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
Haha, I don't disagree at all fella, I was born and raised in Swansea and I've been a 'Jack' all my life from the old league 4 to now. I'm glad Swansea play in the English league, far better football than 2 or 3 blokes and a dog watching the average Welsh Premier match.
That is a benefit of being a Welsh team in the UK, we can play in the English league, It would be as boring as your Scottish league if Swansea or Cardiff won every year like Celtic, and soon to come back, Rangers...proper boring.

...will Berwick still be allowed in the Scottish league after independence do you think?
It would be crap for that little club if they had to travel hundreds of miles they can't afford to play games in Southern England.

a reply to: midicon
I don't think I said anything in that thread to indicate that I didn't think Scotland would be OK or not after independence, can't be arsed checking but if you find a quote, please do feel free to post it here or there..
I focused on the potential benefits for the rest of us and yes...ranted, and took the piss, in the rant forum.
Turned out funny as # to me when the more emotionally fragile cried the racist card but didn't have those big Scottish balls soloprotocol speaks about so much, to report me to the police...even after citing legislation to me.
Yes, I enjoyed contributing my responses to debate in that thread, and chuckled a lot.

a reply to: grainofsand

I don't think I said anything in that thread to indicate that I didn't think Scotland would be OK or not after independence, can't be arsed checking but if you find a quote, please do feel free to post it here or there..

I have no problems with a rant and a laugh. I didn't notice it was in the rant forum.

Why would I need to find a quote?

I haven't accused you of anything.

a reply to: grainofsand

Why would I need to find a quote?

I haven't accused you of anything.

Ah, sorry, I just took the affirmation of your position to possibly indicate you might believe I think differently regarding Scotland being able to succeed as an independent country.

I'm not feeling accused by you or emotional or anything, just enjoying debate, as always

a reply to: grainofsand
Yeah, i'm Sure Berwick will still play football in Scotland. Cant see the SPFL, SFA or UEFA blocking it.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
When you take into account the OIL and Gas revenue that Scotland generates we actually send down more than we get back...a lot more. Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK not the other way around. Here

Er, that's not what that article says - what the article talks about would be a "what if" scenario if Scotland had been independent all along and retained control of the Oil as per the geographic share. It is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't really have any bearing in real life, specifically designed to distort the debate - that much is clear from the opening paragraph that displays the fact it is hardly a non-biased piece.

Personally, I'll trust the Scottish and UK Governments own figures which show, in the real world, money generated in Scotland including the geographical share of oil wealth has been significantly less than the block grant sent back north by the treasury for many years now - the difference is several billion pounds.

For example:

2007/08:
Revenue, including Geographic share of Oil: £51.927 Billion
Expenditure: £55.925 Billion

2008/09:
Revenue, including Geographic share of Oil: £55.244 Billion
Expenditure: £58.953 Billion

2009/2010:
Revenue, including Geographic share of Oil:£47.662 Billion
Expenditure: £62.049 Billion

2010/11:
Revenue, including Geographic share of Oil: £52.330 Billion
Expenditure: £64.030 Billion

2011/12:
Revenue, including Geographic share of Oil: £56.871 Billion
Expenditure: £64.457 Billion

Scottish Government Link

So, talking about "what if's" is pointless - the fact of the matter is Scotland spends far more than it generates, as displayed by the Scottish Government's own figures.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
I certainly hope you are right, it is those fine details of independence that will make it the classic 'all the islands to the left of the European mainland' 'different' relationship. We've got deep societal and personal links which connect us all in our dysfunctional 'family'.

Take ROI/UK, two independent European nations with different currencies, but I would support Ireland playing France or Germany every time, in any sport. I feel more with them than any nation to the W̶e̶s̶t̶ East of these isles.
I'll feel exactly the same with Scotland and Scottish people, friends or otherwise...but if the vote is to stay then I hope it forces debate and development into a more federal union which we can all be happy with.

a reply to: stumason
You are correct that Scotland runs a deficit along with the rest of the UK and pretty much every other nation on earth. The point is that Scotland contributes a bigger share of revenue than it receives in expenditure. The money Westminster sends north is borrowed money.
What this means is that the only way England is subsidising Scotland is if the debt belongs to England. The reality is that an independent Scotland would not have needed to run up the massive debts that Westminster has so kindly done on our alleged behalf.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: stumason
You are correct that Scotland runs a deficit along with the rest of the UK and pretty much every other nation on earth. The point is that Scotland contributes a bigger share of revenue than it receives in expenditure. The money Westminster sends north is borrowed money.
What this means is that the only way England is subsidising Scotland is if the debt belongs to England. The reality is that an independent Scotland would not have needed to run up the massive debts that Westminster has so kindly done on our alleged behalf.

Again, a totally hypothetical answer that cannot be refuted, because it isn't based in fact. How could you possibly know that Scotland wouldn't run up debts, Norway has done a bang up job with that and they are "Oil rich", but their debt liabilities all but wipe out their Wealth Fund. How would have Scotland's economy faired in 2007/2008 if you'd had to prop up the Scottish banks which needed bailing out? Not well, as their combined bailouts were almost as large as the Scottish GDP, if not bigger.

You cannot say, in all honesty, Scotland if it was independent would be debt free - it's asking the other side to prove a negative and there is no possible way it can be done, as there is no possible way to work out how Scotland would have faired in the past 300 years if it had been independent.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: stumason

The point is that Scotland contributes a bigger share of revenue than it receives in expenditure. The money Westminster sends north is borrowed money.

You might need to explain this to me, I've not had enough coffee today.

How much money does Scotland generate as revenue?

How much money does Scotland spend as expenditure?

I'm interested to know what it is about the figures stumason posted that are wrong? Or rather, why they show a different position to the one you are claiming?

Not looking to contradict you, just saying that I don't know how those figures are reached so there may well be some number-shuffling that I'm not aware of that skews the figures.

a reply to: stumason
Absolutely which I why never mentioned 300 years. We can say that Scotland could have met the same expenditure with less borrowing over the last 30 years than we have accumulated as our share of the UK debt.

a reply to: EvillerBob

He's basing on revenue as generated per head of population - if you include the Oil as per geographic share, the GDP per head is slightly higher from Scotland than the rUK. Strip that out though, and it all goes the other way....

It also neglects to take into account that spending per head is far higher in Scotland than England, so it all balances out in that regard.