to believe the remaining UK should not make special exceptions for Scottish economic refugees?

[longfingernails]

In the event of Scottish independence, the Scottish economy will be in the toilet. In this event, Britain should not be allowed to become a magnet for Scottish economic migrants.

I wouldn't blame Cameron if the Scots choose independence; the Tory party don't exactly have a strong foothold in those parts. However, I will certainly excoriate him if he gives an inch in any negotiations in the event of independence - especially if he allows large scale unskilled immigration from Scotland into Britain.

An independent Scotland would have almost zero negotiating power and Britain should exploit that to maximise our own advantage.

Although it's about a tenner for a pint in the Scandinavian countries, which would go some way to cutting the alcohol problem...

Norway av disposable income ($)31459
Av working hours 1426 hours pa

UK av disposable income 26904
Av working hours 1625 hours pa

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org

No, its gone all hush hush over Ireland. Since the recession there. And the growing knowledge that the Irish have to pay to visit their GP.

Although I admit, while it lasted, it did show a little bit of diversity in terms of the constant "Who is Scotland to emulate?" question that seems to be churned out by the independence campaign!

However, I rest assured that diversity does not extend to countries which are not geographically close by, from what I have read on here. Even other parts of Europe are not so good. Allegedly.

I am currently a british citizen living in England with no family ties to Scotland, but with Scottish nationality as part of my Britishness. Do they have the right to remove my Scottish nationality?

When it has such rich natural resources, excellent education, regularly exports its people to positions of power in the rest of the UK, is so left wing and with such a generous welfare state, and has such cultural identity?

Because it does not have a generous welfare state, and because most spending/policy is controlled by WM. Scots may be left wing, but WM certainly isn't

Norway av disposable income ($)31459
Av working hours 1426 hours pa

UK av disposable income 26904
Av working hours 1625 hours pa

Christ, Norway's rated overall lower than Belgium, or Germany or France. Again, you're not selling this one to me!

Are those average working hours based on the population as a whole, or on those only in work? Because my guesstimate would be that Norway has a lot higher proportion of people actually in work than the UK or even Scotland right now.

Because it does not have a generous welfare state, and because most spending/policy is controlled by WM. Scots may be left wing, but WM certainly isn't

Please fucking tell me you're kidding. For a start, health and social services are devolved, and Scottish people get more per head than any other bar the Northern Irish.

Not a generous welfare state? Seriously? What more do you want?

Because it does not have a generous welfare state, and because most spending/policy is controlled by WM. Scots may be left wing, but WM certainly isn't

But on that programme "Our Friends in the North" we saw that Sweden is even less generous with its welfare benefits, and they are based on previous work. After a certain period of unemployment (was it a year) there is a strong social stigma against the unemployed.

Plus, they all mainly live in slightly grotty student style small rented apartments.

I'm pretty sure UK welfare benefits are a lot more generous, particularly to those who have never worked, in classification of the disabled, and in terms of providing motability vehicles and paying housing benefit, than most other major European countries, particularly The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. Where most benefits and health care are based on being in work in the first place.

I'm pretty sure UK welfare benefits are a lot more generous, particularly to those who have never worked, in classification of the disabled, and in terms of providing motability vehicles and paying housing benefit, than most other major European countries, particularly The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. Where most benefits and health care are based on being in work in the first place.

Welfare spending (GDP per capita$)

UK: 36700
Netherlands: 42300
Belgium: 38100
France: 35500
Germany: 39100

And seeing as you mentioned Sweden:

Sweden: 41700

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Because my guesstimate would be that Norway has a lot higher proportion of people actually in work than the UK or even Scotland right now

And that is a bad thing?

The thing is, I did a Masters in The Netherlands, and it was full of students from all over Europe and other parts of the world. And obviously you discuss what things are like in your own country. And the Dutch, German, French, etc students just could not believe how generous the welfare state was in the UK. When I told them about things like getting large houses paid for by the state and cars if you are disabled, some of them actually did not believe me. Neither could they believe just what a nanny state Scotland is turning into.

So if you were saying to me that an independent Scotland would be more like other successful European countries, with a healthy political spectrum of right, left and middle, a cut down on the overly generous welfare state and targeting resources towards those few in genuine need, instead of encouraging an attitude that Scotland is an especially poor, sick country which needs a few to work so as to benefit the many, I would love to vote for it. But its not, is it? Its going to be more of the same, more excuses, greater poverty and deprivation, all blamed on being part of the UK in the increasingly distant past. And more drivel spouted by those in charge as unarguable facts.

Because my guesstimate would be that Norway has a lot higher proportion of people actually in work than the UK or even Scotland right now

And that is a bad thing?

I'm guessing it won't go down too well with SAHMs, being told they will have to go out to work full time like their Scandinavian counterparts...

Its going to be more of the same, more excuses, greater poverty and deprivation, all blamed on being part of the UK in the increasingly distant past. And more drivel spouted by those in charge as unarguable facts.

Hear hear.

*If you can name other comparative European countries that are geographically close,small countries rich in natural resources, excellent welfare state and more socialist principles I would be very interested

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia, no? I would also say Portugal is quite similar, though with a slightly higher population.*

Country: Population/GDP($)

Scotland: 5.3 million/235billion

Estonia: 1.3 million/30 billion
Latvia: 2million/45billion
Lithuania: 3 million / 80 billion
Croatia: 4.2 million / 80 billion
Slovenia: 2 million / 58 billion
Portugal: 10.5 million / 250 billion

Norway: 5.1 million/ 282 billion

Source: Wikipedia

You will see that all of the countries you have suggested are very different in GDP, and fairly different in population size, whereas Norway is pretty similar in both size and GDP.

The thing is, I did a Masters in The Netherlands, and it was full of students from all over Europe and other parts of the world. And obviously you discuss what things are like in your own country. And the Dutch, German, French, etc students just could not believe how generous the welfare state was in the UK. When I told them about things like getting large houses paid for by the state and cars if you are disabled, some of them actually did not believe me.

Anecdata. The facts of welfare spending per capita tell a different story.

I'm guessing it won't go down too well with SAHMs, being told they will have to go out to work full time like their Scandinavian counterparts...

Childcare costs (2012/ %age of family income):

UK: 26.6%

Sweden: 4.6%
Norway: 10.7%
Denmark: 8.9%

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/21/child-care-costs-compared-britain

I'm guessing the childcare costs might take the sting out of it a bit...

So, ItsAll, how do you propose that Scotland turns into these countries?

Would iScotland not have to spend huge amounts of money to investigate where things are going wrong, devise a new system and then implement it? You talk about cheap childcare; but someone's got to train (and I mean properly train, not a 16 year old girl with a year in college) nursery nurses, build the nurseries, equip them.

How long do you think that will take? And what do you propose to happen in the interim?

Most importantly, how are you going to fund it? You claim that UK spend less per capita than them all, and Scotland is getting one of the best deals in the UK. So where's the extra money going to come from?

So if you were saying to me that an independent Scotland would be more like other successful European countries,

Yup

with a healthy political spectrum of right, left and middle

Yup

a cut down on the overly generous welfare state and targeting resources towards those few in genuine need

Nope, an increase in state provision for all

instead of encouraging an attitude that Scotland is an especially poor, sick country which needs a few to work so as to benefit the many, I would love to vote for it.

Scotland is a rich country with a low life expectancy. We need a fairer society

But its not, is it? Its going to be more of the same, more excuses, greater poverty and deprivation, all blamed on being part of the UK in the increasingly distant past. And more drivel spouted by those in charge as unarguable facts.

It'll certainly be more of the same if we vote NO. If we vote Yes Scots can work to building whatever sort of society they want, based on the votes of Scots, rather than votes from the SE england.

Agree about the drivel though. It is important people go and source their own information.

*Would iScotland not have to spend huge amounts of money to investigate where things are going wrong, devise a new system and then implement it? You talk about cheap childcare; but someone's got to train (and I mean properly train, not a 16 year old girl with a year in college) nursery nurses, build the nurseries, equip them.

How long do you think that will take? And what do you propose to happen in the interim?

Most importantly, how are you going to fund it? You claim that UK spend less per capita than them all, and Scotland is getting one of the best deals in the UK. So where's the extra money going to come from?*

They are all good questions, but I don't have the time to answer them just now (real life got in the way). Have a look at the Scotlands Future document - I think a lot of your questions are answered in there (and referenced so you can independently check what is said). It is important to note though that the childcare care thing is essentially an SNP pledge (although is supported by many different groups) - an iScotlan could choose to prioritise childcare over other things or not, as the Scottish electorate wishes.

In terms of cost - it is all about priorities.

e.g the UK spends about 2.3% gdp on defence compared to Norway/Sweden/ which spend abou 1.3% for example.

The White Paper?! You think that answers any questions?!!! It answers none of my questions. All it says is that independent Scotland will be able to do everything better.

e.g the UK spends about 2.3% gdp on defence compared to Norway/Sweden/ which spend abou 1.3% for example.

1%? 1%! Seriously?!

If you read the white paper you would see that it answered some of your questions with references so you can follow up the data sources. As a presumably intelligent person, I'm sure you are also capable of doing your own research into how such things could be achieved - you wouldn't want to trust what a cybernat told you

1%? 1%! Seriously

I know! I was really surprised too, but it appears Norway/Sweden are pretty into their military. IScotland could presumably spend far less.

My point was that 1% is barely anything. Not enough to make a substantial difference to, for example, childcare.

I have read chunks of the White Paper and I don't rate it at all. Sorry.

Scottish GDP: 126 billion GDP
If I Scotland spent 2% GDP on defence = 2.5billion
If IScotland spent 1% GDP on defence = 1.3 billion.

So thatd be 1.3bn pa for childcare.

The white paper is an exciting vision but can be a bit light on facts in the text. It is worth chasing up the references though.

To the people questioning Scotland's poor health record I found this book very enlightening

www.amazon.co.uk/Tears-that-Made-Clyde/dp/1906134472

Ooh, that looks good!

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/21/child-care-costs-compared-britain

Looking at this link, many of the Scandinavia nations spend about 1% of their GDP on pre-primary childcare, so you are right, sorry.

However, they've all been doing this for decades now. Norway started its childcare reforms in the late 70s, for example. To overhaul the system so completely would take a lot more time and money than it would just to run it.