Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

don't dumb down the debate. Shouldn't you be checking your decorator is doing enough coats of gloss.

deeedeee you can do better than that. Try answering some questions about the White Paper instead.

OOAML - I live in a "tenement flat" too. A very lovely, spacious tenement flat in a fancy area, and I wouldn't swap it for a suburban house in a month of sundays, so I wouldn't try and imply that a tenement flat isn't anything like a "comfortable house" or some indication of relative hardship. We're not in single-ends anymore.

Anyway

"Jim Murphy claimed that a labour government would scrap the bedroom tax, so please yes voters will you stop going on about it as one reason to vote for independence."

Err, would this me the Jim Murphy who didn't even bother to turn up to vote against the bedroom tax. Great. And also the Jim Murphy who voted FOR the benefit cap. Also, back on the subject of raised taxes (when the Scottish Governments 'tax raising' power has been out of commission since 2007), the SNP have also been attacked for 'refusing' to commit to a 50p tax rate. Funnily enough, the SNP voted against cutting the 50p tax rate in WM, and even tabled another debate to retain it - which Labour didn't support. So one one hand Labour are vilifying the SNP for not 'committing' to a 50p tax rate - which they tried to keep in WM, finally announcing that a Labour Government in WM would introduce it, AND insinuating that a higher top rate of tax in an iScotland would be a terrible thing. You can't have it three ways.

Similarly, a lot of no voters on this thread are telling me that a higher top rate of tax would be a terrible thing, and force higher earners to move elsewhere, will also telling me that everything will be fine because we'll probably get a Labour government who will introduce a higher top rate of tax!

So maybe if I just hold on, and hope that a tiny number of swing voters in England vote Labour, then I might get "the government I voted for" - this time. Except that a Labour Government wouldn't really be the government I want either. Their policies and strategies are firmly focused on winning over swing voters in England, which, partly due to devolution, has quite different political demands to voters in my constituency. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I want the chance to vote for a party with policies I actually believe in, and for that vote to make a difference, away from a FPTP system and an unelected second chamber.

No second chamber at all.

Huffington Post is clear about some of the worrying things SNP have spouted.

On the subject of the unelected second chamber, did you know that the Scotland resident Lords have decided that they will just stay in the House of Lords anyway, so long as they decide to pay income tax in the rest of the UK. Nice to see that's all been cleared up so swiftly, and democratically...

I'm not going to defend the white paper! I'm not your girl for that. I'm not an SNP voter.

I'm more interested in things like this reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Common-Weal.pdf

The building of social housing has stagnated.

Do you mean in England or Scotland? If in England then this isn't the case according to this

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345947/House_Building_Release_-_June_Qtr_2014.pdf

Social housing is nearly all provided directly (built as part of larger developments) or indirectly through private sector housing (via planning gain). It suffered through the recession due to the overall reduction in new housing starts (although some private schemes were changed into social housing schemes).

If a yes vote brings the economic uncertainty which seems likely then housing development, which takes a long term view, is likely to be adversely affected.

If money is to be found for social housing not using the public private partnership model which is generally now used it will need to come from somewhere else....

And the Big Bad Wolf Goldman Sachs have issued their advice on a Yes here, which pretty much repeats my concerns about capital flight above.

So yes, more doom and gloom from a No voter, sorry, but you just can't ignore how world markets function - cash is king, and cash in danger will be swiftly removed.

In all this, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I also hope Scotland becomes a fairer society, I just believe very strongly that independence is not the way to do it.

In an ideal world, I would like to see DevoMax (which is already going to happen anyway) plus a Lib-Lab coalition in Holyrood.

WhatWould -same. And more regional devolved governments throughout UK.

"sorry, but you just can't ignore how world markets function - cash is king, and cash in danger will be swiftly removed."

Ok! No one anywhere should ever, ever vote for change in case the markets don't like it. Perhaps the markets wouldn't like a Labour Government either. Perhaps the markets don't like elections at all.

In fact, why don't we just sack democracy and let FTSE 100 board members make all the big decisions for us.

What is it with some Yes voters telling people they're too rich to have a valid opinion? Seriously, it's a crazy argument. You have no idea what people have lived through or done in their lives. You don't know where they have lived, where their family and friends still live or what their economic status is. You have no idea how socially aware or responsible they are. You're making silly assumptions.

The yes campaign has no objection to trotting out very wealthy people indeed to tell us how independence will be better for the poor. Yet you want to silence those who fall above some arbitrary and undefined level of income. At what point, out of interest, does one become too wealthy to have a legitimate view?

Criseyde

But the change which we are being asked to vote for (ie a fairer more equitable society) is dependent on their being a sound economy which can deliver this.

The Yes campaign have not in any way demonstrated how an independent Scotland will function on the most basic level. Mainly due to the fiasco over the currency and EU membership.

My mother is elderly and thus a net beneficiary of the welfare state. She lives in England but weatherall seems to think that the welfare state has been completely dismantled. This is not true. She has been very ill and is disabled through osteo-arthritis. She is also an alcoholic, so not brilliant at looking after herself. The welfare state is brilliant! I think we constantly moan and we don't realise how good it is. She only worked, briefly, before having children and since then has either been ill, or chosen (yes, chosen) not to work. So, she has paid in very little and raised her 4 children largely abroad so no contribution there by my Dad through taxes.

She has received the following: her house has been adapted to suit her needs at no cost to her; she has mobility aids and they are replaced when they wear out, get lost or break; her transport costs (taxis) to and from medical appointments are refunded to her; she gets a full state pension; she gets pension credit; she gets Attendance Allowance (81 a week) which she can use as she pleases but pays for someone to wash her 3 times a week and for some cleaning; she gets free public transport around her area although is refusing a wheelchair so this is not accessible really; her health care needs are being met; she gets free prescriptions.

There might be more but to hear people talk about the welfare state being dismantled, you would think she, and others like her, are being chucked in the workhouse. Yes, you have to work with a complex, bureacratic system that often gets things wrong. But - she is well cared for, as she should be, as a vulnerable member of society.

I am so glad that we have a welfare state like this in Britain and know that, whatever the government, this will continue as we all fight hard to keep it this way. I am, however, concerned that the uncosted White Paper Wish List will mean that things like this are promised (and more) in Scotland and we won't be able to afford them. We won't have taxpayers to pay for them. Oil will run out. Without a vibrant economy, cuts will have to be paid. I am voting No because I want to protect people like my Mum.

And PR.

Saying the current system doesn't work is a reason to try to change it, not to leave it.

It seems like the standard of living went up and up for the people of Scotland as part of the UK. Then we got oil and began to have higher expectations of what constitutes a reasonable standard of living, (not saying that is the result of finding oil) more people going into higher education - subsidised by the scottish government, fantastic medical advances which are very expensive, an older population, a fatter population, higher rates of binge-drinking in younger people, the global bank crisis. Some of the scottish electorate are dissatisfied with the result of all this and want a fresh start.

So they leave the union and hope to fund themselves to have better public services that are unaffordable, turning their backs on the economically deprived people in ruk. Who cares, we can afford to look after ourselves? They can fend for themselves. As soon as the going got tough... and we think we can afford to be independent. Partly because of the oil.

"But the change which we are being asked to vote for (ie a fairer more equitable society)"

Actually, that's not what you're being asked to vote for. All you're being asked is whether or not you think Scotland should be an independent country. But what is interesting is that the tenor of the debate on this thread, and the debate in the msm and beyond, has been very much focused on what is the best route to delivering a fairer, more equitable society. Compare this to the tenor of popular political debate in the last elections in England - which chiefly focused on which party promised to hate immigrants more, or take the UK out the EU, or deliver more austerity.

The yes vote claim that an independent Scotland is the route to a fairer society because claiming your right to self-determination for the sake of it is arguably selfish and risky.

deliver more austerity - there's been a recession!

Vote lib-dem or green then.

The main reasons given to me, whether here or in RL, as to why I should vote yes are those which I have mentioned. And it is the message being given out by the Yes campaign too.

And there is plenty of debate in England about social welfare, affordable housing etc etc. UKIP did dominate the last European election but they got a seat here too - and of course that story dominated the press as it is very newsworthy

OOAML - I live in a "tenement flat" too. A very lovely, spacious tenement flat in a fancy area, and I wouldn't swap it for a suburban house in a month of sundays, so I wouldn't try and imply that a tenement flat isn't anything like a "comfortable house" or some indication of relative hardship. We're not in single-ends anymore.

Well I don't know what yours is like but mine is neither lovely, spacious nor in a fancy area. We had planned to put it on the market but haven't managed to tart it up enough (it needs loads of work done, but realistically isn't going to make that money back on a sale, so we just want to make it look like it has potential) as I've been increasingly getting involved in campaigning.

I wasn't trying to claim I was living in extreme hardship, but actually I don't live in all that much comfort and I would swap the tenement for a suburban house in a heartbeat if I could agree with DH (completely irrelevant to the thread, but we have a long-standing bone of contention that he is determined to stay in the city and I want to move out and commute).

"deliver more austerity - there's been a recession!"

"Vote lib-dem or green then."

Delivering ever more austerity (especially in the form of cuts that disproportionately affect the very poor) isn't necessarily the best way to tackle recession.

"Vote lib-dem or green then." Um, yes. I will vote "lib-dem (Tory) or green" in a Scottish WM constituency, under a FPTP system. I'm sure that will be really helpful... Is that the best you've got to offer me?

A lot of no voters on this thread have talked about how optimistic Yes voters are. And then tell me that I should hold my breath, cross my fingers, and just hope that I get a Labour government in Westminster. This will be great - as they will introduce a higher top rate of tax which is a good/bad (?) thing for higher earners. This will ensure an era of great stability (never mind that banking crisis we had), despite the fact that US based banks (amongst others) have confirmed they are already working on Brexit plans. This will do a great deal to ameliorate poverty - never mind that under current policy trends child poverty is projected to rise by 600,000 in the UK by 2015.

The idea that Scottish voters have any discernible impact on WM policy, and will help to tackle poverty, is equally optimistic.

Many yes supporters argue that a yes vote is not a vote for the SNP, in fact the SNP will probably disappear in a puff of smoke once an independent Scotland is obtained. So who does this leave for us to vote for - labour? You're now arguing that you disagree with many labour policies. Or will a Scots labour party be completely different? Will there be new parties springing up, including a stronger right? If we have to rely on a large influx of immigrants to bolster our economy, I can imagine a tranche of the population voting for a more right wing party.

Or will the whole political landscape change. If so, how long will that take to bed down?

Regardless of who wins the next election after a Yes vote, they will still have to deal with the mess that it has created.
They will have to tear up the White Wishlist to start with, because their number one priority will be to keep the country from going bankrupt in the face of soaring interest rates and a currency controlled by a foreign country.
I suspect strongly that Salmond might resign retire gracefully anyway after a Yes vote, as he will have achieved his ambition and won't want to be caught up in the ruins.

Yes. AS personally has nothing to lose from a yes vote. When an inde Scotland fails to get currency union, contracts for warships, etc etc it will be because the rUK is being bloody minded and everything else won't be AS fault as he is no longer part of it - and still wealthy enough to be cushioned from the financial effects of a wrecked economy.

Sallying he should be accountable for any ruins - but unlikely, I know

Yes Alec salmond is an evil genius cackling in the ruins, playing the bagpipes while holyrood burns

that might be a bit extreme deedee but you're almost there.