to ask where indyref Part 5 is?

[grovel]

Well?

It's OK if Yes campaigners want to point out that the No campaign is supported by the orange order et al, but if I point out that there are some unsavoury sectors of the Yes camp also, I'm prejudiced.

Both sides have numpty keyboard warriors and probably equally dodgy donors. However, the No side is hampered with its links to Orange order, BNP etc

Scotland is a rich country. But it's how the wealth is used that is important. Not wasted on overpriced, over budget trams and other such schemes.

I never suggested 'throwing money' to alleviate poverty.

Raising the minimum wage to a living wage would reduce in work poverty and reduce the benefits bill. Only WM has this power just now.

WM has full control over employment law, including recently introducing a £500 fee to go to an employment tribunal. This means employees have no access to justice when they are unfairly dismisses for example when pregnant. Unfair dismissals and discrimination cost out economy billions. Only independence can give scotland the power to change any of this.

Lots of Scots are in fuel poverty. Colder climate= higher bills.
WM introduced vat on domestic fuel, disproportionately disadvantaging Scots.
Only independence can change this.

Scotland is currently subsidising the huge housing benefit bill in London caused by crazy house prices there.
With independence we could have a benefits system which suits the different housing costs in Scotland.

In rural Scotland transport to work costs often make work not pay so lower fuel duty would make isolated communities more economically productive.
WM controls all these taxes. Only independence will give scotland 100% control so we can build a more efficient economy.

Better together's plan to alleviate poverty:

Scotland is a rich country. But it's how the wealth is used that is important.

I completely agree. And the problem is at the moment Scots do not have that control.

Jimmurphyshump- because the Scotsman is a unionist paper?

No wonder so many people in Edinburgh are no!

SconeQueen "I don't think an independent Scotland would have the same delusions of defence grandeur"
Yes it does - it's all there! (see link below)

I didn't say that Scotland shouldn't have defence, and nor does your link, which emphasises instead that an independent Scotland should approach defence in partnership with other countries. That is different from the UK approach which is far more inclined to weigh in under its own steam or on the coat tails of the US, to want to "punch above its weight", to "play a leading role on the world stage" (these are both recent quotes from UK politicians speaking about defence matters and are what I mean by "delusions of defence grandeur").

I possibly came over as a bit of a nippy sweetie last night for which I apologise but, without wanting to rake up the coals, there have been alot of posts on here which have come over as being dismissive of people further down the pecking order, and which have conveyed a fair bit of self-satisfaction, even smugness.

I'm not going to apologise for a bit of idealism on my part because idealism can help achieve positive change. Think abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, ending of child labour in Britain, introduction of the social security system, NHS... The debate going on in Scotland just now - online, in town halls and on the doorsteps - shows that there is a hunger for change and a frustration with the current constitutional setup.

As far as I am concerned, the fundamental question is whether Scotland should be an independent country able to make its own decisions. The White Paper is only a manifesto. It sets out one set of options. The glory of a Yes vote is that we would then be able as a country to discuss and decide what way we wanted to go, whether that is on the economy, welfare, health or defence. We don't get to do this just now because so little actual power is devolved to us.

The scenario is the case of a No vote is not guaranteed either. There are risks either way because we live in a risky world. But independence allows us to steer our own course through uncharted waters rather than following in the slipstream of a country whose government (of whichever hue) seems to have different values from many people living in Scotland.

I stand on my own two feet in my own life and make my own decisions. I want my country to be able to do the same.

Better together's plan to alleviate poverty:

Jan 2014
"George Osborne has warned of another £25bn of cuts after the next election, targeting council housing for the better-off and housing benefit for under-25s."
"The Treasury currently spends £1.9bn on housing benefit for 350,000 people under the age of 25 currently, of whom around half have dependent children."
"Osborne said there was still a long way to go before recovery as he set out a five-point plan to help the economy. "We've got to make more cuts – £17bn this coming year, £20bn next year, and over £25bn further across the two years after. That's more than £60bn in total."
"Cameron also signalled that he wanted to cut taxes for the lowest paid before taxes for the rich."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/george-osborne-britain-cuts-austerity

Weatherall, employers also have the power to increase NMW - all these small Scottish companies who support the yes campaign. They could pay all their employee £10 per hour now.

Unions pay a lot of legal fees for employees to take on unfair dismissals etc. Not quite sure how these cost the economy billions. There were actually quite a lot of spurious claims previously (did a stint with ACAS in a former life so have seen this), and while I don't really agree with the £500 charge I think ridiculous claims could well have cost the economy quite a lot of money.

I don't really see how Scotland is subsidising the London housing benefit bill - there is a cap on housing benefit countrywide. £ for £ Scotland gets as much in benefits pc as England/Wales etc.

Re fuel duty (both domestic and transport) - I suppose Scottish Parliament could use their tax raising powers to alleviate fuel duty for those in fuel poverty. They could also have long encouraged more businesses out of Glasgow and Edinburgh so people didn't have to travel so far to work.

Lots of Scots are in fuel poverty. Colder climate= higher bills.
WM introduced vat on domestic fuel, disproportionately disadvantaging Scots.
Only independence can change this.

VAT on fuel is 5% as opposed to 20%. It is a UK specific historic opt out which is no longer available. All (virtually all?) other EU countries pay full VAT on gas & electricity. Scotland when it joined the EU would have to charge the standard rate of VAT on fuel.

So yes independence could change this by increasing the amount of tax people pay on their fuel bills.

Morning all.

Going back to defence and joining Nato, that notorious rag The Scotsman also reports that an iScotland would have to reverse the SNP's pledge to lower spending on defence: here

I'm sure Yes voters will dismiss this sort of thing as yet more 'scarey' stuff - but it's another example of how unrealistic and uncosted the white paper is.

And again, let me say that I think most people want better equality, just do not believe that independence is the way to get there.

To whoever said about discussions after the 18th-

If no lose then I think they will regret- the uneasy alliance between labour & Tory

• ad as leader
• DC not debating
• lack of grassroots support
• negativity of campaign
• that advert

If yes lose I think they will regret

• not getting networks set up sooner
• not engaging with non snp supporters earlier
• not giving away more free 'yes' posters/stickers/badges earlier
• maybe pushing for the cu
• not being radical enough eg monarchy etc
• having as as leader
• not engaging with women well enough.

If one employer pays better wages than another similar employer it makes them less competitive. That's why NMW is important as it forces a level playing field.

Re: security

In 2013 Alan Burnett, former head of intelligence with strathclyde police and Scotland's counter terrorism co ordinator until 2010 told the Sunday herald that "an independent Scotland would face less of a threat, intelligence institutions will be readily created and allies will remain allies".

It's all going to be fine-

I disagree. Paying employees more can make them more productive, it's a complex calculation depending on specific market conditions and the type of work involved.

weatherall that's an interesting list.

And probably we'll all get another go at it - if No win, there'll be pressure for another referendum at some point, and if Yes win, there'll be a large unhappy minority who will form a Reunion party.

god help us

Going back to defence and joining Nato, that notorious rag The Scotsman also reports that an iScotland would have to reverse the SNP's pledge to lower spending on defence: here

That says that NATO requires a 2% GDP spend, and the white paper suggested a 1.7%. UK currently spends over 2% so would still be a reduction..

However, I suspect that there may be room for negotiation. Have a look at the territorial waters of Scotland, and then imagine the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not wanting Scotland on board...

Grandtheft- McDonald's aren't going to pay their staff £10ph unless they are legally required to.

Scotland contributes £3.3billion to UK defence and we don't even have a patrol in our waters.

Reducing our spend to £1.8billuon would put us in line with Denmark Norway and Ireland. I don't consider them 'unsafe' places.

No McDonalds won't but I'm assuming all the pro independence businesses who keep signing letters etc. will either already do so or will be happy to do so in the event of a yes vote.

Paying employees more can make them more productive, it's a complex calculation depending on specific market conditions and the type of work involved.

I agree with that, the problem is that at the !moment there is massive employment so people are fighting over shitty jobs, its an employers market so things like zero hours are becoming more common, plus of course the UK gov is undercutting even more by paying people to take on free labour via workfare..

No McDonalds won't but I'm assuming all the pro independence businesses who keep signing letters etc. will either already do so or will be happy to do so in the event of a yes vote.

Surely you realise its not as simplistic as that?

Grand theft- the Scottish parliament hasn't had control over fuel duty!

Scots pensioners subsidise London pensioners because we don't live as long.

Most unionised employees work for big companies, do you not care about the unfair dismissal of workers who are ununuonised?

Workers rights should be for everyone. We shouldnt have a two tier system of rights.

Deeedeee So how will staying in the uk tackle poverty? Is it simply because it's not a risk to the economy to stay in the uk? Or do you see this centre politics of the last 20 years changing?

Is that the impasse then? The split between no and yes? Not money, not class, not nationality? But whether you want to see something written down explicitly on paper before you get it?

For me these issues are linked. I don't necessarily "need to see it written down", but I am the sort of person who doesn't believe promises and idealism. So if the plans for independence - whether via the white paper itself or the campaigns of the parts of the mainstream parties which are pro - laid out a proper approach to how they were going to tackle poverty i.e. one that was properly thought out, costed and researched then I'd possibly be more likely to vote Yes. If they had clear, workable redistributive policies which would gradually make our country more balanced, I'd be more likely to vote Yes. But I don't see that. It's a while since I read the white paper cover to cover but I found it so wholly unconvincing that I wouldn't use it as more than a doorstop. I hear a lot of shouting about "fairer" but little to show how it would be achieved.

Everyone is doing their own mental risk:reward analysis whether they know it or not. Some people are naturally more hopeful and idealistic and so they see the possible rewards as more likely to occur, or more important, and weight their decision accordingly. I'm quite risk averse - and cynical. So when I look at it, I see an awful lot of likely economic pain. That's not to say remaining is risk free economically, but that in my opinion leaving is far higher risk. Again, I don't see much to reassure me that the potential shocks to the economy would be properly managed.

Some people seem to think that if our economy is hurt, if financial services and other well paying industries are hurt, of well paid people lose their jobs then our society will be fairer and that will help the poorest. I don't believe it will. Those who are currently well off/doing ok are probably more agile - they will generally have at least some money to allow them to relocate or retrain. They'll be the ones able to either leave or seize new opportunities that open up. I know, I'm not allowed to talk about the economy and you don't like trying to forecast the future. But I can't not think about how I see it going - and for me the scenario I find most likely is one where our economy hurts an awful lot for quite a substantial time. That's just going to mean there is less money available to do things. And that's not going to help the poorest - it's going to hurt them.

I don't know why I'm even bothering posting tbh. I've kind of had enough of the offensive comments and insults. Some people are so desperate to put people who don't agree with them in a "selfish cows, they don't understand or care about poverty" box that they can't see beyond it. Last nights posts really offended and upset me.

Workfare is another reason to ditch WM!