Indyref 10. The Marathon Continues..

[WildThong]

All welcome

I had other things going on whilst Bedroom tax was being debated so I know little about it, although I thought Labour would scrap it if the won the next election which is almost certain. I do know there's a whole lot more to poverty and deprivation than one tax change and the debate around benefits in general.

In an independent Scotland, Scotland will have control.

Ok. So what will you do about it? Because this statement below

We've shielded the most vulnerable here in Scotland from the bedroom tax by using £50 million of our budget to reimburse those affected. Even on the most simple of levels we won't have to take measures like that.

Is still not answering the question. Funding will be cut for many charities who used to provide services. Jobs are going to go. There will be even more increased pressure on statutory services with less income going round to pay for them. So what will happen to protect the most vulnerable?

Also this from the Scotsman on the Bedroom Tax:

--The UK Government has offered to transfer the power to set the cap on Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in Scotland to Holyrood - a move that will give councils the power to mitigate the effect of ending the spare room subsidy.

The announcement, made by the Scotland Office minister David Mundell, follows a request from the Scottish Government for the cap on DHP to be lifted.

Lifting the cap on the payment, which is used by councils to support tenants affected by the spare room subsidy, would full cover the impact of the controversial UK Government reform. Current rules constrain what can legally be spent on discretionary housing payments (DHPs).--

Not really setting aside 50 million is it because of big bad Westminster crushing the Scots yet again?

I appreciate you responding to my questions but I don't feel I have had an answer at all. This is my problem with the Yes campaign. It is spin. Not fact. I need facts, I am retentive about this kind of thing. I am not the only voter that is this way, surely.

Because I don't think that there's going to be a mythical group of saints descending from the heavens to take up residence in Holyrood as soon as a yes vote is announced.

Is it? You believe that? You had no point. You merrily accepted that the poor are the first to suffer just because that's the way it has always been. Why do you accept that?

I'm not accepting of the way things are. But given that the parliament we elect in Scotland - not Westminster - is just as willing to cozy up to the mega rich, why would one we elect post independence be different? (Obviously we will elect different politicians over the years but I mean at an overall level)

Anyone watching the proms?
Wonderful sight.

if the electorate only want to vote for people who tell them what they want to hear then we will always end up with lying hypocrites in power - where they are located won't make any difference to the end result...

The poor are going to suffer more!

How have they been helped by paid tuition fees when they're less likely to achieve university-entry grades in the first place?
How have they been helped by paying for middle class people's prescriptions?

How will they be helped by recession?
How will they be helped by stringent spending cuts in the unlikely event of a CU?
How will they be helped by a lack of business confidence?
How will they be helped by ridiculous threats such as walking away from debt, blockading the North Sea and punishing business?

They won't.

Land of hope and glooooryyyy loving it! Good old BBC 1 last night of the proms.

annie loving it!

I think independence will give us the chance to formulate policies which do not sanction people do they are left without any money at all fur days on end.

It's not difficult - the current government has imposed a system where people just have their benefits sanctioned - mainly due to a bureaucratic glitch.

I would vote fir a government which does intend to continue those policies.

Why would funding be cut? You're speculating. I've spent more hours than I care to add up filling in finding applications for the range of third sector charities that I have worked for. It's not easy, never has been and has got a lot harder. You seem certain that it's going to get even worse. Why?

All UK wide charities have a Scottish arm. Many operate completely separately already. And don't be so naive to think the work on the ground is funded solely from collection tins.

Regarding the bedroom tax, you're misunderstanding it. We had to ask Westminster if it was ok if we could allocate our budget to allow room for the discretionary payments.

And why do the poor suffer first when there's millions in unpaid, dodged taxes there for the taking?

Where are these unpaid taxes Rita?
Anyone in Scotland who is liable for unpaid taxes will already be moving out, and will have another 18 months to finish the job. As a new country you will not have any reciprocal agreements with other countries (including the EU) to chase them.

We can and will negotiate our share out of the one we've already paid into.

Well of course we pay into it already. And there will be negotiations. But you can be sure that what is left is not going to be very much for Scotland. What do we bring to the negotiating table? And don't mention oil fgs.

rUK will be looking to its own electorate. Or are members of the Yes campaign expecting some multi billion golden handshake as a result of their not so graceful departure from the Union? Never going to happen!

Wildthong we might be singing along to "Last night of the bagpipes" on SBC 1 next year!

Currency Union (whilst unlikely to be permitted due to politics) would only be acceptable to the treasury if it was on very strict terms. Amongst those, according to Credit Suisse, would be running a budgetary surplus.

According to Mark Carney, we would need to build up substantial reserves, far beyond our share of the UK ones, to support sterlingisation. To do this would require a surplus of probably 5-10% per year.

The first option, using recent GERS figures, would require cuts of £12 billion per year. The second would be closer to £17 billion. Plus, our revenues are likely to decline given that oil revenues have dropped by, I think, £1.5 billion this year and several large companies are likely to relocate so most of their taxes will be paid in the UK where they will have their head office, whereas at the moment they are attributed using the GERS methodology by where the economic activity takes place.

Given that the poorest are always hardest hit by cuts, because the use public services more, where would you find this money? This is what it is spent on, broadly, at the moment.

The principle of negotiation is that you give something to get something preferably dealing in your own favour.

What are the negotiators for any seceded Scotland going to actually give up? (They're already committed to use the promise of delaying Trident exclusion for some things.)

I don't think we'll see saints. Bit we will see the political landscape shaken up and new parties emerging.

Regarding prescriptions. 'Middle class' people are less likely to require prescriptions anyway, they have the luxury of better General health. The ones that already qualified for free prescriptions (unemployed, income support/ pregnant/New mums/under 16s/full time students/elderly/disabled ext) generally require more prescriptions over the course of a year. The cost of administrating charging for them was more than the cost of just scrapping charges altogether.

And don't for one minute think it's just the middle class trotting out with their free prescriptions. Many working people are on the breadline but wouldn't have qualified for free prescriptions.

annie I can assure you I will not Red Hot Chili Pipers, no thanks. Whatever happens, My hoose will be like Gibralter, forever British.

You can come to mine for the Proms, bring

Apols for slight hi-Jack from the serious business.

Rita and Queen I understand absolutely how you want to help the underprivileged. It's admirable and something I share with you.

But hopes and wishes and good intentions won't pay benefits. You have to understand that those who have studied all the facts and figures in an unbiased way (rather than the cherry-picked Wings figures), are convinced that there will not be the money available to continue even the present standard of living. It's actually going to be worse.

Salmond won't even discuss the figures - he says they are all just intended to frighten. He just says not to worry, it will all be wonderful.

I know you won't change your minds now - you are committed to your cause. But I am desperately sorry for those who are being promised a better life and are just going to be disappointed.

Why would funding be cut? You're speculating. I've spent more hours than I care to add up filling in finding applications for the range of third sector charities that I have worked for. It's not easy, never has been and has got a lot harder. You seem certain that it's going to get even worse. Why?

Alright. You declare yourself expert. Explain the IoF report on fundraising should the independent vote go through which was published last year. Show me where charities painted a rosy picture of the future in the event of a yes vote.

Where are the majority of trusts and foundations registered in the UK? What do their trust deeds declare? Can they fund non-UK registered charities? How many donors based south of the border, currently funding millions of pounds worth of projects in Scotland, will be able to continue?

That's just one small part of a multi-billion pound sector. And you think it won't be affected? What about national charities who then have to reconfigure or stop services? I can think of several London-based ones who operate in Scotland, sometimes on NHS-contracted services. Has provision been made, outside of basic OSCR reports, to support this?

Not speculation. Fact. Donors are already not funding here. This has come from funders, solicitors, accountants, investment managers and charities. So, that in itself creates a problem in being able to fund services on charities who rely on this income without even entering into a debate about taxation and statutory spend, Lottery income and pots of European funding. I could go on, and on, and on.

So show me your counter argument. Show me that the Yes campaign has this sorted out. You say I am speculating, so why not prove me wrong?

Or feel free to bury your head in the sand.

Or as an acquaintance put it 'The financial case is mince'.

Our budget, if we remain dependant, isn't safe. There is no safe option.
You don't know what lies ahead, any more than I do and I'm not going to Google frantically to try and pretend that I know the intricacies of the economy's future.

You are asking me to answer questions based on assumptions and opinion, because we won't have facts until negotiations start. And I can't do that.

Rita Regarding prescriptions. 'Middle class' people are less likely to require prescriptions anyway, they have the luxury of better General health.

Oh, I've heard it all now! The independence campaign has found a cure for infection, based on social class! No more pneumonia for the rich! No more infected wounds or dental infections! In fact, its a cure for cancer and lowered T cell immunity.

The sheer luxury of the privileged bastards' health.

Along with the "Scots die earlier so we will save money on pensions" claim, this has to be one of my favourite blunders.

But these assumptions and opinions that you refer to are being presented ti the electorate as fact Rita.