Independent Scotland....

[Organisys]

Right, my house is going independent. I am going to set my own Council Tax, Income Tax, and a biiiiggg f*** off fence is going up!

[Waspy]

Lloyds dropping £1.7bn in a single morning of trading yesterday, says it all really.

All they have in terms of 'economic prosperity' is oil and gas, along with loads of little companies that support these industries. Alright, where exactly is BPs main office and trading floor? Tell me how you're going to see a penny of this when it is shipped straight to Merseyside to save the higher VAT you're proposing?

They then try to talk about there renewable sector as if it's about to explode up there. Why are Seimens (builders of 75% of Europes off-shore turbines) basing their EU operations in Humber ports and pumping £2bn into the area if the future is in Scotland?

There are so many holes in there bid for independence that I am actually worried for the Scottish people who salmond is trying and seemingly succeeding in fobbing off. Independent financial analysis consistently shows that every Scott will be £1.5k worse off each year, which doesn't account for the predicted slump in revenue from North sea oil that many predict.

In the end, it comes down to this for me: There are 5.3 million people living in Scotland, but 1 million Scots living in England, Ireland and Wales. Where is the work Mr Salmond?

In another view Sam,

there is 6 million in scotland; 65 million in the UK.

What costs more to run? What creates and simulates economies?

Link to your IDP Analysis (intrested in reading this)?

Larger populations cost more to run, but have larger potential to generate revenue. Swings and roundabouts.

[The Mighty Elvi]

On a positive note:

Life Expectancy (LE) is significantly worse (lower) in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, for both males and females. Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE) is significantly worse (lower) in Scotland than in the UK for males, but similar for females.

Scotland has one of the lowest LEs in Western Europe. International comparisons of HLE are hampered by the lack of consistent health measures. However, on the basis of a related indicator, healthy life years (HLY), it would appear that, in comparison with many European countries, Scotland fares badly for males but compares better for females.

Life expectancy (LE) is an estimate of how many years a person might be expected to live, whereas healthy life expectancy (HLE) is an estimate of how many years they might live in a 'healthy' state. HLE is a key summary measure of a population's health

http://www.scotpho.org.uk/population-dynamics/healthy-life-expectancy/key-points

So a big saving on pension costs and health service costs in the long run. Not exactly Logan's Run, but keep shoveling the booze and fatty food down their necks and its Full of Win.

Get the young Eastern European immigrants in to fill the gap in the work force as the locals slowly die off.

Their superior work ethic will boost the Scottish economy, and  the young male immigrants will mate with the longer living Scottish females that will eventually change the population for the better.

 

[Waspy]

^ 

[Sam]

Independant analysis can be found all over, your best bet is the channel 4 fact checker, iirc they had a well balance piece that led to 'you're not better off, but it's dificult to say by how much'. But many are much more outspoken on the topic.

The 4 major banks you have, have today announced that they will be moving hq out of Scotland and if the losses of lloyds on monday didn't ring alarm bells this certainly should.

5 million vs 60 million and which one costs more? What kind of illogical argument for independence that? *FEWER* people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending.

My predicted topic to get thrown in the mix in the next few days? The 40% drop in property value.

[The Mighty Elvi]

Less people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending.

 

Really?  So the greater your population the more efficient you are at spending money.

 

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

FYI it's fewer in number and less in quantity.

[Simeon]

Less people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending.

Really?  So the greater your population the more efficient you are at spending money.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

Why's that stupid? You think it's more efficient serving a large, but less densely populated area with (for example) public transport than serving a large, but densely populated area? Back to economics school for you mate..

On another note, why the hell are we giving the Scots concessions to stay?! If they want to stay then it should be as is, if not, fine, bugger off. When are the English getting a referendum on whether Scotland get to stay part of the Uk..

[Sam]

Less people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending.

Really?  So the greater your population the more efficient you are at spending money.


That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

FYI it's fewer in number and less in quantity.

So, that's your counter argument? I used the word 'less' over 'fewer' and you not understanding economy of scale?

Are we just going to gloss over The Royal Bank of Scotland sacking off Scotland if it's a yes and moving their HQ down to London, the predicted free-fall in housing prices, tax increases, no currency, the 7ish years it could take to join the EU and the fiscal studies institutes calculations that show public spending would need to drop by an estimated £6bn if it gained independence (that's £1200 per head of pop.).

I don't understand why you are taking it so personally Elvi, it's really important to be having these debates and I was on the fence for ages but as you guys and gals get closer to the vote, it seems like the most bizarre thing ever that there is so much support when there isn't a definite answer that Salmond can give for anything.

Don't let your culturally engrained hatred of the English lead you to make heart over head decisions on something so important.

[WadGTI]

Independant analysis can be found all over, your best bet is the channel 4 fact checker, iirc they had a well balance piece that led to 'you're not better off, but it's dificult to say by how much'. But many are much more outspoken on the topic.

The 4 major banks you have, have today announced that they will be moving hq out of Scotland and if the losses of lloyds on monday didn't ring alarm bells this certainly should.

5 million vs 60 million and which one costs more? What kind of illogical argument for independence that? *FEWER* people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending.

My predicted topic to get thrown in the mix in the next few days? The 40% drop in property value.

You right Sam, there is many Independant analysis's, but from my own point of view, I have yet to come accros one where is unbiased, true facts and account of the possible trasformation of what would happen.

Banks moving HQ...so we should vote no? I think you will find out Sam alot of registered offices are not where the opertations are based mainly due to the tax evasion that has went on for longer than I have been breathing. No mention of operations moving...where in my view where alot of the job losses would be. Ofcourse there will be some redundancies, that would be only natural in transformation of this scale should it happen. Your not going to cater for all in this situ.

"5 million vs 60 million and which one costs more? What kind of illogical argument for independence that? *FEWER* people means less money in the pot. Higher concentrations of population (as found in England) means better scales of efficiency, more efficient spending." - Sam, I don't know everything, but what I do know is that the UK is servely innefficent with its Money. You may disagree, but we live in my view a real decent society, it could be alot worse. The fact that we don't have armed police patrolling our streets says alot in myview.

But this comes at a large financial cost to the working populas of the UK. From inflated fuel costs, to massivly inflated property costings incudling both private ownership and privated rented sector, the continued reduction in afforabvle low cost homes and where is our governmement protecting us from these physical changes in society and regulating it? Don't even get me started on the masive unstaistainable welfare system we have in place where if you don't work you get your home and small living wage. You do know that not very long ago, that you got more money from Welfare than say working part time depending on cirumstances. You think the system is efficent?? I could write for hours on this.

The reason that is not efficent is due to massive population and sustainbaiulty costs for some of the above measures. What has this created you may ask?...it has accelaterated the gap between the rich and poor and middle class to pay for it.

I want to live in a fair and equal society, but if you think it going to happen anytime soon with 4 countires living in the same house with one doing the books, then you are sadly mistaken. If I could get assurance that this could happen and that they would start implementing legislation  to deal with some of the above noted problems, then I would more than happy to vote No.

When you are 10% of the population and with a 1/3 of the landmass of the UK its not as difficult to manage compared to the latter option in my view.

My 2 cents.

Edit...Just to add Sam...this has nothing to do with we I live or you live  or anti-english or any other nonsense. I was born into a unfair society like the most of us which pis*es me off and the vast majoirty of us including yourself and we can do nothing about it.

Also it would be wrong for not to point out that the Uk government did try and claw back some welfare $$ by introducing a tax on the bedroom. lol. this sums it up in my view on the larger context of matters.

Just saw this quote from another website - it certain sums me up as a voter. "why would you let global corporations tell you how to vote? they are certainly not asking you to vote in your best interests
 "

[WadGTI]

Larger populations cost more to run, but have larger potential to generate revenue. Swings and roundabouts.

Spot on mate but its how well there are run and being able to measure and control the risk of the consqences of which the tax payers has to bear. I am all for UK, but the way poltical establishment is run can't continue and alot of Scots up here wether they vote or not in any election can do notihng about it.

Alot see it not all about money, but rather than respresentation. Not for a mintue to I think this is going to be rosy should the yes vote happen, it will be a bumpy ride, but it can be done.

As Obama said "Yes we can " 

Hopefully an overhaul of politcs will follow down the line...we can only hope.