Scottish Independence

[renton]

So your point is, in an election covering 65 million people, 5 million people don't decide the result? Wow.

In the Scottish election, the people of Falkirk don't directly get to elect the government. I think this is disgraceful. Why should the party I vote for not get in every time!

No, as I keep saying it's not that you vote one way and get the other - that's just democracy, it's more the fact that whatever way you vote doesn't ultimately matter. With only 10% of the UK populace this is a confirmed fact. It's not unfair and it's not wrong, it's simple demographics. Scottish votes will not usually matter in deciding who governs Scotland, I think that's kinda important.

it can be argued that in thre Holyrood system, with smaller constituencies and a different voting system that each vote matters a lot more and that the people of Falkirk certianly have more say in how Scotland is run than they do in how the UK is run, or indeed more say than Scotland as a whole doe sin how the UK is run.

[joozy]

I'm not saying Scotland should have more MPS, as you say we are over represented in terms of population, all that means is that there is no equitable way in which Scotland can be represented in the Union, ever.

As for your second point, as I keep saying, it's not the fact that we vote for one and get the otbher, it's the fact that our votes on all but the closest elections make no fundamental difference to the outcome. We get Labour because England votes for Labour, we get Conservatives becuase England votes for conservatives.

The votes of 10% of the population don't always make a difference to the outcome - what a massive f**king surprise.

[renton]

The votes of 10% of the population don't always make a difference to the outcome - what a massive f**king surprise.

Exactly. Since there is no way that Scotland will, on a regular basis, be able to influence the composition of the UK parliament and therefore be able to pass legislation that will make Scotland a better place to live, why in the name of f**k would you persevere with that system?

[banterman86]

Exactly. Since there is no way that Scotland will, on a regular basis, be able to influence the composition of the UK parliament and therefore be able to pass legislation that will make Scotland a better place to live, why in the name of f**k would you persevere with that system?

Scotland isn't a block vote.

Scotland is able to pass legislation that makes scotland a better place to live

Legislation passed in the interest of some scottish demographics will be in the interest of soemrUk demographics and vice versa.

[joozy]

Exactly. Since there is no way that Scotland will, on a regular basis, be able to influence the composition of the UK parliament and therefore be able to pass legislation that will make Scotland a better place to live, why in the name of f**k would you persevere with that system?

The exact same argument could be applied to the Shetlands in a Holyrood context; Yorkshire in a Westminster context; or any other small region within a large country.

[renton]

The exact same argument could be applied to the Shetlands in a Holyrood context; Yorkshire in a Westminster context; or any other small region within a large country.

I disagree on your first point: The holyrood system affords a more democratic system than Westminster and at least the Sheltand MSP is closer to his constituents - also, given the usual coalition nature of Holyrood you can argue that those Sheltand votes will still be important in defining who is in charge at the end of it all.

Your last point is salient. Ultimately these technical arguments rest on the nature of identity. If you see your identity as primarily British and think of scotland as a region of a country, then all the arguments mean nothing, if you identify primarily as Scottish then you see Scotland as the primary organising structure of a nation, then we are a nation with little authority to govern yourself in a larger state, in which case we should seek a solution that gives us that authority.

[Confidemus]

The exact same argument could be applied to the Shetlands in a Holyrood context; Yorkshire in a Westminster context; or any other small region within a large country.

Scotland is not a small region within a large country you complete fuckstick.

I'll wait for the BCC to pounce on this. They've been a disgrace in this thread, so I shouldn't imagine it'll take long.

[Blaven]

The UK is not walking away from the EU. 3 parties (Conservative, Green and UKIP) have a policy that a referendum should be held. The other parties are presently unwilling to offer the electorate a democratic choice.

Scotland will be leaving the EU if it leaves the UK. I have little doubt that an application to join will be successful and promptly but there has to be a risk that this is not the case.

Ok so IF the torys get re-elected and they hold an in - out referendum, all the tory and ukip voters are going to vote to stay?

Is that why more voters voted for anti EU partys than pro EU partys, so as not to leave?

Remember its an " IN - OUT" referendum not a do you want to renegotiate referendum.

Oooooo the uncertainty. Its a better risk than getting pulled out alltogether.

Idependent Scotland = short term.

Dragged out with UK= long term.

[banterman86]

Ok so IF the torys get re-elected and they hold an in - out referendum, all the tory and ukip voters are going to vote to stay?

Is that why more voters voted for anti EU partys than pro EU partys, so as not to leave?

Remember its an " IN - OUT" referendum not a do you want to renegotiate referendum.

Oooooo the uncertainty. Its a better risk than getting pulled out alltogether.

Idependent Scotland = short term.

Dragged out with UK= long term.

Loads of tory voters would vote to stay in the EU.

[Guest]

Has the FT article bee posted yet? Very nice reading

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf63cf8c-e5b4-11e3-a7f5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz330GeXhjn

Full article for those without access.

Ministers in London have misled Scottish voters over how much it would cost to set up an independent government in Edinburgh, according to the man whose analysis underpins the Treasury’s case for Scotland remaining in the UK.

Patrick Dunleavy, politics professor at the London School of Economics, told the Financial Times the Treasury had manipulated his research to make the one-off costs of setting up a new government look 10 times larger than they were likely to be.

His claims undermine part of the Treasury’s case for staying in the union, as both sides in the referendum battle are to unveil their contrasting claims about the economic costs and benefits of Scottish independence.

Prof Dunleavy said: “The Treasury’s figures are bizarrely inaccurate. I don’t see why the Scottish government couldn’t do this for a very small amount of money.”

Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, is due on Wednesday to unveil his “union dividend”, or the final estimate of how much independence could cost Scottish taxpayers. He will publish the last and most significant of the government’s papers into Scottish independence – the data-rich analyses with which they hope to quash separatist sentiment ahead of September’s referendum.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, will try to overshadow Mr Alexander’s announcement on Wednesday, giving his own “independence bonus” assessment of Scotland’s fiscal position just before the Treasury chief secretary speaks.

He is expected to announce an figure that could run into several thousand pounds per household, although it is not clear what projections for future oil revenue will be used in this figure.

The first minister said in a statement that Scotland is “more prosperous per head than the UK, France and Japan, but we need the powers of independence to ensure that that wealth properly benefits everyone in our society”.

However, Prof Dunleavy’s intervention threatens to overshadow what Treasury officials call the “most serious piece of work we have done since the decision to stay out of the euro”.

Prof Dunleavy estimated in 2010 that setting up a new Whitehall department costs £15m. The Treasury applied this figure to the 180 public bodies the Scottish government says it would need after independence to suggest independence could cost £2.7bn in one-off costs.

But Prof Dunleavy points out three problems with the Treasury’s working. First, not all 180 bodies would be major departments; second several departments already exist in Scotland and would simply need to be enlarged; third, his estimate applied to the “chaotic” way in which the last Labour government established new departments, not to a planned, orderly transition. He estimated the set-up costs would be closer to £150m-£200m.

He told the FT that based on an advance briefing last week the Treasury’s release “is seriously misleading”.

The Treasury said the £2.7bn that appeared in its briefing paper last week did not represent its official calculation. Instead it says it is focusing on the figure of £1.5bn, which it says is based on research by Robert Young, politics professor at Western Ontario university.

“The £2.7bn is based on the Scottish Government’s own estimate for the number of public bodies needed and that, along with other estimates – such as ICAS’s statement that changes to the tax system could cost considerably more than £750m – illustrate the range of potential start-up costs. The Scottish Government still refuses to set out any start-up costs whatsoever, which is not credible.”

Prof Young told the FT however the £1.5bn estimate was not his, but rather was extrapolated from the top of a range of estimates provided by academics looking how much it would cost Quebec to separate from Canada. The lowest of those estimates would put the cost at 0.4 per cent of Scotland’s output, equivalent to £600m.

Mr Salmond said the Treasury “have been caught red-handed trying to cook the books”. “These were figures presented publicly by Treasury officials and presumably signed off from the top, so serious questions now need to be answered, including whether this work was approved by the Treasury’s permanent secretary,” he said.

[Blaven]

Loads of tory voters would vote to stay in the EU.

And loads of labour voters would vote to leave.

[Blaven]

Has the FT article bee posted yet? Very nice reading

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf63cf8c-e5b4-11e3-a7f5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz330GeXhjn

Full article for those without access.

3 TO 4 times the cost of off setting the bedroom tax.

[banterman86]

And loads of labour voters would vote to leave.

Would they? based on what?

[Blaven]

Would they? based on what?

Are you realy tryin to say that people only vote for the party and not the policy?

Read H Bs track record on his voting history.

[vikingTON]

The exact same argument could be applied to the Shetlands in a Holyrood context; Yorkshire in a Westminster context; or any other small region within a large country.

Perhaps Shetland and Yorkshire should start viable campaigns for devolution and independence then - let us know how that works out in, oh, 100 years' time then.

Meanwhile in the real world, English regional devolution fell at the first hurdle, and the only group claiming self-government for Shetland are the Lib Dems - electoral asbestos who will be gutted from the premises in 12 months time.

[Mr Bairn]

People need to stop differentiating between "Scottish votes" and "English votes" in UK elections. It's just one big UK.

[Tio Pepe]

Ok so IF the torys get re-elected and they hold an in - out referendum, all the tory and ukip voters are going to vote to stay?

Is that why more voters voted for anti EU partys than pro EU partys, so as not to leave?

Remember its an " IN - OUT" referendum not a do you want to renegotiate referendum.

Oooooo the uncertainty. Its a better risk than getting pulled out alltogether.

Idependent Scotland = short term.

Dragged out with UK= long term.

Conservative Party policy is to remain in the EU.

The point is the electorate may have the opportunity to decide. Only those running scared of democracy would wish to deny them that. Those 'fearties' include the SNP.

If there is a referendum I will be campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU but I am not scared of the people's verdict whatever that may be.

I wouldn't be too sure that's the Scottish electorate would vote much differently than the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should there be a referendum.

[Enigma]

We on to Independence for Shetland/Falkirik again?

[banterman86]

Are you realy tryin to say that people only vote for the party and not the policy?

But the Labour Party doesn't have a eurosceptic split anymore, certainly not to the same degree as the Tories.

An EU referendum would be pretty one sided i think - it would unite business and the social priogressives - People may not be wild about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Sal;mond but they would all be on one side of the argument, with Farage and Griffin on the other.

[pandarilla]

This politics prof at the LSE is making Danny Alexander look like even more of a fool than he already does.

The BBC website at the moment doesn't seem to be mentioning this story - and instead is portraying the 2 claims as equal. The fact that the Treasury are being attacked by their own source is incredibly damaging.