Are London taxpayers paying for the new Forth crossing? It's only 1.65 billion.
In denying Scotland of its Barnett Formula consquentials it also denied us the ability to fund infrastructure projects that would have created jobs and boosted the economy.
The Welsh Government has joined Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley in expressing extreme concern about the implications of a little-noticed new law which completed its passage through Parliament in the early hours of Wednesday.
Under the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will be able to draw on the UK Government’s reserves to cut every south west of England water consumer’s bill by £50 a year and pay for a new sewerage system for London to deal with 20 million tonnes of untreated waste water a year that would otherwise be discharged into the Thames.
However because the project is being funded out of the UK Government's reserves, Westminster rules that there is no Barnett Consequential, and therefore Scotland and the other devolved administrations need not be compensated. The reserves are normally used to fund projects deemed to be of UK "national importance".
It is clear this Prime Minister and the rest of his Tory and Lib Dem cronies are not making decisions with the best interests of the people of Scotland.
What a monumental waste of time, energy and money. The result is already known and it's 'No'.
The government and the rest of the world should just let Salmond and the rest of the Scotland say whatever they want, it won't influence the majority and they've no hope in hell of winning this.
We should just stay out of this and focus our energy on things that do matter.
Sorry I must have got it wrong I'm pretty sure today's date is 26th of August....surely I can't have missed the vote and it's really the 19th of September?
There's not two airbases in moray. There's an army base at Kinloss barracks and an Air Force base at Lossiemouth.
Both will leave pretty soon after 2016 Independence Day I imagine. I imagine the folks relying on these bases in Morayshire will just have to muddle through with no work for a few years until they can find something else. Can't make an omelette etc.......
So where are they going to go? More cost to relocate?
This shouting match has excluded the rUK despite the obvious impact on usThe truth : Scotland has a good deal inside the Union with free benefits such as prescriptions and university tuition, higher expenditure per head and the strength of the UK when things go wrong ( RBS )Only the separatist fanatics will vote Yes but the vicious gangster tone full of threats and violence and aggression will not fade. Wee Eck has unleashed a tide of hatred. The English are horrible and Scotland will be a rich country with great prospects without the English weighing us down.
We know a currency union could work but all three of the main UK parties have ruled it out. So it won't happen unless they agree to it and they have all said outright they won't.
So where are they going to go? More cost to relocate?
Are all of your posts just one line? This isn't Twitter, you know. You have all of the opportunity you want to give us a detailed description of why so are so committed to the pro-independence cause. You might even be able to convince some wavering voters.
There are good and bad arguments to be made on both sides about independence and there is no right a wrong answer. It's a matter of opinions. We can all have a better discussion if everyone explains their thinking.
Personally, I don't have a vote and while I hope that Scotland says no, I fully will fully respect their decision.
Just watched an hour long debate on the referendum on STV, during which Charles Kennedy had a field day with John Swinney.
The Better Together campaign missed a golden opportunity. Kennedy would have been a better choice than Darling. He also took every one of Salmond's points from last night's debate and calmly, eloquently and clinically exposed each and every one of them for the bluff and bluster that they were, especially his nonsense about a mandate from the Scottish people that somehow supposedly is going to make his position all the stronger when he goes begging for his currency union should the Yes vote succeed.
Repeated on BBC Parliament at 8pm tomorrow night. Kennedy would also wipe the floor with the shouty Salmond, though to be fair to Swinney he was a lot more calm and collected than his boss was, and actually came over a lot better.
71% said Alex Salmond won the debate to 29% for Alistair Darling, equalling a 27% swing since the last debate poll by ICM; Alex Salmond’s lead of 42% compares to just 12% for Alistair Darling in the first debate
Alex Salmond won with both men and women with the female rating at 77% to males at 63%
Alex Salmond won among every age profile
Alex Salmond won across every social grade
Alex Salmond won across every region in Scotland
Alex Salmond won 89% amongst post-debate don’t knows
Over a third of No voters said Alex Salmond won the debate along with 100% of Yes voters
Alex Salmond wins among Labour voters at 57% - a 38% swing since the last ICM debate poll
INDEPENDENCE
The post-independence poll was 49% Yes to 51% No
This is a closing of the gap by 2% since the last debate poll
Pre-binary the Yes vote was the only option that increased by 3% since the last referendum poll
A majority of women voters supported Yes – 53%
There were majorities for Yes among the 17-34 and 35-54 year old age groups - 51% and 52% respectively
Independence was the majority option amongst C2s and DEs and only needs a 5% swing among ABC1s
Yes wins 37% amongst Labour voters – an 11% swing since the last debate poll
53% of those who support ‘other’ parties opted for Yes
WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENTS?
61% said Alex Salmond had better arguments to 39% for Alistair Darling
62% of women said Alex Salmond had better arguments
Every part of the country thought Alex Salmond had better arguments
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to all age groups
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to every social group.
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to don’t knows – 63%
44% of Labour voters said Alex Salmond had better arguments"
Are all of your posts just one line? This isn't Twitter, you know. You have all of the opportunity you want to give us a detailed description of why so are so committed to the pro-independence cause. You might even be able to convince some wavering voters.
There are good and bad arguments to be made on both sides about independence and there is no right a wrong answer. It's a matter of opinions. We can all have a better discussion if everyone explains their thinking.
Personally, I don't have a vote and while I hope that Scotland says no, I fully will fully respect their decision.
I have already explained my reasons for voting yes previously on this thread. I was simply taking a leaf out of some no voters book who on most posts disagreeing with theirs demand evidence, links etc...annoying after a while isn't it.
But over and above that I am also looking for explanations to each statement I have asked the question of.
Repeated on BBC Parliament at 8pm tomorrow night. Kennedy would also wipe the floor with the shouty Salmond, though to be fair to Swinney he was a lot more calm and collected than his boss was, and actually came over a lot better.
I agree that Kennedy might have been a better choice but maybe the UK parties were worried if he'd stop out of the pub long enough.
I've set the BBC Parliament programme to record, thanks for the tip.
"Norway’s oil production, like the UK, experienced declines in the early 2000s and Norway subsequently introduced a successful exploration incentive which encouraged companies to explore its waters, in return for a tax credit on that expenditure. It is estimated the Norwegian tax credit has since added approximately $51billion of value to Norway’s economy and secured decades of forward energy supply from new discovered resources.
The Faroe Petroleum CEO said there is no reason why a similar windfall would not result in the North Sea and said that even a quarter of the success of the Norwegian system, "has the potential to deliver £11billion to the economy over seven years.""
71% said Alex Salmond won the debate to 29% for Alistair Darling, equalling a 27% swing since the last debate poll by ICM; Alex Salmond’s lead of 42% compares to just 12% for Alistair Darling in the first debate
Alex Salmond won with both men and women with the female rating at 77% to males at 63%
Alex Salmond won among every age profile
Alex Salmond won across every social grade
Alex Salmond won across every region in Scotland
Alex Salmond won 89% amongst post-debate don’t knows
Over a third of No voters said Alex Salmond won the debate along with 100% of Yes voters
Alex Salmond wins among Labour voters at 57% - a 38% swing since the last ICM debate poll
INDEPENDENCE
The post-independence poll was 49% Yes to 51% No
This is a closing of the gap by 2% since the last debate poll
Pre-binary the Yes vote was the only option that increased by 3% since the last referendum poll
A majority of women voters supported Yes – 53%
There were majorities for Yes among the 17-34 and 35-54 year old age groups - 51% and 52% respectively
Independence was the majority option amongst C2s and DEs and only needs a 5% swing among ABC1s
Yes wins 37% amongst Labour voters – an 11% swing since the last debate poll
53% of those who support ‘other’ parties opted for Yes
WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENTS?
61% said Alex Salmond had better arguments to 39% for Alistair Darling
62% of women said Alex Salmond had better arguments
Every part of the country thought Alex Salmond had better arguments
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to all age groups
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to every social group.
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to don’t knows – 63%
44% of Labour voters said Alex Salmond had better arguments"
Most telling result is pre debate the sample group were 51/49 No - after the debate they were still 51/49 No.
Just watched an hour long debate on the referendum on STV, during which Charles Kennedy had a field day with John Swinney.
The Better Together campaign missed a golden opportunity. Kennedy would have been a better choice than Darling. He also took every one of Salmond's points from last night's debate and calmly, eloquently and clinically exposed each and every one of them for the bluff and bluster that they were, especially his nonsense about a mandate from the Scottish people that somehow supposedly is going to make his position all the stronger when he goes begging for his currency union should the Yes vote succeed.
Repeated on BBC Parliament at 8pm tomorrow night. Kennedy would also wipe the floor with the shouty Salmond, though to be fair to Swinney he was a lot more calm and collected than his boss was, and actually came over a lot better.
While I admire and respect Charles Kennedy, his party is in government,
One of my Scottish friends has just become a victim of cybernat bullying, plus that person tried to recruit some of his friends to help bully him into voting Yes. Such a pleasant and tolerant bunch of people they are... It's one thing supporting independence, it's another trying to intimidate those who don't.
In denying Scotland of its Barnett Formula consquentials it also denied us the ability to fund infrastructure projects that would have created jobs and boosted the economy.
The Welsh Government has joined Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley in expressing extreme concern about the implications of a little-noticed new law which completed its passage through Parliament in the early hours of Wednesday.
Under the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will be able to draw on the UK Government’s reserves to cut every south west of England water consumer’s bill by £50 a year and pay for a new sewerage system for London to deal with 20 million tonnes of untreated waste water a year that would otherwise be discharged into the Thames.
However because the project is being funded out of the UK Government's reserves, Westminster rules that there is no Barnett Consequential, and therefore Scotland and the other devolved administrations need not be compensated. The reserves are normally used to fund projects deemed to be of UK "national importance".
It is clear this Prime Minister and the rest of his Tory and Lib Dem cronies are not making decisions with the best interests of the people of Scotland.
When i see these thread about England having held back Scotland / Wales I always get the Monty Python life of brian scene "What have the romans ever done for us" in my head.
The UK has been better as the sum of the parts than if they had stood alone. Okay it is not perfect granted but I cannot see how you think Scotland would be any better off if you had spent the last 1000 years as a separate country.
What really annoys me is that everyone in Scotland thinks we all live in London. You focus all you problems on just one area forgetting that vast majority of the UK don't live in London. So most of us are pretty much in the same boat as Scotland on some of these issues. However we also understand that London player a vital role in our economy in the UK. It is the centre for many of our big companies and international markets. If London did not exist the UK would be a lost worst off.
I am starting to hope the 'Yes' comes out on top so you can stop blaming London for everything that is wrong in the world. I think it might be a big wake up call when you find your own currency cannot match either sterling or euro and prices for everyday goods start to increase. Then in 5 years time having to accept the euro and getting shafted by by the germans in europe as the French have found out to their cost.
In denying Scotland of its Barnett Formula consquentials it also denied us the ability to fund infrastructure projects that would have created jobs and boosted the economy.
The Welsh Government has joined Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley in expressing extreme concern about the implications of a little-noticed new law which completed its passage through Parliament in the early hours of Wednesday.
Under the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will be able to draw on the UK Government’s reserves to cut every south west of England water consumer’s bill by £50 a year and pay for a new sewerage system for London to deal with 20 million tonnes of untreated waste water a year that would otherwise be discharged into the Thames.
However because the project is being funded out of the UK Government's reserves, Westminster rules that there is no Barnett Consequential, and therefore Scotland and the other devolved administrations need not be compensated. The reserves are normally used to fund projects deemed to be of UK "national importance".
It is clear this Prime Minister and the rest of his Tory and Lib Dem cronies are not making decisions with the best interests of the people of Scotland.
But you stated that Scotland was paying for londons new sewer project which is clearly not true as I managed to find out with 30 seconds of googling.
Can you point me to a link or something where the plan to divert funds for Londons sewers has been given the go ahead?
Which you deliberately misquoted is from 2012 and seems to imply that Scotland would be done out of 400 million and not four billion that you falsely claimed.
So you seem to have committed three errors here, one you've claimed something using a biased source. Two, you have failed to corroborate this source and three even when using your source you have omitted the real figure quoted for us in Scotland to pay and instead attributed the price of the whole project to Scotland.
So we are not paying for Londons sewers after all, are we?
Comments
Your point being?
In denying Scotland of its Barnett Formula consquentials it also denied us the ability to fund infrastructure projects that would have created jobs and boosted the economy.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-taxpayers-fund-new-41bn-2034988
The Welsh Government has joined Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley in expressing extreme concern about the implications of a little-noticed new law which completed its passage through Parliament in the early hours of Wednesday.
Under the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will be able to draw on the UK Government’s reserves to cut every south west of England water consumer’s bill by £50 a year and pay for a new sewerage system for London to deal with 20 million tonnes of untreated waste water a year that would otherwise be discharged into the Thames.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4743-mcalpine-writes-to-cameron-on-shovel-ready-project-snub
However because the project is being funded out of the UK Government's reserves, Westminster rules that there is no Barnett Consequential, and therefore Scotland and the other devolved administrations need not be compensated. The reserves are normally used to fund projects deemed to be of UK "national importance".
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/apr/cameron-must-explain-why-scotland-was-denied-%C2%A3400m
It is clear this Prime Minister and the rest of his Tory and Lib Dem cronies are not making decisions with the best interests of the people of Scotland.
Feel free - but as the decision is not up to the BoE I can't really see the point
There are too many strands.. Best to wait and see..
Sorry I must have got it wrong I'm pretty sure today's date is 26th of August....surely I can't have missed the vote and it's really the 19th of September?
So where are they going to go? More cost to relocate?
So the Navy fights without extra supplies of food, fuel etc?!
Do you have any evidence of these threats?
Of course politicians never change their mind
No it is coming from Scotland's alloted budget which is sent to Westminster in taxes for it to be given back.
Are all of your posts just one line? This isn't Twitter, you know. You have all of the opportunity you want to give us a detailed description of why so are so committed to the pro-independence cause. You might even be able to convince some wavering voters.
There are good and bad arguments to be made on both sides about independence and there is no right a wrong answer. It's a matter of opinions. We can all have a better discussion if everyone explains their thinking.
Personally, I don't have a vote and while I hope that Scotland says no, I fully will fully respect their decision.
http://youtu.be/OLAewTVmkAU
Paul's story
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavieGreig
Ever heard of The Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
The Better Together campaign missed a golden opportunity. Kennedy would have been a better choice than Darling. He also took every one of Salmond's points from last night's debate and calmly, eloquently and clinically exposed each and every one of them for the bluff and bluster that they were, especially his nonsense about a mandate from the Scottish people that somehow supposedly is going to make his position all the stronger when he goes begging for his currency union should the Yes vote succeed.
Repeated on BBC Parliament at 8pm tomorrow night. Kennedy would also wipe the floor with the shouty Salmond, though to be fair to Swinney he was a lot more calm and collected than his boss was, and actually came over a lot better.
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/debate-moves-who-best-runs-scotland
"WHO WON THE DEBATE?
71% said Alex Salmond won the debate to 29% for Alistair Darling, equalling a 27% swing since the last debate poll by ICM; Alex Salmond’s lead of 42% compares to just 12% for Alistair Darling in the first debate
Alex Salmond won with both men and women with the female rating at 77% to males at 63%
Alex Salmond won among every age profile
Alex Salmond won across every social grade
Alex Salmond won across every region in Scotland
Alex Salmond won 89% amongst post-debate don’t knows
Over a third of No voters said Alex Salmond won the debate along with 100% of Yes voters
Alex Salmond wins among Labour voters at 57% - a 38% swing since the last ICM debate poll
INDEPENDENCE
The post-independence poll was 49% Yes to 51% No
This is a closing of the gap by 2% since the last debate poll
Pre-binary the Yes vote was the only option that increased by 3% since the last referendum poll
A majority of women voters supported Yes – 53%
There were majorities for Yes among the 17-34 and 35-54 year old age groups - 51% and 52% respectively
Independence was the majority option amongst C2s and DEs and only needs a 5% swing among ABC1s
Yes wins 37% amongst Labour voters – an 11% swing since the last debate poll
53% of those who support ‘other’ parties opted for Yes
WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENTS?
61% said Alex Salmond had better arguments to 39% for Alistair Darling
62% of women said Alex Salmond had better arguments
Every part of the country thought Alex Salmond had better arguments
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to all age groups
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to every social group.
Alex Salmond had better arguments according to don’t knows – 63%
44% of Labour voters said Alex Salmond had better arguments"
I have already explained my reasons for voting yes previously on this thread. I was simply taking a leaf out of some no voters book who on most posts disagreeing with theirs demand evidence, links etc...annoying after a while isn't it.
But over and above that I am also looking for explanations to each statement I have asked the question of.
I agree that Kennedy might have been a better choice but maybe the UK parties were worried if he'd stop out of the pub long enough.
I've set the BBC Parliament programme to record, thanks for the tip.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9647-scotland-has-potential-oil-windfall-worth-billions-says-ceo
"Norway’s oil production, like the UK, experienced declines in the early 2000s and Norway subsequently introduced a successful exploration incentive which encouraged companies to explore its waters, in return for a tax credit on that expenditure. It is estimated the Norwegian tax credit has since added approximately $51billion of value to Norway’s economy and secured decades of forward energy supply from new discovered resources.
The Faroe Petroleum CEO said there is no reason why a similar windfall would not result in the North Sea and said that even a quarter of the success of the Norwegian system, "has the potential to deliver £11billion to the economy over seven years.""
Is it a spoof? The lady who made up her mind,
Most telling result is pre debate the sample group were 51/49 No - after the debate they were still 51/49 No.
While I admire and respect Charles Kennedy, his party is in government,
So is Salmond's.
When i see these thread about England having held back Scotland / Wales I always get the Monty Python life of brian scene "What have the romans ever done for us" in my head.
The UK has been better as the sum of the parts than if they had stood alone. Okay it is not perfect granted but I cannot see how you think Scotland would be any better off if you had spent the last 1000 years as a separate country.
What really annoys me is that everyone in Scotland thinks we all live in London. You focus all you problems on just one area forgetting that vast majority of the UK don't live in London. So most of us are pretty much in the same boat as Scotland on some of these issues. However we also understand that London player a vital role in our economy in the UK. It is the centre for many of our big companies and international markets. If London did not exist the UK would be a lost worst off.
I am starting to hope the 'Yes' comes out on top so you can stop blaming London for everything that is wrong in the world. I think it might be a big wake up call when you find your own currency cannot match either sterling or euro and prices for everyday goods start to increase. Then in 5 years time having to accept the euro and getting shafted by by the germans in europe as the French have found out to their cost.
Sometimes it is better the devil you know.
But you stated that Scotland was paying for londons new sewer project which is clearly not true as I managed to find out with 30 seconds of googling.
Can you point me to a link or something where the plan to divert funds for Londons sewers has been given the go ahead?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/thames-water-seeks-international-backers-for-londons-supersewer-9211182.html
The above is from this year and it certainly seems like the money is sought from the private sectors, while this
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4757-cameron-must-explain-why-scots-have-to-pay-for-londons-sewer-upgrade
Which you deliberately misquoted is from 2012 and seems to imply that Scotland would be done out of 400 million and not four billion that you falsely claimed.
So you seem to have committed three errors here, one you've claimed something using a biased source. Two, you have failed to corroborate this source and three even when using your source you have omitted the real figure quoted for us in Scotland to pay and instead attributed the price of the whole project to Scotland.
So we are not paying for Londons sewers after all, are we?