Of course it came down to guts. Almost half the country had the self to confidence to take a risk in the belief that Scot are innately better are governing themselves and prospering for themselves. 55% don't believe that is the case. They didn't believe Scots could govern themselves and prosper.
I absolutely disagree, over 55% of Scots realised that an independent Scotland under the proposed system would have simply been untenable and we would all,have been in the poor house.
Facing Billions in set up costs and thrust out into a world where our finances would be in turmoil was not the best option and we made a choice with our heads rather than our hearts.
The recent fall in oil price has shown this to be a fact already.
Jesus wept - is that the level that you have sunk to? :D:D
I'm not sure they manage to get above this level for most of the time. Every hardship ever is carried out by Tories or Aristos, sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in some French Revolution meme......
I absolutely disagree, over 55% of Scots realised that an independent Scotland under the proposed system would have simply been untenable and we would all,have been in the poor house.
That's just fantasy. That's like me saying every Scot who voted yes made an information choice. You know as well as I do there is a large number of morons on both sides.
The consensus amongst most economists is that Scotland, as independent nation is completely viable.
Facing Billions in set up costs and thrust out into a world where our finances would be in turmoil was not the best option and we made a choice with our heads rather than our hearts.
You're getting as melodramatic as me!
The recent fall in oil price has shown this to be a fact already.
It really hasn't. Take all oil revenue away and Scotland would viable. You could never rely on oil to make as an independent state, there would have had to have been borrowing in order to fund infrastructure projects to increase employment, revenue and reduce the strain on the state from the unemployed. It wouldn't be easy but even without oil Scotland would still qualify for a strong credit rating.
I absolutely disagree, over 55% of Scots realised that an independent Scotland under the proposed system would have simply been untenable and we would all,have been in the poor house.
Facing Billions in set up costs and thrust out into a world where our finances would be in turmoil was not the best option and we made a choice with our heads rather than our hearts.
The recent fall in oil price has shown this to be a fact already.
wasn't true in September, wouldn't be true now & if anything it would have been westminster in big trouble
Irrespective of budgetary factors, principle alone dictates that any legislation to be passed , if not affecting all UK counties, should not be 'voted on' by MPs from countries unaffected by such legislation.
That is completely unacceptable. The crude and archaic first past the post electoral system gives the Conservatives 60% of English seats on 40% of the vote so they get an artificial and unjust majority despite 60% of English voters voting against them.
Either there's a bar of 70% of English MPs required to block legislation for England using the current voting system (meaning it's 50% of the actual vote) or there's got to be wholesale reform of the Westminster voting system.
The simple answer isn't always the best.
If anyone tried it (UKIP used to have it as a policy) then all hell would break loose. Much better just to get rid of all Scottish MPs and let Scotland go about it's own business as a separate country
Or simply create an English parliament and reverse the system.
Instead of raising tax's at federal level and dividing it up, why not raise it at country level and pay in to a federation? That's how the EU works.
Scotland has already had a referendum on independence and rejected it. Devo Max and an English parliament is the way forward.
They got a majority under a proportional representation system in 2011 and that's not something that either Labour or the Conservatives have ever achieved. Indeed, those two parties are now even finding it difficult to achieve a majority under the current crude and archaic first past the post voting system.
They got a majority under a proportional representation system in 2011 and that's not something that either Labour or the Conservatives have ever achieved. Indeed, those two parties are now even finding it difficult to achieve a majority under the current crude and archaic first past the post voting system.
Your complaint was that a party should get 50% or more, SNP didn't.
Although taking into account the current oil prices, if Scotland was independent today, then it would have a £6bn annual hole in its finances.
It wouldn't have been possible for Scotland to be independent today, it would have been 2016 at earliest. As for what the shortfall in finances would be it's impossible to say annually as the oil prices goes up and down. Shortfalls in finances however are more common than for independent countries than uncommon. The UK always runs a shortfall.
It wouldn't have been possible for Scotland to be independent today, it would have been 2016 at earliest. As for what the shortfall in finances would be it's impossible to say annually as the oil prices goes up and down. Shortfalls in finances however are more common than for independent countries than uncommon. The UK always runs a shortfall.
The salient point is that irrespective of the dates, had the vote been a Yes, then there should be no disagreement that many hearts will have leapt into their mouths over the last few months. A point where the SNP is now requiring a bailout from Westminster.
The salient point is that irrespective of the dates, had the vote been a Yes, then there should be no disagreement that many hearts will have leapt into their mouths over the last few months. A point where the SNP is now requiring a bailout from Westminster.[/QUOTE]
Sorry? Holyrood receives none of the oil revenue so in what way are Westminster bailing out the SNP?
It wouldn't have been possible for Scotland to be independent today, it would have been 2016 at earliest. As for what the shortfall in finances would be it's impossible to say annually as the oil prices goes up and down. Shortfalls in finances however are more common than for independent countries than uncommon. The UK always runs a shortfall.
Who's to say that in the interim period WM wouldn't decide to devolve all taxes to Scotland? With oil at it's current level I could see a WM government, who in this hypothetical situation, would have lost a refferendum looking out for rUK. In that case with record low oil prices it would probably be beneficial politically to just scrap the barnett formula and give Scotland everything it raised, while just taking a set amount for defence and foreign affairs.
In that case even with independence day being in 2016, The Scottish government would have to find the money before that to make up the shortfall. On top of that the start up costs of a new country.
Just because Alex Salmond said 2016 doesn't mean that come independence day everything suddenly switches.
EVEL is a virtual irrelevance within the UK that accounts for the less than 2% of bills going through WM that are genuinely England only -- have politicians etc run out of things to say?
The salient point is that irrespective of the dates, had the vote been a Yes, then there should be no disagreement that many hearts will have leapt into their mouths over the last few months. A point where the SNP is now requiring a bailout from Westminster.
The last few months have shown why you need an Oil Fund in order to smooth out fluctuations in prices. You also need to ensure adequate investment in the industry rather than squeeze it dry. But let's not dwell on Westminster's mismanagement.
I thought I briefly caught a clip of Sturgeon talking about the SNP voting in Westminster on English NHS issues because it directly effects the Scottish budget.
Unless I misheard her I'm struggling to follow her logic. Doesn't every decision taken at Westminster have a fiscal impact that effects the size of the slice of the pie she wants to protect for Scotland? By that logic the SNP would have to vote on everything whether it's a devolved power or not wouldn't they?
The simple answer isn't always the best.
If anyone tried it (UKIP used to have it as a policy) then all hell would break loose. Much better just to get rid of all Scottish MPs and let Scotland go about it's own business as a separate country:)
EVEL is a virtual irrelevance within the UK that accounts for the less than 2% of bills going through WM that are genuinely England only -- have politicians etc run out of things to say?
Comments
Good one! Would be a brave PM who tried that
I absolutely disagree, over 55% of Scots realised that an independent Scotland under the proposed system would have simply been untenable and we would all,have been in the poor house.
Facing Billions in set up costs and thrust out into a world where our finances would be in turmoil was not the best option and we made a choice with our heads rather than our hearts.
The recent fall in oil price has shown this to be a fact already.
I'm not sure they manage to get above this level for most of the time. Every hardship ever is carried out by Tories or Aristos, sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in some French Revolution meme......
That's just fantasy. That's like me saying every Scot who voted yes made an information choice. You know as well as I do there is a large number of morons on both sides.
The consensus amongst most economists is that Scotland, as independent nation is completely viable.
You're getting as melodramatic as me!
It really hasn't. Take all oil revenue away and Scotland would viable. You could never rely on oil to make as an independent state, there would have had to have been borrowing in order to fund infrastructure projects to increase employment, revenue and reduce the strain on the state from the unemployed. It wouldn't be easy but even without oil Scotland would still qualify for a strong credit rating.
Sure, if that's what they want to do.
That is completely unacceptable. The crude and archaic first past the post electoral system gives the Conservatives 60% of English seats on 40% of the vote so they get an artificial and unjust majority despite 60% of English voters voting against them.
Either there's a bar of 70% of English MPs required to block legislation for England using the current voting system (meaning it's 50% of the actual vote) or there's got to be wholesale reform of the Westminster voting system.
Or simply create an English parliament and reverse the system.
Instead of raising tax's at federal level and dividing it up, why not raise it at country level and pay in to a federation? That's how the EU works.
Scotland has already had a referendum on independence and rejected it. Devo Max and an English parliament is the way forward.
They got a majority under a proportional representation system in 2011 and that's not something that either Labour or the Conservatives have ever achieved. Indeed, those two parties are now even finding it difficult to achieve a majority under the current crude and archaic first past the post voting system.
I'd have no objection to that
Although taking into account the current oil prices, if Scotland was independent today, then it would have a £6bn annual hole in its finances.
It wouldn't have been possible for Scotland to be independent today, it would have been 2016 at earliest. As for what the shortfall in finances would be it's impossible to say annually as the oil prices goes up and down. Shortfalls in finances however are more common than for independent countries than uncommon. The UK always runs a shortfall.
The salient point is that irrespective of the dates, had the vote been a Yes, then there should be no disagreement that many hearts will have leapt into their mouths over the last few months. A point where the SNP is now requiring a bailout from Westminster.
Who's to say that in the interim period WM wouldn't decide to devolve all taxes to Scotland? With oil at it's current level I could see a WM government, who in this hypothetical situation, would have lost a refferendum looking out for rUK. In that case with record low oil prices it would probably be beneficial politically to just scrap the barnett formula and give Scotland everything it raised, while just taking a set amount for defence and foreign affairs.
In that case even with independence day being in 2016, The Scottish government would have to find the money before that to make up the shortfall. On top of that the start up costs of a new country.
Just because Alex Salmond said 2016 doesn't mean that come independence day everything suddenly switches.
The last few months have shown why you need an Oil Fund in order to smooth out fluctuations in prices. You also need to ensure adequate investment in the industry rather than squeeze it dry. But let's not dwell on Westminster's mismanagement.
Unless I misheard her I'm struggling to follow her logic. Doesn't every decision taken at Westminster have a fiscal impact that effects the size of the slice of the pie she wants to protect for Scotland? By that logic the SNP would have to vote on everything whether it's a devolved power or not wouldn't they?
I dont think it is really wise to have the SNP and logic mentioned in the same sentence. ;-)
They could accept it or leave the UK.
Ed Miliband would beg to disagree.