Jump to content

So why are people voting NO?


1320Lichtie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 371
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So Juncker say's no countries will be admitted to the European Union until 2019?

Not music to the ear's of pro-independence pro-Unionists. (Yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense)

So when Salmond laughed at David Cameron for opposing Juncker's appointment, is he still laughing today?... :)

Oh my, such misplaced glee is delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What might change my opinion is if anyone had a valid response to the first point I raised. It's an absolutely fundamental point if we're talking about democracy. A currency union means our fiscal policy will have to remain within a certain band of the rest of the UK. On top of that you have joint regulation in areas like services, joint-labour standards and all of the other issues that go along with maintaining a single market in the UK (the EU can't guarantee this because it hasn't developed its single market in services to the same extent as we have in the UK). If Westminster will continue to make decisions that affect my local community then why would I vote to get rid of my direct representation in Westminster? The basic principle underpinning our democracy is that you have direct local representation in the parliament that makes decisions affecting your community.

On the second point, in 2012-13 Scotland contributed 9.1% of the UK's taxation revenue and received 9.3% of UK spending. Nobody ever mentions that because it doesn't suit the argument, so instead we have sites like Business for Scotland quoting the 2011-12 figures for no other reason than that it makes for a more compelling argument. Taxation revenue and spending from 30 years ago has little if anything to do with the potential situation post-independence, the only thing that matters is the situation now and whether we can use it to predict how we'd fare as an independent state. On that count given the most recent figures from the Scottish Government show us contributing less than we received in spending, the economic case is at best completely unproven - and that's even assuming this works as a methodology in the first place, when in reality it's a pretty crude analysis at the best of times.

The rest of the questions cited here are either not solved by independence (simply saying poverty can only be solved with a Yes vote doesn't make it true) or ignoring some of the points raised above. For instance, you seem to regard being tied to a foreign parliament with no representation as unimportant from a democratic perspective, but are making an argument here that because 50% of the electorate didn't vote for the government it's therefore undemocratic - by that standard the Scottish Government is also undemocratic because the SNP didn't receive 50% of the vote in 2011 either.

It's a strange stance to rest your case on the impact of monetary union. As things stand, we can change nothing regarding monetary policy - we simply have insufficient representation at Westminster. If there is a monetary union (which there will be if there is a yes vote. It will just be called something else to save face for Westminster) Scotland will have guaranteed representation on the Bank of England monetary policy board and far more guaranteed influence than we have now.

I agree that there will be fiscal policy constraints but these will be about how much we borrow, not on how we spend the taxes we raise. So, we will not be spending £3.5bn on defence - the proposal is around £2bn for a Scottish defence force. We will not be paying for London Crossrail. We will not be paying for the high speed rail link from London to Birmingham aimed at increasing the available workforce for London.

In general, economic policies will be set for Scotland, not to suit the City of London.

Finally you accuse Yes campaigners about being selective in picking the at years to suit their argument whereas you are making a case based on the only year out of the last 33 where the Scottish tax did not exceed Scottish spend. I would add that the spending in Scotland includes our share of "shared"costs such as defence, foreign policy and large capital projects such as High Speed Rail. Further, the only reason the year you pick was down was because of the one off impact of capital allowances given on investment in the North Sea by oil companies reducing the tax take. That investment, of course will lead to higher North Sea oil yields and therefore higher taxation in the future.

You do have a point of sorts regarding monetary union but our ability to influence what happens would be greater than it is now and it's a small price to pay compared to the economic benefits for both countries and for the ability for Scotland to determine how to spend its own money. Policies that don't tolerate 20% of Scottish kids living in poverty and some surviving from food banks would be a possibility in an independent Scotland . None of the Westminster parties will worry unduly about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...