Scottish Independence

[Tubbs]

So vote No to prevent them from having that power.

If enough people vote Yes to allow them to negotiate on their behalf then that's democracy.

Honestly what is your problem here?

The big point here is that the people are voting in a yes or no referendum to a straightforward question, they are not voting for a political party based on their published polices and manifestos; and accordingly the referendum result provides no mandate to negotiate the finer details on behalf of the people.

The Yes position is not party political (apparently) and so no particular party can claim the outcome as their own.

[~~~]

The Yes position is not party political (apparently) and so no particular party can claim the outcome as their own.

Don't the No campaign claim to be "all party" and that's why you have a Labour MP as chair?

[Mr Bairn]

Don't the No campaign claim to be "all party" and that's why you have a Labour MP as chair?

Is there a problem with a Labour MP being the chair of better together? Is it a conflict of interest?

[Tubbs]

But everybody knows roughly what the SNP are planning to do if we vote Yes - they are not exactly hiding it. The white paper is split into two section. One for general Yes stuff and the other for what the SNP will immediately do. So if enough people decide to vote Yes then that's their mandate. Vote No if you like and accept the democratic decision of the majority.

I'm still unsure what your problem is TBH because I disagree with your entire premise of what their mandate allows them.

The democratic position is in answer to a simple question of yes and no - there is no caveats, manifestos or policies attached to it. No amount of white papers, publicised policies or intentions will change that; the white paper is not being voted on and neither are any parties being voted on.

I am more than happy to accept a yes if it comes as the democratic position of the people of Scotland. With that single issue sorted the people of Scotland should then have the opportunity to have their say on the massive amount of detail and agreements that politicians will then take forward - potentially some of the biggest and long lasting decisions of any government in recent times.

[Davi3j]

So are the Scottish government.

Just unfortunately, they are once again, wrong.

The SG did not say, on the currency issue, that "we will have to negotiate with the rUK government, in the event of a Yes vote, which currency iScotland will use going forward. It is our intention to propose in these negotiations that we..."

Yet, strangely, you seem to have no issues with the SG declairing exactly what would happen. Albeit they were of course completely and utterly put in their place here.

Really? When was that?

Oh i get it, your thinking about George Osborne's speech. The one which was hyped up by the BBC as going to definitely rule out a currency union but in actual fact only ruled it out in its current form. That was such a damp squib as it doesn't have a current form as the UKG refuse to have any discussions with the SG due to their no pre-negotiation stance.

[~~~]

So both Margaret Curran and Sarwar voted with the Tories today.

Delighted they care so much about the communities they have been elected to represent

[ayrmad]

So both Margaret Curran and Sarwar voted with the Tories today.

Delighted they care so much about the communities they have been elected to represent

Is it really a surprise, they've got what they want from the communities they represent.

[H_B]

Don't the No campaign claim to be "all party" and that's why you have a Labour MP as chair?

Whereas the Yes campaign have an incompetent SNP boot-licker as chair.

[AUFC90]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfare-cap-will-push-345000-children-into-poverty-in-just-four-years-warns-save-the-children-9217442.html

[banterman86]

So both Margaret Curran and Sarwar voted with the Tories today.

Delighted they care so much about the communities they have been elected to represent

Were the proposals unreasonable?

Genuine question - I haven;t been following the story.

[~~~]

Were the proposals unreasonable?

Genuine question - I haven;t been following the story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfare-cap-will-push-345000-children-into-poverty-in-just-four-years-warns-save-the-children-9217442.html

[banterman86]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfare-cap-will-push-345000-children-into-poverty-in-just-four-years-warns-save-the-children-9217442.html

Cheers.

This doesn't make sense to me - i thought a benefits cap meant a maximum amount and individual could claim, but this article reads like it's a ceiling on the welfare budget. How does that work in pracrice? what if an industry goes tits up and puts and extra 1000 people on the dole?

The article says that JSA and pensions are excluded so it's about "working age benefits" - presumably this means further means testing of tax credits?

[Mr Bairn]

Cheers.

This doesn't make sense to me - i thought a benefits cap meant a maximum amount and individual could claim, but this article reads like it's a ceiling on the welfare budget. How does that work in pracrice? what if an industry goes tits up and puts and extra 1000 people on the dole?

The article says that JSA and pensions are excluded so it's about "working age benefits" - presumably this means further means testing of tax credits?

Think you just answered your own question

[banterman86]

Think you just answered your own question

But they are still part of the welfare budget, and the pension is the biggest part of social security spending anyway,

[H_B]

and the white paper detailed what they were going to attempt to negotiate.

A white paper which appeared long after the 2011 election and has been voted on by.... no one.

[banterman86]

I'm sorry but what?

What isn't clear?

[Enigma]

A white paper which appeared long after the 2011 election and has been voted on by.... no one.

I'm sure you'll have a chance to vote on a Scottish constitution post indy.

[banterman86]

The bit I highlighted in your post.

I have no idea what you are using to make that sort of blanket judgment.

I don;t have the time to go into major detail on this but many proposals will in some way be effected by the lack of a CU and access to a central bank - indeed number 1 being what currency will scotland use - it looks like it'll be sterling regardless but a ack of a formal union creates questions about borrowing, pensions, taxation and so forth. In some cases this isn't necessarily a bad thing - without having to be so closely integrated with rUK an indy Scotland could pursue a more radical overhaul of tax and spend polcies, for example.

It alos throws into doubt other economic unions - for example, I haven't seen anything further on SNP proposals to continue to share the single energy market and the likes.

This was the central inconsistency of the currency union - we would share the pound but attempt to undercut the rUK on corporation tax and APD. I think those policies are arguably more likely without a formal agreement.

[banterman86]

Frankly it's the two legs good 4 legs bad nonsense which you yourself I think (I may be wrong) have accused me of in the past week alone.

I don;t belive I have. Happy to be shown otherwise.

All I'm saying is that many proposals in the white paper will have been proposed on the basis of a formal currency union happening. Given that, right now, it isn't, that means many proposals in the White Paper are not as solid as they could be.

And, as I also said, this isnl;t necessary a bad thing. lkess integegration with rUK tax policy would mean more freedom for a iScotland government to pursue more radical polcies.

[H_B]

I'm sure you'll have a chance to vote on a Scottish constitution post indy.

It's not only constitutional matters which will be being negotiated by the Scottish government post-Yes.

I don't really mind to be honest. I don't think it's practical to shoehorn in an election, with time to put together manifestos between a Yes vote and negotiations ahead of Independence.