Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xbl

Scottish Independence

Recommended Posts

The only one of that list i can see that doesn't have some scottish presence is the dvla. Just checked, DVLA has an office in Glasgow.

There's a difference between an office, and somewhere to have the capacity for a head office. I can categorically say that my one example is correct, there are certain aspects of the HSE that have absolutely no infrastructure in Scotland. I'm not saying that there's going to be a huge cost in these things, but my point is they all have to be considered in the whole thing.

It shouldn't affect anyone's decision one way or the other though, it just needs included in any budget and business plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's really my point - the white paper should have set out what definitely will or won't happen in an independent Scotland - it should have been independent of the SNP's manifesto pledges.

"Trident would be gone" assumes that the first Scottish government would make that decision.

If I'm voting YES, I'd be assuming Trident will be gone, I'm not voting for a flag or anything, I'm voting for everything they put forward, the 1st election post independence will be when we as a nation vote for the nuts and bolts of how we move forward from there.

FTR, I'm not stupid enough to let the £ or the EU get in the way of voting for what I believe is in the best interests of Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't speak for the campaign, which is a coalition of many disparate groups and parties.

The problem is, many people won't see it that way. By in large, he is the face of the whole thing.

Personally I don't have anything against him though, yes he can be a bit smug, but considering he's the only competent politician north of the border (regardless of whether you agree with his views or not) can you really blame him?

People should remember though, that Scotland will still be Scotland in 50 years time. Salmond will be gone by then. Don't let your dislike for one man colour things. (The same can be said for Cameron).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between an office, and somewhere to have the capacity for a head office. I can categorically say that my one example is correct, there are certain aspects of the HSE that have absolutely no infrastructure in Scotland. I'm not saying that there's going to be a huge cost in these things, but my point is they all have to be considered in the whole thing.

It shouldn't affect anyone's decision one way or the other though, it just needs included in any budget and business plan.

HSE has four or five offices in Scotland, I'd be surprised if one of them couldn't become a head office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSE has four or five offices in Scotland, I'd be surprised if one of them couldn't become a head office.

That's not the point though is it? There's always a set-up cost in doing this.

For one, there's no Quarry & Mines Inspector in Scotland. Inspections and investigations are conducted from Liverpool. While it wouldn't take an earth shattering amount to pay a relocation fee for one, or to take a new one on, it's something that has to be budgeted for. There are millions of little things like this across the board that would need allowed for. Hence why a budget has to include start up costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the point though is it? There's always a set-up cost in doing this.

For one, there's no Quarry & Mines Inspector in Scotland. Inspections and investigations are conducted from Liverpool. While it wouldn't take an earth shattering amount to pay a relocation fee for one, or to take a new one on, it's something that has to be budgeted for. There are millions of little things like this across the board that would need allowed for. Hence why a budget has to include start up costs.

We already pay for Quarry & Mines inspections, the start up costs would be insignificant for this sort of thing.

Edited by Baxter Parp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get away from the feeling that being Tory free pretty much forever more is worth any slight financial hit in the short term, that's even assuming there is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having an entire sub-forum dedicated to independence for the next ten months is a good idea tbh.

It also means we can make threads about different topics that crop up rather than just have them all cluttered in one big super thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already pay for Quarry & Mines inspections, the start up costs would be insignificant for this sort of thing.

Well yes and no. The taxpayer doesn't, it's the companies that do (under a fee for intervention system - which is a horrific system by the way and we're yet to know if the Scottish HSE would operate in the same manner), but they don't pay the start up costs. Start-up is a new cost, presumably covered by the government. But the point is, on the grand scheme of things there are lots of these little things. They may be insignificant on their own, but added up can be significant. That's why an actual budget would be useful, I struggle to see why anyone could argue it wouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a quandary now, I'm usually on the opposing side of The White Paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well yes and no. The taxpayer doesn't, it's the companies that do (under a fee for intervention system - which is a horrific system by the way and we're yet to know if the Scottish HSE would operate in the same manner), but they don't pay the start up costs. Start-up is a new cost, presumably covered by the government. But the point is, on the grand scheme of things there are lots of these little things. They may be insignificant on their own, but added up can be significant. That's why an actual budget would be useful, I struggle to see why anyone could argue it wouldn't be.

Oh no, I understand that it would be useful, I just don't think it would be easily quantifiable. Also, most government departments already have Scottish HQs so I don't believe the costs of setting up would be enough of a consideration to make a difference.

Incidentally, we do at least already pay part of the inspectors wages and who knows if there are enough mines for a full-time post left, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, we do at least already pay part of the inspectors wages and who knows if there are enough mines for a full-time post left, anyway?

No, we don't. And remembering that Quarries are often lumped in with Mines, (along with the push for an end to uncontrolled borrowpits) then yes we do have enough to merit a full-time post. Scotland is currently served by two part-time inspectors (part-time to Scotland), and a handful of office staff.

Oh no, I understand that it would be useful, I just don't think it would be easily quantifiable. Also, most government departments already have Scottish HQs so I don't believe the costs of setting up would be enough of a consideration to make a difference.

It should be easily quantifiable, within a certain degree of accuracy anyway. All I'm after is a business plan. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, they never are, it just has to be indicatively fair and representative. I run a business, and every major decision from any department has to be accompanied by it's relevant budget/business plan. It's not that complicated, granted there's a lot to look at for a country, but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, we don't. And remembering that Quarries are often lumped in with Mines, (along with the push for an end to uncontrolled borrowpits) then yes we do have enough to merit a full-time post. Scotland is currently served by two part-time inspectors (part-time to Scotland), and a handful of office staff.

.

Sounds like one full time post to me and if the taxpayers aren't paying HSE wages, who the f**k is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be easily quantifiable, within a certain degree of accuracy anyway. All I'm after is a business plan. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, they never are, it just has to be indicatively fair and representative. I run a business, and every major decision from any department has to be accompanied by it's relevant budget/business plan. It's not that complicated, granted there's a lot to look at for a country, but it can be done.

the example that was brought up was for the DVLA. Swansea already deal with pretty much everything, has all the details etc. There is no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't sub contract to them. No extra cost. Let's face it rUK are not going to turn down the extra revenue.

This makes sense to me until a more permanent solution is found

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited at the possibilities for a Indy Scotland. We might make some errors, we might not but at least they'll be our own.

It's normal for a country to be independent. We'll be fine.

Also, it's purely a bonus that it will get right up the 'peepil' etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain Gray :lol:

Again, this is another example of unionists believing Scotland isn't capable of doing anything on her own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we really need another thread  :huh:

xbl wet his pants when the sub forum was created and created this thread in GN which was subsequently moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like one full time post to me and if the taxpayers aren't paying HSE wages, who the f**k is?

As I said earlier, the companies do via a "Fee for Intervention" scheme. It's a massively flawed scheme where if an inspector comes and visits and finds something wrong, he charges you £157/hr for the pleasure for the entire duration of his visit.

the example that was brought up was for the DVLA. Swansea already deal with pretty much everything, has all the details etc. There is no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't sub contract to them. No extra cost. Let's face it rUK are not going to turn down the extra revenue.

This makes sense to me until a more permanent solution is found

A very good point, and could be included in any business plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...