No voters: Ask yourself, why do they suddenly care about Scots?

[Casual Bystander]

Can you explain how the Scottish political system is so radically different from the Westminster system such that it will forever prevent the possibility of rich and powerful companies from negotiating tax dodges and kickbacks. As far as I'm aware, this kind of thing goes on in pretty much every country in the world. How would an independent Scotland be different?

I welcome a "new poster" who has joined to agree that Westminster is mired in kickbacks, tax dodging and behind the deals being made by those with money. So at least we both agree on that point.

However as for your points relating to tax avoidance I have already covered that above, a simplification of an overly complex tax system would allow for more transparency and less ability to avoid. There is not a single expert who thinks that the current UK tax system is not needing simplification.

Let's look at political power of the rich and powerful shall we? Brian Souter, a known advocate against same sex marriage has donated heavily to the SNP. The SNP is staunchly behind legislating for same sex marriage. This underlines how Scots can operate a political system which is not swayed by those who pay the most. Can the same be said for the Tories or UKIP or Labour? Certainly not. All these parties are forced to take certain political positions because of their financial backers.

The difference between the No and a Yes is that the former provides absolutely no control in changing the system, while the latter puts that power directly and fully in the hands of the people of Scotland.

If you want to change away from the "all in it together, except the rich and powerful" mob, then you have to vote Yes. Vote No and you are implicitly giving the rubber stamp to Westminster and it's corruption.

[Casual Bystander]

However we are still getting away from the question posed. Why do you think that these companies suddenly care about Scotland. We can discuss the positives and negatives of independence, but the point is raised about the now not the soon to be.

[NormanSaysNo]

I welcome a "new poster" who has joined to agree that Westminster is mired in kickbacks, tax dodging and behind the deals being made by those with money. So at least we both agree on that point.

I do agree with that. But, as I said, most countries are like that. Please convince me that an independent Scotland will miraculously buck the trend.

However as for your points relating to tax avoidance I have already covered that above, a simplification of an overly complex tax system would allow for more transparency and less ability to avoid. There is no a single expert who things that the current UK tax system is not needing simplification.

Everyone agrees that the tax system needs simplifying, yet nobody has done it yet. Are we sure that an independent Scottish government would manage to do so?

Let's look at political power of the rich and powerful shall we? Brian Souter, a known advocate against same sex marriage has donated heavily to the SNP. The SNP is staunchly behind legislating for same sex marriage. This underlines how Scots can operate a political system which is not swayed by those who pay the most. Can the same be said for the Tories or UKIP or Labour? Certainly not. All these parties are forced to take certain political positions because of their financial backers.

You clearly haven't been following the major spat between the Labour party and the Unite union: one of its biggest funders and yet the two have been at major loggerheads for months now.

I don't think your point here really stands up to scrutiny. It's also not very convincing to make a point out of one example. Can you honestly point at a comprehensive list of SNP donors and claim that none of them has benefitted from the party steering any policies in their direction?

Personally I find it hard to believe that polticians of any stripe are inherently different from all of their contemporaries.

The difference between the No and a Yes is that the former provides absolutely no control in changing the system, while the latter puts that power directly and fully in the hands of the people of Scotland.

Much as the current controls of changing the system in Westminster is fully in the hands of the people of the UK. And yet it doesn't change. Do you think that the people of the UK are perfectly happy with the current system?

If you want to change away from the "all in it together, except the rich and powerful" mob, then you have to vote Yes. Vote No and you are implicitly giving the rubber stamp to Westminster and it's corruption.

That's a nice sentiment, but you still haven't explained why an independent Scotland would have radically different politicians from every other democratic country on the planet.

[Casual Bystander]

I do agree with that. But, as I said, most countries are like that. Please convince me that an independent Scotland will miraculously buck the trend.

Everyone agrees that the tax system needs simplifying, yet nobody has done it yet. Are we sure that an independent Scottish government would manage to do so?

You clearly haven't been following the major spat between the Labour party and the Unite union: one of its biggest funders and yet the two have been at major loggerheads for months now.

I don't think your point here really stands up to scrutiny. It's also not very convincing to make a point out of one example. Can you honestly point at a comprehensive list of SNP donors and claim that none of them has benefitted from the party steering any policies in their direction?

Personally I find it hard to believe that polticians of any stripe are inherently different from all of their contemporaries.

Much as the current controls of changing the system in Westminster is fully in the hands of the people of the UK. And yet it doesn't change. Do you think that the people of the UK are perfectly happy with the current system?

That's a nice sentiment, but you still haven't explained why an independent Scotland would have radically different politicians from every other democratic country on the planet.

I will point you back to the post I just made. This is not about pushing the case for a more positive Scotland, and it's one that we can both no doubt debate. Instead this is all about asking why certain big businesses seem to suddenly be very interested in the lives of Scots.

Do you genuinely believe they care more about the people of Scotland than they do about their profits? They have hardly been desperate to care about the prices Scots pay in the past.

This is the circle the No voters need to square. By all means vote no, and as I have already said I would prefer you not to, although I do have a feeling you don't actually have a vote at all, however let's for argument's sake say you do and you are persuaded by the negative campaigning that the Better Together camp have put forward, is part of that persuasion based on a company's dire warnings?

[NormanSaysNo]

However we are still getting away from the question posed.

Fair point.

Sorry.

My bad.

Why do you think that these companies suddenly care about Scotland. We can discuss the positives and negatives of independence, but the point is raised about the now not the soon to be.

Companies only care about one thing: profits. That much is not only clear, it's also legally binding. The board of directors of any company are legally obliged to aim to maximise the profits for that company. So it's pretty clear that companies are worried about an independent Scotland affecting their profits.

As I see it, there are two options:

1) A newly independent Scotland could suffer temporary economic hardship due to uncertainties about the economy

2) Evil company owners would lose illegitimate funding streams due to their shady deals being put to the sword by the crusading zeal of the 100% honest MSPs.

Option 1 has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Scotland can run its own economy. Capitalist economies are largely based on debt and trust that the debt will be repaid. If trust is lost, it doesn't matter how good the economy is or how capable the people running it are, problems will arise. Since a newly independent Scotland will have little track record in running its own affairs, trust will be pretty thin on the ground.

Option 2 not only requires MSPs to behave differently from every other elected official in the world, but also for hard-bitten, cynical business owners to believe that MSPs will behave differently from every other elected official in the world.

[Romeo]

Just had (for the 2nd day running) what can only be described as a terror leaflet through my door from the Labour Party with a message from Gordon Brown saying i risk my job, pension, home and health care if i vote yes.

I will never, ever vote for Labour again.

[Casual Bystander]

As I see it, there are two options:

1) A newly independent Scotland could suffer temporary economic hardship due to uncertainties about the economy

2) Evil company owners would lose illegitimate funding streams due to their shady deals being put to the sword by the crusading zeal of the 100% honest MSPs.

I do love false dichotomies, they add so much to the debate.

We do not disagree on much though, which to be fair is not a bad position to be in. We both agree that companies care more for profits. The difference is to why those companies may lose those profits.

You do realise that many companies (and experts) have come out to say that they will be able to generate profits in an independent Scotland.

Yet those on the negative side are people like Sir Mike Rake, Chairman of British Telecom, who has claimed that price rises will happen in an independent Scotland yet it seems to have been reported in isolation. BT announced increased prices for the whole of the UK as far back as December 2013. This is, of course, the close personal friend, and financial advisor to the government of, Better Together's Gordon Brown. Underlining perfectly my point.

[NormanSaysNo]

I do love false dichotomies, they add so much to the debate.

Sorry. That was weasley of me.

You do realise that many companies (and experts) have come out to say that they will be able to generate profits in an independent Scotland.

I do, and they definitely will. The problem is, what will the overall situation be like?

Some companies are able to make profits in any situation. Particularly small, entrepreneurial companies, the kind that we've seen coming out in favour of independence. Don't forget that many companies were making healthy profits at the height of the recent Credit Crunch. That was great for them, but for the vast majority of us the situation was pretty crappy.

Yet those on the negative side are people like Sir Mike Rake, Chairman of British Telecom, who has claimed that price rises will happen in an independent Scotland yet it seems to have been reported in isolation. BT announced increased prices for the whole of the UK as far back as December 2013. This is, of course, the close personal friend, and financial advisor to the government of, Better Together's Gordon Brown. Underlining perfectly my point.

Again, making a point with one single example. I think you'll have to try better than that.

Is Gordo big friends with the head of Deutsche Bank as well?

[RedRob72]

There are two perceived threats :

1) That increased spending down south in the private sector will be excluded from the Barnett formula, meaning less money in the block grant, forcing the Scottish government to privatise health care too

2) The TTIP - a trade agreement between the US and the EU. Allegedly, this will give corporations power to sue governments for any actions that cause them to lose profits. The UK government/EU is refusing, or at least deciding not, to make the NHS exempt from this agreement. This leaves the possibility that private health companies could force the privatisation of the NHS

Still a lot of 'ifs' in there but makes sense, cheers!

(Your Pal Comedious went with the NHS slant btw CB)

[Confidemus]

Still a lot of 'ifs' in there but makes sense, cheers!

(Your Pal Comedious went with the NHS slant btw CB)

Calling me Comedious lends you such gravitas.

[RedRob72]

Calling me Comedious lends you such gravitas.

Aye probably not mate, my profuse apologies.

[NormanSaysNo]

This thread seems to have died down, so just to pop back and tackle on point mentioned early on:

Let's look at political power of the rich and powerful shall we? Brian Souter, a known advocate against same sex marriage has donated heavily to the SNP. The SNP is staunchly behind legislating for same sex marriage. This underlines how Scots can operate a political system which is not swayed by those who pay the most. Can the same be said for the Tories or UKIP or Labour? Certainly not. All these parties are forced to take certain political positions because of their financial backers.

The SNP may not back the homophobic bigot Souter over equal marriage, but that's not the only thing he's interested in. Don't forget that, in 2007, shortly after Mr Souter donated a substantial sum of cash to the SNP, the Scottish Government changed their policy on bus companies at the expense of fare paying pasengers and in favour of companies like Stagecoach.

Are you absolutely sure that Scotland's political system is not swayed by those who pay the most?

One other minor question, though I doubt it's really got much to do with Souter: why did it take long for Scotland to implement equal marriage legislation than England?

[Casual Bystander]

Bottom line is I do, I do believe that we can create a more fairer and just society and have politicians that uphold those values, and while it will obviously not be perfect studies have shown that an independent Scotland is more likely to have politicians adhere to those ideals than if it kept Westminster rule.

My conscience is clear on this, it's why the thread was labelled as a question to the No voters. Do these companies suddenly care more about the Scottish people than before?

[NormanSaysNo]

Bottom line is I do, I do believe that we can create a more fairer and just society and have politicians that uphold those values

That's fair enough. I try not to make decisions based on belief, though. I prefer evidence based decision making.

while it will obviously not be perfect studies have shown that an independent Scotland is more likely to have politicians adhere to those ideals than if it kept Westminster rule.

Now that sounds like evidence, so I'm instantly interested. Do you have a link to these studies?

My conscience is clear on this, it's why the thread was labelled as a question to the No voters. Do these companies suddenly care more about the Scottish people than before?

No, of course they don't. Why should they?

I think we both agree that the companies only care about making profit. You think that this is threatened by more honest politicians in Scotland. I think it's threatened by the inevitable economic turmoil that will accompany the uncertainty of a new, unproven sovreign nation.

Unfortunately, neither of us knows the answer for sure.

[Casual Bystander]

That's fair enough. I try not to make decisions based on belief, though. I prefer evidence based decision making.

Which would be fine, if of course toy didn't end up finishing your post with:

Unfortunately, neither of us knows the answer for sure.

Which I appreciate is not the answer to the specific point you are making, it is a touch contradictory.

However, you are asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist yet, which is clearly not possible to give.

Now that sounds like evidence, so I'm instantly interested. Do you have a link to these studies?

Now I'm afraid you will need to take my word on this, which I appreciate is hard to do considering I obviously have a bias, but there was a report done by one of the universities in Glasgow into whether Scotland was genuinely a left of centre country. The study interestingly showed less than what people would expect but also that because people held the opinion that we are it meant politicians in general followed those traditions.

No, of course they don't. Why should they?

For the reasons I gave in the first post. The sudden concern for Scots just doesn't wash, for them to do so just weeks before the referendum is even more suspicious, add in the extremely close ties of these companies to the pro-union camp (Cameron calling in the supermarkets to #10 to plead them to say prices would rise, for example) just adds more fuel to this fire.

[NormanSaysNo]

Which I appreciate is not the answer to the specific point you are making, it is a touch contradictory.

It's not contradictory.

I appreciate that it's impossible to give evidence that Scottish politicians will be inherently more honest that Westminster ones. So, for that reason, I am not using that particular point to base my opinion on. Instead I am going on things that there is evidence for, such as oil tax revenues, Barnett formula funding, costs of cross-border pensions, short-term economic instability, etc.

Now I'm afraid you will need to take my word on this, which I appreciate is hard to do considering I obviously have a bias

That's a shame.

but there was a report done by one of the universities in Glasgow into whether Scotland was genuinely a left of centre country. The study interestingly showed less than what people would expect but also that because people held the opinion that we are it meant politicians in general followed those traditions.

Hmm, not sure how to take this. For one thing, you refer to one report by one university. As a scientist, I tend to regard individual reports with some suspicion. Much better to have multiple confirmations of a result.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that the study showed that people held the opinion that politicians in general followed left of centre traditions. That's people's opinions, not actual reality. It's also concerned with left of centre traditions, not honesty. Do you really think that countries run by left-wing politicians can never succumb to corruption?