And I too live in a country where there is a mix of private and public health care - I can't comment on its world standing, but I can compare it far more favourably to both NHS England and Australia's system. And it is not in financial difficulties because the SG choose to support it in the manner such a system should be supported, in the manner that the public expect. As to whether or not an aging and small population can continue to afford and contribute to the system, I think there's little doubt that an independent Scotland would be far wealthier than it currently is - and there is equally little doubt that the SG would be far more inclined than others to spend that money on what it views as the country's biggest resource, it's people.
As far as I am aware, there are many separatist groups (sorry Spurf, but I don't know what else to call them) that want Scottish independence - the Catalans being the most obvious, but there are more in Spain, some in Italy, and the Sami in Scandinavia are also watching with interest. It is the central governments that want a No vote. Putin, in particular, doesn't want Scotland leaving the UK. Additionally no politician wants to be remembered for the dismemberment of the country they rule, unless they are very special like Václav Havel. The Conservative party certainly doesn't. If Scotland were to get independence it could herald major changes in the political make up of Europe. It has been my belief for a long time that regions within countries are going to demand more autonomy especially given the growth of large confederal groupings such as the EU. Whether that autonomy results in full independence, but under some larger multinational organisation remains to be seen. (Of course, New Zealand was ahead of the pack with this. The Australians assumed that NZ would be subsumed into their federal government and even gave NZ a point on the Federation star on their flag).
Well that is your hope BB, but there is little evidence to support it. Spending has effectively stood still over the past years in the UK simply because the large population could not afford the money needed to improve treatment. The health system here has always been one of the things that politicians would not dare to cut back on, because people should be put first, but now under a pretty left wing socialist government reality has started to kick in, and they are scrabbling around looking to make cuts or do what happened in the UK and have a standstill in spending.
And you've managed quite nicely since then, in spite of dire warnings to the contrary. No harm to Australia either, apart from now being second best in the rugby stakes...
Fair enough well done for watching the video. As for the swearing I won't apologise because it is part of our language and consigned to 'swearing' by the Normans in the usual manner of victors opressing the vanquished. Yes the Normans the descendants of whom you will find in the House of Lords. So if the swearing offends you, switch it off. I don't think you should describe a sincerely held political belief as an ego trip unless you are a politician trying to spin an argument.
France, similar to many European countries (including the UK) has been living well beyond it's means for years. Reality has taken too long to set in. It was totally nuts for the french to elect a government who promised to spend more and work less. They need to learn from the germans who realised back in 2000 that keeping labour costs under control makes their exports more affordable. I'm still not sure that the french are ready to accept the austerity that the country sorely needs.
There, in a nutshell, is the difference. The main thrust of the Better Together argument in favour of staying in the Union is that there is strength in numbers - and quite plainly there isn't. Scotland has far more wealth than people seem to realise - but for at least the past 40 years that wealth has been re-directed to London, at the expense of living and working conditions in Scotland. The main thing that has 'flowed back' is the dubious right to host UK's nuclear weapons - hardly a fair exchange. With its smaller population and wealth of resources, there is no reason whatsoever why the country can't successfully stand on its own two feet.
LIke cheap BMW's, Mercedes and Audi's? The lesson from Germany is to cherish your manufacturing base and move up market to a high quality high wage economy. Precisely the opposite of your low wage suggestion, that's what we did in the UK
What happens if the unionist vote carries the day, will the separatists want another vote in a few years and will they carry on until they get independence? Also what happens if the separatist vote wins and then the new nation makes a complete pig’s ear of things, will the remaining nations of the UK allow them to return and on what terms? I too have watched Spurf’s film and noticed one very important thing that was not even touched upon. The financial paradigm gave the impression that the institutions of government would just continue; this, patently, would not or could not happen. There will have to be a new bureaucracy and with that there will be set up costs, easy enough for the civil servants to continue doing what they do with a refocus to a purely Scottish outlook, but some of these functions are not controlled in Scotland so a new Scotland based management infrastructure will be needed, somewhere will need to be found to house this new bureaucracy (a case for an expense for defence spending was made and health costs briefly touched but only in the remotest of contexts). What will the cost of extricating Scotland from the current UK governmental system be and who will finance this? Clearly it would be unfair to expect the taxpayers of England, Northern Ireland and Wales to foot the bill, as it is not they who are looking to leave the Union, although I believe the politicians remaining in Westminster are sufficiently stupid to allow this to occur, and will existing UK government operations undertaken in Scotland be repatriated, and here I believe they should: after all an independent Scotland would not base governmental offices in England. Will both nations have the necessary human resource to allow this to occur? The answer I think is the United Kingdom almost probably and Scotland possibly. Irrespective of the figures quoted, and I have no easy access to this source material, they can be massaged one way or the other to favour one viewpoint or another and I find it hard to believe some of the information given; especially with regard to average salary spread and tax contribution. I understand that Scotland’s east coast and central corridor can produce high salaries and income tax revenues because of the oil and general technology industries based there, and there have been government programmes to encourage businesses to move to these regions, but including the west coast and highlands as higher salary areas is a bit misleading. It would be like including Norfolk with London as a high salary area of England or central Wales with the Cardiff/Swansea corridor. Of course the figures might indicate that Scots are overpaying themselves to create this state of affairs. From what I have seen and heard, although this is somewhat limited, it is clear that Scotland does have the resources to stand alone; and probably be better off for it, especially if their government employs the dreadfully stereotypical non-spending view of the Scots. The teething period will be difficult though. What would the knock-on effect of Scotland’s independence be? The next step for the UK could be Wales and Northern Ireland leaving, and with that would the Republic of Ireland try to absorb the six counties of Ulster or would Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan try to join an independent Ulster. Would Scottish separation encourage the four Basque regions of Spain and three Basque départments of France to become a single Basque nation, Will Savoire and Savoia wish to extricate themselves from France and Italy, Langedoc from France or Bayern from Germany, which is a federation of smaller states anyway? Will the Scots keep the pound? In all probability they will certainly try, but I see a parallel pound in the same way the Irish had their pound tied to the British pound until the Irish joined the ERM and had full separation in March 1979. If the Scottish aim is to join the EU they will have to forego the pound for the euro, and in common with Andorra, Crna Gora, Kosovo, Monaco, San Marino and The Vatican City could adopt the euro while still outside the EU. This would cause a raft of new problems and (strangely) force any independent Scottish government into surrendering fiscal policy to the EU, something they are attempting to reclaim from the UK. If I had the chance I would vote for an independent Scotland, but I don’t have this opportunity. The one worry is that an independent Scotland will not work. It will be up to the Scots to make their nation and I am not sure their current politicians are up to the task. The only member of the Scottish parliament to be given obvious air time on the UK TV channels is Alex Salmond and I really don’t trust him at all, he comes over as even worse than David Nick Milliband Clegg Cameron (all completely untrustworthy types). The others are completely anonymous, unless that is a result of the BBC and ITV ignoring them. My hope for Scotland is whatever way the people decide they don’t let their politicians mess it up for them, equally we in the rest of the UK do not allow our politicians to act against Scotland out of spite.
Sorry to contradict you there Smurf, but German wages have been stagnating for about the last 20 years. About a quarter of all workers in Germany earn less than the French minimum wage - also the newly introduced German minimum wage does not cover all workers. Germany has been kept at a low wage sweat factory level for quite some time now. Probably because the country has an imbalanced economy ie. exports 30% more than it imports - so it can afford to neglect it's own spending power. Therefore Germany cannot act as a market for eg. southern European goods (as it used to) and also profits from a weak Euro,whilst giving the impression that it is bailing out those same southern European economies.
Is Scottish Independence really about finance? I don't think people are that shallow. As an economist and accountant I feel pretty well qualified to read and understand all the financial arguments as well as anybody. There is no clear cut proof that Scotland would be better or worse off after independence. Some very forceful arguments have been made both ways - but they rely on assumptions and there is the rub. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and anyone quoting figures n this debate is not doing so to give an impartial assessment but to promote whichever side they favour. Deep down we all know that if Eire can survive very well as an independent country then so can Scotland - it might be a little richer or a little poorer but most of the difference will come in the future by the way Scotland chooses to move its economy forward. In my book it ought to be more about hearts than heads. There is a sort of glory and passion in loving your own "tribe"and with Braveheart and the rest, Scotland has maybe more justification than most to want blue blood running through their veins. If that is what Scots want then they should vote yes - the only reason not to would be if it could ever be proved that it would be an economic and financial disaster - and as I have said above that cannot be proved. The other side of the argument though is about the larger picture. Many Scots love their country and are not diminished in doing so by also loving to be part of the UK - I have yet to see a Scot not proud to wear the Union flag at sporting ceremonies. Scots, like the English, Irish and Welsh at the moment have the best of both worlds. They can represent both Scotland and in a wider picture the UK. Personally I think it will be a bit of a shame if Scotland vote Yes because I think the rest of the UK value them and do not want to see them go, From my time in Wales I can say that the Welsh and Northern Irish would feel they had lost a partner in the fight against English domination of the Union. I think most English do not give a damn either way as they basically believe they "prop up" the other three but feel it is in a worthy cause. That sort of arrogance is probably one of the things that makes the others suport any team that plays against England
The Independence movement is an unstoppable force it will happen. You doubt the figures? They are UK & Scottish Government figures as explained in the vid. Perhaps you doubt them because it does not fit your preconceived notions of Scotland, just a thought. What has Salmond done to make you distrust him exactly? The huge grass roots movement in Scotland does not want Independence to make a Tartan Westminster, there are already many debates and ideas for a completely new way to run a modern mixed economy. The Common Weal for example is already a movement on its way to becoming a new party. Yours is an old view of Scotland but an understandable one given the complete lack of reporting of the current Scotland by the MSM.
I think there is plenty of evidence to make very clear that an Independent Scotland will in fact be awash with money, awash! The eight richest country in the world, compared to the UK 16th. You need to get out more
I don't think you help your case with the way you insult everybody else in this debate. I have seen the video and also a few others that totally contradict it - if either of us need to broaden our horizons perhaps it is not me. I have no axe to grind in this debate, unlike you so I can read statements by both sides and retain an impartial view and a healthy scepticism. For every person who believes Scotland would be wealthier there will be another who believes poorer. As I said in my post which you do not appear to have read properly- the economic debate is too heavily reliant on assumptions to be able to be definitive. If I had a vote arguments put forward in your way would sway me against you. Try to argue your case not just tell people who don't even oppose you to get out more
Financial concerns about independence may not drive the man in the street now, but when they do it will be too late for him to object. Given three options where would the votes go: 1. Retain the status quo and pay a little more (because whatever happens prices rise). 2. Have independence with these costs. 3. Have independence, but we don't know how much it will cost. I know where I would want to vote, but know where I would vote. On the question of national pride a Scot is a Scot is a Scot, they are a very proud nation, being independent or not seems to matter little, even if the sentiment of being able to say "I am from Scotland", rather than the inference of "I am from Scotland (in the UK)" hold a great significance - they will still be Scottish and proud of it. Quite unlike the English who seem to have had so much conditioning and negativity overlaid onto our national being we are afraid of our own shadows and in some ways are embarrassed about being English. Perhaps Scottish independence will be a huge positive force for England to rediscover true Englishness.
Good points well made. I confess nowadays when I see a cross of St George flown on a house I wonder if it signifies BNP but when I see a welsh Dragon or a Saltire I do not have those same reservations
I just think that it's sad that Westminster has pushed the Scots so far that we are having this vote at all. It's been a long time coming. However it strikes me that there are Scottish politicians who want to be even bigger fish in a much smaller pond. To call it an ego trip may be an over simplification but to dismiss those egos would be equally wrong. So it's (Scottish Independence movement) an "unstoppable force"? Let's assume that the vote is overwhelmingly NO then where does that leave this unstoppable force? If the vote is YES and it transpires that Scottish politicians and civil servants are no better than Westminster and make a complete dog's dinner of it, will they heed the call for a vote to return to the Union? Should they be allowed to return? Should the rest of the Union not have a vote as to whether or not to let them back? I think it's a one way door and, for the foreseeable future, a one time decision. If the vote is YES then off you go and good luck but don't look back. If NO then I think so much the better for all of us. One thing about a YES vote from a purely selfish POV at least we might then be able to consign HS2 to the rubbish bin where it belongs.
