Scottish Referendum question(s)

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Looks like Westminster is trying to bribe the Scots and buy the election by offering more devolution and tax raising and setting powers if people vote no.

Or you could see it as moving towards the position that the majority of Scots actually want but are not being offered in the referendum itself...

Fretwired said:

So the English won't be able to vote on Scottish tax matters but Scots MPs will still be able to vote on English tax matters.

And hopefully that might provide enough incentive to finally change that.

Agree on point one .,.. I'm sure that Salmond will be quietly pleased. He is seen to win whichever way people vote.

The West Lothian question will not be fixed. Labour and the Lib Dems depend upon Scottish MPs and the Scottish people will still want a say in Westminster. Scottish MPs made the difference in 2010, preventing an outright Conservative majority.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

The West Lothian question will not be fixed. Labour and the Lib Dems depend upon Scottish MPs and the Scottish people will still want a say in Westminster. Scottish MPs made the difference in 2010, preventing an outright Conservative majority.

Yes, but if the Lib Dems disappear at the next general election (which they will) and Labour fails to win enough votes to beat them outright, the Tories will end up with an overall majority due to the 'largest minority' problem with FPTP - another issue where Cameron successfully used divide and rule to prevent the choice the majority of people actually wanted. At that point, having given substantial tax powers to Scotland, will they want Scottish MPs having a say over UK tax policy?

It's strongly in the interests of the Tories to fix the West Lothian question for many reasons other than tax - I would guess the only reason they haven't done so far is the Lib Dems.

Fretwired said:

Agree on point one .,.. I'm sure that Salmond will be quietly pleased. He is seen to win whichever way people vote.

Agreed.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

The West Lothian question will not be fixed. Labour and the Lib Dems depend upon Scottish MPs and the Scottish people will still want a say in Westminster. Scottish MPs made the difference in 2010, preventing an outright Conservative majority.

Yes, but if the Lib Dems disappear at the next general election (which they will) and Labour fails to win enough votes to beat them outright, the Tories will end up with an overall majority due to the 'largest minority' problem with FPTP - another issue where Cameron successfully used divide and rule to prevent the choice the majority of people actually wanted. At that point, having given substantial tax powers to Scotland, will they want Scottish MPs having a say over UK tax policy?

It's strongly in the interests of the Tories to fix the West Lothian question for many reasons other than tax - I would guess the only reason they haven't done so far is the Lib Dems.

I think Miliband will win comfotably. The Lib Dems will suffer in Scotland at the hands of Labour and dissatisfied Lib Dem voters in England will also vote Labour. Cameron will be stuffed by older Tory voters defecting to Ukip and the fact the constituency boundaries favour Labour. Even if the Lib Dems do OK in England I think they'll ditch Clegg and back Labour. In the long run the Tories are finished as a party.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

I think Miliband will win comfotably. The Lib Dems will suffer in Scotland at the hands of Labour and dissatisfied Lib Dem voters in England will also vote Labour. Cameron will be stuffed by older Tory voters defecting to Ukip and the fact the constituency boundaries favour Labour. Even if the Lib Dems do OK in England I think they'll ditch Clegg and back Labour. In the long run the Tories are finished as a party.

I hope so .

But seriously… one of the problems is that the combination of the referendum and the election - in the wrong order - is that the outcome of the referendum will be affected by the perception of whether the Tories are likely to win the election (this has been properly surveyed and found to be true), and that will then actually affect the outcome of the election - a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy.

If Scots think the Tories will win, they're more likely to vote for independence, thus helping them to in England. If they don't, they're more likely to vote no and then vote Labour as well. Whether it's enough to swing the result of the referendum is the question. (I doubt it actually, but it might be close.)

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

I think Miliband will win comfotably. The Lib Dems will suffer in Scotland at the hands of Labour and dissatisfied Lib Dem voters in England will also vote Labour. Cameron will be stuffed by older Tory voters defecting to Ukip and the fact the constituency boundaries favour Labour. Even if the Lib Dems do OK in England I think they'll ditch Clegg and back Labour. In the long run the Tories are finished as a party.

I hope so .

But seriously… one of the problems is that the combination of the referendum and the election - in the wrong order - is that the outcome of the referendum will be affected by the perception of whether the Tories are likely to win the election (this has been properly surveyed and found to be true), and that will then actually affect the outcome of the election - a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy.

If Scots think the Tories will win, they're more likely to vote for independence, thus helping them to in England. If they don't, they're more likely to vote no and then vote Labour as well. Whether it's enough to swing the result of the referendum is the question. (I doubt it actually, but it might be close.)

The problem for the Tories is young people don't like them. The party's core support are older middle class people who are dying out. Today's young people are saddled with debt, have no chance to get on the housing ladder until later in life and view wealthy middle class Tory home owners with envy. They didn't have university fees, mortgages and housing was plentiful, and many have excellent final salary pension schemes and can therefore retire at 60 whereas todays generation will be working into their 70s.

There will be a seismic shift to the left in this country over the next ten years. Labour have announced they will introduce new council bands to hit people in the prosperous south and London as well as a death tax on home owners, freeze energy prices, nationalise the railways protect benefits and tax the wealthy. These policies are popular with many voters. Labour will have most of the new immigrants and young people voting for them.

It's more likely that a new right wing party will emerge from a Ukip/Tory right merger. The Tory party is a toxic brand that's seen as having too many old Etonians who favour their rich chums and the City of London.

Clarky

the thought of Millinob running the country.. jeez.. is there anything scarier?

ESBlonde

Fretwired said:

The problem for the Tories is young people don't like them. The party's core support are older middle class people who are dying out. Today's young people are saddled with debt, have no chance to get on the housing ladder until later in life and view wealthy middle class Tory home owners with envy. They didn't have university fees, mortgages and housing was plentiful, and many have excellent final salary pension schemes and can therefore retire at 60 whereas todays generation will be working into their 70s.

There will be a seismic shift to the left in this country over the next ten years. Labour have announced they will introduce new council bands to hit people in the prosperous south and London as well as a death tax on home owners, freeze energy prices, nationalise the railways protect benefits and tax the wealthy. These policies are popular with many voters. Labour will have most of the new immigrants and young people voting for them.

It's more likely that a new right wing party will emerge from a Ukip/Tory right merger. The Tory party is a toxic brand that's seen as having too many old Etonians who favour their rich chums and the City of London.

I grew up in the 70s and don't remember 'free' university education (the numbers taking advantage were much smaller then). People of all political roots move to the right as they age, it's one of life's' constants.
A strong element of the immigrant population are hard working go getters who are also 'conservative', so despite the daily wail, not all of them came here for free handouts but want to accumulate property and family wealth from hard graft. Don't forget, all those wealthy middle class people with homes have to leave them to those darlings that can't get a mortgage because the old folks screwed the system.

crunchman

Fretwired said:

There will be a seismic shift to the left in this country over the next ten years. Labour have announced they will introduce new council bands to hit people in the prosperous south and London as well as a death tax on home owners, freeze energy prices, nationalise the railways protect benefits and tax the wealthy. These policies are popular with many voters. Labour will have most of the new immigrants and young people voting for them.

This is great if you can get the numbers to add up.

The property taxes would drive many of the rich foreigners out of London, which would lead to falling house prices, which would drastically reduce the income from stamp duty.  Some of those foreigners also pay other forms of taxes as well.  The £30k non-dom fee is still much more than most of us pay in income tax.  They probably spend a lot of money on luxuries at 20% VAT as well.

House prices need to come down, and driving out a lot of the foreign property owners/speculators in London would be a good thing which would have knock on effects right down the chain.  It might even drive the housing benefit bill down as rents decreased in line with property prices.

Working out what the knock on effects of any changes are would be very difficult.  Do the benefits of lower houses prices, less housing benefit being paid out, etc. outweigh the loss in tax?  I'm not sure anyone can predict the exact outcome.

If you want to freeze energy prices, then there will need to be some kind of subsidy.  Going forward there are issues with an aging population, and pensions and increased NHS costs to deal with.  I honestly don't think that Labour's policies are affordable.

Don't forget we are still borrowing around £100 billion per year at the moment.  That is about £1500 for every person in the country.  That's adding to the £20,000 or so we already owe for each person in the country.  We cannot keep adding to the debt indefinitely.  Sooner or later we will be bankrupt.

Whoever is in power, will probably be forced into even more austerity - whether in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy like the Tories are doing now, or after we are bankrupt by the IMF.

GuyBoden

London is keeping the country going, without London the UK would be bankrupt, a bit like Spain, but without the sunshine.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Wales costs more money than it generates.

GuyBoden

Fretwired said:

I think Miliband will win comfotably

Miliband doesn't do anything comfortably, if he does wins, he'll win uncomfortably, but I don't think he'll win, because unfortunately, the masses think Politics is about TV personalities.

Anyway, generally speaking, we British don't really care about politics.

DiscoStu

GuyBoden said:

London is keeping the country going, without London the UK would be bankrupt, a bit like Spain, but without the sunshine.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Wales costs more money than it generates.

Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.

The two areas of the UK which 'support' (for want of a better word) the rest of the country are Aberdeen and London. Aberdeen brings in the oil money and London runs the banking sector. The bulk of the UK's money stays in London and the South East however and that is where I take issue. Have you been to Aberdeen lately? It's run down and tired, where it should be a jewel given the money it makes. It doesn't get back what it puts in, which can be said for Scotland as a whole.
Taken on its own merits, Scotland is currently the 14th wealthiest country in the world according to OECD figures (it was previously 6th) but the UK as a whole sits 18th. So Scotland is worse off as part of the UK and would be wealthier on its own as it would retain the money it generates rather than working with what Westminster allows it to have.

The GERS report (essentially Scotland's profit and loss) which is a Government document shows that Scotland is in a better position on its own. The Financial Times published an article agreeing with this.

I was unsure about Independence a year ago and was probably going to abstain but having read many articles from multiple sources I comfortable with my choice. I want change and of the two choices on the table I choose Yes.

Increased Scottish powers as a result of a No vote is a scenario I could live with but I don't believe it will happen.

DiscoStu

Just watched the referendum debate between Salmond and Darling, and the winner is.....

...Bernard Ponsonby!

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10492148_10152439757764597_8816434965821254273_n.jpg

johnnyurq

I avoided it like the plague, too much shite talking and spin in these staged affairs.

I would rather dip my johnson in honey then poke it in a beehive and/or wasps nest.

TV debates are a big fat waste of space due to grandstanding and political one upmanship, nothing new is ever learnt from them.

Having said that if they allowed audience members to barrack them at inappropriate times wiht random phrases or a few rush the stage every now and then I may watch them.

DiscoStu

Yeah a piley on would have been great!

Salmond's an arse and Darling's a tool. I watched it for the freakshow! Ponsonby was very good though, he kept a control on it unlike the previous debates with Rona Dougall in charge. 

ICBM

Not a very educational experience really...

But I would give it to Darling on points.

DiscoStu

ICBM said:

Not a very educational experience really...

But I would give it to Darling on points.

For the Undecideds watching, I would agree with you.

Clarky

DiscoStu said:

GuyBoden said:

London is keeping the country going, without London the UK would be bankrupt, a bit like Spain, but without the sunshine.

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Wales costs more money than it generates.

The bulk of the UK's money stays in London and the South East however and that is where I take issue. Have you been to Aberdeen lately? It's run down and tired, where it should be a jewel given the money it makes. It doesn't get back what it puts in, which can be said for Scotland as a whole.

Have you been to London.. the parts where most Londoners actually live…

if you have, you'll see that the money ain't going there either..

the money will never go to those places…

what's not taxed goes to the corp bosses and shareholders..

and what is taxed goes.. well.. I dunno.. same places all the rest of the tax money goes..

but where it's made has no bearing on where it's spent.. and it never will.. even with independence..

johnnyurq

DiscoStu said:

ICBM said:

Not a very educational experience really...

But I would give it to Darling on points.

For the Undecideds watching, I would agree with you.

If Salmond had put on his best General Melchett voice and every so often went Darling!! very loudly he may have swung.

I will wait for the edited highlights just in case I missed a howler.

Drew_TNBD

DiscoStu;313047" said:

Have you been to Aberdeen lately? It's run down and tired, where it should be a jewel given the money it makes.

Have you been to London lately??? It's exactly the same! There's just more art and less pissheads here!! :-?

chrispy108

TV debates always remind me of the West Wing: 

VINICK You know, I've watched every televised Presidential debate that this country has ever had. And every time I heard them recite the rules, I always thought that meant they're not going to have a real debate. When the greatest hero of my party, Abraham Lincoln debated, he didn't need any rules. He wasn't afraid of a real debate. Now I could do a 2-minute version of my Sensible Solution stump speech and I'm sure Congressman Santos has a memorized opening statement ready to go. And then we could go on with this ritual and let the rules decide how much you're going to learn about the next President of the United States, or we could have a debate Lincoln would have been proud of. We could junk the rules. We could let our able and judicious moderator ask us questions. And we could forget about whether each of us has the exact same number of seconds to speak. We could have a real debate if that's all right with you, Matt.