Be Excellent To Each Other

Scotland and the SNP: Fooling yourselves and deceiving others

There are many laudable reasons to campaign for Scottish independence. But how far should those who passionately want independence be prepared to go to achieve that goal? Should they, for example, deceive the Scottish people about the basic economics involved? That seems to be what is happening right now. The more I look at the numbers, the clearer it becomes that over the next five or ten years there would more, not less, fiscal austerity under independence.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is widely respected as an independent and impartial source of expertise on everything to do with government spending, borrowing and taxation in the UK. It has produced a detailed analysis (recently updated) of the fiscal (tax and spending) outlook for an independent Scotland, compared to what would happen if Scotland stayed in the UK. It has no axe to grind on this issue, and a considerable reputation to maintain.

Their analysis is unequivocal. Scotland’s fiscal position would be worse as a result of leaving the UK for two main reasons. First, demographic trends are less favourable. Second, revenues from the North Sea are expected to decline. This tells us that under current policies Scotland would be getting an increasingly good deal out of being part of the UK. To put it another way, the rest of the UK would be transferring resources to Scotland at an increasing rate, giving Scotland time to adjust to these trends and cushioning their impact. Paying back, if you like, for all the earlier years when North Sea oil production was at its peak.

This is certainly the impression I get from reading a lot of literature as I researched this post. The arguments in the Wee Blue Book are exactly that: no sustained economic argument, but just a collection of random quotes and debating points to make a problem go away.

Scottish independence: FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has claimed there will be a “day of reckoning” for major Scottish employers such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life after a Yes vote.

Speaking from his campaign vehicle the “Margo Mobile”, Mr Sillars insisted that employers are “subverting Scotland’s democratic process” and vowed that oil giant BP would be nationalised in an independent Scotland.

Earlier this week, a number of banks, including Lloyds Banking Group and RBS, said they would look to move their headquarters south of the border in the event of a Yes vote.

Mr Sillars, who earlier this week claimed he and First Minister Alex Salmond had put their long-held personal differences behind them to campaign together for independence, also revealed that he would not retire from politics on 19 September but said he would be “staying in” if Scotland became independent.

He claimed there is talk of a “boycott” of John Lewis, banks to be split up, and new law to force Ryder Cup sponsor Standard Life to explain to unions its reasons for moving outside Scotland.

He said: “This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.

“The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.”

He added: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors.”

Mr Sillars, whose wife, MSP Margo MacDonald died earlier this year, said that under an independent Scotland, Standard Life would be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies - and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland.

“What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out,” he added.

I now suspect riots will occur in the event of a No vote.

Campaign now at unbearable fever pitch. Placard-waving loons everywhere. Can't wait for it to be over. I now suspect riots will occur in the event of a No vote.

I think the No vote will win, simply because of the sheer ridiculous TERROR AND DOOM mode that the No campaign has gone into, and I think enough people will be sufficiently scared by it to go for a No vote, and play it safe.

At the last count I believe I've heard that a No vote will result in all men north of the border immediately becoming sterile and also never being able to achieve a satisfactory erection again, plus a hostile fleet of UFOs will arrive over Edinburgh and systematically kill every Scottish person in a one hundred mile radius.

I think they're scared an independent Scotland would actually work and show that there's a better and more equal way to run a society than the shower of cunts we've had in Westminster since Thatcher took office decided is the way to go.

I realise that last sentence is massively inelegant in its construction but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.

Two points:

1) Why would people vote No if the UFOs will kill them? Is this some mass suicide cult?
2) Whilst cutting themselves off from Westminster and that shower of cunts may be good for them, I hardly think that they're proposing anything particularly different or revolutionary in its place; it'll just be another group of rich wankers like Salmond eating cake. There won't be any unicorns on bikes doling out cash to the poor and needy.

I'm watching with interest, I'm hoping Yes can swing it, but I think No will win.

I must admit I'm very intrigued by this planned fair socialist utopia which so far doesn't show any trace of existing in manifestos or the like, just some assumed result of independence.

I must admit I'm very intrigued by this planned fair socialist utopia which so far doesn't show any trace of existing in manifestos or the like, just some assumed result of independence.

Like one half of a marriage asking for a divorce and the other saying "I had no idea. I thought we were happy"

A couple of quick questions from a foreigner that doesn't know anything about this issue:

1) Why did Cameron, or the Queen, or whoever is in charge gave legality to the referedum?

2) why now?
3) is the uk flag going to change in case of a "yes" win?

Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.

Confidential papers passed to the BBC suggest a radical cost-saving plan will be implemented in the Scottish NHS after the referendum.

The papers were presented to a meeting of health board chief executives and civil servants last month.

They suggest the NHS is facing a £400m funding gap, and sweeping changes will be needed for boards to break even.

The Scottish government said it was committed to "protecting and increasing the NHS budget".

The papers were passed to the BBC and The Herald by a senior NHS whistleblower, who said they had become frustrated by the argument of the "Yes" campaign that the biggest threat to the NHS comes from the UK government.

“The current pattern of services is underpinned but short-term money and fixes won't stack up going into next year”

NHS whistleblower
The documents state: "The status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face."

The whistleblower has alleged that pressures on the NHS come from Scottish government policies.

Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.

A DRAGON RIDING A DINOSAUR.

FLYING A SPACESHIP

In an inverted 4G dive.