The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

So, this wonderful civic nationalism that might win a yes vote changes into ethnic nationalism immediately the vote is won, and those civic Scots don't much care.

But the people who've been calling Alex out are always wrong, eh, just because they're not Alex or not voting yes? :lol:

[eFestivals]

PS - the people are sovereign, but Alex doesn't trust you with that sovereignty.

Otherwise Alex would commit to *any* constitution being a matter for the people and not *purely* a matter for Alex as he's stated it should be in the draft constitution.

And do note how *nothing* of that changes until Alex has put his own plans fully into place before any Scot gets a say as he's made clear will be the case in that draft.

[viberunner]

Yeah, if anyone says anything that yes-ers disagree with it must be wrong.

If you've done what I suggested than you have all the information already. If you're not able to understand what you've read actually means in operation then that should be a bit of a wo9rry for you.

------

Meanwhile, I'm loving that an expert says that a new Scottish national infrastructure can be created for about one quarter of a couple of miles of tram-track, or half the cost of a parliament building.

Where do you sign up to that guy's course? By having academic training from this expert I could save the world a fortune.

(PS: even the expert says "for £200m, plus the cost of all the bits i've not costed" ... which makes it a very different story from his own headline number.)

This is just how infrastructure costings go in Britain. The market is rigged against true costs, any developer putting a true cost to a state client wouldn't win the bid (I worked on IT contracts for the NHS for a while).

You can bet your last bollock the London to Birmingingham will cost much more than the estimate, just as the Channel Tunnel did.

It's also not JUST the contractor's fault. None - and I mean none - of the projects mentioned on this page in their final version are in detail what the client initially asked for. Clients always change their mind during development/construction and that's always an expensive time to do it as you're wasting already done work, plus you're delaying work, despite daily costs, while everyone figures out what they should be doing. Some of those changes are technical and legal issues arise, others are desires the client simply hadn't initially thought of.

The point is, at the end of it, Scotland got a pretty funky shanty town Parliament, and Edinburgh got a new train set to play with. I remember the days I could drive down Princess Street, and that real driving made my Edinburgh-based lap times in Project Gotham Racing 2 all the more enjoyable, but as the capital and host of the largest arts festival anywhere ever the toy trainset is kind of appropriate.

The problem with Britain - England and Scotland - is there's so little innovative, useful, large-scale, construction going on the skills to manage these projects are really rare.

[viberunner]

PS - the people are sovereign, but Alex doesn't trust you with that sovereignty.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at is the Scottish people gave him an massive and unambiguous political mandate to be getting on with exactly this sort of thing.

It's not as if Alex has made one constitutional proposal and the rest of Scotland has taken up arms against it but he's going to force it through anyway.

[eFestivals]

This is just how infrastructure costings go in Britain.

I don't disagree.

And likewise you don't disagree that the £200M number is a ridiculous under-estimation, no matter how "expert" that guy is.

[viberunner]

I don't disagree.

And likewise you don't disagree that the £200M number is a ridiculous under-estimation, no matter how "expert" that guy is.

It's unlikely to be an overestimate.

[eFestivals]

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at is the Scottish people gave him an massive and unambiguous political mandate to be getting on with exactly this sort of thing.

I wish you Scots would remember that when you falsely blame Dave for there being no Devo Max option for the indyref.

Dave might be a prick of the highest order, but you got exactly what you voted for.

It's not as if Alex has made one constitutional proposal and the rest of Scotland has taken up arms against it but he's going to force it through anyway.

But if they had taken up arms against him he'd still force it thru anyway.

That's the point, really. His vision for Scotland is one where he gets the final say and not you - and makes the first line of the constitution the biggest deliberate lie going.

He says you are sovereign, but the *only* opportunity he's giving you to express that "sovereignty" is by voting yourselves Alex sovereign.

That is *precisely* the draft constitution in its effect.

Everything about your sovereign state will be decided by and put in place by Alex before you're allowed any say at all.

But as you say, it's what you voted for.

Edited June 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It's unlikely to be an overestimate.

even matey admits it as a massive under-estimate.

But you're happy with the £200m figure, and the iScotland budgets will balance.

[LJS]

even matey admits it as a massive under-estimate.

But you're happy with the £200m figure, and the iScotland budgets will balance.

Loving your usual tactic of trying to undermine experts whose conclusions you don't much like by insulting them. Although "matey" is much milder than "idiot writer" which you used for the last guy. It just doesn't sound quite as authoritative as professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics.

And of course he doesn't say anything like what you say he does.

I thought he made some interesting points.

I would not expect you to agree, of course, as he doesn't say Scotland will be the Zimbabwe of the north.

[eFestivals]

Loving your usual tactic of trying to undermine experts whose conclusions you don't much like by insulting them. Although "matey" is much milder than "idiot writer" which you used for the last guy. It just doesn't sound quite as authoritative as professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics.

OK, let's do it your way....

Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics is bonkers if he thinks the infrastructure of iScotland can be created for about the same as half a parliament building or one quarter of a few miles of tram track.

But actually, he doesn't say that. He in fact says it'll cost waaaaay more than that, an amount so large and variable that no one can quantify it.

I thought he made some interesting points.

I would not expect you to agree, of course, as he doesn't say Scotland will be the Zimbabwe of the north.

I thought he made lots of interesting points, but the only one getting repeated is the VERY misleading £200m number.

Anyone might think that there's a campaign for the yes-ers to believe it.

[Stash]

And of course he doesn't say anything like what you say he does.

Dunleavy accepts a £900 million investment in infrastructure would be necessary in addition to Salmond's €200 start up costs. He then accepts that in the interim, payments to HMG would be necessary. Those payments and the subsequent infrastructure costs are still start up costs - they may not be "immediate", but they are start up costs.

If you're happy for people to play word games with you in order to make you believe that tearing Scotland away from the UK will be a painless little stroll in the park, then that's your business. You would be a fool to believe that, but it is your business.

[LJS]

Dunleavy accepts a £900 million investment in infrastructure would be necessary in addition to Salmond's €200 start up costs. He then accepts that in the interim, payments to HMG would be necessary. Those payments and the subsequent infrastructure costs are still start up costs - they may not be "immediate", but they are start up costs.

If you're happy for people to play word games with you in order to make you believe that tearing Scotland away from the UK will be a painless little stroll in the park, then that's your business. You would be a fool to believe that, but it is your business.

Just a couple of passing comments:

If I have given anyone the impression that the Scotland leaving the UK ( note the rather less emotive language there ) would be"a painless little stroll in the park" I apologise. It will be complex and there is certainly lots of potential for disputes and disagreements. There is also the potential for both "sides" to work together constructively, once the combative referendum campaign is over, realising that a reasonable swift and fair settlement is in both parties' interests.

ON the subject of start up costs, the UK government started at £2.7Bn, hastily trimmed that to £1.5Bn & now you are talking about maybe just over £1Bn ( & some of that Professor Dunleavy argues for reasons too complex for this time of night could reasonably be regarded as "investment" rather than "start-up".) He also points out that a significant proportion of the cost is affected by the rUK's attitude to negotiations which of course Westminster won't reveal. So they lambast the Scottish government for not coming up with start up costs but withhold the information they would need to come up with them. Fiendishly clever!!!

night All

[eFestivals]

There is also the potential for both "sides" to work together constructively, once the combative referendum campaign is over, realising that a reasonable swift and fair settlement is in both parties' interests.

I agree with the sentiment 100%, but the difficulties come with defining 'fair'.

Is it fair that Scotland gets the bank of England as its lender of last resort (backed by rUK taxpayers), and is it fair that England ends up with less sovereignty than Scotland demands for itself? Is it fair to rUK that 'yes' do not understand what sovereignty actually is, as demonstrated by their very demands?

I have good reason to think that rUK will be as fair as it can be, but I've little reason to think that iScotland will accept that as fair.

So they lambast the Scottish government for not coming up with start up costs but withhold the information they would need to come up with them. Fiendishly clever!!!

iScotland already knows exactly what infratructure it needs as a sovereign state that cannot be acquired from rUK - and yet it won't give costings for those.

Anyone might think that they're deliberately keeping you in the dark and feeding you bullshit.

Nah, that's just bluster.

[russycarps]

There is also the potential for both "sides" to work together constructively, once the combative referendum campaign is over, realising that a reasonable swift and fair settlement is in both parties' interests.

There will be very little appetite among the rUK public to do scotland any favours in the event of the yes vote winning I suspect. People are nasty spiteful and vindictive. It will be a massive vote-loser for the government to be seen to be helping out scotland if they become independent, even if doing so would actually be beneficial.

You need to accept that independence means just that. It's a bit pathetic to see scots still expecting a security blanket from the country they are spurning.

Personally, I hope the 2 countries would work together to do whats best for the people, but that is just a pipe dream.

[viberunner]

I wish you Scots would remember that when you falsely blame Dave for there being no Devo Max option for the indyref.

But if they had taken up arms against him he'd still force it thru anyway.

That's the point, really. His vision for Scotland is one where he gets the final say and not you - and makes the first line of the constitution the biggest deliberate lie going.

No "DevoMax" parties won the Scottish Election. That's why it is not on the referendum. When Labour and the Liberals held a coalition government in Scotland they could have given us a DevoMax referendum, but they did not. When the SNP was the minority government, the other parties could have formed a coalition to create a DevoMax referendum, but did not.

So, why should the SNP create such a referendum when that outcome is not one they campaign for?

As for your other point - but that's a big if. Yes, if we were taking up arms against him you'd have a point. But the point of that if is we're not. Your argument is "if you felt differently he wouldn't", but given how canny he can be with an eye to the electorate I'm not entirely certain that's true. But you can certainly believe it of him if it makes you feel better.

even matey admits it as a massive under-estimate.

But you're happy with the £200m figure, and the iScotland budgets will balance.

It's not that I'm happy or unhappy. The reality is Scotland will be spending money on startup governance, of course it will. The upside of that is it will be spent on wages for Scottish Civil Servants rather than Westminster ones.

I don't see a reason why a Scottish civil service has to be relatively more costly than Westminster. The "economies of scale" theory works quite well for the manufacturers of circuit boards, but in paper-shuffling bureaucracies I think it's the opposite - size permits places to hide (budgets, useless managers, crap projects, no clear lines of responsibility, etc. etc.)

I'll just say I think Scotland can handle the process of starting up a government. It might be a bit bumpy here and there, but it'll pull through.

Of course if Westminster saw itself as an ally and friend of Holyrood, then the transfer could be made to be easier. But the fact it is so viciously self-centered, petty, hateful, and c**tish, is reason alone enough to justify the divorce in the first place.

And note - this is a complaint against England's masters, not against the English.

[Stash]

It's not that I'm happy or unhappy. The reality is Scotland will be spending money on startup governance, of course it will. The upside of that is it will be spent on wages for Scottish Civil Servants rather than Westminster ones.

According to the SG, in Q2 2012 there were 46,000 people employed as civil servants in Scotland. This was made up of 16,600 (36%) people working in the devolved civil service and 29,400 (64%) working in UK government departments in Scotland. According to the ONS there were 463,812 civil servants employed in total in all of the UK.

So I think that given that 10% of civil servants already work in Scotland you really won't see much difference in total headcount after secession.

[viberunner]

I wonder what grades of civil service they are, given the prime movers and shakers are London based.

Either way, "zomfg they'll have to set up a civil service" isn't anything like a convincing argument against Independence.

[Stash]

Either way, "zomfg they'll have to set up a civil service" isn't anything like a convincing argument against Independence.

I suppose the difference being that for people who have no strong commitment either for or against secession, the financial implications of replicating existing systems, both in short term set up costs and in terms of long term increases (or decreases) of taxation, would be very important to making their mind up. Most people think with their wallets rather than along more nationalistic lines when thinking about their future and it seems that a lot of the information that comes out of the Yes camp is all about best case scenarios, distortions, outright lies or obfuscation.

[viberunner]

As distinct from the economic honestly of the Bitter Togethers?

[Stash]

As distinct from the economic honestly of the Bitter Togethers?

As opposed to honesty.

[eFestivals]

No "DevoMax" parties won the Scottish Election. That's why it is not on the referendum.

absolutely correct - so it gets a bit boring to hear some accuse Cameron of having denied them that option. It's Scotland that have denied Scotland the chance to vote for devo max.

As for your other point - but that's a big if. Yes, if we were taking up arms against him you'd have a point. But the point of that if is we're not. Your argument is "if you felt differently he wouldn't", but given how canny he can be with an eye to the electorate I'm not entirely certain that's true. But you can certainly believe it of him if it makes you feel better.

I'#m merely pointing out that he grandly says "the people are sovereign" but then he gives the people no say beyond voting to endorse his White Paper - the very thing so many yes voters say they're not voting in support of.

For example: if the people of Scotland are sovereign, why are they not getting the option to vote themselves out of the EU, which polls suggest would happen if the people of Scotland were given that choice?

Instead you're getting what Salmond has decided for you - if he's as clever as he likes to think he is, anyway.

Vote yes if you want to, but don't go falling for Salmond's guff - and the fact so few yes voters will criticise his guff says that most yes-ers has.

It's not that I'm happy or unhappy. The reality is Scotland will be spending money on startup governance, of course it will. The upside of that is it will be spent on wages for Scottish Civil Servants rather than Westminster ones.

actually it's likely that most start-up costs money will go to contractors and not govt employees - and if Scotland is being a good EU member there's low chance of that going to Scottish companies because it will have to be open-tendered.

I don't see a reason why a Scottish civil service has to be relatively more costly than Westminster.

running costs are not start-up costs.

I'll just say I think Scotland can handle the process of starting up a government. It might be a bit bumpy here and there, but it'll pull through.

no one is suggesting differently, it's the costs of doing it which are being discussed.

You know that Salmond has his own costings produced by the SG, don't you? Have you asked him why he won't tell you what they are?

Have you considered that the reason he won't tell you is because he's trying to mug you?

Of course if Westminster saw itself as an ally and friend of Holyrood, then the transfer could be made to be easier. But the fact it is so viciously self-centered, petty, hateful, and c**tish, is reason alone enough to justify the divorce in the first place.

When the whole yes campaign has a basis of "we hate Westminster/tories/England" while saying that iScotland wants the protection of Westminster/tories/England (for free, of course), what exactly were you expecting?

Yes-ers say Westminster has been taking the piss, fair enough. Are the rest of the people of this island not allowed to do the same when yes-ers take the piss?

And note - this is a complaint against England's masters, not against the English.

It might surprise you to know that I've yet to meet an Englishman who regards himself as the subserviant you regard yourself as.

That's the biggest difference I'm seeing between the people of the two countries, and it's where the problem lies.

[eFestivals]

As distinct from the economic honestly of the Bitter Togethers?

you've already decided that you want to reject the UK.

So now your job as a citizen is about holding your own leaders to account - so why not start doing it?

You've yet to wake up to the fact that Salmond is leading you down Salmond's path, and that "the people are sovereign" is worthless guff.

iScotland will only work better than what you have if you hold your politicians to account - and you're giving Salmond a free pass instead from the very first moment.

Wake up, FFS.

[viberunner]

You know what mate? You're like a man who has ignored is amazing wife for the last 20 years and now she's fucking a younger, stronger, richer man than you and has filed for divorced you're phoning up every ten minutes, with 200 SMS messages between, telling her how wrong she is and why.

You're being dumped. And if you think about it... you know why.

[eFestivals]

You know what mate? You're like a man who has ignored is amazing wife for the last 20 years and now she's fucking a younger, stronger, richer man than you and has filed for divorced you're phoning up every ten minutes, with 200 SMS messages between, telling her how wrong she is and why.

You're being dumped. And if you think about it... you know why.

To be dumped I'd have to care; I don't, like the rest of the UK. We do hate to see people mug themselves tho.

But if you're happy to walk blindfolded by Alex's fantasy then you really should put that chip away. Or at least get a job in the vinegar factory so it doesn't taste so bitter.

Alex will be glad of the taxes too, cos with a £12Bn deficit and a 10% increase in Scottish expenditure he's gonna need it.

And you've been laughing at the UK's debts? :lol:

[viberunner]

To be dumped I'd have to care; I don't,

You care enough to have devoted pages and pages and pages of posts to it.

But I was a bit mean, I'll address your maaaaany points later on when I have the time.