I'll have a go later when I've woken up a bit but I can remember one of the things was the whole child care thing which is currently a devolved power so why is it in this paper? They have the power now to do what they say they will do in this white paper, lot's of stuff like that that have no real substance or are even relevant to independence.
Plus the whole paper is based on the assumption of using the £, which isn't Scotland's decision as Westminster will be the one that decides that, also there was nothing about the issue of EU and NATO membership
On a side note you're too easy to wind up about his stuff
GroupsGeneral
Posts1031
JoinedAug 07, 2009
StatusOffline
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:10 pm
Soulfly
the whole child care thing which is currently a devolved power so why is it in this paper? They have the power now to do what they say they will do in this white paper
not true mate, it cant be done fully with limted powers, i can get more info later if you want
Plus the whole paper is based on the assumption of using the £, which isn't Scotland's decision as Westminster will be the one that decides that
its in the best interest of scotland and uk they share they pound, the edinburgh agreement that salmond and cameron signed states both will work in the best interests of scotland and the uk..
darling has already back tracked mate and now says if scotland votes yes its best for uk to share pound. he leads the better together campain!
heres some facts for you
"WHAT DOES SCOTLAND GET IF WE KEEP THE POUND?
An independent Scotland, even keeping sterling, will have the ability to create a new taxation system tailored to local needs, one that helps the economy to grow. Critics argue that such fiscal autonomy could be granted under devolution. That is a false claim.
First, not one iota of devolved powers has ever been granted to Scotland by Westminster except under the threat of independence. Second, the Treasury is particularly resistant to giving up powers over corporation tax – witness its stubborn refusal to grant Northern Ireland such powers. Third and most important, the current UK system of taxation is a bureaucratic mess that is unfit for purpose. Devolving fiscal autonomy to Scotland inside the UK would let a Scottish government vary tax rates but it would not give Holyrood the scope to completely rewrite the tax code – that only comes with independence.
This, indeed, is the main argument of a paper published by the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) just before the publication of the white paper. The IFS report was seized on by the No campaign as proving an independent Scotland would have to raise taxes if it wanted to maintain current levels of public spending as the population ages. Actually, such a fiscal gap hold true for Scotland inside or outside the UK, and for the UK itself. With income tax anyway being devolved to Holyrood in 2016, whoever runs Scotland is going to have to cope with that.
However – and here is what the No campaign deliberately ignored and the media missed – the same IFS report pointed out that an independent Scotland (and ONLY and independent Scotland) was in a position to refashion the tax structure to promote economic growth and so raise the necessary cash to fill any so-called fiscal "black holes".
According to the IFS:
"...the current system of income taxes and welfare benefits creates serious disincentives to work for many with relatively low potential earning power. The benefit system in particular is far too complex (though the proposed universal credit will help to some extent)...Scottish independence would provide an opportunity to make sensible changes to the tax system in Scotland that successive UK governments have failed to make...the creation of a new state is surely the best opportunity that is ever likely to present itself for radical and rational tax reform, starting from first principles, which has the potential to unlock really significant economic benefits"."
and
"WHAT DOES rUK GET OUT OF A CURRENCY UNION?
One new element in the currency debate is Carwyn Jones' allegation that Wakes and rUK would suffer in a currency union. Given that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in a currency union as we speak – which, doubtless, he supports - then Mr Jones' analysis is a trifle confused to say the least.
Nor is it clear, beyond finding a stick with which to beat local nationalists, why the Welsh First Minister wants to add to the business costs of Welsh firms by making them pay for currency conversions when trading with an independent Scotland. Given that unemployment in Wales is far higher than in Scotland, Mr Jones would be better employed fixing the Welsh economy than lecturing Scotland.
In fact, rUK would gain from a currency union – which is why the SNP Government white paper thinks agreement will be reached despite the ill-informed arguments of Messers Darling, Carmichael and Jones. As well as reducing business transaction costs and keeping cross-border trade simple, retaining a common sterling area minimises the rUK's growing trade deficit. Taking Scotland out of sterling would add circa £50 billion to rUK's trade gap. It would not be long before the markets punished any rUK government for running such a large and unsustainable trade imbalance.
CONCLUSION The white paper, while it won't silence the No camp, shows the Scottish Government has thought through the mechanics of building a new nation state in more detail than, I think, any national movement before. And in quiet distinction to the fear and uncertainty spread by Messers Darling, Carmichael and Jones, it is a tribute to the SNP Government that its white paper tries to look at what is best for rUK as well as for Scotland. Of such leadership and wisdom nations are forged"
by law its also fact that if they uk didnt share the pound scotland doesnt have to take on any of uk debt!
also there was nothing about the issue of EU and NATO membership
i want you to watch this in full, this is the guy that just replaced moor after sturgeon kicked his ass, she also won this debate easy
its quite simple, the snp have so far done what they said they would with limited powers, they kept there word.. so if its a case of believe a party that delivers or continue to be fucked over by westminister.. remember in the 70s scotland was told if they vote no they would get more powers like said now, they didnt get those powers. the real details on oil at the time were kept hiden to help scare, if scotland voted yes in the 70s we would be better off now!
I'll give that vid a watch when I get home.......you're in your Braveheart custume arn't you?
GroupsGeneral
Posts1031
JoinedAug 07, 2009
StatusOffline
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:48 pm
Soulfly
Plus the whole paper is based on the assumption of using the £, which isn't Scotland's decision as Westminster will be the one that decides that
scotland cant fully do this with limited powers, if they did do it now it would mean taking money from somewhere else.. also the money generated from it wouldnt come back to scotland, it would flow straight to westminister
Time synchronized with your computer time 1, 2, 3Next
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
Neanderthaler 
