I have been very disappointed by the yes campaign. Surely information like that would persuade people that currently fear they may have to show a passport on train or won't see Homes Under The Hammer anymore.

I don't suppose many people will be persuaded as most I imagine are like yourself entrenched in your position. In your case, your claim that 'bigger is better' has been shown to be incorrect yet all you can retort with is a laugh.

So bigger is better except in economic terms which just happens to be most important part of this, or any other political debate.

GDP is such a well used term I don't accept that using GDP per head of population would alienate the general public or that only the political astute would understand.

Use the word 'prosperous' instead if research showed that people didn't understand the term GDP.

The evidence is there. Not even trying to get it across has been a failure.

You seem politically astute, held the belief that bigger was better, but you have shown no indication that clear and undeniable evidence to the contrary is enough for you to consider changing your stance on that point. As I said, people are entrenched.

it tends to be about economies of scale. the larger economies are typically considered more stable and get better interest rates when it comes to government borrowing.

IIRC Germany pays around 2.5%, the UK slightly more, while Italy was paying around 7% when their debt/GDP ratio was high around the time of the financial crisis.

Saying that, apparently Ireland's borrowing costs have fallen below the UK's in the last few months.

so one argument from the likes of Darling is that the Scottish banks themselves have more debt than the entire GDP of Scotland. In fact, RBS liabilities were comparable to the GDP of the entire UK in 2008/09.

if Scotland had its own currency and central bank at the time, it would have been sh1te and a fan.

akabula 27 Aug 14 17:32 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 5,478 | Blogger: akabula's blog
You won't persuade many with an argument like that. Laugh
The problem for the YES campaign has been the lack of detail for the basics.
Pensions is a perfect example with, rightly or wrongly, a lot of old people only concerned with their own position.
Salmond and the rest of the campaigners have failed pathetically in that respect.


You've been shot to pieces akabula. What's YOUR idea of "detail for the basics"?

Pensions? Regarding State Pension, DWP have replied IN WRITING to many enquirers, confirming that the SP will continue to be paid as normal to recipients in Scotland in the event of Scotland becoming independent. This is unarguable, and anyone who claims otherwise is quite simply lying.

Failed pathetically? If by that you mean you haven't been convinced, that's more than likely down to the underlying reason for your stance.

Salmond should have pitched his campaign at a level that engaged those that are not politically astute.

He did. It didn't work on you, thus highlighting your even lower political level.

Was at a dinner when the subject of the UKs debt was brought up.

^Euphemism for "I was at work at McDonald's, when...."

I'm retired too. Why did you mention pensions when you KNOW there is nothing to be concerned about?

I don't belittle just anyone either, but then I don't reply to serious questions with a long row of laughing faces. Isn't that belittling?

I mentioned them Alias because most pensioners currently in Scotland rely solely on their government pension and it's a major concern for them and with 20% of the Scottish population at retirement age I would have thought this would have been an obvious target for the YES campaigners.
as regards your laughing at people in poorly paid jobs is that what we can expect in an independent Scotland?

It is not my list. If I type out The Count Of Monte Cristo it won't make it my book.

I think the facts clearly prove that using the statement 'bigger is better' in this context is wrong and that was my intention.

Beyond that the conclusions are mine and they lead me to believe that there is every chance a small, developed European country, with substantial oil reserves which gains independence will thrive. There is certainly nothing to fear. I think that much at least is obvious.

This is a gambling site. If somebody posted stats which challenged preconcieved opinions on promoted teams staying up then it would be madness not to at least consider them properly.

There is an author called Daniel Yergin. Read his books and if you are still worried about a country with signficant oil reserves getting cash then fair enough. I came to the conclusion that the opposite was true.... the problem comes when they get too much credit. Given we would have the vast majority of oil reserves I have no worries about our debt to gdp ratio.

Argentina get money and they default all the time. If you mean we will have to pay it back at higher rates then of course that would happen but would have to be weighed up against no interest on current debt for balance.

Another point on debt which is missed is that alot of the UK debt is basically owed to itself because of QE. This would in effect bring Scotland's share of the debt down by over £30bn when both sides of the ledger cancel each other out. A yes vote would therefore insulate us from at least some of the negative impacts of QE when it finally hits the fan.

as regards your laughing at people in poorly paid jobs is that what we can expect in an independent Scotland

As you no doubt know akabula, I was poking fun at you. In fact, one of the reasons I am voting YES is to hopefully rid Scotland of subsistence wages, zero hours contracts (a Tory's dream) and other inequalities.

akabula
akabula 28 Aug 14 19:48 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 5,503 | Blogger: akabula's blog
I see the YES campaigners were out in force today pelting Jim Murphy with eggs and scolding hot tea. Nice people


ONE man hit Murphy with an egg. Has this ever happened before at a political meeting? Anyway, see link below for some nice NO voters. maybe you'll even spot yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Meanwhile, it looks like we could have our first ever UKIP MP...

There is still room to make a few quid sb. That's all I'm telling you. I have an absolutely lovely position, and no, I won't post my bets.

I believe Salmond to be an odious individual and no friend to Scotland.  Whatever the result, all this stupid referendum will achieve is to divide the country for decades and cause much bad feeling.  For what it's worth, I hope the No vote is successful as there's no way Scotland will be better off out of the union.

It's Chat Chat not a friggin' courtroom ffs.  And who are you to judge anyway?  All you ever seem to post about are farts.  I don't see you qualifying those posts much.

I'm not surprised.

And who are you to judge anyway?

You just did. Can we assume you've met Salmond and engaged him in deep conversation, or have you formed your opinion from the telly? In any case IT'S NOT ABOUT SALMOND.

Don't take my word for anything, please. Look it up yourself. The truth is out there!

NHS expert: only a Yes will save the health service in Scotland from Westminster cuts

Allyson Pollock, professor of public health research and policy at Queen Mary University of London, warned reforms in the NHS south of the Border could result in "serious" consequences for Scotland by translating into reduced funding through the Barnett formula.

Her warning seriously undermines claims by Better Together spokesmen, including its leader Alistair Darling at last week's final TV debate with First Minister Alex Salmond, that devolution protects the Scottish NHS from the creeping privatisation south of the Border.

She said a Yes vote would free Scotland from the "stranglehold" of the Westminster Treasury by allowing politicians to control public finances and NHS policy.

Her comments support Salmond's assertion that any cutbacks in England could hurt the health service in Scotland. In last week's debate he warned that, while the Scottish Government has operational control of the health service, it was a "serious problem" to be without financial control of it. Darling accused the First Minister of "scaremongering".

Pollock, who is a leading authority on the implications of privatisation for public services, said: "In the absence of any reversal of neoliberal policies in England, the clearest way to defend and promote the principle of a public NHS is to vote for Scotland to have full powers and responsibilities of an independent country."

Government critics have raised concerns the NHS in England is on a path towards an American-style healthcare system. Central to this has been the Health and Social Care Act of 2012, dubbed one of the most radical plans in the history of the health service, which included encouraging greater involvement by the private sector.

Pollock told the Sunday Herald: "Although people find this extraordinary and can't believe it, the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 has abolished the NHS in England as a universal service. The NHS is reduced to a funding stream and a logo; increasingly all the services are going to be contracted in the marketplace.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/nhs-expert-only-a-yes-will-save-the-health-service-in-scotland-from-westminster-cuts.25192360

Look it up yourself. The truth is out there!


Meanwhile.....

Model in Better Together leaflet: 'I'm voting Yes'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/model-in-better-together-leaflet-im-voting-yes.25192401

Hopefully the bad publicity that has followed the YES campaigners violent attacks on anyone who dares oppose them will force them to now play fair.
@stewart A straight answer? No chance of that. Plenty of insults but no answers.

The Scots, the Irish, the  Welsh and the English ......................... BETTER TOGETHER.