Any Scottish members out there?

Any Scottish members out there?

Didn't find your answer?

We're ramping up our coverage of the Independence vote - as you may have seen on site. 

As such, we'd like to hear from you, our members, about what your views are on the vote and what you think the implications will be if it goes either way. 

In addition, we have an opportunity for two members to star in our upcoming Scottish Independence podcast. If you're interested in that, leave a comment below and we'll be in touch. 

Otherwise, simply post your thoughts below. 

Replies (574)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Ruddles
16th Sep 2014 12:36

blok

You say "that's what the people of Scotland wanted when the SNP got powers". It is certainly not what this Scot wanted - nor did the rest of the 55% who voted against the SNP. Yes, that's democracy at work, but don't be fooled by the argument that voting for independence means that you will get the government of your choice.

I agree that a close decision either way is going to be less than helpful, but I'm afraid that your argument is the least convincing in making me want to switch from No to Yes! (It would be nice to think that there is a whole bunch of Yes voters thinking exactly the same, though!).

But please, please, make your vote count  whichever way your heart/head leads you (and therein I appreciate lies the dilemma with a lot of voters).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Sep 2014 12:41

All I am saying ...

... is where does it stop, OK, Scotland becomes independant, you just concentrate the problems - you will still have the same ones, but worse so as you may well have a SNP government with less than 50% of the vote pursuing hard left policies at the expense of business and entrepreneurs, and beleive it, big business will go if the tax rate not suitable, you just need to look how Dell shafted ROI to see that.

I see the gamble for this rose tinted vision of a self-determining utopia to be a dangerous dream that is almost certain to end as a nightmare, certainly in our life-times.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
16th Sep 2014 12:44

Thank you, blok

It's good to know some Scots are considering how this affects non-Scots.

It's really difficult to stay unemotional and not feel hurt when one part of the family is whinging & moaning at being 'forced' to stay within the family. The natural response is to say 'nobody is forcing you to stay', and this is why we are having the referendum.

I only hope the result brings peace for both sides of the border, but I somehow doubt it.

Thanks (1)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2014 14:21

The negotiations

 

I read/ saw somewhere that Tommy Sheridan is to be on the negotiating dream team.

In the event of a YES vote I keep having flashes of imagination of similarities with the part in Braveheart where Mel Gibson spurs his horse to join the Scottish Nobles at the parley  before the Battle and then snarls a lot and picks a fight.

If I was not so involved in the current events I would find the whole process fascinating; if push comes to shove, and I give up accountancy, then I must really try my hand at a docu drama which can be made into a film. Hours of fun working out who could be cast as each of the characters.

 

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
16th Sep 2014 16:01

@ Shirley Power House City up North (preferably Newcastle

Hi Shirley

I am still undecided because they keep changing the goal posts everyday.  Originally it was a yes or no.   I can promise you that most Scots are thinking about the effect on our friends in England every conversation I have had with Taxi drivers and general public bring this up. 

I will be honest I will not be voting on any loyalty to Scotland.   My views are that I want a Powerhouse city in North of the UK and for the UK policies to move away from London central based.  I would like it to be Newcastle and it would be central for Scotland as well by public transport.

I personally do not think we are any more badly treated then the North East or the South West.  However Alex Salmond has shouted for Scotland and The North of England needs someone to shout for them loud and clear. 

Yes I believe that politics need to change for the whole of the UK.   I am very passionate about this topic and I and many others I know, are using this opportunity to make Westminster Politicians sweat.  They have being sitting on their arses to long and living off the taxpayers money on expenses with out any regard for parts of the UK that are struggling.

I believe if anything this referendum has highlighted how the Westminster Government treat the rest of the UK and it is about time they woke up and smelt the coffee.   The 3 amigos are only up to save their jobs.  I know they do not represent the average UK Individual.  But it is about time they found out that UK is a big group of Islands and not just London.    I don, t want thousands of youngsters leaving Scotland every year or the rest of UK suffering to due to policies made to suit Westminster

 

 

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2014 14:45

Exporting Labour and Importing Labour

sarah douglas wrote:

 I don, t want thousands of youngsters leaving Scotland every year

 

Actually I do, it is good that they head out into the world, experience different things, exchange ideas with people outside their little bubble. As a parent I know it is difficult, and if they have to go because of really limited choices I would agree, but sending out into the world some of our graduates and those with determination is a good thing, it makes society stronger and freedom of movement means that they can do this and then if they wish return; for some the grass is greener and they stay away for others they come to appreciate more what they already had.

I believe the same with  those coming here and this is where I agree with the SNP (not many places this happens), we get people from all over the world, China, Africa, Eastern Europe, USA , England that come to Scotland to study, not all depart but some do ,or some are forced to leave after a number of years.

St Andrews University is awash with people from everywhere, I think slightly less than 50% come from Scotland. These people far from being asked to leave ought to be encouraged to stay, they bring diversity and intelligence and drive.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
16th Sep 2014 16:21

Sorry if I offended.

sarah douglas wrote:

Hi Shirley

I am still undecided because they keep changing the goal posts everyday.  Originally it was a yes or no.   I can promise you that most Scots are thinking about the effect on our friends in England every conversation I have had with Taxi drivers and general public bring this up. 

I will be honest I will not be voting on any loyalty to Scotland.   My views are that I want a Powerhouse city in North of the UK and for the UK policies to move away from London central based.  I would like it to be Newcastle and it would be central for Scotland as well by public transport.

I personally do not think we are any more badly treated then the North East or the South West.  However Alex Salmond has shouted for Scotland and The North of England needs someone to shout for them loud and clear. 

Yes I believe that politics need to change for the whole of the UK.   I am very passionate about this topic and I and many others I know, are using this opportunity to make Westminster Politicians sweat.  They have being sitting on their arses to long and living off the taxpayers money on expenses with out any regard for parts of the UK that are struggling.

I believe if anything this referendum has highlighted how the Westminster Government treat the rest of the UK and it is about time they woke up and smelt the coffee.   The 3 amigos are only up to save the jobs.  I know they do not represent the average UK Individual.  But it is about time they found out that UK is a big group of Islands and not just London.    I don, t want thousands of youngsters leaving Scotland every year or the rest of UK suffering to due to policies made to suit Westminster

 

My apologies DKL but I felt you trying dilute the comment I was making.  I am sorry if I offended though.   However I said I was undecided I never said which way I intend to vote. 

To answer your question and what I believe is not being shown in the media is  the following.   I believe their is 3 campaigns at the minute , the No, the Yes and middle who want a fairer UK.   The only time we have seen any of Politicians was when the yes campaign was in in lead.    Their are many people like myself who took to the streets to give the politicians an hear full.   The only reason they came was because they feared their jobs.   Well that is not good enough I left my office that day and waited for the Labour train to tell them what I thought of their campaign, and why so many feel engaged again. I told them how I felt about the UK and the way they should be looking after all the UK.  All Mr Haine could say well we are here now. He could not get away from the public fast enough and was very unapproachable he was more interested in his face being on camera.

So at the moment I know loads of people who will use the momentum of the yes campaign at the minute to make them sweat and politicians deserve to sweat after all they all paid enough and that is without their expenses.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2014 17:30

Sarah

sarah douglas wrote:

sarah douglas wrote:

Hi Shirley

I am still undecided because they keep changing the goal posts everyday.  Originally it was a yes or no.   I can promise you that most Scots are thinking about the effect on our friends in England every conversation I have had with Taxi drivers and general public bring this up. 

I will be honest I will not be voting on any loyalty to Scotland.   My views are that I want a Powerhouse city in North of the UK and for the UK policies to move away from London central based.  I would like it to be Newcastle and it would be central for Scotland as well by public transport.

I personally do not think we are any more badly treated then the North East or the South West.  However Alex Salmond has shouted for Scotland and The North of England needs someone to shout for them loud and clear. 

Yes I believe that politics need to change for the whole of the UK.   I am very passionate about this topic and I and many others I know, are using this opportunity to make Westminster Politicians sweat.  They have being sitting on their arses to long and living off the taxpayers money on expenses with out any regard for parts of the UK that are struggling.

I believe if anything this referendum has highlighted how the Westminster Government treat the rest of the UK and it is about time they woke up and smelt the coffee.   The 3 amigos are only up to save the jobs.  I know they do not represent the average UK Individual.  But it is about time they found out that UK is a big group of Islands and not just London.    I don, t want thousands of youngsters leaving Scotland every year or the rest of UK suffering to due to policies made to suit Westminster

 

My apologies DKL but I felt you trying dilute the comment I was making.  I am sorry if I offended though.   However I said I was undecided I never said which way I intend to vote. 

To answer your question and what I believe is not being shown in the media is  the following.   I believe their is 3 campaigns at the minute , the No, the Yes and middle who want a fairer UK.   The only time we have seen any of Politicians was when the yes campaign was in in lead.    Their are many people like myself who took to the streets to give the politicians an hear full.   The only reason they came was because they feared their jobs.   Well that is not good enough I left my office that day and waited for the Labour train to tell them what I thought of their campaign and why so many feel engaged again and how I felt about the UK and the way they should be looking after all the UK.  All Mr Haine could say well we are here now he could not get away from the public fast enough and was very unapproachable he was more interested in his face being on camera.   

 

My apologies DKL but I felt you trying dilute the comment I was making.  I am sorry if I offended though.   However I said I was undecided I never said which way I intend to vote. 

To answer your question and what I believe is not being shown in the media is  the following.   I believe their is 3 campaigns at the minute , the No, the Yes and middle who want a fairer UK.   The only time we have seen any of Politicians was when the yes campaign was in in lead.    Their are many people like myself who took to the streets to give the politicians an hear full.   The only reason they came was because they feared their jobs.   Well that is not good enough I left my office that day and waited for the Labour train to tell them what I thought of their campaign, and why so many feel engaged again and how I felt about the UK and the way they should be looking after all the UK.  All Mr Haine could say well we are here now he could not get away form the public fast enough and was very unapproachable he was more interested in his face being on camera.

So at the moment I know loads of people who will use the momentum of the yes campaign at the minute to make them sweat and politicians deserve to sweat after all they all paid enough and that is without their expenses.

 

Fully noted and accepted, I did not wish in any way to lessen what you said, if I did, or appeared to, my apologies.

Very few people argue against the point that society can often be unfair, and those who land at the bottom often do not have an easy path to a more comfortable life.

I appreciate a large number of people are getting their own back, the catch with that can however be you do more damage to yourself that those you wish to punish.

Cameron, Milliband, Clegg- they do all know where their next meal is coming from but I also believe they do really care, not all for the same reasons.

If all Cameron was interested in was his party, the Conservatives would have cast Scotland into the wilderness a long time ago, they know Scotland adds little to their electoral chances, but they hang in as the Conservative and Unionist Party. Labour do have a vested interest in the Union re Westminster seats, but I do not think that is their only motive, a large part of the welfare state we now have came from that party and a lot of Labour ideas came out of Scotland; it is their heritage. The Liberal Democrats I have difficulty justifying , at one time I thought they offered something now I am not so sure.

I do not fully believe they do not care I just think they did not show that care very well; you have to remember with Cameron he will have been advised to stay away, to some parts of Scotland a blue flag to a bull, so as the purpose of Better Together was to keep the UK intact, his absence can be explained by the thought that his presence would do more harm than good. A lot of protest against him is playing the person not the ball.

So, when the shouting at the politicians etc settles, it all boils down to whether a far more left oriented independent Scotland can deliver better, more efficiently a fairer society. Within limits whilst there are some things that can be done by message/mood, others need money. Usually a lot of money. 

Now I could quote the oil taxes of £10 billion against the UK total revenues of £648 billion and point out that in the scheme of things they are really not that significant, I could also quote you the White Paper budget figures on revenue and expenditure, but this is possibly counter productive.

So what I would say is :

1. Austerity is not solely the fault of any one political party/ nor is it just the fault of the bankers, everyone who over extended their own borrowings up to 2008 contributed to the problem.

2. The current government got passed a dud hand to play re the deficit when they stepped in the door,  they have made mistakes, but things in Scotland do appear to be slowly improving. Nobody can really tell whether different choices would have made much difference.

3. For all the cries of how bad things are they are much much worse in some other countries, little consolation but true.

4. If Scotland is such a latent powerhouse of enterprise ,as has been suggested, why has Holyrood  not managed to improve matters, or is it all the positives are from Holyrood all the negatives the fault of Westminster?

5. The rhetoric from YES re large business entities is really badly judged, everything heading South may be a coercion for a particular vote but it may also be the truth, or as usual with these sorts of things a mix. Banks etc provide employment, they have a fair bit of discretion where they locate call centres/ treasury functions etc, the visible face is the high street branch for most people but there is far more to them than that;even if only a quarter of the foretold doom takes place, will independence really change that much; in the main same party hacks singing the tunes of their parties

6. As you are from Ireland maybe not on point for you, but I do not want to lose my connection with the UK as a whole, the fact that my Father was English, moving here when he was about four, my Mother's family appearing to have been Scottish back to  the 1750s  at least (the family tree stops, we cannot find any further back) Why do we need relabelled, what does it really achieve?

7.  If we are as prosperous as is told, why do we begrudge sharing with parts of the UK which are less well served? The Scots have the mean stereotype appended, but everyone knows they are not. Everyone chips in a bit to the UK; music, art, literature, fairness, justice, money; can we not continue like a family, yes there are arguments, but a permanent split is horrible.

 

 

Thanks (1)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
16th Sep 2014 15:01

DJKL don,t twist my words

Hi

If you know anything about me you would know I am Irish.   I am not talking about leaving to see the world of course they should.    What I disagree about is people leaving to get employment and feeling they had to leave.  Both my husband and myself left our countries and our now in Scotland.

I left Ireland because I wanted to see the world as did many of my friends but I know many in Ireland and Northern left because they had to.

If you think it is okay for parts of the UK like the North East where youngsters are also leaving in their droves because they have to is okay well that is fine.   Well I don,t and it is not okay for regions to suffer a brain drain because of no jobs.  I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.    So I will use this referendum to make my views heard.  I had a lovely chat in Glasgow with the spectator editor who listened and was actually interested and listen to peoples views.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By J_G_W
16th Sep 2014 15:01

Completely agree.

sarah douglas wrote:

If you think it is okay for parts of the UK like the North East where youngsters are also leaving in their droves is okay well that is fine.   Well I don,t and it is not okay for regions to suffer a brain drain because of no jobs.  I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.  

Agreed. 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By ShirleyM
16th Sep 2014 15:20

I applaud you, Sarah

sarah douglas wrote:

.......    I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.     ........

I think few people would disagree with you. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to markjp:
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 15:25

Agree

ShirleyM wrote:

sarah douglas wrote:

.......    I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.     ........

I think few people would disagree with you. 

Couldn't agree more.  But to state the obvious, all those who have a vote on Thursday will have to vote No if they want to help create the better and fairer UK, or to benefit from it when it comes, or else they will be on the outside looking in.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Sep 2014 15:24

And read mine

sarah douglas wrote:

Hi

If you know anything about me you would know I am Irish.   I am not talking about leaving to see the world of course they should.    What I disagree about is people leaving to get employment and feeling they had to leave.  Both my husband and myself left our countries and our now in Scotland.

I left Ireland because I wanted to see the world as did many of my friends but I know many in Ireland and Northern left because they had to.

If you think it is okay for parts of the UK like the North East where youngsters are also leaving in their droves because they have to is okay well that is fine.   Well I don,t and it is not okay for regions to suffer a brain drain because of no jobs.  I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.    So I will use this referendum to make my views heard.  I had a lovely chat in Glasgow with the spectator editor who listened and was actually interested and listen to peoples views.

I specifically said in my post that I didn't want youngsters to have to leave so please, don't twist my words. Scotland is not a desert for work, young people do find work here and well paid work sometimes. Not all, but some.

The determinant appears to be what they have achieved in education, those with the right skills are wanted. I have a son who graduated in May who is now employed at a very decent starting salary (pension scheme etc etc) in Edinburgh, his flatmate from university is the same (He comes from England but has stayed here post graduation)

Both are now software engineers/ developers, my son working for a large company with its ultimate HQ in the USA.

So, how does a YES vote change anything re education?

The SNP pledge on university fees went hand in hand with reducing the scope of the colleges which offered a slightly more technical education. Education has been within the control of Holyrood since it was formed. What we get is them playing with it in the schools rather than addressing why our children do not pass multiple Highers and open the door on the worlds opportunities.

And before you ask my children progressed fine through the state system and both have ended up at really good universities because they worked and they were told by their parents, over and over, that education was the difference between a comfortable life and a difficult life.

So if a finger needs pointed re opportunities, forget the teachers, they teach when they are actually allowed to teach, and point it at the politicians who keep playing at the edges and those parents who do not instill in their children the necessity for further education.

It is a must in a Western democracy that cannot compete with labour rates from the rest of the world, independence will not change anything without a change in the mindset of some of the population.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to WhichTyler:
avatar
By Kirkers
17th Sep 2014 09:27

Sort of agree.

DJKL wrote:

sarah douglas wrote:

Hi

If you know anything about me you would know I am Irish.   I am not talking about leaving to see the world of course they should.    What I disagree about is people leaving to get employment and feeling they had to leave.  Both my husband and myself left our countries and our now in Scotland.

I left Ireland because I wanted to see the world as did many of my friends but I know many in Ireland and Northern left because they had to.

If you think it is okay for parts of the UK like the North East where youngsters are also leaving in their droves because they have to is okay well that is fine.   Well I don,t and it is not okay for regions to suffer a brain drain because of no jobs.  I want a different UK and fairer UK for all its citzens.   The status quo is not an option for me.   I am for the UK to trash out a fairer UK for all.    So I will use this referendum to make my views heard.  I had a lovely chat in Glasgow with the spectator editor who listened and was actually interested and listen to peoples views.

I specifically said in my post that I didn't want youngsters to have to leave so please, don't twist my words. Scotland is not a desert for work, young people do find work here and well paid work sometimes. Not all, but some.

The determinant appears to be what they have achieved in education, those with the right skills are wanted. I have a son who graduated in May who is now employed at a very decent starting salary (pension scheme etc etc) in Edinburgh, his flatmate from university is the same (He comes from England but has stayed here post graduation)

Both are now software engineers/ developers, my son working for a large company with its ultimate HQ in the USA.

So, how does a YES vote change anything re education?

The SNP pledge on university fees went hand in hand with reducing the scope of the colleges which offered a slightly more technical education. Education has been within the control of Holyrood since it was formed. What we get is them playing with it in the schools rather than addressing why our children do not pass multiple Highers and open the door on the worlds opportunities.

And before you ask my children progressed fine through the state system and both have ended up at really good universities because they worked and they were told by their parents, over and over, that education was the difference between a comfortable life and a difficult life.

So if a finger needs pointed re opportunities, forget the teachers, they teach when they are actually allowed to teach, and point it at the politicians who keep playing at the edges and those parents who do not instill in their children the necessity for further education.

It is a must in a Western democracy that cannot compete with labour rates from the rest of the world, independence will not change anything without a change in the mindset of some of the population.

 

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't feel we should be pointing fingers at parents who do not instil the necessity for further education at all.

Higher education is not a necessity. I left school and felt that university wasn't for me. Instead, I found a placement at a local practice and go to work every day. 

I've got friends who have just left university and many of them are signing on at the job centre because a) there are so many graduates completing degrees such as media, politics, criminology etc that are now considered 'fashionable' degrees - those that don't open many doors and that are far too specialist to really help with many other careers. And b) they have no experience in their chosen field. 

If you want to be a teacher, by all means, or an engineer, or anything technical but I don't think we should be pressuring kids with higher education. I think it instils false hope that you get a degree and life is always rosy at the end of it. Some kids just aren't academically minded like that. We look at police man, teaching assistants, QBE accountants and do not automatically assume they will have a 'difficult life.' On the contrary I look at my friends and wonder if they've just wasted 3 years at university, come out with a load of debt because they're now waitressing or working minimum wage low skilled jobs.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By User deleted
17th Sep 2014 10:40

Totally agree ...

Kirkers wrote:

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't feel we should be pointing fingers at parents who do not instil the necessity for further education at all.

Higher education is not a necessity. I left school and felt that university wasn't for me. Instead, I found a placement at a local practice and go to work every day. 

I've got friends who have just left university and many of them are signing on at the job centre because a) there are so many graduates completing degrees such as media, politics, criminology etc that are now considered 'fashionable' degrees - those that don't open many doors and that are far too specialist to really help with many other careers. And b) they have no experience in their chosen field. 

If you want to be a teacher, by all means, or an engineer, or anything technical but I don't think we should be pressuring kids with higher education. I think it instils false hope that you get a degree and life is always rosy at the end of it. Some kids just aren't academically minded like that. We look at police man, teaching assistants, QBE accountants and do not automatically assume they will have a 'difficult life.' On the contrary I look at my friends and wonder if they've just wasted 3 years at university, come out with a load of debt because they're now waitressing or working minimum wage low skilled jobs.

... the only reason for the relentless pressure to put young adults in further education is that it keeps them off the unemployment figures.

We need trades and practical people more than weneed academics, working with your hands still has a stigma in many sections of society.

I have just been watching "The Unteachables" with teachet Phil Beadle working with "problem" teenagers. He made a comment which is exactly how I feel, the gist was:

"You can have a child that fails every exam they sit, but they can strip down and rebuild a car engine perfectly - can you say that child is stupid?"

We need more teachers like Phil, although I think we have plenty, we just need an establishment that supports them!

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
17th Sep 2014 11:02

Working in practice and education

Kirkers wrote:

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't feel we should be pointing fingers at parents who do not instil the necessity for further education at all.

Higher education is not a necessity. I left school and felt that university wasn't for me. Instead, I found a placement at a local practice and go to work every day. 

I've got friends who have just left university and many of them are signing on at the job centre because a) there are so many graduates completing degrees such as media, politics, criminology etc that are now considered 'fashionable' degrees - those that don't open many doors and that are far too specialist to really help with many other careers. And b) they have no experience in their chosen field. 

If you want to be a teacher, by all means, or an engineer, or anything technical but I don't think we should be pressuring kids with higher education. I think it instils false hope that you get a degree and life is always rosy at the end of it. Some kids just aren't academically minded like that. We look at police man, teaching assistants, QBE accountants and do not automatically assume they will have a 'difficult life.' On the contrary I look at my friends and wonder if they've just wasted 3 years at university, come out with a load of debt because they're now waitressing or working minimum wage low skilled jobs.

 

If you are working in practice are you not taking any courses?  

My comments covered all further education, not just university. I agree university is not for everyone and believe strongly that for an investment of the scale now needed careful choice of subject and institution is essential. The extension of university places without stronger careers guidance is near mis-selling. When I went to Edinburgh in the early 1980's only about 10% of school leavers went to University, accordingly the degree itself was a pretty strong means to differentiate yourself in the job market- having said that post university I pulled pints for fifteen months until going back to take a more vocational postgraduate qualification in accountancy-the early 1980's were not a good time for the economy.

The one thing I have found with accountancy (I assume it is an accountancy practice) is one never stops learning. I find my higher education early in life greatly assists; the skills acquired make me better able to teach myself today. My learning today has limited formality  but it is still education, in the main self education.

In my opinion schools in themselves do not fully teach how to learn, they have a tendency to feed the children what they need to pass the exams, but poorly equip them with study skills/ research skills; this is why the universities run courses in these areas for new students. I am no expert on education, my views are formed from two children progressing through education and my wife working in the education sector.

If university education is not the route more vocational education may be more appropriate, one of my daughter's close friends always struggled at school, she worked and by the end of sixth year have a couple of Highers. She then took an HNC in business/administration and got a position as an assistant / typist with a firm of solicitors aged nineteen, At twenty, going on twenty one, she is being placed on courses by her employer and may in the fullness of time become a para-legal. What she will not do is cease to have further education.

Maybe the mistake your graduate friends are making is they do not see that the degree is just the start, they need to keep learning and will need to continue so doing throughout their working life.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Kirkers
17th Sep 2014 11:45

Maybe so

DJKL wrote:

Kirkers wrote:

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't feel we should be pointing fingers at parents who do not instil the necessity for further education at all.

Higher education is not a necessity. I left school and felt that university wasn't for me. Instead, I found a placement at a local practice and go to work every day. 

I've got friends who have just left university and many of them are signing on at the job centre because a) there are so many graduates completing degrees such as media, politics, criminology etc that are now considered 'fashionable' degrees - those that don't open many doors and that are far too specialist to really help with many other careers. And b) they have no experience in their chosen field. 

If you want to be a teacher, by all means, or an engineer, or anything technical but I don't think we should be pressuring kids with higher education. I think it instils false hope that you get a degree and life is always rosy at the end of it. Some kids just aren't academically minded like that. We look at police man, teaching assistants, QBE accountants and do not automatically assume they will have a 'difficult life.' On the contrary I look at my friends and wonder if they've just wasted 3 years at university, come out with a load of debt because they're now waitressing or working minimum wage low skilled jobs.

 

If you are working in practice are you not taking any courses?  

My comments covered all further education, not just university. I agree university is not for everyone and believe strongly that for an investment of the scale now needed careful choice of subject and institution is essential. The extension of university places without stronger careers guidance is near mis-selling. When I went to Edinburgh in the early 1980's only about 10% of school leavers went to University, accordingly the degree itself was a pretty strong means to differentiate yourself in the job market- having said that post university I pulled pints for fifteen months until going back to take a more vocational postgraduate qualification in accountancy-the early 1980's were not a good time for the economy.

The one thing I have found with accountancy (I assume it is an accountancy practice) is one never stops learning. I find my higher education early in life greatly assists; the skills acquired make me better able to teach myself today. My learning today has limited formality  but it is still education, in the main self education.

In my opinion schools in themselves do not fully teach how to learn, they have a tendency to feed the children what they need to pass the exams, but poorly equip them with study skills/ research skills; this is why the universities run courses in these areas for new students. I am no expert on education, my views are formed from two children progressing through education and my wife working in the education sector.

If university education is not the route more vocational education may be more appropriate, one of my daughter's close friends always struggled at school, she worked and by the end of sixth year have a couple of Highers. She then took an HNC in business/administration and got a position as an assistant / typist with a firm of solicitors aged nineteen, At twenty, going on twenty one, she is being placed on courses by her employer and may in the fullness of time become a para-legal. What she will not do is cease to have further education.

Maybe the mistake your graduate friends are making is they do not see that the degree is just the start, they need to keep learning and will need to continue so doing throughout their working life.

Yes I am studying, but that was my choice, not one expected of me just because of the role I'm in. There would be no comeback on me if I said I just wanted to work for the experience. (Which I think is perfectly acceptable). I've met many great accountants who came out of school 40 years ago, didn't want to do any exams but are amongst some of the smartest people I know. Sometimes experience trumps grades on paper.

Alternatively we've had graduates in accountancy that really struggle to adapt to the work. Its so different to they way uni is taught that their book learning has been a wasted experience.

Perhaps my friends don't see that their degrees are just the start for them - but when you've spent time and money doing a degree and you come out and are unable to find a job that would utilise those skills it seems wasted. It's been in the news far too much that we're offering 'joke' degrees nowadays just to keep the unemployment figures down. I am an advocate of higher education but only if its a degree worth doing. How many people take a politics degree and end up being politicians? Or a journalism degree and aren't journalists? I spoke to a lecturer not long ago about that and he emphasised that any journalist should ideally be taking English Language at degree level. If that's the case why are we offering journalism?

Out of my class of 30 or so people maybe only 3 or 4 of us decided against university or higher education. I understand that's the norm nowadays. So say 20-25 per class go to university do people really think there's going to be appropriate jobs out there afterwards for the vast majority of my generation? Its lowering the value of having a degree in the first place.

What we're missing is the teachers/parents pushing those kids who maybe aren't destined to be a teacher, scientist, doctors etc to pursue something they're good at in the work environment, perhaps as an apprentice. We need construction workers, mechanics, police men/women, pilots, hairdressers etc just as much as we need graduates. 

University isn't what it used to be. My parents both said only a small percentage used to go on to university. It used to be 'prestigous.' Amongst my generation it seems a lot of kids go to uni because they don't know what career they want yet, or that they want to live the student/freshers life, parties, drink etc. 

I remember my teacher telling me it would be a mistake not to go to uni. I look at my friends now who've come out with £40/50k worth of debt, maybe not as many career options as they'd thought and they're struggling to get a job because they've got no relevant experience. I look at myself and think that although I don't earn a lot at the minute I've got 3 years more work experience than them. I get paid to work and if I left I'd have the experience to move onto something else. They haven't. 

There seems to be a stigma attached to people who don't go to university (or college for that matter) but there really shouldn't be. Parents and teachers shouldn't be instilling that higher education is the be all and end all and that you'll struggle if you don't go. We should be teaching that not all kids are made for university but that its okay if you don't go - some are better in vocational training or simply finding a job and working your way up. 

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to [email protected]:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
17th Sep 2014 12:39

I don't disagree with a fair bit of what you say

Kirkers wrote:

DJKL wrote:

Kirkers wrote:

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I don't feel we should be pointing fingers at parents who do not instil the necessity for further education at all.

Higher education is not a necessity. I left school and felt that university wasn't for me. Instead, I found a placement at a local practice and go to work every day. 

I've got friends who have just left university and many of them are signing on at the job centre because a) there are so many graduates completing degrees such as media, politics, criminology etc that are now considered 'fashionable' degrees - those that don't open many doors and that are far too specialist to really help with many other careers. And b) they have no experience in their chosen field. 

If you want to be a teacher, by all means, or an engineer, or anything technical but I don't think we should be pressuring kids with higher education. I think it instils false hope that you get a degree and life is always rosy at the end of it. Some kids just aren't academically minded like that. We look at police man, teaching assistants, QBE accountants and do not automatically assume they will have a 'difficult life.' On the contrary I look at my friends and wonder if they've just wasted 3 years at university, come out with a load of debt because they're now waitressing or working minimum wage low skilled jobs.

 

If you are working in practice are you not taking any courses?  

My comments covered all further education, not just university. I agree university is not for everyone and believe strongly that for an investment of the scale now needed careful choice of subject and institution is essential. The extension of university places without stronger careers guidance is near mis-selling. When I went to Edinburgh in the early 1980's only about 10% of school leavers went to University, accordingly the degree itself was a pretty strong means to differentiate yourself in the job market- having said that post university I pulled pints for fifteen months until going back to take a more vocational postgraduate qualification in accountancy-the early 1980's were not a good time for the economy.

The one thing I have found with accountancy (I assume it is an accountancy practice) is one never stops learning. I find my higher education early in life greatly assists; the skills acquired make me better able to teach myself today. My learning today has limited formality  but it is still education, in the main self education.

In my opinion schools in themselves do not fully teach how to learn, they have a tendency to feed the children what they need to pass the exams, but poorly equip them with study skills/ research skills; this is why the universities run courses in these areas for new students. I am no expert on education, my views are formed from two children progressing through education and my wife working in the education sector.

If university education is not the route more vocational education may be more appropriate, one of my daughter's close friends always struggled at school, she worked and by the end of sixth year have a couple of Highers. She then took an HNC in business/administration and got a position as an assistant / typist with a firm of solicitors aged nineteen, At twenty, going on twenty one, she is being placed on courses by her employer and may in the fullness of time become a para-legal. What she will not do is cease to have further education.

Maybe the mistake your graduate friends are making is they do not see that the degree is just the start, they need to keep learning and will need to continue so doing throughout their working life.

Yes I am studying, but that was my choice, not one expected of me just because of the role I'm in. There would be no comeback on me if I said I just wanted to work for the experience. (Which I think is perfectly acceptable). I've met many great accountants who came out of school 40 years ago, didn't want to do any exams but are amongst some of the smartest people I know. Sometimes experience trumps grades on paper.

Alternatively we've had graduates in accountancy that really struggle to adapt to the work. Its so different to they way uni is taught that their book learning has been a wasted experience.

Perhaps my friends don't see that their degrees are just the start for them - but when you've spent time and money doing a degree and you come out and are unable to find a job that would utilise those skills it seems wasted. It's been in the news far too much that we're offering 'joke' degrees nowadays just to keep the unemployment figures down. I am an advocate of higher education but only if its a degree worth doing. How many people take a politics degree and end up being politicians? Or a journalism degree and aren't journalists? I spoke to a lecturer not long ago about that and he emphasised that any journalist should ideally be taking English Language at degree level. If that's the case why are we offering journalism?

Out of my class of 30 or so people maybe only 3 or 4 of us decided against university or higher education. I understand that's the norm nowadays. So say 20-25 per class go to university do people really think there's going to be appropriate jobs out there afterwards for the vast majority of my generation? Its lowering the value of having a degree in the first place.

What we're missing is the teachers/parents pushing those kids who maybe aren't destined to be a teacher, scientist, doctors etc to pursue something they're good at in the work environment, perhaps as an apprentice. We need construction workers, mechanics, police men/women, pilots, hairdressers etc just as much as we need graduates. 

University isn't what it used to be. My parents both said only a small percentage used to go on to university. It used to be 'prestigous.' Amongst my generation it seems a lot of kids go to uni because they don't know what career they want yet, or that they want to live the student/freshers life, parties, drink etc. 

I remember my teacher telling me it would be a mistake not to go to uni. I look at my friends now who've come out with £40/50k worth of debt, maybe not as many career options as they'd thought and they're struggling to get a job because they've got no relevant experience. I look at myself and think that although I don't earn a lot at the minute I've got 3 years more work experience than them. I get paid to work and if I left I'd have the experience to move onto something else. They haven't. 

There seems to be a stigma attached to people who don't go to university (or college for that matter) but there really shouldn't be. Parents and teachers shouldn't be instilling that higher education is the be all and end all and that you'll struggle if you don't go. We should be teaching that not all kids are made for university but that its okay if you don't go - some are better in vocational training or simply finding a job and working your way up. 

 

I don't disagree with a fair bit of what you say, however my original point was that to achieve a fairer society, education ,and ensuring it is valued ,is probably as important as throwing money at social issues. I did not concentrate on university education to the exclusion of other learning.

Irrespective of individuals, the debt issue for further education etc, there are a significant number of both school leavers and those who left school  in say the last 20 years who have limited school qualifications, limited vocational qualifications and limited skills/experience. The choices they made or the direction they took at school and post school have a very significant correlation with their prosperity in later life/ forecast prosperity.

The responsibility rests not just with teachers, they are not someone's parents, the responsibility firmly rests with the individual and his/her though process towards education which to a large degree will be instilled by his/her parents. The state's role in this is to make education available, whether school, college, university.

I fully agree vocational learning has been neglected and  the finger of blame points at the doctrines of all parties e.g the comprehensive system carrying pupils into types of learning that do not suit. ( I have some ideas to improve matters like grouping schools in an area which each concentrate on different types of learning outcomes with all pupils taking maths and english and giving the ability to take courses/subjects within any part of the school group- trying to remove the old 11 plus stigma put allowing people to follow the type of education that suits them)

This has to a degree become a class thing, and often a post code lottery, which is a shame. In the past children from working class families appear to have had a more defined route onward and upwards, there does appear to have been a real view that education was the way to a better life. Teachers can only teach if they have control of a classroom, if all parents valued education control issues would not be a problem, all children would benefit. We all watch the documentaries re schools, of course they show the dramatic, but there was no behaviour like that in any school I attended in the 1960s and 1970s. My behaviour was not influenced that much by the school and its sanctions it was more influenced by how my parents would have reacted if the school had got in touch because of my behaviour.

As a real example of how education can advance lives, my Grandfather left school at 14 in 1904, worked as a bakers assistant, and then in circa 1906 joined the army as a private. He got most of his education from the army and over time became a Warrant officer 1st class, in 1939 he was made commissioned captain and by 1945 was Major ( Acting Lt Colonel). Along the way he picked up an MBE. 

The education he received in the services imparted a strong belief in education which got passed to his children, they all progressed into higher education my father winning bursaries to the Royal High in Edinburgh and then Oxford University. He ended up the senior partner of an Edinburgh law firm. This striving for education then was instilled in myself and my sisters and now to our children.

The labour movement in Britain pushed and encouraged education, libraries and facilities were available; a fair number of the previous crop of Labour MPs  gained their education this way. For those without inherited wealth it was the way to progress in life.

Technology and differential labour rates throughout the world will mean that over a working life most people need to adapt and keep learning to stay in  reasonably remunerative employment, not being equipped to keep learning/ not seeing the value of learning and education will possibly be the biggest mistake a great number of people make.

I will not bore you any further with my rants re education,  or potted family histories, or discuissions about education and the Labour movement,but if a fairer society is to be achieved it is, to me, the basic building block on which all else will stand or fall. So in the context of Scotland's independence,  the  SNP on their own, and in coalition with others ,have been in  control of Holyrood and have failed to achieve any more equality of opportunity via education; why is it believed post independence they can do any better?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Sandnickel
17th Sep 2014 11:12

Kirkers - I Agree

Well said - 100% spot on.

Thanks (1)
pic
By jndavs
16th Sep 2014 15:45

In the event of a yes vote...

Do we rid Parliament of all foreigners so that we are ruled by a few Eton educated thoroughly English multi-millionaire MPs, just like our illustrious leader:

"David Cameron is the younger son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron. His father, Ian, was born at Blairmore House, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire".

Aberdeenshire, isn't that.... oh b@*7%$.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Sep 2014 15:39

@ Sarah ...

... I totally agree, if any good is to come out of this referendum I am hoping it is a shift of power back to the people, of making the state the servant of its people again and not their master.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Lancaster
16th Sep 2014 16:24

Stop the subsidy.

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Manchester_man:
By ShirleyM
16th Sep 2014 16:36

It won't happen

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

The three party leaders (especially Cameron) are so worried about the UK breaking up 'on their watch' that they'll sell their granny to try and prevent it! 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By PracticePartner
16th Sep 2014 17:13

Crossed fingers

ShirleyM wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

The three party leaders (especially Cameron) are so worried about the UK breaking up 'on their watch' that they'll sell their granny to try and prevent it! 

Won't they just promise the earth then post (No) vote renege on their promises? Or more likely, a new Westminster government will renege on the promises of the old one.

Thanks (0)
Replying to nick farrow:
By Ruddles
16th Sep 2014 18:08

Promises

PracticePartner wrote:

Won't they just promise the earth then post (No) vote renege on their promises? Or more likely, a new Westminster government will renege on the promises of the old one.

The Glasgow Herald got it spot on today - having previously been Yes, they've now changed to No, but with a very clear message that if the extra powers etc promised are not delivered then we WILL find ourselves back here before you know it, a Westminster-backed campaign would lose, and they would deserve to lose. I cannot find fault with that statement.

The difference this time round is that in 1979 the promises were made by a Labour Party that failed to prevent 18 years of Conservative rule. This time the promises have been made by all 3 leaders, so no party can use the excuse of "that was them that said it, not me, guv"

Thanks (1)
Replying to Manchester_man:
avatar
By J_G_W
16th Sep 2014 16:41

aw come on

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
pic
By jndavs
16th Sep 2014 16:59

Really?

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

Most sources I have seen indicate that Scotland gets a net subsidy, for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990 where do your figures come from?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By mrme89
16th Sep 2014 17:07

.

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

You keep quoting figures and making statements without any support.

Scottish spend per head for 12/13 was £12,265. The revenue per head including North Sea oil revenue was £10,002 per head.  You don't have to be an accountant to work out that this is a deficit.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06625.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=l14YVICcDM7daKz5gMgM&ved=0CC0QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHCKKst2GTLjOi0BSSSNr9fRoxDLw

Thanks (0)
Replying to JD:
avatar
By J_G_W
17th Sep 2014 09:48

You correcting yourself in your own argument.

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

You keep quoting figures and making statements without any support.

Scottish spend per head for 12/13 was £12,265. The revenue per head including North Sea oil revenue was £10,002 per head.  You don't have to be an accountant to work out that this is a deficit.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06625.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=l14YVICcDM7daKz5gMgM&ved=0CC0QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHCKKst2GTLjOi0BSSSNr9fRoxDLw

 

Deficit. i.e. Borrowed money. Not English money. Not Welsh money. Not Irish. Borrowed.

Thanks (0)
Replying to gainsborough:
By mrme89
17th Sep 2014 10:06

.

J_G_W wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

You keep quoting figures and making statements without any support.

Scottish spend per head for 12/13 was £12,265. The revenue per head including North Sea oil revenue was £10,002 per head.  You don't have to be an accountant to work out that this is a deficit.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06625.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=l14YVICcDM7daKz5gMgM&ved=0CC0QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHCKKst2GTLjOi0BSSSNr9fRoxDLw

 

Deficit. i.e. Borrowed money. Not English money. Not Welsh money. Not Irish. Borrowed.

 

Lets go with what yoi say then ... 'borrowed money'.

If it's borrowed money, and the borrowed money has been spent on Scotland, why is Scotland against taking a share of this debt?

Thanks (3)
Replying to Manchester_man:
avatar
By J_G_W
17th Sep 2014 12:09

You would need to ask SNP.

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

You keep quoting figures and making statements without any support.

Scottish spend per head for 12/13 was £12,265. The revenue per head including North Sea oil revenue was £10,002 per head.  You don't have to be an accountant to work out that this is a deficit.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06625.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=l14YVICcDM7daKz5gMgM&ved=0CC0QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHCKKst2GTLjOi0BSSSNr9fRoxDLw

 

Deficit. i.e. Borrowed money. Not English money. Not Welsh money. Not Irish. Borrowed.

 

Lets go with what yoi say then ... 'borrowed money'.

If it's borrowed money, and the borrowed money has been spent on Scotland, why is Scotland against taking a share of this debt?

Political posturing I would suggest. And it isn't 'Scotland', its the SNP. You would need to ask them.

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By andy.partridge
17th Sep 2014 12:20

Support

J_G_W wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

Lancaster wrote:

Alex Salmond and the "yes" campaign repeatedly claim that Scotland is rich. So, in the event of a "no" vote, we should immediately stop the £1200 per head subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the rest of the UK taxpayers. 

Here we go again. Do some people only read the Daily Mail?

Scotland pays taxes to Westminster. Westminster pays money back through the Barnett formula. 

The money Scotland gets isn't money 'from the rest of the UK taxpayers'. Its their money, that's went to Westminster as taxes and is coming back again. They pay in roughly £500 more in taxes down to Westminster than what comes back.

This point has been made time and time again by numerous sources. It amazes me, that there are still people that believe Scotland is somehow subsidised by them.

 

You keep quoting figures and making statements without any support.

Scottish spend per head for 12/13 was £12,265. The revenue per head including North Sea oil revenue was £10,002 per head.  You don't have to be an accountant to work out that this is a deficit.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06625.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=l14YVICcDM7daKz5gMgM&ved=0CC0QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHCKKst2GTLjOi0BSSSNr9fRoxDLw

 

Deficit. i.e. Borrowed money. Not English money. Not Welsh money. Not Irish. Borrowed.

 

Lets go with what yoi say then ... 'borrowed money'.

If it's borrowed money, and the borrowed money has been spent on Scotland, why is Scotland against taking a share of this debt?

Political posturing I would suggest. And it isn't 'Scotland', its the SNP. You would need to ask them.

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

So in the event of a 'Yes', not only does iScotland get independence, it expects rUK to facilitate this to the extent that rUK tax payers are disadvantaged or obliged to take otherwise unnecessary financial risks. I would hope rUK has enough backbone to prevent the tail wagging the dog. 
Thanks (2)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By daveforbes
17th Sep 2014 12:51

democracy

J_G_W wrote:

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

I was just reading that polling indicates currently 80% of the remaining UK population is against currency union. Although Westminster has a history of ignoring the voting public, I think there will probably be a referendum in the rest of the UK.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Alan Davies
17th Sep 2014 13:17

nonsense

Other than the sky & monster items the rest are fairly predictable outcomes.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By J_G_W
17th Sep 2014 14:01

Possibly, but

daveforbes wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

I was just reading that polling indicates currently 80% of the remaining UK population is against currency union. Although Westminster has a history of ignoring the voting public, I think there will probably be a referendum in the rest of the UK.

 

I wouldn't bet on it. The pound will plummet, the stockmarket will follow, the Bank of England (not Westminster, not us in England or Wales or Ireland) will work to stabilise the currency and FTSE. Scotland has a positive PSNCR, while we don't etc. I would be amazed if a union didn't happen. I believe that after the political posturing that is taking place there will no longer a need to scare people, they'll just need to get on with it. I also happen to believe this would be the best for us as well. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
17th Sep 2014 14:26

Currency Union and my take on the issues

daveforbes wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

I was just reading that polling indicates currently 80% of the remaining UK population is against currency union. Although Westminster has a history of ignoring the voting public, I think there will probably be a referendum in the rest of the UK.

 

If  the subject of Currency Union has been handled a little better by YES then whilst the UK leaders might have been saying No, No, No, the rUK public would I expect , if required later following negotiations,  have possibly accepted it as a solution. I am not saying it would be agreed in negotiations, more, if it had been, rUK public opinion might have been persuaded.

However the No CU no debt argument blew that out of the water, whilst it probably played well to the existing YEs support up here everything I have read online (I am in Scotland so out the loop on rUK) suggests that it now has very little chance of  being able to be sold to rUK. 

To be clear if I was rUK I might have accepted  CU before everything hit the fan , but at a fairly decent coupon to say the least. If I was being asked to underwrite the money issuance and stability of Scottish registered banks I would want a fairly decent levy/ commission to underwrite my risk; in effect BOE writing a very big insurance policy.

Pragmatism possibly would have addressed the issue,  having a very weak economy on your border is not good for rUK, having a different currency is not great either. With no CU and no central bank iScotland cannot hope to have a thriving economy, if  we have no banks of our own then all business and other lending will be cross border; it will be very difficult.

I really think rUk politicians, looking at elections next year and given how this has been handled, will have little ability to convince the rUK population, even if the politicians do think it is in the best interests of rU, to agree; one thing this referendum has shown is that once an idea catches the public imagination it is pretty difficult controlling it.

If CU is not offered/ arranged then I see no other way of having a home based banking sector except by using our own currency or creating our own sterling central bank ( see my earlier post) I do not think we have the funding for the latter where we will have no ability to ratchet up the loan book (Money supply) if sterling lent has to be actual sterling on deposit.i.e no fiat currency.

The only way I see iScotland obtaining sufficient funding to create its own Central Bank with its own currencuy is via something like the issuance of oil bonds. A securitisation in Dollars of  say the tax revenues for the next 20 years would, covering interest and eventual redemption, possibly bring in say at least £60 billion. This, with the £18 billion suggested share of the BOE on an asset split, would possibly give sufficient asset backing for a  smallish central bank. We would of course also need to take on a share of UK assets and debt, share of debt say £125 billion , just over 80% of GDP, per mid point on White Paper estimates; no idea what UK assets may be worth, Treasury accounts are opaque. This then would form the basis of forming a new currency with all the complications of cross border trade with rUK and the erosion of such trade.The consequence is of course that current spending would then need funded purely from other taxes, oil taxes not being available. This would then require either budget cuts or tax increases or incredible efficiency savings.

In short, I am a No voter who does believe independence can work economically in the long term ( I do not agree with it for other non economic reasons) but also recognises that the structural changes required are going to be really painful , very expensive,  I do not believe they will really deliver any economic benefit in the short term (20 years) and I do not believe there is any certainty that the advantage of more local direction of our economy will result in a happier, fairer, affluent economy for my hoped for grandchildren 20 years hence and onwards.

On top of the above and ignoring the economics, I want to remain British, it is who/what I am.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
James Reeves
By James Reeves
17th Sep 2014 13:24

Yep...

J_G_W wrote:

However, Westminster's nonsense about no currency union, banks leaving, shopping increasing dramatically, mortgages going up, houses having thousands knocked off the value, the sky turning green, the Loch Ness monster moving to Lake Windermere etc etc 

..at least 2 of those things are very unlikely...

Thanks (1)
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 16:52

So how much do Scottish taxpayers contribute to defence, foreign aid etc, and where is that in those figures?

Of course Scotland is funded more generously than the rest of the country.  How else can they spend more on universities and prescriptions and the same on everything else?  That's because they have more to spend in total per head isn't it?

Thanks (1)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By J_G_W
16th Sep 2014 17:20

Read it for yourself

johngroganjga wrote:

So how much do Scottish taxpayers contribute to defence, foreign aid etc, and where is that in those figures?

Of course Scotland is funded more generously than the rest of the country.  How else can they spend more on universities and prescriptions and the same on everything else?  That's because they have more to spend in total per head isn't it?

As per GERS, It includes all spending by the Scottish Government, Scottish Local Authorities and the UK Government undertaken on behalf of Scotland, including a share of spending on public services for the benefit of the UK as a whole, such as defence. The public spending share is calculated as per head.   £1,200 per head (its actually closer to £1,400) in Scotland is £6.6 billion. £2.75 billion is absorbed by the remaining UK and paid to England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Your suggestion that the extra money pays for the extra benefits is misleading. First of all, its their money not ours. Secondly, public services cost more in Scotland due to them having a country 2/3rds the size of England with one tenth of the population. The services are spread out and as a result, cost more. Also, Water works are publicly owned in Scotland rather than private which again has a cost.  Lets be honest here. If Scotland was as poor and living on handouts as some in this country have been fooled into believing (and still do even when given the facts) they would have been shouting it from every corner of the country the full campaign, but they haven't, I wonder why that is? 

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 18:05

Extra benefits

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

So how much do Scottish taxpayers contribute to defence, foreign aid etc, and where is that in those figures?

Of course Scotland is funded more generously than the rest of the country.  How else can they spend more on universities and prescriptions and the same on everything else?  That's because they have more to spend in total per head isn't it?

As per GERS, It includes all spending by the Scottish Government, Scottish Local Authorities and the UK Government undertaken on behalf of Scotland, including a share of spending on public services for the benefit of the UK as a whole, such as defence. The public spending share is calculated as per head.   £1,200 per head (its actually closer to £1,400) in Scotland is £6.6 billion. £2.75 billion is absorbed by the remaining UK and paid to England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Your suggestion that the extra money pays for the extra benefits is misleading. First of all, its their money not ours. Secondly, public services cost more in Scotland due to them having a country 2/3rds the size of England with one tenth of the population. The services are spread out and as a result, cost more. Also, Water works are publicly owned in Scotland rather than private which again has a cost.  Lets be honest here. If Scotland was as poor and living on handouts as some in this country have been fooled into believing (and still do even when given the facts) they would have been shouting it from every corner of the country the full campaign, but they haven't, I wonder why that is? 

So if the extra benefits are not paid out of extra money, how are they paid for then?

PS I hasten to add that I do not begrudge Scotland extra money insofar as it covers the extra cost of delivering services up mountains etc.  That is a cost we should all share - even those of us living in lowland conurbations.  Also I have no problem with the Scottish Parliament choosing to cut its cloth differently.  That's the point of devolution.  So if they choose to spend more per head on some services and correspondingly less on others than their London counterparts that is fine by me.  But when I observe repeatedly that they spend more per head on university places (for Scottish students only of course - English and Welsh ones have to pay full whack) and prescriptions, and ask where they are spending less to finance those benefits I get no answer.

Thanks (1)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
17th Sep 2014 08:59

Got a link for that?

J_G_W wrote:
As per GERS, It includes all spending by the Scottish Government, Scottish Local Authorities and the UK Government undertaken on behalf of Scotland, including a share of spending on public services for the benefit of the UK as a whole, such as defence. The public spending share is calculated as per head. £1,200 per head (its actually closer to £1,400) in Scotland is £6.6 billion. £2.75 billion is absorbed by the remaining UK and paid to England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Your suggestion that the extra money pays for the extra benefits is misleading. First of all, its their money not ours. Secondly, public services cost more in Scotland due to them having a country 2/3rds the size of England with one tenth of the population. The services are spread out and as a result, cost more. Also, Water works are publicly owned in Scotland rather than private which again has a cost. Lets be honest here. If Scotland was as poor and living on handouts as some in this country have been fooled into believing (and still do even when given the facts) they would have been shouting it from every corner of the country the full campaign, but they haven't, I wonder why that is?
This is all very fascinating, but once again it is just figures you are spouting without support. If these have a genuine reliable source you should be able to link to it. You have repeatedly failed to do so. I wonder why that is?

Because the last time someone claimed Scotland to be a net contributor to the UK their source, once they provided it after repeated prodding, showed anything but. They had cherry-picked the highest income figure (assuming all oil revenues go to Scotland) and the lowest expenditure figure (only taking in spending specifically on the region, but ignoring that which was spent for the UK as a whole. Is an independent Scotland really going to have no defense spending?) Taking more realistic income/expense figures from the same source showed a deficit. Looking at the fuller text showed oil revenues were expected to drop, so that deficit was only going to get bigger.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By andy.partridge
16th Sep 2014 17:09

Can not win

'Yes' can not win the economic arguments, that's why they have to make them up.

Say it loudly, say it boldly and hopefully enough people will believe it.

Thanks (2)
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 17:19

The  economic arguments are

The  economic arguments are frankly irrelevant as far as I am concerned.  As far as I can see I will be better off if Scotland jump ship.  But for me that is not a reason for me to hope they will.  I just don't want to become a foreigner in part of my own country.  It is a surprise and disappointment, and hurtful, to me that many Scots seem indifferent to whether they become foreigners in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.   

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Lancaster
16th Sep 2014 18:35

Democracy

As far as I can see thousands of foreigners who just happen to be living in Scotland are getting a vote, yet thousands of Scots who just happen to be living in England, such as Scottish soldiers based in England, are being denied a vote.  Similarly, as everyone says this will affect England, Wales, and N. Ireland, shouldn't we also have a vote along the lines of, do you want to allow Scotland to remain part of the UK? 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Manchester_man:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
17th Sep 2014 03:35

Brawn and Bred

Lancaster wrote:

As far as I can see thousands of foreigners who just happen to be living in Scotland are getting a vote, yet thousands of Scots who just happen to be living in England, such as Scottish soldiers based in England, are being denied a vote.  

My son in law is as Scots as haggis: born and bred, has his own family tartan kilt, and is even able to speak Glaswegian. In short, a strong candidate for a "Yes" vote. Although he owns a house in Scotland, he is ineligible to vote because he rents a flat and works as a contractor South of the Border. It does seem rather odd that Scotland has handed his vote to one of its residential immigrants, who one supposes must be equally strong candidates for a "No" vote. 

Lancaster wrote:

Similarly, as everyone says this will affect England, Wales, and N. Ireland, shouldn't we also have a vote along the lines of, do you want to allow Scotland to remain part of the UK? 

Both Gibraltar and The Falklands have managed to vote on their sovereignties without troubling our overweight and under-informed Joe Publics for their opinions.   

Thanks (0)
Replying to Gillian Mill:
By johngroganjga
17th Sep 2014 07:55

Gibraltar and the Falklands

I'msorryIhaven'taclue wrote:

Both Gibraltar and The Falklands have managed to vote on their sovereignties without troubling our overweight and under-informed Joe Publics for their opinions.   

If you think Gibraltar and the Falklands are of any relevance here you really don't understand what is going on.  The situations couldn't be more different.

Thanks (0)
Replying to NYB:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
17th Sep 2014 09:36

Great Scot!

johngroganjga wrote:

If you think Gibraltar and the Falklands are of any relevance here you really don't understand what is going on.  The situations couldn't be more different.

I understand the similarities: all three have polled their own residents to decide on their sovereignity (without polling us "English", which was the suggestion I responded to). The relevance of Gibraltar and The Falklands is their precedents, nothing more.

Of course I understand the essential difference in Scotland's situation, to which you allude, is that the break-up of the Union would have a catastrophic impact on us "English" both economically and politically (whereas I suppose the other two didn't matter a jot). If Gordon Brown - that most sincere of Scots - is to be believed, we all stand to lose out rather badly.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Roland195:
By johngroganjga
17th Sep 2014 09:52

Difference

I'msorryIhaven'taclue wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

If you think Gibraltar and the Falklands are of any relevance here you really don't understand what is going on.  The situations couldn't be more different.

I understand the similarities: all three have polled their own residents to decide on their sovereignity (without polling us "English", which was the suggestion I responded to). The relevance of Gibraltar and The Falklands is their precedents, nothing more.

Of course I understand the essential difference in Scotland's situation, to which you allude, is that the break-up of the Union would have a catastrophic impact on us "English" both economically and politically (whereas I suppose the other two didn't matter a jot). If Gordon Brown - that most sincere of Scots - is to be believed, we all stand to lose out rather badly.

Glad you see that you see there is a difference, but interestingly your idea of what the difference is is completely different from mine.

I am not at all bothered about the economic or political impact.  As it happens I think that on balance it is likely to be beneficial on both fronts, and certainly not catastrophic.  But frankly that doesn't come into it for me.  What matters is the emotional trauma of having part of my own country taken away from me against my wishes.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
17th Sep 2014 08:11

It feels like 'the enemy within'

If Scotland go their own way, they will have abandoned us and will become competitors overnight.

If they stay with us, it will feel like the UK has been blackmailed into giving them preferential treatment.

Neither result is going to make for a happy union.

There are much better methods of getting fairer treatment for all, ie. not making an ultimatum. Ultimatums always cause resentment regardless of the outcome..

Thanks (6)
By johngroganjga
17th Sep 2014 08:18

Nearly choked on my coffee this morning when Salmond was quoted on the radio as having said that he thought England was a fine country and Scotland voting Yes would not make it a foreign one!!!!  Are there people in Scotland who actually believe him?

Thanks (1)

Pages