Implications of Scottish Independence

[Architect]

And then you get to the other big con trick: the things such as "free" university tuition and "free" prescriptions. I use the quotation marks around "free" because of course in reality they are not free. They have to be funded by other means. And, as you've pointed out, the fact that they have to be funded through universal taxation means that a) the net cost to society as a whole is exactly the same (actually, it's almost always higher owing to the inefficiencies and waste that occur when government bureaucracies administer these sorts of things), and b) they actually place an unfair indirect regressive burden on certain demographic groups.

I constantly wonder how political parties (and governments) manage to pull this sort of "free gift" trick on voters. Yet the voters seem to keep falling for it.........

That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through.

But, I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now. Do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman. But I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were

I'll see your hyperbole and raise you.

Not one person here has ever suggested that free prescriptions, or free healthcare, or free childcare is funded by way of the mgic money tree. It is perfectly obvious that it is funded from general taxation, just as it is perfectly obvious to all but the dimmest that "free" means "free at the point of delivery". To suggest otherwise merely confirms that there is little point in debating with the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Architect]

Quite. See post 6869. it would be normal--if you wished to engage me in debate--to respond to it. You have only done this to the extent of some connected thoughts (and some unconnected ones) on tuition funding. To which I have further responded. I have assumed for some time now that you have no comments on the fiscal issue beyond this. I can't assume much else.

Rejected I have stated a position (. . . see, wait for it . . . post 6869. See post 6936 for a reiteration of the part about progressivity/regressivity).

<snip>

Inasmuch as I have not participated in any debate on the merits of the various economic anlyses of the net Scottish wealth position following independence, this is nothing more or less by you than an attempt to refocus our discussion.

By way of example, post 6869 is part of a discussion you are having with Rolfe and CraigB. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are more than 3 of us in Scotland, and we don't all compare notes.

Our own discussion starts at 6899 when I comment on the progressive/regressive nature of fiscal policies and the inconsistencies therein. You then engage in an impressive amount of handwaving regarding these inconsistencies before trying to get back to the revenue question, then complaining I'm avoiding a debate I was never involved in.

And even then, you refuse to state your basic argument as regards the matter of hand. If it is simply that an independent Scotland will not be able to afford its current regressive policies, then be specific. On the other hand if you believe that regressive policies are inappropriate from a political perspective, inasmuch as they unfairly benefit the wealthier in society or somesuch, then tell us. But do not refuse to state your position and then complain that you're misunderstood.

 

[Aber]

Campaign funding

And now for something completely different - campaign funding

Yes Scotland reports 11,000 individual donors and £2.7m

The latest Yes Scotland figures outline more than 11,000 donors who each gave up to £7,500, totalling £473,000.

A further £2,678,000 has been given in larger donations from seven individual supporters, including the Weirs.

Yes Scotland figures show Chris and Colin Weir each donated £1.25m, after a £1m donation the year before.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27361509

Last year Better Together reported 17,000 individual donors and £1.7m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25404408

Not sure it proves anything, but the interpretation on this thread will be interesting...

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting take on that from Wings.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-ball-and-a-yard-of-grass/

Of course, Better Together has had a lot of funding from outwith Scotland whereas Yes Scotland has said it won't accept more that token amounts from anyone not entitled to vote in the referendum.

One might also factor in the value of the huge Westminster machine churning out "policy papers" all designed to rubbish independence, and feeding the spin direct to a compliant media. And the value of having Cameron instruct diplomats and embassies to ask foreign governments to make anti-independence statements, including Cameron actually approaching Putin with a request to do that. (ETA: Also Barroso making convenient anti-Scottish statements which were subsequently rubbished, at the time when he was hoping for Cameron's support to get the job of Secretary-General of NATO. Of course Barroso's remarks were plastered all over the BBC, repeatedly, while the subsequent rebuttals weren't.)

Not to mention the value of the BBC, which we all have to pay for if we want to watch Doctor Who or Borgen or Grand Designs.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I can see why Rolfe and Craig take objection to the Beeb when they devote a dispropportionately large amount of coverage to an allegedly grassroots organisation in the Borders which supports the Union.

I just noticed this. An easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless.

"Yes Borders" is indeed the part of the Yes Scotland campaign that covers the local authority region known as the Scottish Borders, commonly referred to as "the Borders", the outfit that collects my wheelie bins and mends my roads and fixes my street lights. Composed of Peeblesshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Berwickshire. And Yes Borders is extremely grass-roots. I spy a couple of germinating seeds in the next street, and another one in Carlops, and I'll be off round soon with posters and stickers and badges and invites to local group meetings.

"No Borders" is an astroturf group with a nominal HQ address in Charlotte Square, Edinburgh. It has bugger-all to do with the Borders. It should perhaps have been named "Borders begin at Dover". (Some wags have been suggesting that they are actually a campaign to have the local authority abolished and the four counties subsumed into Dumfries and Galloway and/or the Lothians.)

Rolfe.

 

[mummymonkey]

Latest poll makes grim reading for the Salmondistas.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-full-results-sunday-3525670

 

[Architect]

Saw it at breakfast in my dead tree edition. Polls not really my thing and I'll let others comment, saving for reminding you it is the Record.

 

[Rolfe]

Bwahahahaha.

That poll doesn't actually count at all, because it was carried out by Progressive Scottish Opinion which is a company that doesn't adhere to BPC standards. So, no data tables and no way to analyse it.

However. This outfit last carried out a poll in November 2013. In comparison to that poll, which is the only comparison that's even faintly valid, Yes has gained 7 percentage points and No has lost 2. Excluding don't knows, this represents a swing to Yes of 6%. Thus the result is actually in line with other pollsters who have also shown a swing of about 6% to Yes over the same period.

This maverick company is and has always been the most extreme outlier in the No-friendly camp. We can't examine why, because they're not BPC compliant. Maybe it's because they don't actually ask the referendum question as it will be on the ballot paper. It's more likely to be something to do with their weighting protocols though. For them to confirm the swing to Yes is rather good news actually.

Here's Scot Goes Pop on the poll.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/huge-surge-in-support-for-independence.html

And here's Wings.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/odd-spin-out/

And just for good measure here's Curtice (who he?)

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/05/progressive-big-swing-to-yes-but-yes-still-far-behind/

Yet at the same time, this also means that the poll shows a six point swing to Yes compared with last November. Since then, of course, every other pollster has recorded a narrowing of the No lead. To that extent today’s poll is simply further evidence of that narrowing.

Will the people who seriously think this means that we're now at 39/61 be happy to acknowledge a huge swing to Yes if the next Panelbase or ICM poll comes in unchanged at 45/55?

More interesting in some ways is this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnWwIF4IMAAEg9F.jpg

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Talking of fundraising, James at Scot Goes Pop confessed he was running short of dosh and couldn't keep up to date with the blog through the heat of the campaign without a bit of a leg-up. He put up a fundraiser and made his £2500 target the first day.

There are dozens of these things, most of them achieving their funding targets. All for Yes. When someone tried it for No, he was humiliated. He got hardly anything. So much for the No grass-roots.

Rolfe.

 

[mummymonkey]

That poll doesn't actually count at all, because it was carried out by Progressive Scottish Opinion which is a company that doesn't adhere to BPC standards. So, no data tables and no way to analyse it.

It may not count in your mind. The actual polling was carried out by YouGov who are members of the BPC. The sample size (1300) was also rather high.

It's clear to any impartial observer that the slow creep to YES in the polls isn't anything like enough to close the still rather large gap. At least not yet. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the start of the official campaign in three weeks time makes.

 

[Rolfe]

YouGov are said to have collected the data, using their online panel. (There may be some doubt about that, but let's not worry about it.)

The data were analysed and weighted and subjected to eye of newt and toe of frog by Progressive Scottish Opinion. And we'll never get to see the raw data or the weighting methods. That's why they don't count. This explanation is all over the internet, and it's quite clear.

The message of the polls is twofold. One is that the fearbombing doesn't work. The other is that as people engage with the debate and become informed about the issues, they move to Yes. Movement from No to undecided to Yes is commonplace and continuous. Movement the other way is almost imperceptible.

Now you may think that the pace of change will remain liner. However, engagement is likely to accelerate closer to the vote. With results that might surprise you. There is also the possibility of a bandwagon for Yes developing based around some sort of event - think for example a Labour MSP or two defecting to Labour for Independence.

Even if the current trend continues, Yes reaches 50% by July or August. In the natural course of events it's quite likely that one of the more Yes-friendly polling companies will show Yes over 50% relatively soon. It's difficult to know what that will do to the debate, but it will put a crimp in one of Better Together's arguments - that people should vote for them because they're ahead. (The way they put it is that they are the ones who are expressing the will of the Scottish people - until they aren't, of course.)

You might be interested in this little video.


Or you could actually engage with the debate yourself instead of shouting meaningless soundbites from the sidelines.

And I repeat - if you're intent on taking every individual poll as comparable to the one before it, what will be your reaction if the next poll is from Panelbase and shows Yes at 47% again?

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Australian dictionary. Are you simply supporting my previous suggestion that it might be a predominantly overseas usage?

And "too" is fixed, clearly I need my morning cuppa.

 

[Francesca R]

Inasmuch as I have not participated in any debate on the merits of the various economic anlyses of the net Scottish wealth position following independence

Thus confirming what was already apparent--that you have no comment on that to make. Except that you have agreed that the fees/loans system is less regressive/more progressive than the subsidised fees system, and that Scotland therefore adopts less progressive policy than the UK-ex-Scotland in this domain, despite the Scottish government being left of the UK one.

The rest of the analysis remains unchallenged--in a thread where handwave-assertions of fiscal surpuluses and robust "cold hard numbers" abound, no less.

When you make issues such as VAT, NI, income tax and universal health insurance relevant to the topic at hand, perhaps there will be something to contribute. Your ceaselees attemt to substitute addressing arguers instead of arguments will however continue to receive the disregard it deserves. (As will your endeavour to ascribe personal preferences or value judgements that are your conjecture alone)

 

[The Don]

Australian dictionary. Are you simply supporting my previous suggestion that it might be a predominantly overseas usage?.

I suppose it depends on how you define overseas.

I grew up in northern England in the 1970s and one-eyed was certainly in use in the way that MikeG has used it there at that time. I've also used it, and heard it used in South West England and South East Wales.

 

[Information Analyst]

As it happens, I am not entirely convinced that the abolition of prescription fees was strictly necessary inasmuch as there were already exemptions for low earners, children, and the elderly (the last two arguably on a regressive basis again) plus the option of so-called "season tickets" which provided an effective discount.

No forgetting medical exemptions for certain conditions - a list that it now somewhat longer than when I used to work for a local issuing organisation. It's also still be case that pre-payment certficates can be back-dated a month, and any prescription charges paid reclaimed. If someone doesn't qualify for free prescriptions in England, the absolute most they should be paying in any given year is £116 (i.e. 4 quarterly pre-payments), which really isn't that onerous.

 

[Information Analyst]

It [no fees] benefits graduates, particularly those who end up earning a lot more due to their qualification. But graduates as a whole have lifetime earnings substantially higher than non graduates, and the gap is (IIRC) growing (skills/knowledge-based economy and all that). It is pretty unambiguous where the benefit is concentrated. Taking the funding from the same demographic is less regressive than taking it from everyone else as well.

On the other hand, it could have been said in the past that graduates benefited the country as a whole, because most of them went into the jobs that essentially kept the country going. The real problem has been the mistaken ideology that dicated that more and more people "should" go on to higher education, thus devaluing it. There are many jobs these days that non-graduates wouldn't get a foot in the door, that in the past would have required a couple of A-levels at the most.

 

[funk de fino]

It may not count in your mind. The actual polling was carried out by YouGov who are members of the BPC. The sample size (1300) was also rather high.

It's clear to any impartial observer that the slow creep to YES in the polls isn't anything like enough to close the still rather large gap. At least not yet. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the start of the official campaign in three weeks time makes.

Yougov? The poll of polls is really what should be used to smooth the noise from the outliers.

 

[funk de fino]

Anecdote alert -seen quite a few things around recently where people are reporting the Better Together adverts in cinemas are being roundly booed.

Not quite as amusing as Osbourne getting pelters at the Olympics though.

 

[Francesca R]

Of course, bets on Yes have been restricted, with a lot of people saying online that the bookies wouldn't take the size of bet they wanted to place.

Do you have any evidence (not hearsay) that bets on the referendum vote are being asymmetrically restricted (in favour of No), and that this is distorting the odds?

 

[jhunter1163]

This thread has been closed until a mod has time to go through it and do a proper cleanup. Do not attempt to restart the discussion elsewhere. When the thread is reopened, it is expected that all participants will not personalize their arguments and will remain civil and polite. If civility is not maintained voluntarily, it will be enforced. Thank you all for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163