Euro-Scot or not

This issue really worries.  The thought of not being part of Europe that is.

Yes there are many things that are not quite prefect with the system but it provides a basin with more opportunities, not less.

I would rather be part of an independent Scotland that is part of Europe than part of the UK and apostate from the EU.

free movement, unrestricted trade, aligned fiscal and monetary pacts are essential in the globalised world in which we live.

I am constantly annoyed by the augments that rage around Whitehall about the referendum, not the Scottish question but the European question.

I feel that this shows a lack of concern for Scotland. UKIP are not taking votes in Scotland, it is purely an English issue. I have heard more debates on the EU question than on our independence referendum.

So I am putting this in my evidence folder, along with everything else,  to help me decide which way I will vote in September.

Independent Scotland Pensions

I was intrigued by the comments which came out today regarding the situation regarding pensions if we end up independent.

Rather than listen to the rhetoric from the parties or accept what the most recent red top says I thought I would investigate.

First I must state that I am not a pension expert or am actuarial specialist. I just went and read over the audited statements regarding the LGPS position for the different regions.

I know that the effectiveness of pensions is linked to the health of the economy and a lot of other things. So I looked purely at the situation today and worked on the basis that things stay the same.

So take the situation for the North East of Scotland LGPS scheme. It would cost every person in Scotland £156 per year just to meet the current liabilities. That is only one region and only looks at the pension scheme for local government.

Now if we lift income tax by 10% we can cover these liabilities which is fine by me.

Not sure how we pay for the new foreign office, security force, inland revenue, DVLA (have I missed anything). 

Remember in the Scottish governments annual account, which includes the revenue from oil, we still run at an annual deficit before we include these things.

Evidence, where?

What should we take into account when considering which way to vote?  I like evidence, I really do, but trying to find factual information to allow a decision one way or another is so difficult.

I started with the accounts for Scotland for the past few years.  These are devoid of political spin, they provide a good level of detail on the economy of Scotland.  It even provides two views of the finances, one including oil and one excluding the oil revenues.  Great, but I do not make decisions solely upon my current financial standing, if only I did I think the bank would like me more.

Anyway I had a read over the Weir Report. I liked it, or rather I liked the fact that it seemed that there was no political tinkering in its content.  Are there any more like this?  There are a couple which are obviously tilted towards one outcome or the other.  If you have found some please let me know.

So like I said a view of the finances, the current account for Scotland, is a good starting point.  However this is backward looking, it does not take into account any policies which may be implemented that could effect the situation.  It merely provides the evidence that the status quo is not enough.  That we have to have new ideas to ensure the stability of the economy.  Independent or not, if we are broke then what would be the point?

The White Paper attempts to provide the SNP view of what Scotland would look like once independent, however there is nothing in the paper that explains what will be done different to ensure our economic survival.  It is bland, we need a view of the potential future that really captures the attention of the electorate.

Yes or No, it is not about passion, or polarized views based upon history.  It is about considering the evidence, so that whatever our decision it is at least an informed decision.

What is the question, "Should Scotland be Independent", or is it actually "Should the SNPs Scotland be Independent"?

In the nonsensical world of youth if you are a fan of Justin Bieber that makes you a Belieber, so would my belief of keeping the Union together make me an Unbeliever?  Not that I am for, or against, or anything at the moment.

My thoughts shift from one to the next as I try to collate non-politicised evidence.  You are not alone I too feel like this task is akin to trying to find hens teeth.  Still that does not stop me at least trying.  In this "historical" opportunity neither side should be allowed to issue any information for or against until it has been vetted by an independent (non-political) group and both sides also agree.  That would create the kind of level playing field that we the people require to make the right decision.  For what is a decision made solely upon passion?

So what are my views on the process to date?  I am like the vast majority who are not hoarding together and marching or protesting on the issue.  I see this not as a debate on the question, should Scotland be Independent, but should the SNPs Scotland be Independent.

There are things that should be about politics, and there are things which should be about the people, this is one of those subjects which falls in to the second category.  The SNPs views on what Scotland would look lie, the SNPs views on the financial standing of an independent nation.  The SNPs views on to have nuclear installations (floating or fixed) in Scotland or not.

If independence is successful then the negotiations on the make up of the country should be performed not by politicians whose ability to translate evidence into policies is woefully inadequate, I will point to history to backup this statement.  Such dialogue should be led by professionals, who might actually know a thing or two about specialist subjects, how often do you see the Minister for Transport and Veterans on Mastermind answering questions about their chosen ministerial responsibility.  Slight tangent but I actually think this would be a good thing, interviewing potential ministers before appointment.  

So yes I digress, back to the negotiating table, so professionals chosen by the people specifically for the task of negotiating the separation of the two states.  Would two companies hire novices to negotiate a merger, or de-merger?  Not a chance!  But we will put our misplaced faith in politicians who have no direct experience and if they fail will only blame everyone else around them rather than taking the flak.

So less of the SNP led "discussions" and more of the people making decisions based upon evidence.