Scottish Independence

[marinello59]

Not at all, think it is one sided to a large degree. Admittedly I only really see little bits here and there usually BBC in the morning. Do you genuinely think that the press are balanced and fair? Some of the press would never write anything positive about the possibility of an Independent Scotland.

I do think the coverage has been pretty fair when it comes to getting the issues out there. If you are talking about opinion pieces then of course some correspondents will write very little that is positive about us becoming Independent whilst some will write nothing positive about remaining in the Union.
The reporting on Carney's speech I found particularly well done. It was portrayed as being a pretty neutral speech which both sides could claim as being good news for their argument. Which is exactly what it was.

[Alex Trager]

I do think the coverage has been pretty fair when it comes to getting the issues out there. If you are talking about opinion pieces then of course some correspondents will write very little that is positive about us becoming Independent whilst some will write nothing positive about remaining in the Union.
The reporting on Carney's speech I found particularly well done. It was portrayed as being a pretty neutral speech which both sides could claim as being good news for their argument. Which is exactly what it was.

Have a wee look at this piece carried out by the university of west of Scotland

[Alex Trager]

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8598-broadcasters-favouring-no-campaign-according-to-new-academic-study

[JimBHibees]

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8598-broadcasters-favouring-no-campaign-according-to-new-academic-study

Interesting study and completely fits with my view to be honest in particular the bit about the Irish politician's comments about EU membership and the refusal by the BBC to broadcast her rebuttal is absolutely disgusting.

[allmodcons]

If we vote Yes then this will be subject to negotiation with both sides having to concede ground. I'm not so sure that a Tory chancellor playing hard ball at this stage is helpful. A currency union would have benefits to the rest of the UK so to simply dismiss it now without any meaningful debate seems wrong.

This is correct!



That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.


Come on ODS, don’t tell me international lenders will refuse us credit. They won’t look at the morality if that’s what it is. They are profiteers who will look at our credit worthiness….£1.5 trillion in oil assets, a highly developed successful economy, a highly educated workforce, renewables, exports including whisky and food and to cap it all – NO SOVEREIGN DEBT.



Oh dear, I think you are only seeing (or not seeing) what you want to when it comes to press coverage.

You've got this wrong M59. Check out the facts:-

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-governors-of-opinion/#more-49655

[lucky]

Loving the quoting of two Nat websites. Come on that's as bad as the Yams phrase of " we owe it to ourself" let's have some decent evidence to back the argument not a Nat telling us Nats are right

[LancsHibs]

The chancellors statement today was a typical attempt at bullying, this is what it's come down to." Now settle down Scotland and tow the line, or else". Now if his statement and attitude hasn't made anybody's mind up to vote Yes then I don't know what will. The establishment at Westminster do not view Scotland as equals and never will. Stick it to the toffs:greengrin

[yeezus.]

Loving the quoting of two Nat websites. Come on that's as bad as the Yams phrase of " we owe it to ourself" let's have some decent evidence to back the argument not a Nat telling us Nats are right

:agree: newsnetscotland and wingsoverscotland are hardly impartial, evidence-based sites.

[allmodcons]

Loving the quoting of two Nat websites. Come on that's as bad as the Yams phrase of " we owe it to ourself" let's have some decent evidence to back the argument not a Nat telling us Nats are right

Unlike you, this is where we have to go see the other side of the story. You can pick up a Daily Record, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Express and get the Unionist slant. Have a wee look at Alan Cochrane in the Daily Telegraph if you don't believe me.

Also, can you name a single newspaper with a pro iScotland editorial line?

Do you think this is a healthy state of affairs for readers of MSM?

[allmodcons]

:agree: newsnetscotland and wingsoverscotland are hardly impartial, evidence-based sites.

See my reply to Lucky.

[allmodcons]

:agree: newsnetscotland and wingsoverscotland are hardly impartial, evidence-based sites.

As you probably haven't bothered to read any articles on WoS, what makes you think their pieces are not evidence based?

[yeezus.]

See my reply to Lucky.

I must admit I haven't picked up a Guardian in a few months now... do they really have unionist slants in their reporting?

[allmodcons]

I must admit I haven't picked up a Guardian in a few months now... do they really have unionist slants in their reporting?

100%. There is a lot of ignorance towards Scottish issues in the Guardian but the Daily Telegraph has to be my favourite.
I understand both of these newspapers support two cheeks of the same arse?

[yeezus.]

100%. There is a lot of ignorance towards Scottish issues in the Guardian but the Daily Telegraph has to be my favourite.
I understand both of these newspapers support two cheeks of the same arse?

I first watched George Galloway say that on Newsnight. Or NewsNAT as Ian Davidson called it :wink:

[allmodcons]

I first watched George Galloway say that on Newsnight. Or NewsNAT as Ian Davidson called it :wink:

Just a wee dig at Tory/Labour from me!

How are you keeping? You doing OK at the moment?

[yeezus.]

Just a wee dig at Tory/Labour from me!

How are you keeping? You doing OK at the moment?

Yeah not bad thanks mate, the MP got in touch with me in regards to some door-knocking on Saturday so I'm looking forward to getting out of the house and meeting the lovely conservative people of Stranraer!

[One Day Soon]

Just a wee dig at Tory/Labour from me!

How are you keeping? You doing OK at the moment?


At least dig accurately then AMC - in the last election the Telegraph supported the Tories and the Guardian supported the Lib/Dems.

[One Day Soon]

An alternative view, from a reasonably well-informed source.

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-releases/comment-an-independent-scotland-would-be-better-off-using-the-pound-without


You are aware that these are the right wing nutters who provided the economic assault troop bullets for Thatcherism? They are absolutely in favour of Scotland going it alone in currency terms precisely because they know what the public expenditure cutting consequences of that would be.

If you want a health system, education system and wider public services like those of the countries quoted by the Adam Smith Institute - Ecuador, Panama and El Salvador then unofficially shadowing the pound may well be the way to get it. Good luck trying to get eg Free Personal Care out of that.

[One Day Soon]

Exactly. Logic has to be applied here. It would be completely illogical for them to force us out.

Why?

All I keep hearing from Westminister is that if we leave the UK, they'll force us out of the currency union, which will have a negative impact on trading.

There is no currency union there is only the pound. The only thing that forces us out of the Pound is if we leave the UK. If we do that there is no currency union, there is the just the UK (England, N. Ireland and Wales) with the pound and there is us.

Which is why it's not in their best interests to force us out, even if we do go independent.

Given that 70% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK, while the rest of the UK sends just 10% of its exports to Scotland, they have no major impetus to enter a currency union with Scotland post independence. Particularly not since - as Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England - pointed out, a currency union requires ceding of considerable fiscal and political powers. Independence goes in exactly the opposite direction to that. Ceding of such powers and the consequences of that (eg limits on how much you can tax and spend) are seen in the extreme in the fighting within the EU during economic downturn and the insistence of the Germans in particular that Greece make significant cuts in order to retain the banking and loans guarantees they needed to bail them out. The last thing the rest of the UK are going to do is have a currency union in which we as a brand new country with a significant hole in its public finances get to do what we like in debt and public expenditure terms regardless of the consequences for the stability of the pound.

They would be going against the best interests of the UK, by forcing us out.

No, they really wouldn't.

It's nothing more than blatant scaremongering.

It's nothing more than a hard dose of reality intruding into the cosy world of 'Och it'll all be alright somehow'.

More importantly what is now Salmond's currency Plan B for Scotland? If the UK chooses to do exactly what all of its main parties have just publicly told everyone in Scotland and in the rest of the UK that they intend to do - ie no currency union - where do we go from there? Does he have a Plan B?

[StevieC]

Given that 70% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK, while the rest of the UK sends just 10% of its exports to Scotland

Does that 10% include stocking ASDA, TESCO, DEBENHAMS, MARKS AND SPARKS, AMAZON and all the other national shops and businesses that have head offices and warehouses south of the border? I can't see too many of them being happy about having to adjust their budgets to take into account the additional costs of Scotland not being part of a currency union?

They might say that they won't entertain a currency union but with an election due not that long after the Independence vote I wonder which party would suddenly use "agreeing a currency union" as part of their election campaign??

[Sylar]

Staggering story in the Herald this morning from a Senior Tory member, asserting that Westminster might not respect the decision in September if it's a Yes vote, stating that negotiations post-referendum have to be agreeable (such as a new Scotland shouldering some of the current debt).

It's rapidly going to turn into a revolution, never mind a referendum.

[RyeSloan]

Staggering story in the Herald this morning from a Senior Tory member, asserting that Westminster might not respect the decision in September if it's a Yes vote, stating that negotiations post-referendum have to be agreeable (such as a new Scotland shouldering some of the current debt). It's rapidly going to turn into a revolution, never mind a referendum.

Why is it so staggering?

The SNP have continued to insist that all will be well in these negotiations...the fact is they don't know and I agree that 18 months would seem quite a short timing to agree the million and one items that would need to be agreed for separation to commence.

[marinello59]

Why is it so staggering?

The SNP have continued to insist that all will be well in these negotiations...the fact is they don't know and I agree that 18 months would seem quite a short timing to agree the million and one items that would need to be agreed for separation to commence.

It's staggering if he is seriously suggesting that Westminster would ignore the will of the Scottish people. The Tories seem to be doing all they can to convert Don't Knows to Yes voters.

[One Day Soon]

Does that 10% include stocking ASDA, TESCO, DEBENHAMS, MARKS AND SPARKS, AMAZON and all the other national shops and businesses that have head offices and warehouses south of the border? I can't see too many of them being happy about having to adjust their budgets to take into account the additional costs of Scotland not being part of a currency union?

They might say that they won't entertain a currency union but with an election due not that long after the Independence vote I wonder which party would suddenly use "agreeing a currency union" as part of their election campaign??


1. Just 10% of total exports from the rest of the UK are made into Scotland. That means, clearly, that 90% of their exports go elsewhere in the world. We will not therefore be any kind of a priorty over other export markets.

2. They already deal with precisely these kind of costs and adjustments when exporting to other currency zones, eg Dollar and Euro. For them it is not that big a deal. It wouldn't be for us either except for the small matter of not having the pound.

3. As regards the costs of stocking ASDA etc in Scotland, what do you suppose will happen? They will incure additional costs and those costs will be passed on as they always are in pretty much every market. In this case they will be passed on to Scottish consumers.

4. Going to the UK electorate in a post independence election with an offer of currency union is hardly likely to be a vote winnner. "

See the Scots who just voted to walk out, well we propose that the 55 million of us should have a currency union with the 5 million of them. They get access to a stable currency and we get less admin on just 10% of our exports. Oh by the way their public expenditure levels, their borrowing levels and their debt repayment performance which we will have no say over will have the capacity to damage our pound if they don't control them. Did I mention that they seem serious about closing Faslane so we will need to spend a fortune on constructing a new base for the nuclear submarine fleet? Now vote for us".

What exactly do you think the mood and disposition of voters in England, N Ireland and Wales will be towards Scotland if we walk out? These UK voters who are unhappy enough with our biggest market place - the EU - that they want a referendum on leaving it. Do you really imagine that going to them in a post-referendum UK election campaign with a currency union proposal would be popular? They hate the Euro, they're hardly likely to be gagging to set up their own version of that with the pound.

4. If we want independence - and if we vote for it - then we get it. People need to stop pretending however that it comes without problems or costs. At this stage independence would mean we are facing big public expenditure cuts (even bigger than Westminster is planning that is), increases in tax, cuts in public services, reduced capital expenditure (that's roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, railways etc) with higher interest rates on that capital expenditure and now this unanswered question on what our currency would be.

What is Salmond's Plan B on currency?

The case for Devo Max has never looked stronger.

[One Day Soon]

It's staggering if he is seriously suggesting that Westminster would ignore the will of the Scottish people. The Tories seem to be doing all they can to convert Don't Knows to Yes voters.

Except that isn't what the 'source' is saying in the Herald.

What is being said is that independence would be a two stage process. First the vote for it and then the negotiations on the detail. In that context the source is saying that just because Salmond has previously set out an 18 month timetable for completing negotiations and becoming independent does not mean that it would necessarily happen within that timescale - particularly if unreasonable demands were being made such as Scotland taking no share of national debt. If/when we get to negotiations on a separate Scotland the UK's position at that point becomes what is the best interests of the UK - why would they be either hurried into a deal that doesn't suit or make concessions that aren't in their best interests. We wouldn't do that either would we?

Negotiations might have to continue for a longer period and if that happened the status quo would continue until negotiations were done.

This is not very surprising really. If there was a vote for independence and the UK government said they wanted the deal done within 12 months for stability's sake but we hit the buffers at 12 months and were still talking it would be the same context.

[One Day Soon]

Staggering story in the Herald this morning from a Senior Tory member, asserting that Westminster might not respect the decision in September if it's a Yes vote, stating that negotiations post-referendum have to be agreeable (such as a new Scotland shouldering some of the current debt).

It's rapidly going to turn into a revolution, never mind a referendum.


I have re-read the article several times now and this isn't what is being said, it is just being spun as that. Being typically awful journalism from the Herald it doesn't actually name it's 'source' which doesn't help.

[marinello59]

Except that isn't what the 'source' is saying in the Herald.

.

That's the last time I take TSSF's word for anything.:greengrin

Salmond is right to set an 18 month deadline to prevent delaying tactics being brought in to play. Sounds like somebody merely opening their mouth and letting their stomach rumble. Even without the spin it's still a gift to the Yes campaign.
Maybe those of you who think there is a media bias in favour of Better Together should start seeing it as a positive.:greengrin

[marinello59]

Sturgeon and Lamont to go head to head on STV. This could be good.

http://glasgow.stv.tv/73326/

[allmodcons]

At least dig accurately then AMC - in the last election the Telegraph supported the Tories and the Guardian supported the Lib/Dems.

You need to keep up ODS. That was way back in 2010!

[One Day Soon]

You need to keep up ODS. That was way back in 2010!


Hang on. I am saying that at the last election the Guardian supported the Lib/Dems - which they did. You cannot therefore claim that:

"There is a lot of ignorance towards Scottish issues in the Guardian but the Daily Telegraph has to be my favourite.
I understand both of these newspapers support two cheeks of the same arse?

....unless you are referring to the Tories and the Lib/Dems.

[allmodcons]

Hang on. I am saying that at the last election the Guardian supported the Lib/Dems - which they did. You cannot therefore claim that:

"There is a lot of ignorance towards Scottish issues in the Guardian but the Daily Telegraph has to be my favourite.
I understand both of these newspapers support two cheeks of the same arse?

....unless you are referring to the Tories and the Lib/Dems.

No ODS, taking the view that the Guardian is (at this moment in time) pro Labour and the Torygraph is, well, the Torygraph.
Unless you're arguing that the Guardian is still supportive of the Lib Dems?
Anyway, get a life, it was tongue in 'cheek'.

[allmodcons]

If we want independence - and if we vote for it - then we get it. People need to stop pretending however that it comes without problems or costs. At this stage independence would mean we are facing big public expenditure cuts (even bigger than Westminster is planning that is), increases in tax, cuts in public services, reduced capital expenditure (that's roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, railways etc) with higher interest rates on that capital expenditure and now this unanswered question on what our currency would be.

What is Salmond's Plan B on currency?

The case for Devo Max has never looked stronger.


1. Nobody is suggesting Independence will create some kind of Utopia but where's your evidence to support the assertions you make about cuts, cuts and more cuts? Last night I listened to Michael Kelly (a Scot) tell the nation live on TV that HIS country could adopt the 'dreichma' and have an ecomony equivalent to that of Greece!! You think the Yes campaign has questions to answer, yet here we have Better Together telling us we'll be a basket case economy without rUK. Where's the evidence for this ridiculous assertion?

2. You know fine well what the other options are. The Yes campaign prefer to articulate the argument for a sterling zone. Whether you agree or disagree with their stance is neither here nor there. This is what they are presenting to the Scottish Electorate. My personal Plan B would be to keep the pound in an informal arrangement and play hard ball over the UK debt, but I can see why Yes are sticking to their preferred currency arrangement. Why should they cede ground based on threats from 3 Westminister politicians, when they know that a Yes vote will make for a complete shift in emphasis from the condescending crap spouted by Osborne earlier this week.

3. Problem is, nobody is advocating Devo Max. If Scottish Labour had any balls this is what they would have articulating for the last 12 months but, unfortunately, Scottish Labour does not have any balls.

[Alex Trager]

1. Nobody is suggesting Independence will create some kind of Utopia but where's your evidence to support the assertions you make about cuts, cuts and more cuts? Last night I listened to Michael Kelly (a Scot) tell the nation live on TV that HIS country could adopt the 'dreichma' and have an ecomony equivalent to that of Greece!! You think the Yes campaign has questions to answer, yet here we have Better Together telling us we'll be a basket case economy without rUK. Where's the evidence for this ridiculous assertion?

2. You know fine well what the other options are. The Yes campaign prefer to articulate the argument for a sterling zone. Whether you agree or disagree with their stance is neither here nor there. This is what they are presenting to the Scottish Electorate. My personal Plan B would be to keep the pound in an informal arrangement and play hard ball over the UK debt, but I can see why Yes are sticking to their preferred currency arrangement. Why should they cede ground based on threats from 3 Westminister politicians, when they know that a Yes vote will make for a complete shift in emphasis from the condescending crap spouted by Osborne earlier this week.

3. Problem is, nobody is advocating Devo Max. If Scottish Labour had any balls this is what they would have articulating for the last 12 months but, unfortunately, Scottish Labour does not have any balls.



Also I believe there was a vote given out and the general opinion was that we wanted to keep the pound hence the yes campaign are sticking to exactly that.

[JimBHibees]

Loving the quoting of two Nat websites. Come on that's as bad as the Yams phrase of " we owe it to ourself" let's have some decent evidence to back the argument not a Nat telling us Nats are right

So your saying the University of the West of Scotland made it up ?

[JimBHibees]

The chancellors statement today was a typical attempt at bullying, this is what it's come down to." Now settle down Scotland and tow the line, or else". Now if his statement and attitude hasn't made anybody's mind up to vote Yes then I don't know what will. The establishment at Westminster do not view Scotland as equals and never will. Stick it to the toffs:greengrin

Isnt that the truth.

[JimBHibees]

Why is it so staggering?

The SNP have continued to insist that all will be well in these negotiations...the fact is they don't know and I agree that 18 months would seem quite a short timing to agree the million and one items that would need to be agreed for separation to commence.

If Scotland was to vote Yes and the Tories said they wouldnt respect the decision it wouldnt be staggering. :confused:

[One Day Soon]

No ODS, taking the view that the Guardian is (at this moment in time) pro Labour and the Torygraph is, well, the Torygraph.
Unless you're arguing that the Guardian is still supportive of the Lib Dems?
Anyway, get a life, it was tongue in 'cheek'.

This is the problem with the whole debate. People on your side of the argument just keep making things up and then asserting them as truth or fact. The Guardian is not currently supporting Labour - I'm not sure it is supporting anyone. But the last people it did support were the Lib/Dems in the last election.

I'll see your cheeks of the same arse and raise you the Nats as the cleft in between. Tongue in cheek, of course.

[J-C]

At least this time the people of Scotland will get a say and a vote as to what happens to our country, unlike in 1707 when they rioted in the streets of all the major cities. I keep hearing about independence, I always thought we were independent as it was only ever a merging of parliaments and never a merging of countries, this seems to be the most important thing everyone is forgetting.

[Sylar]

I have re-read the article several times now and this isn't what is being said, it is just being spun as that. Being typically awful journalism from the Herald it doesn't actually name it's 'source' which doesn't help.


Dismissing the SNP Government's 18-month timescale for completing negotiations as "totally unrealistic", the source said: "A Yes vote in the referendum would be the start of a process, not the end of one; we would start negotiations. But if Alex Salmond made impossible demands, we would not just roll over and agree to everything he wanted. If we could not reach agreement, the status quo would be the default option."

Perhaps that's open to interpretation but that reads to me that if the Scottish people vote Yes, but negotiations cannot be agreed with Westminster, the Union is the default option.

You're correct, it's awfully written and the source would be helpful but the ambiguity certainly leaves that as a possible interpretation.

[One Day Soon]

1. Nobody is suggesting Independence will create some kind of Utopia but where's your evidence to support the assertions you make about cuts, cuts and more cuts? Last night I listened to Michael Kelly (a Scot) tell the nation live on TV that HIS country could adopt the 'dreichma' and have an ecomony equivalent to that of Greece!! You think the Yes campaign has questions to answer, yet here we have Better Together telling us we'll be a basket case economy without rUK. Where's the evidence for this ridiculous assertion?

The evidence on cuts beyond even what Westminster is planning and tax increases and cuts in public services is in the various NIESR reports which I quoted in detail earlier in this thread and which one independence supporting poster described as being a respectable source. I can post references and hyperlinks to those if you like. If we have the pound in a currency union - which it is now clear we won't - cuts are the price we will pay.

Thankfully I'm not responsible for the the idiots on either the Yes or the Better Together sides but I can clarify one point - the coming vote gives us a choice between staying in the UK and keeping the pound or separating and not having the pound. It's that simple.

I attach about as much authority to what Michael Kelly says about anything as I do to Henry McLeish - ie zero.


2. You know fine well what the other options are. The Yes campaign prefer to articulate the argument for a sterling zone. Whether you agree or disagree with their stance is neither here nor there. This is what they are presenting to the Scottish Electorate. My personal Plan B would be to keep the pound in an informal arrangement and play hard ball over the UK debt, but I can see why Yes are sticking to their preferred currency arrangement. Why should they cede ground based on threats from 3 Westminister politicians, when they know that a Yes vote will make for a complete shift in emphasis from the condescending crap spouted by Osborne earlier this week.

I think you are missing the point here. The currency option being advocated by the SNP has just been taken round the back of the building and shot through the head, publicly and irrevocably by all three major UK parties. It is a dead parrot. The Yes campaign can 'prefer' to articulate for a sterling zone all they like - it is no longer an option. In that context we are now being asked to vote for independence with no clarity about what our currency option would be in the separate state.

It is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to know what your preferences on this are. We need to know what the Scottish Government would do. If we are going into the Euro for example then we have a right to know now. A Yes vote would make no difference to the position of the rest of the UK on currency. It is not in their interest to seek currency union with us for reasons already set out above and elsewhere on the need for parallel political and fiscal arrangements to make a shared currency work. Salmond needs to tell us what currency Plan B is.

There is no 'playing hardball over debt' option. We either take our share and pay for it or we refuse to take our share. If we refuse the money markets then have us pegged as high risk borrowers who act in bad faith in playing fast and loose with debt obligations. If we do that they will loan us much less than we would like and at a far higher cost. So the hardball you refer to ends up with us kneecapped before we start. If you want an example of what happens to you when you default on debt just look at Greece - no-one wants to loan to you and when they do they're either doing so at massive and unsustainable rates which you have to hammer your public services down to pay for or they will give you the loans at better rates like Germany effectively has but at the price of them telling you how to run your house.

As to Osborne spouting condescending crap - just no. The SNP want to break away and set up a separate state. Are you seriously suggesting he isn't allowed to set out the position of his UK party on one of the core issues to be settled post referendum? It's not condescending, it's a taste of what is to come if we make the rest of the UK into a foreign state - they will look after their own interests first. We can't demand independence and then demand that they comply with what would suit us on currency afterward. What is condescending is Nicola Sturgeon trying to tell us that the rest of the UK will have to agree to set up the currency union that we need because it is in their interest to do so. We are only 10% of their export market. The SNP senior figures are beginning to buy their own bull on this stuff which I suspect is why this week's dose of reality on currency has come as quite a shock to them.

3. Problem is, nobody is advocating Devo Max. If Scottish Labour had any balls this is what they would have articulating for the last 12 months but, unfortunately, Scottish Labour does not have any balls.

Careful what you wish for there. Devo Max proposals 12 months ago would have given Salmond a year of either a) lets put that option on the ballot and see if we can split the vote so that indie comes through the middle and/or b) here's what we have forced them into, now we want more. A Devo Max proposal before the summer would I think see Salmond making retirement plans. Nicola could then advance her aim to inhabit the Borgen mantle she clearly covets (that's a very good series by the way, highly recommend it).

[Beefster]

If Scotland was to vote Yes and the Tories said they wouldnt respect the decision it wouldnt be staggering. :confused:

Have you read the article?


Perhaps that's open to interpretation but that reads to me that if the Scottish people vote Yes, but negotiations cannot be agreed with Westminster, the Union is the default option.

You're correct, it's awfully written and the source would be helpful but the ambiguity certainly leaves that as a possible interpretation.

I'm fairly certain that the 'source' is talking about the 18 month deadline put on negotiations by Salmond. They're right - independence couldn't happen until negotiations had been concluded.

[One Day Soon]

At least this time the people of Scotland will get a say and a vote as to what happens to our country, unlike in 1707 when they rioted in the streets of all the major cities. I keep hearing about independence, I always thought we were independent as it was only ever a merging of parliaments and never a merging of countries, this seems to be the most important thing everyone is forgetting.

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

[One Day Soon]

Perhaps that's open to interpretation but that reads to me that if the Scottish people vote Yes, but negotiations cannot be agreed with Westminster, the Union is the default option.

You're correct, it's awfully written and the source would be helpful but the ambiguity certainly leaves that as a possible interpretation.

The ambiguity from the paper is deliberate. Without that you don't have a (crappy) news story. I don't think there is any doubt at all that the intent of the source is to say that the current Union would continue until such time as negotiations were concluded, rather than to say that if Westminster didnt like the negotiations they would just keep the Union.

When you think about it that suggestion is so barking the not even Farage would come out with it.

[marinello59]

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

I recently re-read Michael Fry's ''The Union.'' It gives a decent account of events and well worth reading to understand how we came to be where we are in the first place.

[Glory Lurker]

No to CU and no to Scotland taking debt are the two opposing nuclear bombs that set up a mutually assured destruction arrangement. If there is a yes vote, neither will be carried through. Why?

No to CU - Westminster's made its argument most clear. It's being deployed just now though for political reasons, in the expectation that it will stem (and perhaps reverse) the apparent growth in support for Yes. Achieve this and it never becomes an issue anyway. If Yes does win the vote, though, can they stick their ground? Perhaps they would be happy to inconvenience 10% of their economy. Reckless, but not impossible. It starts getting a bit stickier when you consider the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound. That would interest the international markets. There would be no two ways about it, the UK economy would be weakened. What we're being told is that taking that hit would be less painful for rUK than entering a currency union, the downsides of which might never need to arise, and possible terms for which have not even been considered. I don't think Scotland would turn round and say "stick the debt" (for the following reasons), but if they did the markets would be over the rUK like a rash.

No to Scotland taking debt - first things first, "default" is entirely the wrong terminology. Scotland would not be defaulting on anything. It would need to be the legal debtor to do that, and only the UK can perform that role. Anyhow, it is not automatic that the markets would take a dim view of Scotland avoiding a moral responsibility if it could demonstrate that its economy would work going forward. I think the ultimate problem of not taking the debt would be in terms of finalising EU membership and probably NATO membership. RUK would almost certainly look to veto both.

Should it get the chance to play out, the truth is somewhere in between. Here's hoping it does get the chance.

[steakbake]

"I'll give you your divorce but you can't have the house, even though a fair bit of it is yours in the first place".

[Beefster]

"I'll give you your divorce but you can't have the house, even though a fair bit of it is yours in the first place".

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

[One Day Soon]

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

:tee hee:

[J-C]

It was a merging of crowns before it was a merging of parliaments - 1603 was it? The history of the Stuarts series that finished last night was quite illuminating I thought. I knew that the Darien Scheme was a disaster but I hadn't realised that 25% of Scotland's wealth at the time had disappeared into it. No wonder they were desperate for a UK bailout. Mix that with religion and continental power politics and you end up with the Act of Union almost by accident.

This is true but the countries remained totally separate but with the same monarch for those years. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain)). There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.

As you can see, England attempted to merge the parliaments 3 times but failed, if it wasn't for the Darien Scheme we may still be a separate country now.

[steakbake]

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

The kids? It's well beyond the time for them to fly the nest too.

[One Day Soon]

This is true but the countries remained totally separate but with the same monarch for those years. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain)). There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.

As you can see, England attempted to merge the parliaments 3 times but failed, if it wasn't for the Darien Scheme we may still be a separate country now.

Quite interesting really because although you say that England tried to merge the parliaments 3 times the attempts actually took place under the rule (mostly) of Stuart kings of England and Scotland and of course those Stuart kings were Scottish in origin, not English. It was a mixed bag of interests which was almost never a matter of Scotland versus England. In almost every case the motivation was one or more of religious, personal, financial or geopolitical.

The 'if' on the Darien scheme is a very big if. The scale of financial disaster we got into there is hard to overstate. It would be interesting to see a comparative examination of the effect of that upon Scotland's economy and finances compared to the banking collapse of the last few years. I suspect it beats RBS etc out of the park.

[One Day Soon]

No to CU and no to Scotland taking debt are the two opposing nuclear bombs that set up a mutually assured destruction arrangement. If there is a yes vote, neither will be carried through. Why?

They don't though. The only thing they assure is even bigger cuts in public services, higher taxes and much more expensive borrowing for us, brought on by us.

No to CU - Westminster's made its argument most clear. It's being deployed just now though for political reasons, in the expectation that it will stem (and perhaps reverse) the apparent growth in support for Yes. Achieve this and it never becomes an issue anyway. If Yes does win the vote, though, can they stick their ground? Perhaps they would be happy to inconvenience 10% of their economy. Reckless, but not impossible. It starts getting a bit stickier when you consider the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound. That would interest the international markets. There would be no two ways about it, the UK economy would be weakened. What we're being told is that taking that hit would be less painful for rUK than entering a currency union, the downsides of which might never need to arise, and possible terms for which have not even been considered. I don't think Scotland would turn round and say "stick the debt" (for the following reasons), but if they did the markets would be over the rUK like a rash.

The notion that the advantages for the UK of smoothing out admin procedures and costs for the 10% of their exports that come to Scotland outweigh the disadvantages of a currency Union in which Scotland represents an unstable risk to the pound is wishful thinking to say the least. Apart from anything else the people who will foot the bill for any additional export costs will be Scottish consumers of those products and services to whom they will be passed on.

As for 'the possible impact on balance of payments if Scotland didn't take the pound', the effect on balance of payments in those circumstances are estimated by Prof Brian Ashcroft at the Fraser of Allander Institute to be broadly neutral for a variety of reasons. In fact Scotland not being part of a currency Union may actually improve the balance of payments for the rest of the UK. Link: http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/04/sterling-and-scottish-independence.html

No to Scotland taking debt - first things first, "default" is entirely the wrong terminology. Scotland would not be defaulting on anything. It would need to be the legal debtor to do that, and only the UK can perform that role. Anyhow, it is not automatic that the markets would take a dim view of Scotland avoiding a moral responsibility if it could demonstrate that its economy would work going forward. I think the ultimate problem of not taking the debt would be in terms of finalising EU membership and probably NATO membership. RUK would almost certainly look to veto both.

The semantics of the use of the term 'default' here is pretty irrelevant. Money markets would be watching to see what kind of fiscal responsibility or otherwise a separate Scottish state was demonstrating. Playing politics with international debt (including debt in which we have a share from the UK) by refusing to take our share tells them we are high risk and means they will attach a higher risk to any borrowing we want to make. That gets us bigger interest rates on our borrowing as they charge us more to cover the risk premium. The notion that international money markets and institutional lenders of all types would be willing to look the other way over us refusing to take our share of debt and instead make new loans to Scotland on promises of how well behaved we would be in the future takes make believe to a whole new level.

Should it get the chance to play out, the truth is somewhere in between. Here's hoping it does get the chance.

Scotland keeping the pound under independence is now dead. Refusing to take our share of UK debt is the equivalent of blowing our own financial brains out before we even start.

If Salmond won't tell us what is his Plan B on currency, it is either because he is too scared of the public response to it or because he doesn't have one. Either way it is economically very, very reckless.

The more this stuff on currency, debt and public finances is examined in detail and the more the Yes side substitute assertion for facts the more I am struck by a clear parallel. It is almost exactly like the 'we owe it to ourselves' Yammanomics culture we have seen elsewhere where any reality is always overruled by a grand assertion from the guy at the top, no matter the evidence and no matter how fanciful or unsupportable.

Next stop, #Alliscurrencybarry

[J-C]

Quite interesting really because although you say that England tried to merge the parliaments 3 times the attempts actually took place under the rule (mostly) of Stuart kings of England and Scotland and of course those Stuart kings were Scottish in origin, not English. It was a mixed bag of interests which was almost never a matter of Scotland versus England. In almost every case the motivation was one or more of religious, personal, financial or geopolitical.

The 'if' on the Darien scheme is a very big if. The scale of financial disaster we got into there is hard to overstate. It would be interesting to see a comparative examination of the effect of that upon Scotland's economy and finances compared to the banking collapse of the last few years. I suspect it beats RBS etc out of the park.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Makes a good wee read and opens your eyes a bit as to what went on and what went wrong.

[One Day Soon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Makes a good wee read and opens your eyes a bit as to what went on and what went wrong.


Yes I'd seen that and although I'm a bit dubious about accepting what what people can write up on wikipedia it is still in interesting read as you say.

Variously tragic, corrupt and naive. All those eggs in one basket....

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=One Day Soon;3906760] The evidence on cuts beyond even what Westminster is planning and tax increases and cuts in public services is in the various NIESR reports which I quoted in detail earlier in this thread and which one independence supporting poster described as being a respectable source. I can post references and hyperlinks to those if you like. If we have the pound in a currency union - which it is now clear we won't - cuts are the price we will pay.

Thankfully I'm not responsible for the idiots on either the Yes or the Better Together sides but I can clarify one point - the coming vote gives us a choice between staying in the UK and keeping the pound or separating and not having the pound. It's that simple.


Independence supporters have a somewhat different take on your analysis of the latest NIESR report.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/-thought/#comments (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/think-tank-scotlands-economy-stronger-than-previously-thought/#comments)

FWIW a number of the assertions made by NIESR are based on what will happen if an Independent Scotland changes nothing and simply does what Westminster does. You would do well to remember what the IFS said in November 2013:-

"Independence would give Scotland an opportunity to design a much more efficient tax system than the UK currently has. While pressures on the public finances would point towards tax increases, the characteristics of an independent Scotland suggest a number of ways in which the 'optimal' tax system for Scotland might involve lower taxes than that for the UK. Scottish income distribution is more equal than the UK's, so the scope and need to redistribute through higher taxes would be less."

My point here is that there are many different interpretations of how the economy of an iScotland would pan out (check out the recent FT report). The question is who the Scottish Electorate will believe? Bottom line is that an iScotland would not be a 'basket case' economy as some in the BT camp would have us believe.

I simply do not buy your comment about the pound. Your opinion is at complete odds with mine. I see the stance taken by Osbourne, Balls and Mr "I'm a Highlander and Scot" as nothing more than political posturing.

I think you are missing the point here. The currency option being advocated by the SNP has just been taken round the back of the building and shot through the head, publicly and irrevocably by all three major UK parties. It is a dead parrot. The Yes campaign can 'prefer' to articulate for a sterling zone all they like - it is no longer an option. In that context we are now being asked to vote for independence with no clarity about what our currency option would be in the separate state.

Not missing the point. You're taking everything said by Osbourne as gospel. To put it mildly, I think he is full of ****.

If we are going into the Euro for example then we have a right to know now. A Yes vote would make no difference tIt is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to know what your preferences on this are. We need to know what the Scottish Government o the position of the rest of the UK on currency. It is not in their interest to seek currency union with us for reasons already set out above and elsewhere on the need for parallel political and fiscal arrangements to make a shared currency work. Salmond needs to tell us what currency Plan B is.

The Fiscal commission working group set out a range of options for monetary policy for an iScotland. You can check out all of viable the options online anytime you like. They recommended that the best one was a sterling zone and, as far as I'm aware, that's the one Yes Scotland will continue to articulate.

There is no 'playing hardball over debt' option. We either take our share and pay for it or we refuse to take our share. If we refuse the money markets then have us pegged as high risk borrowers who act in bad faith in playing fast and loose with debt obligations. If we do that they will loan us much less than we would like and at a far higher cost. So the hardball you refer to ends up with us kneecapped before we start. If you want an example of what happens to you when you default on debt just look at Greece - no-one wants to loan to you and when they do they're either doing so at massive and unsustainable rates which you have to hammer your public services down to pay for or they will give you the loans at better rates like Germany effectively has but at the price of them telling you how to run your house.

This is just incorrect. Looks like you've bought the Darling line here? First off, an iScotland would not be 'defaulting' on debt. The UK has taken on a debt obligation. Just in case there is any doubt here, the UK only recently made a public statement that this is their debt obligation, theirs alone and that they alone will pay it off (though they expect a Scottish contribution). Scotland has no debt obligation. A default is when you fail to repay a debt obligation. Scotland has no debt obligation so it cannot be in default.

With regard to international markets, as I've said before they, as profiteers, will not be too concerned about morality.

As to Osborne spouting condescending crap - just no. The SNP want to break away and set up a separate state. Are you seriously suggesting he isn't allowed to set out the position of his UK party on one of the core issues to be settled post referendum? It's not condescending, it's a taste of what is to come if we make the rest of the UK into a foreign state - they will look after their own interests first. We can't demand independence and then demand that they comply with what would suit us on currency afterward. What is condescending is Nicola Sturgeon trying to tell us that the rest of the UK will have to agree to set up the currency union that we need because it is in their interest to do so. We are only 10% of their export market. The SNP senior figures are beginning to buy their own bull on this stuff which I suspect is why this week's dose of reality on currency has come as quite a shock to them.

Condescending is coming up here, telling us what we can and can't have whilst at the same time refusing to take any questions on, what is, an extremely contentious issue.

[Beefster]

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

[RyeSloan]

Ouch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

No surprise really....unless you are Alex Salmond. I wonder what spin he will put on this?

At least now we are getting closer to what independence might actually mean. No pound, no EU....to be honest that makes it much more realistic and maybe more desirable (to me at least!) but the Yes camp have went so far down the 'status quo' route with these things that they are going to look a bit silly if they now start arguing that none of this is of much concern.

[J-C]

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria :confused:

[marinello59]

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria :confused:

I can understand him saying it may be difficult. But to suggest it may be impossible is complete and utter nonsense.

[Beefster]

But it's ok for eastern bloc countries to join if they wish Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Czech Republic, Croatia and even Bulgaria :confused:

Bulgaria declared its intention to apply for membership of the EU in 1989. It joined in 2007. Slightly longer than the 18 months that the SNP claim it would take.

Aside from the potential timescales, Barroso seems to be talking about getting the agreement of every existing EU country. Spain, in particular, would be very reluctant to let us join.

[Phil D. Rolls]

"You've decided to leave me and the kids but yeah, of course you can still come and watch the TV here".

Oh that's it, I wondered how long it would be before the kids got used as a weapon. OK I'm a selfish get, but won't you think about how it affects them.

[CropleyWasGod]

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Bulgaria declared its intention to apply for membership of the EU in 1989. It joined in 2007. Slightly longer than the 18 months that the SNP claim it would take.

Aside from the potential timescales, Barroso seems to be talking about getting the agreement of every existing EU country. Spain, in particular, would be very reluctant to let us join.

Probably a better measure would be Finland, application 18th March 1992, joined 1st January 1995. In that time Finland had to pass multiple acts in parliament to change their governmental model and legislature to conform to EU requirements. Scotland already conforms 100%

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

:agree: Spain losing Catalunya would surely be more catastrophic than the UK losing Scotland. I'm sure the Italians must be watching nervously too.

[lucky]

Probably a better measure would be Finland, application 18th March 1992, joined 1st January 1995. In that time Finland had to pass multiple acts in parliament to change their governmental model and legislature to conform to EU requirements. Scotland already conforms 100%

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins :rolleyes:

On Sunday politics both Salmond and Swinney were on . Both spouting EU president was wrong on Scotland automatically joining the EU and that the rUK were wrong on the currency. At least they are consistent but it's a shame everyone is wrong bar them.

[marinello59]

Let's not forget that Barroso is Spanish. He has one eye on the Catalan situation.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

He's Portuguese.
But the point about Spain resisting our membership is valid.

[CropleyWasGod]

He's Portuguese.
But the point about Spain resisting our membership is valid.

Didn't realise that. Cheers.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

On Sunday politics both Salmond and Swinney were on . Both spouting EU president was wrong on Scotland automatically joining the EU and that the rUK were wrong on the currency. At least they are consistent but it's a shame everyone is wrong bar them.

Ah... Missed that, normally watch it as well!

And aye, I know where your coming from, they're defo not on my list of possibilities on who I'd vote for if Scotland did go independent.

[Beefster]

On a separate note I notice on the BBC News at lunchtime (news channel) the better together side, Alistair Darling got 5 mins to lay into Salmond. The yes guys got..... 0 mins :rolleyes:

Nicola Stugeon got an hour on the Daily Politics during the week.

[Just Alf]

Nicola Stugeon got an hour on the Daily Politics during the week.

Like I said, I missed the prog today .... and missed that as well!


I suppose what I'm getting at was that Salmond was pulled up by AD with no chance of a defence..... I still don't think an argument with only one side represented is fair? (What ever side).

Taking the prog during the week, that, again would only be fair if the BT guys got similar, in fact I really wish we could see more real "meaty" discussions all round. :agree:

[Glory Lurker]

Barroso's been spouting this line for yonks, but he's never been challenged. He's making an assertion about what will happen, without being taken to task on it. Very much the same situation that BT folk said applied to Salmond until late. Surely the MSM should be asking the sort of questions of him they have of Salmond?:-

- Where's the precedent for the treatment of part of a member state becoming independent?
- What procedure will be used to legally remove EU citizenship from current citizens?
- What procedure will be used to remove the rights of free movement to and from Scotland?
- Where is your legal advice? Will you publish it?

If the answers to these questions boot me in the political guts, well fair enough, but surely they should be asked, rather than Barroso's convenient line being lapped up at face value? Somehow don't expect I should hold my breath, though, and until they are answered then I think Yes is quite right in dismissing them.

[James70]

Hate to say this but the SNP politicians are now becoming as delusional and paranoid as the Hearts supporters.

Everybody has it in for them and all the experts know nothing.

Alex Salmond is rapidly becoming a political laughing stock but he won't care if he wins the referendum.

[Just Alf]

Hate to say this but the SNP politicians are now becoming as delusional and paranoid as the Hearts supporters.

Everybody has it in for them and all the experts know nothing.

Alex Salmond is rapidly becoming a political laughing stock but he won't care if he wins the referendum.

As someone who's moved from really, really undecided to a probable yes, I totally agree, at the moment they certainly ain't helping themselves. Mind you, that's being pretty much balanced by the bullying I'm feeling from the other side.

Edit: actually not balanced enough, the yes bods need to move up a gear, for me, and start getting a better message out there.

[James70]

As someone who's moved from really, really undecided to a probable yes, I totally agree, at the moment they certainly ain't helping themselves. Mind you, that's being pretty much balanced by the bullying I'm feeling from the other side.

Edit: actually not balanced enough, the yes bods need to move up a gear, for me, and start getting a better message out there.

But is it really bullying or just simply explaining the facts of life. If there is a YES vote and we are not allowed into the EU and there is no currency union we could be right up the creek without a paddle.
There will be those who vote with their hearts and those who vote with their heads.

[Stonewall]

As someone who's moved from really, really undecided to a probable yes, I totally agree, at the moment they certainly ain't helping themselves. Mind you, that's being pretty much balanced by the bullying I'm feeling from the other side.

Edit: actually not balanced enough, the yes bods need to move up a gear, for me, and start getting a better message out there.

Maybe Salmond's now got the argument where he wants it and he can feed on anti English/ Scottish establishment sentiments to work on the undecided knowing that everyone else is pretty much entrenched on one side of the fence or the other.

[Just Alf]

But is it really bullying or just simply explaining the facts of life. If there is a YES vote and we are not allowed into the EU and there is no currency union we could be right up the creek without a paddle.
There will be those who vote with their hearts and those who vote with their heads.

I know where you're coming from, but take the EU element, the Spanish fishing fleet is the 6th biggest in the world and the UK have already paid £55 million in comp when we tried to deny them access to Scottish waters in the 70's

When push comes to shove would Spain really vote to severely curtail one of their key industries?

[Just Alf]

Maybe Salmond's now got the argument where he wants it and he can feed on anti English/ Scottish establishment to work on the undecided knowing that everyone else is pretty much entrenched on one side of the fence or the other.

Now THAT is a worry, I've never seen this as an English/Scottish thing, fore it's all about whether Scotland would be better served by a directly (locally?) elected government.

To be honest, I think that some of the English regions should also have some sort of devolved government to off set the "London pull"

[allmodcons]

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963


No surprise really....unless you are Alex Salmond. I wonder what spin he will put on this?

At least now we are getting closer to what independence might actually mean. No pound, no EU....to be honest that makes it much more realistic and maybe more desirable (to me at least!) but the Yes camp have went so far down the 'status quo' route with these things that they are going to look a bit silly if they now start arguing that none of this is of much concern.

If you put your politics to one side, can I ask why you guys (as Scots) take pleasure in a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland?



Hate to say this but the SNP politicians are now becoming as delusional and paranoid as the Hearts supporters.

Everybody has it in for them and all the experts know nothing.

Alex Salmond is rapidly becoming a political laughing stock but he won't care if he wins the referendum.

Which 'experts' are you talking about here - Osbourne, Balls, Alexander & Barroso ?
As to your comments about Salmond being a 'political laughing stock' this says more about you than him.




Maybe Salmond's now got the argument where he wants it and he can feed on anti English/ Scottish establishment sentiments to work on the undecided knowing that everyone else is pretty much entrenched on one side of the fence or the other.

Difficult one to answer this one. If you're suggesting Salmond is anti English then I'm sorry but you're just talking pish.
If you're suggesting he's anti Westminster, then I apologise for saying you're talking pish.

[allmodcons]

Barroso's been spouting this line for yonks, but he's never been challenged. He's making an assertion about what will happen, without being taken to task on it. Very much the same situation that BT folk said applied to Salmond until late. Surely the MSM should be asking the sort of questions of him they have of Salmond?:-

- Where's the precedent for the treatment of part of a member state becoming independent?
- What procedure will be used to legally remove EU citizenship from current citizens?
- What procedure will be used to remove the rights of free movement to and from Scotland?
- Where is your legal advice? Will you publish it?

If the answers to these questions boot me in the political guts, well fair enough, but surely they should be asked, rather than Barroso's convenient line being lapped up at face value? Somehow don't expect I should hold my breath, though, and until they are answered then I think Yes is quite right in dismissing them.

A simple set of questions, but too difficult for the BBC.

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/

[gillie]

I find it hard to believe any of the garbled rubbish coming from either side in this debate none of them care about us minions, nothing will change under home rule, the poor will still be poor there will be no accountability or transparenty from the political party's or msp, the only difference will be you will have Scottish based msps making the same bollocks promises while keeping themselves in a well paid job, the only reason we have the union with England is because our own political leaders at the time squandered all our wealth and where incapable of running our affairs, what's to say it's going to be any different now

[Phil D. Rolls]

I find it hard to believe any of the garbled rubbish coming from either side in this debate none of them care about us minions, nothing will change under home rule, the poor will still be poor there will be no accountability or transparenty from the political party's or msp, the only difference will be you will have Scottish based msps making the same bollocks promises while keeping themselves in a well paid job, the only reason we have the union with England is because our own political leaders at the time squandered all our wealth and where incapable of running our affairs, what's to say it's going to be any different now

As long as the trains run on time. That's all we ask.

[gillie]

As long as the trains run on time. That's all we ask.most of the nasty party followers I've talked With are are claiming that will happen along with full employment honest bankers and council bungalows with gold taps with bells on for all who need them utopia indeed

[Sylar]

If you put your politics to one side, can I ask why you guys (as Scots) take pleasure in a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland?


It alarms me to agree with you but I'm increasingly being taken aback by the sheer glee some Unionists are taking in every single media story that would be considered 'anti-Independence'. Whilst I'm aware it perhaps strengthens some notion of political argument, some of the stuff from the BT campaign (and non-affiliated Unionists) would have you believe we're incapable of wiping our own ***** without them and this is being celebrated as if each negative story is a win.

I found this quite repulsive today in one sense. It raises questions about Salmond's proposals for quick entry into the EU post-Independence, certainly, but the triumphalism that's followed has been quite unpalatable.




Which 'experts' are you talking about here - Osbourne, Balls, Alexander & Barroso ?
As to your comments about Salmond being a 'political laughing stock' this says more about you than him.


There have been a vast array of legal, economic, political and social experts interviewed over the course of the 'debate' (I use this term very loosely) from a wide representation of Universities, think tanks, companies and government, which the Yes campaign have readily dismissed for one reason or t'other.






Difficult one to answer this one. If you're suggesting Salmond is anti English then I'm sorry but you're just talking pish.
If you're suggesting he's anti Westminster, then I apologise for saying you're talking pish.

He is anti-Westminster (to say he's anti-English is silly IMO) but then, there are large areas of the country that are anti-Westminster right now. What about the northern areas of England, which, similar to the last Tory government, have been effectively left to their own devices again, without ANY degree of local authority? Whilst our powers in Scotland are limited, we at least have some semblance of control over our affairs - the increasingly impoverished areas of the North East and North West don't have such a luxury and they're every bit as isolated from Westminster.

I guess you consider the last sentence as a key reason why we should be pushing for Independence?

[Phil D. Rolls]

most of the nasty party followers I've talked With are are claiming that will happen along with full employment honest bankers and council bungalows with gold taps with bells on for all who need them utopia indeed

Jam tomorrow. :wink:

[gillie]

Jam tomorrow. :wink:

Not on a Monday

[One Day Soon]

A simple set of questions, but too difficult for the BBC.

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/


Wow. 'Seething' is the word that comes to mind after reading some of his blog. Didn't he used to be a minor reporter at the BBC? What happened to him?

He describes the Portuguese President of the EU Commission as having an 'oily smile' for no particularly obvious reason that I can see....

[Beefster]

If you put your politics to one side, can I ask why you guys (as Scots) take pleasure in a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland?

Ah, the old 'not real Scots' comfort blanket? Primarily the reason that I tend to stay out of the debate aside from the odd flurry before it starts again.

I suspect you know that any 'pleasure' is at seeing the SNP's Never Never Land version of independence get shown up for the one-sided fantasy it is.

[Beefster]

some of the stuff from the BT campaign (and non-affiliated Unionists) would have you believe we're incapable of wiping our own ***** without them and this is being celebrated as if each negative story is a win.

I'm not sure who on here you think is suggesting that Scotland couldn't run its own affairs. I'd wager that most of us who are for the status quo think we could.

As for the 'negative story is a win' comment, the win is SNP promises being demolished. Some of us have been arguing that what is being promised is rubbish for a long time. That's the ultimate aim of political debate.

Aside from that, the story is only negative if you want independence and ever bought into the "it'll be easy" line from the SNP. To everyone else, it is a fact - something the Scottish electorate is in desperate need of.

[RyeSloan]

Ah, the old 'not real Scots' comfort blanket? Primarily the reason that I tend to stay out of the debate aside from the odd flurry before it starts again.

I suspect you know that any 'pleasure' is at seeing the SNP's Never Never Land version of independence get shown up for the one-sided fantasy it is.

Pretty much sums it up.

[Sylar]

I'm not sure who on here you think is suggesting that Scotland couldn't run its own affairs. I'd wager that most of us who are for the status quo think we could.

As for the 'negative story is a win' comment, the win is SNP promises being demolished. Some of us have been arguing that what is being promised is rubbish for a long time. That's the ultimate aim of political debate.

Aside from that, the story is only negative if you want independence and ever bought into the "it'll be easy" line from the SNP. To everyone else, it is a fact - something the Scottish electorate is in desperate need of.

I should have stressed that my point wasn't levelled at anyone on here Beefster.

I'm fully on board with your second and third sentences - I think a lot of the stuff being 'promised' is unfeasible hogwash that won't come to fruition and some points suffer from either ill-advised or non-advised supposition or expectancy. That the opposition are going to disagree is part and parcel of the process and the SNP (and the Yes campaign) assume they're going to get everything on their Santa list and all will be rosy in the Garden. However, to my mind, there's not been any debate - the Westminster parties are closing down any avenues for debate, discussion or negotiation and dictating the terms from a heavily self-interested position (as is their want I suppose).

I just don't think the way much of it is being communicated is particularly helpful to anyone.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Must say I'm shocked by the ferocity of the latest No arguments. I think the Phoney War has ended. It will be very interesting where Yes goes next.

It means giving up the conciliatory game that's worked so well up till now. If they do, things get pretty bitter, with name calling.

I think a lot of people are worried about the aftermath of the referendum. The last thing we need is acrimony.

[Stonewall]

Difficult one to answer this one. If you're suggesting Salmond is anti English then I'm sorry but you're just talking pish.
If you're suggesting he's anti Westminster, then I apologise for saying you're talking pish. [/QUOTE]

Don't believe he's anti English for a minute. Just think he'll do anything to win and if that includes stirring up anti English (establishment) feelings then he'll do it. He'll also be very clever about it. Just look at the responses since Osborne's speech.

No pish spouted.

[J-C]

It's a pity that a good honest debate into our future has turned into petty name calling, I honestly think many of believe the SNP will be the party that is in power if the vote is yes. Remember once the yes vote has happened you can if you wish vote for whatever part you want afterwards, the ruling party after the yes vote may not necessarily be the SNP.

[RyeSloan]

It's a pity that a good honest debate into our future has turned into petty name calling, I honestly think many of believe the SNP will be the party that is in power if the vote is yes. Remember once the yes vote has happened you can if you wish vote for whatever part you want afterwards, the ruling party after the yes vote may not necessarily be the SNP.

But on the flip side the SNP is the face of the Yes campaign so they are naturally being very closely associated with it.

It would appear the SNP are quite happy to descend to name calling. Project Fear and Bullying seem to have been their favourite over the last week or two.

Fact is some of these very fundamental questions should have been resolved long ago...the Yes campaign have continued down the line of just vote Yes them we'll sort it out for ages now, a dangerous tactic that, in my eyes at least, is leaving them looking a bit short of answers just now.

[HiBremian]

Ouch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

This, following Osborne's monetary union comments, and recent comments about a Yes vote not guaranteeing independence, are timed political interventions. Gunboat diplomacy has returned to the debate. Following a Yes vote, the issue for the EU and the UK in all cases will be economic interests. Elected politicians have the mandate that in practice allows flexibility on issues like this.

As for Barroso, he's an establishment fud who is on his way out anyway:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but it seems a fairly pragmatic piece about last week's goings on:

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues

I'll be interested to hear what Salmond comes up with today to 'deconstruct' Osborne et al's statement about currency. Hopefully a bit more substance than has recently been coming out of the 'Yes' campaign, but I'm not holding my breath.

[snooky]

This, following Osborne's monetary union comments, and recent comments about a Yes vote not guaranteeing independence, are timed political interventions. Gunboat diplomacy has returned to the debate. Following a Yes vote, the issue for the EU and the UK in all cases will be economic interests. Elected politicians have the mandate that in practice allows flexibility on issues like this.

As for Barroso, he's an establishment fud who is on his way out anyway:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some major barrel scraping going on from politicians of both sides however the NO campaign seem to have longer fingernails

[southsider]

The NO lot has yam (i am an MP) Murray as a poster boy/spokesman. That alone puts me in the YES camp.

[Sylar]

The NO lot has yam (i am an MP) Murray as a poster boy/spokesman. That alone puts me in the YES camp.

You do know Alex Salmond is a Hearts fan, aye? :confused:

Strange criteria to base your politics on.

[allmodcons]

Ah, the old 'not real Scots' comfort blanket? Primarily the reason that I tend to stay out of the debate aside from the odd flurry before it starts again.

I suspect you know that any 'pleasure' is at seeing the SNP's Never Never Land version of independence get shown up for the one-sided fantasy it is.


Pretty much sums it up.

Apologies if misunderstood, but not for 1 second was I taking the 'not real Scots' line.

Simply asking why you 'appeared' happy with comments from a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland?

FWIW, I did ask you to put 'your politics to one side' when answering my question, but would appear your disdain for the SNP got in the way of your response?

[James70]

Simply asking why you 'appeared' happy with comments from a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland?

FWIW, I did ask you to put 'your politics to one side' when answering my question, but would appear your disdain for the SNP got in the way of your response?[/QUOTE]

I am no fan of unelected European Commissioners myself but to be fair he was only giving a personal opinion and not dictating what we could or couldn't do. At the end of the day it will be for member states to decide and not any one individual.

[HiBremian]

Barroso's been spouting this line for yonks, but he's never been challenged. He's making an assertion about what will happen, without being taken to task on it. Very much the same situation that BT folk said applied to Salmond until late. Surely the MSM should be asking the sort of questions of him they have of Salmond?:-

- Where's the precedent for the treatment of part of a member state becoming independent?
- What procedure will be used to legally remove EU citizenship from current citizens?
- What procedure will be used to remove the rights of free movement to and from Scotland?
- Where is your legal advice? Will you publish it?

If the answers to these questions boot me in the political guts, well fair enough, but surely they should be asked, rather than Barroso's convenient line being lapped up at face value? Somehow don't expect I should hold my breath, though, and until they are answered then I think Yes is quite right in dismissing them.

Some of the answers are attempted here:

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu

[allmodcons]

But on the flip side the SNP is the face of the Yes campaign so they are naturally being very closely associated with it.

It would appear the SNP are quite happy to descend to name calling. Project Fear and Bullying seem to have been their favourite over the last week or two.

Fact is some of these very fundamental questions should have been resolved long ago...the Yes campaign have continued down the line of just vote Yes them we'll sort it out for ages now, a dangerous tactic that, in my eyes at least, is leaving them looking a bit short of answers just now.

I'm sorry Simar, but if you're looking for 'concrete' answers to questions around currency and the EU before you vote in September 2014 this is not going to happen.

What you have at the moment, and will get right up to September, is political posturing (by both sides). If, as I hope, Scotland votes 'Yes' then you will see pragmatism take over.

With the likelihood of an 'in/out' EU referendum after the 2015 UK General Election neither campaign can guarantee certainty on the European issue and, like it or not, the issue of the pound is one where you (like everybody else) will have to take a decision based on the argument being articulated by either side.

[allmodcons]

Some of the answers are attempted here:

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu

It's a shame this guy wasn't interviewing Barroso on Sunday.

[RyeSloan]

I'm sorry Simar, but if you're looking for 'concrete' answers to questions around currency and the EU before you vote in September 2014 this is not going to happen. What you have at the moment, and will get right up to September, is political posturing (by both sides). If, as I hope, Scotland votes 'Yes' then you will see pragmatism take over. With the likelihood of an 'in/out' EU referendum after the 2015 UK General Election neither campaign can guarantee certainty on the European issue and, like it or not, the issue of the pound is one where you (like everybody else) will have to take a decision based on the argument being articulated by either side.

Oh I know I won't get any answers. This, as you know, has been my beef from the start.

We are asking people to vote for something that is ill defined and could have significant unintended consequences on their and the nations well being. I don't like that approach and think that there should have been significantly more effort out into clarifying these key points before people were asked to vote...otherwise what,exactly, are we voting for?

[RyeSloan]

Apologies if misunderstood, but not for 1 second was I taking the 'not real Scots' line. Simply asking why you 'appeared' happy with comments from a foreign bureaucrat telling us (as EU citizens) that we would not be welcome as EU members if by democratic means we (the Scottish Electorate) vote for an iScotland? FWIW, I did ask you to put 'your politics to one side' when answering my question, but would appear your disdain for the SNP got in the way of your response?

By what treaty do the citizens of a newly independent Scotland belong to the EU?

Would seem rather logical that by disassociating with the UK we do exactly the same with the legal agreements the UK currently has....or are we back to pick and choose here?

There is of course nothing saying we won't be welcomed back...but Barroso was merely pointing out that we shouldn't take that for granted.

I don't take any pleasure from this mess...in fact quite the opposite I find it all very depressing.

As for the politics of it all...it would appear almost impossible not to look at the SNP as the main players in the Yes campaign so I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the yes campaigns response without referring to the SNP.

[lucky]

Salmond is spinning what has been said yet again. The rUK parties of have said no to a currency union not no to a share of the assets. But as usual the man is incapable of telling us the truth. As voters we deserve better from both sides but FFS Salmond is treating us like fools. This is not about Scotland being bullied its about other political parties saying they will not be AGREEING to a currency union.

[allmodcons]

By what treaty do the citizens of a newly independent Scotland belong to the EU?

Would seem rather logical that by disassociating with the UK we do exactly the same with the legal agreements the UK currently has....or are we back to pick and choose here?

There is of course nothing saying we won't be welcomed back...but Barroso was merely pointing out that we shouldn't take that for granted.

I don't take any pleasure from this mess...in fact quite the opposite I find it all very depressing.

As for the politics of it all...it would appear almost impossible not to look at the SNP as the main players in the Yes campaign so I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the yes campaigns response without referring to the SNP.


If you want some non partisan information on the EU. This link as posted by someone earlier today. Clearly Barroso was talking nonsense but somehow still managed to make the headlines!

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu

[snooky]

A
Oh I know I won't get any answers. This, as you know, has been my beef from the start.

We are asking people to vote for something that is ill defined and could have significant unintended consequences on their and the nations well being. I don't like that approach and think that there should have been significantly more effort out into clarifying these key points before people were asked to vote...otherwise what,exactly, are we voting for?
Tbh I'm just as much in the dark about what we're voting for whether Yes or No.
God knows what the future will be like under a smug Cameron Cartel if we vote No.

[Bristolhibby]

Salmond is spinning what has been said yet again. The rUK parties of have said no to a currency union not no to a share of the assets. But as usual the man is incapable of telling us the truth. As voters we deserve better from both sides but FFS Salmond is treating us like fools. This is not about Scotland being bullied its about other political parties saying they will not be AGREEING to a currency union.

So they say. And why would they say anything else?

What they say and what happens are two different things.

It's called negotiations.

A bisinessman goes into negotiations with a supplier, yet we are asking the businessman to tell us before the negotiation what the actual deal will be.

The businessman can only tell us what the deal is he wants. He cannot tell us what deal he makes until the negotiations have taken place.

But we know the supplier will have to make a deal to help his company stay in business .

J

[RyeSloan]

A Tbh I'm just as much in the dark about what we're voting for whether Yes or No. God knows what the future will be like under a smug Cameron Cartel if we vote No.

Good point, well made!

[gillie]

Good point, well made!
It will just be the same as the one under salmond if we vote yes only smugger

[One Day Soon]

So they say. And why would they say anything else?

What they say and what happens are two different things.

It's called negotiations.

A bisinessman goes into negotiations with a supplier, yet we are asking the businessman to tell us before the negotiation what the actual deal will be.

The businessman can only tell us what the deal is he wants. He cannot tell us what deal he makes until the negotiations have taken place.

But we know the supplier will have to make a deal to help his company stay in business .

J


It really isn't.

It's called the reality of what the UK's position will be towards Scotland joining the pound if we separate.

And we aren't asking the 'businessman' to tell us what the deal is he wants, we are just asking him to tell us what the product is he is trying to sell us.

At the moment where the currency is concerned we don't know if that product is a cow, a car or a cat.

As for 'But we know the supplier will have to make a deal to help his company stay in business', I'm sorry but that really is just ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting that the economic viability of the UK depends upon Scotland joining a pound currency union after separation?

[Just Alf]

It will just be the same as the one under salmond if we vote yes only smugger

I don't get that?

I'll be voting yes (recent events have pretty much sealed that now ).... But I won't be voting SNP in any elections for the 1st independent government elections!

[One Day Soon]

I don't get that?

I'll be voting yes (recent events have pretty much sealed that now ).... But I won't be voting SNP in any elections for the 1st independent government elections!


Why's that then?

Not that I think it would matter so much in those circumstances. We would pretty quickly be locked firmly in the boot of the Euro anyway, the outcome of the German elections would be the ones to watch.

[lucky]

So they say. And why would they say anything else?

What they say and what happens are two different things.

It's called negotiations.

A bisinessman goes into negotiations with a supplier, yet we are asking the businessman to tell us before the negotiation what the actual deal will be.

The businessman can only tell us what the deal is he wants. He cannot tell us what deal he makes until the negotiations have taken place.

But we know the supplier will have to make a deal to help his company stay in business .

J

It's not negotiating, I negotiate every in day in my job. Every time you hope to get more than you give but you always have a bottom line that you won't move on. The unionist and devolutionist parties have said no to a currency union. They are not negotiating but stating they won't do a deal on the currency.

[allmodcons]

It really isn't.

It's called the reality of what the UK's position will be towards Scotland joining the pound if we separate.

At the moment where the currency is concerned we don't know if that product is a cow, a car or a cat.

This of course is your own individual view on the past weeks events (i.e. - not reality). You'll not be surprised to learn that my view is at odds with yours.

Whilst Osbourne & Balls are saying 'no currency union' now, IMO their position will change in the event of Yes vote from one of political posturing to pragmatism.

If we vote Yes, the currency in an iScotland will be the pound - most probably as part of formal arrangement.

[Just Alf]

It really isn't.

It's called the reality of what the UK's position will be towards Scotland joining the pound if we separate.

And we aren't asking the 'businessman' to tell us what the deal is he wants, we are just asking him to tell us what the product is he is trying to sell us.

At the moment where the currency is concerned we don't know if that product is a cow, a car or a cat.

As for 'But we know the supplier will have to make a deal to help his company stay in business', I'm sorry but that really is just ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting that the economic viability of the UK depends upon Scotland joining a pound currency union after separation?

If Salmond is to be believed (he says he used Westminster data?) then Scotland is one of the few countries with which England/rUK has a trading surplus.... Keeping rUK transactional costs with one of its few "profitable" markets as low as possible seems a sensible step.

[Just Alf]

Why's that then?

Not that I think it would matter so much in those circumstances. We would pretty quickly be locked firmly in the boot of the Euro anyway, the outcome of the German elections would be the ones to watch.

I guess I see a chance to have a new look at what the different parties will come up with.

As an aside I think that the SNP will start to disintegrate after a few years, their reason for existing would have been achieved and their members will start to gravitate towards left and right leaning parties.

[CropleyWasGod]

I guess I see a chance to have a new look at what the different parties will come up with.

As an aside I think that the SNP will start to disintegrate after a few years, their reason for existing would have been achieved and their members will start to gravitate towards left and right leaning parties.

Nothing surer in my view. The SNP is a disparate group of "isms", all held together by one common cause. As an example, one just needs to look at how many of them (including ministers) voted against gay marriage the other week.

A post-independence Scottish parliament would be a fascinating game, IMO. For one thing, the 71 (?) Westminster MP's would be looking for jobs, which might raise the standard of debate.

[One Day Soon]

This of course is your own individual view on the past weeks events (i.e. - not reality). You'll not be surprised to learn that my view is at odds with yours.

Whilst Osbourne & Balls are saying 'no currency union' now, IMO their position will change in the event of Yes vote from one of political posturing to pragmatism.

If we vote Yes, the currency in an iScotland will be the pound - most probably as part of formal arrangement.


Pragmatism over what? Giving in to the idea just because Scotland needs to be in the pound? They have no need to be pragmatic.

It isn't in their interest to have us as part of a currency union without the associated political and fiscal relationship needed to give currency union stability. That's the very political and fiscal relationship that Salmond is looking to tear apart. Their balance of payments will stay neutral or improve without Scotland and any transactional costs associated with separate currencies and their imports will just be passed on to Scottish consumers in the same way that every company passes on raised costs to consumers via higher prices.

[One Day Soon]

If Salmond is to be believed (he says he used Westminster data?) then Scotland is one of the few countries with which England/rUK has a trading surplus.... Keeping rUK transactional costs with one of its few "profitable" markets as low as possible seems a sensible step.


The rest of the UK sends just 10% of its total exports to Scotland. We send 70% of ours to the rest of the UK. It is us who need a pound currency union not the UK. The transactional costs argument is laughable.

The notion that they would tie themselves to a pound currency union with us for the sake of 10% of their exports - while we do whatever we like on borrowing, spending and taxation - is pretty much at the height of Nationalist fantasy.

Jim Sillars, the former SNP Deputy Leader is right, it would have been more honest and more credible if they had opted for a new separate Scottish currency. Huge challenges in that too, but at least something which it would have been within their power to create. What we are being told now about the pound is literally just made up nonsense.

[lucky]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/02/revealed-the-salmond-osborne-tapes/

Minor Hibs content in this, funny but true.

[Just Alf]

The rest of the UK sends just 10% of its total exports to Scotland. We send 70% of ours to the rest of the UK. It is us who need a pound currency union not the UK. The transactional costs argument is laughable.

The notion that they would tie themselves to a pound currency union with us for the sake of 10% of their exports - while we do whatever we like on borrowing, spending and taxation - is pretty much at the height of Nationalist fantasy.

Jim Sillars, the former SNP Deputy Leader is right, it would have been more honest and more credible if they had opted for a new separate Scottish currency. Huge challenges in that too, but at least something which it would have been within their power to create. What we are being told now about the pound is literally just made up nonsense.

I'm not going to argue the numbers, AS made the claim based on HMRC data and I've not found where/what it is.

On the laughable bit, I don't agree.
What you are essentially saying is that the rUK will not consider the impact of increased costs on 10% of its exports.
Don't get me wrong, it might be that other factors outweigh the additional costs in a currency separation, but the negative impact still exists.

I will also add that my own preference is for a separate Scottish Pound however not getting one isn't a reason for me not to vote yes. You never know, a party in the new setup might actually take that up as one of their manifesto commitments! :agree:

[Just Alf]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/02/revealed-the-salmond-osborne-tapes/

Minor Hibs content in this, funny but true.

I'm glad it's a spoof.... I don't think I could wait THAT long!!!!!

[HiBremian]

I guess I see a chance to have a new look at what the different parties will come up with.

As an aside I think that the SNP will start to disintegrate after a few years, their reason for existing would have been achieved and their members will start to gravitate towards left and right leaning parties.

A very active SNP member mate of mine has already told me he intends to vote Green in iScotland ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

[Beefster]

In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

[Stonewall]

Anyone else think the currency debate is probably irrelevant as the EU would make it a condition of entry that we adopt the Euro?

[Beefster]

Anyone else think the currency debate is probably irrelevant as the EU would make it a condition of entry that we adopt the Euro?

It will be a condition but I think we'd need to meet certain economic criteria first. Presumably we'd need an alternative currency in the meantime.

[J-C]

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

:top marks

[Just Alf]

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

Yup, that pretty much sums up where I am now..... I do agree wi Brewster on your last sentence though :-)

[Hibercelona]

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

Wanting another country to make our political decisions for us, in the fear that we can't handle big decisions by ourselves, is cowardly in the extreme.

I don't know why any Scottish person would vote for that. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

[Beefster]

Wanting another country to make our political decisions for us, in the fear that we can't handle big decisions by ourselves, is cowardly in the extreme.

I don't know why any Scottish person would vote for that. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Another country doesn't currently make our political decisions for us. Do you argue the same point about the rest of Scotland abdicating their political decisions to the central belt?

To suggest that anyone actually wants or is proposing another country making our decisions is yet another lie in a debate full of them.

[Beefster]

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

Why is it not the same as the pride an Englishman takes in being English as well as British?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Scotland keeping the pound under independence is now dead. Refusing to take our share of UK debt is the equivalent of blowing our own financial brains out before we even start.

If Salmond won't tell us what is his Plan B on currency, it is either because he is too scared of the public response to it or because he doesn't have one. Either way it is economically very, very reckless.

The more this stuff on currency, debt and public finances is examined in detail and the more the Yes side substitute assertion for facts the more I am struck by a clear parallel. It is almost exactly like the 'we owe it to ourselves' Yammanomics culture we have seen elsewhere where any reality is always overruled by a grand assertion from the guy at the top, no matter the evidence and no matter how fanciful or unsupportable.

Next stop, #Alliscurrencybarry

I for one dont believe for one second that the pound situation is as cut and dried as the no folk are saying it is. As I understand it the yes side's statement about not taking on our share of the debt comes under the heading of, if we cant have our share of the assets why the hell should we take our share of the debt ... that sounds fair enough to me.

I have tried to avoid football analogies when talking about this subject, but as theres one here I will use one.

When Mercer tried to take over Hibs in the 90s the situation was not unlike the one Scotland has found itself in since 1707.

Like Hibs Scotland was bankrupt.
Like Hibs a bigger and richer neighbour saw a chance to get what it had always wanted.

Every Hibby and Yam out there knew that a 'merger' of the two clubs in these circumstances would mean only one thing. Yes, perhaps the merged club would be Edinburgh United, but it would play in Maroon at Tynecastle and everybody would know that in reality it was Heart of Midlothian. Perhaps that new club would be able to win the league and any Hibby who had been willing to embrace this new arrangement would be able to bask in the glory ... but it wouldnt be Hibs winning the league, thats for sure. As 90% of foreigners say England when referring to Britain, so over time everybody would just have called the new club Hearts, coz in their minds there would be no distinction between the two.

Unlike the general population who had no say in the matter in 1707 the Hibs fans fought tooth and nail to prevent what the saw as the loss of not only their club, but part of their identity as Hibbies.

What I dont understand is this. If folk didnt think this was a situation they could bear for their football club, why then on a much bigger scale is the same situation tolerable for their country?

[allmodcons]

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

You make a fair point in your first paragraph and then mess up. Where's your evidence of that there 'is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the Yes supporters'.

You want to have a look at some of the comments made/posted about Alex Salmond. IMO you've been reading all about those nasty 'cybernats' in the Daily Mail. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

Another country doesn't currently make our political decisions for us. Do you argue the same point about the rest of Scotland abdicating their political decisions to the central belt?

To suggest that anyone actually wants or is proposing another country making our decisions is yet another lie in a debate full of them.

If the country you are talking about is Britain you are correct. But thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about how being part of Britain relates to Scotland's position as a country in its own right, in which case of course another country makes our decisions for us.

This does not happen in a deliberate and calculated way, nobody is saying that is the case. But how can it be denied that the decisions made by the UK parliament are in every case dictated by what the prevailing thinking is in England .... The huge disparity between the populations of the two countries and therefore the number of MPs representing English seats to those representing Scottish seats means that this must be the case.

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would we have had the poll tax or bedroom tax?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would we have been involved in Iraq or Afganistan?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would being born in Scotland now not be enough to make you a Scottish citizen?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would it be the case, as it is now, that the best local authority housing would be in private ownership ... leaving no decent housing for those who were not in a position to buy. Leading now to the situation we have of the few old folk left who are still in council houses the have lived in for decades being forced to move out because there isnt enough 3 and 4 bedroom houses left in public ownership.

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would there be a huge pot set aside from the oil revenues and invested for the day it runs out, like Norway has ... or would we be in the position we are now, where the money is all gone with nothing set aside for the future.

I'm not saying that an independent Scotland wouldnt have made ( or make ) mistakes .... but at least they would be our mistakes and we wouldnt have the back up pathetic position of blaming the English for everything, while all the while half the population of England glory in the, unfounded or not, impression that they subsidise Scotland to their own detriment.

[RyeSloan]

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

[marinello59]

Anyone else think the currency debate is probably irrelevant as the EU would make it a condition of entry that we adopt the Euro?

Aye. That thought had crossed my mind.

[marinello59]

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

Oh dear. Not proper Scots if they believe that the best future our country can have is top remain as part of the UK then? Sad stuff. I'll be voting Yes but your post is just downright nasty towards around about 50% of the Scottish electorate.
Don't you think that our greatest asset is our people whom you have just trashed in large numbers? You are also wrong about Scotland not being a proper country if we remain as part of the Union. 200 years and counting has done next to nothing to diminish our national identity.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

You make a good point and it certainly seems a paradox on the face of it. But as a nationalist I see no contradiction with being a nationalist on one hand and a Europhile ( which I am ) on the other. All countries have these decisions to make regarding membership of the EU or NATO for example, but the fact is that they make these decisions on their own terms taking into account what is best for them.

Many countries are members of currency unions .. try telling a Frenchman that France's identity as a country is diluted because its in the Euro. The Queen is head of state in Canada, New Zealand and Australia ...... its just window dressing and means nothing in real terms to how these countries are percieved or perform on the national stage. I am a lifelong republican ... but if the people of Scotland want the English royal family to provide a decoration as head of state I wouldnt bat an eyelid ... so long as we didnt have to pay for the privilege :greengrin

I alluded to the fact before that I think Scotland's world outlook is different to Britain's as a whole. Yes we have our bigots and racists like everybody else ,,, but I think in general our national make up is to be more open to folk who are different. I am willing to bet that if a referendum were held tomorrow Britain and of course therefore Scotland would leave the EU. If you want a paradox the very folk who are in the vanguard of the no campaign for Scottish independence would be the ones leading the leave the EU campaign ... so much for better together.

On the EU note ...... If as seems likely a UK vote on leaving Europe was to lead to us ( the UK ) quitting Europe, in my opinion it would lead to utter disaster in the long run. If Scotland being denied membership of a Pound zone is really being used as a punishment for seperating from the UK by the bitter element of the no campaign ( opinions are divided on that depending on your point of view ) it will be as nothing to the ****storm the UK will have to face from the bitter element on the other side of the English channel if we pull out of the EU and as they would see it, leave them in the lurch.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Oh dear. Not proper Scots if they believe that the best future our country can have is top remain as part of the UK then? Sad stuff. I'll be voting Yes but your post is just downright nasty towards around about 50% of the Scottish electorate.
Don't you think that our greatest asset is our people whom you have just trashed in large numbers? You are also wrong about Scotland not being a proper country if we remain as part of the Union. 200 years and counting has done next to nothing to diminish our national identity.

Our national identity isnt in doubt as far as product Scotland is concerned. That in my opinion doesnt give us the right to pretend we are a proper country in a political or social sense. Perhaps Scotland future in economic terms ( which seems to be the whole of this debate ) will be better as part of the UK. That particular question could only be answered for sure if we did become independent.

But, if that is all that matters to people ..... That calling yourself Scots and having pretensions to nationhood in the real meaning of the word I.E. being responsible for your own decisions for good or bad begins and ends with the contents of your wallet, then perhaps having another countries decisions, attitudes and social outlook foisted upon us is whats best for us after all.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Kaiser Sauzee:

Sorry ... for some reason I cant quote your post.

Read what I said in context. Scotland is a country in geographical and historical terms and as part of the union is a country in that context. Perhaps I dont express myself very well at times. My point is that in terms of what it means in reality to be a country, or at least my understanding of it, is that your politicians run it according to the social and political will of its people and this reflects our attitudes, no matter how insignificant, onto the national stage.

There is plenty of evidence over the last few decades that what the people of Scotland think and want to see happen regarding many national and international issues is not what we end up getting because what we want is at odds with the much larger England and especially middle England. Therefore we allow our national identity in social and political terms to be over ridden by a much larger partner in this unequal marriage. We moan, bitch and whine about it, but when the opportunity arises to do something about it we run scared.

Thats why my opinion is what it is on this issue ...... In all good conscience what people with any pretensions to be a nation in the proper sense of the term allows that to happen. In terms of being a proper nation its the equivalent of being 30 years old and still living with your mum.

Sorry I made you bowk yer lunch mate. I suppose thats why they call stuff like this the unpalatable truth.

PS
I see you have deleted your post, which is probably why I couldnt quote it. FWIW I didnt find it offensive or anything. Though I;m sure that isnt why you have deleted it :greengrin

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/scottish-referendum-independent-scaremongering-eu

[marinello59]

Our national identity isnt in doubt as far as product Scotland is concerned. That in my opinion doesnt give us the right to pretend we are a proper country in a political or social sense. Perhaps Scotland future in economic terms ( which seems to be the whole of this debate ) will be better as part of the UK. That particular question could only be answered for sure if we did become independent.

But, if that is all that matters to people ..... That calling yourself Scots and having pretensions to nationhood in the real meaning of the word I.E. being responsible for your own decisions for good or bad begins and ends with the contents of your wallet, then perhaps having another countries decisions, attitudes and social outlook foisted upon us is whats best for us after all.

Firstly you ignored my question. Do you think our people our greatest asset and if so why on earth would you trash nearly 50% of them as cowards and lesser patriots than yourself merely because they disagree with you. Don't you think that's rather a narrow minded, even bigoted, view to take?
Your assertion that Scotland's future in economic terms is the whole debate is quite simply stunning. It's only part of the debate for both sides yet you seem to have disadain for it only if it is applied to the No campaign. I will be voting Yes as I think the long term future for us all will be brighter. However I have many friends that think differently. I wouldn't call any of them cowards and I wouldn't call them any less patriotic. We will all have to get along after this vote no matter what the outcome is.
Your snidey closing remarks won't win anybody over to your way of thinking, if anything they will drive them the other way.

[marinello59]

Salmond is spinning what has been said yet again. The rUK parties of have said no to a currency union not no to a share of the assets. But as usual the man is incapable of telling us the truth. As voters we deserve better from both sides but FFS Salmond is treating us like fools. This is not about Scotland being bullied its about other political parties saying they will not be AGREEING to a currency union.

I actually thought Salmond got the tone of his response about right yesterday. (And I am far from his biggest fan.) As you say, we deserve better from both sides. I have Wee Eck ahead on points with this one though.

[Beefster]

You make a fair point in your first paragraph and then mess up. Where's your evidence of that there 'is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the Yes supporters'.

You want to have a look at some of the comments made/posted about Alex Salmond. IMO you've been reading all about those nasty 'cybernats' in the Daily Mail. :greengrin

You're absolutely right. There was a missing 'IMHO' in the bit about the nastiness.

My point was more about the general sweeping statements about not being real Scots, not being as patriotic as nationalists, being 'cowards' and how we're all fearties who think we need England to look after us. There has been plenty of evidence of it on this thread alone but I don't recall reading similar derogatory comments aimed at all nationalists coming from folk in favour of the status quo.

PS I don't read the Daily Mail or their website. Mrs Beefster is frequently on their website though to see who's dating who and who has put on two pounds.

[Bristolhibby]

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

Independent like Germany, Italy and Belgium. All in a Currency Union, all in the EU and all in NATO.

Scotland would be no different (except She will be in a different currency union). A real country rather than a region.

J

[NOLA]

interesting point, all scottish teams going forward would have to rely on purely scottish government funding, could we afford to upkeep, train and send teams such as the womens and men curling teams to a winter olympics? along with other sportsmen/women? do we as a nation face losing rising stars in olympic sports to a better funded and finacially better of market overseas, the way i see it our funds as a nation are going to be tied up with our historically poor health and our need to continue our education, i feel sport will suffer. i'm voting no to independence and to be truthful noone i know feels its the right way forward, we are better off together, we are still scots and still considered as scots when abroad, why the need for change.

[marinello59]

interesting point, all scottish teams going forward would have to rely on purely scottish government funding, could we afford to upkeep, train and send teams such as the womens and men curling teams to a winter olympics? along with other sportsmen/women? do we as a nation face losing rising stars in olympic sports to a better funded and finacially better of market overseas, the way i see it our funds as a nation are going to be tied up with our historically poor health and our need to continue our education, i feel sport will suffer. i'm voting no to independence and to be truthful noone i know feels its the right way forward, we are better off together, we are still scots and still considered as scots when abroad, why the need for change.

Yes. If we wanted to.

[CropleyWasGod]

We manage to send teams to the Commonwealth Games with our "own" resources.
As with other UK assets, our share of such funding streams as the Lottery would contribute to an Olympic team.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Beefster]

We manage to send teams to the Commonwealth Games with our "own" resources.
As with other UK assets, our share of such funding streams as the Lottery would contribute to an Olympic team.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

I would have thought we would probably have our own.

When you say you'd prefer not to have one...do you mean because of the amount (less well-off) people pay into it? The flip side of that is the contribution it makes to otherwise unfundable good causes.

Probably a thread hijack :-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Beefster]

I would have thought we would probably have our own.

When you say you'd prefer not to have one...do you mean because of the amount (less well-off) people pay into it? The flip side of that is the contribution it makes to otherwise unfundable good causes.

Probably a thread hijack :-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

I'm in the camp that believes that those in poverty (or just don't have that much money) fund a disproportionate amount of the lottery income. I'm all for 'good causes' being funded but there must be fairer ways to do it than encouraging folk, lots of whom can't really afford it, to spend money gambling at ridiculous odds.

At the moment, you've got folk in poverty [voluntarily] funding opera companies, art galleries and middle-class athletes.

PS 'Hijack' apology.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm in the camp that believes that those in poverty (or just don't have that much money) fund a disproportionate amount of the lottery income. I'm all for 'good causes' being funded but there must be fairer ways to do it than encouraging folk, lots of whom can't really afford it, to spend money gambling at ridiculous odds.

At the moment, you've got folk in poverty [voluntarily] funding opera companies, art galleries and middle-class athletes.

PS 'Hijack' apology.

I'm with you on that. I also have other issues about the Lottery environment, but that's probably for another thread :)

Back on track..... would a Scottish-based Lottery, with its (as you say) disproportionate contribution from lower-income families and (generally) a lower-income based population, give a greater chance of winning? :greengrin

[allmodcons]

Here's a 'nice' clip for anyone who supports an iScotland. Another balanced BBC piece!

My favourite bit is the name of the banks line. Question is can you 'stomach' the whole clip?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCEw8nSGgmQ

[Future17]

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

Pages 535 and 536 of Scotland's Future state:

"Will the National Lottery continue to operate in an independent Scotland?

Yes, that is the current Scottish Government's intention. People will still be able to play National Lottery games, and the infrastructure enabling them to do so will remain in place. Scotland will continue to receive a fair share of ticket sales to support good causes. Following independence, all decisions about the allocation of Scotland's share of funds will be taken in Scotland, ensuring that the money raised from lottery ticket sales is used to respond to the needs of Scotland's local communities."

There are a number of other questions on a similar theme; the key points being:

- Camelot holds the licence to operate the lottery until 2023 and there are no plans to change this arrangement.
- There are no plans to establish a distinct Scottish lottery.

[Beefster]

Pages 535 and 536 of Scotland's Future state:

"Will the National Lottery continue to operate in an independent Scotland?

Yes, that is the current Scottish Government's intention. People will still be able to play National Lottery games, and the infrastructure enabling them to do so will remain in place. Scotland will continue to receive a fair share of ticket sales to support good causes. Following independence, all decisions about the allocation of Scotland's share of funds will be taken in Scotland, ensuring that the money raised from lottery ticket sales is used to respond to the needs of Scotland's local communities."

There are a number of other questions on a similar theme; the key points being:

- Camelot holds the licence to operate the lottery until 2023 and there are no plans to change this arrangement.
- There are no plans to establish a distinct Scottish lottery.

Thanks. I suppose more people would want it kept than would want rid so fair enough.

[One Day Soon]

Here's a 'nice' clip for anyone who supports an iScotland. Another balanced BBC piece!

My favourite bit is the name of the banks line. Question is can you 'stomach' the whole clip?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCEw8nSGgmQ


Fascinating. They utterly slaughter Salmond's position on currency union. Are you sure this is the clip you meant to post?

And I didn't realise that both the IoD and the CBI had taken Salmond's proposals on currency union to pieces too.

[marinello59]

Here's a 'nice' clip for anyone who supports an iScotland. Another balanced BBC piece!

My favourite bit is the name of the banks line. Question is can you 'stomach' the whole clip?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCEw8nSGgmQ

Salmond's response got a fairly decent response as a whole across the BBC. To my mind he came out of it all pretty well. Sadly some Nationalists are more intent on portraying themselves as poor wee victims of media bias by selective viewing than getting the good news out there. How on earth are we going to get Independence without throwing the chips off our shoulders first?

[allmodcons]

Fascinating. They utterly slaughter Salmond's position on currency union. Are you sure this is the clip you meant to post?

And I didn't realise that both the IoD and the CBI had taken Salmond's proposals on currency union to pieces too.

Easy to 'slaughter' someone or their position when there is nobody offering an alternative view.

Pleased to see you're happy with a noble Lord getting torn in to us subsidy junkies.

Always got the impression you were left leaning but perhaps I was wrong?

[allmodcons]

Salmond's response got a fairly decent response as a whole across the BBC. To my mind he came out of it all pretty well. Sadly some Nationalists are more intent on portraying themselves as poor wee victims of media bias by selective viewing than getting the good news out there. How on earth are we going to get Independence without throwing the chips off our shoulders first?

No chip on my shoulder M59. I just thought this was an extremely unbalanced review of the newspapers.
Just because I think the media is pro Union doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
I know we've been here before, but do you think it's good for democracy that not one single newspaper in Scotland has an editorial position backing Independence?

[marinello59]

No chip on my shoulder M59. I just thought this was an extremely unbalanced review of the newspapers.
Just because I think the media is pro Union doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
I know we've been here before, but do you think it's good for democracy that not one single newspaper in Scotland has an editorial position backing Independence?

Yes we have been here before. :greengrin
That was an unbalanced review of the papers. A lot of those items tend to be, they are just opinion pieces, it depends who turns up for them on the day. I saw a lot of very good coverage given to Salmond's speech in Aberdeen and as I have said a couple of times on this thread, I reckon he came out of it quite well.
And as I have also said before, I think the Scottish electorate is far too smart to take there line from any newspaper editorial. The press doesn't have near the influence it likes to think it has. It doesn't lead, it follows. Look at Murdoch's titles, they tend to back who they think will win.

[Beefster]

Easy to 'slaughter' someone or their position when there is nobody offering an alternative view.

Pleased to see you're happy with a noble Lord getting torn in to us subsidy junkies.

Always got the impression you were left leaning but perhaps I was wrong?

I haven't watch the clip but in Digby-Jones' defence if I've picked you up right, I think subsidy-junky is one insult that couldn't be thrown at him.

Your last line is another unnecessary personal crack amongst a few on this thread.

[steakbake]

Salmond's response got a fairly decent response as a whole across the BBC. To my mind he came out of it all pretty well. Sadly some Nationalists are more intent on portraying themselves as poor wee victims of media bias by selective viewing than getting the good news out there. How on earth are we going to get Independence without throwing the chips off our shoulders first?

Independence would be sink or swim. I think that would be enough to see of the chips and restore a bit of backbone.

[Sylar]

Here's a 'nice' clip for anyone who supports an iScotland. Another balanced BBC piece!

My favourite bit is the name of the banks line. Question is can you 'stomach' the whole clip?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCEw8nSGgmQ

What an odiously, patronising prick that man is!

Jesus wept.

[One Day Soon]

Easy to 'slaughter' someone or their position when there is nobody offering an alternative view.

Salmond's position is clearly stated and understood which is that the rest of the UK should enter currency union with a separate Scotland. It has been explained, in terms, by the Governor of the Bank of England, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, one of the most senior civil servants, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry why this is a bad idea that a) cannot work without political union and b) cannot work between two states that do not have common fiscal approaches. Salmond is against both political union and fiscal collaboration. On the back of this George Osborne, Danny Alexander and Ed Balls have stated that they will not support currency union post separation. The two commentators pointed these facts out. There is no 'debate' to be had no matter how many times you assert that 5 million of us will be able to force 55 million of the rest of the UK into something that is not in their interest. The slaughtering was easy because Salmond's position on this is wrong, unsustainable and plain daft.

I find it alarming to say the least that the pro-independence camp seem to either imagine that Canute like assertions to the contrary will somehow make UK politicians, business people and senior public figures completely change their positions on currency union or that we should be gullible enough to just believe that Salmond is right and everyone else is wrong.

Pleased to see you're happy with a noble Lord getting torn in to us subsidy junkies.

And here's where the Nationalist/SNP side default to avoiding the facts and smearing people instead. It is snide and beneath you.

1. I'm not 'happy' about anything. Don't try to undermine my argument by implying that I'm a pro-toff anti-Scot.

2. He's a Lord - so what? What relevance does that have to anything? Is he not entitled to an opinion? It is not as if he was using a privileged position within the House of Lords to give his opinion. And while we are on the subject of Lord Digby Brown, he has also given it tight to Labour in recent weeks for the proposal to bring back the 50p top tax rate so he's no-ones poodle.

3. He doesn't get 'torn in to us' as subsidy junkies. He does point out - rightly - that Scotland has a much bigger public sector as a proportion of its economy than the rest of the UK. This is precisely what is a threat to the pound in a proposed currency union. If we were to develop unsustainable levels of public expenditure and high debt it would be a direct threat to the UK's pound and in a currency union of this sort there would be nothing they could do about it. That's precisely why they don't want and won't agree to a pound currency union. It has got nothing to do with trying to do down Salmond, the SNP or Scotland. It has everything to to do with protecting the interests of the UK, should we choose to separate.

Always got the impression you were left leaning but perhaps I was wrong?

Again, this is a diversion from the debate which is not about me. However for the record I am 'left leaning' so please explain why you suggest otherwise.

[One Day Soon]

What an odiously, patronising prick that man is!

Jesus wept.


Every time someone doesn't like the facts or argument in this debate they play the man instead of the ball. It doesn't get us very far and the woman was making the same points as he was. For the record I'm not keen on him either - he is pretty up himself - but that is beside the point.

[One Day Soon]

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.


I want to put on record how offensive this is.

Firstly you betray your anti-English sentiment by referring to 'English' gold - it isn't England, it is the UK.

Secondly who are you to say what is or isn't cowardly in this decision?

Thirdly Scotland is a plural society and the SNP, as a party which represents considerably less than 50% of the population, does not have the monopoly on patriotism.

The intolerant attitude which that quote betrays is deeply worrying for post-Referendum Scotland.

[allmodcons]

Easy to 'slaughter' someone or their position when there is nobody offering an alternative view.

Pleased to see you're happy with a noble Lord getting torn in to us subsidy junkies.

Always got the impression you were left leaning but perhaps I was wrong?


I haven't watch the clip but in Digby-Jones' defence if I've picked you up right, I think subsidy-junky is one insult that couldn't be thrown at him.

Your last line is another unnecessary personal crack amongst a few on this thread.

You've defo got the wrong end of the stick here. I was referring to us Scots as 'subsidy junkies' (i.e. - that's what Digby Jones appears to think).

With regard to my last line it was a light hearted comment which went right over yours and, it would appear, ODS' head.

Just because it's a political thread, surely doesn't mean everything has be taken so ****ing seriously?

[allmodcons]

Fascinating. They utterly slaughter Salmond's position on currency union. Are you sure this is the clip you meant to post?

And I didn't realise that both the IoD and the CBI had taken Salmond's proposals on currency union to pieces too.


Easy to 'slaughter' someone or their position when there is nobody offering an alternative view.

Pleased to see you're happy with a noble Lord getting torn in to us subsidy junkies.

Always got the impression you were left leaning but perhaps I was wrong?


Again, this is a diversion from the debate which is not about me. However for the record I am 'left leaning' so please explain why you suggest otherwise.

You ask me if a meant to post the clip? I thought this was tongue in cheek. So I respond tongue in cheek (i.e. - I know you are left leaning) then you throw the toys out of the pram!

I can't believe everything has to be taken so ****ing seriously on a political thread.

You and I have already decided how we are going to vote, nothing will change that, but are we not allowed to have little dig at each other now and again?

[J-C]

I love Lord whoever says England bailed out Scotland and our banks, these are the same banks that are connected to the English banks if Natwest and Halifax, so utterly laughable, even the presenter was laughing at him. When the presenter then said Scotland bailed out Britain with it's oil, he couldn't answer.

[One Day Soon]

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan. :wink:

[marinello59]

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan. :wink:

His words would carry much more weight if Tin Machine had never happened. :agree:

[hibby rae]

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan. :wink:

Although he was once also convinced demons were trying to steal his semen.

[hibby rae]

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan. :wink:

Although he was once also convinced demons were trying to steal his semen.

[Stonewall]

I love Lord whoever says England bailed out Scotland and our banks, these are the same banks that are connected to the English banks if Natwest and Halifax, so utterly laughable, even the presenter was laughing at him. When the presenter then said Scotland bailed out Britain with it's oil, he couldn't answer.

Not sure what your point is.

We can take it as read that the oil money allowed Thatcher to demolish/ reconstruct the British economy; however given that HBoS and RBS were both Banks registered in Scotland, do you think an independent Scotland would have been able to bail the banks out?

Salmond's come back is that he would have ensured that the banks would have been regulated properly which I think lacks a degree of credibility.

[J-C]

Not sure what your point is.

We can take it as read that the oil money allowed Thatcher to demolish/ reconstruct the British economy; however given that HBoS and RBS were both Banks registered in Scotland, do you think an independent Scotland would have been able to bail the banks out?

Salmond's come back is that he would have ensured that the banks would have been regulated properly which I think lacks a degree of credibility.

My point is plainly obvious.............The 2 Scottish banks had merged with English banks so were not really independent Scottish banks so to speak, they had become multi national global companies, Salmond has stated that if there had been an independent Scotland, these banks would've been regulated so that the disasters would not have happened. This lord was trying to make a point that they( the English ) had bailed out 2 "Scottish" banks even though they were by then multi nationals. I find it staggering that a British government didn't have any regulations regarding the banks, let them be as long as they were making huge profits eh!
The oil revenue had bailed out the British economy due to several governments running up huge debts in the late 60's early 70's, Scotland as a nation we received very little benefit from this wealth apart from say the Aberdeen area where the oil industry is based, the oil propped up the economy for many a year but what infrastructure has been put in place with the trillions of monies from the oil in the last 40 years, very little. It's still amazing we have 1 motorway that goes from here to England, while down south there's motorways in all directions wherever you look. We're still living in the 50's with many of our road systems up here, just try getting to Inverness when you go past Perth, it's a death road in the winter.

[One Day Soon]

Although he was once also convinced demons were trying to steal his semen.


If by 'demons' you mean all of the people he was sleeping with and if by 'semen' you mean semen, then maybe he was right.

Anyway that's a diversion from the core debate on separation. The real question is which way the likes of Jethro Tull, Motorhead and Nazareth will split.
Am I an ageing rocker? Yes, yes I certainly am.

[Just Alf]

Not sure what your point is.

We can take it as read that the oil money allowed Thatcher to demolish/ reconstruct the British economy; however given that HBoS and RBS were both Banks registered in Scotland, do you think an independent Scotland would have been able to bail the banks out?

Salmond's come back is that he would have ensured that the banks would have been regulated properly which I think lacks a degree of credibility.

Thing is not even the UK bailed out the banks.

The "bail out" money came in proportionate to where the bank operated, the USA contributed a major share, I read somewhere that Scotland's share would have been a shade over 10% as that was the % of business the "Scottish" banks actually did in Scotland.

[One Day Soon]

My point is plainly obvious.............The 2 Scottish banks had merged with English banks so were not really independent Scottish banks so to speak, they had become multi national global companies, Salmond has stated that if there had been an independent Scotland, these banks would've been regulated so that the disasters would not have happened. This lord was trying to make a point that they( the English ) had bailed out 2 "Scottish" banks even though they were by then multi nationals. I find it staggering that a British government didn't have any regulations regarding the banks, let them be as long as they were making huge profits eh!
The oil revenue had bailed out the British economy due to several governments running up huge debts in the late 60's early 70's, Scotland as a nation we received very little benefit from this wealth apart from say the Aberdeen area where the oil industry is based, the oil propped up the economy for many a year but what infrastructure has been put in place with the trillions of monies from the oil in the last 40 years, very little. It's still amazing we have 1 motorway that goes from here to England, while down south there's motorways in all directions wherever you look. We're still living in the 50's with many of our road systems up here, just try getting to Inverness when you go past Perth, it's a death road in the winter.


By 'merged' I think you mean taken over by the Scottish banks.

By 'multi national' I think you meant Scottish banks with global trading activities.

By 'would've been regulated' I think you mean hindsight and that Mr Salmond alone of almost all world leaders would have had the foresight to regulate in such a way that bad debt exposure was minimised in a way that it wasn't in virtually every other developed economy banking system in the world.

By 'we have 1 motorway that goes from here to England' I think you mean we have the M8 motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow, the M9 motorway from Edinburgh to Dunblane and the M74 motorway to England. Or did you mean one of the other 7 Scottish motorways I haven't listed?

[One Day Soon]

Thing is not even the UK bailed out the banks.

The "bail out" money came in proportionate to where the bank operated, the USA contributed a major share, I read somewhere that Scotland's share would have been a shade over 10% as that was the % of business the "Scottish" banks actually did in Scotland.


The UK government bailed out Lloyds and RBS. It is still a major stakeholder in RBS as a result. Where is your evidence that this is not the case?

[Beefster]

My point is plainly obvious.............The 2 Scottish banks had merged with English banks so were not really independent Scottish banks so to speak, they had become multi national global companies, Salmond has stated that if there had been an independent Scotland, these banks would've been regulated so that the disasters would not have happened. This lord was trying to make a point that they( the English ) had bailed out 2 "Scottish" banks even though they were by then multi nationals. I find it staggering that a British government didn't have any regulations regarding the banks, let them be as long as they were making huge profits eh!
The oil revenue had bailed out the British economy due to several governments running up huge debts in the late 60's early 70's, Scotland as a nation we received very little benefit from this wealth apart from say the Aberdeen area where the oil industry is based, the oil propped up the economy for many a year but what infrastructure has been put in place with the trillions of monies from the oil in the last 40 years, very little. It's still amazing we have 1 motorway that goes from here to England, while down south there's motorways in all directions wherever you look. We're still living in the 50's with many of our road systems up here, just try getting to Inverness when you go past Perth, it's a death road in the winter.

Given that he can't really give us any details about post-independence Scotland and probably wouldn't be in power in an independent Scotland for long, I wouldn't take fantasy assertions from Salmond about would have happened under an unknown Government in an hypothetical Scotland too seriously. It wasn't that long ago that he was holding up certain countries as examples to follow.

Like Iceland, Ireland, the US, the vast majority of Europe, the UK and more, it's likely that Scotland would have been caught out in 2007/08.

[allmodcons]

Thing is not even the UK bailed out the banks.

The "bail out" money came in proportionate to where the bank operated, the USA contributed a major share, I read somewhere that Scotland's share would have been a shade over 10% as that was the % of business the "Scottish" banks actually did in Scotland.


The UK government bailed out Lloyds and RBS. It is still a major stakeholder in RBS as a result. Where is your
evidence that this is not the case?

Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £550bn by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government (i.e - foreign governments bailed out Barclays to the tune of more than 12 times more money than the UK Government’s capital support for RBS).

Citigroup also received something in the region £30bn from the US taxpayer. In the case of Citigroup the US Government made sure an arrangement was put in place whereby American taxpayers would get their money back with a profit (£8bn is just over two years). In contrast, the £45bn of your money Alastair Darling invested in RBS looks like a lost cause.

It’s also worth noting that the UK Government bail out of RBS and HBOS amounted to £65bn, but the US Federal Reserve made emergency loans available to RBS of £285bn and to HBOS of £115bn.

I'm not going to argue that an iScotland would not have got caught up in the banking crisis but, bottom line is, it DIDN'T happen to an iScotland Government it happend on the UK Government's watch when they, and they alone, were responsible for financial regulation in the UK.

[tcm1875]

The UK government bailed out Lloyds and RBS. It is still a major stakeholder in RBS as a result. Where is your evidence that this is not the case?


The banks were bailed out depending on what country their operations were in. 10% of RBS was in Scotland.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed

[allmodcons]

The banks were bailed out depending on what country their operations were in. 10% of RBS was in Scotland.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed

:agree: The banks were bailed out on the basis of where they had economic assets and business activity.

[One Day Soon]

Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £550bn by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government (i.e - foreign governments bailed out Barclays to the tune of more than 12 times more money than the UK Government’s capital support for RBS).

Barclays chose that route themselves. They were offered UK government bailout funding.

Citigroup also received something in the region £30bn from the US taxpayer. In the case of Citigroup the US Government made sure an arrangement was put in place whereby American taxpayers would get their money back with a profit (£8bn is just over two years). In contrast, the £45bn of your money Alastair Darling invested in RBS looks like a lost cause.

I see. So Darling should have put in taxpayers money to prop up a wrecked bank employing thousands of Scots in Scotland (as well as many people elswhere) and then also demanded a profit on the loan on top of that? I wonder how many people working at eg Gogar would be getting sent down the road just now to make that profit?

It’s also worth noting that the UK Government bail out of RBS and HBOS amounted to £65bn, but the US Federal Reserve made emergency loans available to RBS of £285bn and to HBOS of £115bn.

That £65bn is almost exactly three times the annual Scottish budget. The fact that £65bn went into these two Scottish banks from the UK government demonstrates that - whatever other access to loans or liquidity they may also have had - Just Alf's assertion that "not even the UK bailed out the banks" is just factually wrong.

In the 'Business for Scotland' article you have used they make the claim that "Scotland after all has bailed the UK out to the tune of £89bn in the last 19 years alone. Had Scotland been an independent nation, we would have enjoyed a surplus of £68bn over the last 19 years. Instead we bailed the UK out to the tune of £83bn. That is our contribution to UK national debt interest that an independent Scotland would not have paid."

Aside from the extravagant and self-contradicting differing numbers they apply to their argument (without sources referenced), they seem to think that Scotland would have had no contribution to make to UK national debt interest or alternatively its share of that debt interest had we been independent. So that leaves us in a position where this 'surplus' would have variously:

1. Not been used to pay our debt interest - presumably that gets paid by something else?
2. Been used to put into an oil fund - because we have been told we would have had one of those building up.
3. Not used to plug the gap in our public finances between revenue take and public services expenditure - presumably that too gets paid by something else?
4. Used to bail out our banks - because we would have had to.
5. Either used or not used to fund the cut in Corporation Tax that Salmond has promised to business - no idea where that money is coming from.


I'm not going to argue that an iScotland would not have got caught up in the banking crisis but, bottom line is, it DIDN'T happen to an iScotland Government it happend on the UK Government's watch when they, and they alone, were responsible for financial regulation in the UK.

You seem to be accepting that Scotland would have been in exactly the same mess as everyone else here. We would not have been able to afford to bail out our own banks on an equivalent basis to that which saw them bailed out by the UK government and taking the point of the Business for Scotland position further, we would have had to find even more money to also bail out foreign banks to the extent that they had activities here for example in holding Scottish Government debt.

I think you should cite your sources when you are quoting almost verbatim from the Business for Scotland independence campaign website as you do above.

[Beefster]

:agree: The banks were bailed out on the basis of where they had economic assets and business activity.

Which conveniently ignores all the Group functions based in Edinburgh and the impact that the massive loss of jobs would have had on the Scottish economy.

Just once I'd love to hear someone who supports independence admit "yeah, we would have taken a sore one if that had happened under an independent Scotland" or "Yeah, that might be worse under independence". This whole "land of milk and honey" routine isn't really doing anyone any favours.

[Bristolhibby]

Did the UK not bail out Irish Banks and contribute to the bail outs in Greece, Portugal, etc.

This would be the same if, IF, any Scottish bank went to the wall.

However I'd like to think that Banks/Governments have learnt their lessons and not just done a Rangers.

J

[allmodcons]

Just once I'd love to hear someone who supports independence admit "yeah, we would have taken a sore one if that had happened under an independent Scotland" or "Yeah, that might be worse under independence". This whole "land of milk and honey" routine isn't really doing anyone any favours.

I think if you read my post you'll see I stated:-

"I'm not going to argue that an iScotland would not have got caught up in the banking crisis".

[steakbake]

I have to hold up my hands and admit to a bit of a cringe today.

Some of the Scottish newspapers' "Bowie enters independence debate" kind of headlines... fair play to the guy for expressing an opinion, but either way - had he said go for it, Scotland even - a throwaway remark at the end of an acceptance speech for an award he didn't even turn up to collect is being w**ked over and turned into screeds of scrying journalistic interpretations about what it will all mean for the future of the country. It's all wee a bit "Dundee Man Missing At Sea" in the Courier when the Titanic went down.

Bowie would "enter" the independence debate if he said something with a bit more substance. "Stay with the UK, Scotland for the following reasons x y z" would be entering the debate. "Stay with us, Scotland" isn't entering a debate - it's expressing his valid opinion.

Still - many more months of this tedium - on both sides, I hasten to add - to come.

[One Day Soon]

Bowie speaks, very politely, from the heart: "Scotland please stay with us".

Here is the tolerant, inclusive, democratic stuff we see come spilling out - http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/16-scottish-nationalists-who-really-hated-david-bowies-brit

It is pretty ugly when the mask slips.

The irony of some of the comments, given Sean Connery's position, seems to be lost on them too.

[One Day Soon]

I have to hold up my hands and admit to a bit of a cringe today.

Some of the Scottish newspapers' "Bowie enters independence debate" kind of headlines... fair play to the guy for expressing an opinion, but either way - had he said go for it, Scotland even - a throwaway remark at the end of an acceptance speech for an award he didn't even turn up to collect is being w**ked over and turned into screeds of scrying journalistic interpretations about what it will all mean for the future of the country. It's all wee a bit "Dundee Man Missing At Sea" in the Courier when the Titanic went down.

Bowie would "enter" the independence debate if he said something with a bit more substance. "Stay with the UK, Scotland for the following reasons x y z" would be entering the debate. "Stay with us, Scotland" isn't entering a debate - it's expressing his valid opinion.

Still - many more months of this tedium - on both sides, I hasten to add - to come.


I had the misfortune of watching the Brits last night - wife and kids to blame for that - and saw the whole thing unfold live.

Firstly what a revolting pack of self congratulatory gits these 'celebs' are.

Secondly Kate Moss' reading of Bowie's words was a bit mangled. However the moment I heard those words pass from her lips I knew two things were certain. One, ludicrously offensive and over the top response from separatists. Two, ludicrously excessive and over top response from media.

As you say steakbake, 7 more months of this to go. It. Is. Awful.

Whoever loses this vote should agree to shut up and not speak of it ever again. Actually, so should whoever wins it.

[allmodcons]

You seem to be accepting that Scotland would have been in exactly the same mess as everyone else here. We would not have been able to afford to bail out our own banks on an equivalent basis to that which saw them bailed out by the UK government and taking the point of the Business for Scotland position further, we would have had to find even more money to also bail out foreign banks to the extent that they had activities here for example in holding Scottish Government debt.

I think you should cite your sources when you are quoting almost verbatim from the Business for Scotland independence campaign website as you do above.

Barclays got a single sum of $48bn from the US Federal Reserve in September 2008 and Citigroup received 2 payments of $25bn and $20bn in Oct 2008 and Dec 2008.

Whichever way you look at it these 2 banks were not bailed out by the UK Government.

IMO Just Alf was asserting (correctly) that there was a lot more to the UK bank bail out than UK Government money. It is clear that emergency loans, for example, made available by the US Federal Reserve played a significant role in preventing the banking sector going tits up. They did this because, as previously stated, banks were bailed out based on where they operated (i.e - not simply where they were headquartered).

With regard my plagiarism :tsk tsk: of the Business of Scotland article, I'm not afraid to say that this was where I sourced the information in my earlier post, however, unlike the BoS article I don't think it is particularly clever to draw conclusions as to how an iScotland would have coped with or indeed handled the banking crisis. Fact is, Scotland was not Independent at the time of the crisis. Who knows how things could have panned out - relatively unscathed like Norway or badly scarred like EIRE - it depends on how the country was being governed I guess - but you don't know anymore than BoS how things would have panned out.

What you can't seem to accept is that the banking crisis happened under the 'watchful' eye of the UK Government.

The banks that went bust were UK Banks!

Nationalists are often criticised for portraying a vision of a land of 'milk and honey'. I have never suggested that being an Independent Nation State would be easy. I do, however, think it is about Scots making choices in the best interests of Scotland and having to stand or fall by the decisions we take. I also think it is fair to say, that many pro Union supporters (I include you in this category) are just as guilty of portraying an iScotland as a 'basket case' economy.

[allmodcons]

Bowie speaks, very politely, from the heart: "Scotland please stay with us".

Here is the tolerant, inclusive, democratic stuff we see come spilling out - http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/16-scottish-nationalists-who-really-hated-david-bowies-brit

It is pretty ugly when the mask slips.

The irony of some of the comments, given Sean Connery's position, seems to be lost on them too.

It's easy to find complete ********s on both sides ODS. Being stupid isn't simply a Nationalist trait.

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

[HiBremian]

I have to hold up my hands and admit to a bit of a cringe today.

Some of the Scottish newspapers' "Bowie enters independence debate" kind of headlines... fair play to the guy for expressing an opinion, but either way - had he said go for it, Scotland even - a throwaway remark at the end of an acceptance speech for an award he didn't even turn up to collect is being w**ked over and turned into screeds of scrying journalistic interpretations about what it will all mean for the future of the country. It's all wee a bit "Dundee Man Missing At Sea" in the Courier when the Titanic went down.

Bowie would "enter" the independence debate if he said something with a bit more substance. "Stay with the UK, Scotland for the following reasons x y z" would be entering the debate. "Stay with us, Scotland" isn't entering a debate - it's expressing his valid opinion.

Still - many more months of this tedium - on both sides, I hasten to add - to come.

But at least it meant a few creative tweets to smile at.. #scottishbowie ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

It's easy to find complete ********s on both sides ODS. Being stupid isn't simply a Nationalist trait.

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


If you think some drunken The Rangers supporters talking pish in the street equates to people with Yes emblems on their twitter/facebook accounts posting those kinds of comments and responses about someone who politely says "Scotland please stay with us" then you crack on.

[One Day Soon]

Barclays got a single sum of $48bn from the US Federal Reserve in September 2008 and Citigroup received 2 payments of $25bn and $20bn in Oct 2008 and Dec 2008.

Whichever way you look at it these 2 banks were not bailed out by the UK Government.

Whichever way you look at it these two banks were offered the bailout money by the UK government.

IMO Just Alf was asserting (correctly) that there was a lot more to the UK bank bail out than UK Government money. It is clear that emergency loans, for example, made available by the US Federal Reserve played a significant role in preventing the banking sector going tits up. They did this because, as previously stated, banks were bailed out based on where they operated (i.e - not simply where they were headquartered).

No, he wasn't and this is classic separatist tactics. Say one thing, get totally caught out and then claim that something else was actually meant by it. He said: "not even the UK bailed out the banks". Except that they did as explained above.

With regard my plagiarism :tsk tsk: of the Business of Scotland article, I'm not afraid to say that this was where I sourced the information in my earlier post, however, unlike the BoS article I don't think it is particularly clever to draw conclusions as to how an iScotland would have coped with or indeed handled the banking crisis. Fact is, Scotland was not Independent at the time of the crisis. Who knows how things could have panned out - relatively unscathed like Norway or badly scarred like EIRE - it depends on how the country was being governed I guess - but you don't know anymore than BoS how things would have panned out.

I knew that was where it was from but and I wasn't trying to imply plagiarism. I was suggesting that if sources are referenced where possible we can at least see whether those sources are coming from a Yes, Better Together or impartial viewpoint. I don't think it does depend on how the country was being governed, I think it depends on the state of out finances. And we know because we have the figures that our finances would not have been strong enough to bail our banks out.

What you can't seem to accept is that the banking crisis happened under the 'watchful' eye of the UK Government.

I have no problem accepting that at all. let's just remember though that the wider context was one in which this happened to the economies and banks of almost every developed country and economy globally. In other words if it was governmental f -up - and to a great degree it was - then it was a f-up perpetrated by almost every govt in the world. You would have to be swivel eyed fanatics to believe that a Scottish Government alone of almost all the world would have avoided it all.

The banks that went bust were UK Banks!

Lehman Brothers wasn't.

Nationalists are often criticised for portraying a vision of a land of 'milk and honey'. I have never suggested that being an Independent Nation State would be easy. I do, however, think it is about Scots making choices in the best interests of Scotland and having to stand or fall by the decisions we take. I also think it is fair to say, that many pro Union supporters (I include you in this category) are just as guilty of portraying an iScotland as a 'basket case' economy.

So do I. That's why I want us to stay as partners in the UK. We get a better financial deal and the best of both worlds as a small nation with bigger reach. I have never said or implied that Scotland is a basket case economy, I don't know where you get that from. Unless you are taking my position on our public finances, currency and debt/borrowing and turning the hard facts of life on those issues into 'talking Scotland down'. There can't be a serious debate about independence if the starting point is to simply ignore and deny the facts about what it would mean for us in terms of higher taxation, lower public spending, currency uncertainty and debt and borrowing challenges for at least the medium term. We are 7 months from possibly voting for independence and we can't even say what our currency will be. That is just laughable.

We don't have a basket case economy but we could do if this shambles is allowed to continue. Independence with clarity and certainty is one thing. Independence with chaos is quite another.

[Just Alf]

Aargh! .... Out for a few hours and see what happens!

Just to be clear, the remarks quoted by ODS would have been a bit (lot) clearer if I had "UK banks alone"

I'll also say that using the principle already shown of governments bailing out banks dependent on covering the business done in their country, they are protecting their own interests after all, then if Scotland had been independent we would have been on the hook for 10% of the UKs £65 billion.
Whether we would have been in a position to cover it or not is a whole other question!

Heading out again :aok:

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you think some drunken The Rangers supporters talking pish in the street equates to people with Yes emblems on their twitter/facebook accounts posting those kinds of comments and responses about someone who politely says "Scotland please stay with us" then you crack on.

Bit harsh on Daily Record journos. there, they are only doing their job. :hibees

[One Day Soon]

Bit harsh on Daily Record journos. there, they are only doing their job. :hibees

1. I don't read the Daily Record so I don't know what they have done.
2. Is it possible to be too hard on DR journos?

TBF I don't read any papers.

[One Day Soon]

Aargh! .... Out for a few hours and see what happens!

Just to be clear, the remarks quoted by ODS would have been a bit (lot) clearer if I had "UK banks alone"

I'll also say that using the principle already shown of governments bailing out banks dependent on covering the business done in their country, they are protecting their own interests after all, then if Scotland had been independent we would have been on the hook for 10% of the UKs £65 billion.
Whether we would have been in a position to cover it or not is a whole other question!

Heading out again :aok:


It's all your fault....

We'll see if we can stitch you up for something else while you're out.

[Just Alf]

It's all your fault....

We'll see if we can stitch you up for something else while you're out.

I'm back! ..... And watching like a hawk! :greengrin

:thumbsup:

[ronaldo7]

Just catching up with this thread. It seems Barroso has been put back in his place.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8758-politicians-and-experts-line-up-to-ridicule-barroso-over-eu-comments

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8766-scotlands-right-to-eu-membership-very-clear-says-former-ec-director-general

[lucky]

Just catching up with this thread. It seems Barroso has been put back in his place.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8758-politicians-and-experts-line-up-to-ridicule-barroso-over-eu-comments

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8766-scotlands-right-to-eu-membership-very-clear-says-former-ec-director-general

Why quote to separatist websites as evidence. They have no credibility outside separatist circles

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Kaiser Sauzee:

Sorry ... for some reason I cant quote your post.

Read what I said in context. Scotland is a country in geographical and historical terms and as part of the union is a country in that context. Perhaps I dont express myself very well at times. My point is that in terms of what it means in reality to be a country, or at least my understanding of it, is that your politicians run it according to the social and political will of its people and this reflects our attitudes, no matter how insignificant, onto the national stage.

There is plenty of evidence over the last few decades that what the people of Scotland think and want to see happen regarding many national and international issues is not what we end up getting because what we want is at odds with the much larger England and especially middle England. Therefore we allow our national identity in social and political terms to be over ridden by a much larger partner in this unequal marriage. We moan, bitch and whine about it, but when the opportunity arises to do something about it we run scared.

Thats why my opinion is what it is on this issue ...... In all good conscience what people with any pretensions to be a nation in the proper sense of the term allows that to happen. In terms of being a proper nation its the equivalent of being 30 years old and still living with your mum.

Sorry I made you bowk yer lunch mate. I suppose thats why they call stuff like this the unpalatable truth.

PS
I see you have deleted your post, which is probably why I couldnt quote it. FWIW I didnt find it offensive or anything. Though I;m sure that isnt why you have deleted it :greengrin

I misread the context of your post, so my point wasn't relevant.

Your point about 'what makes a nation' is more a philosophical poser than a political one. I would suggest that an historic SNP majority in Holyrood goes someway in countering your view that the Scottish people cannot actively contribute to their destiny. What a sensational result at the ballot box that was. I don't share your dim view of the Scottish voters but I do welcome your comments as, when added to the unionist "aye but" rhetoric that has been thrown at us in recent weeks, I think they only fuel a growing resentment to the status quo. Scotland is politically and socially different to much of the UK and my view is that we have no less of a right than any other sovereign nation to see our choices at the ballot box being reflected in our politicians.

One Tory MP in the Borders and David Cameron can send his flying monkey to Edinburgh to preach at us. He has no mandate in Westminster, never mind in Scotland.

The union is not right for Scotland and we can do something about it in September. There are many unanswered questions from Salmond and the Yes camp, but I have seen enough to be convinced that Scotland deserves better. I will be voting Yes in September.

[steakbake]

I had the misfortune of watching the Brits last night - wife and kids to blame for that - and saw the whole thing unfold live.

Firstly what a revolting pack of self congratulatory gits these 'celebs' are.

Secondly Kate Moss' reading of Bowie's words was a bit mangled. However the moment I heard those words pass from her lips I knew two things were certain. One, ludicrously offensive and over the top response from separatists. Two, ludicrously excessive and over top response from media.

As you say steakbake, 7 more months of this to go. It. Is. Awful.

Whoever loses this vote should agree to shut up and not speak of it ever again. Actually, so should whoever wins it.

You poor man. At least I could skip on when I saw it on the screen. Still - kate moss is looking good. wouldn't mind chasing her dragon.

[Glory Lurker]

If you think some drunken The Rangers supporters talking pish in the street equates to people with Yes emblems on their twitter/facebook accounts posting those kinds of comments and responses about someone who politely says "Scotland please stay with us" then you crack on.


The drunken The Rangers supporters clearly get off the street often enough to pump bile out on the internet, often on newspaper websites which is confusing because I didn't think they could read. This is descending in to "whataboutery", so I'll stop it there, save to say that I think you are overlooking the fact that your side of the debate is not lacking bampots either.

Oh, and just for absolute accuracy, putting the word in bold does not change the fact that he didn't say it!!!! How impolite. In fact, the sort of thing I'd expect from a drunken The Rangers supporter! :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Why quote to separatist websites as evidence. They have no credibility outside separatist circles


Nobody mentioned evidence...only you:greengrin. I merely posted a couple of links in connection with Barroso's comments from the week end.

Couldn't find them in the MSM:wink: Found it, here you go http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237

Having listened to Barroso at the week end, and now seeing Mr Currie, a former EC Director General speaking in the link. I prefer to believe the latter if that's ok with you:aok:.

[lucky]

Yes it's fine to believe what you wish. But don't expect the majority of Scotland to believe a ex director over the current President. Have you read the thread on Mormonism on the PM board. I think your made for it 😃

[degenerated]

Yes it's fine to believe what you wish. But don't expect the majority of Scotland to believe a ex director over the current President. Have you read the thread on Mormonism on the PM board. I think your made for it 😃

Should they believe barrosso about the Spanish vetoing it despite the Spanish foreign minister clearly stating they wouldn't. Or should they just ignore that because it doesn't sit well with the unionist fraternity?

[Stonewall]

Aargh! .... Out for a few hours and see what happens!

Just to be clear, the remarks quoted by ODS would have been a bit (lot) clearer if I had "UK banks alone"

I'll also say that using the principle already shown of governments bailing out banks dependent on covering the business done in their country, they are protecting their own interests after all, then if Scotland had been independent we would have been on the hook for 10% of the UKs £65 billion.
Whether we would have been in a position to cover it or not is a whole other question!

Heading out again :aok:

I know this is all hypothetical but could someone explain how this "10% rule" would have applied to the business of nationalising RBS. Some other way of saving them would have had to be found unless the UK government took a huge stake in the nationalised bank. Not sure they would have done that given the lack of control they would have over policy and I'm not sure how willing a Scottish government would be to allow a foreign government to control a major bank.

[Stonewall]

I misread the context of your post, so my point wasn't relevant.

Your point about 'what makes a nation' is more a philosophical poser than a political one. I would suggest that an historic SNP majority in Holyrood goes someway in countering your view that the Scottish people cannot actively contribute to their destiny. What a sensational result at the ballot box that was. I don't share your dim view of the Scottish voters but I do welcome your comments as, when added to the unionist "aye but" rhetoric that has been thrown at us in recent weeks, I think they only fuel a growing resentment to the status quo. Scotland is politically and socially different to much of the UK and my view is that we have no less of a right than any other sovereign nation to see our choices at the ballot box being reflected in our politicians.

One Tory MP in the Borders and David Cameron can send his flying monkey to Edinburgh to preach at us. He has no mandate in Westminster, never mind in Scotland.

The union is not right for Scotland and we can do something about it in September. There are many unanswered questions from Salmond and the Yes camp, but I have seen enough to be convinced that Scotland deserves better. I will be voting Yes in September.

This is undoubtedly true and Salmond knows this and is relying on it convert people to the cause. However, the fact is that these things are incredibly important and need to be discussed and resolved. We can't walk into independence with our eyes half closed. It'll take a bit more than a smoldering resentment at the rhetoric of the Better Together camp and a random pop star to put me in the Yes camp.

[allmodcons]

So do I. That's why I want us to stay as partners in the UK. We get a better financial deal and the best of both worlds as a small nation with bigger reach. I have never said or implied that Scotland is a basket case economy, I don't know where you get that from. Unless you are taking my position on our public finances, currency and debt/borrowing and turning the hard facts of life on those issues into 'talking Scotland down'. There can't be a serious debate about independence if the starting point is to simply ignore and deny the facts about what it would mean for us in terms of higher taxation, lower public spending, currency uncertainty and debt and borrowing challenges for at least the medium term. We are 7 months from possibly voting for independence and we can't even say what our currency will be. That is just laughable.

We don't have a basket case economy but we could do if this shambles is allowed to continue. Independence with clarity and certainty is one thing. Independence with chaos is quite another.


Surely all of the issues you mention above are symptomatic of those faced by any Nation State?
For me, in the last 40 years, Westminster (despite all our wealth) has not done enough to address these issues.

We have a horrendous level of national debt - £1.3trillion?

We are one of the most unequal countries in the OECD. An extremely sad state of affairs which IMO does nothing to encourage sustained economic growth.

We have what can only be described as a huge ‘social underclass’.

We have thousands of hard working people desperately trying to balance the books at home by shopping at foodbanks.

We’ve been dragged through a shocking conflict in Iraq on the false pretences of Tony Blair.

Despite 13 years of Labour Government from 1997 – 2010 we still have what I can only refer to as the abhorrence that is the House of Lords.

Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that Scottish Independence will be able to change or address all of these deep rooted problems overnight but Westminster has surely had its day? With regard to the debate around the economics of rUK versus iScotland, people are just going to have to weigh up the options and decide for themselves. The Financial Times seems to thinks we’ll do OK.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1

PS - Have a good weekend ODS.

[ronaldo7]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.


It seems the air is being let out of the Balloon before it get's off the ground. http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/labour-leader-facing-revolt-by-mps.23491458



Yes it's fine to believe what you wish. But don't expect the majority of Scotland to believe a ex director over the current President. Have you read the thread on Mormonism on the PM board. I think your made for it 

No need for the personal digs.

[Bristolhibby]

Why quote to separatist websites as evidence. They have no credibility outside separatist circles

Seperarists. Why not call them the Rebel Alliance?

[Bristolhibby]

Surely all of the issues you mention above are symptomatic of those faced by any Nation State?
For me, in the last 40 years, Westminster (despite all our wealth) has not done enough to address these issues.

We have a horrendous level of national debt - £1.3trillion?

We are one of the most unequal countries in the OECD. An extremely sad state of affairs which IMO does nothing to encourage sustained economic growth.

We have what can only be described as a huge ‘social underclass’.

We have thousands of hard working people desperately trying to balance the books at home by shopping at foodbanks.

We’ve been dragged through a shocking conflict in Iraq on the false pretences of Tony Blair.

Despite 13 years of Labour Government from 1997 – 2010 we still have what I can only refer to as the abhorrence that is the House of Lords.

Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that Scottish Independence will be able to change or address all of these deep rooted problems overnight but Westminster has surely had its day? With regard to the debate around the economics of rUK versus iScotland, people are just going to have to weigh up the options and decide for themselves. The Financial Times seems to thinks we’ll do OK.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1

PS - Have a good weekend ODS.

This

[steakbake]

Seperarists. Why not call them the Rebel Alliance?

"Something something something Empire, something something something complete".

[ronaldo7]

Labour for Independence

http://www.labourforindy.com/

[lucky]

Labour for Independence

http://www.labourforindy.com/

For someone for supports independence you keep posting links to discredited websites rather than independent ones to help your cause. This mobs got more SNP members in it than Labour.
This is not a personal dig.

As for calling separatists, separatists, I make no apology, because this is exactly what they are attempting to do. SEPARATE the United Kingdom

[ronaldo7]

For someone for supports independence you keep posting links to discredited websites rather than independent ones to help your cause. This mobs got more SNP members in it than Labour.
This is not a personal dig.


Can you provide some evidence to back up your claim please.


As for calling separatists, separatists, I make no apology, because this is exactly what they are attempting to do. SEPARATE the United Kingdom

You'd better quote someone else who posted about you calling people separatists, because it certainly wasn't me.

[One Day Soon]

Labour for Independence

http://www.labourforindy.com/


There a range of SNP front organisations in existence masquerading as other legitimate bodies. This one happens to be pretending to be something to do with the Labour Party. It isn't and that was exposed some time ago. There are similar ones for business and academics that I am aware of.

I don't understand what you think it brings to the discussion to post links to these 'just add water and stir' made up bodies?

I have to say though that the roll call of 'Labour' people on their website was pretty entertaining. I hope they are able to get through their day out without too much fratricide - Bob Thomson and Dennis Canavan!

[One Day Soon]

Surely all of the issues you mention above are symptomatic of those faced by any Nation State?
For me, in the last 40 years, Westminster (despite all our wealth) has not done enough to address these issues.

We have a horrendous level of national debt - £1.3trillion?

We are one of the most unequal countries in the OECD. An extremely sad state of affairs which IMO does nothing to encourage sustained economic growth.

We have what can only be described as a huge ‘social underclass’.

We have thousands of hard working people desperately trying to balance the books at home by shopping at foodbanks.

We’ve been dragged through a shocking conflict in Iraq on the false pretences of Tony Blair.

Despite 13 years of Labour Government from 1997 – 2010 we still have what I can only refer to as the abhorrence that is the House of Lords.

Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that Scottish Independence will be able to change or address all of these deep rooted problems overnight but Westminster has surely had its day? With regard to the debate around the economics of rUK versus iScotland, people are just going to have to weigh up the options and decide for themselves. The Financial Times seems to thinks we’ll do OK.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1

PS - Have a good weekend ODS.


Cheers AMC, I'm going to try to. Chilling out with the family and not a lot to do - apart from keeping my teeth in this of course!

The points you make above are all interesting ones and perhaps at another stage I can get into those one by one. Perhaps even agree on one or two of them.

However none of what you have posted addresses the points I have made. There are fundamental questions still unanswered. These are: There can't be a serious debate about independence if the starting point is to simply ignore and deny the facts about what it would mean for us in terms of higher taxation, lower public spending, currency uncertainty and debt and borrowing challenges for at least the medium term. We are 7 months from possibly voting for independence and we can't even say what our currency will be. That is just laughable.

Many of the points you raise would actually be made significantly worse in the short to medium term by independence. Tackling poverty for example is not compatible with cutting public spending. You can find the independent academic research here: http://niesr.ac.uk/research-theme/economics-scotland These aren't my interpretations - these are the findings of the analysis conducted by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

The FT article you link to discusses GDP per head of population - in other words it measures the size of an economy. You want to address national debt, inequality and underclass. Well the top three countries by GDP are United States, China and India - the UK is 8th. But the US is 62nd, China 54th and India 116th for income inequality out of 153 countries where the UK is 97th. In other words GDP as measured in the FT article tells us nothing about what is going on in an economy in terms of income equality, public expenditure, debt or employment - all those things which determine the quality of an economy rather than simply its size.

Tax, public spending and currency are absolutely central to what kind of a country we would live in. That Scotland could be a separate country is not debatable. What kind of a separate country is another matter altogether. Germany, Italy and Taiwan are countries in their own right, but so too are El Salvador, Syria and Ukraine.

There are two possible reasons for wanting to be a separate country - one is philosophical the other practical. Philosophically I am very comfortable with Scotland as a nation pooling its sovereignty with the other countries of the UK to our collective advantage. In practical terms I am completely opposed to a proposal to separate which all the evidence suggests would make our people worse off. What is the point of that?

[lucky]

You'd better quote someone else who posted about you calling people separatists, because it certainly wasn't me.

I know it was not you, but clearly a separate paragraph between my posts. Did not mean to confuse you

[steakbake]

I know it was not you, but clearly a separate paragraph between my posts. Did not mean to confuse you

A separatist paragraph?

[ronaldo7]

There a range of SNP front organisations in existence masquerading as other legitimate bodies. This one happens to be pretending to be something to do with the Labour Party. It isn't and that was exposed some time ago. There are similar ones for business and academics that I am aware of.

I don't understand what you think it brings to the discussion to post links to these 'just add water and stir' made up bodies?

I have to say though that the roll call of 'Labour' people on their website was pretty entertaining. I hope they are able to get through their day out without too much fratricide - Bob Thomson and Dennis Canavan!

I'm sure John McAllion(ex labour MP) Alex Bell (former Dundee Labour councillor) would disagree with you about being good Labour (ex) people. The YES movement have taken people from all walks of life and mobilised them whereas the No camp seem to have to fly in Gideon and co from the south of England for a few hours before going home again.

You don't need to read the links I've posted...It's up to you, but others might.

[lucky]

PCS union vote for neutral position on Indy ref. Still not 1 union backing independence.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26291546

A few things from the link

They voted on three propositions linked to the result of September's referendum: backing a "Yes" vote, supporting a "No" vote or taking a neutral position.

The neutral option was backed by 18,025 votes, with 5,775 votes in favour of supporting independence.

No votes were cast in favour of backing a "No" vote in the referendum, which will be held on 18 September.


Earlier this week, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) leader Grahame Smith said some of his members were "more attracted by the vision offered by the 'Yes' campaign and the Scottish government", particularly around social justice.

Launching an analysis paper into independence called A Just Scotland, Mr Smith said those members were "disappointed with the lack of vision from the 'No' campaign".

[Beefster]

The YES movement have taken people from all walks of life and mobilised them whereas the No camp seem to have to fly in Gideon and co from the south of England for a few hours before going home again.

This is the bit of the debate that I love - folk sprouting stuff that is patently nonsense and doesn't even stand up to 15 seconds scrutiny.

[green glory]

For someone for supports independence you keep posting links to discredited websites rather than independent ones to help your cause. This mobs got more SNP members in it than Labour. This is not a personal dig. As for calling separatists, separatists, I make no apology, because this is exactly what they are attempting to do. SEPARATE the United Kingdom

I prefer the word 'modernise'.

[green glory]

There a range of SNP front organisations in existence masquerading as other legitimate bodies. This one happens to be pretending to be something to do with the Labour Party. It isn't and that was exposed some time ago. There are similar ones for business and academics that I am aware of. I don't understand what you think it brings to the discussion to post links to these 'just add water and stir' made up bodies? I have to say though that the roll call of 'Labour' people on their website was pretty entertaining. I hope they are able to get through their day out without too much fratricide - Bob Thomson and Dennis Canavan!

Would you include the Green Party, SSP and Women for Independence as an SNP front. I think some people aren't aware of how widespread and organic the pro Indy movement is.

[green glory]

PCS union vote for neutral position on Indy ref. Still not 1 union backing independence.

Those supporting a Yes vote. 5775.

Those supporting a No vote. 0

[One Day Soon]

A separatist paragraph?

Very good, very good indeed.

[One Day Soon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26291546

A few things from the link

They voted on three propositions linked to the result of September's referendum: backing a "Yes" vote, supporting a "No" vote or taking a neutral position.

The neutral option was backed by 18,025 votes, with 5,775 votes in favour of supporting independence.

No votes were cast in favour of backing a "No" vote in the referendum, which will be held on 18 September.


Earlier this week, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) leader Grahame Smith said some of his members were "more attracted by the vision offered by the 'Yes' campaign and the Scottish government", particularly around social justice.

Launching an analysis paper into independence called A Just Scotland, Mr Smith said those members were "disappointed with the lack of vision from the 'No' campaign".


You do realise that a neutral position is the same as the status quo?

[One Day Soon]

I'm sure John McAllion(ex labour MP) Alex Bell (former Dundee Labour councillor) would disagree with you about being good Labour (ex) people. The YES movement have taken people from all walks of life and mobilised them whereas the No camp seem to have to fly in Gideon and co from the south of England for a few hours before going home again.

You don't need to read the links I've posted...It's up to you, but others might.


If they are ex Labour people then they are clearly not 'good' Labour people. They are just former members.

Your bit on the No camp is, ach its so bad that I cannae be bothered even rebutting it.

I almost always read the links, just in case the lead to something substantive. They almost never do.

[One Day Soon]

This is the bit of the debate that I love - folk sprouting stuff that is patently nonsense and doesn't even stand up to 15 seconds scrutiny.

It tends, with a few exceptions, to be the separatist style. Throw rocks, run away.

[One Day Soon]

I prefer the word 'modernise'.

That's a quality bit of spin.

[One Day Soon]

Would you include the Green Party, SSP and Women for Independence as an SNP front. I think some people aren't aware of how widespread and organic the pro Indy movement is.

Green Party - Actual political party, bit nutty.

SSP - Joke political party, extremely nutty.

Women for Independence - Ha ha ha ha. Wait, were you serious about that one?

[One Day Soon]

Those supporting a Yes vote. 5775.

Those supporting a No vote. 0


PCS union supporting a Yes vote - 0

[ronaldo7]

This is the bit of the debate that I love - folk sprouting stuff that is patently nonsense and doesn't even stand up to 15 seconds scrutiny.

So Gideon didn't fly in for a few hours and then fly back to London then?

I'm sure Simon Ponsonby tried to ask him a question when he was running to the safety of the car. I must have been wrong eh:cb

[ronaldo7]

It tends, with a few exceptions, to be the separatist style. Throw rocks, run away.

Or make a speech, and run away:wink:

[green glory]

Green Party - Actual political party, bit nutty. SSP - Joke political party, extremely nutty. Women for Independence - Ha ha ha ha. Wait, were you serious about that one?

Why the problem with Women for Independence specifically?

[Beefster]

So Gideon didn't fly in for a few hours and then fly back to London then?

I'm sure Simon Ponsonby tried to ask him a question when he was running to the safety of the car. I must have been wrong eh:cb

This thread is like speaking to my six year old. You think you're having a proper conversation with him, you think he's listening and then he comes out with something about how dogs love cheesecake.

The implication that the 'No' campaign has to resort to English politicians because it's struggling for Scots is pish.

[ronaldo7]

This thread is like speaking to my six year old. You think you're having a proper conversation with him, you think he's listening and then he comes out with something about how dogs love cheesecake.

The implication that the 'No' campaign has to resort to English politicians because it's struggling for Scots is pish.

This is exactly what's happened. Go back a few months and tell me if the UK Cabinet were anywhere near Scotland. I'll help you...They weren't.

The No campaign have clearly seen the Yes guys/girls getting closer and have tried to ramp up "Project Fear"

It won't be long before they tell us, we need to get 40% of the votes cast, 51.6% of the vote won't be enough.

McCrone, or George Cunningham anyone.

[One Day Soon]

This is exactly what's happened. Go back a few months and tell me if the UK Cabinet were anywhere near Scotland. I'll help you...They weren't.

The No campaign have clearly seen the Yes guys/girls getting closer and have tried to ramp up "Project Fear"

It won't be long before they tell us, we need to get 40% of the votes cast, 51.6% of the vote won't be enough.

McCrone, or George Cunningham anyone.


Yeah that's right. And David Bowie is another example. It's all a conspiracy.

McGlashan is never far below the surface is he?

You're not even taking half believable pi5h. Danny Alexander, Michael Moore and Alasdair Carmichael - all Cabinet Ministers - have all been into it for months and months. As have the London SNP - Robertson and Hosie.

As for fear and negativity, take a look at Salmond's 'big speech' from Aberdeen. Pair wee sole, he's being bullied an' that. Oh aye, Salmond is that boy that gets picked on in the playground right enough. :rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

Why the problem with Women for Independence specifically?


Apart from being a bit crap, they are also a barely concealed SNP front organisation, with a few patsies stuck on for cover.

It isn't so hard to see the joins in the SNP strategy that you can't spot these 'spontaneous' grassroots organisations that spring up to make it look like everyone is in favour of separation.

[Future17]

PCS union vote for neutral position on Indy ref. Still not 1 union backing independence.

Has there not been a couple? POAS was one I think...

[Phil D. Rolls]

So Gideon didn't fly in for a few hours and then fly back to London then?

I'm sure Simon Ponsonby tried to ask him a question when he was running to the safety of the car. I must have been wrong eh:cb

His brother, Bernard, definitely tried to ask a question. :agree: