Originally Posted by
allmodcons
1. "That's the problem. IMO the Mother of all Parliaments doesn't reflect the views of the vast majority of Scots."
Technically the Scottish Parliament also doesn't reflect the views of the majority of Scots, most of whom voted in 2011 for parties other than the SNP. And it is elected only by Scots, just as an independent parliament would be. The SNP got about 45% of the vote and more than 50% of the seats yet virtually all policy decisions have been determined by one party. So what's the difference? A simpler and less costly answer to your objection would be electoral reform of the Westminster Parliament.
2. "successive UK Governments have a proven track record handling these matters - £1.4 trillion of debt"
Your comment on £1.4 trillion of debt is irrelevant to the point I was raising and which you did not address. The amount we can borrow and spend is determined on a pooled basis by all the representatives of the nations within the UK - not dictated by non-Scots. (the same pooled basis that John Swinney favours for a future independent Scotland participating in the pound as our currency - but more of that later).
As to the £1.4 trillion of debt itself, do you seriously imagine that simply by being independent we are somehow automatically going to be different from most other western economies or that we would have been unaffected by the global trashing of economies that has taken place over the last five years between banking crisis and economic turndown? Being Scottish doesn't mean you somehow make better spending, borrowing or taxation decisions. Equally being a UK government doesn't mean you somehow automatically make bad economic decisions. As a point of reference, the most recent figures I could find (2012) showed our percentage of debt to GDP (88%) as lower than that of Japan, Italy, Portugal, United States, Ireland, Singapore, Belgium, Iceland and France. Even Germany at 81% is not far behind the UK.
3. "Maybe, just maybe, an iScotland would take a different approach to the politics of greed that prevail at Westminister (witness Helen Liddell in the House of Lords last week - a Labour left winger?? what a ****ing joke)."
I'm not a fan of Liddell but I don't follow this bit. What did she say in the debate?
4. "The Bank of England, is not an rUK institution. I think a quick look at the UK balance of payments will tell you that a 'sterling zone' is in the best interests of rUK."
Nothing is as yet an rUK institution, but the Bank of England certainly would be.
Jim Sillars, former SNP Deputy Leader, doesn't agree with you: "The claim that sterling is as much ours as that of Westminster, an asset Scotland has the right to share, doesn’t stand examination. Foreign currency balances and gold held by the Bank of England are indeed assets to be divided (if they still have any), but a currency per se, like sterling, is a badge of sovereignty printed by a sovereign government, and that will be the badge of ‘England plus’ or what has come to be called rUK, once we depart.
.....Mark Carney, to his credit, came here and remained in technocratic mode. What he pointed out about a currency union is true – joining means “ceding” sovereignty. He did not say sovereignty was ‘pooled’, a word favoured by John Swinney, because Mr. Carney knows, and quoted the eruozone as evidence, that you don’t pool sovereignty, you transfer it, and lose it. The Greeks and Portuguese have learned that lesson in the harshest way imaginable.
....Scotland could also, of course, enter into a currency union with a future Westminster Government, but a lot more than transaction issues would be involved. To create a currency union requires a Treaty between two sovereign states. If the Westminster will not sign, there can be no currency union, and we have uncertainty. In the present debate, the SNP having tied itself to such a union, with no plan B, has passed to Osbourne control of its policy. Not clever politics. But, that’s the political corner SNP has painted itself into."
5. "Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding world markets? Does our Scottish Parliament really reflect and express the will of the Scottish people. If it does, why are the 3 Unionist Parties at Holyrood currently reviewing the powers of the Parliament?"
My point is that you are proposing massive constitutional change to little purpose as far as a good deal of factors such as interest rates etc are concerned given that international money markets effectively constrain what freedom governments actually have in reality to determine policy. My understanding is that the three parties that want Scotland to stay in the UK are currently reviewing the powers of the Scottish Parliament with a view to subtantially increasing them.
6. "As I've already said, the Bank of England does not belong to rUK. Yes, rUK would be the main player, but, after the political posturing is put to one side, I have no doubt both parties (rUK and iScotland) would look to find a common platform from which to progress their respective economies. You're obviously no fool, and know full well that Independence in the modern era is a lot different to what was mean't by Independence even 40 or 50 years ago. The bottom line, however, is that Scotalnd would be able to decide when, and with whom, to pool sovereignty."
See the Jim Sillars quotes above and below. It wouldn't be pooling sovereignty, it would be ceding it.
Until someone can explain why we would want to sign up for a deal that means we get to decide tax rates, while another country decides the cost of our mortgages this will remain a daft proposal. I don't know what you mean when you say "Independence in the modern era is a lot different to what was mean't by Independence even 40 or 50 years ago" unless that is supposed to somehow explain away or massage a proposed independence trade off that gives us the appearance of sovereignty but the reality of constitutional economic emasculation.
Jim Sillars:
"On the fundamental issue of a currency union, common sense , and past forgotten lessons, have flown out of the SNP cabinet window. For years, the SNP has complained about the Bank of England and its obsessive concern for London and south east England. John Swinney is on the record, criticising Eddie George the then Governor for saying it was not feasible to protect “particular sections or regions. The Swinney response noted the Bank’s policy “does not take into account the needs of the north of England or Scotland – as evidenced by the fact that members of the Bank of England monetary policy committee is overwhelmingly based in the south east of England.”
Staggeringly, this is the same MPC John Swinney would have us join now: A committee comprising; five from the bank and four nominated by the UK Government. Six are Oxbridge, and all nine are anchored in London. Only one of them has any past connection outside the south of England bubble. One Scot among that lot would make no difference whatsoever. Nine members would represent 55 million people, while one represented our 5 million. We would have traded independent power over our economy for the status, once again, of a powerless region. That is not a price worth paying to use a currency, which we can access anyway."
7. "With regard to Mark Carney, I thought his analysis was fairly balanced but happen to think that the economic dispartities between certain Eurozone member states make any comparsion with a 'Sterling Zone' somewhat shaky."
Not really. Once you cede power over currency in the way proposed you are then locked in the boot of Big Brother's car. And Jim Sillars has spotted that perfectly.
8. "On a lighter note:-
1. You've still not trumped John Barrowman.
2. Did you enjoy the dance around your lounge with your son whilst watching 9 man ICT beat Hearts?
3. Are you Ian Gray? :wink:
