Scottish Independence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

Okay, Scotland benefited by being in the UK while the empire was being built up, but that's literally history. Even then, though, it's not as if Scotland would have remained an 18th century country if it hadn't joined the Union! How did Denmark do it? Belgium? Norway?

Then take the recent past. We have been horribly under-served by the Union. Over the last forty years we have seen our wealth squandered big style. It is breath-taking just how wealthy a country we could have been. There's no point getting misty eyed about the distant past, or dreaming up all sorts of phantom dangers for the future. The only reliable reference point is what we have actually experienced in our life times - and we have lost out badly through being in the Union. Based on this, the risks of staying in it far outweigh the supposed benefits.

A federal system can only work with the agreement of the whole UK. There is no tangible support for it outwith Scotland. The only party supporting it is the Lib Dems. It is never going to happen.

---

No disrespect, but what people like myself need is facts to back up your points (in bold). Otherwise your statement is as misty-eyed as you claim mine to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

I would respectfully suggest you would appreciate, through Mrs Indie, that a break from the UK isn't the end of civilisation as we know it. OK the South has had its problems, its GDP the last time I looked, fairly recently, was still higher than the UK.

---

It's precisely through Mrs Indie that I have an appreciation of just how bad things have been in the South over the last few years. If their GDP is higher than ours, then I would rather have our lower GDP than the problems they have.

Which tells me everything I need to know about how bare stats like that tell only the part of the story one wishes to tell. 'Twas ever thus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

How a grown up relationship can work is beautifully illustrated by the South, the only bit of the world outwith the UK where a passport isn't required by either side of the UK when traveling abroad. And that wasn't the most amicable of separations to start with!

---

And to compare (granted, it you didn't make the original comparison, but you ran with it) an independent Ireland with an independent Scotland is comparing apples with pears, in my opinion. The time, history, culture, varying institutions and connections between people just don't bear the same scrutiny.

All I genuinely ask for is a compelling, fact based argument for changing the fabric of our country. I have yet to hear it. And yes, I am listening :greengrin

[QUOTE=Glory Lurker;3770206]Okay, Scotland benefited by being in the UK while the empire was being built up, but that's literally history. Even then, though, it's not as if Scotland would have remained an 18th century country if it hadn't joined the Union! How did Denmark do it? Belgium? Norway?[QUOTE]
Where did I claim that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndieHibby

And to compare (granted, it you didn't make the original comparison, but you ran with it) an independent Ireland with an independent Scotland is comparing apples with pears, in my opinion. The time, history, culture, varying institutions and connections between people just don't bear the same scrutiny.

---

Indeed - and that works both ways. The fact that only a few years ago David Cameron and George Osborne were singing the praises of Ireland's economic policies (and holding them up as an example that the UK should follow) says it all. The political centre ground in Scotland is firmly to the left of where it is here.

IndieHibby (sorry, I don't know how to combine separate posts with "reply with quote"), as regards the first point about us being badly served by the Union, I was referring to what little we have to show for 40 years of oil wealth. It seems to be accepted that, had Scotland set up an oil fund in the '70s, like Norway did, we'd have billions set aside and no national debt (save for borrowing intentionally taken on to limit currency value). There's still plenty of the black stuff out there, though, so there is potential to go some way to righting that wrong.

Absolutely right, you didn't say anything about the empire. You'd talked about us becoming prosperous within the union. What I was trying to do was agree to an extent - had we not been in the union then we would not have had the benefit of the empire but, beyond that, I do not think you can say that being in the union is what has made us prosperous, as this would probably have happened anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

I don't have a major issue with the concept of independence per se, but I cannot stand the SNP and the thought of independence under them scares the life out of me.

If the referendum was held tomorrow, I'd be voting 'no' and it would take quite a bit of persuasion for me to change my mind.

---

Just catching up on this thread (1st while sober :D )

Some of the in-fighting between the various sections of the SNP has to be seen to be believed (pretty well hidden just now for some reason, but well reported in the past) ... They're sticking together purely on the independence label, if/when that's achieved the the SNP will fall like a house of cards.
I've also heard from a family acquaintance that Alex S is considering retiring after the next election if it's a yes vote ...... Never seen this reported or even mentioned anywhere but I did see it in that you tune video listed in this thread... Most likely just a rumour growing legs!


* you tube even ....... :-/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

You think that decisions are not currently made in the best interests of Scotland while we're a part of the UK. Yet, we'll be better off as a foreign country with absolutely no say over fiscal policy (which is what getting a 10% seat at the Bank of England will mean)?

You seem to be saying that the UK will give us a say in their fiscal policies because we'll offer to do something that we want to anyway. The SNP have already said that they want to keep the pound. The alternative is the Euro (which would be crazy) or a new currency (which probably wouldn't be in our interests right now). It's not much of a negotiating position.

IMHO independence is one of these things that sounds magic as an abstract idea. Who could disagree with "Let's guide our own destiny"? However, the detail is either completely missing ("ach, we'll sort it out after we've decided") or falls to bits under a bit of scrutiny.

---

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

---

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

---

SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

---

This is just plain nonsense. I could see the point if you were arguing over a 10% say on Monetary Policy. Fiscal Policy is something completely different. Do you guys not know or understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

---

Just in case either of you should decide to come back with the 'classic' argument that the BoE setting interest rates = Scotland having no control of its own economic policy I thought this might help 'explode the myth' you both seek to perpetuate http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...dent-scotland/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

This is just plain nonsense. I could see the point if you were arguing over a 10% say on Monetary Policy. Fiscal Policy is something completely different. Do you guys not know or understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?

---

The original reference to 'fiscal policy' came from Jack in relation to the Bank of England AFAIK. I don't think anyone else was twattish enough to let it ruin what was a perfectly reasonable debate though when everyone knew the point being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Just in case either of you should decide to come back with the 'classic' argument that the BoE setting interest rates = Scotland having no control of its own economic policy I thought this might help 'explode the myth' you both seek to perpetuate http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...dent-scotland/

---

Are you suggesting that the fiscal policy followed by a government is completely unrelated to the wider monetary policy of the relevant central bank?

As for the link...explodes nothing and to me reads like someone shooting themselves in the foot. Tax rates are all well and good (and sadly I've yet to see anyone suggest that they would fall dramatically in an independent Scotland...only more government spending) but surely the big daddy of economic levers is the cost of credit and the size and rate of money supply.

Also to suggest the BoE is actually independent is just daft. Who sets its remit? (A remit that strangely enough seems to have changed recently) Who employs it's top dog?

The euro zone troubles are the perfect example of how not having control of your central bank directly impacts a governments ability to implement its desired fiscal policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The original reference to 'fiscal policy' came from Jack in relation to the Bank of England AFAIK. I don't think anyone else was twattish enough to let it ruin what was a perfectly reasonable debate though when everyone knew the point being made.

---

Just for your benefit, read my original question, then the response from Simar then your own response. I specifically asked - Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? You both clearly responded by stating a 10% say is pretty much no say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Just for your benefit, read my original question, then the response from Simar then your own response. I specifically asked - Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? You both clearly responded by stating a 10% say is pretty much no say.

---

Round in round in circles.

The point being made was 10% of something is pointless if the 90% disagree.

I agree with your rather laboured point that the BoE would not set an independent Scotland's fiscal policy...that wasn't the original intention of my post. A point I'm pretty sure you were aware of anyway.

What I am saying though is that the two (monetary and fiscal) are far from being mutually exclusive and without the ability to influence one you lose the ability to be masters of your own destiny on the other. Ergo an independent Scotland as proposed would be far from independent.

Or are you suggesting Scotland's fiscal policy would be completely unrelated and removed from the wider monetary policy being pursued by the 'pound zone'

It was me that introduced this 10% figure but it seems to have taken on a wee life of its own and wasn’t meant to be what Scotland's voice would be in deciding BoE policies.

Rather it is the share of monies we currently get, and presumably would have to raise/spend/acquire through the divorce proceedings to keep/maintain the status quo – as far as government spending is concerned.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

As has been mentioned in other places there are already examples from around the world of independent countries sharing a currency, many other independent countries just piggy back on the likes of the US dollar.

How all this works is beyond me (other than I’ll bet traders make millions from it) but it does work and IMO would mean Scotland was any less independent because it kept the pound any more than it would be less independent if it adopted the Euro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Round in round in circles.

The point being made was 10% of something is pointless if the 90% disagree.

I agree with your rather laboured point that the BoE would not set an independent Scotland's fiscal policy...that wasn't the original intention of my post. A point I'm pretty sure you were aware of anyway.

What I am saying though is that the two (monetary and fiscal) are far from being mutually exclusive and without the ability to influence one you lose the ability to be masters of your own destiny on the other. Ergo an independent Scotland as proposed would be far from independent.

Or are you suggesting Scotland's fiscal policy would be completely unrelated and removed from the wider monetary policy being pursued by the 'pound zone'

---

1. If 'laboured' is a couple of lines then fair enough.

2. I'm not (for one minute) suggesting that monetary & fiscal policy are mutually exclusive. What I would argue though is that Scotland within a 'sterling zone' could initiate a different set of fiscal policies to that of the RoUK Government. Yes, there would be some budgetary constraints to consider, but this is something every country has to consider when adopting and maintaining fiscal policy. IMO Monetary Policy (for decades) has been predominantly managed in the interests of the finance dominated South East, in some cases having a profoundly detrimental effect on the Scottish Economy. By its very nature, Monetary Policy can only target the economy as a whole. Fiscal policy is much more specific. An independent Scottish Government would be able to take fiscal policy decisions in Scotland's interest, something we are unable to do within the current framework.

3. No, but some of the arguments on this thread appear to be suggesting that we'd have less Independence under the settlement being proposed by the SNP Government than we have at the moment. This is just plain nonsense. Under the SNP proposals we'd have a Sovereign Independent State where governmental decisions would be taken in the interests of Scotland. FWIW, if a future Scottish Government should decide to establish it's own currency or propose withdrawal from the EU that would be a decision for the Scottish Electorate to take at that point in time. Everything does not have to be set in stone the day after the referendum. The Governance of any country is 'fluid' why would, or should, an Independent Scotland be any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

1. If 'laboured' is a couple of lines then fair enough. 2. I'm not (for one minute) suggesting that monetary & fiscal policy are mutually exclusive. What I would argue though is that Scotland within a 'sterling zone' could initiate a different set of fiscal policies to that of the RoUK Government. Yes, there would be some budgetary constraints to consider, but this is something every country has to consider when adopting and maintaining fiscal policy. IMO Monetary Policy (for decades) has been predominantly managed in the interests of the finance dominated South East, in some cases having a profoundly detrimental effect on the Scottish Economy. By its very nature, Monetary Policy can only target the economy as a whole. Fiscal policy is much more specific. An independent Scottish Government would be able to take fiscal policy decisions in Scotland's interest, something we are unable to do within the current framework. 3. No, but some of the arguments on this thread appear to be suggesting that we'd have less Independence under the settlement being proposed by the SNP Government than we have at the moment. This is just plain nonsense. Under the SNP proposals we'd have a Sovereign Independent State where governmental decisions would be taken in the interests of Scotland. FWIW, if a future Scottish Government should decide to establish it's own currency or propose withdrawal from the EU that would be a decision for the Scottish Electorate to take at that point in time. Everything does not have to be set in stone the day after the referendum. The Governance of any country is 'fluid' why would, or should, an Independent Scotland be any different.

---

Cool...believe it or not I don't particularly disagree. Although it could be argued that by removing the political union we do indeed lose influence over the monetary approach the BoE will take (as I don't believe it to be independent from the UK chancellors wishes). You also state that monetary policy has damaged Scotland before....there's not much in the independence proposed that would change that although I accept we may have bigger fiscal latitude to offset that at least in a short term way.


I prefer pound zone rather than sterling zone though.... :-)

I found the suggestion that Ireland might be regretting it's near 100 years of independence because if the difficulties since 2008 very amusing.

In all of the various discussions they had, I'm quite sure not one of them at the time was "let's renegotiate to become part of the UK". Indeed, for many years, Ireland was hailed as an example of a flourishing economic entity by chancellors of the UK and Scottish independence enthusiasts alike!

I doubt there are any countries where the choice of your own nationhood would be trader in.

This seems to be passing under most people's radar. Westminster in the process of re establishing national service. The bill is already at an advanced stage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...alservice.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

This seems to be passing under most people's radar. Westminster in the process of re establishing national service. The bill is already at an advanced stage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...alservice.html

---

Only applies to England & Wales :greengrin

Private members bill - so unlikely to make it through I would have thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee

Only applies to England & Wales :greengrin Private members bill - so unlikely to make it through I would have thought

---

Yes, but a situation where it's applied in only England and Wales is only going to fuel more resentment south of the border, and is maybe an indication they expect independence to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Yes, but a situation where it's applied in only England and Wales is only going to fuel more resentment south of the border, and is maybe an indication they expect independence to happen.

---

They? It's not coming from the Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

I found the suggestion that Ireland might be regretting it's near 100 years of independence because if the difficulties since 2008 very amusing.

In all of the various discussions they had, I'm quite sure not one of them at the time was "let's renegotiate to become part of the UK". Indeed, for many years, Ireland was hailed as an example of a flourishing economic entity by chancellors of the UK and Scottish independence enthusiasts alike!

I doubt there are any countries where the choice of your own nationhood would be trader in.

---

If you are referring to my comment (not sure if you are) then I meant that I would rather have the lower GDP and higher employment on offer in the UK, rather than the higher unemployment and random, unfair and high taxes on offer in Ireland.

Nothing to do with 100 years of Independence, and everything to do with being financially directed from Brussels.

Having said that, their housing market is something to be envied (if you are a buyer, not a seller.) :wink:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...sh-thread.html

100% NO from me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NumberSeven

100% NO from me

---

Can I ask why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeEmma

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

I dislike the the SNP because they are too idillic. They have failed so many of their bigger pre-election campaign headlines such as dropping student debt. Now they are sacrificing a whole country based on forecasts of tourism and oil, of which neither are sustainable.
Only a few days ago SNP was caught out saying to the public that taxes wouldn't go up when at the same time he had published papers saying they WOULD.

A few people have spoken about the idea why should we be governed by a different country. If we look on it as Britain, we can fight it as one. It's about putting heads together have having more innovation and ideas. Personally I'd rather be imminent on the international stage than fighting a small cause for Scotland. As much as we hate to think of ourselves as "british", Britain have done wonders in the world, building up an image (some better than others- everyone has their view). I would rather put a £44 million programme towards strengthening healthcare in South Africa than a Scottish £3 million programme.

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Our memberships as an independent Scotland would also not remain. For example the G8, the BBC, guaranteed EU membership and being in the UK gives a greater voice to the UN and beyond.

If none of the above influences you, what about Nicola Sturgeons voice? That alone would put me in the NO/Better Together camp.

---

Re your point on Republic of Ireland. How many of them would now vote to part of the Union once more?

How do we start a poll on the subject? It would be interesting if nothing else.

:cb