Scottish Independence

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.
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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan.

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

[hibby rae]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan.

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

[hibby rae]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

David Bowie folk ken whits goin oan.

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

[Stonewall]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/...tish-money-fed

[allmodcons]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/...tish-money-fed

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

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.