Scottish Independence

[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]

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

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/...id-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]

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

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]

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

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 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]

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

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/...id-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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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 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

[Phil D. Rolls]

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

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.

[One Day Soon]

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

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

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]

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

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

It's all your fault....

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

[Just Alf]

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

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!

[ronaldo7]

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

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...er-eu-comments

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...rector-general

[lucky]

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

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

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...er-eu-comments

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...rector-general

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

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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!

[ronaldo7]

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

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

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

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

[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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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-8...de.html#slide1

PS - Have a good weekend ODS.

[ronaldo7]

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

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/politi...y-mps.23491458

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

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]

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

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

Seperarists. Why not call them the Rebel Alliance?

[Bristolhibby]

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

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-8...de.html#slide1

PS - Have a good weekend ODS.

This

[steakbake]

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

Seperarists. Why not call them the Rebel Alliance?

"Something something something Empire, something something something complete".