The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Ayeseetee]

It is worth pointing out that the pound dipped in the same way 16 times in the past 12 months!

[Oddquine]

On TV yesterday there was a SNP MSP stating that the fall in the pound was more likely a response to the news that the Americans may bomb the IS terrorists in Syria!

 

The YES campaign's responses to anything related to the economic case are simply bizarre as we get closer to polling day.    Oddquine's response to the news about the proposed devolution of tax raising powers is "we'll have new powers to increase taxes on our own people, sending even more families into poverty, increasing the need for food banks"!  So I take it the plan is to use the new powers to tax the poor, then?

 

Don't be so deliberately obtuse, DD, you are better than that........that will be one of the consequences of having to either raise taxes..so leaving less money in people's pockets......or cutting services....like free prescriptions, free  or the Bedroom Tax amelioration, or the Scottish Welfare Fund....thus leaving less money in people's pockets.......while having no facility to change any of the policies on welfare, defence etc...... or without the access to all our income to pay for our needs.  Or do you not get the fact that actions have consequences which are more worrying for some than the ability of Westminster politicians to keep their gravy train on the rails and ponce about the world sporting their stick-on hairy chest?

 

 

 

[Oddquine]

It is worth pointing out that the pound dipped in the same way 16 times in the past 12 months!

 

Yeah.the money markets are worrying not about Independence..but about the Westminster lot saying there won't be a Currency Union.

[Yngwie]

Just on that subject, what's the Yes response to the (independent) Governor of the Bank of England reiterating yesterday that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty"?

 

A week to go and we still don't know what our currency is going to be. On something so fundamental, voters shouldn't really be left to guess.

[Kingsmills]

There are all sorts of levels on which nation states cede elements of sovereignty. The UK already cedes elements of sovereignty to the EU.. Members of NATO cede an element of sovereignty over defence and the ceding of sovereignty over currency is already well established in the Euro Zone. Doesn't seem to prevent those nations being sovereign states although they are obliged to have a high degree of cooperation with their fellow members. North Korea is the probably the only truly and utterly sovereign nation left in the modern world.

 

So yes, there will be elements of ceded or shared sovereignty. A shared monarchy is another example but it will be a sharing of our choice in the best interests of our country rather than being thrown a few bones to knaw on by Westminster which may have some of the trappings of self determination but none of the substance.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Kingsmills

[clacher_holiday2]

If we arent scared to vote yes then London will be begging us for currency union.

Our neighbours in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and potentially the UK all use their own currencies, we should do the same. Nevermind what the SNP says, its not about what they want in independence you're voting on, the tartan petrodollar would do just fine without having to prop up banks that are apparently too big to fail.

[Kingsmills]

Both Scotland and rUK are likely to take a pragmatic approach and agree to a mutually beneficial currency arrangement at least as an interim measure. What the Unionists are saying just now is thoroughly unconvincing posturing.

[dougiedanger]

Just on that subject, what's the Yes response to the (independent) Governor of the Bank of England reiterating yesterday that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty"?

 

A week to go and we still don't know what our currency is going to be. On something so fundamental, voters shouldn't really be left to guess.

 

No offense, but you're acting like the perfect audience for their nonsense: gullible, naive, and lacking conviction.

[Kingsmills]

 

Just on that subject, what's the Yes response to the (independent) Governor of the Bank of England reiterating yesterday that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty"?

 

A week to go and we still don't know what our currency is going to be. On something so fundamental, voters shouldn't really be left to guess.

 

No offense, but you're acting like the perfect audience for their nonsense: gullible, naive, and lacking conviction.

 

 

No offense would make for a terrible NFL team. Sorry, pedant attack there.

[Oddquine]

Just on that subject, what's the Yes response to the (independent) Governor of the Bank of England reiterating yesterday that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty"?

 

A week to go and we still don't know what our currency is going to be. On something so fundamental, voters shouldn't really be left to guess.

 

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie,  it will be the pound until we decide otherwise. We already use the pound with no input to monetary policy or fiscal policy, and already back our pound with sterling.....so we will be able to do better outside a currency union than we are doing in the currency union of which we are currently, theoretically, a part. .

[Yngwie]

 

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie,  it will be the pound until we decide otherwise.

 

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says.  "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. 

[+DoofersDad]

If we aren't scared to vote yes then London will be begging us for currency union.

Our neighbours in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and potentially the UK all use their own currencies, we should do the same. Nevermind what the SNP says, its not about what they want in independence you're voting on, the tartan petrodollar would do just fine without having to prop up banks that are apparently too big to fail.

 

You make a good point about the fact that neighbouring independent countries have their own currency, but of course, the real issue here is why are the SNP not proposing that Scotland has a currency of its own and why are they so hell bent on insisting that there will be a currency union even though all the Unionist parties have said that will not happen?  It is worth bearing in mind that the Unionist parties could simply have said that they are not commenting because they will not be negotiating until such time as Scotland has voted for independence.  The fact that they have been up front about this is simply because it is not up for negotiation.  The UK does not have a currency union with other countries and there is absolutely no reason why they should make an exception in Scotland's case - in fact, there is every reason why they should not.

 

The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed.  The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues.  It won't work and the SNP know it.  Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation.

 

Instead of this confident assertiveness of the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, Salmond lamely says that the unionist parties are bluffing!  It is utterly pathetic.  The SNP are reliant on a currency union so that the Bank of England can bail Scotland out when the oil revenues turn out to be well short of the SNP's hopes, when all the hoped for new jobs don't materialise and when Scotland needs to start paying back the massive sums it intends to borrow.  There is of course one way of ensuring a currency union and one way only.  That is by maintaining the political union and voting "N0".

[Oddquine]

 

 

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie,  it will be the pound until we decide otherwise.

 

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says.  "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. 

 

And one of them is sterlingisation, or didn't you notice?

[Yngwie]

The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed.  The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues.  It won't work and the SNP know it.  Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation.

 

 

There are aspects of independence that I think are fundamentally good in principle, but for me the biggest single issue is the economy and for me that paragraph sums it up very well.  The economic plan which underpins the white paper and our ability to maintain our public services is based on fantasy economics.

 

I like footballing analogies, so here goes. ICT aren't doing well enough these days, we just aren't winning any trophies.  So here's what we'll do.  Borrow heavily to sign up a load of top international stars and build a better stadium to accommodate the bigger crowds we're going to get. Success on the pitch will lead to Champions League football every year, and the debts will be repaid from all the prize money and the improved crowds we will get, with people coming not just from the local area but from far and wide to see us play and be part of the miracle.  What could possibly go wrong?!

[IBM]

Yngwye, that is what Labour and Tory Westminster Governments have been doing for years!  This is our chance to do things different we just have to believe in ourselves.

[Sneckboy]

That sounds like Rangers!

Crazy spending, heavy borrowing, under-hand tax dodges, then the inevitable bankruptcy, administration, liquidation and death.

Okay, a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist a pop after that glorious pass from Yngwie - GOAL!

[Yngwie]

And then we get something like the "Irn Bru Scottish Parliament" after the naming rights get flogged off!

[+DoofersDad]

Just been catching up on some of the other posts over the last couple of days.  There really is some desperate nonsense coming from the "YES" campaign.  I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to most of it, but one particular rant by George Monbiot in a link posted by Dougiedanger does deserve comment.  Monbiot is somebody who makes his money by being controversial and is not somebody anyone should take too seriously.  In this latest rant he talks about the Scots voting for hope over despair.  The impression is that the Scots are a deeply impoverished nation cowed by the overbearing rule of its big neighbour.  A "YES" vote will free the Scots from the chains of oppression and offer hope of a release from the current despair.  I paraphrase but that is the general sense of what he says.  It is complete nonsense.

 

So how do people in Scotland actually feel about their lot?  Rather than take the word of an Englishman who lives in Wales, why don't we ask the Scottish people?  That is exactly what the Government does through the Office for National Statistics in their programme for measuring national well-being.  This has been started by the current Government and asks four simple questions of a huge random sample of 165,000 people from within the UK.  The 2012/13 report can be found at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_328486.pdf.   

 

The survey asks people to rate their feelings on 4 aspects on a scale of 0 to 10.  These 4 issues are how satisfied folk are with their life, how worthwhile people feel what they do in life is, how happy they are and how anxious they are.  What the survey shows (during a period of austerity measures I might add!) is that people throughout the UK are remarkably happy and satisfied with their lot. Asked the question "overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?" only 5.5% of people living in Scotland said they were unsatisfied  (assuming that scoring 0 - 4 is unsatisfied, 5 is neither satisfied or unsatisfied and 6 -10 is satisfied).  The corresponding figure for England was 5.8%.

 

This is hard data that tells us that in general we think life is good.  In fact, the results are quite extraordinary when you consider the number of people who are unemployed, who have significant illnesses and disabilities and who have relationship problems.  It is a stark illustration of just how well families,  society and the state look after people who have challenges in their lives.  It gives the lie to the idea that the Scots are a down trodden people who need a radical political change to give them hope for a better life.

 

You can vote "YES" for hope if you want, but it will a hope that by some miracle the economy doesn't go pear shaped.  Or you can vote "NO".  No to gambling away our prosperity and sense of wellbeing.  We truly are "better together" and the evidence is there to prove it.

[Scarlet Pimple]

If it's a "No" vote then rUK will turn into an anxious.............. rU OK ?   !

 

Mr Cameron is a ****  showing his desperation with blackmail and threats...." The independent Scots can't have the pound, it's mine, it's !"

 

 What an absolute hypocrite this guy is.

He lives in an upscale, poncified part of England where poverty has probably never raised it's challenging head, with all mod cons at the ready. No rancorous, rebel Socialists there fer goodness sake; and he dares to travel all the way up to Scotland to wag his finger at us  reminding us how awful it will be for us when we leave Daddy and the Southern Saxons.! 

At the risk of being " Modified" my take on him is that he is a dink that would turn on The Scots at the drop of  a hat if it meant that he had to give up any of his privileges and wealth.  When was the last time he  came up to Scotland ?

 

If the news is anything to go by, his visit may have stiffened the resolve of the great unwashed to shovel him and his flashy suited  ilk out the door.

Salmond may be this and may be that but we understand him with his down to earth approach and he doesn't have a fancy Southern accent to hide his country of birth either. And when was the last time you saw Cammy the Cute smile....eh?

 

Believe me, when reality sinks in after a win for the " Yessies",  meaning a devastating  "NO" for the "Jessies", things will sort themselves out ..... the pound will stay  and will rise in value  as the years go by.

 

Cammy the Cute is like King ****

He tried and failed to stop the waves

of Scottish changes that triggered the raves

of joy from the committed kilties

who were never afflicted by the English wilties.                    

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

 

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie,  it will be the pound until we decide otherwise.

 

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says.  "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. 

 

And one of them is sterlingisation, or didn't you notice?

 

We all know that "3 plan Bs" means "no plan B".  The problem is what his plan A is.  It's all a bit like someone saying they're going to vote for Devo-max and ignoring everyone telling them that it's not an option on the ballot paper.  Then when they turn up at the polling station next week and discover that it's actually not an option, they won't have a clue what to do.

 

In the unlikely event of a "YES" victory, you think it will be sterlingisation, I think it will be sterlingisation but Alex Salmond insists it will be a currency union.  He should be proclaiming the opportunity to create a separate Scottish currency as any proud newly independent country would do.  The fact that he isn't should make anyone thinking of voting "YES" think long and hard about the choice they make next Thursday. 

[Ayeseetee]

Think of it this way

 

they agree to a CU and ask the EU / NATO to see if we would get in or not straight away and to agree to be the best possible partners whatever way we choose and they would lose by a large margin!

 

 

We know Westminster doesn't like losing power and looks at Scotland leaving as some kind of embarrassing thing and they feel they would lose power on the world stage!

 

 

If they really wanted us to stay they would offer devo-max after a no vote RIGHT NOW but they are trying to get away with giving us as little power as possible....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW POWERS!

 

 

 

 

 

(WILL BE DETAILED AT A LATER DATE, AFTER YOU HAVE VOTED! )

Edited September 10, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Oddquine]

 

The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed.  The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues.  It won't work and the SNP know it.  Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation.

 

 

There are aspects of independence that I think are fundamentally good in principle, but for me the biggest single issue is the economy and for me that paragraph sums it up very well.  The economic plan which underpins the white paper and our ability to maintain our public services is based on fantasy economics.

 

I like footballing analogies, so here goes. ICT aren't doing well enough these days, we just aren't winning any trophies.  So here's what we'll do.  Borrow heavily to sign up a load of top international stars and build a better stadium to accommodate the bigger crowds we're going to get. Success on the pitch will lead to Champions League football every year, and the debts will be repaid from all the prize money and the improved crowds we will get, with people coming not just from the local area but from far and wide to see us play and be part of the miracle.  What could possibly go wrong?!

 

 

And you have just described the UK economy, Yngwie.  ICT (UK in your analogy) is doing well enough these days, but still borrowing more than they are getting in income and racking up increasing debt. And they are  borrowing heavily to sign up a load of top international stars and build a better stadium to accommodate the bigger crowds we're going to get, adding to that debt.  Success on the pitch will lead to Champions League football every year, and the debts will be repaid from all the prize money and the improved crowds we will get, with people coming not just from the local area but from far and wide to see us play and be part of the miracle.  What could possibly go wrong?!...bar that the people from far and wide don't give a toss about keeping ICT afloat.

 

So what could possibly go wrong is that the punters could decide to support Clach (Scotland) instead and take their presence, and their money to Grant Street..and the sponsors(Scotland's oil) could do the same....and ICT(UK) could then find it difficult to repay its borrowing and meet its wages and running costs on the reduced income, and as the stadium is owned by private (oil) companies, it cannot be used to guarantee that the borrowing is safe and cannot, therefore, if push comes to shove, be repaid by selling the stadium and leasing it back.

 

And wee Clach, with the influx of income, decides that it is not an imperative to be at the top of the table competing with the big players, because it is more important to make the club a community effort, with no expectations other than good football,(society cohesion) and because they don't feel a need to buy importance in the footballing world to attempt to get the money which comes with that, make the decision to use their income sensibly(no Trident, no pee-heeing to the financial fraudsters, no gravy train funding for 1350 wastes of space) , to gradually improve their ground and their squad, over time, while staying well within their income, (balanced budgets) as they know they have debt from the past to repay and want to ensure they meet all their obligations.(only sensible)

 

If they get sponsors coming in from businesses (oil licence/tax income), that would improve their income, certainly enable them, initially, to set up good insurance schemes to ensure that players injured while playing are adequately compensated for the time they are injured and the treatment they need to get back to full fitness (NHS)...and even maybe allow them to increase the squad more quickly,(job creation) increase wages,(living wage) and keep entrance fees(taxes) at a sensible level.  And bringing the punters with them at every stage, by setting up the Clach Trust to give them a real say in how it all works (a written constitution), it becomes partly a fans club, shaped by both fan and club representatives, controlled by both fan and club representatives, and will be a democratic entity.

 

Most of us who will vote YES on 18th September, are not voting for ourselves....for example, I'm fine in the UK regarding income, it really wouldn't bother me one way or another whether it was a NO or a YES vote, if my only consideration was what was best for me.......because, in my case, it won't make a heck of a lot of difference, either way. But I have children, grandchildren, a great grand-daughter and a great grand child on the way..and Westminster is going to trash all of them, whoever gets in in 2015, as the children are all in public service jobs, the grandchildren are all under 25...and they are going to be trashed in the cuts to come in order to ensure the rich, big business and the bankers aren't all in this together with the easy PAYE/Benefit marks.  And I do rather think, when looking at what is happening in this America-lite society which Westminster, under all its party colours, is promoting...that I really can't believe that Thatcher has done her job so well that there are now a lot of people in Scotland who can no longer think "there, but for the grace of God go I", but believe that they will never lose their job, become sick or disabled, become homeless or be hit by any other circumstance which will make them one of the UK's "undeserving poor" and reliant, if only for a time, on benefits.

 

And if I have offended people by the above, I am sorry, but I have honestly never come across, in my months in the YES shop in Elgin, any person who is determined to vote NO (and who come in specially to tell us so), who can give any other reason but worry about the possible effect on their personal circumstances in the short term.  I accept that I don't meet all NO voters, and I do know that there are NO voters who feel British first (like my cousins), and I can accept that, even though I don't understand it.....but I do really struggle to understand why people, worried about the economy side would prefer the absolute certainty of cuts to the Scottish budget, whoever is in power in the UK, which will result in possible cuts to the NHS,(and possible privatisation) and in other devolved areas, or increased taxes only in Scotland.....to the uncertainty of having all our income to disburse as we see fit, to meet our aspirations, with full control of all the fiscal levers which allow us to promote Scottish values instead of labouring under Westminster monetarism.

 

Anyone care to tell me how much we ordinary punters have benefited from the monetarist "trickle down" theories, given the big businesses and the rich have removed out of our grasp, mostly legally, the income/profit we have provided to them, which were (theoretically) meant to trickle down to us in tax receipts, into offshore facilities which has meant they don't trickle anywhere but into the pockets of the rich/big company shareholders/management? 

[dougiedanger]

 

 

 

 

You just don't want to hear it, Ywngie,  it will be the pound until we decide otherwise.

 

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says.  "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. 

 

And one of them is sterlingisation, or didn't you notice?

 

We all know that "3 plan Bs" means "no plan B".  The problem is what his plan A is.  It's all a bit like someone saying they're going to vote for Devo-max and ignoring everyone telling them that it's not an option on the ballot paper.  Then when they turn up at the polling station next week and discover that it's actually not an option, they won't have a clue what to do.

 

In the unlikely event of a "YES" victory, you think it will be sterlingisation, I think it will be sterlingisation but Alex Salmond insists it will be a currency union.  He should be proclaiming the opportunity to create a separate Scottish currency as any proud newly independent country would do.  The fact that he isn't should make anyone thinking of voting "YES" think long and hard about the choice they make next Thursday. 

 

 

Sounding very panicky DD, just like your pals that graced us with their presence today, and equally out of touch. 

 

You just keep on thinking you've got it in the bag.

[clacher_holiday2]

I posted this on pie and bovril, if you want a vision of the future of Scotland then look no further than a guy I work with, whos daughter has decided not to go to university after gaining entry on academic merit.  They have a fear of debt and tuition fees, choosing the safer option of joining the army, to play in their ******* band at 19k a year.  Over the course of her lifetime that decision could be worth hundreds of thousands in lost income.

 

I posted another story about a girl whos 2 year old daughter ate a bunch of tablets thinking they were sweets, who almost died because the nearest doctor was over 30 miles away with no ambulance to take her in.  Our local clinic for emergencies was closed down in 2012 but lets face it, that couldve happened in Scotland with nationwide cutbacks hitting already.
 
In Scotland you have free elderly care, free water, free child care, free prescriptions, free higher education, a bedroom tax rebate and probably a bunch of other things I cannot think of... if you vote No then we'll be able to play 'social bingo' as more and more of them are cut, not because there isnt enough money in the pool but rather the money is being spent on 2nd generation Trident, trains that go a little bit faster around London, bailing out banks and aircraft carriers with no planes that work on them.

 

The collection of voices calling for a No vote should be signal enough to the people of Scotland in all walks of society that No is the wrong answer.  Self regulating bankers issuing threats, ex etonian 'career' politicians, business leaders relying on an army of minimum wage employees and a media who are owned by wealthy men that don't give a sh1t about the truth on other matters (yet are trusted on independence?)... No voters are trusting these voices to have their best interests at heart?

 

 

 

The old arguements might well be right, maybe Scotland isnt capable of running her own affairs.

[Eagle4Caley]

 

If we aren't scared to vote yes then London will be begging us for currency union.

Our neighbours in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and potentially the UK all use their own currencies, we should do the same. Nevermind what the SNP says, its not about what they want in independence you're voting on, the tartan petrodollar would do just fine without having to prop up banks that are apparently too big to fail.

 

You make a good point about the fact that neighbouring independent countries have their own currency, but of course, the real issue here is why are the SNP not proposing that Scotland has a currency of its own and why are they so hell bent on insisting that there will be a currency union even though all the Unionist parties have said that will not happen?  It is worth bearing in mind that the Unionist parties could simply have said that they are not commenting because they will not be negotiating until such time as Scotland has voted for independence.  The fact that they have been up front about this is simply because it is not up for negotiation.  The UK does not have a currency union with other countries and there is absolutely no reason why they should make an exception in Scotland's case - in fact, there is every reason why they should not.

 

The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed.  The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues.  It won't work and the SNP know it.  Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation.

 

Instead of this confident assertiveness of the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, Salmond lamely says that the unionist parties are bluffing!  It is utterly pathetic.  The SNP are reliant on a currency union so that the Bank of England can bail Scotland out when the oil revenues turn out to be well short of the SNP's hopes, when all the hoped for new jobs don't materialise and when Scotland needs to start paying back the massive sums it intends to borrow.  There is of course one way of ensuring a currency union and one way only.  That is by maintaining the political union and voting "N0".

 

 

Although strangely there was no currency union with Eire when we i.e the UK, bailed out or 'supported' them financially

Personally I'm sitting on the fence on this one,  which is OK since I don't have a vote, I would prefer Scotland to stay part of the Union, but can understand why there is a lot of resentment above the border for the Westminster elite, I can see a viable independent Scotland but the birth pangs might be painful (but necessity is the mother of invention, and we know Scotland is good at that), I think some of the anti-independence businesses are bluffing a bit with the cry's of doom, as I think 'Brand Scotland' could be quite a powerful thing, some of the social issues will be more challenging.

 

I shall watch the vote with interest!