Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

The nationalists suddenly have a very strange definition of bullying. It's like:

 

"Daddy, I want a puppy."

"Sorry my dear, it would need too much looking after so I'm afraid we're not getting one."

"Waaaaaah, you're bullying me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you in favour of Scottish independence?

Yes    10235    83%

No    2137    17%

 

So even doing a poll at the SNP conference you can only muster 87% support for separation? :lol:

 

And that's an interesting observation made by Yngwie in #501. The SNP seem not only to want to separate, but for everyone else to agree to do so on their terms. And if everybody else doesn't, then that's "bullying" - which is an interesting term coming from an organisation which controls its own elected members with totalitarian rigour, which has conspicuously failed to condemn the excesses of Cybarnattery and historically whose response to any challenge to its dogma has simply been to shout the same thing louder and louder and more aggressively.

 

I also note with interest that Salmond wants a fair share of everything which is British, including the pound and 8.4% of all tangible assets.

Oo...errr... will that be including just 8.4% of Britian's oil assets as well then?

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/scottish-referendum-independent-scaremongering-eu

 

The last paragraph sums it up.......There are seven months to go to the referendum. Let's quit the scaremongering, and accept one thing: if the Scots democratically choose independence, then Brussels, London, and all global institutions will accept this and work to make it happen. Not for Scotland's sake, but for their own. No one is going to throw us out.

 

 

 

 

Again, the last paragraph says it all.......The union is not a partnership. It is a highly centralised state that only begrudgingly cedes power. The calculated dismissal of an independent Scotland as a partner in a currency union makes the true nature of the relationship clear. The union has joined the debate to show us that, however Scotland votes, punitive measures will be taken. The only questions is whether they’re taken against a demoralised region or a confident young sovereign state in the making.

 

I think these two issues and the way they are presented sums the debate up for me.  In essence we have those who are philosophically passionate in favour of independence and those who are philosophically in favour of retaining the union.  It is a bit like a debate between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians - they both passionately believe what they are saying but they are poles apart and to outsiders, much of the rhetoric of both sides is seen as nonsense.  With regard to the independence debate, one of the things the "yes" lobby don't seem to clock is that as we are currently in the union, the onus is on the "yes" campaign to make the case for change.  We have constant complaints from them that the no campaign is not presenting a case for the union - but they don't need to!  All they need to do is to respond to the arguments made by those wanting change.

 

Oddquine's points illustrate this nicely and the way she uses the phrases "sums it up" and "says it all" illustrates the importance she, as a passionate supporter of independence, attaches to the points.

 

The first one relates to the "Yes" campaign's blind faith in the assumption that an Independent Scotland will be part of the European Union.  The fact is that Scotland is currently part of the U.K. and the U.K. is part of the European Union.  If Scotland chooses to leave the U.K. then it seems to me common sense that Scotland also ceases to be part of the E.U.  It is a bit like being a member of a Trades Union that gives you 10% off at B&Q - when you cancel your Union membership you can't still expect the discount at B&Q.

 

I have no doubt that the wider European community would welcome Scotland back into the EU but there are two points here.  Having chosen to break away from the United Kingdom and, by definition the EU, an independent Scotland might only be able to gain membership at terms very considerably less favourable than we currently have.  An independent Scotland would not have the same negotiating power as the UK and it would be foolish to assume that membership terms would be the same.  Of course, the "yes" campaign might argue that we would be able to enter under better terms; unlikely I think but it may be true.  The problem here is that we simply don't know.

 

The second issue with re-entry into the EU is that as an independent nation there would need to be a demonstration of the wish of the Scottish people for Scotland to be part of the EU.  We would need another referendum!  We might vote "Yes" to independence but "No" to EU membership.  That would come as a real choker to those voting "Yes" to independence based on Salmond's assertion that an Independent Scotland would remain in the EU.

 

Oddquine's second point relates to currency union.  We do seem to be agreed that the union is not a partnership.  In fact the union is a union and the "Yes" campaign is wanting to walk away from that union.  Part of the union is the currency.  The assumption of Salmond and his followers that an Independent Scotland will maintain monetary union and keep the pound is simply breathtaking in its arrogance and/or naivety.  Why on earth would rUK want monetary union with an independent Scotland when it fought tooth and nail to avoid monetary union with the rest of Europe?  The UK Government (rightly or wrongly) has decided as a point of principle to keep its own currency; it isn't going to change that philosophical position just because the Scots, having just walked away from the political union decide they would actually quite like to keep the monetary union. 

 

Salmond argues that it would be in rUK's interest to have monetary union with Scotland.  That may or may not be true but it misses the point.  The point is that the UK wants its own currency - end of.  Salmond should be grateful to the united front of the 3 main unionist parties for making this point quite clear.  This is not bullying, it is providing information to the Scottish voters so that we can be a bit clearer about what we will actually be voting on in the Autumn.

 

The problem with the "Yes" campaign is that we are being asked to vote for an uncertain future.  Of course, for many, independence is about national identity and self determination.  To them it doesn't actually matter whether we are better or worse off as a nation; all that matters is that the Scottish people are free to make decisions about how Scotland is managed - and I can respect that view.  But the majority of the population will only vote "Yes" if they can see clear economic and social benefit from doing so.  Salmond is arrogantly asserting some key issues as fact when the reality is that we don't know.

 

I believe the intervention from Osbourne et al is helpful in that it does provide clarity to the extent of what will not happen.  It is up to Salmond to say what will happen and he is failing miserably to do so simply because he doesn't know either.  The same applies to the EU membership issue.  The problem for the "Yes" campaign has been its failure to get a definitive statement on an independent Scotland's position in relation to EU membership signed up to by all member states before the campaign started.  Both sides point to statements made by various influential folk but the bottom line again is that we just don't know. 

 

Against this background, the "No" campaign does not need to do very much to get the voters a bit twitchy.  People are fearful of the unknown and there are a lot of unknowns here.  Pointing out these uncertainties in an objective way is perfectly reasonable and is not scaremongering  or  bullying as some would have it.

 

But the "No" campaign does need to be be very careful here in what is perceived as bullying.  Where I do agree with Oddquine is in her following post in which she quotes an article which says that clumsy bully-boy tactics may back fire.  Nobody likes a bully and we are in a culture where even mild assertiveness is often interpreted as bullying nowadays.  Whether Salmond is being naive or arrogant or a mixture of the two, Cameron and Osborne appear to be pretty contemptuous of him to the point where they are almost making fun of him.  I can understand their attitude will be seen as bullying.  They are the opposite end of the spectrum to Salmond and because they are so entrenched in their philosophical beliefs they fail to understand how others perceive them.  As a result, they will antagonise many undecided voters by their attitude

 

This is all a bit like a divorce.  After many years of getting along pretty well, having had loads of children, (most of whom have now grown up and got their own independence), one party is considering leaving against the other's wishes.  The party that wants to leave is saying that it is consulting with various people and will let the other party know their decision soon.  However, what they are also saying is that if they do decide to divorce, they will decide what the terms of the divorce will be.  The other party is saying that they don't want a divorce but that if there is to be a divorce they will be using a good divorce lawyer and be under no doubt that there will no longer be a joint back account.

 

What I want to see in the coming weeks and months is for the "Yes" campaign to provide some genuine clarity on the many areas of uncertainty and for the "No" campaign to ask constructive questions and to respond to the "Yes" case in a dignified and respectful way.  At the moment we are getting neither.

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fortnight cruising the Indian Ocean and a total blackout of computers during that time and here I find I've missed pages and pages of comment.

 

A little point of interest on sterling. For a number of years now sterling has not been the currency of England but continues to be so in Scotland. Bank of England notes no longer promise to pay the equivelent in sterling but Scottish notes do.

 

Whether or not the currency of Scotland is the pound, dollar, grote etc makes no odds so long as the country is able to back its promise. Personally I'd rather steer clear of monetary union with any nation. Such arrangements have already been seen to fail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mind DoofersDad?!?  This is an internet forum!! Kindly stop posting your reasoned sensible comments and get back to stating how the best players this country has are, in fact, p1sh. And don't bother explaining why.  We simply don't have the time to read before declaring your comment is also p1sh.

 

Those are the rules of the interweb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only going to respond to bits of this so won't quote the whole lot...and will try and make it obvious when I am referring to something I don't quote

I think these two issues and the way they are presented sums the debate up for me.  In essence we have those who are philosophically passionate in favour of independence and those who are philosophically in favour of retaining the union.  It is a bit like a debate between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians - they both passionately believe what they are saying but they are poles apart and to outsiders, much of the rhetoric of both sides is seen as nonsense.  With regard to the independence debate, one of the things the "yes" lobby don't seem to clock is that as we are currently in the union, the onus is on the "yes" campaign to make the case for change.  We have constant complaints from them that the no campaign is not presenting a case for the union - but they don't need to!  All they need to do is to respond to the arguments made by those wanting change

 

<snip> EU and currency points </snip>

 

This is all a bit like a divorce.  After many years of getting along pretty well, having had loads of children, (most of whom have now grown up and got their own independence), one party is considering leaving against the other's wishes.  The party that wants to leave is saying that it is consulting with various people and will let the other party know their decision soon.  However, what they are also saying is that if they do decide to divorce, they will decide what the terms of the divorce will be.  The other party is saying that they don't want a divorce but that if there is to be a divorce they will be using a good divorce lawyer and be under no doubt that there will no longer be a joint back account.

 

What I want to see in the coming weeks and months is for the "Yes" campaign to provide some genuine clarity on the many areas of uncertainty and for the "No" campaign to ask constructive questions and to respond to the "Yes" case in a dignified and respectful way.  At the moment we are getting neither.

 

I agree, DD....,but the thing is that arguing on forums is not aimed at changing fixed opinions..but offering information to the undecideds. I don't expect to change Charles' mind and he doesn't expect to change mine.  It is unfortunate that most of the posts on here are from those with polarised views doing tit for tat...and also unfortunate that, for the benefit of the undecided, it is very hard to tease out figures  from official publications.....and figures and information  from either side in reports and articles are assumed to be biased in their interpretation by the other side,. (You will see that tendency by the reactions to the next post I am going to make.)

 

I do however think that in a constituency in which the majority does not want the status quo to continue, I feel that there is some responsibilty on the part of Westminster political parties to try to win the referendum  by coming together and telling those people what would become better with our governance if we vote NO as opposed to doing what they have been doing to date, which has been creating uncertainty, as they did in 1979....even to using some of the same points as the Unionists did then. They did  manage to put up a united front over the No to a Currency Union, though, while refusing to offer any positives otherwise, bar that austerity is positively going to continue for at least another Government term, as will the attacks on the Welfare State. I really do think if they win a NO vote on the back of the campaign they have been running to date, that the union will have been broken beyond repair. on 19th September.....it would just remain to be seen as to how long it would take it to die.

Re the EU and the currency points, as someone who would prefer not to be in the EU or in a currency union with the rUK, I can only say that you pays your money and you makes your choice. All life is uncertainty, but precedence and law give pointers..which, as in everything else in this debate, is then down to interpreting it in a way which chimes with your own opinion. There is no more uncertainty with independence than with continuing in the Union given the way the world works nowadays,

I find it rather surprising that Westminster assumes that they, and only they will be the UK successor/continuing state, and Scotland will be a new one....yet also assumes for debt purposes alone, that Scotland will be a successor state..and part of the problem with this debate is Westminster trying to square that circle to their own benefit. If there is single continuing/successor state, as Westminster claims rUK will be, and Scotland is a new state as they sometimes say when it comes to EU membership etc....then all the debt belongs to the rUK as do all the fixed assets in rUK and all the UK removable assets, international Treaties etc...and Scotland can walk away free and clear like a new born babe. If both are successor states as Scotland believes, then I am quite sure Scotland will have no problem letting the rUK be the state which ponces about on the world stage, but both the debt and the assets (or the monetary equivalent of them) are up for negotiation. I suspect that, if there is a yes vote, negotiations will take place.and nothing will be off the table, as at that stage pragmatism will prevail. I do find it rather amusing, though, when I read all those comments after articles in the UK media in which people outside of Scotland believe they will get a tax cut when the subsidy to Scotland is removed from the rUK accounts, along with their input to the Treasury, and their trading surplus input to reduce the rUK's balance of payments deficit.

Regarding the uncertainty of the position re the EU it would be very easy to get some more definitive information, however the EU won't provide it unless Westminster asks for it.and they so far refuse to do so...so the uncertainty is solely of Westminster's making and is being used with regular monotony to scare the undecided electorate.  

Why are you so sure that rUK will not also have to renegotiate their membership of the EU, given they are not the UK which joined the EU, and the fact that their current rebate is a bone of contention among many EU members? That fact and given the population reduction, and the reduction in rUK GNI and VAT which would come with an Independent Scottish state, would perhaps signal lower payments by rUK, and no, or less of a rebate, as input to the EU is a size of the economy thing. For that reason alone, I don't think that either rUK or Scotland will get any share of any current UK two-thirds rebate......but will be obliged to negotiate for themselves in the new situation, though Scotland would probably do better re CAP grants than it does in the Union and will have more input into the CFP than they do now.  I suspect, if Cameron thinks he can negotiate upwards any UK rebate or alterations in membership requirements from the EU before a EU referendum, if we stay in the Union, he is inhabiting cloud cuckoo land. I can't see why it would be more of a choker to people who vote YES on the strength of Scotland remaining within the EU, when there is always the alternative of EFTA, (which I'd personally prefer), when staying in the Union means, regardless of how Scotland votes, (and that is more likely to be to stay in the EU than not) there is more chance of ending up being outside the EU if the promised UK referendum happens in 2017.

I think there should be a referendum on the EU and on currency in an Independent Scotland...and I'm sure at some stage there will be a political party which will include that in their manifesto..but it seems sensible to start off embracing the relatively familiar, judge the results once they are known and change tack then if necessary, on the assumption that Scotland will not become the world pariah as painted by Westminster.

Your last point is well made, but is not looking at it from the view that if there is going to be a divorce, then it is better to make it as amicable as possible, for both sides in the situation, as they are going to have to live next door to each other and be members of the same clubs. If I was one of the parties in the divorce, and I had been told before I had even gotten round to packing up and leaving, that I wasn't going to get my share out of that joint bank account, into which I had been pumping the money I earned throughout the marriage and he had been spending on his own pursuits as if I had never contributed to it ..but I was still expected to help him pay for the jag and the second home that were in his name only and he was taking them with him as well....you really wouldn't want to hear my response.

 

And if he was also contacting previously joint friends and relations, and the memberships of the clubs to which we belonged,  trying to turn them against me in an effort to make life much more difficult for me than it needed to be, simply because he feels emasculated by my trying to take control of my life, and because of the loss of my income which he spends to the last penny on boy's toys and paying the interest on loans he has taken out to buy boy's toys, then I'd feel justified in drastically increasing the shoutie volume and swearie words directed towards him.....along with more than a few kicks up the bum.

I would like to see the same as you state in your last paragraph, but with the addition of the same requirements laid on the No campaign...because neither side is preaching to the polarised, but to those who can be converted......and, with the best will in the world...they are all those, and are the majority of Scots, who want, or would be content with devo-max.

 

There are no more who want the status quo to continue than want Independence as a fundamental irreversible belief....and both sides ignore that in-between demography at their peril, because they are the ones who will decide...not me and the other come-what-may pro-independence supporters or Charles and those who are resolutely anti-independence......but those who wanted, or could have happily lived with, devo-max.....and it is as incumbent on the No campaign to convince those people that the lack of a Devo-max option on the ballot paper does not leave them with their only possibility for the change they want being the only change on offer..which is independence.

Going to be an interesting and probably blood-pressure raising few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree, DD....,but the thing is that arguing on forums is not aimed at changing fixed opinions..but offering information to the undecideds. I don't expect to change Charles' mind and he doesn't expect to change mine.  It is unfortunate that most of the posts on here are from those with polarised views doing tit for tat...and also unfortunate that, for the benefit of the undecided, it is very hard to tease out figures  from official publications.....and figures and information  from either side in reports and articles are assumed to be biased in their interpretation by the other side,. (You will see that tendency by the reactions to the next post I am going to make.)

 

I do however think that in a constituency in which the majority does not want the status quo to continue, I feel that there is some responsibilty on the part of Westminster political parties to try to win the referendum  by coming together and telling those people what would become better with our governance if we vote NO as opposed to doing what they have been doing to date, which has been creating uncertainty, as they did in 1979....even to using some of the same points as the Unionists did then. They did  manage to put up a united front over the No to a Currency Union, though, while refusing to offer any positives otherwise, bar that austerity is positively going to continue for at least another Government term, as will the attacks on the Welfare State. I really do think if they win a NO vote on the back of the campaign they have been running to date, that the union will have been broken beyond repair. on 19th September.....it would just remain to be seen as to how long it would take it to die.

Re the EU and the currency points, as someone who would prefer not to be in the EU or in a currency union with the rUK, I can only say that you pays your money and you makes your choice. All life is uncertainty, but precedence and law give pointers..which, as in everything else in this debate, is then down to interpreting it in a way which chimes with your own opinion. There is no more uncertainty with independence than with continuing in the Union given the way the world works nowadays,

I find it rather surprising that Westminster assumes that they, and only they will be the UK successor/continuing state, and Scotland will be a new one....yet also assumes for debt purposes alone, that Scotland will be a successor state..and part of the problem with this debate is Westminster trying to square that circle to their own benefit. If there is single continuing/successor state, as Westminster claims rUK will be, and Scotland is a new state as they sometimes say when it comes to EU membership etc....then all the debt belongs to the rUK as do all the fixed assets in rUK and all the UK removable assets, international Treaties etc...and Scotland can walk away free and clear like a new born babe. If both are successor states as Scotland believes, then I am quite sure Scotland will have no problem letting the rUK be the state which ponces about on the world stage, but both the debt and the assets (or the monetary equivalent of them) are up for negotiation. I suspect that, if there is a yes vote, negotiations will take place.and nothing will be off the table, as at that stage pragmatism will prevail. I do find it rather amusing, though, when I read all those comments after articles in the UK media in which people outside of Scotland believe they will get a tax cut when the subsidy to Scotland is removed from the rUK accounts, along with their input to the Treasury, and their trading surplus input to reduce the rUK's balance of payments deficit.

Regarding the uncertainty of the position re the EU it would be very easy to get some more definitive information, however the EU won't provide it unless Westminster asks for it.and they so far refuse to do so...so the uncertainty is solely of Westminster's making and is being used with regular monotony to scare the undecided electorate.  

Why are you so sure that rUK will not also have to renegotiate their membership of the EU, given they are not the UK which joined the EU, and the fact that their current rebate is a bone of contention among many EU members? That fact and given the population reduction, and the reduction in rUK GNI and VAT which would come with an Independent Scottish state, would perhaps signal lower payments by rUK, and no, or less of a rebate, as input to the EU is a size of the economy thing. For that reason alone, I don't think that either rUK or Scotland will get any share of any current UK two-thirds rebate......but will be obliged to negotiate for themselves in the new situation, though Scotland would probably do better re CAP grants than it does in the Union and will have more input into the CFP than they do now.  I suspect, if Cameron thinks he can negotiate upwards any UK rebate or alterations in membership requirements from the EU before a EU referendum, if we stay in the Union, he is inhabiting cloud cuckoo land. I can't see why it would be more of a choker to people who vote YES on the strength of Scotland remaining within the EU, when there is always the alternative of EFTA, (which I'd personally prefer), when staying in the Union means, regardless of how Scotland votes, (and that is more likely to be to stay in the EU than not) there is more chance of ending up being outside the EU if the promised UK referendum happens in 2017.

I think there should be a referendum on the EU and on currency in an Independent Scotland...and I'm sure at some stage there will be a political party which will include that in their manifesto..but it seems sensible to start off embracing the relatively familiar, judge the results once they are known and change tack then if necessary, on the assumption that Scotland will not become the world pariah as painted by Westminster.

Your last point is well made, but is not looking at it from the view that if there is going to be a divorce, then it is better to make it as amicable as possible, for both sides in the situation, as they are going to have to live next door to each other and be members of the same clubs. If I was one of the parties in the divorce, and I had been told before I had even gotten round to packing up and leaving, that I wasn't going to get my share out of that joint bank account, into which I had been pumping the money I earned throughout the marriage and he had been spending on his own pursuits as if I had never contributed to it ..but I was still expected to help him pay for the jag and the second home that were in his name only and he was taking them with him as well....you really wouldn't want to hear my response.

 

And if he was also contacting previously joint friends and relations, and the memberships of the clubs to which we belonged,  trying to turn them against me in an effort to make life much more difficult for me than it needed to be, simply because he feels emasculated by my trying to take control of my life, and because of the loss of my income which he spends to the last penny on boy's toys and paying the interest on loans he has taken out to buy boy's toys, then I'd feel justified in drastically increasing the shoutie volume and swearie words directed towards him.....along with more than a few kicks up the bum.

I would like to see the same as you state in your last paragraph, but with the addition of the same requirements laid on the No campaign...because neither side is preaching to the polarised, but to those who can be converted......and, with the best will in the world...they are all those, and are the majority of Scots, who want, or would be content with devo-max.

 

There are no more who want the status quo to continue than want Independence as a fundamental irreversible belief....and both sides ignore that in-between demography at their peril, because they are the ones who will decide...not me and the other come-what-may pro-independence supporters or Charles and those who are resolutely anti-independence......but those who wanted, or could have happily lived with, devo-max.....and it is as incumbent on the No campaign to convince those people that the lack of a Devo-max option on the ballot paper does not leave them with their only possibility for the change they want being the only change on offer..which is independence.

Going to be an interesting and probably blood-pressure raising few months.

Jeezis OQ... I thought some of my posts were kind of long but that's over 1500 words. :crazy:  So was it actually you who wrote the 670 page Toom Tome in your spare time? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://reidfoundation.org/portfolio/issues-surrounding-the-sharing-of-uk-debt-post-independence/

 

The Jimmy Reid Foundation has an interesting paper on the National Debt and the methods by which it could be shared on Independence, which was written by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert.  It looks at, and explains, their reasoning behind various scenarios/conclusions in almost accessible terminology.   

I was particularly interested in the Quantitative Easing issue, but it also looks at the relative positions of Scotland and the UK, if Scotland had been Independent since 1980,but assuming that, apart from Debt interest, Scotland was still spending at the levels they were allocated within the UK accounts.

I have never really thought about quantitative easing.....I suppose I always thought of it as printing more money and just easing it out into the economy to be spent and provide a boost. How thick is that, when it turns out that isn't how it works at all. The brand spanking new notes are created on a computer somewhere, and are used to buy back UK gilts (Public Sector Debt). In theory, that should add money to the system, via the banks having more cash and charging lower interest rates to attract borrowers. (at least I think that's what it means) From there it appears to work a bit like borrowing from yourself to buy a property for investment...the deeds of the property go into a safe deposit box somewhere handy.. you pay interest on the amount you borrowed from yourself to pay for it..and the deeds are there to be sold on once the property market improves.

Anyway up to 2013, there has been £375 billion spent on buying back about 31.5% of total UK Public Sector Debt, certificates for which are sitting in a Treasury Drawer somewhere, waiting for a sustainable economic upturn to sell them back on the open market, thus taking money out of the system and by reducing supply, theoretically increase demand, and thus interest rates. And by that stage, the danger of inflation should be over.(again I think that's what it means).

Anyhow,that is all by the by...bar QE is meant to be a temporary fix to a temporary problem. However, the Cuthberts suspect, going by the adverse market reaction to the mutterings made by the FED about reversing QE in the US, that it is quite possible, to avoid that effect on the UK economic recovery, the Treasury will simply cancel the hoarded Debt certificates....much as they did with the £9 billion in gilts they acquired from the PO pension scheme in 2012...and there is where problems lie re debt apportionment. The idea of bond cancelling is something being said by others in economic blogs, so isn't just an idea out of some Cuthbert left field.  So, if Scotland, tomorrow, agreed to take on a percentage of the UK headline debt, including that £375 billion, there is then nothing to stop rUK cancelling that £375 billion of debt at a stroke the next day, and wiping it off their own debt figures, while Scotland ends up paying a disproportionate amount.

The independent Scotland from 1980 scenario is interesting. It assumes that Scotland has taken its population proportionate share of UK debt at that stage, and is paying the interest on that share, and also that Scottish spending and revenue levels remain the same as they have been as part of the UK with the addition of a geographical share of oil revenues.

That shows that by 1982, Scotland would have had a fiscal surplus, which they could have invested to earn a return. Under three different assumptions about levels of interest rates, it shows that by 2011, it would have had a sovereign wealth fund of anywhere between £50 billion and £148 billion...and no appreciable Public Sector Debt....and that is using UK expenditure figures, which include a population share of Defence spending and Foreign Affairs, and non-identifiable expenditure like the cost of running and maintaining UK Government departments and the UK Parliament itself.

The Cuthberts did the same for rUK....as a mirror image. They have left in the Scottish input to the Treasury in taxation and the expenditure Scotland theoretically received in return...but removed the input from oil. They conclude that Scotland would have been in surplus every year until 2009 and rUK would have been in deficit every year bar 1999 and 2000. However, given that the IMF had to be called in in the 1970s, when UK net public borrowing figures were at the level of 7% of GDP, even with the anticipation of future oil revenues the 7.7 % of GDP figure of 1984, without oil revenues, would have had them heading into an equivalent economic crisis.

The UK used the oil reserves to prop up a system whereby the South East of England grew disproportionately and most other parts of the Union declined. During the peak years of oil production, around 150,000 people left Scotland to go south or overseas.  In their introduction, the Cuthberts say the issues surrounding debt, when fully examined, in fact represent strong additional arguments in favour of, rather than against, independence.

So the benefits of the Union are an annual proportionate share in interest on a debt we'd not have had if it weren't for the Union, Trident, illegal and pointless wars and (failing) policies enacted in an attempt to ameliorate decades of irresponsible stewardship of the UK economy by successive Westminster governments culminating, under the Coalition, with trashing the easy marks and enriching the already wealthy.

Just think...if we had been independent from 1980 on, we'd still have had the spending levels we had as part of the UK, bar the levels of debt interest, but used them to make different choices as to what we did with it,and then maybe less of our population might have left our shores.....and we'd have minimal national debt and a sovereign wealth fund today.

It's not too late to change the future for Scotland...but I feel it is too late to change the ingrained Union mindset in Westminster...the same mindset which promised jam tomorrow in 1979...and didn't deliver..the same Union mindset in which political parties can come together to set out pre-negotiation red lines to try and scare us away from a YES vote..but can only set up commissions...again.....to talk about further devolution...and even if they each come up with a separate option before September....they can guarantee nothing re implementation, as it is up to Westminster as a whole, both the Commons and the unelected Lords. to discuss the bill, in which it can amend, insert and remove clauses......so what we end up with could be a shadow of what was originally offered..as happened with the Scotland Act 2012.

 

To me, it is a no-brainer....take the plunge now, while we still have the life-jacket of some oil income to provide a cushion in the early days and an oil fund once we have sorted ourselves out and have the economy stabilised.......or wait until Westminster has wasted the oil money on Trident, wars, bloated Government departments and the other trappings of Government and tax hand-outs for those that don't need them....and privatised much of the Welfare state, (which has never actually appeared to save us anything much and give acceptable results over the piece), including, as they have often hinted, Scottish Water and the NHS to bring them into line with the rest of the UK, annually cut back on the Scottish Block Grant levels, even as far as removing the Barnett Formula altogether.....and then we will have to start anew with less income and an even more impoverished country......or accept that we are North Britain and just another region, wholly owned and controlled by the Union and ignorable with impunity..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel that there is some responsibilty on the part of Westminster political parties to try to win the referendum  by coming together and telling those people what would become better with our governance if we vote NO

Not really. I'm pretty sure how the UK will look in the event of a NO vote.  The onus is on YES to persuade us that the alternative is better.

 

 

austerity is positively going to continue for at least another Government term

Given that I blame that on the last Labour government virtually bankrupting the country, having a country with that self-same government fills me with dread.  Osbourne may be terrible but I'm in no doubt if Balls had been Chancellor, we'd be in the position that France is. Probably worse.

 

 

as someone who would prefer not to be in the EU or in a currency union with the rUK, I can only say that you pays your money and you makes your choice. All life is uncertainty

I'm certain after a NO vote what the currency would be and whether we would be in the EU.  YES can't say the same.  The YES has to present a valid alternative for most people.  It's not enough to say, it'll be alright on the night.

 

I find it rather surprising that Westminster assumes that they, and only they will be the UK successor/continuing state...Why are you so sure that rUK will not also have to renegotiate their membership of the EU

No-one has seriously suggested that.  It's clutching at straws.  EU officials have stated Scotland's EU position is in doubt.  And so what if rUK weren't in the EU.  Doesn't help Scotland.

 

 Scotland can walk away free and clear like a new born babe

Not if we want to operate in the modern world.  A country refusing to pay its debts (and I'm pretty sure that's how the rest of the world will look at it) would not operate.  Again, this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff that convinces nobody except the definite YES's.

 

 

The independent Scotland from 1980 scenario is interesting

Again, this is all assuming everything would be the same.  That somehow having an independent rUK next door will not attract money away.  I would seriously doubt that.  And I'm sure having such a strong competitor next door would still claw money away from current levels.  How will an independent Scotland cope with that?

 

YES really has to come up with some solid Plan Bs.  I could see that we may actually have a Sterling zone.  I can see we may be welcomed into the EU.  Conversely, I can also see we could be forced to go with the Euro and come together in a far closer union than the polls suggest Scots want.  Would an independent Scotland accept that or go it alone?  I don't know but it's something that needs addressed if the don't knows and mildly NOs are to switch.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starchief,  Cameron is taking the proverbial.....Labour was getting the economy back on track, albeit slowly..but it was certainly a useful blame-game cover for implementing Tory policies under the guise of essential austerity required the rolling back of the welfare state 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html,

 

 

PS,,,,,never have said there is no moral obligation on Scotland to take its fair share of debt........but there is no legal obligation if Scotland is a new state......and in that case, you can't renege on a debt you had no hand in borrowing. And moral obligations work both ways...if Scotland has a moral obligation to pay a share of what will be rUK's debt..then they have a moral obligation to share assets. I think that is self-evident.

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Starchief - saves me from responding in a bit more detail.

 

The point I would elaborate on is the absurd suggestion that in the event of Scotland walking away from the UK, rUK may be seen as no longer being in the EU and might have to renegotiate entry.  The UK is a member state of the EU.  If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will still exist and there is absolutely no reason why it should not remain part of the EU.  What it will have to do, however, is to renegotiate its terms because clearly the population, finances and number of members etc will be different.  This may well cause problems for rUK and with fewer MEPs the UK will undoubtedly have a little less influence.

 

These problems will be problems imposed on rUK by the voters of Scotland deciding they want out of the Union.  The voters of rUK will have no say in this.  The "Yes" campaign need to understand that people in the rest of the UK do not like being messed around in this way.  It is all very well saying that as we will be living next door to England, the separation needs to be amicable, but whilst Scotland will need an amicable relationship with rUK, it is far less important for rUK to have a close relationship with Scotland.  If they feel that Scotland's abandonment of the Union creates difficulties for them, there is no reason at all why England should cosy up to their Northern neighbours.

 

Remember, for a large part of England, Scotland is not their nearest neighbour, Wales and Northern Ireland are closer to the Republic of Ireland than they are to Scotland and 5 European Capital cities are closer to London than Edinburgh is.  rUK does not need Scotland.  On the other hand, an independent Scotland will be highly dependent on rUK for trade but with no monetary union with rUK and with Scotland having weakened the influence of the UK, Scotland should not assume that trade with rUK will remain the same.  Voters in rUK and the UK Government may not have a say in the referendum vote but they sure as hell will have a say in what happens afterwards.  If the actions of the Scots are seen to have damaged the interests of rUK, then rUK will owe Scotland absolutely no favours at all and political and financial activity will reflect that.  Scottish voters and the "Yes" campaign need to understand that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Starchief - saves me from responding in a bit more detail.

 

The point I would elaborate on is the absurd suggestion that in the event of Scotland walking away from the UK, rUK may be seen as no longer being in the EU and might have to renegotiate entry.  The UK is a member state of the EU.  If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will still exist and there is absolutely no reason why it should not remain part of the EU.  What it will have to do, however, is to renegotiate its terms because clearly the population, finances and number of members etc will be different.  This may well cause problems for rUK and with fewer MEPs the UK will undoubtedly have a little less influence.

 

These problems will be problems imposed on rUK by the voters of Scotland deciding they want out of the Union.  The voters of rUK will have no say in this.  The "Yes" campaign need to understand that people in the rest of the UK do not like being messed around in this way.  It is all very well saying that as we will be living next door to England, the separation needs to be amicable, but whilst Scotland will need an amicable relationship with rUK, it is far less important for rUK to have a close relationship with Scotland.  If they feel that Scotland's abandonment of the Union creates difficulties for them, there is no reason at all why England should cosy up to their Northern neighbours.

 

Remember, for a large part of England, Scotland is not their nearest neighbour, Wales and Northern Ireland are closer to the Republic of Ireland than they are to Scotland and 5 European Capital cities are closer to London than Edinburgh is.  rUK does not need Scotland.  On the other hand, an independent Scotland will be highly dependent on rUK for trade but with no monetary union with rUK and with Scotland having weakened the influence of the UK, Scotland should not assume that trade with rUK will remain the same.  Voters in rUK and the UK Government may not have a say in the referendum vote but they sure as hell will have a say in what happens afterwards.  If the actions of the Scots are seen to have damaged the interests of rUK, then rUK will owe Scotland absolutely no favours at all and political and financial activity will reflect that.  Scottish voters and the "Yes" campaign need to understand that. 

Not sure how being as the UK is abbreviation of United Kingdoms of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. If Scotland wins independence then there is no United Kingdoms of Great Britian.

rUK does not need Scotland..........that is not quite true either. The rest of UK will continue to be dependant on Scotland to meet their electricity, gas, water and cereal needs as well as other foodstuffs. They are also highly unlikely to suddenly stop drinking whisky. We also export large amounts of minerals from mining and quarrying. This includes 100,000 tonnes of silica from Lochaline to Merseyside for specialist glass making. None of that is going to suddenly stop.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Starchief - saves me from responding in a bit more detail.

 

The point I would elaborate on is the absurd suggestion that in the event of Scotland walking away from the UK, rUK may be seen as no longer being in the EU and might have to renegotiate entry.  The UK is a member state of the EU.  If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will still exist and there is absolutely no reason why it should not remain part of the EU.  What it will have to do, however, is to renegotiate its terms because clearly the population, finances and number of members etc will be different.  This may well cause problems for rUK and with fewer MEPs the UK will undoubtedly have a little less influence.

 

These problems will be problems imposed on rUK by the voters of Scotland deciding they want out of the Union.  The voters of rUK will have no say in this.  The "Yes" campaign need to understand that people in the rest of the UK do not like being messed around in this way.  It is all very well saying that as we will be living next door to England, the separation needs to be amicable, but whilst Scotland will need an amicable relationship with rUK, it is far less important for rUK to have a close relationship with Scotland.  If they feel that Scotland's abandonment of the Union creates difficulties for them, there is no reason at all why England should cosy up to their Northern neighbours.

 

Remember, for a large part of England, Scotland is not their nearest neighbour, Wales and Northern Ireland are closer to the Republic of Ireland than they are to Scotland and 5 European Capital cities are closer to London than Edinburgh is.  rUK does not need Scotland.  On the other hand, an independent Scotland will be highly dependent on rUK for trade but with no monetary union with rUK and with Scotland having weakened the influence of the UK, Scotland should not assume that trade with rUK will remain the same.  Voters in rUK and the UK Government may not have a say in the referendum vote but they sure as hell will have a say in what happens afterwards.  If the actions of the Scots are seen to have damaged the interests of rUK, then rUK will owe Scotland absolutely no favours at all and political and financial activity will reflect that.  Scottish voters and the "Yes" campaign need to understand that. 

If the rest of th UK are producing goods to sell to Scotland, why would they stop? What other market are they going to sell those goods to? Or are they going to see that jobs are at risk from cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Edited by robbylad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a question of trade the other way.  There is a strong sense of wanting to "buy British" but if Scotland ceases to be part of the union and no longer "British" in the sense that it is no longer part of rUK, then there will be no parochial loyalty to Scottish produce.  With good transport links to closer producers across the channel and the Irish sea, rUK consumers will increasingly source from elsewhere.  Of course, as Alex says, there are key Scottish products which will continue to be bought no matter what but the bulk of exports to rUK are more mundane.  The fact is  that Scotland is heavily dependent on the rest of the UK as a market for its produce and even a modest shift will have a noticable impact on Scottish producers.

 

The fact that rUK purchases a far greater proportion of Scotland's output than Scotland purchases of rUK's is undeniable.  All I am saying is that this makes Scotland vulnerable should political and financial changes impact on where consumers and businesses in rUK buy goods and services from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even more good news:

Barrowman Says No!  :thumbup:

 

I quite like the idea of keeping an eye on the media for the most obscure "celebrity" to kindly offer us their opinion on independence. Bonus points if they aren't even entitled to vote.

 

 

Well I don't think anyone would have expected David Bowie to use his BRIT awards acceptance speech to urge us to stay. How random is that!

 

On the radio today I heard a listener suggest that he should sing "Is there life on deep fried Mars"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact that rUK purchases a far greater proportion of Scotland's output than Scotland purchases of rUK's is undeniable.  All I am saying is that this makes Scotland vulnerable should political and financial changes impact on where consumers and businesses in rUK buy goods and services from. 

 

A vulnerability seriously further compounded by the unpredictability of the price of the vanishing "one trick pony" asset of oil - which, unlike the pound, Salmond clearly isn't keen on sharing in any meaningful way apart from drawing a line which gets Scotland every last drop it can grab.

 I could see the government of a separate Scotland spending most of their lives on the toilet, totally bricking it about the next set of oil prices, balance of trade figures and statement of the value of the feebly supported Eck (*) on the international money market.

 

(*) 12 Swinneys = 1 Groat, 20 Groats = 1 Eck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The fact that rUK purchases a far greater proportion of Scotland's output than Scotland purchases of rUK's is undeniable.  All I am saying is that this makes Scotland vulnerable should political and financial changes impact on where consumers and businesses in rUK buy goods and services from. 

 

A vulnerability seriously further compounded by the unpredictability of the price of the vanishing "one trick pony" asset of oil - which, unlike the pound, Salmond clearly isn't keen on sharing in any meaningful way apart from drawing a line which gets Scotland every last drop it can grab.

 I could see the government of a separate Scotland spending most of their lives on the toilet, totally bricking it about the next set of oil prices, balance of trade figures and statement of the value of the feebly supported Eck (*) on the international money market.

 

(*) 12 Swinneys = 1 Groat, 20 Groats = 1 Eck

 

 

That would be the one trick pony who's true value was deliberately played down by the Westminster government in the early 1970s  when Scottish independence first became a serious concern to them and that we were told would be completely exhausted by the year 2000 just about the same time all the world's computer operated systems would collapse causing aircraft to drop from the sky and traffic light systems to fail resulting in carnage.

 

No doubt the value of oil to the economy will gradually decline on a fluctuating basis over the next half century or more which is one reason the Scottish government has been ensuring that we are among the most advanced in Europe when it comes to renewable energy. 

 

If only we didn't have to rely soley on energy and had healthy distilling, fishing, agricultural, tourism, academic, medical research and production, financial, light engineering and electronics sectors as well. If only we had many skillful, hard working, intelligent men and women who were resourceful enough to make breakthroughs in the world of medicine, communication, transport and the like.

 

That said, I agree with those who say that the debate is not soley or mainly about economics. I don't necessarily accept that it is an entirely emotional debate but, from my point of view, it is about having the confidence in a world where the geopolitical landscape has changed in recent years to embrace that change in a country the wants to embrace and take advantage of it rather than be a Northern annexe to a country generally governed by those to whom positive internationalism is a threat rather than an opportunity or, if that is not their personal philosophy, feel constrained by and dance to the tune of cranks who do.

 

As far as the economic argument is concerned, when you strip away the rhetoric, hyperbole and downright lies on both sides most genuinely impartial analysts seem to conclude that, based on figures over the last two decades and projections for the next ten years or so, it being difficult to forecast beyond that with any accuracy at all, an independent Scotland will be between 6% better off and 4% worse off depending on a number of variables. 

 

Accordingly, independence would not be a fiscal panacea but nor would we be on the breadline but, while we would continue to have much in common with England and our Celtic near neighbours, we could develop these relationships without the restraints that the political and socioeconomic differences between us and England in particular that have become increasingly tense and difficult to reconcile over the the last forty years or so.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

12 Swinneys = 1 Groat, 20 Groats = 1 Eck

 

You forgot the bawbee!

 

Indeed I did. 2 bawbees = 1 Swinney. (The One Swinney coin will, by the way, have inscribed on its reverse that immortal Swinneyism of the 1990s - Ah stan' fur Scoa'lan'.)

 

I have to say, though, that this referendum campaign HAS changed my view of the entire question. :crazy: Steady!!! Let me explain.

When this whole referendum business kicked off back in the mists of time my viewpoint was principally philosophical and influenced by my lifelong belief in Britain, plus the strong need for Scotland to remain part of Britain. One comment I used to hear, even from no voters, was that Scotland probably could manage reasonably well on its own, which I was actually prepared to accept - but at no compromise to my strong "Better Together" view.

However the more I hear from the yes side, the more it emerges that a lot of what they claim seems to depend on naive belief that the rest of the UK will just dance to their tune. And the more their claims are exposed as vacuous hot air, the clearer it becomes that a separate Scotland would struggle for viability on a number of counts and suffer from extreme long term uncertainties on others.

As a result, in the face of what is being increasingly exposed as a threadbare separatist case, the tendency has to be to take this whole saga less and less seriously and instead have a bit of a laugh at the whole longwinded process.

 

In fact maybe the biggest service I could do for the No campaign would be to sign up undercover as a Yes Scotland canvasser and get round as many doors as I can simply making sure that people know what YS are claiming!

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A NO vote will bring us more and more of this austerity, for those of us with no clout , whichever Political Party is in power.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/zero-hours-contracts-great-depression WWII veteran Harry Smith

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-simon-duffy/austerity-cuts_b_4802793.html?utm_hp_ref=tw&just_reloaded=1

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-02-14/40-cut-in-public-sector-jobs-as-nhs-and-schools-protected/

http://samedifference1.com/2014/02/20/rnib-threatens-dwp-with-court-action-for-not-catering-for-vi-people/

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/jack-monroe-poverty-can-happen-to-anyone?CMP=twt_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/15/rachel-reeves-labour-benefit-recipients

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/18/welfare-state-jobs-inquiry-culture-fear

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision

http://sallysjourney.typepad.com/sallys_journey/2014/02/dear-mr-cameron-id-like-to-talk-to-you-about-your-moral-mission.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/20/benefit-sanctions-food-banks-clegg_n_4822314.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim

And more of this for folk who do have clout......the rich,  big businesses, London and politicians

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/corporate-britain-corrupt-lobbying-revolving-door

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-47bn-corporation-tax-lost-through-evasion-and-avoidance-as-royal-mail-is-sold-for-650m-less-than-it-is-worth-8874873.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530171/David-Cameron-fire-cost-running-House-Lords-leaps-42m.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/mps-expenses-rise-record-high

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/english-think-tank-uk-government-promoted-london-recovery-at-the-expense-of.23444016

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south


Is it so inconceivable that an Independent Scotland could do better for Scotland and the Scots by spending Scotland's money on policies and projects to benefit us.  How can anyone say we will be Better Together in a Union which, over the past thirty five or so years, has, and will for the foreseeable future, subject our society to policies which increase poverty and inequality, when, with the confidence and will, we would be Better together working for ourselves in an Independent Scotland.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having listened to an inspiring talk by Jim Sillars last night I'm far more inclined against a monitary union now.  I hope that the Yes campaign are playing the long game and there will be a few surprises sneaking in under the radar in the lead up to the vote.

 

We don't need sterling, we don't need the EU, and trident?  Just for a couple of years!  And to help build the kind of country I'm sure we would all love to live in and leave for future generations!

 

In Place of Fear II is his new book.

 

watch this too

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WipzrXJ7E48

 

 

#feelinginspired!

Edited by maimie
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy