Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

Whilst always lacking any meaningful argument, CB's posts do at least sometimes include a modicum of wit.  Unfortunately his latest offering really has nothing but anti SNP vitriol.  I fear much of the national debate will descend to that level as we get closer to the referendum.

 

Speaking as an Englishman (and proud of it!) I am at a loss to know where his impression of the anglophobic SNP comes from.  I don't see the SNP as anglophobic at all. I see them as passionately pro Scottish - and there is a world of a difference.  Nor do I sense any genuine anglophobia in the population at large having lived in Scotland for nearly 40 years and never once having encountered any.  Current events in Ukraine remind us that there are parts of the world where people live in close proximity to others that they have good reason not to like and we should be grateful that the debate here is not set against that type of background.  Interestingly, in my experience it is incomers who often show a bit more sympathy to the arguments for independence whilst it is the native born Scots who most vehemently defend the Union.

 

The suggestion that support for the SNP campaign is growing as a result of simplistic appeals to the cerebrally challenged "Chippy Jimmies" doesn't really deserve a response.  However, I am reminded of the answer from a member of the SNP when, following the defection of the former Dunfermline MP Dick Douglas from Labour to the SNP in 1990, he was asked what effect this was likely to have on the two parties.  Not thinking much of their new recruit, the answer was "it will lower the average IQ of both parties!"

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst always lacking any meaningful argument, CB's posts do at least sometimes include a modicum of wit.  Unfortunately his latest offering really has nothing but anti SNP vitriol.  I fear much of the national debate will descend to that level as we get closer to the referendum.

 

 

I've said before that I'm really not all that interested in dancing to the SNP's tune and participating in some kind of po-faced "debate on the constitution" which I think a great number of people in Scotland aren't really all that fussy about since they would much rather, as Westhill has also suggested, simply get on with their lives without this unhelpful distraction. Quite frankly I would much prefer to debate some of the more obscure aspects of Latin grammar from the dentist's chair!

After all the only reason we are having to go through all of this is that the SNP, thanks to the shortcomings of a Labour and Libdem nightmare (the Tories were a nightmare already!), managed to get a narrow Holyrood majority in 2011. And of course the only thing the SNP are capable of thinking about is separation. So they have no real concept that Westhill's "silent majority" actually have lives which they want to get on with so could really do without getting the backsides bored off them by all this hot air and uncertainty. However the separatists have got their soapbox and we are stuck with it for another 200 days. Quite frankly I don't give a toss about what level this stuff descends to, since to me it's a complete waste of time in the first place and maybe a decent bit of argybargy might lighten things up a bit!!

And no, I don't like the SNP - a viewpoint which is securely based on many years' experience of their arrogance, intolerance (esepcially of the poor English - that's self evident!) and tendency to state their limited case mainly by making more noise than anybody else  - q.v. Salmond's multi-decibel bellowings at Holyrood.

I do however remember the pre-oil era when the SNP were just a wee group of chippy but harmless eccentrics who got terribly huffy about Culloden and Glencoe and nicked chunks of rock from Westmineter Abbey in between the serial loss of election deposits. But the oil, and the greed and resentment which they have stoked up as a result of that, has changed all that and created an unfortunately larger but altogether less endearing institution - not helped one jot by some of the individuals involved, and the deeply unpleasant lunatic Cybernat fringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, are you secretly in the pay of the SNP and working as a subversive?  They must love you as it is this kind of lack of respect for the democratic process and for people with different views to you which will help to sway the vote toward independence. 

 

People know what the SNP stand for and whether it was a small majority or not, they got a majority in 2011 and are therefore entirely within their democratic rights to put the independence question to the electorate.  Indeed, given the fact that they were elected on the platform they stood, they actually had a duty to the large number of people who voted for them to do so.  When so many people are attracted to the concept of independence but are yet to be persuaded on whether it is a sensible thing to vote for, to simply denounce those in favour as haggis munching numpties will undoubtedly alienate the undecided vote and point them toward a "yes" vote. 

 

At the same time, if those instinctively opposed to independence hear your line of it all being a waste of time and not worth debating, they may well not bother voting either.  In other words, your contribution to the debate (and I use that word loosely in your case :lol: ) and similar attitudes elsewhere is likely to increase the number of "yes" votes and decrease the number of "no" votes.

 

Whether you like it or not, there is going to be a referendum.  You may think it is a waste of time but the debate will take place with or without you.  If you are not part of Salmond's Secret Service and really do not want the Union to be split, then you really should start making a more constructive contribution.  If Scotland votes "yes" you will only have yourself to blame.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD ... I am pretty sure that quite a large slice of the 22% of the Scottish electorate which voted for the SNP in 2011 did not do so with a referendum in mind. Yes, they did say they would have one if they got more than half the Holyrood seats but not many people expected the Labour car crash etc and hence the small majority the SNP did get. Apart from the dyed in the wool Nats, people vote in Scottish elections on the basis of how their health service, justice, education etc will be run and separation really isn't a major issue. But although  nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, we got one so that 22% have now - many of them unwittingly - caused us to have this thrust upon us. And that's the way our democracy works so we have this referendum - but it's a perfectly valid viewpoint not to be a fan of it.

I am not, by the way, saying that those in favour are a bunch of haggis munching numpties. I am merely suggesting that the manner in which the SNP conduct their business would tend to appeal disproportionately to same.

In terms of whether or not it is a waste of time, well apart from the fact that a lot of people - even those who didn't waken up every Saturday morning to Derek Bateman's latest game of Referendum Trivial Pursuit - are already getting very referendum-weary. But at least, barring the totally unforeseen, the next 200 days will hopefully not in any way produce the absolutely fundamental sea change required to overturn decades of polling evidence and we will get the No vote which, with any luck, will bury this business for another 307 years.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been listening to some of my old Corries collection, stirring stuff from Ronnie Brown and Roy Williamson both good singers and Roy an excellent musician and song writer..  The YES campaign group should get out with the loud hailers playing this music which should attract some more votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD ... I am pretty sure that quite a large slice of the 22% of the Scottish electorate which voted for the SNP in 2011 did not do so with a referendum in mind. Yes, they did say they would have one if they got more than half the Holyrood seats but not many people expected the Labour car crash etc and hence the small majority the SNP did get. Apart from the dyed in the wool Nats, people vote in Scottish elections on the basis of how their health service, justice, education etc will be run and separation really isn't a major issue. But although  nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, we got one so that 22% have now - many of them unwittingly - caused us to have this thrust upon us. And that's the way our democracy works so we have this referendum - but it's a perfectly valid viewpoint not to be a fan of it.

I am not, by the way, saying that those in favour are a bunch of haggis munching numpties. I am merely suggesting that the manner in which the SNP conduct their business would tend to appeal disproportionately to same.

In terms of whether or not it is a waste of time, well apart from the fact that a lot of people - even those who didn't waken up every Saturday morning to Derek Bateman's latest game of Referendum Trivial Pursuit - are already getting very referendum-weary. But at least, barring the totally unforeseen, the next 200 days will hopefully not in any way produce the absolutely fundamental sea change required to overturn decades of polling evidence and we will get the No vote which, with any luck, will bury this business for another 307 years.

Charles the Labour party had lost control of its car in 2007 before it actually crashed in 11 so I think most people were aware of what the outcome was going to be. The result of the 11 election put SNP 7 points clear of labour in the only accurate poll of the campaign. I love the way you use the journalists statistical methods to try and bolster your arguements. "22% of the Scottish electorate" looks bad in that context but when you put the "51% of the seats available and 44% of the actual vote" it looks so much better.

Every day I read something new from the NO people and every day I reach the conclusion that they are helping the YES cause.

Finally Charles, if your getting weary of the debate then why are you continually responding with such tripe as to make yourself come across as the less cerebrally aware and resentful type.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles the Labour party had lost control of its car in 2007 before it actually crashed in 11 so I think most people were aware of what the outcome was going to be. The result of the 11 election put SNP 7 points clear of labour in the only accurate poll of the campaign.

 

Finally Charles, if your getting weary of the debate then why are you continually responding with such tripe as to make yourself come across as the less cerebrally aware and resentful type.

 

I really don't think the overall SNP majority, nor hence the referendum which came with it, was at all expected in 2011, possibly until after the polls closed. Even though Labour were in some considerable disarray, a couple of weeks before polling day opinion polls were consistently showing neck and neck between them and the SNP. Sandwichgate certainly didn't help but the real blame for the fact that we are having this referendum must lie in Labour's dysfunctionality.

I really can't say that I've been "getting weary" of the debate for the simple reason that its minutiae have never really interested me in the first place. But questioning its relevance at a time when there are many other far greater priorities is a perfectly valid point of view on a forum related to this referendum.

Then firing off the odd irreverent salvo certainly helps relieve the tedium and, if I'm lucky, might even provoke another anti-Westminster dissertation from Oddquine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you dont think that maybe just maybe the voters in 2011 could have made their decision based on the successful previous four years of a minority government. One that chose to take its chance of running the country without coalition. No that would have been too sensible an action for those brain dead voters.

my personal view is that many people are now seeing that right wing labour will not work for the majority of traditional socialist voters. Theres no more "I vote that way cos my daddy voted that way". People are taking an interest and basing their votes on the actions they see coming to fruition. Not on what they percieve as being best for the party. Polls tell us absolutely nothing because they dont reflect the true feeling. Nor do they cover a true cross section of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brevity is the soul of wit--I think Shakespeare said something along these lines did he not?

 

There is not much brevity in  this thread and precious little wit so I'm off to bed, having another hard day watching the shenanigans on the T V about the Ukrainian situation. Half the population there in the western region seem to want to devolute to the European Economic union and those in the East (60% of the population are Russian-orientated in Crimea) want the Russians to barge in regardless, take over the region and then annexe it.

 

Now, will Scotland have their own army after we separate? If so, why not just barge in and take over the Northern counties, of England. Sanctions from Mr. Cameron will be meaningless because we export the oil and whisky so what does he have in order to counter that? If Vlad the lad Putin can get away with blatant contraventions of all norms of International Law and Boundaries then why not the bloody Scots...eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now, will Scotland have their own army after we separate? If so, why not just barge in and take over the Northern counties, of England.

Scarlet, I think they tried that in 1513 and progressed three miles.... as far as Flodden. If Alex had chosen September 9th 2013 for his referendum rather than hang on in the hope of some kind of Bannockburn Bounce....... it would be all over by now!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal view is that many people are now seeing that right wing labour will not work for the majority of traditional socialist voters. Theres no more "I vote that way cos my daddy voted that way". People are taking an interest and basing their votes on the actions they see coming to fruition.

Yeah, people I know who are so anti-Tory and pro-Labour (usually on Facebook), I ask what it is about Labour they actually support?  Was it war in Iraq?  Cosying up to the bankers?  Virtually bankrupting the country?  Having lower taxes for top earners than the current government?  Mass unskilled immigration?  Biggest drop in workers' wages ever recorded?  Higher unemployment than now?

 

And the answer is inevitably that they were socialist 30 years ago!?!?  In fact, I even knew people that voted Labour because they were anti-Iraq War, as if voting Labour would get you a non-Labour government.  When will people learn that its Blair, Brown and Mandelson that are the foundation of modern Labour, not Keir Hardy to Wilson?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting couple of interviews on the currency post independence on Radio Scotland this morning.  First up was Danny Alexander ahead of a speech he is to make on the subject today in Edinburgh.  He reaffirmed that Treasury advice was absolutely clear that currency union would not be an option in the event of a "Yes" vote.  All the major UK parties were agreed on that and it was simply not on the table. 

 

Next up was John Swinney who reaffirmed the SNP position that currency union was their preferred option and was what they expected to happen.  Responding to the point about the clear position of the other parties, Swinney argued that it was in the interest of the UK to have a shared currency and that this would be the result of post referendum negotiations.  He said that notwithstanding the views of the UK parties, whether to have a currency union with an independent Scotland or not would need to be put to the voters of rUK and the voters would see that currency union made sense.  Pressed on what the SNP position would be if despite his confidence, rUK confirmed that there would be no currency union, Swinney simply said that it wouldn't happen because rUK would not be prepared to take over Scotland's portion of the national debt.

 

The interview ended with that but it would have been interesting for Jim Naughtie to have explored this further and I am sure we will hear more in due course.  On the face of it, this seems a rather extraordinary position to take for two reasons.  Firstly, Swinney's confidence that there will be currency union seems to be based on the belief that rUK will baulk at the concept of absorbing Scotland's share of the current UK national debt.  On a per capita basis, Scotland's debt will only have 10% of the impact on an rUK voter than it does on a Scottish voter.  The SNP position seems to be that they are asking the Scottish voter to accept a debt burden 10 times the level of the additional burden which would cause rUK voters to baulk at monetary union.  It is, of course, true that the rUK voters burden is an additional one whilst the Scottish burden is simply their fair share, but given the SNP is saying that without monetary union Scotland would not pay their share of the UK debt, this is a financial burden which the Scots taxpayers would otherwise not have to bear.

 

This brings me to the 2nd point which is whether Scotland actually could renege on paying it's share of the national debt if it walks away from the union.  I don't know enough about these things to comment on the legal position of that but what I do know is that if rUK was left with Scotland's share of the UK's debt, Scotland would find negotiations on the vast range of issues which would require agreement extremely difficult indeed.  The Scottish voter needs to understand that if Scotland walks away from the Union and particularly if it expects rUK to shoulder Scotland's debts then the message to Scotland from their nearest neighbours will be a well known two word phrase - the 2nd word of which is "off".

 

The "Yes" campaign needs to get real and stop relying on the romantic ideal of independence and this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude.  I for one want assurances about what kind of country I will find myself in and what kind of currency I will be using before I would consider voting for change.  The main UK parties have made a very helpful contribution to this debate by being absolutely explicit that there will be no monetary union in the event of a "Yes" vote.  That leaves four options which are:-

  1. Using Sterling but without monetary union
  2. Joining the Euro
  3. Using another currency without monetary union (e.g. Panama using the US Dollar)
  4. Establishing  a separate currency

When asked which of those options it is to be, we need a better answer than "it will be something else which we have been told explicitly we cannot have".  The campaign will be picking up as we move into the final months before the referendum.  It really is time that the political posturing stopped and some serious answers were given to serious questions.  Unless the "Yes" campaign can start giving proper answers to this kind of concern then there is not a chance of a "Yes" vote.

 

A further point here is that it is actually quite extraordinary that the "Yes" campaign have stumbled so blindly into this problem.  There is no plan B and since it became clear that what they assumed would be the case is actually not the case, there has been no sign of plan B emerging.  They are simply in bemused denial.  Clearly it is a concern that those leading the campaign have so badly and naively misread a fundamental issue and one is left wondering what else is based on ill thought through assumptions.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottish Government have stuck to their preferred position based on fiscal commission report, I really do believe the negativity will wane when a Yes vote is secured, perhaps even before. Watched Crawford Beveridge and he struck me as a reliable and informed source on currency union and as co-author of the fairly detailed fiscal commission report I felt he was able to see past the politics and base his answers on commissions experience of economic reality. In brief and paraphrasing him a bit he basically said if there was a proposition which RUk objected to (currency union) then the first question to be discussed is "what is it in particular that you don't like?" and establish from that both common ground and no-go areas for further talks. All plausible, sensible and practical - His focus was promoting discussion to understand concerns and issues and if need be presenting further info to allay concerns and promote co-operation. But you need two to tango and RUk parties saying its my ball and I'm not playing is not mature politics needed for such an important issue. Other options have been explored and are all workable based on the body of work undertaken by the fiscal commission but currency union was there recommendation. The Yes campaign has more than one view on this issue but currency union is recommendation from Scot Gov based on commission report. I'd argue there is already options for a plan B, C and D too.

In my view voting yes only ties Scotland to commitments it made as a post referendum Government. Nothing will be forever and who knows how we all might feel about scottish currency issues and the pound in the future. If enough people wanted to vote for a party promoting the, lets say, "jaggie" as our new currency then we would have it because it will always be our choice as a Scottish Nation with a closer common interest than the Uk as a whole. I truly do think "it will be alright on the night"

Hope I live long enough to see the civil service papers in 30 years time which I suspect will be more sensational than even the Macrone Report on some of the behind closed doors politicing and underhand shenanigans from London!

 

Yes

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those debating monetary union are not telling all the truths. They discuss the 'impact' part and brush over the important bits. Monetary union means that the bank of England, which Scotland has a 10% interest in, keeps tabs on interest and inflation for both countries. Break away from that and we take our fair share of UK assets, including our share of BoE. Our share of the military and our share of all other state owned assets. International experts have stated that the national debt belongs to UK so if rUK want to stay as such then they are responsible. What YES are actually saying is ' monetary union and the assets stay as they are' 'no monetary union and we demand our assets' 'you dont play ball then we dont pay. seems pretty fair to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those debating monetary union are not telling all the truths. They discuss the 'impact' part and brush over the important bits. Monetary union means that the bank of England, which Scotland has a 10% interest in, keeps tabs on interest and inflation for both countries. Break away from that and we take our fair share of UK assets, including our share of BoE. Our share of the military and our share of all other state owned assets. International experts have stated that the national debt belongs to UK so if rUK want to stay as such then they are responsible. What YES are actually saying is ' monetary union and the assets stay as they are' 'no monetary union and we demand our assets' 'you dont play ball then we dont pay. seems pretty fair to me.

So that's Scotland's 8.3% share of the BofE, the military, the national debt (unless Alex were to throw the rattle out of the pram)... and just 8.3% of the oil as well? On the other hand if the national debt currently belongs to the UK, does that not also apply to the oil... so the rest of the UK keeps all of that if Scotland decides to walk away from the current owner of that particular asset?

Once again we return to the separatist presumption of expecting everybody to agree to the breakup of the UK, and on their terms into the bargain.... or at least until they got the wake up call that the rest of the UK wouldn't be engaging in currency union for a start.

Oh but I forgot! The other UK parties don't really mean that!!

So maybe Alex Salmond doesn't really mean it that he wants a yes vote in September either and he's only bluffing there too?

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rebelwithoutaclue: saying "it'll be alright on the night" is only an argument for independence diehards.  It will, quite rightly, persuade nobody wavering.

 

Alex MacLeod: saying we won't pay isn't living in the real world.  We'd be viewed unreliably by the financial markets.  It's a non-starter and not the confrontation most Scots want.

 

I'm astonished that the SNP hasn't got a raft of measures thought up over the last 10 years or so detailing what would happen in the event of no pound, or under what terms we would join or refuse to join the EU, if the doubts of secession came to pass. Burying heads in sand is quite stunningly poor.  I expected a lot more detail on alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those debating monetary union are not telling all the truths. They discuss the 'impact' part and brush over the important bits. Monetary union means that the bank of England, which Scotland has a 10% interest in, keeps tabs on interest and inflation for both countries. Break away from that and we take our fair share of UK assets, including our share of BoE. Our share of the military and our share of all other state owned assets. International experts have stated that the national debt belongs to UK so if rUK want to stay as such then they are responsible. What YES are actually saying is ' monetary union and the assets stay as they are' 'no monetary union and we demand our assets' 'you dont play ball then we dont pay. seems pretty fair to me.

So that's Scotland's 8.3% share of the BofE, the military, the national debt (unless Alex were to throw the rattle out of the pram)... and just 8.3% of the oil as well? On the other hand if the national debt currently belongs to the UK, does that not also apply to the oil... so the rest of the UK keeps all of that if Scotland decides to walk away from the current owner of that particular asset?

Once again we return to the separatist presumption of expecting everybody to agree to the breakup of the UK, and on their terms into the bargain.... or at least until they got the wake up call that the rest of the UK wouldn't be engaging in currency union for a start.

Oh but I forgot! The other UK parties don't really mean that!!

So maybe Alex Salmond doesn't really mean it that he wants a yes vote in September either and he's only bluffing there too?

 

I don't see how the UK government can claim the oil. That is a future asset. An independent Scotland couldn't claim part of any windfall from fracking in a future UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see how the UK government can claim the oil. That is a future asset.

 

 

No it's not. It's been there for millions of years. It's just that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that technology started to be developed which created a demand for it and gave it an economic value.

 

It's worthless if it isn't recovered though. Like I said, I don't think it would go down well if an independent Scotland tried to claim any shale gas or other assets recovered in a future rUK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't see how the UK government can claim the oil. That is a future asset.

 

 

No it's not. It's been there for millions of years. It's just that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that technology started to be developed which created a demand for it and gave it an economic value.

 

It's worthless if it isn't recovered though. Like I said, I don't think it would go down well if an independent Scotland tried to claim any shale gas or other assets recovered in a future rUK.

 

Not at all. It's no more worthless than whisky sitting in a bonded warehouse awaiting sale. And as far as the shale gas is concerned, if that scenario arose, it would be a result of an active decision by Scottish voters to secede from the UK - and its assets.

But why not do a deal if the whole national debt and the oil are both UK assets, why shouldn't UK continuing not keep them both - after all the SNP seem to be quite happt for UK continuing to keep the whole debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I don't see how the UK government can claim the oil. That is a future asset.

 

 

No it's not. It's been there for millions of years. It's just that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that technology started to be developed which created a demand for it and gave it an economic value.

 

It's worthless if it isn't recovered though. Like I said, I don't think it would go down well if an independent Scotland tried to claim any shale gas or other assets recovered in a future rUK.

 

Not at all. It's no more worthless than whisky sitting in a bonded warehouse awaiting sale. And as far as the shale gas is concerned, if that scenario arose, it would be a result of an active decision by Scottish voters to secede from the UK - and its assets.

But why not do a deal if the whole national debt and the oil are both UK assets, why shouldn't UK continuing not keep them both - after all the SNP seem to be quite happt for UK continuing to keep the whole debt?

 

If I rented a room in your house (unlikely I know), and you defaulted on your mortgage (unlikely I know), the bank wouldn't persue me. They would go after the mortgage holder. The UK "continuing" took on the debt, therefore the UK "continuing" are liable for the debt. Now, this myth that the Scottish government would renege on the debt is just that. As they are perfectly entitled to do, they've asked why Scotland would be liable for a debt yet not entitled to the assets. Everything is up for negotiation only Westminster stamp their feet and refuse to negotiate. It's Westminster that is causing uncertainty, not the Scottish government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If I rented a room in your house (unlikely I know), and you defaulted on your mortgage (unlikely I know), the bank wouldn't persue me. They would go after the mortgage holder. The UK "continuing" took on the debt, therefore the UK "continuing" are liable for the debt. Now, this myth that the Scottish government would renege on the debt is just that. As they are perfectly entitled to do, they've asked why Scotland would be liable for a debt yet not entitled to the assets. Everything is up for negotiation only Westminster stamp their feet and refuse to negotiate. It's Westminster that is causing uncertainty, not the Scottish government.

 

It's in the Scottish government's interest not to appear to have any uncertainty, although some of the stuff they have been coming away with generates uncertainty by the barrowload - and not the least the pie in the sky promises about what Salmond's Land Of Milk and Honey (Haggis and Whisky?) would allegedly offer, whilst failing to cost any of this or even properly admit that this MIGHT only be on offer IF an SNP government continued to be in power. They simply revert to the default position of "The Oil Will Provide".

It's a bit like Custer telling the troops "Them pesky Injuns really quite like us, so it's safe enough to ride into Bandit Country."

The SNP have even extend this obsession of certainty to their claimed confidence that the Unionist Parties are bluffing about no currenct union. In fact I learned today that Alex Salmond and John Swinney have been made honorary members of the Flat Earth Society on the strength of this particular persistence.

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