Should Scotland be an independent country

[Kingsmills]

You would have to be a complete and utter idiot to vote yes

 

I am now persuaded to move over into the No Camp.  After all, how can you not fail to be persuaded by such a cogent and tightly reasoned argument. Thank you Laurence for saving me from myself after four decades of serious and diligent research into the pros cons of various constitutional changes and how independence would affect my homeland from an economic, cultural and political point of view I would. without doubt, have made a complete and utter idiot of myself in the polling booth in a year and a half's time had it not been for your sage input.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Kingsmills

[PullMyFinger]

 

Yes Ambassador Update

Neil --

Westminster is not working for Scotland.

The UK is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. Income inequality has increased over the past decades, regardless of which party is in power at Westminster.

The Westminster Government’s most recent welfare cuts will take a further £210 million out the pockets of hard-working Scottish families, whilst the same government cuts taxes for a few at the very top of the income scale. One in five children in Scotland are in poverty. One in five young Scots are unemployed.

Giving full powers to Holyrood gives us the opportunity to do things differently. There is a better way and, based on the reality of Scotland’s many economic strengths, there is little doubt that Scotland is wealthy enough to be a fairer nation.

• Even those who favour Westminster rule agree that an independent Scotland could thrive
• An independent Scotland would be the eighth wealthiest country in the world
• Our oil reserves are worth up to £1.5 trillion - ten times our share of the UK national debt
• We have very successful food & drink, tourism, construction and agriculture sectors worth £39 billion a year
• We have three of the top 100 universities in the world. Our universities compete at the top of the world leagues for the quality of their research.
• We have around 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind and tidal energy and 10% of Europe’s wave power potential.
• Our public finances are stronger than the UK's. For every one of the last 30 years Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head than the UK.
• Scotland tops the UK charts for levels of inward investment by foreign companies.

The question is: if Scotland is so wealthy, why aren’t you better off?

What can you do now?

Forward this e-mail on to anyone you know who has recently asked you about Scotland's economic prospects as an independent nation.  Encourage them to send any questions they have to Yes Scotland www.yesscotland.net/undecided.

Regards, 

Shirley-Anne Somerville

Director of Communities 

Yes Scotland

Yes Ambassadors

http://www.yesscotland.net/

 

The UK Minister for Defence has requested that the additional saving requested from the treasury come from Welfare and Healthcare budgets. The knock on effect in Scotland if this happens is a loss of Barnet consequentials to the tune of £60 million.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-hidden-cost-of-the-union/

 

Only an idiot, eh Laurence? UK-OK

[PullMyFinger]

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/04/30/farago/

 

 

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA): Affects around 1.5 million people across UK with a disproportionate effect in deprived areas with a high incidence of long term limiting illness.

CUT of up to £2,500 million per annum (30%) by 2014

 

ALL working age benefits: Those receiving any benefit will see its value decrease over time, lessening their ability to pay for essentials.Increases will be set by the Consumer Price Index (which produces consistently lower increases) instead of the Retail Price Index or the Rossi index.

CUT of £5,840 MILLION per annum by 2014/15

 

Child Benefit: Frozen for three years. Affecting ALL families and children, poorest most.

CUT of £985 million per annum

 

Tax Credits: Affects low income working families in particular. Taper on income for tax credits moves from 39% to 41%.

CUT of £765 million per annum by 2014/15

 

Tax Credits: Affects those moving back into work. Fall from £25,000 to £10,000 in “disregarded increases in income during the current tax year”

CUT of £140 million rising to £450 million

 

Working Tax Credit (WTC): The amount of tax credits to working families reduces in real terms. Basic & 30 hour elements in WTC frozen for 3 years.

CUT of £625 million by 2014/15

 

Working Tax Credit: This cut will increase childcare costs for low-paid parents. Childcare element of WTC reduced from 80% to 70% of actual childcare costs up to a capped maximum.
CUT of £385 million pa by 2014/15

 

Housing Benefit: Only 1/3 (instead of ½) of available private rented housing locally will be affordable to HB claimants. Local Housing Allowance Rates will be set at the 30th percentile of local private rent prices, not the 50th.

CUT of £425 million

 

Educational Maintenance Allowance: Abolished in England. A loss of up to £30 a week for young people on low incomes staying on at school or college.

 

Future cuts already in the calendar:

 

Housing Benefit: LHA Single room rent restriction for single people (not lone parents) under 25 extended to people aged under 35.

CUT of £215 million pa by 2014/15

 

Tax Credits: Tax credits will not increase to help you if your income drops unless the drop is more than £2,500.

CUT of £585 million by 2014/15

 

Contributory Employment and Support Allowance (ESA): Limited to 1 year for people in the “work-related activity” group.

CUT of £2,010 million by 2014/15

 

[PullMyFinger]

On currency.

 

You won't find this in the mainstream media.

 

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/04/24/the-currency-question/

 

The Currency Question

Posted by National Collective on April 24, 2013 in Mythbuster · 9 Comments


The debate over independence is plagued with speculation about how the economic system will adapt and whether a constitutionally independent Scotland will deliver better economic outcomes for Scots than the Union. Within this wider debate, the issue of what money will look like is becoming more prominent, and has generated significant heat, if not much light, in recent days. The SNP’s policy for some time was that Scotland would join the Euro ‘when the time was right’ and only after asking the permission of the Scottish people. The right time seems to be receding into the future, however, and staying in a sterling area monetary union is now the preferred option. This is no longer an obscure or technical discussion; in particular, strains in the Eurozone since 2010 have highlighted the difficulties of operating a single currency across a range of sovereign states.

So, Scots will have some choices to make in the wake of a Yes vote in 2014: stick in a monetary union with the UK and keep the pound, move into the Eurozone or launch a new national currency. That these are the three options is the one thing that is largely uncontentious, and they were reiterated by George Osborne when he presented the Treasury paper in Glasgow in April. In fact, however, these choices are not as distinct as they might appear. In a globalised economy, a country like Scotland that profits from international trade, seeks to attract international investment and wants free movement of workers across borders already has significant limits to its economic policy sovereignty. Constitutional independence will not deliver economic independence, if by independence is meant an absolute right to do as you please without consultation and agreement with neighbours and partners. So some measure of interdependence is inevitable. This is true for all states engaged with the global economy, including the UK. But there remain shades of difference among the three currency choices.

Adopting the Euro could facilitate trade and payments with Europe and lend credibility and confidence to investors who trust the European Central Bank’s monetary policies. While Greece, Cyprus and other Eurozone states have faltered through not ensuring fiscal balance and diverging from the healthier economies in the Eurozone, there is no need for Scotland to fall into this trap. Scotland’s economic performance for some time has been such that it could sit comfortably in the ‘core’ Euro group of countries, and its debt levels (below those of the rest of the UK) would give comfort to other members. On the other hand, with Eurozone GDP contracting and the future of the Euro uncertain, 2015 does not seem a good time to join.

What about introducing a separate Scottish currency? Recent examples of currency disintegration are not very numerous: after constitutional independence in the 1950s and 1960s, a range of former British colonies introduced separate currencies as emblems of their new status but in practice they pegged the exchange rate to the pound, so the amount of monetary independence they achieved was limited. In the same way, new currencies followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of new states in eastern Europe during the 1990s, the division of Yugoslavia into Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, and the separation of the Czech and Slovak republics in 1992 (Slovakia and Slovenia subsequently adopted the Euro). In each case there were disruptive effects on trade and payments that were expensive and hurt economic performance for both partners. The lessons from earlier episodes, such as Malaysia and Singapore in the 1960s suggest that a gradual approach of disengagement with a common currency and then free transfer and convertibility of separate currencies across borders at par and then management of a stable exchange rate is likely to be most effective. The separation of Malaysia and Singapore in 1963 was fraught with political hostility, but the successful transition to independent currencies was co-operatively managed over 10 years during one of the most volatile decades in the global economy. Two things emerge from this analysis. First, it can be done. Second, it takes some time and a mature attitude to negotiation in the interest of both states.

Given that both the Euro and a separate currency will constrain policy-making, perhaps the simplest and least costly option is to stay in a currency union with the pound. The Scottish Government’s fiscal commission was very clear that this was the sensible and pragmatic choice: it reduces uncertainty in the short-run and provides security to cross-border investors and producers who might otherwise be concerned about the impact of independence. But the lessons of the Euro-area need to be heeded – which is why George Osborne consistently used the phrase ‘Euro-style’ to describe the option of a continuing currency union. It would require that Scotland abide by the interest rate policy set by the Bank of England, which historically has responded more to economic conditions in the Southeast of England than the regional needs of the UK as a whole. The implied fiscal constraint is real, though not necessarily disastrous. Scotland and the rest of the UK have very similar economies and meet most of the tests applied to define Optimum Currency Areas. A continuing currency union would also offer substantial benefits to the rest of the UK by continuing to link sterling to the considerable balance-of-payments benefits afforded by North Sea oil. Within a currency union, the Scottish government would have policy flexibility, and would be able to make independent spending choices – within the agreed overall fiscal envelope.

This is where the economic argument lies, and there are two sets of risks that need to be considered. First, John Kay argued in a recent lecture at the University of Glasgow that the stresses induced by divergent policy choices around education, social welfare etc. could, in the long-run, result in pressure for Scotland to adopt a different exchange rate or interest rate policy. Secondly, Jim Cuthbert’s recent contribution to the debate has pointed out that economic instability in the rest of the UK could be seen as a major risk to the Scottish economy if it remains tied through the currency union. The IMF’s criticism of Osborne’s austerity policy and downgrading of British debt suggest that the international community is also starting to doubt London’s economic priorities. In the longer term, the freedom to make appropriate currency adjustments could be in Scotland’s best interests. The status quo already meets the needs of a distinctive national representation on currency notes that could evolve into the first stage of a gradual move toward disengagement (we can dismiss the reported difficulty in continuing to issue Scottish sterling notes in the short-run – it is not clear why the Bank of England would refuse to accept the assets which currently support them), but this is likely to be a long process begun well after constitutional independence once the current global recession and uncertainty are behind us.

Three things are clear from this discussion: first, there is little space for independent monetary policy for a small open economy such as Scotland, no matter what currency option is chosen by the post-independence government. This is an inevitable consequence of the need to engage in the global economy and is true to some extent of every country. Second, a continued currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK is the sensible and pragmatic option in the short term, giving as it does a level of security to investors in both countries. Third, the right to pursue independent policy choices is one of the key goals of independence and it is conceivable that these choices might eventually lead to significant pressure to decouple from the rest of the UK and float an independent currency. Alternatively, without continued access to North Sea oil wealth, it is possible that the r-UK deficit will lead Scottish policy-makers to the view that continued stability requires a decoupling from sterling. In the short-run, therefore, sterling is sensible and good for both countries. In the long run, an independent Scottish currency may well be the best way forward.

Catherine Schenk and Duncan Ross
University of Glasgow

–

Catherine Schenk is Professor of International Economic History, University of Glasgow, and author of The Decline of Sterling (Cambridge 2010).
Duncan Ross is Senior Lecturer in Economic History at the University of Glasgow.

 

[PullMyFinger]

Just out of interest, how many people have signed the "Declaration of Cineworld" so far?

 

Declaration of Independence is not really like a petition to be delivered to Downing Street. It is a prop to be used by campaigners and you'll see people out and about in the High Streets and going door to door with clipboards. The real purpose is to get people talking about Independence and therefore thinking about it. Whoever puts forward the more positive case forward will win. Early days yet but support is rising with local groups cropping up all over the country.

[The Mantis]

Whoever puts forward the more positive case forward will win.

I wish that was true, but politics is about winning, not about the truth, and the no camp is pulling out everything it has to 'win ugly'. Calling in favours from anybody from rich American politicians to dear old clueless Ken Clarke, as long as they have no interest in Scotland at all, but can come up with an 'authoritative' quote.

The McCrone report shows that we have been cynically lied to before in the interests of preserving the UK, so why should it be any different now?

As licence payers we should expect the BBC to be impartial, but a quick search will show you that it is not.

Edited May 3, 2013 by TheMantis

[PullMyFinger]

Whoever puts forward the more positive case forward will win.

I wish that was true, but politics is about winning, not about the truth, and the no camp is pulling out everything it has to 'win ugly'. Calling in favours from anybody from rich American politicians to dear old clueless Ken Clarke, as long as they have no interest in Scotland at all, but can come up with an 'authoritative' quote.

The McCrone report shows that we have been cynically lied to before in the interests of preserving the UK, so why should it be any different now?

As licence payers we should expect the BBC to be impartial, but a quick search will show you that it is not.

Some of us don't pay for a license because we don't watch live broadcasts.

Good article here

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/bbc-the-new-hammer-of-the-scots/

[+DoofersDad]

 

Whoever puts forward the more positive case forward will win.

I wish that was true, but politics is about winning, not about the truth, and the no camp is pulling out everything it has to 'win ugly'. Calling in favours from anybody from rich American politicians to dear old clueless Ken Clarke, as long as they have no interest in Scotland at all, but can come up with an 'authoritative' quote.

The McCrone report shows that we have been cynically lied to before in the interests of preserving the UK, so why should it be any different now?

As licence payers we should expect the BBC to be impartial, but a quick search will show you that it is not.

 

I have to agree with TheMantis on this one.  Look at the success of UKIP in the English local elections yesterday as evidence of this.  Their cynical policy was simply to tell the voters that they were in favour of what the voters wanted to hear - more schools better council services, more road repairs etc etc and all for no increase in the Council Tax.  Interviewed on the radio today Farage said their manifesto was aspirational and the voters needed to know what UKIP wanted to achieve.  Does he really think that other parties want to close schools and have worse services and worse roads!  The voters should be looking for prioritised plans consistent with the available and increasingly limited local authority budgets - but unfortunately, far too many of them don't.  Instead it is a combination of punishing parties for their perceived performance at a totally different level of government and going along with a party that promises to deliver what they want to hear without a thought of how that might be achieved.

 

The independence vote will be little different.  The SNP will imply that independence must be a good idea because the SNP have been good for Scotland in Government whilst the "no" campaign will imply it is a bad idea because the SNP have been bad for Scotland in Government.  Both sides will claim we will be more likely to be far better off if we do as they say and they will pander to wants and play on our fears.  A few valiant souls on both sides will try to make rational arguments for their positions but, sadly, will be largely ignored. 

 

On this forum, the quality of argument for the "Yes" camp has been streets ahead of the largely unevidenced rants of the "no" camp.  But come election day the verdict of the people will not be based on a mature analysis of the argument, it will be based on a conservative fear of the unknown.  For all PullMyFinger's thoughtful and passionate arguments it will the rants of Laurence and co that win the day.  Whatever the sound arguments against independence may be (and there are many), it is actually not in the interests of the "no" campaign to use them.  Too many voters are simply not going to balance the argument of one side against that of the other and it is far easier to frighten these voters than to influence them by reasoned debate. 

 

I am afraid that this analysis is as bleak as the weather, but I firmly believe it is why Scotland will not vote for independence.

[PullMyFinger]

Shall I make a negative case against the union then?

[Alex MacLeod]

An extract from http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/separation-isnt-on-the-ballot-paper-2/

 

 

 

Fool Me Twice

Vote NO and trust us to offer some form of enhanced devolution says the No Campaign. Meantime, a Westminster parliamentary committee report says a Devo-Max or a Federal solution can only happen after a UK wide referendum.  This would require London and the South East to vote in a way that is usually described as turkeys voting for Christmas (at least in terms of their short-term interests).  They don’t want enhanced competition across the UK and they won’t vote for it, even if it’s in the more medium-term interests of a stable and sustainable economic recovery across these islands. Lets also put aside the fact that the two further referendums that follow if we vote No mean there is far more constitutional uncertainty than with a Yes vote next September! Let us actually consider if more powers will actually ever be offered!  At a charity dinner last year Andrew Neil of the Politics Show said:

Andrew Neil warns Scots not to trust Westminster

“Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP.  If you vote NO you massively change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers away from the Scottish Parliament”. 

Honest words indeed from a committed unionist and leading expert on Westminster politics.  Consider this scenario: would a Tory/UKiP coalition after the 2015 UK General Election be likely to have extra powers for Scotland on its policy agenda when they may have not have one single representative here? Or when they have the larger constitutional issue of EU membership to tackle?

[JockWatt]

 

 

 

I see the date of the referendum has been set for Thursday 18th September 2014.

 

We might be away in the Europa League that day!

 

Better set our sights on a Champions League place to leave the Thursday free, then.

Vote by post

 

WILL I be able to "vote by post" ?  What do I have to do to make a postal vote, please ?

[PullMyFinger]

 

 

 

 

I see the date of the referendum has been set for Thursday 18th September 2014.

 

We might be away in the Europa League that day!

 

Better set our sights on a Champions League place to leave the Thursday free, then.

Vote by post

 

WILL I be able to "vote by post" ?  What do I have to do to make a postal vote, please ?

 

First you have to be on the electoral roll for local elections, which ward/constituency are you in? Perth? That's a PH postcode!

 

Sorry Jock, if you're not resident you don't get to vote. That's only fair though.

[JockWatt]

 

 

 

 

 

I see the date of the referendum has been set for Thursday 18th September 2014.

 

We might be away in the Europa League that day!

 

Better set our sights on a Champions League place to leave the Thursday free, then.

Vote by post

 

WILL I be able to "vote by post" ?  What do I have to do to make a postal vote, please ?

 

First you have to be on the electoral roll for local elections, which ward/constituency are you in? Perth? That's a PH postcode!

 

Sorry Jock, if you're not resident you don't get to vote. That's only fair though.

 

Oh dear!  I AM resident, but not in Bonny Scotland !!!!!!!!!!!!

[PullMyFinger]

 

Oh dear!  I AM resident, but not in Bonny Scotland !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

If you want to vote you need to be resident in Scotland.

[ictchris]

I'm going to vote no just to annoy all the flag waving, kilted-and-desert-booted Hamish Husband types.  They are going to be seething.

[Alex MacLeod]

I'm going to vote no just to annoy all the flag waving, kilted-and-desert-booted Hamish Husband types.  They are going to be seething.

I'm going to vote yes just to annoy all the union flag waving, stone island-and-adidas-booted Rangers Ruffian types.  They are going to be seething.

[ictchris]

That's a valid reason to vote Yes.

 

However, I know more face painting, claymore waving flag shaggers than I do neddy Rangers fans so am going with my option.

 

I see the Grauniad suggested that the UK governemtnw anted to keep Faslane as a UK territory, the way that the bases in Cyprus are.  I think we should ask for Diego Garcia as a swap.

[Yngwie]

Cool, what position does he play?

 

Defence?

[dougiedanger]

I'm going to vote no just to annoy all the flag waving, kilted-and-desert-booted Hamish Husband types.  They are going to be seething.

 

No, if you vote that way it will be because that's what most Tories will do.

 

Don't dress it up as some trendy anti-nationalist stance.

[PullMyFinger]

That's a valid reason to vote Yes.

 

However, I know more face painting, claymore waving flag shaggers than I do neddy Rangers fans so am going with my option.

 

I see the Grauniad suggested that the UK governemtnw anted to keep Faslane as a UK territory, the way that the bases in Cyprus are.  I think we should ask for Diego Garcia as a swap.

 

That backfired!

[ictchris]

 

I'm going to vote no just to annoy all the flag waving, kilted-and-desert-booted Hamish Husband types.  They are going to be seething.

 

No, if you vote that way it will be because that's what most Tories will do.

 

Don't dress it up as some trendy anti-nationalist stance.

 

 

I'm not a Tory.  And considering how popular the SNP are and how pervasive nationalism (and nationalism lite) are in Scottish politics I don't think you can call an anti-nationalist stance trendy.

[+DoofersDad]

 

I'm going to vote no just to annoy all the flag waving, kilted-and-desert-booted Hamish Husband types.  They are going to be seething.

I'm going to vote yes just to annoy all the union flag waving, stone island-and-adidas-booted Rangers Ruffian types.  They are going to be seething.

 

I'm going to spoil my ballot paper just to annoy everyone.  Nobody will give a toss.

[Renegade]

I'm not even going to vote hehe!

[starchief]

Labour are warmongers and a soft touch on bankers, whilst the Tories have gay marriage and higher taxes for the rich than under Blair. The Tories are not Tories and Labour arent socialist. That left/right battle has long since changed. Im expecting the SNP to talk about the madness of independence next.

[PullMyFinger]

#AnnexeGate takes a sinister twist.

 

http://thetinboonie.com/scotland-set-to-remain-in-the-uk-after-independence-from-the-uk