UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: tomtom on October 15, 2012, 06:03:36 pm
-
So,
Those living north of the border - is this going to happen? All the rumblings I hear on the news point towards a no to Scottish independence...
-
A dinnae hink so pal!
I'm a bit torn. I like being part of the UK, have a lot of English friends and don't feel any need to be separated.
However; your fvcking government is a shower of shites! On both sides of the coin. The last lot were useless, this lot are useless and dangerous!
I'm not a big fan of Salmond, he's a bit smarmy, but he's a clever politician and seems to have the people's best interests at heart. (conversely, I think he panders to business people a bit too much) The SNP seem to have managed to prevent most of the wild fuckups that are going on in England just now: NHS privatisation, school curriculum, tuition fees etc.
But, my concern is, as we've seen from what's happened in Ireland (small country in the Euro) or Iceland (Small country with own currency) there is something to be said for the strength of the union. I'd be scared to join the Euro. I'd also be scared to keep the pound, but set our own taxes and interest rates etc. The Euro has shown that monetary union needs fiscal union. (Well, I think it has...I'm no economist)
I reckon what we need is all politicians who have not worked at least 5 years in a "proper job" (teaching, accountancy, engineering, stacking shelves, enforced labour, medicine etc. etc.) to be given the boot. Then current gravy train of Eton-Oxbridge (to do arts an humanities) bag carrying for a few years then given an easy seat is just a total farce.
Anyway - feel free to challenge any or all of that - I'm genuinely interested in this subject and want my mind expanded!
-
-
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/scotland-to-be-offered-independence-or-sugary-snack-2-2012101544981 (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/scotland-to-be-offered-independence-or-sugary-snack-2-2012101544981)
-
I'm a bit torn. I like being part of the UK, have a lot of English friends and don't feel any need to be separated.
That sentence is perilously near to "some of my best friends are English"!
I forecast dangerous times if independence occurs. Northumberland and the borders will become bandit country; riven by violent gangs of smugglers, trafficking tartan rugs in return for Buckfast. I'm going to invest all my money in shortbread and wait for the price to explode.
-
The SNP seem to have managed to prevent most of the wild fuckups that are going on in England just now: NHS privatisation, school curriculum, tuition fees etc.
My understanding of it is that if we become independant they'll be the first things to go, no more free prescriptions, no more cheap uni fees, all the benefits we currently have from being Scotland as part of the UK will go to try and pay for independance. I reckon we'll end up in a worse position with regards to everything you've mentioned.
I'm not fully decided yet but I reckon it's a bad idea, I don't see what the major issue with being part of the UK is and why we'd be so much better on our own, so it'll probably be a no from me.
-
Me neither. Can't see any major benefit from independence, and can't see the country being any better off financially in the long term, unless midges suddenly become a harvestable foodstock.
And the bunch of dicks in Holyrood aren't that much better than the bunch of dicks in Westminster
-
I'd be scared to join the Euro. I'd also be scared to keep the pound, but set our own taxes and interest rates etc.
I'm not an economist (fortunately) but I do find this shit interesting.
From what I've read, the former would require the consent of the other EU member states some of whom (e.g. Spain) might not be too happy about a "region" being given autonomy seeing as they have a bit of trouble with that sort of thing themselves. Salmond & Co. have already completely backtracked on this idea anyway given the total fucking mess that the Euro is in and besides all this, they'd only be swapping control from the BoE to control from the ECB.
The latter is not an option. If Scotland were to keep the pound then they would need to keep the support of the BoE and would therefore need currency union with the rest of the UK. This would obviously affect/restrict policy setting as you're not going to be able to spend spend spend while being tied to Dickhead Osborne's Austerity Death Slide.
All the "experts" seem to think that keeping the pound and currency union are the only way it would work as I think the only other option is for Scotland to create it's own currency (but I don't think that's really an option as it'd be too risky).
One other thing is that although everything may look peachy at the moment, Scotland's economic reliance on oil needs to be addressed and (however badly the Tories may be fucking things up at present) I reckon that'll be easier to do as part of the UK instead of on it's own.
Aside from making Salmond even more smug than he already is, I'm struggling to see the point of all this. It's not like it's going to make your football teams any better.
-
I think oil revenues are subject to debate too as Scotland wouldn't automatically get all the revenues, plus the income isn't guaranteed in perpetuity with little else to fall back on.
And football teams can't really get any worse can they?
-
I'd also be scared to keep the pound, but set our own taxes and interest rates etc.
Problem is that isn't an option. If you keep the pound and a currency union with the rest of the UK then you don't get to set interest rates. At best you might have a seat on the BoE MPC to argue Scotland's case but let's be honest it would be like the European Central Bank has always set the interest rate to suit Germany and the north rather than the Mediteranean countries. It's also a strange option to go for as the Euro is currently demonstrating a currency union doesn't work well without political union as well.
As far as my wife's family goes (who all live in Glasgow) the whole independence idea sounds very jolly (but said in a more Scots vernacular) but isn't something they'll be voting for anytime soon.
-
Nobody reads the shit I write do they.
-
Seems to happen when posts are > two lines in my experience. ::)
-
My understanding of it is that if we become independant they'll be the first things to go, no more free prescriptions, no more cheap uni fees, all the benefits we currently have from being Scotland as part of the UK will go to try and pay for independance.
Interesting - can you point me in the rough direction where you heard this? That would be the final nail in the coffin for me.
And the bunch of dicks in Holyrood aren't that much better than the bunch of dicks in Westminster
Probably not, I guess it just seems like being 1 voice in 5 million has a bit more impact that 1 in 65 million.
Jasp, if all the experts think the only way is pound and fiscal union - what's the point? I think the situation we have just now kind of works - we missed the independence about by 40 years in my opinion, although, I doubt Scotland would have done as good a job of managing their sovereign wealth fund as Norway has!
Also, the Tories are doing such a good job of fucking the place up that I can't imagine them being re-elected, but stranger things have happened...
-
At this stage, I haven't seen enough information about the ins and outs of it all to make an informed decision about economics etc. This is in part due to me not researching it but it has a lot to do with the fact that most of the arguments so far have been based on centuries old bias and anti English feeling.
As an English person living in Scotland, I have been sworn at and abused for being English. This narrow minded bullying is only being fuelled by the arguments which are going on at the moment. Bannockburn was 100s of years ago and yet the 'national anthem' of Scotland is all about it and is sung with enthusiastic interjections which leave the English in no uncertain terms intimidated.
And is the Scottish Government campaigning to unite people and promote tolerance? No, it is fuelling the fire with talk of independence, pushing 2014 as the year of homecoming and planning huge celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn. Coincidence that this is the same year as the referendum? I think not.
-
My understanding of it is that if we become independant they'll be the first things to go, no more free prescriptions, no more cheap uni fees, all the benefits we currently have from being Scotland as part of the UK will go to try and pay for independance.
I have heard no actual proof that Scotland's "benefits" will be scrapped (promises to make voters' lives worse rarely crop up in election manifestos, odd that), but it would not surprise me.
Under the Barnett formula, when compared to England, Scotland gets around 20% per capita more from the UK treasury for those public expenditures they have control of (largely a legacy of outdated population measurements I think). The 2007 figures (according to Wikipedia admittedly) were £7100 for England and £8600 for Scotland, per person per year. Perhaps, oil revenue etc might compensate for this "subsidy", but perhaps not....
-
Jasp, if all the experts think the only way is pound and fiscal union - what's the point?
Cos some people reckon they can have their cake and eat it. As in just cos they are tied to BoE monetary policy, they can still have control over tax revenues and spending.
I say bullshit.
-
Nobody reads the shit I write do they.
Sorry?
-
Nobody reads the shit I write do they.
I assume that was pointed at me? Not sure why? I agree with you that in the short term then yes the currency union is the only practical way given the problems of setting up a new currency but it doesn't work in the long term without political union - small countries tied to currencies of larger countries/regions tend to suffer from massive boom and busts (but hey Scotland can have Gordon back to put an end to those).
You're spot on with your 11:07 post.
Ref the Barnett formula from moose I'm sure I saw somewhere a paper that said what came back to Scotland through the Barnett formula pretty much matched what went the other way through oil revenues.
(from another opinionated non-economist who likes to read)
-
Talking oil....
My Geologist pals in the oil industry say there are some interesting issues in the ownership of the Shetland and Hebredian fields.. which apparently don't belong to Scotland or the UK, but England!
-
I think oil revenues are subject to debate too as Scotland wouldn't automatically get all the revenues,
Me, earlier. I think there also are issues regarding ownership of "Crown Estates" and the original issuing of exploration licences in the early days.
-
Offshore oil will get more expensive to extract before too long according to a Norwegian oil-worker friend of mine. And the fields are much bigger on their side.
-
As long as we all keep driving cars and burning gas in power stations the rise in price will always get passed on to the consumer.
-
But if the consumer can drive to a different garage then margins will fall for the oil extracted at higher cost and so treasury revenues, won't they?
-
Nobody reads the shit I write do they.
I assume that was pointed at me? Not sure why?
Yes for once I wasn't trying to be a dick, just that both your and SA Chris' posts seemed to pointing out exactly the same things I was trying to say in my post immediately prior to them.
Anyway, I agree with all your points.
-
And regardless of who actually owns what and when the revenues might fall, one thing everyone agrees on is that Scotland can't blithely rely on oil to be such a huge part of it's economy for the foreseeable future. Nobody is, or what do you think the arabs are doing in Manchester?
-
Offshore oil will get more expensive to extract before too long according to a Norwegian oil-worker friend of mine. And the fields are much bigger on their side.
Well yes and no. In some instances it is getting more expensive to extract, but more fields are still being discovered and technology for extraction is being improved on a daily basis; wells previously shut down for being uneconomical are being reopened by specialist companies and producing again. But yes N Sea oil has a finite life, as does oil anywhere in the world?
-
You did that on purpose you dick.
-
But yes N Sea oil has a finite life, as does oil anywhere in the world?
If I were entitled to vote in a referendum about Scotland I'd be more focused on just how finite Scottish oil revenues are vs 'oil anywhere in the world'.
-
If you could put a a firm answer to that you would be a very rich man. Estimates vary wildly and cards are kept very close to the chest regarding discoveries. If you want an interesting read, get hold of Al Alvarez's "Offshore", and read the section about the geologist who was involved in the discovery of the Forties Field and how he couldn't breath a word about it to anyone while the bidding process for the exploration rights were underway, and realise why these things are kept closely guarded secrets.
-
You did that on purpose you dick.
Me? Did what?
-
what do you think the arabs are doing in Manchester?
Enjoying the rain ;)
-
Sounds severely messy
Some questions that would need to be sorted before the referendum
Will there be a separate armed forces? Will Scotland have to join Nato? Will it automatically become a part of the EU?
If Scotland can't after independance set it's own fiscal policy then surely it's better with it's current level of UKness where at least uni fees, prescriptions, sight tests etc are all paid for unlike South of the border.
-
FUCK.
Most importantly, would UKB have to be re-branded?
-
Will it automatically become a part of the EU?
I'm pretty sure this is a no, and they wouldn't necessarily be allowed into the Euro, if they decided they wanted in. However, if the "Union" breaks up, I believe England (or whatever we'd be called after the skirt wearers had buggered off) would also have to re-apply for EU membership.
-
My understanding of it is that if we become independent they'll be the first things to go, no more free prescriptions, no more cheap uni fees, all the benefits we currently have from being Scotland as part of the UK will go to try and pay for independence.
Interesting - can you point me in the rough direction where you heard this? That would be the final nail in the coffin for me.
In short no. ;D It came about in a chat I had with a group of people in the pub, it was a very believable argument though and made sense at the time. I think basically it's to do with Scotland being in part supported and subsidised by London, without that support we'd need to take care of ourselves and there simply isn't enough tax money to allow all the benefits we currently have. Obviously this would be a much better argument if I had any links or proper info to back it up. :whistle:
As an English person living in Scotland, I have been sworn at and abused for being English. This narrow minded bullying is only being fuelled by the arguments which are going on at the moment.
I find this a bit ridiculous, it's not ground breaking news there are some idiot who also happen to be Scottish but I think judging an entire nation based on a few is a bit silly, people who are going to swear at you and abuse you for being English are going to do it regardless of whether the subject of independence is up for discussion, because they're tools and will always find an excuse for their behaviour.
On the other hand one of my major fears for the vote is that the minority who are anti-English and, as my friend so concisely put it 'like big Braveheart cunts' will be the ones who care enough to vote, but will do so without realising where a yes vote might leave us.
I need to read up more, I hadn't even considered the fact we'd need to go to Euros if we left the UK.
-
I've never had a bad word said against me since living here (outside of a
bit lot of banter) but I guess it's probably because I'm such an affable fucker.
-
Ref the Barnett formula from moose I'm sure I saw somewhere a paper that said what came back to Scotland through the Barnett formula pretty much matched what went the other way through oil revenues.
(from another opinionated non-economist who likes to read)
It's not just about that though. Firstly the Uk govt has most of it's big institutions in England ( whitehall, sandhurst etc) so funding those acts to funnel UK (ie inc Scottish) tax money into the English economy. Secondly UK politician's sad imperial delusions tend to result in expensive stuff like Afghan wars & pointless nuclear deterrents that Scotland would no longer need to pay for. It's complicated :shrug:
-
As an English person living in Scotland, I have been sworn at and abused for being English. This narrow minded bullying is only being fuelled by the arguments which are going on at the moment.
I find this a bit ridiculous, it's not ground breaking news there are some idiot who also happen to be Scottish but I think judging an entire nation based on a few is a bit silly, people who are going to swear at you and abuse you for being English are going to do it regardless of whether the subject of independence is up for discussion, because they're tools and will always find an excuse for their behaviour.
I don't think I in any way tarred all with the same brush in my post. I simply pointed out those idiots that do have anti English tendencies will be buoyed by the campaign.
-
It's a funny one... Being from the saaarf of England I have been remorselessly piss ripped for being a cockney wanker etc.. all the time I've lived in Yorkshire. But when I moved to deepest Mid Wales for 7 years, I was 'only English' and received much less stick...
-
On the other hand, perhaps there are economies of scale with having a shared facilities. Would independence necessitate re-inventing large parts of the civil service, NHS, HMRC, DSS etc from scratch - or at least replacing any top-level functions currently done in England? If so, it might be pricey.
That said, a remodeled governmental apparatus might feasibly be more streamlined and efficient - rid of a legacy of decades of inefficient accretions and piecemeal "innovations". It's like every-time I go to an airport, I wonder if, given a fresh start, would a ground-up redesign of the system of getting people on airplanes result in quite so much traipsing between long queues, clutching pieces of paper?!
-
For my work area - we have the Environment Agency, Scotland has Sepa. The ea seem to be a buerocratic horror, whereas Sepa is a leaner more focused group that seems to operate far more efficiently and better.
-
That said, a remodeled governmental apparatus might feasibly be more streamlined and efficient - rid of a legacy of decades of inefficient accretions and piecemeal "innovations". It's like every-time I go to an airport, I wonder if, given a fresh start, would a ground-up redesign of the system of getting people on airplanes result in quite so much traipsing between long queues, clutching pieces of paper?!
Nice in theory but this is government so it wouldn't work like that would it. Here moose you dropped these mate.....
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNdJNdG218EJN01x66KGFtMNqhF5MLj4yBlp7x-jYEh5N0tYm80sy_5Ck1)
:)
-
Don't worry folks, "big society" will fix everything...
-
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price. Look at how Qatar, Abu Dahbi etc are desperately trying to diversify and they've got much larger hydrocarbon resources than "Scotland" has.
I suppose it's easy for me to say but the United Kingdom has a lot more going for it than an England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would have if we were all independent.
-
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.
That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.
Personally, I'd be happy to stay in the UK but with huge changes to the current democratic setup which is ridiculous. England and Wales should have their own devolved government (or whatever) and Westminster should only be dealing with issues which affect the UK as a whole. The West Lothian question has never been answered.
-
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.
That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.
Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...
-
Lots of economic, political and nimby reasons for that...
-
Would all the Scots in the English Parliament get turfed out?
-
Would all the Scots in the English Parliament get turfed out?
If it means George Galloway gets kicked out then I'm coming round to the idea.
-
I don't think I in any way tarred all with the same brush in my post. I simply pointed out those idiots that do have anti English tendencies will be buoyed by the campaign.
And I simply pointed out that wankers like that will find an excuse regardless of what else is going on, in my opinion, I really can't imagine that without the possibility of independence they would be any different. :no:
-
Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...
Wind as well. Farms going up everywhere, on and offshore.
-
I live in Sweden but am a proud Scot and Im against independence for Scotland. I agree with Fultonious that the chance to be rid of the current British government is appealing if it meant Scotland could be remodeled as a small scandinavian-style socialist state with high taxes and well-funded health system and education at the heart of society. But there is no indication that this is what would happen. Firstly the economic argument for independence has yet to be shown in detail by the SNP. Clearly keeping the pound is preferable to having the euro (what sort of credit rating would we get - not great i suspect) or developing our own currency (costs a fortune and again exchange rates could cripple us), but then if we are going to keep the pound and use other British services such as defense, what really is the point.
I fear that Alex Salmond whom I think is a very shrewd politician is going to use a wave of 2014 nationalism to get the weekend-nationalists who like to hate England when we play them at football or rugby but who dont know anything about economics to vote yes without putting forward the proper economic blueprint. It seems very possible that we would be worse off as an independent country. I just hope that people get a chance to see the argument and vote with their brains.
-
I'm glad that at least it seems to be a one off - 'are u in or out?' question.
I don't have a problem at all if Scots want to be independent, but I do think that this 'devo max' stuff is slightly taking the piss - have the good bits without the bad bits....non?
-
Well, I think it leaves Cameron in a win-win situation.
If its a no vote then he can glow in his victory etc..
If its a yes, then a Tory majority will be guarunteed for years to come... and it can look like he's letting the people do what they want to do. It will also probably lead to whats left of the UK having to leave/renegotiate their EU presence - which would please many members of the Tory party to no end...
-
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.
That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.
Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...
The point is the independence movement and Scotland's economy is not just about oil as many seem to think it is. The wave & tidal technology is progressing rapidly but it's at the point wind power was 20yrs ago where trials are still ongoing to find the most efficient solution to harvest the energy. The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.
However, the yes vote will be driven primarily by the feeling that Cameron, Clegg, Miliband et al are not much different from Blair, Brown even Thatcher and Scotland has always sat distinctly to the left of mainstream Uk politics.
The no vote (which will win) is driven by the fact that this is the worst possible time to engage in massive constitutional change and the fear factor of what is happening in Spain and Greece coupled with unanswered questions/scaremongering about switching to the euro etc mean people will vote for the status quo.
-
The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050.
The 'potential' wont be realised if they're talking about a theoretical capacity rather than taking logistics into account. There's two refs for the 25% figure on wikipedia but I haven't got time to see what sort of capacity they're talking about.
From the ref. on wikipedia it's actually 31% of electricity generation in 2011 (http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf (http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf)), which is significantly different to total energy use (think gas heating/cooking, transport, etc).
-
The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.
I realise abarro has made this point but 35% of Scotland's electricity is from the renewables market (and this is assuming 2011 comnsumption was the same as 2010). This is better than the UK as a whole though, as it sits at 10% approx.
Also, the reason you are a net exporter of energy is due to oil and gas, not renewables.
However, despite the whinging by me above it is nice to see a country investing in renewables (they could do with investing more in the technology/design and less on just installing imo) as the only way this side of the market will improve is via investment.
-
We're also confusing domestic energy demand and consumption versus export of energy (hydrocarbons + electricity) and oil and gas services.
-
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.
That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.
Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...
The point is the independence movement and Scotland's economy is not just about oil as many seem to think it is. The wave & tidal technology is progressing rapidly but it's at the point wind power was 20yrs ago where trials are still ongoing to find the most efficient solution to harvest the energy. The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.
Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy - I am hugely ignorant in that regard. However, I fail to be optimistic re the potential for tidal and wave energy - perhaps in a few generation's time, but the energy density is so low (i.e. infrastructure required per watt capacity), that it can only be competitive in a market where other forms of energy are hugely expensive, or wind/wave are subsidised. Given the advances in unconventional land-based gas elsewhere in the world, I would not bet on it - far better to start building LNG import terminals if you ask me...
Sorry, this is massively off-topic ;)
-
Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy - I am hugely ignorant in that regard. However, I fail to be optimistic re the potential for tidal and wave energy - perhaps in a few generation's time,
Sorry, this is massively off-topic ;)
Sorry to be even further odd-topic but if it takes more than a few years then there aren't going to be a few more generations.
-
[/quote]
Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy ..... far better to start building LNG import terminals if you ask me...
Sorry, this is massively off-topic ;)
[/quote]
Yes, i kinda dragged it off topic in the first place but it is all valid and open to debate.
Anyhoo - some interesting stuff here arguing the Barnett formula is not currently fair on Scotland. A pro-independence slant on it for sure and it raises a few obvious questions. It has long been argued that Scotland actually runs at a surpluss but again thats going back to oil revenues, the below link sets out more info on the effect of privitisation in England on the Scottish budget - more interesting than it sounds!
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-barnett-trap-and-the-expensive-lunch/ (http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-barnett-trap-and-the-expensive-lunch/)
I am a target voter here. Usually vote SNP because they've made a better job at running things at a local level than the others but leaning towards voting no primarily cause I do think all countries in the Union can be better together if we could massively amend the current outdated financial and democratic systems. However, it currently looks like there is no appetite for the change required in Westminster and for that reason i'm still very much undecided.
-
My view is that they should vote yes.
Ok I'll probably pay more for my whisky and tweeds but look on the plus side, we'll never, ever, ever have a Labour government in England & Wales again. :goodidea:
-
No lose situation for ol puffy condom face..
-
If it's a no vote then we could also see a big swing from Labour to SNP, which would also be a bonus.
-
As its getting close to the time - and having read Dave M's post on the blogpiler (below) I thought it time to give this thread a kick...
Scotland - what to decide? A starting place in the decision making process (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveMacleod/~3/kbqXeKVT86c/scotland-what-to-decide-starting-place.html)
4 September 2014, 6:44 pm
Although this blog is primarily about my thoughts on climbing, Im aware that the huge decision on Scottish independence is getting close, and I need to think about whether to keep my thoughts to myself, or share them with others. It doesnt seem to make sense for interested parties to make their decision in a bubble of isolation. Why not discuss it openly? Moreover, why not make clear where the gaps in the arguments aired in the media lie, so that we may have more of the information we need to come to the best possible decision.
Unlike the way the decision is presented by politicians, I dont feel that anyone can truly come to the right or wrong decision, where right or wrong implies prosperity of the country in the future. Either path carries considerable uncertainty. In my mind, the right decision is the one that people are happy to have made, given the information and feelings we have at the time. Even if it did turn out to make us a tiny bit worse off in the pocket, that wont make it the wrong decision because either path could have led to that outcome.
Because of these uncertainties, I was undecided for a long time, but as Ive thought it over repeatedly, I have now decided that a Yes vote is definitely the choice I wish to make. Part of the reason it took me a long time to reach a firm conclusion was the the disappointing level of coverage of the issue in the mass media. In the political field, each side is obliged to try to strengthen its case. Realistically, what else could we expect? I hoped to hear more from respected intellectuals who were prepared to offer their thoughts. Thankfully, these have appeared on the internet over the past few months.
If ever there was an issue that is not black and white, it is this. Here are some questions and ideas that have come to my mind to guide me through this decision, which I am so happy to have made. Its the first time in my life where Ive been truly excited to receive my ballot paper through the letterbox.
These ideas span several different concepts and issues, and all of them seem relevant to me. I hope they are at least interesting to some of you who may be going through the same difficult process.
Part 1: Power
They say that the one lesson from history is that no one learns anything from history. However, right now we have a future in front of us of being able to make decisions for ourselves. I cannot find a good reason to take a huge gamble in handing this power over to a distant government. The idea that power is never given, only taken comes to mind here. Although I do think there are some major problems with politicians, political system, and the way the media handle it in the UK, on the whole I do think that many politicians are trying to do good work under difficult constraints. However, I have a basic worry that the distance breeds complacency. I am unsure about others worries that Scotland may lose influence internationally. If we replace the ability to interfere in the middle east with a focus on the advancement of education of our own people, we will end up being able to exert global influence in much more effective ways (such as in solving many of the problems that cause wars in the first place).
I just mentioned that I felt Westminster politicians are generally speaking trying to do good work. The British political system is a somewhat archaic arrangement, which creates some undesirable consequences and sometimes appears to reward the wrong behaviour among politicians. There have been repeated opportunities to change it, but these havent been taken. I fear that this will simply continue if we vote to hand our power over to a government in London.
Peoples across the ages right up to the present day have given their lives in a struggle to take their power back from distant government. All those people didnt fight for nothing. In general, its because distant government just doesnt act in their best interests. It is interested in the resources of the territory, rather than taking care of the people living on it. Its almost unbelievable that we are being given the opportunity to take the decision without a single bullet fired.
So why are the polls predicting that we will vote to reject home rule? Surely, it must be down to psychology?
Part 2: Psychology
Consider the scenario that we were voting for or against a union with a government in London if we had been an independent country for the past 300 years. Do you think we would vote for it? Surely, the very idea would be laughed at. Therefore, the psychology of the status quo must play a huge part in our decision making.
The current government is in severe danger from UKIP simply because of the very modest effects of European influence on our government. There is an irony that that they argue that the UK union should stay together. I also wonder how the English would vote in a referendum to move the seat of government to Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh.
Is the future status quo not an illusion? Obviously, its a leap of faith to vote for setting up a new government (not a country - we are already a country!). But surely its also obvious that its a huge leap of faith to enter a union with a country which has some frightening looming problems. Im thinking here about us leaving Europe, spending vast quantities of money and lives on wars that dont seem to have helped, killing off the NHS, failing to properly address the many issues that contribute to wellbeing of the population.
The status quo in our country is that the leading cause of death among male adults between 21-50 is suicide. I cant see any reason to vote for a status quo where our children are more likely to wish to end their own lives in their prime than in years gone by. The status quo is not making us happy. I dont feel that there is much to lose by letting go of risk aversion and voting to take another path.
Part 3: Wealth
Despite the fact that our current wealth (in a world perspective) has not made us happy, the data shows that the short term effects on our financial situation are most likely to swing voters decisions. There are two critical points about this.
Firstly, the predictions about whether we may be slightly better or slightly worse off are totally unreliable. On both sides, they are assumptions, based on assumptions. Economists are famous for being unable to agree on anything. And recent history certainly underlines the lack of ability to predict avoidable economic disasters. To vote based on predicted numbers truly is to take a gamble.
Secondly, what is wealth? The most exciting piece of discussion Ive heard in the mass media relating to the independence debate was back in May and wasnt even being discussed in the context of independence. Its well known that above a basic level, more money doesnt mean more happiness and wellbeing. Im simplifying and recommend some good reading that explores the complex picture. The media constantly encourages us to worry about GDP, despite the ever greater understanding that it doesnt relate to quality of life. Back in 1968 Bobby Kennedy said GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. Although it doesnt make such an easy headline for mass media, the social progress index (http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi#data_table/countries/spi/dim1,dim2,dim3) has over recent years shed much more light on what is important. It puts GDP in its place as one among many factors we should be concerned about. The findings, and the league table of countries makes interesting reading. Note that the UK is a lot lower on the list than some other countries that have much in common with Scotland.
Im not saying money isnt important. But since the numbers war averages out at a few hundred quid either side of the recent past and its clear that this sort of difference has only limited effects on wellbeing (that may well be countered in other ways), it doesnt seem right to take the gamble along these lines. Moreover, an Independent Scotland, even in tough times is likely to be more left leaning than the current government and pay closer attention to those with least opportunity. For these reasons, surely the best lines across which to thrash out a decision are cultural.
Part 4: Culture
Niall Ferguson (a conservative) described in 2012s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/DvZX2l78SrbXltcxJkD39H/niall-ferguson-the-human-hive) BBC Reith* lectures why countries prosper first and foremost from their institutions rather than simply their industries. He was referring to legal and educational institutions. In both of these fields, Scotland has institutions which are looked up to around the world. He also pointed out that the accumulation of national debt is now undermining democracy since successive generations inherit the debt without having voted to accumulate it. Whether you choose to love or hate the SNP, they have been clear about their intention and proposed methods to reverse the current direction of the UK of accumulating vast quantities of debt. Although our current austerity programme is reducing our national deficit, the debt is still rising.
Very few Scots seriously question whether we could be independent. I would urge the few that do to have more confidence! So to decide whether we should, surely we should think about what would give us a greater sense of being part of a community, greater sense of purpose and a feeling that our voice as individuals or may be heard.
This aspect has been my strongest lever towards voting yes. We are already a country, in all but government. Completing that missing piece by deciding to govern ourselves would allow us to shape our circumstances to better reflect our needs. Sure, we have absorbed so much of culture from the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. There is a McDonalds in every town. We eat full Scottish breakfasts, which are basically full English breakfasts plus Irn Bru. Etc. But it seems pretty clear to me that we are different from the rest of the UK. Suitably different to benefit from having a sovereign government. That was also the view of the UK's outgoing permanent representative to NATO (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29045528), expressed while she was pointing out that NATO would have no reason to interrupt Scotland's membership.
Where England is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, Scotland is one of the least. Rather than worrying about the influx of foreign talent, we realise that we need it. Where England repeatedly votes for a Tory government with a far right chaser, we have always leaned a little more to the left.
I just dont feel the government represents us. In fact, I dont think we are even on their radar. The independence referendum neatly illustrates this. So many in England are barely even aware that the UK is a few points away from breaking up.
It ought to go without saying that I have no axe to grind against the UK. None whatsoever. I feel that the situation we are in is just human nature. We are a tiny part of the UK, population wise, with quite different needs and ideals. And so it has come about that we have been given the chance to represent ourselves, but remain connected in the wider European Union. At a very basic level, it makes sense. I still want to do business with, travel to and consume culture from the rest of the UK, just as I do from the the rest of Europe which I regularly spend time in and have friends in.
I do feel that taking the step to independence will do Scotland a massive amount of good. If there is one piece of Scottish culture that I feel still exists and is not our best asset, its lack of confidence. I think that it will make it more focused, more flexible, and especially more confident.
So Im voting Yes.
*Footnote: John Reith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith,_1st_Baron_Reith), of Stonehaven, developed the concept of public service broadcasting for the education of the people and created the modern BBC as its first director general. I doubt he would have any confidence issues with the idea of establishing a Scottish broadcasting service. He admitted that he felt he had the skills to manage any company. He put his money where his mouth was.Dave MacLeod
My book - 9 out of 10 climbers make the same mistakes (http://www.davemacleod.com/shop.html)(http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DaveMacleod/~4/kbqXeKVT86c)
Source: Dave MacLeod blog (http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/)
-
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/05/7c2bc17e34e05ecc573b501ba042be40.jpg)
Bookies are fairly certain which way its going (and they're not usually far off the mark)
...as is this guy...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/record-bet-scottish-independence
-
I think overall too many Scots are just too Scottish to gain independence, i.e. as per Dave Mac's second-to-last paragraph they lack the self-confidence and/or are too wary of change to see it through. Which I think is a pity, I hope I'm wrong.
-
Good luck which ever way it goes - Living in the North of England I wish we had an opportunity to stick two fingers up at Westminster and London... the UK has sadly become increasingly london centric...
-
I spoke to a few expat irnbru-swilling kilt wearers, currently living in Norway, at a wedding in Austria this summer (regarded moi). They all said that it would be a No vote, and that it's only within the UK where anyone genuinely thinks a Yes vote is on the cards. They drew analogy with Obama vs Mitt Romney, the rest of the world could see the result as a foregone conclusion.
I bet if it does happen it'll make little practical difference to anyone, especially not any of us sooth of the border. The main arguments and ideologies seem to be romantically driven notions of national identity and statesmanship by Salmond, I don't buy any of the practical or economic arguments.
-
An excellent post by Dave McLeod there. If I was a Scot I would be voting Yes Yes Fucking Yes. However, as I'm British (read as "English" in this context) I desperately hope they stay. Scotland is great and, aside from all the other positives, it helps to reign in the tories every general election.
-
A fifth of my family are angry Glaswegians and all vehemently voting yes...
-
For all those hoping that the vote is Yes, be prepared for an emergency Bill through Parliament that means that the election in 2015 won't return any MPs to Westminster. Predicted results, Con -1, Lib Dem, -4? (is that right, can't be arsed to Google) and Labour -54
Which on current numbers would mean
Con 302
Lib Dem 52
Labour 203
Others c. 20
Result Con absolute and working majority
-
I hope it's a yes because I think it would be a good thing overall for Scotland. It's not about England/Wales/N.Ireland.
-
My view is that it will be bad for Scotland in the short and long term, it wil be bad for England in the short term but good in the long term.
That said, a price worth paying if it effectively casts Labour into the history books.
-
Why would you want to consign Labour to the history books?
-
Why would you want to consign Labour to the history books?
Because he's a Tory scrote :)
What he perhaps hasn't considered is the long term historical context of left vs right in this country. Look at this picture and what do you see?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/UK_popular_vote.svg/1599px-UK_popular_vote.svg.png)
There are generally more lefties in this country than fascist Tories but our vote is split between parties. If the left united against the right, or the right was split, left wing governments would be in power more often. If Scotland stay then it's "Hello UKIP" and goodbye Conservatives! Especially seeing as the LDs are going to get wiped out in the next general election. United left and split right. Get your red flags out.
-
In the last forty years I see more of a move from two party politics to three or more. Surprised we haven't had more coalition governments. Looks to me we are headed to a more European situation where governments can only form through alliances. Not sure that bodes too well for your red flags...
-
Why would you want to consign Labour to the history books?
Because he's a Tory scrote :)
What he perhaps hasn't considered is the long term historical context of left vs right in this country. Look at this picture and what do you see?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/UK_popular_vote.svg/1599px-UK_popular_vote.svg.png)
There are generally more lefties in this country than fascist Tories but our vote is split between parties. If the left united against the right, or the right was split, left wing governments would be in power more often. If Scotland stay then it's "Hello UKIP" and goodbye Conservatives! Especially seeing as the LDs are going to get wiped out in the next general election. United left and split right. Get your red flags out.
Do you really think that there's a 'left' left?
The historic battles of Labour have been fought and generally won: i.e. worker's rights, equal treatment on the grounds of gender & etc and they've abandoned the policy of common ownership and adopted many of what would once have been described as 'one nation' Tory policies and some that Thatcher would have considered too authoritarian (ID cards, detention without charge for 90 days) and embraced the market in a way that Thatcher would not have considered, tuition fees, sale of the post office, air traffic control and so on.
As for the GE, there' an interesting debate as to the likely effect of UKIP and the Greens in the GE.
There will be seats like Norwich South where The Greens can mount a real challenge as the keep Labour out option and places like Rotherham and Doncaster where UKIP will push Labour hard and with the backing of Tories could see some real shocks.
As for the Tory / UKIP marginals I can't see too many Labour supporters voting UKIP and I can see the 'vote UKIP get Milliband' message combined with the message that 'only the Tories can deliver a referendum on Europe' is likely to see a lot of UKIP voters moving back to the Tories.
UKIP also have the next 6 months to keep a lid on their 'swivel eyed' tendency which is going to come under increasing scrutiny.
Then there's the economy, Labour is simply not trusted to run the economy and then there's Ed Miliband.
But returning to your point about the numbers of lefties, they tend to get about .1% of the vote, so even if the Alliance for Worker's Liberty, Communist League, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Britain (Marxist Leninist), Communist Party of Great Britain (M-L), Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), Democratic Labour Party, Independent Working Class Association, International Socialist League, Left Unity, New Communist Party, Peace and Progress Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Party of Greta Britain, Socialist People's Party, Socialist Workers Party, Worker's Revolutionary Party were all combined, they'd still lose their deposit in one seat.
Quite simply the British people know what socialism will bring and they don't want anything to do with it.
-
Why would you want to consign Labour to the history books?
Well let's see, every time they form the government the economy is in a mess when they leave, unemployment higher than when they took office and then there's the authoritarian streak two pretty good reasons in my book.
-
They did give us the CRoW act though, access and conservation issues are going currently backwards fast. A permanent Tory government would be a disaster for anyone who enjoys recreation in the outdoors.
-
They also gave us lots of Olympic cycling gold medals and ultimately our first Tour de France winner.
-
And civil partnerships (a shame they bottled actually allowing gay men and lesbians to marry due to the Opus Dei nutters in Cabinet) which despite the criticism was a major step forward, the national minimum wage has had the effect of pulling down what would otherwise been a differential above the NMW to the NMW, and the NMW in London isn't as adequate as the NMW in other parts of the country.
However if we take a debits and credits approach there are the following:
1. The tripartite regulatory systems of the banks which was a catastrophic policy failure,
2. Running a structural deficit in the very good years.
3. Merging HMRC & IR against all advice,
4. A massive ramping up of PFI
5. The disastrous working families tax credits which were a fraudsters dream,
6. ID cards and the erosion of civil liberties
7. Tuition fees,
8. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq,
9. The corruption which on any reasonable measure was far more widespread and serious than Tory Sleaze.
10. Privatisations BNFL, UKAEA , NAATS, Quintec, all of which have a strategic importance through to the mundane directory enquiries.
11. Academy schools including those that taught creationism in 'science'
12. massively expanded the use of private sector treatment sectors in the NHS
13. Introduced many of the reforms to welfare that those on the left now decry, i.e. they introduced 'the Bedroom tax' 'work capability assessments and contracted with ATOS, 'workfare'
So in retrospect, I can't remember having that many problems going climbing before CROW and CROW hasn't allowed access to Vixen Tor either.
So in short, 13 years of Labour rule and you've got CROW, the NMW and a step towards equality for gay men and lesbians, on the scales against the above, was it really worth it?
-
They also gave us lots of Olympic cycling gold medals and ultimately our first Tour de France winner.
I think you'll find that that was a combination of the National Lottery and in respect of cycling Sky.
-
I think you might find the talent spotting in schools using lottery funding was a Blair initiative and lottery funding came in to its own under Labour. Also given that he was also in bed with Murdoch might explain the Sky link.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland)
-
Thanks, that's put the complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition and the invasion of Iraq into perspective.
-
Sloper you're so full of shit mate I don't even know where to start!
-
Sloper you're so full of shit mate I don't even know where to start!
That's right you don't know where to start: you don't have any grasp of the issues, you don't have any knowledge of the subject or any rhetorical skills, in fact about the only thing you've got a grasp of is the depth of your own ignorance.
But still, if you ask a grown up you might be able to come up with a half decent insult.
Frankly you're pathetic.
-
the only thing you've got a grasp of is the depth of your own ignorance.
Tough words from the man who clearly has only a grasp on his own cock, whilst reading back his own posts to himself, wallowing ecstatically in his perceived sense of loathsome smug tory superiority until a thimble full of fetid tory gunk drips into a fistfull of tissues. And as you catch a glimpse of your own drained vacant face reflected in the laptop screen a wave of inadequacy washes you back into your otherwise empty moribund existence as an unwelcome self-parodying web antagonist.
In summary; fuck off.
-
Thanks, that's put the complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition and the invasion of Iraq into perspective.
Personally I believe this would happen under any goverment. However I like that we now have a cycling structure that is the envy of continental Europe and they have now had to change the rules to stop us winning so many track medals.
P.s. I think you have upset Dave.
-
unwelcome self-parodying web antagonist
Boom!
-
the only thing you've got a grasp of is the depth of your own ignorance.
Tough words from the man who clearly has only a grasp on his own cock, whilst reading back his own posts to himself, wallowing ecstatically in his perceived sense of loathsome smug tory superiority until a thimble full of fetid tory gunk drips into a fistfull of tissues. And as you catch a glimpse of your own drained vacant face reflected in the laptop screen a wave of inadequacy washes you back into your otherwise empty moribund existence as an unwelcome self-parodying web antagonist.
In summary; fuck off.
It's hard not to feel superior when one's comparator is quite so ignorant and pathetic, I see you resort to abuse, but even that is deeply inadequate,
In summary, do stay around, it gives me something to laugh at, in an unpleasant sneering Tory manner of course.
Anyway back on topic, it seems that the polls are now showing a narrow lead for the 'Yes' campaign.
-
Thanks, that's put the complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition and the invasion of Iraq into perspective.
Personally I believe this would happen under any goverment. However I like that we now have a cycling structure that is the envy of continental Europe and they have now had to change the rules to stop us winning so many track medals.
P.s. I think you have upset Dave.
Yes, but it didn't happen under a Tory government, imagine if I said the miner's strike and everything that went with it would have happened under any government: I think we both know that people would be saying 'bollocks' (and they'd be right.
Yes, I think Dave is upset.
-
Well, whether or not its a yes or no vote - I would say that the concessions now being offered by the No camp mean that Alex Salmond and the SNP have scored a massive coup.
A superb bit of political brinksmanship it would appear... If it is actually a Yes vote then what happens in the long term might or might not be too flash - but in terms of ground gained etc...
Solper - if there where no lefties to troll what would you do???
-
I would say that the concessions now being offered by the No camp mean that Alex Salmond and the SNP have scored a massive coup.
Quite. The tipping point in the polls couldn't have been better timed; just gives time to make the concessions offered have an effect.
-
There's a reasonable argument that the concessions offered now will do nothing than bolster the Yes campaign.
The SNP have some very skilled political operators (as opposed to the No campaign who don't) and I would be very surprised if the Yes campaign hasn't got a few spectacular things up their sleeve for the last 10 days.
Turn out will be key, while I can imagine the Yes voters will turn out in any event, I can see the No voters being less committed, a horrid cold and wet day could swing it to Yes.
-
A win against Germany today would definitely swing it to "yes". History is full of random and seemingly trivial events causing massive changes. And there's nothing more random and trivial than Scottish football.
-
While I don't profess to know anything about football, I agree that there could well be some random factors which might have a significant affect, I'd not be surprised if there's a scandal (on either side) embargoed until the Sunday papers
-
Thanks, that's put the complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition and the invasion of Iraq into perspective.
Personally I believe this would happen under any goverment. However I like that we now have a cycling structure that is the envy of continental Europe and they have now had to change the rules to stop us winning so many track medals.
P.s. I think you have upset Dave.
Yes, but it didn't happen under a Tory government, imagine if I said the miner's strike and everything that went with it would have happened under any government: I think we both know that people would be saying 'bollocks' (and they'd be right.
Yes, I think Dave is upset.
No but didn't they invade the Falklands and sink the Belgrano when it was outside the exclusion zone. All just to win an election, seems fair.
-
1. The Argentinians invaded the Falklands,
2. The sinking of the Belgrano was and is highly contentious in terms of its legailty / jusitification.
3. I think we've agreed whataboutery is pretty puerile and demeaning
-
As you appear to such a diehard conservative, do you organise such things as the quiz night/pie and pea supper at your local convertible club.
I went to one such event at Fulford(York) con club, they were most welcoming even though as they put it I was the enemy.
You could invite everyone on here and even show off your superior intellect.
-
Cabriolet tories, now there's a sub set.
More than happy to have an event at the Sheaf, perhaps PeadoSam could be the contra?
-
Cabriolet tories, now there's a sub set.
More than happy to have an event at the Sheaf, perhaps PeadoSam could be the contra?
now you really are being a cock
-
Cabriolet tories, now there's a sub set.
More than happy to have an event at the Sheaf, perhaps PeadoSam could be the contra?
now you really are being a cock
Yup. +1
-
Slurper,
perhaps you have had enough to drink tonight?
do everyone a favour and get a good night's sleep
-
Actually rather sober, just having some sport, but will be off to bed shortly.
-
All in the mix me thinks:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-westminster-no-campaign-last-stand (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-westminster-no-campaign-last-stand)
-
Actually rather sober
oh shit
sorry man
must be awful
hope things work out for you
-
To me the biggest beneficiary of the Scots buggering off will be the English who will find themselves part of a far more London-centric country. It's beyond time that people wake up to the economic dynamic of England: that is one of the two dominant global cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city) on the planet, with a quaint, but essentially irrelevant, hinterland. Frankly the country should be renamed "London" or perhaps "LHR".
I'm sure there are lots of people all over the country, not just in Scotland, who would be very happy to see our economy become less reliant on taxing dickheads in London whilst they play with imaginary money.
-
a horrid cold and wet day could swing it to Yes.
So it will be a Yes then.
-
A win against Germany today would definitely swing it to "yes". History is full of random and seemingly trivial events causing massive changes. And there's nothing more random and trivial than Scottish football.
And there's the swingometer going the other way.
-
Actually rather sober
oh shit
sorry man
must be awful
hope things work out for you
Don't worry, we had a bastards anonymous meeting in the pub tonight and I was introduced to the delights of meths, I baulked at first but when they told me it was grand cru I held my nerve and took a deep draught. It turns out to be better after you've had a few and can't see what you're drinking.
-
JFCOAB things must be desperate when you've got Gordon Brown on the campaign trail.
If the No campaign rolled out Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown in the next few days it wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-gordon-brown-tax-welfare-powers-timetable-labour#start-of-comments (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-gordon-brown-tax-welfare-powers-timetable-labour#start-of-comments)
-
To me the biggest beneficiary of the Scots buggering off will be the English who will find themselves part of a far more London-centric country. It's beyond time that people wake up to the economic dynamic of England: that is one of the two dominant global cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city) on the planet, with a quaint, but essentially irrelevant, hinterland. Frankly the country should be renamed "London" or perhaps "LHR".
I'm sure there are lots of people all over the country, not just in Scotland, who would be very happy to see our economy become less reliant on taxing dickheads in London whilst they play with imaginary money.
+1
Actually, I suspect everyone outside the Home Counties would vote for independence from London....
-
To me the biggest beneficiary of the Scots buggering off will be the English who will find themselves part of a far more London-centric country. It's beyond time that people wake up to the economic dynamic of England: that is one of the two dominant global cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city) on the planet, with a quaint, but essentially irrelevant, hinterland. Frankly the country should be renamed "London" or perhaps "LHR".
I'm sure there are lots of people all over the country, not just in Scotland, who would be very happy to see our economy become less reliant on taxing dickheads in London whilst they play with imaginary money.
+1
Actually, I suspect everyone outside the Home Counties would vote for independence from London....
Yup..
-
I know you like to comment in the Gruniard Sloper...
Could you top this one, in response the dumbest question ever asked?
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/08/3585dc0101f7d4712bfa6101f2b53fac.jpg)
-
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/08/a441ea49d1a5eb3cd9ef86f7ccf79048.jpg)
-
I know you like to comment in the Gruniard Sloper...
Could you top this one, in response the dumbest question ever asked?
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/08/3585dc0101f7d4712bfa6101f2b53fac.jpg)
I haven't been on the Guardian for ages, but as far as comments go that pretty much sums it up both in terms of the article and the editorial team headed by Rubbisher.
-
Actually, I suspect everyone outside the Home Counties would vote for independence from London....
I think given that London taken as a separate entity voted Labour at the last general election, they would also vote for independence from the Home Counties!
-
I'm totally against the idea of independence so I'm most concerned that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are heading to Scotland in an attempt to bolster the No campaign. This will surely swing it massively to Yes.
:wall:
-
I'm totally against the idea of independence so I'm most concerned that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are heading to Scotland in an attempt to bolster the No campaign. This will surely swing it massively to Yes.
:wall:
Yup. Quite bizarre..
I think they should wear kilts too... and ginger wigs... just to ingratiate themselves with the locals...
-
I'm totally against the idea of independence so I'm most concerned that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are heading to Scotland in an attempt to bolster the No campaign. This will surely swing it massively to Yes.
:wall:
I think the 'No' campaign's recent addition of Gordon Brown may have the same effect...
-
I'm totally against the idea of independence so I'm most concerned that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are heading to Scotland in an attempt to bolster the No campaign. This will surely swing it massively to Yes.
:wall:
I think the 'No' campaign's recent addition of Gordon Brown may have the same effect...
GB has a solid reputation North of the border... Apparently he easily polled highest rated PM candidate in Scotland in the last election...
-
Huh, oh well - that's a bit of surprise.
-
Come on, let's focus on the serious issues.
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/09/7756dce2b13559d2625516353928a13c.jpg)
Hurrah!
-
Has anyone read anything even slightly convincing on the Yes movement's plans for Scotland's currency? Because I haven't.
It's quite amazing that so many people seem to be happy to ignore the most important point in the whole debate. Salmond just says "oh it's ok it'll work one way or another" and everyone accepts it when everything I've read points very obviously to the fact that no, you dick, it wont.
I realise this is from the Torygraph but I haven't seen anything that even comes near to refuting the points made in it......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/11083005/The-big-deceit-at-the-heart-of-Alex-Salmonds-Yes-campaign.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/11083005/The-big-deceit-at-the-heart-of-Alex-Salmonds-Yes-campaign.html)
-
Has anyone read anything even slightly convincing on the Yes movement's plans for Scotland's currency? Because I haven't.
It's quite amazing that so many people seem to be happy to ignore the most important point in the whole debate. Salmond just says "oh it's ok it'll work one way or another" and everyone accepts it when everything I've read points very obviously to the fact that no, you dick, it wont.
Those who want to believe believe. I queried an avid YES voting mate on this, and his response was "it's all in the white paper". I asking him if he'd actually verified the facts, or even read this hallowed document and he said "no, it was put together by people smarter than me, so they must know what they were talking about".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11082964/Scottish-independence-New-poll-shows-battle-for-Union-neck-and-neck.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11082964/Scottish-independence-New-poll-shows-battle-for-Union-neck-and-neck.html)
-
I'm quite enjoying the socialist bandwagonry that's going on up here.
Most of the Yes-leaning voters I've spoken to seem to be basing there vote on this being an opportunity to change the system (fight the power etc) and trotting out generic non-specific revolutionary manifestos more in line with Guevara than Salmond. Building small, local, bottom-up government, equality, justice etc.
I love the idealism and I'd vote for that, but HOW are they proposing to do it?
What the Yes campaign is actually talking about delivering is just a smaller version of the current UK, based on the same economic principles, the same banks, the same businesses, but with less security and based on a resource that no-one knows how much there is and will definitely run out one day. And what are they saying about renewables? NOTHING!
-
As I understand, the EU has confirmed that an Independent Scotland would need to re-apply for membership of the block?
This would leave any Scot living and working in the EU without the right to abode and unlikely to retain job or residence?
In fact, visa agreements all over the world would need to be renegotiated.
I'm starting a campaign for an independent Wessex (with a new king. Anyone named Alfred May apply), just so we can be slightly less important on the world stage than Luxembourg...
-
Is that Brian's brother who produced 'badger, badger, badger'?
My view is the likes of Cameron, Clegg and Miliabnd going North is little short of a white flag and Salmond will come out of their visit with more ammunition and gravitas than the other three could muster between them.
-
As I understand, the EU has confirmed that an Independent Scotland would need to re-apply for membership of the block?
I think this can be shortcutted if the existing member states vote that Scotland can go straight in, then no reapplication is needed. Maybe losing to Germany last night wasn't such a bad idea.
-
I can imagine that Spain and Italy would be very keen to see Scotland kept out of the EU for as long as possible to damp down the nascent indpendence campaigns in Lombardy and Catalan (let alone the Basque country).
And then there's the Belgians. . . . :popcorn:
-
A smart investor would be in big on supplies of little plastic Scottish flags. With a hedge on Union flags.
-
The guy who put £800,000 on 'No' is going to have the squeakiest bum for the next 10 days.
-
Has anyone read anything even slightly convincing on the Yes movement's plans for Scotland's currency?
No. Independence whilst remaining tied to the pound seems pointless.
-
Yeah exactly. Which is why I've considered the whole thing to be a massive vanity project for Salmond from the start.
-
The currency union is probably my biggest difficulty with the whole thing.
However, even with the drawbacks of the currency union, I would not say it is pointless:
No more house of Lords.
Proportional representation.
Possibility of never waging war against anyone, ever again.
A very interesting mix up of the political structure; I am very excited to see what parties and policies come out of the wash if the vote is Yes. I'm hoping for a party to emerge with these ideals:
Strong business plans, but at no cost to the environment.
A move away from over-reliance of financial capitalism
Expansion of offshore renewables and solar
Efficient local government - no massive expansion of public sector, but no austerity drive either
Protect the NHS, with good plans for sensible modernisation and improvement but a break form the BBC NHS bashing that seems to be crushing morale.
Good public services and infrastructure (new A9, finish the Tram etc.) Free, high quality childcare for all.
A re-engagement of the general populace with politics.
A good boot-up-the-arse for the Westminster elite.
Economics are my main worry - yes, have a reasonably strong export market. This shouldn't change. We may lose some big banks to south of the border - big loss of tax income (although, not from RBS or LLoyds at the moment, so no great loss), also big loss of risk to balance it out (if we don't have the banks, we don't have to bail them out when they fuck up, again, which they will).
Sovereign wealth fund? Seems unlikely in the short term as we have no national oil companies, these days most of the North Sea is owned and operated by China, America and other overseas owners, so we can only get tax. Increasing tax rates would deter investment and be transferred to public at the pump and leccy bills, so a tricky balancing act. Maybe implement a windfall tax scheme for high oil price years, to prevent re-structuring to avoid annual taxation?
So, on the whole, we'll probably get about the same from the black gold as we do now. (unless that Clair Field rumour IS true, then we're onto a bonanza - watch this space!) For me - that's a bit "pie in the sky".
Looking at Iceland, it seems like when their banks disappeared it was a great boon for other industries as there was a reverse "brain drain", although, this effect would probably be much less since moving from Iceland to London/Madrid/New York would be a much bigger jump than Edinburgh to London. In fact, as I type this, it seems that this is probably not really worth considering. Too easy to move.So we'd definitely lose jobs.
I don't feel the monetary union is a total show stopper though - it works for Denmark and Hong Kong, the CHF is currently pegged to the Euro. What's stopping us having a full union to begin with, see how it goes? If we start to feel the need to inflate/deflate our currency at a later date could we not then split from the pound?
My other worries - Loss of international influence.
EU complications.
Being associated with Nationalists!
Consigning all the non-tories to be ruled for all by the Sloperistas of the world.... (Sorry about that guys)
9 days to decide. :shrug:
-
Fultonius I'm interested to know if you read the article I linked to earlier and if you have any information that can actually denounce it's supposed facts?
Not being a cunt, it's just that I can't find anything that isn't "pie in the sky" bollocks, and it's the crux of the matter.
All the positives you mention mean absolutely fuck all if the currency issue isn't sorted out because they won't happen.
-
Good to see something genuinely reinvigorate politics though, looks like the turnout will be impressive. I can understand why so many are disillusioned with politics in the UK and I can see why the scots might seize this as an opportunity for change. I can see why they dinnae wanna engage with the facts that the status quo might be a better deal.
Be interesting too to see the knock on effects if there is a yes vote - Wales would surely be immediately granted more power, and might we get some Lords reform? Maybe this is the revolution Russell Brand promised us more intelligent folk than him would deliver...
-
Fultonius I'm interested to know if you read the article I linked to earlier and if you have any information that can actually denounce it's supposed facts?
Not being a cunt, it's just that I can't find anything that isn't "pie in the sky" bollocks, and it's the crux of the matter.
All the positives you mention mean absolutely fuck all if the currency issue isn't sorted out because they won't happen.
I did yes:
Alex Salmond, Scotlands first minister, has been highly effective in convincing voters that Westminster is bluffing over the pound.
Well, they have been bluffing. England has too much to lose by rejecting a union - Scotland's share of the national debt, large increase in trade costs due to exchange rates and the associated risks. Even the UK Government's analysis was that it is the best option: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191786/ScotlandAnalysis_acc-1.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191786/ScotlandAnalysis_acc-1.pdf)
Fuck, straw man argument, sorry. I'll leave it in for the link anyway.
Right, onto the proper points:
Countries with their own currency shouldnt logically ever run into fiscal difficulty. In a downturn, when spending rises and tax revenue falls, they can always print money to cover the shortfall.
Is this really the best approach in a downturn? If this is even true why have we just had a massive recession? Even if it is, Scotland and England's economies are so closely liked that if one has a downturn, then the other is going to feel the pain. If the shit really hits the fan in Scotland but, somehow, England is unaffected, we could always just do an Iceland style "Fuck You" to the banks and let them go to the wall. They seem to be recovering quite well right now, thanks very much: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20936685 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20936685) Still, I don;t think it would come to that. It's not like Scotland and England are anywhere near as different as Germany and Spain.
Denied the flexibility to borrow and print at will, Scotland would have to fund its spending through higher taxes
I don't have a copy of the white paper to hand - but I don't think "borrowing at will" was part of the plan on how to achieve the wishlist. Going to read up more on that in the next few days.
That's all for now - I'm still wrecked from a month offshore straight into a non-stop wedding party weekend zzzzzz :yawn:
More tomorrow. :wave:
-
JB - True. The fallout could be very positive. Hopefully after a No win.
Fultonius, no time but I'll read that tomorrow!
-
Yeah exactly. Which is why I've considered the whole thing to be a massive vanity project for Salmond from the start.
And I can certainly understand why you would see it that way...
But it's chat like that from the media, talking heads, random English punters etc. that is pushing folk up here in Scotland towards yes... at least this is what I hear from what I hear at my work place/personal contacts etc...
Petty and downright naive as that may sound, it's what I hear on the ground...
Nearly 50% of this country is ready to vote their way out of the Union and calling it 'Salmond's vanity project' , or similar, belittles and patronises the considered and ardently held belief of millions of Scots.
And, for what it's worth, that's from someone who is a no-leaning floating voter....
D
-
More along the lines of Jasper's argument.
It's hard to see how it would work and it may be an extremely painful process, for the Scots, should the Yes vote occur
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29126192
But.
Part of me would love to see the Yes camp pull it off.
Because of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29125408
And because it might be a great opportunity for a desperately needed reboot of the political system in the British Isles.
Painful, but ultimately needed.
-
I'll be sad to see the Union dissolve.. This great piece by Alex Massie sums up my thoughts http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/why-i-am-voting-no/ (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/why-i-am-voting-no/)
-
I think its fascinating...
Until the 'tipping point' of the first poll giving a slight lead to yes - all was calm and quiet.. since then..
1. Alistair Darling shat his pants on 5live (you could hear the panic in his voice)
2. The pound lost two cents and London (ergo Conservative party and govt) suddenly stands up and takes note (what a wank world we live in when that has so much kudos)
3. UK Govt and no campaign add a timetable to their 'extra powers' if a no vote
4. Bizarrely this seems to make the voters trust the UK govt even less instead of re-assuring them!
5. Mobilise Team Westminster (fuck yeah!) of Dave, Nick and Ed - up to hoist Saltaires around the place to try and say 'we care honest'... funnily enough this seems to go down like a lead balloon...
6. Even the Queen gets dragged in... does anyone else think its ironic seeing pictures of the royals princing about in kilts?
7. Media frenzy on 1-6 above. Very little on the news in the last few weeks and all of a sudden we have 15 min of indyref news at 10 (I dont mind - just shows the shallowness of the media)...
If it happens (polls can change suddenly close to the time) then I dont think there will be financial armageddon that some seem to predict. I think it will be in the interest of both sides of the former union to maintain stability and have some sort of transition...
I loved the earlier post (sorry on Tapatalk so can't see) where someone said it was like watching Che at work - and all the politely spoken revolutionary talk! Good on them - a chance for a nation to make their own decisions and stand (or fall) for themselves... A huge two fingers up at the institution and our political system... one I'd like to give too...
-
It's true that it might not be beneficial for what's left of the UK - possibly one of the reasons why there's such a strong 'NO' campaign from down south.
I was just trying to dispel the widely held myth that there was something fundamental stopping a union. There is not - just recommendations that it might not be best of the rUK.
I'm not in the "well it's best for us, so do it and be damned with the others" so this part plays on my mind.
I need to get a fair bit of work done today so I'm going to be trying to avoid UKB for the best art of today but I might post some more links later.
-
I'd have thought that if it weren't in the interests of the rest of the UK, that would be a fairly fundamental sticking point..?
-
When it comes to the currency question there are three options:
1. The Euro
2. A floating Scottish £
3. A Scottish £ pegged to £Sterling (ECB)
1. Is utterly out of the question for a generation,
2. Transactional costs will be significant as will the infrascruture / implementation costs but there's the benefit of a floating currency and control over macro fiscal policy
3. Very few costs since Scottish banks already print their own notes but you could see a repeat of the Argentinian / Mexican disasters if Scottish bonds go off; also the question of a lack of fiscal policy control. I don't see Scotland being a latent Argentina but the risk cannot be ruled out.
I imagine the eventual outcome will be nominally 2 but in effect 3 as the consequences of anything else will be too painful / complicated.
In respect of the House of Lords I am always amazed at people's desire to see it abolished / replaced by a wholly elected chamber, unicameral government is generally not a good thing and an elected chamber both challenges the supremacy of the HoC and also effectively neuters the ability of the HoL to act as an amending chamber and take unpopular decisions.
-
Obviously I've not had enough coffee as I'm agreeing with Sloper! Reforming the Lords sounds good as an unelected body who have power of veto goes against the grain. However, look at the self serving idiots we get from a fully elected body in the commons, this has produced a "professional" class of politicians, with very little experience of life outside of Westminster and therefore being further and further removed from truly representing their constituents. An elected Lords would just be a repeat of the commons, as I see it the role of the Lords is to check that legislation will work and become usable in real life. Any reforms in my mind should not be another elected house of politicians but allow experts from different fields to be representatives.
I work for a Scottish company and my Head Office is in Glasgow, a yes vote could be an absolute ball ache, really don't want to have to start paying an exchange rate on my wages.
In reality I don't think a yes or a no will make that much difference, business tends to do what it wants and will find ways around the loopholes.
-
I can't believe I'm about to do this....
Sloper, I have a question:
How do countries that don't have a second chamber deal with the issues that are normally dealt with by the House of Lords? ( my dislike of the HoL is probably a bit outdated - it's not so much the function, just the way they are appointed (or in the past born into :sick: their positions)
Since we would probably have coalitions for ever more, will this not provide the requisite modulating influence on any poorly thought out / dangerous proposals?
-
If it happens (polls can change suddenly close to the time) then I dont think there will be financial armageddon that some seem to predict. I think it will be in the interest of both sides of the former union to maintain stability and have some sort of transition...
This ^^, whatever is said as part of the scaremongering or thin air promises ultimately a least painful solution would have to be found.
I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the simple desire to separate from Westminster whatever the cost. There is no political choice, barely even ideological shades, any more. Election turnout is generally dropping, unless they're promised libdem style 'new' politics that evaporate, and the way the AV vote was so thoroughly sunk showed that there is no way meaningful change could happen within the current system.
As a scot 'abroad' I don't want to see Scotland go, but I do desperately want change. More than anything I want to stop ANY party with only 1/3 of the country behind them being able to dictate where the other 2/3rds go without some moderating influence. I want to want to go to a polling station next election and have my vote actually mean something outside of the relatively small number of marginal seats.
A lot of people I know are voting yes for this reason.
-
If it goes Yes Im sure that there will be some rocky times ahead for Scotland but I have no doubt that they will ride it out and all the doom mongering will be proven to be just that. I say, good luck to them.
The Westminster elite/main stream media lap dogs/the establishment are being shaken to the core (did you hear John Major on Radio 4 this morning evoking the First World War ffs!). I cant help but take great delight in the spectacle of all these corporate shills and liars wetting themselves in full panic mode.
Whatever the result, there is genuine democratic engagement here which is sending ripples throughout the rest of the UK (aka; the "irrelevant hinterlands" beyond London, as Habrich so eloquently put it the other day). This is another reason why Westminster doesn't like it.
Wales next? If its just an irrelevant hinterland it wont matter to anybody will it? ;)
-
McCulloch http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGA3A68Icw
-
Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html) etc.
Right, onto the proper points:
Countries with their own currency shouldnt logically ever run into fiscal difficulty. In a downturn, when spending rises and tax revenue falls, they can always print money to cover the shortfall.
Is this really the best approach in a downturn? If this is even true why have we just had a massive recession? Even if it is, Scotland and England's economies are so closely liked that if one has a downturn, then the other is going to feel the pain. If the shit really hits the fan in Scotland but, somehow, England is unaffected, we could always just do an Iceland style "Fuck You" to the banks and let them go to the wall. They seem to be recovering quite well right now, thanks very much: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20936685 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20936685) Still, I don;t think it would come to that. It's not like Scotland and England are anywhere near as different as Germany and Spain.
Without massive amounts of QE and the other interventions of the BoE it would have been a lot worse (see Europe). I really wish people wouldn't quote Iceland as it has a population just over half that of Glasgow and a GPD roughly 6% of that of Scotland so isn't relevant.
Denied the flexibility to borrow and print at will, Scotland would have to fund its spending through higher taxes
I don't have a copy of the white paper to hand - but I don't think "borrowing at will" was part of the plan on how to achieve the wishlist. Going to read up more on that in the next few days.
That's all for now - I'm still wrecked from a month offshore straight into a non-stop wedding party weekend zzzzzz :yawn:
More tomorrow. :wave:
"Borrow and print at will" in this context doesn't mean borrow and print as much as possible. It means that to achieve the policies Salmond proposes Scotland would need autonomy in it's monetary policy and oh God I can't be bothered..... The question I asked was has anyone read anything that refutes the points in the article and it seems they haven't.
Best of luck whichever way you choose. After the dust has settled I don't think that much will actually change anyway. #patronisingandbelittling :-*
-
Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html) etc.
I can never forgive him for that entire fiasco.
I'm still temped to go on a massive curry and beer bender, then go for a shit in each hole on the course.
-
I can't believe I'm about to do this....
Sloper, I have a question:
How do countries that don't have a second chamber deal with the issues that are normally dealt with by the House of Lords? ( my dislike of the HoL is probably a bit outdated - it's not so much the function, just the way they are appointed (or in the past born into :sick: their positions)
Since we would probably have coalitions for ever more, will this not provide the requisite modulating influence on any poorly thought out / dangerous proposals?
In respect of Q1, I would suggest usually very badly. Of course the very fact that there's a second chamber doesn't in and of itself make things go well, particularly where the second (upper) chamber is elected (see the USA).
Most mature democracies have a two chamber system, the exceptions from memory are Denmark and New Zealand; which is I would suggest good grounds to suggest it is a better system than a single chamber.
One of the benefits of the HoL is that its members are not elected and therefore free to exercise their judgment without the fear of the electorate disliking their stance on contentious issues such as abortion, homosexuality being weak on 'terror / drugs insert Daily Mail esque fear du jour'. Further the appoitnment of members means you can appoint people witha particular level of skill and expertise that is often lacking in an elected house.
The removal of the hereditry peers in my view was a mistake as there is no guarantee of anyone's political views based on the history of who George III was shagging, the nomination by political parties (and the ahem connection between donations / loans and a peerage) is in my view of greater risk. (there's also in some parties a very strong 'tradition' of the children of party big wigs findingthemselves in safe seats which does little to bolster public ocnfidence in politics)
Historically I think the Lords have been more 'activist' under Tory governments than Labour (esp during Thatcher's terms) so the idea that they're Tory dead weight against more liberal policies is I think not an accurate statement.
-
None of the nordic countries have an upper chamber. 3.5 have their own currency, 1.5 have the euro. All of them are richer than UK, but Finland and Iceland will be just barely richer than an independent Scotland. Scotland has approximately the same population as Denmark, Finland and Norway, but half of Sweden's and 17 times that of Iceland.
-
Am I right in think that the HoL cannot veto a bill, but only return it to the HoC for revision (and then only three times)?
And that ultimately, once all their "returns" have been exhausted, the bill becomes law regardless of the HoL's collective opinion?
I like the idea of the second chamber, the current system of political appointment, frankly, sucks.
I cannot see any justification for inherited peers. Sloper is spot on about the political leanings of the hereditary peers not being obvious, however, neither is their competence...
A House of Experience would serve better. Drawn from all aspects of society, industry and Academia; with a minimum age and elected to a life or long period place.
And the abolishment of the title Lord.
Geezer will do...
-
A House of Experience would serve better. Drawn from all aspects of society, industry and Academia; with a minimum age and elected to a life or long period place.
Just a bunch of HoEs? Probably cheaper than the Lords. Unless they charge by the hour.
-
None of the nordic countries have an upper chamber. 3.5 have their own currency, 1.5 have the euro. All of them are richer than UK, but Finland and Iceland will be just barely richer than an independent Scotland. Scotland has approximately the same population as Denmark, Finland and Norway, but half of Sweden's and 17 times that of Iceland.
Thanks I didn't know the Scandanavian model was unicameral, but I can see a unicameral system being more effective in smaller states than larger ones.
-
Argh! The only person who has said it won't be possible is fuckbaws Osborne. The rest know that if they don't enter a union they will be saddled with all of Scotland's national debt and 10% less GDP to pay for it. The last recession was only a ~2% reduction in GDP. We're talking about 10% reduction, for ever. Yes, spending will also be reduced but not by as much as we give back in taxes.
If it's a yes vote, it will definitely be in the rUKs best interest to keep a monetary union. How could it not be? What is the rUKs other option?
-
It's true that it might not be beneficial for what's left of the UK - possibly one of the reasons why there's such a strong 'NO' campaign from down south.
I was just trying to dispel the widely held myth that there was something fundamental stopping a union. There is not - just recommendations that it might not be best of the rUK.
That is pretty fundamental, no? The Treasury judge that it is not in the UK's best interests to enter into a currency union. So it won't happen. There's not much an independent Scotland can do about that - it's not their choice.
I disagree,
If the Govt of Scotland say they have pegged the Scottish £ to the British £ then there's very little that Boy George or Carney can do about it.
A pegged Scottish £ is, I would suggest a defacto currency union (provided the markets and the counter parties trust and accept the peg.
Canyou imagine the buffet car on the train having two tills and changing currency or operating on a variable exchange rate?
It will be messy but if Scotland do vote yes then they will in some way also keep the pound: the alternative of (at least) 5 years of uncertainty is just too damaging for all concerned.
As Fultonious says, really what other option does the remaining parts of the UK have?
-
In the spirit of trying to become more enlightened rather than more entrenched, and since a lot of you have economic insight worth listening too can someone offer some ideas to the following question:
"What are the options for rUK with regard to a currency union if there is a YES vote?"
I.e. if it is "not in the best interest for the rUK" what is their best plan of attack?
I don't see one, but it might be out there.
-
How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.
-
How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.
because it's too difficult to convert a negative value in sterling into irn-bru chews :whistle:
-
Salmond as Guevara, Jesus wept. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html) etc.
He's an embarrassment and I don't much like him, but saying the vote is a vanity project is fantastically disrespectful of Scotland and it's people and chimes with the Westminster attitude that might push the yes vote over the line. I also don't think the last minute scrambling to provide more devolved powers is helpful and completely misses the point of why people are disaffected with Westminster.
"Borrow and print at will" in this context doesn't mean borrow and print as much as possible. It means that to achieve the policies Salmond proposes Scotland would need autonomy in it's monetary policy and oh God I can't be bothered..... The question I asked was has anyone read anything that refutes the points in the article and it seems they haven't.
Best of luck whichever way you choose. After the dust has settled I don't think that much will actually change anyway. #patronisingandbelittling :-*
I don't have the knowledge to answer your question, but there's a part of me that can't help think that when both sides are so vehemently right and the other wrong that there's probably a reasonably palatable truth somewhere in the middle.
You're probably right about the change, but at least Scotland already has working PR so the parliament does better represent the will of it's people.
How does "not keeping the pound" allow Scotland to renege on its share of the national debt? Sorry for ignorant question.
I chews to second the ignorant question, especially given that the biggest failure has it's headquarters in Scotland.
-
Not an igorant question, a difficult one to answer but that's entirely different.
The 'national debt' is in effect bonds issued by the Bank of England; the relationship between the this private company and the 'nation' is rather complex. (and not something that's capable of succint expression if you fully understand it I don't prfess so to do) 'Money and Unauthorised Biography', The Riches of Man by Peter Jay and Niall Ferusson's 'the asecnt of money' are however all well worth reading in this regard.
In short, I'm not sure that the debt can be crystalzyed and apportioned so that £x is Scotland's share and £y everyone elses, I would suggest that the proper starting point is partnership/union and the rules of joint and several liability as a consequence: so if Scotland goes we all pick up the tab so to speak.
Scotland could 'walk away' have the Socttish£, peg it to £Sterling and still say we're not paying: it was the Bank of England remember? (of course if HMG owns a large slice of RBS, HBOS & etc it might say well we're having the whole lot then and relocating the operation to Newcastle upon Tyne, Cornwall etc)
Sorry I don't think there's a clear answer and would suspect anyone who says there is (unless they're a central banker with a degree of independence (which rules out Danny Blanchflower)) is talking bollocks.
-
Of all that I've read of late, and I've read a lot, I thought this was one of the clearest articles.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21606840-our-advice-david-cameron-and-alex-salmond-tricky-disputes-and-dilemmas-involved (http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21606840-our-advice-david-cameron-and-alex-salmond-tricky-disputes-and-dilemmas-involved)
-
5. Mobilise Team Westminster (fuck yeah!)
I see Alex Salmonoid reads UKB and pinched my line!
-
Apparently Murdoch may come out in favour of Yes, hmm note sure if there's time for that to make a difference but who knows, uncharted territory.
-
In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.
-
Slightly different take on that last poll from the Mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/scotland-dont-panic-yet---4181718
Slackers, how dose that analysis sound?
-
In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.
This. Except it's gut feeling plus stuff like in the links I posted earlier in the thread. I can't stand him and I don't believe for one second that underneath all the socialist bluster he's got anyone's interests but his own at heart. And saying "oh but the referendum isn't just about him" is plainly bollocks as it will be him who negotiates the framework of the future of the country (and indeed the rest of the UK) given a Yes win.
Apparently it's extremely disrespectful to Scottish people to think this though (despite the fact that lots of them feel exactly the same way). ;)
Whatever happens short or long term the one guaranteed winner in this has been Salmond's ego.
-
Whilst Salmon has driven the referendem agenda - if it is a yes vote - then a new Scottish parliament would have to be elected - so a yes votes doesnt mean he'll get in power...
He'd have to be one of the favourites - but a Scottish labour, without Westminster to drag them down - might become resurgent...
-
Anyway - this is all getting serious. Has no-one commented that Bono's hat has released a new albumn?
-
Will we get less rain and midges if we're not linked to Scotland anymore? Could be a result.
-
Sadly no. The new super midgie repellant and new super betterthangoretextex will be major exports from Scotland though.
-
Will we get less rain and midges if we're not linked to Scotland anymore? Could be a result.
Wettertogether...
-
In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.
Hmm. Slimey little git yes OTOH stupid and incompetent aren't qualities I particularly value in a leader and he's currently making Westminster politicians , despite all their advisors, look both.
-
In a world of insincere politicians I find Alex Salmon the worst of the bunch. I have nothing other my gut feelings to back this up but he just seems to be a fat bloke out for himself.
This. Except it's gut feeling plus stuff like in the links I posted earlier in the thread. I can't stand him and I don't believe for one second that underneath all the socialist bluster he's got anyone's interests but his own at heart. And saying "oh but the referendum isn't just about him" is plainly bollocks as it will be him who negotiates the framework of the future of the country (and indeed the rest of the UK) given a Yes win.
Apparently it's extremely disrespectful to Scottish people to think this though (despite the fact that lots of them feel exactly the same way). ;)
Whatever happens short or long term the one guaranteed winner in this has been Salmond's ego.
:wall: :P
The independence movement in Scotland isn't a vanity project, it has a long history. There would have been a Scottish parliament much earlier if the 79 referendum had been held under the same rules as 97 (albeit by a narrower margin). Salmond is just the current figurehead and whilst none of my family living there like him either they're all voting yes. Why would they do that if it was just to satisfy his ego?
You won't believe this but it's because it isn't just about him.
The no campaign might have had a lot more success if they'd focused on the positives of staying together rather than the it won't work, you won't manage. you won't have this/that any more approach.
Wettertogether...
;D
-
Let's keep it serious.
Dear Holly's advice.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/my-other-half-is-begging-me-to-reconsider-2014091190476
-
And even more importantly.....
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scotland-joining-eurovision-would-be-very-difficult-for-everyone-2014021783678 (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scotland-joining-eurovision-would-be-very-difficult-for-everyone-2014021783678)
-
Link from Grubes via twitter :)
http://youtu.be/0flxQCmb5oY (http://youtu.be/0flxQCmb5oY)
-
Whilst Salmon has driven the referendem agenda - if it is a yes vote - then a new Scottish parliament would have to be elected - so a yes votes doesnt mean he'll get in power...
He'd have to be one of the favourites - but a Scottish labour, without Westminster to drag them down - might become resurgent...
+1 for this. It might take a few years for the dust to settle but I doubt the nationalists will retain power for long. Alex Salmond will be irrelevant in the long run.
-
At one point there was talk of the SNP disbanding after the referendum if it's a Yes. I would have thought they would "hold power" until the first general election at least though.
-
Yes, you're right, it will at least go until the first or possibly second election, but after that I would imagine that the old allegiances would re-emerge or, being more hopeful, the Greens might rise up. Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).
Anyway, back to other 'make your mind up' factors for the undecided. Saw this earlier on Paul Mason's twitter page; a gift for the Yes team surely:
http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland (http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland)
-
Imagine if this happened though....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10705477/Shetland-and-Orkney-should-get-vote-on-whether-to-leave-Scotland.html
Lol.
-
Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).
There's no point in repeating myself ad infinitum when nobody has answered the first question I asked anyway!
Never mind being logical though, this is politics after all.
-
Imagine if this happened though....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10705477/Shetland-and-Orkney-should-get-vote-on-whether-to-leave-Scotland.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10705477/Shetland-and-Orkney-should-get-vote-on-whether-to-leave-Scotland.html)
Lol.
:) I saw that earlier in the year. I guess a country could keep on fracturing forever into ever smaller units...
-
Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).
There's no point in repeating myself ad infinitum when nobody has answered the first question I asked anyway!
Never mind being logical though, this is politics after all.
I thought the answer was that both sides would have to find a workable solution for both the short, medium and long term as it was in neither's interest for there to be chaos, uncertainty or a neighbouring country with a weak economy. (I'm guessing you were looking for a more specific answer, but I'm not an expert economist so that's the best I can do. ;))
-
the Media have been a total bunch of herd following f*ckwits so far though...
Yes gets ahead by 1% in one poll and all of a sudden....
Then
No goes back to 3 or 4% lead and all of a sudden its Yes campaign off the rails etc...
Good grief...
-
Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).
There's no point in repeating myself ad infinitum when nobody has answered the first question I asked anyway!
Never mind being logical though, this is politics after all.
I thought the answer was that both sides would have to find a workable solution for both the short, medium and long term as it was in neither's interest for there to be chaos, uncertainty or a neighbouring country with a weak economy. (I'm guessing you were looking for a more specific answer, but I'm not an expert economist so that's the best I can do. ;))
*bashes head against wall*
It's not a question of chaos or uncertainty it's that all the grand plans of the Yes movement mean fuck all without the autonomy they need on spending etc. Nobody has actually answered the question of how this is achievable, probably because it isn't.
I'll shut up now because I'm boring myself but if people can't see that without the means to be truly independent the rest is just posturing and bullshit then I really do despair.
-
the Media have been a total bunch of herd following f*ckwits so far though...
Yes gets ahead by 1% in one poll and all of a sudden....
Then
No goes back to 3 or 4% lead and all of a sudden its Yes campaign off the rails etc...
Good grief...
Business as usual then.
-
Shamelessly harvested from Twitter, this is well worth a read....
http://pme2013.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/an-independent-scotland.html?m=1
-
all the grand plans of the Yes movement mean fuck all without the autonomy they need on spending etc
I suspect we might get a grand gesture of Scotland leaving the UK whilst functionally remaining far closer to the status quo than they would like to admit. Which will allow the Scots to have their cake and eat it; gain independence but still be able to blame London for all their problems. Ideal.
-
(https://g1rm.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/askalex.jpg)
-
Shamelessly harvested from Twitter, this is well worth a read....
http://pme2013.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/an-independent-scotland.html?m=1
That's really good, thanks.
I particularly liked this bit:
"Those wanting everything to remain as it is, absent Westminster's control, may get a rude awakening in the first few months of iScotland. That might come when they realise they are part of a country with a foreign, Tory run neighbour that is feeling rather bruised by its rejection, and isn't terribly generous or well-disposed to allowing use of its governmental agencies, for example. Time will tell. "
-
^+1
I think the SNP are in cloud cuckoo land if they think Westminster are going to roll over and offer some favourable currency union deal and the use of the DVLA etc. Either that or they don't actually want independence. Surely it's join the Euro or stay in the Uk?
-
A different take on the feudal land ownership issue here. More fuel for the fire.
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/19/highland-spring/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/19/highland-spring/)
-
A different take on the feudal land ownership issue here. More fuel for the fire.
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/19/highland-spring/ (http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/19/highland-spring/)
I do like a bit of Monbiot idealism and couldn't agree more with most of what he says about land management (I've been an ecologist working in the Highlands for the last 7 years, so have seen the evidence), but is there any serious appetite for land reform in any future government, independant or not?
-
Supposedly they're going to build a fairer and more just society aren't they? Given the treatment of Trump though you've got to be cynical. I read an Andy Wightman piece somewhere he pointed out that the vast majority of powers required for land reform are already under the remit of Scotland's government.
-
While not disparaging the merit of a thorough and considered debate on the subject of land ownership (trans, a slanging match with injudicious language) I doubt this is within the contemplation of any but a very small section of those already voting Yes and in no one else's mind at all.
It's a bit like us worrying who has to supply white gloves to the monarch prior to their coronation when discussing proposed erforms of the House of Lords.
-
I read an Andy Wightman piece somewhere he pointed out that the vast majority of powers required for land reform are already under the remit of Scotland's government.
Aye, Andy Wightman gives his thoughts here: http://www.andywightman.com/?p=3843 (http://www.andywightman.com/?p=3843)
All very interesting and in a similar vein to Monbiot, full of inspirational idealism but lacking in practical mechanisms for how the revolution is going to work. I definitely don't know how, but I'm not the one suggesting that the logical answer is creating a new country.
-
Sounds like the SNP are going to be busy after a yes vote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html)
Never mind building a fairer Scotland, or negotiating a good deal on separation, they're going to have their hands full with revenge and settling of old scores...
-
Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).
There's no point in repeating myself ad infinitum when nobody has answered the first question I asked anyway!
Never mind being logical though, this is politics after all.
I thought the answer was that both sides would have to find a workable solution for both the short, medium and long term as it was in neither's interest for there to be chaos, uncertainty or a neighbouring country with a weak economy. (I'm guessing you were looking for a more specific answer, but I'm not an expert economist so that's the best I can do. ;))
*bashes head against wall*
It's not a question of chaos or uncertainty it's that all the grand plans of the Yes movement mean fuck all without the autonomy they need on spending etc. Nobody has actually answered the question of how this is achievable, probably because it isn't.
I'll shut up now because I'm boring myself but if people can't see that without the means to be truly independent the rest is just posturing and bullshit then I really do despair.
I think you're correct - a formal shared currency, or even a pegged currency do not align with full autonomy.
Another way to look at it is - this is just stage 1, with a "soft landing" of shared currency. Further down the line there's no reason why, if the countries fiscal policies do diverge significantly (which I don't think they will, I think the differences will remain fairly subtle), Scotland couldn't join the Euro, invent a currency, join the Chinese Yuan Renmimbi (or whatever seems best at the time).
-
On another note, I've felt for a long time that the BBC is nowhere near as impartial as it likes to claim.
Alex Salmond clearly answering Nick Robinson's question (and making him look foolish in the process):
Aplogies if you find Salmond smug and annoying, this is not going to change your opinion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM&feature=youtu.be)
Nick Robinson's Summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrdDaf3uss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrdDaf3uss)
:-\
-
Thought I'd put up a UKB poll to see what UKB'ers think...
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,24743.0.html (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,24743.0.html)
-
Sounds like the SNP are going to be busy after a yes vote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html)
Never mind building a fairer Scotland, or negotiating a good deal on separation, they're going to have their hands full with revenge and settling of old scores...
I do hope that is just bluster, as that would seem to be the makings of an "own goal" by the nationalists. Such actions would destroy Scotland's standing in the global economy and make Sillars sound like a Putin/El Generalisimo/Father of the people/death to all who disagree with me basket case...
-
That's complete bollocks. Again the question would have to be "and how exactly are you going to do all that?".
-
I can't find it now, but it read a good piece earlier comparing the Irish succession early last century, and how the Punt was pegged to the Pound for decades before they joined the euro. So clearly it's more possible than Westminster are letting on.
-
The punt was certainly floating vs £Sterling before Ireland joined the Euro, I imagine one of the reasons why the peg was more reliable in the early days of independence was the theoretical link to a nominal amount of gold (it's been a long day and I can't remember when we abandoned the gold standard)
-
Only became floating vs sterling because they joined the European exchange rate mechanism in 1978, which the UK of course refused. Pegged to sterling for the previous 50+ years since independence in 1922.
-
That's complete bollocks. Again the question would have to be "and how exactly are you going to do all that?".
employ some of those financial wizards from London, innit?
-
I can't find it now, but it read a good piece earlier comparing the Irish succession early last century, and how the Punt was pegged to the Pound for decades before they joined the euro. So clearly it's more possible than Westminster are letting on.
Currency union isn't the same as currency peg though.
Currency union is a shared currency and a shared single bank. Requires a commitment from the rUK and from Scotland.
Currency peg means Scotland has a separate currency which it maintains at a fixed number of pounds. Requires no commitment from rUK at all.
It requires Scotland to either maintain the peg by diktat, which effectively means exchange controls (no taking more than £x in and out of the country and what have you, to stop anyone trading at a rate other than the official one), or it means the Scottish Central bank needs to acquire serious currency reserves, because it means the central bank has to intervene in the currency markets to be a buyer when sellers outweigh buyers and a seller in the opposite position. Importantly in the former case it needs to acquire serious amounts of £, or $ to be able to sell in order to buy Scottish groats to prop their value up in case of a crash. That's a serious drag on the cash flow.
The Irish punt I suspect was probably in an easier position since in the years before free floating currencies (I don't know when, but say the 70s or early 80s.) there were far more widespread exchange controls and so maintaining a currency peg that way was the more "normal" way of doing things. These days it isn't so much, in the west at least.
-
the countries fiscal policies do diverge significantly (which I don't think they will, I think the differences will remain fairly subtle)
Sensitivity to the oil price would be a pretty big differentiator between an oil importing England and an oil exporting (or at least far less net importing. I don't know what the picture) Scotland.
Hence one of the needs for the serious cash reserves in the event of a pegged Scottish groat or whatever - every time the oil price swings you need to push money to or fro in the market to maintain a fixed exchange rate with a currency that reacts to oil prices in a different way to yours.
-
It would all be worth it if they really did adopt the groat as their currency.
-
Wouldn't the Buck (fast) be more appropriate? ;)
-
I'm surprised this hasn't been more widely reported as it's a pretty strong positive indicator for the health of an independent Scotland's economy:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/ (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/)
-
Can anyone give a succinct run down of pros and cons for 'rUK' giving Scotland a currency union?
As far as I understand
Pros - they won't renege on debt
Cons - exposes us to risk if Scots spend loads of money or economy crashes
More?
-
I'm surprised this hasn't been more widely reported as it's a pretty strong positive indicator for the health of an independent Scotland's economy:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/ (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/)
I was interested in the background source for that article so spent a few minutes on a google search and a trawl through S&P own site. I can find no evidence of S&P saying much of what this writer claims, plenty that contradicts it.
I will admit that I didn't go "fact checking" but I've now read the S&P report and don't find too many inconsistencies. http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf (http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf)
In case I am looking through biased eyes (always possible...) can you point me to where you see discrepancies?
-
I don't normally listen to R5 in the evening but tonight found myself listening to a live broadcast from Glasgow tonight of a discussion about the issues. It seems to me from listening to the discussion, and other pieces over the last 7 days, that the BBC have consciously chosen to drop impartiality in favour of adopting an agenda of quite forcefully questioning politicians in favour of independence while not applying the same forceful questioning style against the pro-union side. I find this disturbing.
The message I get from the pro-union side in this debate is what if.. / it won't work because.. / yes but.. The message I get from the pro-independence side is 'yes we can'.
Flip back 5 years and it could be a case of 'yes we can' versus 'no you can't'. Positive v negative. Progressive v status quo.
Jasper, you're particularly conspicuous in your anti-independence view on here; what are your thoughts on other countries having obtained / or are seeking independence? I'm thinking Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia in 1991; Slovakia in 1993, Kosovo in 2008; Tibet's ongoing struggle. In all these cases there were/are compelling reasons to stick with the status quo and use arguments such as 'it just won't work' / 'they haven't thought it though' etc.. Are these countries doing OK and their citizens happier with their lot? I don't know, just asking because Scotland and Engerland aren't unique.
-
Sorry long rant ahead:)
My impression is that whether Standard and Poor's say Scotland's debt is AAA is neither here nor there. All that matters is whether or not the Scottish debt is in a currency that has a central bank that takes it open its self to stand behind that Scottish debt as a buyer of last resort. Standard and Poor's says that Japan's debt is AA- but everyone knows that the Bank of Japan can and does buy enough JGB to keep borrowing costs as low as they want.
A currency union means that there is a central bank that is above and beyond any constituent nation in that currency union. How is that supranational central bank supposed to decide whether to buy the debt of one of the countries in that union that goes on a spending spree/has a crisis/doesn't collect tax etc? That conflict is why currency unions are a totally stupid idea. That is why the eurozone squanders so much on pointlessly high yield government debt. That is why there is appalling levels of youth unemployment in the eurozone. The whole concept of having a currency union without fiscal, political and banking union is broken by design.
If Scotland wants independence then great. They could prosper and be genuinely independent if like say New Zealand or Singapore they had genuine independence with their own currency and government debt denominated in their own currency. I think the UK Treasury and the Bank of England have a responsibility to all of the UK to ensure that there is a solid plan for smoothly transitioning to a Scottish currency if Scotland votes yes. The remaining UK could keep the responsibility for servicing the current stock of UK treasury debt but Scotland's share of the UK debt could be offset by Scotland issuing a stock of Scottish currency debt that was granted to the UK foreign currency reserves. Then the remaining UK would be recompensed with payments in Scottish currency.
I worry Scottish politicians are addicted to blaming England for any problems. They don't want genuine independence with a sovereign currency because then they would only have themselves to blame if they screwed up. Scotland deserves better than that.
The SNP say they want to cut taxes and improve public services and infrastructure to get people and companies to migrate to Scotland. Under the Currency Union they want, is the Bank of England supposed to buy up all of the Scottish debt they issue to pay for that? If so then why would Scotland tax at all? Why hold back at all on spending? Put a Scotsman on Mars by 2020 or whatever. It would be England's job to try and maintain the value of sterling by offsetting Scotland's profligacy -or that is what the SNP want.
-
Jasper, you're particularly conspicuous in your anti-independence view on here[\quote]
I don't recall seeing Jasper really offer an opinion for or against. What he has done, as has Stone above, is point out that the yes campaign hasn't offered a credible answer on the currency question. The fact that we've got to this stage without that simply seems bizarre.
I don't really get it, it seems if the SNP were for genuine independence with their own currency and DVLA etc they wouldn't get the support. As others have pointed out, the first thing the Baltic States did was get their own cash, number plates etc - genuine independence, genuine pride in it. But now the SNP seem to be getting the support the independence lite idea seems a bit unresolved.
I hope they do vote yes to be honest cos I can't see the issue going away if they don't. And we'll end up with independence lite anyway.
-
So from what stone said it sounds like a currency union ain't very favourable for rUK.. In which case I concur with Jasper that it seems nuts not to have a good plan in place!
-
Westminster / the BoE agreeing to a currency union or some other arrangement would be a de facto endorsement of independence, hence the absence of such agreement is hardly surprising.
The 'currency union' in the UK at present doesn't make a lot of sense for Cornwall, the North East / Wales.
While I am not in favour of independence, I think the question as to currency is being blown out of all proportion compared to more important issues as it is one that can be 'grasped' by the electorate.
-
In the 70s, I spent seven years of my childhood living within a stone's throw of Wallace Monument. At school I was taught Scottish history, from the Bonnie Prince to Culloden and Bannockburn.
I'd like the Scots to vote for independence and all the uncertainty that that entails. If I was a Scot, it's what I'd vote for. I grew up in the shadow of a monument that symbolizes the past struggle for independence, Mel Gibson cashed in on that and I'm actually quite shocked that the polls suggest it's fairly close. As an Englishman, it matters not a jot to me whether they choose to stay or go. I feel more European as every year passes anyway, the Scots will always be cousins of one sort of another. Let's get independence over and done with. Full independence that is, no half hearted measures. Own fiscal control, own currency, own passport for that matter. So what if it's chaos for while? If it costs a fortune? We've at least not had a war like many have had in previous years over the same issue. Eventually it will settle down.
-
Looking at an article in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-independence-vote-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-life-after-this-weeks-result-9731654.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-independence-vote-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-life-after-this-weeks-result-9731654.html)
which seems fairly unhysterical but contains this:
"Proportionately, Scotlands public finances would be in just as bad a state as the UKs. But the outlook for Scottish spending and revenue is worse than for the rest of the UK."
The first sentence makes perfect sense but does anyone know where the second is coming from. Given that earlier the same article says "Public spending per person is higher in Scotland than in England ... but that is, roughly, offset by the tax revenue from North Sea oil that would be attributable to Scotland if it were divided up..."
Is this just to do with an ageing population ?
-
There are definitely massive macro fiscal questions to be asked, but I imagine that many of them have relatively simple answers; for example selling bonds, in London (as Argentina sold their bonds from New york) will stabilise the rates and I think there's a good prospect of the closer relationship between tax revenue and spending will lead to a more conservative approach than Labour might employ from Westminster.
-
Some interesting u turns in the media if you dig a little deeper. The billions leaving the UK because of the yes risk are down to impending rising interest rates according to Peston. Meanwhile the French are dealing with their own capital flight http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/french-rich-belgium-holdings-tax
Working in science - it's always easier for people to say what's not going to work and to criticise plans, than to show that future plans or ideas will work.
So it's a little sad to see the same line being taken with the media in general... I've said it before but I think if there's a yes vote most of the issues will be ironed out and things won't be half as bad as some are saying.
On another note - a yes result is presently excellent odds compared to the no... Partly because the bookies have taken too much on no and stand to lose a packet if it's a no. Get on it folks.
-
"according to Peston"
*immediately thinks the opposite is probably correct*
;)
-
This link is something describing what it would take to get the euro currency union to work OK :
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223 (http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223)
Basically it boils down to making the whole eurozone one unified country. Basically no independence for any of the constituent countries.
-
An alternative view (to some of the outright doom and gloom stuff) from another nobel prize winning economist:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038 (http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038)
-
An alternative view (to some of the outright doom and gloom stuff) from another nobel prize winning economist:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038 (http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038)
Isn't it fair to say that the doom and gloom is basically about the currency union side of things and not about independence as such? Obviously countries as small as Scotland, such as Singapore and NewZealand, prosper very well with their own currencies. They are ex-British colonies who show how independence from the UK should be done.
What seems weird to me is that in your link Joseph Stiglitz is so relaxed about having a half baked currency union (we'll sort it out later somehow) and yet in my link he lays out the pre-requisits for rescuing the euro fiasco as being:
A real banking union, with common supervision, common deposit insurance, and common resolution; without this, money will continue to flow from the weakest countries to the strongest.
Some form of debt mutualization, such as Eurobonds: with Europes debt/GDP ratio lower than that of the US, the Eurozone could borrow at negative real interest rates, as the US does.
Industrial policies to enable the laggard countries to catch up. Current strictures bar such policies as unacceptable interventions in free markets.
A central bank that focuses not only on inflation, but also on growth, employment, and financial stability.
Replacing anti-growth austerity policies with pro-growth policies focusing on investments in people, technology, and infrastructure.
A solidarity fund for stabilizationjust as there has been a solidarity fund to help new entrants into the EU.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223 (http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223)
Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?
-
Jasper raised an interesting question earlier about all the other stuff that's not being debated because the currency issues are easier to grasp.
- The BBC. Salmond has promised a SBC of course, but, who's going to pay for the News correspondents in Beijing, Riyadh and Washington? Setting up an entire new publicly funded national media enterprise isn't going to be easy. If he wants an entirely separate Scotland by March 2016 then there's going to be lots of pissed off Scots who can't watch Eastenders, Question Time and Living with Dinosaurs unless they cough up for a Sky package.
- Armed Forces. The Faslane lease is going to continue for another ten years but then move to Plymouth if the Yes vote is successful (probably sooner given the risk of having Britains Nuclear Fleet under the control of another country and all the additional burden that would entail - Surgical strikes on IS anyone?) Nobody actually likes Nuclear Weapons of course, but I'm sure the residents of Helensburgh might be worried about the future. I see that the No vote polls higher in the over 60's in many of the surveys. Folk who remember the Cold War will be thinking about having a much reduced armed force... Of course Realpolitik means that Scotland will always be defended but the knock-on effects of a separate Navy, Army and Air Force shouldn't be underestimated, especially in terms of jobs and ancillary industry. Also, I'm not sure that a Scottish Armed Forces would have the same attraction for new recruits that the combined Armed Forces have at present. Pete? Matt?
That's just two for starters... Any more?
-
sBc would just but into itv/sky/bbc in the same way C4 news does (itv subsid). They'd just buy most program's and make the rest. BBC commissions most of its stuff from production companies now anyway...
Armed forces?? Well it wouldn't happen overnight.. But why not have Scottish forces - with a ten year fade across from UK forces - in line with a ten year phase out of Faslane etc...
Hope they win - it's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.
I bet most Labour MP's secretly wish them yes... It must appeal to the revolutionary in them - except it's being battered down by the party line.
To the barricades comrades! Fuck the status quo.
-
(Of course it's not my pension on the line etc..) ;)
-
But the BBC gets its money to pay for productions from the license fee. Surely the SBC would have to either pay for very expensive BBC programmes via BBC Worldwide (ask friends and family in Australia, Europe, the US and Asia how many BBC productions they get to see) or fund it's own productions via a local license fee from a population of 5.9m people.
Armed Forces from a population of 6m and an increasingly mobile young group? Good luck with that...
>It's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.
Not at all, which is why the No/Better Together argument is harder as it's rooted in realism, detail and genuine difficulties unlike the rather dreamy, idealistic Yes (it'll all work out fine) argument is much much easier to propagate.
-
sBc would just but into itv/sky/bbc in the same way C4 news does (itv subsid). They'd just buy most program's and make the rest. BBC commissions most of its stuff from production companies now anyway...
Armed forces?? Well it wouldn't happen overnight.. But why not have Scottish forces - with a ten year fade across from UK forces - in line with a ten year phase out of Faslane etc...
Hope they win - it's much easier for people to say why something won't work than why it will.
I bet most Labour MP's secretly wish them yes... It must appeal to the revolutionary in them - except it's being battered down by the party line.
To the barricades comrades! Fuck the status quo.
Ten year fade across?
Do you think Scots will continue to be allowed to serve in the forces in the event of independence?
Even if they are not kicked out summarily, as foreign nationals; I suspect they will be sidelined and surreptitiously removed from "sensitive" positions. Promotion will stall.
And pensions? Will we continue to honour them?
I know many of my still serving friends are more than a little worried.
There is provision for foreign nationals within the forces and I'm guessing that Scotland will remain in the commonwealth, but business as usual seems far fetched...
-
I would point out that, if those are the pre-requisites for a currency union, Scotland is, at most, going to get the first 2 even if it remains in the current political union(at least as long as the Home Counties insist on voting Tory).
What seems weird to me is that in your link Joseph Stiglitz is so relaxed about having a half baked currency union (we'll sort it out later somehow) and yet in my link he lays out the pre-requisits for rescuing the euro fiasco as being:
A real banking union, with common supervision, common deposit insurance, and common resolution; without this, money will continue to flow from the weakest countries to the strongest.
Some form of debt mutualization, such as Eurobonds: with Europes debt/GDP ratio lower than that of the US, the Eurozone could borrow at negative real interest rates, as the US does.
Industrial policies to enable the laggard countries to catch up. Current strictures bar such policies as unacceptable interventions in free markets.
A central bank that focuses not only on inflation, but also on growth, employment, and financial stability.
Replacing anti-growth austerity policies with pro-growth policies focusing on investments in people, technology, and infrastructure.
A solidarity fund for stabilizationjust as there has been a solidarity fund to help new entrants into the EU.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223 (http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/saving-broken-euro-303223)
Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?
-
Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?
What about looking at examples that do work - Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries have the same currency, are not fiscally integrated and you could argue that Germany holds the position of central bank (since it's the largest shareholder). A lot of trade happens between the two countries and, wait for it, both economies are doing well, unemployment is similar.
I'm still massively baffled by the currency issue. The more I read the less clear it gets. When you have a panel of 6 "world leading economics experts" all disagreeing with each other, who do you believe?? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO)
-
What you should probably believe from the facts (rather than tomtom's "screw it and let God sort it out" idea) is that at best there will be very little point in Scotland becoming an independent country and at worst that it will be a massive fuck up of monumental proportions.
I've no axe to grind on this despite what some people may have read into what I've posted on here. I doubt it'll affect my life much at all, so why should I care?
I do actually care because I like Scotland and I like Britain and I know that the whole idea of "sticking it to the man" in this case is pure folly. People needed to do that with the AV vote as that could actually have made a step in the right direction to proper democracy in the UK. But without a nationalistic banner to wave real change was doomed from the start.
The best Scotland could get from a Yes vote is swapping one set of entrenched politicians for another. You really think they're all going to be stand up guys who only have the people's best interests at heart? Good luck with that.
This is of course completely aside from the actual mechanics of it which stone and FD have pointed out far more eloquently than I could. But how can educated people ignore such obvious facts?
I'm not surprised that the taxi drivers are pro Yes, I'm surprised that anyone who cares to dig deeper could even consider voting that way. In some ways it's a massive credit to Scotland that a huge majority have not actually been swayed by the pie in the sky rhetoric and Salmond isn't already celebrating victory.
tomtom, your idealism is almost impressive but as you say, it's easy to be idealistic when I'm alright Jack/Jock.
-
What you should probably believe from the facts (rather than tomtom's "screw it and let God sort it out" idea) is that at best there will be very little point in Scotland becoming an independent country and at worst that it will be a massive fuck up of monumental proportions.
I can see that you view it through almost purely "economic" eyes. I'm not convinced that many people are considering voting yes because they think Scotland is going to become some super-rich, completely fair and amazing place.
The best Scotland could get from a Yes vote is swapping one set of entrenched politicians for another. You really think they're all going to be stand up guys who only have the people's best interests at heart? Good luck with that.
No, of course they're not going to all be a bunch of "stand up guys" - I don't like Salmond, not a lot of people do. But, and this is where I think it's important - the politicians in Scotland have, on the whole, worked for a living before becoming politicians. Fuck, even the Scottish Tory MP had a job! they are also more approachable - my dad (who is nobody) has had regular discussion with John Swinney on various matters. I do genuinely think this is an opportunity to get people more engaged with politics. It's also an opportunity to totally re-write the political structure - party allegiances, manifestos etc.
I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS and giving our youngsters a good education without a lifetime of debt, and no more wars, and a representative government.
I don't see how an educated person cannot see the potential?
-
A good post J -
It would be interesting to re-run the PR referendum say next year.. I think that people are probably more disenfranchised with Westminster now than back then - and the IndyRef has massively raised the profile of a whole host of issues and points about our political system and geographical inequalities in power/wealth/governance.
There are a few (largely Grauniad based) articles/commentaries about how this will 'change politics across the UK forever - whatever the result' etc... I hope/wish this were true - but I suspect fuck all will happen.
I'm beginning to agree more and more with how Russel Brand waxes about these things - despite the fact he's West Ham supporter and they nicked an equaliser tonight....
I guess part of me still hopes/believes that its possible for our system to change in some way - for people to vote and make real changes to how they are governed - rather than just blindly follow the focus group driven mediocracy of the faceless wankers of our political career elite that we have in power at the moment. I had a chat with Alan Johnson in the pub last week - nice bloke - shame there aren't many more like him about in politics any more... As I said in my previous post - I wonder how many Labour MP's secretly wish yes (comrades!)
Anyway - I need to empty the cat litter tray now (which seems somehow appropriate) then go to bed...
-
Fultonius - There are plenty of decent MPs who interact well with their constituents in England, always have been, it doesn't mean that anything important changes.
As for the latter points, seeing things through "economic eyes" is called reality and none of those ideals can actually happen if you can't pay for them. Which has been all I've been trying to say on this from the start.
I'd like to make tuition fees free, renationalise the rail industry, remove the private sector from the NHS and education by completely reforming both etc. I don't have a spare trillion quid though so I'm not suggesting it's possible.
All I can see from "Yes" is idealistic dreams with zero plan for implementation on even the basic stuff.
-
tomtom - I feel your cat litter tray pain.
-
https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-gilmour-mcwhan/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-damascus/10153168255997571 (https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-gilmour-mcwhan/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-damascus/10153168255997571)
(No idea who this guy is but thought this was a good post.)
-
I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS
Why does this keep coming up? Control of the NHS is entirely devolved and has been for years. If you need to save the NHS, it's from Salmond.
As for the rest of the post, if you think that independence will bring no more wars ever and free higher education for all, it sounds like you're voting for Scotland to be independent from the harsh realities of life.
It's this kind of rose-tinted independence position that makes me sad - I'm all for the Scots voting to control their own destiny if that's what they want, but I think the vast majority have been sold a lie, and are voting for some unrealistic utopia which will never come.
-
I don't mean "not bring involved in wars" I just mean not being complicit in illegal invasions and "regime changes".
Why is free university education so unthinkable? Countries always benefit long term from a well educated populace. Scotland is committed to provide this, even if it costs us.
-
And yes, I know the NHS is devolved or it would be on its death's bed like the English NHS seems to be now. We still are forced to suffer from deep public spending cuts from Westminster.
-
I can accept it might get worse before it gets better, but at least we have the hope of saving the NHS
Why does this keep coming up? Control of the NHS is entirely devolved and has been for years. If you need to save the NHS, it's from Salmond.
The argument is this is all related to the Barnett formula. The UK government chose not to implement the recommended pay increase in full for NHS nurses in England. By not spending this money or spending it on something that is considered a benefit to the UK as a whole (and is therefore not linked in to the Barnett equation eg London Olympics, HS2) the budget allocation given to Scotland essentially decreases. As the Scottish gov implemented the nurses pay rise in full that money had to be taken at cost to something else. This is not sustainable as NHS England becomes more privately funded.
-
I'd like to make tuition fees free, renationalise the rail industry, remove the private sector from the NHS and education by completely reforming both etc. I don't have a spare trillion quid though so I'm not suggesting it's possible.
You'd like to do these things yet nuclear weapons, illegal wars and aircraft carriers that have no planes are more of a priority?
-
I know this is heavily simplified but it highlights an important point. Getting rid of trident is estimated to save £1.5bn. Free higher education cost £600m (which is already happy funded on the current account) the NHS funding gap is £500m. Scotland will clearly run a defecit for a few years depending on the currency arrangements. We can afford it.
-
Fultonius and Stewart - I think you've made my point quite eloquently. Only looking at the upsides of independence.
Stewart, you should read this link on the NHS in scotland. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs)
Despite having less need to cut spending than the rest of the UK, spending on the NHS in Scotland fell by 1%, when it rose in the rest of the UK. This decision was entirely yours. Plus, if you vote no you will have the same power to run the NHS how you like, a promise to retain the Barnett formula, and more powers to raise extra money via income tax. The benefit to the NHS of independence is basically nil.
Fultonius - can you afford it though? The UK was coining it in oil revenues until recently, when the oil price drops meant that in the last two years corporation tax revenues have declined by 60% from £8.8 billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion in 2013-14 and petroleum revenue tax by 45% from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14. Neither of us know what will happen in the future, but as an independent nation Scotland will not be protected from these swings in the way it is now. An independent Scotland may have the political will to do the things you want (but see the NHS article above), but it's far from certain it will have the means.
-
Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?
What about looking at examples that do work - Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries have the same currency, are not fiscally integrated and you could argue that Germany holds the position of central bank (since it's the largest shareholder). A lot of trade happens between the two countries and, wait for it, both economies are doing well, unemployment is similar.
I'm still massively baffled by the currency issue. The more I read the less clear it gets. When you have a panel of 6 "world leading economics experts" all disagreeing with each other, who do you believe?? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO)
To me the SNP currency union plan is much like if my family were to decide to have a joint bank account with our next-door neighbours. We are all no doubt splendid people and we get along fine. Nevertheless I dont think such an idea would work out harmoniously. I think it would be rash to breezily assert that we would be able to just get an accountant in to iron out any problems.
If our neighbours and us were to become some sort of commune and all eat together, use each others stuff etc then it might make sense. But as separate households it totally doesnt.
Your example of Germany and Netherlands needs to be seen in the context of them being in the same currency union as Greece. Money spent by Greece can and does end up being spent on buying German and Dutch government bonds and paying German and Dutch taxes. The euro set up leads to the weakest hemoraging more and more to the strongest. Its a destructive feedback loop.
If it were just a currency union of Germany and Netherlands then sooner or later a small difference between them would start to slide into an amplifying problem.
As you say lots of very grand economists love currency union. But Wynne Godley did predict exactly how the euro crisis would pan out as soon as the euro concept was proposed decades ago and IMO he has been proved right and the same principle would apply to the SNP plan.
-
Fultonius and Stewart - I think you've made my point quite eloquently. Only looking at the upsides of independence.
Stewart, you should read this link on the NHS in scotland. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs)
Despite having less need to cut spending than the rest of the UK, spending on the NHS in Scotland fell by 1%, when it rose in the rest of the UK. This decision was entirely yours. Plus, if you vote no you will have the same power to run the NHS how you like, a promise to retain the Barnett formula, and more powers to raise extra money via income tax. The benefit to the NHS of independence is basically nil.
Stu, are you saying we shouldn't highlight what we think are positive aspects of independence because doing so only makes your point so eloquently that we are only 'looking at the upsides of independence'? To paraphrase Brian, what chance does that give me? Alright, I am the Messiah!
I've seen the statesman article, it's based on an IFS report that has been widely criticised (here for example http://tinyurl.com/mga73n9 (http://tinyurl.com/mga73n9)).
c) It is a weakness in the IFS paper that they did not express the expenditure figures on a per capita basis. This led some commentators to conclude that, since overall spending on health in Scotland had been dropping, whereas it had been increasing in England, the real threat to the Scottish NHS was Scottish government priorities. In fact, since expenditure per head in Scotland is still 6.4% higher than that in England, it is perfectly reasonable, particularly in a time of austerity, that their priorities might be different.
I'm not going to continue to debate the specific issues further on here. All i will say is that there are idiots on both sides of the debate and while the MSM will focus on the cringey freedom-from-the-english-tyranny type braveheart mindset that does, unfortunately, exist among some, the majority of yes voters are well informed, critical of Alex Salmond and aspire to a system of government that is more accountable, honest and socially inclusive. Most pople don't even want to be better off financially as a result of the vote, they do want better public services and a fairer society than what westminster seems to settle for. The economics are going to be a fuck to sort out but I think it's worth the risk. If i lived a few miles South I would be hoping the Scottish referendum triggered some kind of constitutional change in England too. Anyway..don't worry we still love you and will come and visit every second Saturday (as long as the weather is nice) x
-
A view from someone who was a yes but is now a no.
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/ (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/)
-
Stu, are you saying we shouldn't highlight what we think are positive aspects of independence because doing so only makes your point so eloquently that we are only 'looking at the upsides of independence'?
... the majority of yes voters are well informed, critical of Alex Salmond and aspire to a system of government that is more accountable, honest and socially inclusive.
part a - no. I'm saying that when people repeatedly post what they think are the positive aspects of independence and (to my eyes) they appear fanciful, it makes me think they're not looking at the prospect soberly. Instead, they're letting their fantasy of what independence would be like affect their vote.
which leads me to part b - If the majority of yes voters are so critical of Alex Salmond and so confident that independence will bring in an accountably, socially inclusive government then why is the SNP the majority party in Holyrood? What's so socially inclusive of the SNP's reduction in NHS funding, their refusal to back a 50p additional tax rate and a commitment to a 3p reduction in corporation tax (and Trump's golf course, etc, etc?).
I'd argue that you can't blame every decision the devolved parliament has made on westminster, and an independent Scotland is more than likely to end up with a government like the one you've already got. Is that so different from the status quo, that it makes giving up the security of the union a good bet?
-
Stuart, do you really think the 50% tax rate >£150k is an exemplar of a party with a policy agenda to be 'socially inclusive'?
Why is cutting corporation tax not 'socially inclusive'?
The funding / management of the NHS is in many ways just a dog whistle / lightening rod for other issues and is substantially a moot point.
-
I think it's the kind of thing people have in mind when they say they want a socially inclusive government, which in this context means "left of the Tories/New Labour". I wouldn't claim to know the answers to the questions as you pose them.
The funding of the NHS is far from a moot point as its a common reason given by yes voters for their position. This is despite the fact that it's largely a separate issue.
Most people don't seem to get that - for example the quote Stewart posted - in which the bait and switch from "does Scotland need to be independent to save the NHS" to "does it make sense to spend less on the NHS" is obvious, but clearly not to all
-
Stu, i was in the middle of a fairly lengthy response to your previous post but after seeing your last reply to sloper I'm just going to drop it.
-
http://reasonablyraging.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/fuck-scottishness-im-voting-yes.html (http://reasonablyraging.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/fuck-scottishness-im-voting-yes.html)
I do know who this guy is and respect his opinion. In a nutshell: "I'll be voting yes not because it guarantees social justice but because it is the only offer on the table of doing anything whatsoever about it."
-
Stewart - that's a shame, particularly as now I'm curious about what you would have written!
Miso - that's the kind of argument I'd hope to see more of. Of course a counter argument might be that turnout for the referendum is so high many people won't have bothered voting at any general election. It's a shame they couldn't have tried that first.
-
The problem with the 'currency' argument is that its dealing with the hypothetical...
Its not a situation that has occurred in recent times in Western Europe - or indeed in the UK... This means there are a considerable amount of known unknowns (the different models - how markets might react) and of course the good old unknown unknowns... So the safest path is to keep things as they are... BoE and Osbourne have indicated that there will be considerable issues with currency and suggested some of the models proposed will not work. But, how much of this is bluff and how much is real? This we won't find out until/if it happens. The remaining UK is not going to cut off its nose to spite its face - it isnt going to turn around and just ditch Scotland - that is not in anyones interest...
Campaign wise this is an interesting point. The Yes-ers are in a quandry - as if they suggest a route - this leaves them open to be shot down on this issue. If they ignore it they are seen as being complacent.. so they have to strike a middle ground - with a very fluffy/vague plan and lots of rhetoric about it will be alright etc.. We are all in the position of not knowing what will or might happen...
I was thinking on the drive over this afternoon - what if Scotland had devolved (financially and currency wise) from the UK 10-15 years ago.. It may have formed a far more solid banking/investment structure than the semi/full Ponzi style that operated in the UK and not suffered so heavily from the crash (and beared the £13+k per person it will cost for the bailout..). Of course it may have done an Iceland (as many suggested it should 10 years ago..) and ended up being a complete fiscal mess... We don't know.. in the same way we don't know what will happen in the future for the UK or for Scotland.
Easiest option is to err on caution...
I'd give it a bash :)
On another note - I was listening to Gordon Brown holding forth reassuring the Scottish faithful about how the Labour party would never desert the NHS (that it founded)... which I thought - great Gordon, thats fine, but theres f*ck all you can do about it at the moment because you're not in power... No-one from the BBC to pick up that point eh Nick...
Anyway, enough ramblings from the shallow idealist :)
-
^ agree.
Stu / Jasper - risk, uncertainty and the financial costs inherent in separation forms a big part of your argument. So what's your take on the risk and uncertainty inherent in the proposals which have been put forward - with just 2 days left - to make significant changes in policy on how the UK treats Scotland? Bearing in mind we're talking about new powers that haven't been agreed on by anyone in parliament - nor even debated - and which stand a high chance of being blocked. Significant constitutional change offered at the last minute without any consultation - really?! I get your points about the dangers of idealism and the risks involved, but it works both ways and perhaps apply your logic looking the other way at what's being proposed by team status quo.
Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy - which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?
-
Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy - which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?
It does rather sound like a last gasp measure to try and sway the vote
(we'd heard nothing about this until the first - and only? - poll gave Yes a lead...)...
From media reports: before the last IndyRef way back when - the Govt promised extra powers/levels of devolution to Scotland... which then took 18 years to arrive... I suspect people will remember that promise and treat the above with similar suspicion..
-
Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy - which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?
Fuck no. It's some back of a fag packet list of concessions that the politicians in Westminster thought they wouldn't have to make, combined with some stuff the scots would have got under a no vote anyway.
However, it does offer some of the advantages of independence with fewer of the risks, so may appeal to the undecideds. I guess the big risk is the party leaders making promises their MPs won't keep...
-
When the inevitable no vote comes in, those 3 are going to take squirming and backtracking to whole new levels. BTW, this thread has opened my eyes a bit the NHS. My position was maybe not so well thought through.
-
Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy - which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?
Fuck no. It's some back of a fag packet list of concessions that the politicians in Westminster thought they wouldn't have to make, combined with some stuff the scots would have got under a no vote anyway.
However, it does offer some of the advantages of independence with fewer of the risks, so may appeal to the undecideds. I guess the big risk is the party leaders making promises their MPs won't keep...
There's very politicians I would trust, and of those few, most are leaving the house and the remainder are dead.
-
This thread is great BTW, I've learned more than via the big media outlets.. Whichever way it goes its another example of the quality of UKB residents
-
BTW, this thread has opened my eyes a bit the NHS. My position was maybe not so well thought through.
Good to hear that - this thread did the same for my opinions on the currency issue too.
-
A view from someone who was a yes but is now a no.
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/ (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/)
This is a very good piece and deserves to be read widely.
-
Interesting commentary from (the usually semi obnoxious IMHO) Monbiot from the Grauniad. He raises some very good points about the media coverage of IndyRef... Starting with why no national papers are Pro - despite the obvious amount of public support...
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists
-
The BBC is obviously rattled by accusations of bias - dimbleby is giving Salmond a tremendously easy ride on TV right now.
-
That's a good piece by Monbot TT. The actions of the media in the last two weeks have been disturbing, like monbot says even (#irony) the guardian have been skewing the message in favour of the union - vested interests, subtle persuasion by people wielding power or simply following the media herd, who knows?
This resonates with me and some of what I've heard on here and elsewhere:
One of the roles of the Guardian, which has no proprietor, is to represent the unrepresented and it often does so to great effect. On Scottish independence I believe we have fallen short. Our leader on Saturday used the frames constructed by the rest of the press, inflating a couple of incidents into a habit by yes campaigners of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, judging the long-term future of the nation by current SNP policy, confusing self-determination with nationalism.
-
Aye. He's flagging up some important things.. Some home truths.. I suspect there's much hand wringing in the Grauniad editorial office. I was quite surprised to see then come down on one side with an editorial - thought they'd just leave it.
-
More importantly...
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/16/793ef7f4b419ba2cb92d1c569847522e.jpg)
-
A nugget of wisdom
-
I realize I’ve been really vague in chuntering about how currency union without fiscal union creates destructive vicious cycle feedback loops as in the Eurozone. This is what I mean:
Think of two neighbouring countries that seem perfect candidates to be in a currency union (best friends, lots of bilateral trade, similar economies). If each has its own currency, then those factors will in themselves lead to a fairly stable currency exchange rate with undisturbed trade. For each country, whenever that government spends, that money spent can’t leave the system except by going back to that government as tax or as payment for that government’s bonds, so funding the government spending. If the financial markets don’t fancy the country, then the currency exchange rate will move and because the government debt is denominated in its own currency, the debt burden will stay just as affordable. People from one country may buy the government bonds of the other country but in order to do so they have to exchange currency first and so someone is always left holding the currency. It is a closed loop.
If those countries join together as a currency union but don’t pool their national borrowing and spending and taxation, then a euro spent by one country can go to the next country and be used to buy government bonds from the other country or pay tax in the other country. If the financial markets don’t fancy one country, then its government bond yields will rise. The increased cost of borrowing will necessitate higher taxes and cuts to public services. People and businesses will leave for the other country. The debt burden will become ever more unaffordable and the bond market ever worse. A debt crisis will ensue.
-
Check out what Wynne Godley wrote in 1992:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that)
If a country or region has no power to devalue, and if it is not the beneficiary of a system of fiscal equalisation, then there is nothing to stop it suffering a process of cumulative and terminal decline leading, in the end, to emigration as the only alternative to poverty or starvation. I sympathise with the position of those (like Margaret Thatcher) who, faced with the loss of sovereignty, wish to get off the EMU train altogether. I also sympathise with those who seek integration under the jurisdiction of some kind of federal constitution with a federal budget very much larger than that of the Community budget. What I find totally baffling is the position of those who are aiming for economic and monetary union without the creation of new political institutions (apart from a new central bank), and who raise their hands in horror at the words federal or federalism. This is the position currently adopted by the Government and by most of those who take part in the public discussion.
-
The gloves are off now, I think that the recent events will probably damage the No camp more, the weather is going to be key, a really nice day will increase turnout and I think it's turnout that will be key, many of the No voters are the traditional labour bedrock with lower turnout rates than other groups.
A close cal but I think NO is probably just shading it now.
But today's going to be a real :boxing: :boxing: :boxing: :boxing:
-
Tomtom, I passionately believe that it is a big mistake to think that it is somehow more "radical" or "progressive" to have an aloof atitude towards nuts and bolts issues such as currency arrangements. It is all very well having progressive intentions but if they aren't backed by a constructive strategy then the outcome ends up just being waste and conflict.
I'd say my personal political inclinations are for raggedy edge wacky levels of progressiveness. IMO the only hope of achieving any improvements towards social justice and realization of everyone's potential etc etc is if attempts in that direction fully embrace the need to delve into the tedious nitty gritty of issues such as government financing etc.
-
There really is a lack of detail from both sides. For example how will an independent Scotland sustain public spending, when currently as part of the UK the Barnett formula gives a greater share of public spend per capita (19% or £1623) according to FT. And according to public sector employment report it has the 3rd highest public sector % of employment by region (behind NI and Wales). http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05625/public-sector-employment-and-expenditure-by-region (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05625/public-sector-employment-and-expenditure-by-region)
Tax looks like it's being propped up by North sea gas and oil, is this prop up sustainable? What happens during price fluctuations? What happens with an untried currency? Also is all the North sea gas and oil actually Scottish owned? (http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/revenue_shares2.jpg)
My other questions if I was Scottish would be what would happen to business taxation if the head offices moved South.
What happens to the armed forces and all the land it holds? there seems to be quite a lot https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318371/Bulletin_2013_update.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318371/Bulletin_2013_update.pdf)
Never mind, currency, border controls, NHS, DVLA etc etc
-
There really is a lack of detail from both sides. For example how will an independent Scotland sustain public spending, when currently as part of the UK the Barnett formula gives a greater share of public spend per capita (19% or £1623) according to FT. And according to public sector employment report it has the 3rd highest public sector % of employment by region (behind NI and Wales). http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05625/public-sector-employment-and-expenditure-by-region (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05625/public-sector-employment-and-expenditure-by-region)
Tax looks like it's being propped up by North sea gas and oil, is this prop up sustainable? What happens during price fluctuations? What happens with an untried currency? Also is all the North sea gas and oil actually Scottish owned? (http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/revenue_shares2.jpg)
My other questions if I was Scottish would be what would happen to business taxation if the head offices moved South.
What happens to the armed forces and all the land it holds? there seems to be quite a lot https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318371/Bulletin_2013_update.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318371/Bulletin_2013_update.pdf)
Never mind, currency, border controls, NHS, DVLA etc etc
A fair amount of the public servant roles were shifted to Scotland, so in theory c.80% would return to England should they vote yes tomorrow, whether the people relocate with the job is another matter.
As for the MoD Land, I can see the rental on Faslane being a bit more than a nice detached house in Morningside. the issue of oil is who controls the licences & etc, not a public international lawyer but I'd say the Scots would probably be generating lots of revenue from exploration licences, I can't see there being an alternative for the oil industry to move out of NE Scotland.
Anyway 36 hours to go.
-
Tax looks like it's being propped up by North sea gas and oil, is this prop up sustainable?
And tax across the uk is being propped up by casino banking - how sustainable is that ?
I'd suggest it's prone to sudden crashes.
You can't predict the future, which is why a single industry economy is dangerous & Scotland's economy would be less unbalanced than that of the uk
-
a single industry economy is dangerous & Scotland's economy would be less unbalanced than that of the uk
More unbalanced? Or less balanced? Otherwise I'm confused.
-
But what will become of ukb?
Will it become rukb and where will fiend get to post comments about training and ethics? Certainly not on rukc.
Scottishclimbs died a death after si oconner blossomed into full fantasist. There isn't really much to discuss without a good controversy.
What forum can I post on using ambiguous language so I can get upset about people not understanding?
-
Tomtom, I passionately believe that it is a big mistake to think that it is somehow more "radical" or "progressive" to have an aloof atitude towards nuts and bolts issues such as currency arrangements. It is all very well having progressive intentions but if they aren't backed by a constructive strategy then the outcome ends up just being waste and conflict.
I'd say my personal political inclinations are for raggedy edge wacky levels of progressiveness. IMO the only hope of achieving any improvements towards social justice and realization of everyone's potential etc etc is if attempts in that direction fully embrace the need to delve into the tedious nitty gritty of issues such as government financing etc.
Hey Stone - I certainly didn't mean to convey any aloofness accusations to any of the fiscal examiners - its certainly important. Personally it doesn't interest me (yes - I know its important but I'm just not into the details of fiscal arguments), just naive idealism hoping that it would all work out somehow.. :)
If the aloofness is coming from the SNP - I don't think they have any alternative (as I was trying to explain) but to try and maintain a (I guess slightly aloof) it'll be alright attitude to finance.
I like the word aloof though! I'm editing some PhD chapters at the moment - I'll try and slip it in :)
Anyway - we'll find out or not in 36 hours~!!
-
But what will become of ukb?
Will it become rukb and where will fiend get to post comments about training and ethics? Certainly not on rukc.
Scottishclimbs died a death after si oconner blossomed into full fantasist. There isn't really much to discuss without a good controversy.
What forum can I post on using ambiguous language so I can get upset about people not understanding?
Roddy - its time to set up sukbouldering.com - steal march on the IO's forum monopoly... :)
-
Roddy - its time to set up sukbouldering.com - steal march on the IO's forum monopoly... :)
there you go it's already breaking up the British culture :tease:
Sheffield rumours on twitter has already beaten you to the only worthwhile domains having.
https://twitter.com/ClimbingRumours/status/509719961972269056
-
It seems in the event of No vote, the balance of power in Parliament to set a budget may be moving seriously towards the Tories.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29236901 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29236901)
-
Roddy - its time to set up sukbouldering.com - steal march on the IO's forum monopoly... :)
there you go it's already breaking up the British culture :tease:
Sheffield rumours on twitter has already beaten you to the only worthwhile domains having.
https://twitter.com/ClimbingRumours/status/509719961972269056
Its not a very inclusive idea is it! I think SUKb has much more depth ;)
-
This thread is great BTW, I've learned more than via the big media outlets.. Whichever way it goes its another example of the quality of UKB residents
Completely agree. As usual I've leaned more from the collective wisdom on here than from anywhere else.
-
Unsurprisingly, Spain say an independent Scotland will struggle to join the EU and that the whole idea is really bad.....
-- Spain calls Scottish independence a torpedo against Europe - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f399df8-3e62-11e4-b7fc-00144feabdc0.html
-
Spain will veto Scots entry
-
As I pointed out earlier, Italy and Belgium will also be saying NO. But although I'm not a Eurpoean Lawyer it does seem there's a clear distinction to be drawn between Art 48 & 49, but I would suggest what ever the law the politics will overhwlem the law.
Perversley though, an indepndent Scotland could be better off outside the EU but in the EEA
-
As much as I want Scotland to stay in the Union if I was Scottish and had a vote, I'd be considering Yes. The main thing that would put me off is the fact the Yes campaign refuse to admit they don't have all the answers. The SNP can't have all the answers and neither can the Yes campaign, just a plan and a prospectus. Instead of just saying they can't be certain they claim to know it all.
-
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73184000/gif/_73184635_north_sea_oil_and_gas_624.gif)
-
The SNP can't have all the answers and neither can the Yes campaign, just a plan and a prospectus. Instead of just saying they can't be certain they claim to know it all.
And when challenged on any part of the plan, refuse to answer the question claiming that "the debate has 'moved on'" or just say that the person asking the question is a Whitehall sympathiser (or if Scottish worse, a traitor to the cause).
E.g. Salmond's dodging of the question and insulting dismissiveness to Faisal Islam here.....
https://medium.com/@faisalislam/salmond-declares-victory-in-the-currency-war-295aaada44be
It's a very simple and clever plan that's been used many times before to whip up nationalistic fervour and it seems to have worked very well.
Pretty depressing that so many people have fallen for it.
-
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/17/0785596acf022aa4c05c3cf2a1c97638.jpg)
Well if Sloper is right and the weather will have a large influence, it's not looking good; fog and a light drizzle. Delightful
-
Well if Sloper is right and the weather will have a large influence, it's not looking good; fog and a light drizzle. Delightful
You mean everyone will be at the beach enjoying a the Scottish summer?
-
I was really rather agitated when I watched Jaspersharpes link:
Salmond's dodging of the question and insulting dismissiveness to Faisal Islam here.....
https://medium.com/@faisalislam/salmond-declares-victory-in-the-currency-war-295aaada44be
It's a very simple and clever plan that's been used many times before to whip up nationalistic fervour and it seems to have worked very well.
Pretty depressing that so many people have fallen for it.
Any one who believes that the currency union skeptics are all mimics of Alistair Darling are mistaken.
This sent me rummaging on our hard drive to dig out a letter that I sent to our local (Tory) MP back in 12thAug2012:
Dear Andrew Bingham,
Im not concerned about whether or not Scotland becomes independent from England but Im extremely concerned that we seem to be sleep walking into a possible currency union with an independent Scotland. I wish I heard our government flatly refuse to provide central bank services to any independent Scotland. Im extremely grateful to previous Conservative governments for being so emphatic in stating that a currency union can only work with fiscal union and fiscal union requires political union. The Conservatives (especially Nigel Lawson) have been consistent in explaining that the euro was always a stupid, unworkable, arrangement. If, in the future, we no longer have political union with Scotland, then it is imperative that currency union with Scotland is severed at the same time.
You previously pointed out that anyone in the world is free to use GBP as a foreign currency. In principle I quite agree that an independent Scotland would be free to use GBP in that way; much as Montenegro uses the euro. That misses the crucial point. The Scottish independence movement are not saying that they intend to use GBP as Montenegro uses the euro. They are saying that they will be in a currency union with England in the same way as Greece is in a currency union with Germany. They say that the Bank of England will be a lender of last resort backstopping Scottish banks and a buyer of last resort backstopping Scottish Government bonds. That will embroil us in the same fiasco that the euro zone is plagued by.
Currently, whenever our government deficit spends, that creates a government borrowing requirement together with bank reserves that end up being eventually spent on treasury bonds to fund that borrowing requirement. In contrast, whenever Greece deficit spends, the bank reserves created can leak away to purchases of German, French, etc. treasury bonds rather than being available for funding the Greek government borrowing requirement. If someone holding GBP were to choose to buy German government bonds, they would need to first exchange the GBP with euros and that would leave the GBP in the hands of whoever they exchanged the euros with and so on until someone spent the GBP on UK treasury bonds in a treasury auction or paid the GBP as tax -either way funding the UK government borrowing requirement.
This may seem an arcane tedious point but a primary responsibility of government is to provide a currency system that does not disrupt the economy. The euro zone is a catastrophic failure. I thought we had more good sense here.
Yours sincerely, Stone Elworthy.
-
Well if Sloper is right and the weather will have a large influence, it's not looking good; fog and a light drizzle. Delightful
You mean everyone will be at the beach enjoying a the Scottish summer?
People are always more motivated to vote for change than stasis, and I think that the Yes voters by and large would walk througha howling gale whereas many of the No voters are characterised as Labour sheep (not by me) and may well not turn out in such numbers through poor weather.
-
Stone - did your MP reply? Was it a letter or email...
I've used email to ours over the last few years and always got a response...
Mind you - given the intellect of many of our elected representatives a picture of a kitten is more likely to get a response...
-
Well if Sloper is right and the weather will have a large influence, it's not looking good; fog and a light drizzle. Delightful
You mean everyone will be at the beach enjoying a the Scottish summer?
People are always more motivated to vote for change than stasis, and I think that the Yes voters by and large would walk througha howling gale whereas many of the No voters are characterised as Labour sheep (not by me) and may well not turn out in such numbers through poor weather.
Not true, the majority of people are naturally cautious in the voting booth and in life, this is a trend which has been illustrated by innumerable elections and psychological studies; I pray that this is true today.
It is a very sad state of affairs that tub-thumping nationalism is on the rise in the UK (both sides of the border), causing tribalism and blinding people to the dangers of economic and social division.
-
I dind't make myself entirely clear, my view is that when it comes to turning out, those who are voting for change are more likely to turn out to vote for the satus quo: something that may be compounded by the fact that many on the no side are characterised as being less likely to turn out in any event. hence turnout in large swathes of Glasgow (the bet hope for a NO vote) being c.50% vs a national average of 65% (2010 figures)
Of course this is not the same as a GE, but I think most observers agree it will be turnout that decides it; if there's a +/-3 variation in turnout between those who in surveys said 'yes' vs 'no' then the Yes campaign will swing it, if we see turnough below say 75% then I think it wil be a Yes, anything above that and it will still eb all int he mix.
-
How do we know who is going to turn up?
This is process is unprecedented in the uk, the only thing that could be said with any confidence is the older portion of the population will vote because they always do.
One could argue the no vote will turn up because they realise what will be lost in the event of a 'yes', pensions, the NHS, economic stability etc.
All the pollsters admit that their predictions are pretty dodgy because there is little precedent for this process in the uk
-
Stone,
you should have signed your MP letter Dr Stone
and maybe a list of your recent redpoints
-
Stone - did your MP reply? Was it a letter or email...
I've used email to ours over the last few years and always got a response...
Mind you - given the intellect of many of our elected representatives a picture of a kitten is more likely to get a response...
He didn't reply but that letter I pasted here was in response to his reply to my first letter about the issue, so he did seem to be engaging in it.
-
He was my MP too 'til I moved away. A good one too (who had proper job and all that beforehand) used to drink in my local and used to see him on the train regularly up and down to the big smoke,
-
How do we know who is going to turn up?
This is process is unprecedented in the uk, the only thing that could be said with any confidence is the older portion of the population will vote because they always do.
One could argue the no vote will turn up because they realise what will be lost in the event of a 'yes', pensions, the NHS, economic stability etc.
All the pollsters admit that their predictions are pretty dodgy because there is little precedent for this process in the uk
We don't know who's going to turn up, and as you say this is an unprecendented event: however it is reasonable to suggest that sections of society which have previously been less likely to vote are also less likely to vote this time.
The big unknown is how the 16-18 year olds will vote and also in what numbers.
The no campaign has been based on getting the Labour vote to turn out and vote no, IF they don't then the chances of a Yes vote increase enormously.
-
I'll wager you a pint its a yes Sloper.
-
Betpay are already paying out for no wagers.
-
Have you seen the odds -
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome (http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome)
its been an dead cert on a No Vote for months. The bookies are rarely too far out.
-
Have you seen the odds -
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome (http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome)
its been an dead cert on a No Vote for months. The bookies are rarely too far out.
Interesting. I wouldn't say they had No as a dead cert, clear favourite obviously.
I always think it's worth looking at the Betfair exchange odds and how the money is moving....
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.110033387&mpch=ads&rfr=63 (http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.110033387&mpch=ads&rfr=63)
Loads of cash still available to match at about 1.2 which is far from a done deal. More like the home team being 1-0 up with about 15 mins to go. It is very gradually coming in though.
When do the exit polls start to come through? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit)
Oh.
-
I wouldnt draw too much into the odds...
For a couple of reasons:
First there has never been a poll quite like this - with this level of engagement and turnout - that is as close as it is..
Second, early on in the process the bookies took a shed load on No - they stand to lose far more on a no result than a yes - so they're trying to get people to pile onto yes- hence better odds...
-
That's why I think the exchange odds and movement of cash are more interesting.
Despite there being no exit polls (which as that article says is really shit) it'll be interesting to see how prices shift. Not that I'll be staying up all night to watch!
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
-
Interesting. I wouldn't say they had No as a dead cert, clear favourite obviously.
Fair comment
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
-
We don't know who's going to turn up, and as you say this is an unprecendented event: however it is reasonable to suggest that sections of society which have previously been less likely to vote are also less likely to vote this time.
The big unknown is how the 16-18 year olds will vote and also in what numbers.
The no campaign has been based on getting the Labour vote to turn out and vote no, IF they don't then the chances of a Yes vote increase enormously.
Sorry I lost your train of thought there
..
Are you still suggesting a swing to yes is likely or unlikely?
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
Sadly its an either or situation...
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
Sadly its an either or situation...
Bit like the referendum really...
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
Sadly its an either or situation...
Bit like the referendum really...
Thankfully it can change every night...
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
Sadly its an either or situation...
Bit like the referendum really...
Thankfully it can change every night...
And hopefully the fat sociopath won't be hanging around either.
-
Yes - first results from 2am.. I'll be in the land of nod/listening to MrsTT snoring by then...
now that is multi-tasking
Sadly its an either or situation...
Bit like the referendum really...
Thankfully it can change every night...
And hopefully the fat sociopath won't be hanging around either.
But, like the indyref...
Only 50% will be happy come tomorrow morning.
-
So that will be a reasonably definite "no" then. Looking at the world as whole in its current state, probably the right result.
-
There's a few sad faces around the rig this morning.
-
Its starting to look as though the consequences of the No might be almost as interesting and important as those that would have come from a Yes.
-
I am a strong supporter of the Union.
In truth, I'd like to see a Federal Europe, I find petty tribalism a little trite.
Yet, I feel strangely disappointed...
-
Cameron "wins" but still comes out of it looking like a useless tit and Gordon Brown is hailed as a hero.
Who'd have thought? :)
-
That was disappointing, see you all in 40 years!
-
Disappointed, but glad we got 45%. If we don't see real change, there will be turmoil!
I do wonder if there was a third option, FULL Devo-MAx (not this half baked, last-minute, unexplained promise), what the outcome would have been.
-
Disappointed, but glad we got 45%. If we don't see real change, there will be turmoil!
From my (English perspective), if your getting even more change (power), then I hope we do too, and that the amount of loot heading over the border gets reanalysed ;)
-
Yeah, me too. The Barnett formula is there to account for the money that goes from the oil fields South of the border. I don't mind scrapping it as long as we get the tax revenue ;-)
-
Yeah, me too. The Barnett formula is there to account for the money that goes from the oil fields South of the border. I don't mind scrapping it as long as we get the tax revenue ;-)
What are you on about? The Barnett formula has got nothing whatsoever to do with oil revenues. It's based on population split and total public spending.
-
I'm relieved with the result .
-
Ditto. I suspect this will be much better for Scotland too; they've achieved a big enough 'yes' vote to precipitate further devolution, but they'll keep the security and stability of a proper currency union.
-
I'm disappointed.
But very pleased with how its made people north and south of the border have a stern look at our present system and how representative it is..
-
Yeah, me too. The Barnett formula is there to account for the money that goes from the oil fields South of the border. I don't mind scrapping it as long as we get the tax revenue ;-)
What are you on about? The Barnett formula has got nothing whatsoever to do with oil revenues. It's based on population split and total public spending.
Ok, fair enough.
The bottom line is, Scotland still puts more into the coffers than it gets out.
I think there will be a lot of pressure to reform the formula. I just hope Scotland, Wales and NI don't lose out.
Final thought on Public expenditure - if you think it's unfair that public expenditure per capita is higher in Scotland than England, what do you think about the fact public expenditure is [modified because the article is slight misleadng] a lot higher in London than the NE of England? http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england)
I think you want to look closer to home if public spending discrepancies worry you....
-
Great result for the whole of the UK as Peirs Morgan promised to go back to America.
-
I'm deeply disappointed that the fear enslaught from the establishment won the day, but... on the positive side, the turn out was incredible and the sense of political engagement remarkable.
But what happens next?
Will those last minute promises made by the No campaign be kicked into the long grass - Hague was already back peddling on radio 4 this morning and a Tory rebellion is waiting in the wings.
-
Night of the long knives? Salmond's head on a spike on london bridge.
-
I am very happy with the result. Disregarding the pros and cons i just thought it was a backward step to be creating more walls at a time where we need to all work together more.
The one bit that made me angry was i felt that the scots were running away from an issue that they should be fighting to change. Lots of people in England feel the same about the government we have and agree with many of the yes campaigns ideas but just saying "we dont like what your doing so we are not playing" and therefore looking after them selves to the detriment of others seems a bit counter to there political ideas.
-
Funny you should say that Pete. The only thing guys on the rig are actually saying is "fat cunt out"
-
time for me to make my move to become Dictator of All South Yorkshire and Emperor of Abyssinia
-
But what happens next?
Will those last minute promises made by the No campaign be kicked into the long grass - Hague was already back peddling on radio 4 this morning and a Tory rebellion is waiting in the wings.
Echoing some twitter commentary this morning - I suspect the increased devoloution will be rolled into 'English MPs only voting for English matters' stuff that the Tory back benchers will demand.. and thus the process will take ages...
-
Yeah, me too. The Barnett formula is there to account for the money that goes from the oil fields South of the border. I don't mind scrapping it as long as we get the tax revenue ;-)
What are you on about? The Barnett formula has got nothing whatsoever to do with oil revenues. It's based on population split and total public spending.
Ok, fair enough.
The bottom line is, Scotland still puts more into the coffers than it gets out.
Stating stuff as fact or "the bottom line" when it isn't makes you sound like Salmond.
It completely depends on which set of biased statistics you want to use.
E.g. Total public expenditure in England can include tuition fees as they are spent by universities despite the fact that the ultimate cost is passed on to individuals. How can that be right when calculating who puts more in or takes more out?
It's that sort of simplistic rhetoric and lack of research that made me so distrust the Yes campaign in the end.
As for public spending in London vs the rest of England it's hardly surprising/not good but it's also disingenuous to use those figures when they're so skewed by crossrail.
And I'm actually not concerned in the slightest about the share of public money that Scotland currently gets. There are much more important things to worry about!
-
But what happens next?
(http://blog.thomasthebaker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Thomas-2-14-107.jpg)
-
Yeah, me too. The Barnett formula is there to account for the money that goes from the oil fields South of the border. I don't mind scrapping it as long as we get the tax revenue ;-)
What are you on about? The Barnett formula has got nothing whatsoever to do with oil revenues. It's based on population split and total public spending.
Ok, fair enough.
The bottom line is, Scotland still puts more into the coffers than it gets out.
Stating stuff as fact or "the bottom line" when it isn't makes you sound like Salmond.
It completely depends on which set of biased statistics you want to use.
E.g. Total public expenditure in England can include tuition fees as they are spent by universities despite the fact that the ultimate cost is passed on to individuals. How can that be right when calculating who puts more in or takes more out?
It's that sort of simplistic rhetoric and lack of research that made me so distrust the Yes campaign in the end.
As for public spending in London vs the rest of England it's hardly surprising/not good but it's also disingenuous to use those figures when they're so skewed by crossrail.
And I'm actually not concerned in the slightest about the share of public money that Scotland currently gets. There are much more important things to worry about!
I wish I could remove the previous posts. I'm just pissed off and venting. I agree that's it's way to complex to sort out in a few lines on a forum and that what needs to happen is a proper re-think on UK-wide spending.
-
I agree.
On a lighter note, Sloper was wrong again (see the other thread) but somehow managed to back both horses because tomtom owes him a pint.
How did that happen? Bloody lawyers.
-
I'm deeply disappointed that the fear enslaught from the establishment won the day, but... on the positive side, the turn out was incredible and the sense of political engagement remarkable.
But what happens next?
If the turnout and political engagement can be continued until the GE, hopefully there can be big changes for everyone. I woke up at about 4:30 thought I'll just take quick peek at results on my phone, and I was hooked for the rest of the night zzzzzzzzzzz.
Fultonius, what the relevance of the tablet?
-
It's Fudge Chris, and that's what I think we'll end up with. A massive, great fudge.
-
Familiar feeling this morning as Scotland again fail to make it out of the group,
(stolen from Twitter)
-
It's Fudge Chris, and that's what I think we'll end up with. A massive, great fudge.
Sorry, got it now. I like fudge anyway.
-
Very disappointed today but we must move on. Hopefully this vote will be a good thing and galvanise voters across the UK and we will see some real reform. Really hope we will see the 16 yr olds get the vote in all future elections, that was certainly one positive aspect.
The one bit that made me angry was i felt that the scots were running away from an issue that they should be fighting to change. Lots of people in England feel the same about the government we have and agree with many of the yes campaigns ideas but just saying "we dont like what your doing so we are not playing" and therefore looking after them selves to the detriment of others seems a bit counter to there political ideas.
I don't think you can categorise yes voters as running away from the issue. The main appetite for change south of the border seems to be reflected in a (protest?) vote for UKIP which was never going to be embraced up here. Why has it taken the Scottish indy ref to reawaken the debate about constitutional change in England? It may have been out there but it was a murmer before this year.
One last quote from a fellow yes supporter last night when news of Inverclyde voting no broke. Inverclyde has many areas with huge social issues and poor housing conditions. Made me laugh at the time but a bit depressing thinking about it this morning.
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."
-
Salmond and Cameron are both very compromised now that's for sure.
-
Indeed. I bet Boris has been loving this.....
-
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."
Not so surprising to me; these would be the folk hit hardest if independence had not delivered on its vague and lofty promises.
-
I agree.
On a lighter note, Sloper was wrong again (see the other thread) but somehow managed to back both horses because tomtom owes him a pint.
How did that happen? Bloody lawyers.
Ahem. He never accepted the wager so no pint.:)
-
One last quote from a fellow yes supporter last night when news of Inverclyde voting no broke. Inverclyde has many areas with huge social issues and poor housing conditions. Made me laugh at the time but a bit depressing thinking about it this morning.
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."
LOL.
There were a few regions which produced a bigger No result than I expected, Highlands and the Islands for example
-
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."
Not so surprising to me; these would be the folk hit hardest if independence had not delivered on its vague and lofty promises.
And the alternative is... ::)...more of the same channeling of money and power to the 1% rich elite. Cant say I share your (implied) faith in the neoliberal establishment to deliver anything but misery for those who find themselves at the bottom of the pile in Scotland (or anywhere else in fact). An independent Scotland might face some tricky obstacles but ultimately it would be a fairer and more inclusive country and one more likely to look after its own.
-
Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?
-
I didn't intend to imply any faith in the current system, other than it exists. Unlike the proposed 'fairer and more just society' which didn't even have a proper plan for the currency underwriting the whole economy.
If there had been a bit more substance behind the yes campaign I'd have been right behind it. But it was obvious dealing in reality would have given them no chance of winning.
-
The marvellous Jerry Sadowitz as Sean Connery on Independence NSFW http://youtu.be/TQy_bfjy9l4 (http://youtu.be/TQy_bfjy9l4) :)
-
:lol:
-
time for me to make my move to become Dictator of All South Yorkshire and Emperor of Abyssinia
I knew you were destined for this when you marched up and down the terrace range at Bolsover Castle with your helmet on and chest out saying "The M1 at this distance sounds like the roar of an adoring crowd. I shall address them"
I for one pledge my life to you Duce
-
Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?
Never said they were, just that they wouldn't be saddled with the neoliberal policies of a govt beholden to the ultra rich 1% in London.
-
A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:
I feel relieved about the result. From reading this very informative thread I got the impression that the main driver for the Yes votes for many was frustration with the status quo, with lack of feeling of representation for their local issues or personal viewpoints from the current parliamentary system. However, I found it deeply worrying that the main political advocates of independence hadn't put enough thought into the practical repercussions of it to produce a convincing White Paper. I hope that in the wake of the referendum the SNP will go away and commission some answers to the big questions posed that they brushed away with accusations of nay-saying and negativity. I feel like they couldn't answer the case against them so tried to persuade the electorate that there wasn't one. This was pretty disingenuous. I think the economic questions were so big, and had such an impact for the whole UK and Scotland individually, they should have been thought through to a high level of sophistication.
For me the crux of this is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction. I guess my hope is that the world becomes more globalised and unified and interdependent, with people less preoccupied with religious or national or cultural or linguistic difference and more on common goals. Putting emphasis on cultural difference instead of similarities is a step backward to a more primitive, pre-WW2 age.
The feeling of 'nationality' seems to me a bit like religion, which I'm sceptical of. It's something arbitrary and indoctrinated rather than rational. I really dislike the phrase 'proud Scot'. You had no control over where you were born or the language you first learn - why be proud of it? Why be proud of history? You weren't there and had nothing to do with it. The only things I'm proud of are things I achieved myself, small as they are. For some of those I have to thank my ancestors I guess, for putting me to an extent in the life I'm in, but I can't take any pride or credit for that. I don't take credit or blame for the acts of my ancestors, I can only try to emulate their behaviour or disown it and say 'not on my watch'.
I guess knowing about national history is important, but I don't think being proud or angry about it is a good idea. Knowing about it empowers you to make fair decisions and rational actions - pride and anger lead to biased responses, unfairness and irrationality, which ends in Ukraine or Israel/Palestine.
Now the 'No' decision is in it seems like everyone is saying, well the big difference isn't between 'Scotland' and 'England', it's between the 'rest of the UK' and 'London'. I think that's rubbish too. Regions don't think. People do. People are individuals. I think I've probably got more in common, more common experiences and more of a common lifestyle to a climber from Scotland or North Wales or Yorkshire or Spain (apart from taking a shant at the crag) than I do with the guy who sits next to me at my desk in London.
Assuming that people who come from a particular region all want the same things and will agree how to get them is a fallacy. The article linked above where 'Yes' means 'yes to everything' was very eloquent on that. Assuming that devolving votes to a local level will mean that you're more likely to get what you want isn't necessarily true either. I didn't vote for the party who got in in my London borough, and they don't run things how I would either.
I don't know what the solution is to all this. My feeling is that 'party politics' is outmoded. I can't really sign up to a 'party' who will think one thing or another because that's what their core beliefs tell them. I'm blue, I believe in less government support for people and less taxes and so I think x,y,z = 1,2,3. I'm red, I believe in more government support for people and more taxes on rich people to support poorer people and so I think x,y,z = 4,5,6. It just all seems overly simplified and silly to me.
The way I decide stuff is on the merits of the individual case, and my opinions change when I learn more facts. Politicians get pilloried for this in the press - oh you used to think this and now you've changed your mind. Isn't changing your mind when you learn more the only rational and intelligent way to be?
I think part of the problem is the type of politics we practise, and the type of person that goes into it. Isn't the type' of person that becomes a professional politician usually someone who's a bit power-hungry, wants to sit on committees and feel important, wants to tell other people what to do or think? No-one likes 'political' people at work, but generally real politicians are the exaggerated versions of these types. Until a different sort of person starts going in for politics, the sort of person you or I respect as an individual, I think we'll keep getting the same results.
Maybe Proportional Representation of some kind is an answer. Maybe that's the way to get a more nuanced, less predictable government - more like an individual person perhaps.
-
Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?
Never said they were, just that they wouldn't be saddled with the neoliberal policies of a govt beholden to the ultra rich 1% in London.
Isn't this a bit of a short term view? The union is 300 years old after all, and scottish voting habits have changed massively over that time, and not always in one direction. After all, 100 years ago the parties themselves were essentially all different.
Far better to fix this with more political engagement, than tearing up the union. For example, I'm a bit sad there wasn't 80% turnout in the AV referendum, which could have addressed many of the same issues.
-
A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:
Amen brother. This No voting Inverness resident couldn't agree more. My thoughts from the outset were that creating more divisions was a backwards step, when we take every other opportunity to celebrate our similarities. Then came the complete lack of clarity on the economic practicalities which created the blind faith bandwagon.
Really, I'd like to have been able to give an explanation for my choice with my vote because it definitely felt like the perception was that No was conservative, boring, pro-status quo and Yes was progressive, optimistic, daring. In reality, I don't know anyone (Yes or No) who wants things to continue as they are but I think No pipped it because there was just no credible substance behind Yes's optimism. If there had been I'm sure I would have been a Yes man.
-
But wouldn't the Yes vote just have put in a Scottish elite of professional politicians rather than an English one? I would have thought that Salmond was the prime example of this - and the SNP current government has been centralising power in Scotland - one of the reasons possibly for such a low Yes votes in the islands and highlands?
-
Yes that's what I mean. As well as the lack of economic substance, I was confident that a Yes vote would just provide smaller (weaker?) version of the status quo, just with the word Westminster replaced by Holyrood.
They showed their true colours with the Donald Trump affair, but I'm not one to bear a grudge :whistle:
-
Salmond has resigned.
-
A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:
For me the crux of this is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction. I guess my hope is that the world becomes more globalised and unified and interdependent, with people less preoccupied with religious or national or cultural or linguistic difference and more on common goals. Putting emphasis on cultural difference instead of similarities is a step backward to a more primitive, pre-WW2 age.
That was the only convincing argument that I saw in the whole 'No' campaign. Completely undermined for me by the fact that a 'No' vote means, in all likelihood, walking (or worse being thrown) out of the EU.
Given as the Scots were, a choice between cutting themselves off from rUk or being cut off from the rest of the world I would have gone for the former.
-
Salmond has resigned.
Amazing, toys out the pram!
-
Salmond has resigned.
It was inevitable but I didn't think it would come that quick but in many ways that's admirable. He's spent much of his adult life campaigning for an independent Scotland. He must be terribly disappointed, drained and reflective.
He should've said "Double dare ya" to Cameron in his resignation, after all, he's got to go too.
-
He did leave this for Cameron:
"I spoke to the prime minister today and, although he reiterated his intention to proceed as he has outlined, he would not commit to a second reading vote by 27th March on a Scotland bill. That was a clear promise laid out by Gordon Brown during the campaign. The prime minister says such a vote would be meaningless. I suspect he cannot guarantee the support of his party."
-
Rocksteady, that was a good bit of writing, especially the party politics paragraph. Across Europe we're seeing enormous frustration and anger with mainstream politics and the political system. Initially manifesting as apathy and resentment then turning to protest vote and the rise of "insurgent" parties like UKIP, Beppe Grillo's movement in Italy, The Sweden Democrats and dare I say it, le Front National in France... The SNP has a much longer history but a lot of the Yes vote was mobilised by anger and frustration with Westminster.
There's a real anti-politics mood across the entire population who feel that the parties are acting in their own interests... Next years general election is going to be very interesting.
-
He did leave this for Cameron:
I suspect he cannot guarantee the support of his party."
He's dead right. The man's dead in the water.
-
He did leave this for Cameron:
"I spoke to the prime minister today and, although he reiterated his intention to proceed as he has outlined, he would not commit to a second reading vote by 27th March on a Scotland bill. That was a clear promise laid out by Gordon Brown during the campaign. The prime minister says such a vote would be meaningless. I suspect he cannot guarantee the support of his party."
I am assuming this refers to the seconding reading of the "devomax" bill?
-
I don't really see how the GE is going to be very interesting. We have a choice of 2 maybe 3 parties that are going to get in. Nothing very much will change apart from people's rhetoric as usual. So what if people don't trust politicians? You've still got to vote one or the other in
-
So FD the big question is, will Boris be zip lined into a safe seat and then the leadership before the next election?
Cameron v Miliband is the battle of who could care less as far as a lot people are concerned, and one which Miliband could win by default.
Johnson v Miliband would be very different.
-
I don't really see how the GE is going to be very interesting. We have a choice of 2 maybe 3 parties that are going to get in. Nothing very much will change apart from people's rhetoric as usual. So what if people don't trust politicians? You've still got to vote one or the other in
FD is right, the GE is wide open. Old voting patterns are eroding fast, disillusion with westminster is rife and coalition govt is almost a certainty. Therefore the smaller parties, despite the first past the post stopper, have a chance of getting into power shares.
-
So FD the big question is, will Boris be zip lined into a safe seat and then the leadership before the next election?
Cameron v Miliband is the battle of who could care less as far as a lot people are concerned, and one which Miliband could win by default.
Johnson v Miliband would be very different.
This is probably true, but would they be that ruthless? Cameron must be bricking it.
-
Rocksteady - surely the problem with that approach is that often some kf the most important things which a government will do is not in preestablished policies but responding to unforseen events -wars, banking crises, etc. If you vote for someone who has similar core beliefs to you then you're hoping that they'll respond to those scenarios in a way you would approve of...
-
time for me to make my move to become Dictator of All South Yorkshire and Emperor of Abyssinia
I knew you were destined for this when you marched up and down the terrace range at Bolsover Castle with your helmet on and chest out saying "The M1 at this distance sounds like the roar of an adoring crowd. I shall address them"
I for one pledge my life to you Duce
I have had an extra eleven and a half years of belting out rousing speeches to moving cars and trucks since then.
I'm getting some uniforms made up by Hugo Boss over the weekend
-
Its starting to look as though the consequences of the No might be almost as interesting and important as those that would have come from a Yes.
Absolutely, what wil be interesting as the Labour shadow justice spokesman on TWAO was already rowing back from the commitments made at the end of the campaign, perhaps they're finally waking up to the likely answer to the West Lothain question will have massive consequences for Labour.
-
I'm deeply disappointed that the fear enslaught from the establishment won the day, but... on the positive side, the turn out was incredible and the sense of political engagement remarkable.
But what happens next?
Will those last minute promises made by the No campaign be kicked into the long grass - Hague was already back peddling on radio 4 this morning and a Tory rebellion is waiting in the wings.
I didn't hear that i/v but as for a Tory rebellion, I rather think the opposite is on the cards with the party unifying to pass legislation that will mean that on purely English matters Scottish members will have no vote.
Miliband is also rowing back from the pledges made int he election, the result could be a massive swing from Labour to SNP.
There's no appetite for a rebellion in the Conservative party as doing so now woulds live UKIP a boost that could actually see them win a seat.
-
Salmond has resigned.
It was inevitable but I didn't think it would come that quick but in many ways that's admirable. He's spent much of his adult life campaigning for an independent Scotland. He must be terribly disappointed, drained and reflective.
He should've said "Double dare ya" to Cameron in his resignation, after all, he's got to go too.
While I regard Cameron as weak and ineffective, I can't see that he's got to go, if we goes it's a snap election and from a Tory perspective another 6 months of solid growth, inflation under control and unemployment falling is what's needed not a bitter election campaign which takes the spot light of Miliband and Balls.
-
This is Arse.
Large buckets of Arse.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/police-called-to-george-square-in-glasgow-following-confront#2jaaay3
-
This is Arse.
Large buckets of Arse.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/police-called-to-george-square-in-glasgow-following-confront#2jaaay3 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/police-called-to-george-square-in-glasgow-following-confront#2jaaay3)
When people start singing rule Britannia in Glasgow it's no longer about politics. At moments like this a small minority of Scotland embarrasses me.
-
Accht. These folk passionately believe in something fultonius, we can only hope they don't breed too successfully and will slowly dwindle away. No-one really attributes those people to Glasgow let alone Scotland let alone humanity.
Maybe that's too harsh.
-
fucking stupid to do something like that, inviting trouble
-
Accht. These folk passionately believe in something fultonius, we can only hope they don't breed too successfully and will slowly dwindle away. No-one really attributes those people to Glasgow let alone Scotland let alone humanity.
Maybe that's too harsh.
True. It's just the same pricks who use Rangers/Celtic as an excuse to be cunts. Not surprising, just sad.
-
Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?
Never said they were, just that they wouldn't be saddled with the neoliberal policies of a govt beholden to the ultra rich 1% in London.
Isn't this a bit of a short term view? The union is 300 years old after all, and scottish voting habits have changed massively over that time, and not always in one direction. After all, 100 years ago the parties themselves were essentially all different.
Far better to fix this with more political engagement, than tearing up the union. For example, I'm a bit sad there wasn't 80% turnout in the AV referendum, which could have addressed many of the same issues.
I have read theories that the neoliberal train will crash soon - in history you can see similar patterns where the ultra rich 1% get richer and richer until eventually the house of cards collapses (as happened around the first world war, then the stock market crash in 1929) but how much that was inevitable and how much was external factors is hard to say. It could be that the train doesn't crash and that the rich keep on getting richer and that only the onset of serious climate change will be the tipping point. With no certain answers I don't blame the yes voters in Scotland for wanting to get off the train.
(And yes of course AV would have been a very positive change for British politics - but guess what, the establishment and its media friends made sure that didn't happen, just like they did in the indyref.)
-
Some background reading on the West Lothian question:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/19/west-lothian-question-english-votes-laws (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/19/west-lothian-question-english-votes-laws)
And an interview with Tam Dalyell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YO8ZEJ5Kh0&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YO8ZEJ5Kh0&feature=youtu.be)
-
I'm not sure what makes you think the neoliberal train is solely in Westminster. Scotland has the most concentrated pattern of landownership with some crafters effectively in feudalism. Despite this the SNP's appetite for land reform seems limited.
-
I'm not sure what makes you think the neoliberal train is solely in Westminster. Scotland has the most concentrated pattern of landownership with some crafters effectively in feudalism. Despite this the SNP's appetite for land reform seems limited.
I'm well aware of the land ownership situation in Scotland; if you recall I did post a link to that infamous Tatler article a few pages back:
http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland (http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland)
Those big landowners seem pretty fearful of independence - they know that sooner or later the focus would have shifted on to them. The SNP may not have made much noise about this so far but Sturgeon (the new leader in waiting) is more left wing than Salmond and even if she didn't push in that direction then I reckon within an election or two the SNP would probably have been sidelined by somebody who would.
-
You'd like to think so, yeah. But given that a move in that direction was not being offered it's not surprising folk didn't vote for it. As it is you had Salmond with his unparalleled track record for bending Scotland's natural heritage over to be bummed by the rich.
-
Vast tracts of the whole of the UK's natural heritage was 'bent over and bummed by the rich' hundreds of years ago and the legacy endures. Take the aristocracy. (Please... for one night only...).
-
http://davemacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/what-have-we-done.html?spref=fb (http://davemacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/what-have-we-done.html?spref=fb)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure)
The Glasgow Sunday Herald was the only paper in the UK that backed a Yes vote. Glasgow voted Yes. 45% of the country voted Yes despite virtually all the mainstream media telling them not to. If the media represented the people and 45% of the press had backed a Yes vote then it would have been Yes. Manufactured consent.
-
Sorry Miso but I've got to disagree. The media reported on everything including the gaping gaps in Salmonds arguments for independence.
It's not as if they were complimentary of the No campaign which as we all know was really badly run. I think the Yes campaign was quite well ran considering that what they had to go on was 'We really love Scotland' and they carried all of their momentum well which is why it was a close vote. I fear that if both camps had been able to put up a similarly well ran campaign it would have been a much more overwhelming No.
I haven't heard anyone here start talking about conspiracy's on herre yet. The guys on the rig are convinced it's a fix but I can't really blame them for nursing their bruises on something they were genuinelly passionate about.
-
Someone posted a video with a pile of Yes votes on a no table. Not sure what was going on but I very much doubt there was anything behind it.
The media was firmly on the NO side. Every negative article got instantly published with no fact checking. Even when they published pro-independence articles they always came with caveats and "balanced" with alternative views.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists)
-
Fuck's sake. Try googling the "pile of Yes votes" thing. Simple explanation vs conspiracy theory.
We're entering David Icke territory. Maybe it was something to do with charges set by the CIA in the second tower.
I didn't read a newspaper or watch any tv about the referendum and based on what I could find out I agreed with the No campaign. This included reading lots of pro Yes stuff from people I usually respect (e.g. Irvine Welsh, despite the fact that he lives in America now). I based my view on the facts I found.
With the massive turnout and with this being one of the only votes you could call truly democratic I reckon it's a bit daft to start calling the media card on it.
Many people voted with their heart, many people bothered to think before voting. Some were swayed by one thing or another. Important thing was that most people voted so it's true democracy rather than (e.g) Farage claiming victory with about 6% of the possible vote.
This can be the massive positive thing from all this. People realising that their vote can make a difference. Even with our current system, if everyone voted they could make a huge difference.
I doubt it'll happen though. Without a flag to wave, people don't care. Which is quite scary.
-
Maybe I'm living in a "google filter bubble" but when I google for "pile of yes votes" I don't get any useful sites - just more conspiracy bollocks. I don't for a minute think anything fishy was going on, but I'm yet to find a good explanation!
-
Sorry, I didn't Google it, just saw it pan out on Twitter.
The votes were in piles which hadn't been counted and the table was for when they had been.
-
E.g.
Has this pic and the video showing 'Yes' votes on a 'No' table been looked into and explained yet? #indyref
http://twitter.com/RajBaddhan/status/512751678697664512/photo/1
https://twitter.com/TheMurdochTimes/status/512957628234743809
If you check the reply you can see that the OP has realised it's bollocks.
-
I thought that there was a No bias in the media. I linked to Monbiots commentary on the issue way back in this thread..
Also - in the last week you had no campaign (darling) then Labour, Torys and Lib Dems saying no - and SNP for the yes.. Media seemed to reflect the volume of material rather than the balance.. Lots of little things on the BBC site like always having a no pic first up on their homepage (would then scroll to a yes later etc..).
Anyway now it's back in Westminster I expect to political carpet being raised and the issue swept beneath..
-
The Scottish media was slightly different though.
Lest we forget that it wasn't us who actually had the vote.
*wall collapses after too much banging head against it*
-
The Scottish media was slightly different though.
Lest we forget that it wasn't us who actually had the vote.
*wall collapses after too much banging head against it*
But was it..? after all - they get the same news channels and national news as us non? All bar one of the Scottish ed/papers were pro no... I think theres still some wall left for you over there.... ;)
-
I thought that there was a No bias in the media. I linked to Monbiots commentary on the issue way back in this thread..
Also - in the last week you had no campaign (darling) then Labour, Torys and Lib Dems saying no - and SNP for the yes.. Media seemed to reflect the volume of material rather than the balance.. Lots of little things on the BBC site like always having a no pic first up on their homepage (would then scroll to a yes later etc..).
Anyway now it's back in Westminster I expect to political carpet being raised and the issue swept beneath..
The No bias int he media was spectacular, but that doesn't mean that the 'yes' campaign won't haunt Parliament like a bad scooby doo episode.
-
Accht. These folk passionately believe in something fultonius, we can only hope they don't breed too successfully and will slowly dwindle away. No-one really attributes those people to Glasgow let alone Scotland let alone humanity.
Maybe that's too harsh.
True. It's just the same pricks who use Rangers/Celtic as an excuse to be cunts. Not surprising, just sad.
Stories are circulating that a bus load of BNP supporters were responsible for stirring, and was them singing, waving flags and generally looking to stir shit.
-
Accht. These folk passionately believe in something fultonius, we can only hope they don't breed too successfully and will slowly dwindle away. No-one really attributes those people to Glasgow let alone Scotland let alone humanity.
Maybe that's too harsh.
True. It's just the same pricks who use Rangers/Celtic as an excuse to be cunts. Not surprising, just sad.
Stories are circulating that a bus load of BNP supporters were responsible for stirring, and was them singing, waving flags and generally looking to stir shit.
I think I've finally reached referendum information saturation point Chris
As a result I'm afraid I don't feel happy, sad, angry or relieved with that nugget of info (or misinfo if that's what it proves to be)
I'd really like it if the media gave no coverage to this particular group of, let's call them protesters for the sake of argument. A small bunch of folk behave like dicks and get a massive amount of coverage for their meagre efforts, which must feel like a real victory for them.
-
There's more than enough idiots to go around, I can recall Scottish football fans singing 'so surrender, so surrender, no surrender to the IRA' during the peace process.
I don't think the BNP (fuckwits as they are) were needed
-
Frankie reflects. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0276z6t/frankie-boyles-referendum-autopsy)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbU7oVz0Uq0
going to get interesting
-
EU passport please
-
Y'know, good on her.
It might be a hassle and a risk for those who don't want Indepenence, but the hegemony of Westminster needs to be challenged.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Brexit changes the game. Both staying in U.K. In a Brexit scenario (i.e. Now) and becoming independent leaves Scotland (and U.K.) up shit creek without a paddle. At least if independent Scotland can navigate shit creek without being tied to the English boat....
I think they'd get it - whilst there may be less oil £££ on the table now, there's less to lose imho.
-
Y'know, good on her.
It might be a hassle and a risk for those who don't want Indepenence, but the hegemony of Westminster Brussels needs to be challenged.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Change one word and it could be brexit. You're not so happy about that.
-
Y'know, good on her.
It might be a hassle and a risk for those who don't want Indepenence, but the hegemony of Westminster Brussels needs to be challenged.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Change one word and it could be brexit. You're not so happy about that.
Nope.
The idea that we were under the thumb of Europe was/is false.
The Westminster hegemony is very real. You've never lived under a European law, ever; you have only ever lived under acts of Parliament (some of which incorporate EU legislation). Scotland has been, absolutely, controlled by England for centuries.
Are they allowed to levee their own taxes?
We can.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Interestingly, what they want, is a second referendum; based on the situation being different from that described at the time of the first.
Strangely, they seem to think it might be something too important to leave to a single, badly run, referendum.
Wonder what gave them that idea?
-
Nope.
The idea that we were under the thumb of Europe was/is false.
Also Scotland is likely to suffer even more, economically, from Brexit than the rest of the U.K. whereas the economic damage from leaving the U.K. seems to be much less certain.
-
Scotland is likely to find power repatriated to Westminster from Brussels, not to Holyrood.
-
Today, I shall mostly be putting in a bulk order for popcorn and snacks...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-referendum-irish-unity-sinn-fein-second-scottish-independence-indyref2-a7628591.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Scotland is likely to find power repatriated to Westminster from Brussels, not to Holyrood.
The one thing we've learnt from this fiasco is that power resides in none of those places but in Wapping.
-
I like this version...
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170314/72d30ba75fb6d595112f11fd41d534c5.jpg)
-
How does this poll stack against peoples feelings for the mood north of the wall?
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/support-independence-50-cent-finds-ipsos-mori
-
Out of my facebook group of friends I've already had 4 or 5 say they were no last time and are now on the fence/leaning yes.
I'm yes, unless the economics look farcically dire. Basically, the numbers need to stack up sans-oil. I think maybe EEA membership for a couple of years then re-application to the EU if it seems like a good idea - it's seems as if we'll be out of the EU to start with, as the noises from Brussels don't make it sound possible to stay in on our own.
Just being in the EEA might be quite good but I think it would mean we still aren't part of the research funding bodies?? which would be a blow.
I think May is handing it to us on a plate. I really can't see what platform a unionist campaign would start from, and who has any credibility to lead it. Everyone who was involved last time has fucked it big time with "better together" & "stay with the UK to stay in the EU". May is fully toxic. Corbyn is a joke (as much as I defended his position during the onslaught from the PLP...he has shown himself to be a fairly inept leader of the opposition I sad to say)...who's left? Kezia "I tried to join the SNP but they didn't want me" Dugdale and Ruth Davidson....good luck!
-
I really can't see what platform a unionist campaign would start from, and who has any credibility to lead it.
Cometh the hour, cometh the... Foreign Secretary, shirley?
-
I think Sturge has a right to feel pissed off, since the last referendum when all 3 then leaders made promises for more devolution to Scotland, they all started reneging on promises before the last vote was even counted. And now May is conceding precisely fuck all, and then acts outraged when this happens. I could have seen it coming in June last year.
I'm one of Fultonius's aforementioned FB friends on the fence. Interesting to see how this plays out.
-
The problem with both the last two referendums was the lack of knowledge on all sides about what might happen. The Scots will be going into this second referendum with eyes wide open. As it stands I'll be amazed if they choose to stay.
-
I'm also starting to sway. Look higher up this thread and you'll see I was a firm NO in the 2014 referendum, but so much has changed since then. I generally try to remain skeptical of the arguments from all sides, but I find myself swearing at the radio more and more...
-
What do people make of the timing?
It seems like an early date would improve the chances of a) remaining in the EU b) getting a share of all the businesses currently scampering out of the SE of England as fast as their legs will carry them (which is exactly what the Scottish economy needs).
OTOH major constitutional change on a narrow majority in a referendum is clearly a very bad idea & delaying hopefully reduces the chances of that.
-
What do people make of the timing?
It seems like an early date would improve the chances of a) remaining in the EU b) getting a share of all the businesses currently scampering out of the SE of England as fast as their legs will carry them (which is exactly what the Scottish economy needs).
If you were leaving the SE of England because of Brexit why would you relocate to Scotland?
-
I like this version...
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170314/72d30ba75fb6d595112f11fd41d534c5.jpg)
Except it's bollocks. May doesn't have to convince people to be in favour of brexit because that vote's been had, the outcome was a majority in favour of brexit and the decision to leave has been made (the will of da peeple innit).
The Scottish indy ref 2 however hasn't yet happened, probably won't until after we've left the EU (if May gets her way) and all is to play for.
But I suppose if we were back to the time before the brexit referendum.. one way to phrase it which would have resonated with many of the unwashed, would have been something like:
It might be a hassle and a risk for those who don't want Indepenence, but the hegemony of Westminster Brussels needs to be challenged.
-
Out of my facebook group of friends I've already had 4 or 5 say they were no last time and are now on the fence/leaning yes.
I'm yes, unless the economics look farcically dire. Basically, the numbers need to stack up sans-oil. I think maybe EEA membership for a couple of years then re-application to the EU if it seems like a good idea - it's seems as if we'll be out of the EU to start with, as the noises from Brussels don't make it sound possible to stay in on our own.
Just being in the EEA might be quite good but I think it would mean we still aren't part of the research funding bodies?? which would be a blow.
I think May is handing it to us on a plate. I really can't see what platform a unionist campaign would start from, and who has any credibility to lead it. Everyone who was involved last time has fucked it big time with "better together" & "stay with the UK to stay in the EU". May is fully toxic. Corbyn is a joke (as much as I defended his position during the onslaught from the PLP...he has shown himself to be a fairly inept leader of the opposition I sad to say)...who's left? Kezia "I tried to join the SNP but they didn't want me" Dugdale and Ruth Davidson....good luck!
Well, t's going to be hard to make a call on "the numbers"; at least this man thinks so.
But he's probably an expert or something worthless like that...
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/15/more-on-why-gers-might-properly-be-called-crap-data/
-
If you were leaving the SE of England because of Brexit why would you relocate to Scotland?
If it was clear or even v.likely that Scotland was going to remain in the single market then it would seem an attractive alternative to e.g Dublin.
-
Yeah, the numbers game is going to be used, but probably quite meaningless. Brexit UK vs Indy Scotland. I'm pretty sure the unionists will be banging hard on that GERS drum/deficit figures, despite the fact it has been widely discredited by last, right, unionist and independence types. http://wingsoverscotland.com/gers-by-economists/
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
I like this version...
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170314/72d30ba75fb6d595112f11fd41d534c5.jpg)
Except it's bollocks. May doesn't have to convince people to be in favour of brexit because that vote's been had, the outcome was a majority in favour of brexit and the decision to leave has been made (the will of da peeple innit).
The Scottish indy ref 2 however hasn't yet happened, probably won't until after we've left the EU (if May gets her way) and all is to play for.
But I suppose if we were back to the time before the brexit referendum.. one way to phrase it which would have resonated with many of the unwashed, would have been something like:
It might be a hassle and a risk for those who don't want Indepenence, but the hegemony of Westminster Brussels needs to be challenged.
Nah mate.
A huge number of people, very nearly half of the people around you everyday; think the whole thing is and was bollocks.
It also seems highly likely that your majority has eroded hugely from that first referendum.
It also looks increasingly like May and her ilk are intent on exploiting the situation to erode rights and push their rightwing, neoliberal agenda and not (surprise, surprise) fund the NHS.
In fact, you might find your "freedom" somewhat curtailed, if they have their way. The "Snoopers charter" has already done that (funny, certain "experts" were recently speculating that the charter would not have withstood a challenge at the European courts, but that challenge seems unlikely now; given the situation).
So.
Do you, Pete, support (or even recognise) their right to determine their own future?
If they vote for independence by a 2% majority (even if a huge number of those votes might have been cast by Non-Scottish EU citizens settled in Scotland and English people who just happen to live north of the border)?
I mean, how do we even know who's a Scot and who's not? My Grandmother was Scottish, for certain. My Mrs' Father is Scottish too.
Mind you, I've got a strong Italian ancestry too, including another Grandparent and Dutch Great-grandparents...
And my kids are half Romanian...
So, for me, personally; the whole thing is utter bollocks. It's unjustified Nationalist crap, nothing more.
Now, to me, it seems, if you want Indepenence because you think you are "special" or for "Tribal" reasons, then you are lumped in with the "Bollocks".
If, on the other hand, if the Scots (in this instance) wish to dissolve the Union expressly to avoid the Nationalistic crap of their Southern neighbours; all power to them.
You know, if they are looking to cooperate with the world and move humanity forward and not be dragged down by backward looking Luddites.
I think there will be huge amusement to be had from the break up of the Union and the diminishing of Britain. Massive sadness, of course and I will be suffering along with my countrymen but should the EU fall to this tidal wave of Nationalist crap, I'm confident you would be grinning from ear to ear too.
This is retreating into petty tribes. You still haven't explained how this is going to make for a better life for my kids?
Baring in mind, a Zombie apocalypse, a big sword and a strong arm; also provide many opportunities for social advancement (albeit with limited retirement comforts or medical care).
-
:D the last paragraph :)
-
If you were leaving the SE of England because of Brexit why would you relocate to Scotland?
If it was clear or even v.likely that Scotland was going to remain in the single market then it would seem an attractive alternative to e.g Dublin.
I'm going to set up a business forming Scottish LLCs for British businesses to continue free trade with Europe. Going to rake it in :)
-
Nah mate.
It also seems highly likely that your majority has eroded hugely from that first referendum.
Care to share your source for this statement?
-
Do you, Pete, support (or even recognise) their right to determine their own future?
Wondered for a second if you were giving me the marriage vows there....
I do.
-
If, on the other hand, if the Scots (in this instance) wish to dissolve the Union expressly to avoid the Nationalistic crap of their Southern neighbours; all power to them.
If enough people in Scotland are more strongly wedded to the idea of ceding much of their countries power and decison-making authority to a centrally-governed European state than to the idea of ceding power to to another part of the UK government than yes, all power to them.
-
I think there will be huge amusement to be had from the break up of the Union and the diminishing of Britain. Massive sadness, of course and I will be suffering along with my countrymen but should the EU fall to this tidal wave of Nationalist crap, I'm confident you would be grinning from ear to ear too.
Confident of your belief no doubt. But misplaced.
-
You still haven't explained how this is going to make for a better life for my kids?
'Better' (than if we'd stayed in the EU) isn't the pre-requirement for making a rational decision - even if it might make it easier for you to make simplistic points on a climbing forum.
If difficult choices came with guarantees of one option leading to 'better' and one to 'worse', then life would be a simple tickbox exercise. 'Not any worse off (than if we'd stayed), with more responsibility for decision-making laying with the government we elect' would be my pre-requirement. And I'm confident that's turning out to be the outcome.
-
You still haven't explained how this is going to make for a better life for my kids?
'Better' (than if we'd stayed in the EU) isn't the pre-requirement for making a rational decision - even if it might make it easier for you to make simplistic points on a climbing forum.
If difficult choices came with guarantees of one option leading to 'better' and one to 'worse', then life would be a simple tickbox exercise. 'Not any worse off (than if we'd stayed), with more responsibility for decision-making laying with the government we elect' would be my pre-requirement. And I'm confident that's turning out to be the outcome.
As opposed to the simplistic argument which are the best you have ever presented?
You know, the "Central European Bogeyman Dictator" (so much worse than our home grown version? (May)be) that you harp on about.
Google the latest polls on Brexit support yourself and while your at it look at:
A: how many people over 60 have died since the referendum.
B: how many people came of age since the referendum.
C: the demographic spread of voting during the referendum.
Then make a wild guess if anything has changed, or, more to the point; how much will change over the next couple of years. This statement applies to both referendums.
The point being, opinion is not fixed and nor should it be.
So, apart from refutation of my (clearly stated) opinion, with nowt more than your own opinion.
Why are we going to be better off?
I'm pretty sure I have only ever asked that question, from the start. Just that one.
So far the only answer given has been "Blah blah Bogeyman European Parliament, blah blah I'm British not European, and blah blah immigration".
Incidentally, British is not a Nationality.
Neither is European.
Those are geographic tags.
Being part of the EU doesn't make you European, though living in the British isles does.
Co-operating with neighbours to create community, makes the EU. We as a species recognise (in general) communities to be stronger than individuals.
How far should we take this Pete?
You live in Wales don't you? What if they move for independence?
Would you support that?
Is there a time limit, perhaps?
If you haven't been independent for 500 years or more you can't ask for it now?
If there's no time limit, let's take this shit show all the way! We need a referendum for Wessex to cede from England! Vive la Mercia! Bring back the Danelaw!
Yes, I'm being deliberately obtuse, exaggerating and building straw men. It's a humorous illustration, a cartoon, to indicate how ridiculous the whole thing is. Because, though straw it may be, the argument for each degree of split is identical. It merely becomes more patently ridiculous as you distil it.
Because the larger argument was straw to begin with.
Also, there's a multi-quote function.
-
Actually British is a nationality. Check your passport.
-
Actually British is a nationality. Check your passport.
Tell that to the Irish.
-
Will do, since it's a fact.
-
Incidentally, British is not a Nationality.
Neither is European.
Those are geographic tags.
Being part of the EU doesn't make you European, though living in the British isles does.
Eh? Are you now talking in metaphysics?
Next you'll be telling us humans aren't actually 'humans', it's just an huminoidally-attributed-bio-marker-tag. Plato's theory of forms - what is 'chair' etc...
-
Google the latest polls on Brexit support yourself and while your at it look at:
A: how many people over 60 have died since the referendum.
B: how many people came of age since the referendum.
C: the demographic spread of voting during the referendum.
Then make a wild guess if anything has changed, or, more to the point; how much will change over the next couple of years.
Ha, brilliant! Make a statement based on a series assumptions that support your belief.
Show me solid evidence that supports your statement that 'It also seems highly likely that [the] majority has eroded hugely from that first referendum.'.
Also worth pointing out that your line of argument could be applied to every major decision/vote/referendum ever held. So by your logic we should be revisiting decisions of great constitutional importance every couple of years; or is it just the ones you personally don't like the result of..?
-
Will do, since it's a fact.
Go ahead.
You won't last long, they seem touchy on the subject.
I still contend it is not a Nationality ANY MORE THAN EUROPEAN IS NATIONALITY, since the UK of Great Britain is a Union of individual nations. I thought it obvious the distinction I was making, philosophically, from the defacto legal status.
Or are we saying they're not *really* individual nations?
Is it possible that Nations are, maybe, an outdated concept and that retreating into our little tribal compounds might just result in the big boys shitting all over us from a height?
How many "Nations" make up that which we (and they themselves) call China? Maybe they will disintegrate too!
Where might we go with this?
California Über alles!
Sorry Dave. Brexit sucks. The potential dissolution of the UK sucks.
Still awaiting that answer.
Anyone got anything better than "It might all be worse or at least not as good as it would be and there's always a chance it might be better (one day, maybe, when we're all dead) but at least it will only be a British decision (just for you Dave, though that might have to be amended to English at a later date)" as a reply?
And, please note, my posts are tongue-in-cheek. I genuinely enjoy a gentle argument. If you present me with the evidence, I'll flipflop faster than the Chancellor!
Though, in truth, I'm more than well aware of the sliding spectrum of "truth" and "right" and "better".
So.
For the sake of nothing more than making people think, by posting on an internet forum.
Picture me, in full "Joker" makeup, giggling maniacally and waving an oversized Colt Python lazily in the air.
I pause from the laughter.
Struggle for a breath and shout...
"How the fuck is this better?"
-
Will do, since it's a fact.
Go ahead.
You won't last long, they seem touchy on the subject.
Have you lost the plot Matt? Irish is a nationality. UK & NI is a nationality. People born in NI have, by law, dual nationality. Are you suggesting this isn't the case?
(btw makes it highly unlikely that a majority of people in NI would vote fort Northern Ireland to leave the UK, as pragmatism would likely win over and they are the only UK citizens who retain both UK and EU citizenship should they want it).
-
Will do, since it's a fact.
Go ahead.
You won't last long, they seem touchy on the subject.
Have you lost the plot Matt? Irish is a nationality. UK & NI is a nationality. People born in NI have, by law, dual nationality. Are you suggesting this isn't the case?
(btw makes it highly unlikely that a majority of people in NI would vote fort Northern Ireland to leave the UK, as pragmatism would likely win over and they are the only UK citizens who retain both UK and EU citizenship should they want it).
Read it again.
Back on less esoteric ground...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/scottish-independence-voting-intention-no-57-yes-4/
-
Matt are you on crack? I'm only arsed to give a skim read to the paragraphs of stream-of-consciousness babble above but nationality by definition is a legal status. End of. If you didn't mean this and you actually meant "sense of national identity" then fair dos, but if you're not going to use the same terminology as everyone else then don't be surprised by the ensuing discussions.
-
And even if we're talking this mysterious "philosophical" nationality, British is still a valid national identity. I identify as British, not English especially.
-
Matt are you on crack? I'm only arsed to give a skim read to the paragraphs of stream-of-consciousness babble above but nationality by definition is a legal status. End of. If you didn't mean this and you actually meant "sense of national identity" then fair dos, but if you're not going to use the same terminology as everyone else then don't be surprised by the ensuing discussions.
You do get that this whole debate is predicated on the fluidity of Nationality? A large section of our islands population are saying they do not wish to be "British", they wish to be "Scottish", in fact already identify as such. We might be about to find out if a majority of those people wish for that to be a legal distinction.
(Irish, of course, refers to those residents of the Republic, or I would have said Northern Irish. I rather considered them (NI) to be part of the "us" in my "rambling", they may also chose a different future).
And my point is, you will still be European after article 50, just as the Scots will still be British regardless of any future legal changes. As are the Irish (of the south) regardless of how upset they may be at being lumped in with the English.
My passport, Dave, is in danger of becoming increasingly inaccurate. As a result of a, supposedly, non-binding referendum, I'm about to lose that "European" legal status and may very well lose the "British" part too. Of course, it might be that "British" is redefined as those citizens of England, Wales and Northern Island.
And Pete. Pragmatism will win out?
From the "I just feel it will be better" man?
I think we've shown that Nationalism is a potent little tipple, that is perfectly able to override pragmatism.
When you dismiss the risk of the breakup of the UK as anything other than both possible and every bit as likely as Brexit; I think you are missing the lessons of recent events.
Dave, babble? You're usually better than that.
-
You're on crack.
-
Google the latest polls on Brexit support yourself and while your at it look at:
A: how many people over 60 have died since the referendum.
B: how many people came of age since the referendum.
C: the demographic spread of voting during the referendum.
Then make a wild guess if anything has changed, or, more to the point; how much will change over the next couple of years.
Ha, brilliant! Make a statement based on a series assumptions that support your belief.
Show me solid evidence that supports your statement that 'It also seems highly likely that [the] majority has eroded hugely from that first referendum.'.
Also worth pointing out that your line of argument could be applied to every major decision/vote/referendum ever held. So by your logic we should be revisiting decisions of great constitutional importance every couple of years; or is it just the ones you personally don't like the result of..?
Umm...
Yes.
We do, normally, every five years or so. Both those things I like and dislike (I wasn't aware my opinion was a factor in that). And I actually said this line of reasoning works both ways. I'm not the one chanting "Will of the people!"
Not saying you are, but you might have noticed it's a common refrain.
So, yes, things need revisiting. Some quite often. Is that a problem?
If, we re-ran the Brexit ref (which was already a re-run) or the Scots re-run their recent Indy ref, are the results more, or less, valid than the previous?
You chose to take part in the Brexit ref, because you think such major constitutional matters need revisiting. Everything else is arguing about timing.
I would suggest, that letting the same people review their decisions within their lifetimes seems reasonable. I wasn't able to take part in the 1973 (was it?) referendum (I was busy filling a nappy), if we wait that long to review this latest decision, I'll most likely be dead.
Edit.
Also, I suggested you look at a few parameters and judge for yourself the validity of my suggestion on demographic change affecting the Brexit majority...
-
Dave, babble? You're usually better than that.
I thought it obvious the distinction I was making, philosophically, from the defacto use of babble.
-
If, on the other hand, if the Scots (in this instance) wish to dissolve the Union expressly to avoid the Nationalistic crap of their Southern neighbours; all power to them.
If enough people in Scotland are more strongly wedded to the idea of ceding much of their countries power and decison-making authority to a centrally-governed European state than to the idea of ceding power to to another part of the UK government than yes, all power to them.
I'm not totally wedded to rejoining the EU. I think joining the EEA as soon as possible, followed by a period of consultation rejoining the EU could be a good approach.
Pete, I see you're still wedded to the the "bringing power back" from the EU idea. Can you not see the fundamental difference between a Scotland as part of the UK, and the UK as part of the EU?
One, a devolved government which has no control of fiscal policy, defence, foreign affairs and which looks at serious risk of losing powers post Brexit, rather than gaining any, controlled by a government which is on a path the majority of people in Scotland don't want to take.
The other, a large, sovereign nation which already had an amazing deal in Europe, who has a small percentage (11% is it?) of laws imposed on them by the EU - mainly to do with environment, workers rights, food safety...you know...stuff that make the world a better place. You still have yet to name any EU laws that are actually detrimental! Which laws and policy decisions have the EU made that you take issue with? I could name a thousand from Westminster!
-
Google the latest polls on Brexit support yourself and while your at it look at:
A: how many people over 60 have died since the referendum.
B: how many people came of age since the referendum.
C: the demographic spread of voting during the referendum.
Then make a wild guess if anything has changed, or, more to the point; how much will change over the next couple of years.
Ha, brilliant! Make a statement based on a series assumptions that support your belief.
Show me solid evidence that supports your statement that 'It also seems highly likely that [the] majority has eroded hugely from that first referendum.'.
Also worth pointing out that your line of argument could be applied to every major decision/vote/referendum ever held. So by your logic we should be revisiting decisions of great constitutional importance every couple of years; or is it just the ones you personally don't like the result of..?
I actually did the googling.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170315/bebee8ddebabeaf847fd45570619ccc3.jpg)
First hit was pure confirmation bias in action, though I thought the search parameters quite neutrally couched.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/
I'm pretty sure I linked to it before, or someone else on here did etc etc.
I will try to read all the hits I can, because if the assertion I made is wrong, I have no trouble admitting it.
Edit:
Oh, this one's good, biased of course, but good:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
70% of young people, wow!
-
The Lead Balloon.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-referendum-theresa-may-blocks-second-nicola-sturgeon-independence-bid-latest-a7633131.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
An interesting thought:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/former-wto-chief-independent-scotland-would-have-zero-technical-problems
-
'Not any worse off (than if we'd stayed), with more responsibility for decision-making laying with the government we elect' would be my pre-requirement.
I think that is not realistic.
Ironically it glosses the interdependencies of trade, and of autonomy in a globalised society, straight after berating OMM ....for reducing things to simplistic points on a forum.
edit: unnecessarily abrasive.
-
Pete... Which laws and policy decisions have the EU made that you take issue with? I could name a thousand from Westminster!
That old chestnut, I asked the same question to Pete at the time of Brexit results.
Not heard anything back.
I think it is because he can't answer.
Brexit means Brexit, they say, just a load of old :shit:
I remember his musings about EU (Brussels?) being remote.
EU for me is less remote than Westminster, and I live in London.
As for Scottish independence
Listen to Mayhem here
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/may-sets-up-battle-with-sturgeon-as-she-rejects-referendum-demand (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/may-sets-up-battle-with-sturgeon-as-she-rejects-referendum-demand)
Basically how can the Scotland make an informed decision without knowing the full outcome of Brexit. What a fucking hypocrite. Brexit was such an informed decision, almost like a leap of faith, it was that informed.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/15/nicola-sturgeon-second-scottish-independence-referendum-october-2023
guess what got resurrected..
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/15/nicola-sturgeon-second-scottish-independence-referendum-october-2023
guess what got resurrected..
Oh...is it Jesus?
Please let it be Jesus, i could do with some cheap wine :thumbsup: