Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The question on the ballot paper will ask if Scotland should become an independent nation. Whether it's affordable might not register at all with a lot of the yes voters. They'll want independence at any cost.

Why should that matter though?

[Boof]

Here's a straight question, and I think it merits a straight answer. If - and I stress if - it was guaranteed that leaving the UK would leave Scottish people an average of ?500 a year worse off, would you vote for or against independence?

 

 

Every year? Ad infinitum?

 

Surely the unspecified 'they' would be better able to influence that scenario in an independent nation?

[Sydney from Sydney]

Why should that matter though?

Not saying it should matter at all Geoff. People will vote how they please. The main argument for or against independence appears to centre around whether the country can afford to go alone. Most of the discussion on this thread certainly reads that way. I think as we get closer to voting time the debate will shift back to the simple question of should Scotland be an independent nation.

[southside1874]

I've dealt with this already. You cannot make any assumptions about what proportion of oil reserves, production, exports or revenues would accrue to Scotland in the event that it were to vote to secede. These are matters that would be the result of a negotiated settlement. Therefore you cannot make policy projections based on such assumptions with a sufficient level of confidence. And in any event, as I've already pointed out, the most benign scenario with regard to the treatment of North Sea reserves would still leave Scotland's Exchequer facing a significant deficit - the only advantage being that it would be slightly lower than the overall deficit of the UK.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. Then the same point applies as above. You cannot make any assumptions about what proportion of "unclassified region" exports are attributable to Scotland. Therefore you cannot make policy projections based on such assumptions with a sufficient level of confidence. The fact is that you don't know.

 

Here's a straight question, and I think it merits a straight answer. If - and I stress if - it was guaranteed that leaving the UK would leave Scottish people an average of ?500 a year worse off, would you vote for or against independence?

 

Please don't debate the ?500 - that's not the point of the question. Just assume for a minute that it was somehow possible to prove this, and that it was proved. Would you vote yes or no to independence?

Yes, As you have pointed out. The ?500 worse off in year 1,2&3 could turn into ?1000 worse off in year 4. It doesn't matter. The whole debate about independence should be based on the fact of wanting your country to make it's own choices or having policies imposed on it.

[doctor jambo]

Yes, As you have pointed out. The ?500 worse off in year 1,2&3 could turn into ?1000 worse off in year 4. It doesn't matter. The whole debate about independence should be based on the fact of wanting your country to make it's own choices or having policies imposed on it.

 

Should it? Sorry I dispute that. I'd rather be well off and tied to a larger neighbour than getting progressively poorer but somehow "scottish".

Freedom at any cost- no.

Nationalism is a flexible concept that now includes everyone resident in this country no matter what their origin.

the question of EU membership has not as yet been resolved

IF we are wedged into the EU we would merely be gaining our sovereinty on one hand before hosing it away to an even more remote control centre who have an even worse record of ignoring people and being unaccountable- what would be the point in that- especially with tighter political and fiscal EU union very much on the agenda.

IF we were to go independant I would follow the Monaco model- tiny taxation and harbour the wealthy from Europe of their relative tax obligations- soak the rich? Na. Flood the place with them so they spend their dosh here? Yes please

[davemclaren]

Should it? Sorry I dispute that. I'd rather be well off and tied to a larger neighbour than getting progressively poorer but somehow "scottish".

Freedom at any cost- no.

Nationalism is a flexible concept that now includes everyone resident in this country no matter what their origin.

the question of EU membership has not as yet been resolved

IF we are wedged into the EU we would merely be gaining our sovereinty on one hand before hosing it away to an even more remote control centre who have an even worse record of ignoring people and being unaccountable- what would be the point in that- especially with tighter political and fiscal EU union very much on the agenda.

IF we were to go independant I would follow the Monaco model- tiny taxation and harbour the wealthy from Europe of their relative tax obligations- soak the rich? Na. Flood the place with them so they spend their dosh here? Yes please

 

 

I don't think a country of our size would be tolerated as a tax haven for the wealthy. A north sea Grand Cayman.

[Boris]

All this chat about the EU and sovereignty is quite interesting.

 

Are we not currently EU members as part of the UK? I don't see many threads on the EU vis a vis the UK.

 

If anything, it's all a bit patronising.

 

Now then you Jocks, stay in the UK and we'll look after you as we know best.

 

Go independent and the nasty EU will control you.

 

But surely the EU is controlling the UK too?

 

May be best to cut out the middle man then? (i.e. the UK) After all, isn't that what the Tories want? Less Government???

 

Similarly the anti EU wing of the Tory party & UKIP adopt more or less the same argument for independence when they refer to the EU.

 

Seems kind of contradictory to me.

[doctor jambo]

I don't think a country of our size would be tolerated as a tax haven for the wealthy. A north sea Grand Cayman.

 

Dont give them the choice! we tolerate Switzerland!

We could work as a hyper-low tax economy.

We already have a luxury goods sector in food, clothing, textiles, tourism and alcohol.

we have many of the finest golf facilities in the world.

we have many of the finest properties in the world and a large financial sector that could deal with the influx of billions already in place

we have air links to all the main cities for business commuting and a capital city amongst the most beautiful in the world

We could do this, no question

we would be incredibly well off as a nation.

Nothing wrong with pursuing a socialist agenda when the country is rolling in money

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

All this chat about the EU and sovereignty is quite interesting.

 

Are we not currently EU members as part of the UK? I don't see many threads on the EU vis a vis the UK.

 

If anything, it's all a bit patronising.

 

Now then you Jocks, stay in the UK and we'll look after you as we know best.

 

Go independent and the nasty EU will control you.

 

But surely the EU is controlling the UK too?

 

May be best to cut out the middle man then? (i.e. the UK) After all, isn't that what the Tories want? Less Government???

 

Similarly the anti EU wing of the Tory party & UKIP adopt more or less the same argument for independence when they refer to the EU.

 

Seems kind of contradictory to me.

I'm not sure what your point is here Boris. The UK's relationship with the EU is one thing in that the UK already has opt-outs from the single currency, for example. It is unclear whether similar opt-outs would extend to Scotland as a successor state of the UK on the assumption that Scotland will be a member of the EU. That then changes the dynamic of independence in that Scotland will have to commit itself to working towards membership of a single currency zone which is strangling the life out of some of its members. I don't see that as being patronising.

[Boris]

I'm not sure what your point is here Boris. The UK's relationship with the EU is one thing in that the UK already has opt-outs from the single currency, for example. It is unclear whether similar opt-outs would extend to Scotland as a successor state of the UK on the assumption that Scotland will be a member of the EU. That then changes the dynamic of independence in that Scotland will have to commit itself to working towards membership of a single currency zone which is strangling the life out of some of its members. I don't see that as being patronising.

 

I suppose my point is that we have an Euro Sceptic Govt telling us that Union is best, when they are doing their best to get out of a Union of their own.

 

Patronising because it's the politicians (both sides, but particulary the Euro Sceptics) who are not telling us the truth - the "we know best" attitude, if you like.

 

I'm no expert on international law (or anything else for that matter) but if a constituent part of a country seceeds, are the liable to uphold treaty obligations from the parent state? Given we are an equal partner in the Union, surely they would apply?

 

If so, then surely Scotland should be able to have the same relationship with the EU as the UK currently has?

[Coco]

I suppose my point is that we have an Euro Sceptic Govt telling us that Union is best, when they are doing their best to get out of a Union of their own.

 

Patronising because it's the politicians (both sides, but particulary the Euro Sceptics) who are not telling us the truth - the "we know best" attitude, if you like.

 

I'm no expert on international law (or anything else for that matter) but if a constituent part of a country seceeds, are the liable to uphold treaty obligations from the parent state? Given we are an equal partner in the Union, surely they would apply?

 

If so, then surely Scotland should be able to have the same relationship with the EU as the UK currently has?

 

The SNP are refusing to reveal what the legal advice they have on joining the EU as a new country. We must surmise that the likely advice is that the new country would have to join the Euro - as if the advice was that Scotland could retain an opt-out (with the new rump Bank of England running Scotland's monetary policy with the only regard for Scotland then being how it might affect the UK's inflation rate) - as now seems to be SNP policy) then presumably the SNP would have published the advice.

 

As for a Eurosceptic Government in London. You have to be joking!

[Coco]

All these economic debates are interesting but not really what I would want to see this vote being about.

 

Surely the best thing to do would be to hold a vote based on the principle of Independence, if the result is yes we then negotiate the terms of the split and hold another referendum to see if the country is happy with these terms?

 

It is surely set in the no camps favour if we are being asked to vote on things we can't know the outcome of.

 

maybe if the Yes vote wins we could just re-invent ourselves as New Scotland and leave any share of National Debt in Old Scotland

 

Completely agree.

 

I would favour a third referendum too ... whether or not the new Scotland should join the EU.

[Boris]

All these economic debates are interesting but not really what I would want to see this vote being about.

 

Surely the best thing to do would be to hold a vote based on the principle of Independence, if the result is yes we then negotiate the terms of the split and hold another referendum to see if the country is happy with these terms?

 

It is surely set in the no camps favour if we are being asked to vote on things we can't know the outcome of.

 

maybe if the Yes vote wins we could just re-invent ourselves as New Scotland and leave any share of National Debt in Old Scotland

 

 

Completely agree.

 

I would favour a third referendum too ... whether or not the new Scotland should join the EU.

 

 

Thirded.

 

However, perhaps the terms of any split should be negotiated first, then have the referendum?

 

Saves on another vote....

Edited October 18, 2012 by Boris

[number-16]

Not sure about that, I have a feeling the size of result may well affect what the terms are. Also we would be negotiating with the UK and the EU.

 

I tend to agree with Coco that the EU should be up for grabs too.

 

Thinking as I type here, maybe the best way would be Yes/No vote, Hold a Scottish election with the parties policies on how they are going to negotiate/form a government in the New Scotland being the basis of that vote, then do the settlement, then another referendum.

 

Might take time and cost some cash but we need to get to the situation where the people end up the Scotland that they want and can vote based on the actual situation, not what politicians tell us it might be.

 

If any of that makes sense.........

 

Going by the precedent Labour set in Aberdeen I could see that going very badly.

 

A unionist coalition could negotiate a very poor settlement in the knowledge it would be rejected.

 

I would never have suggested this before May this year but do now fear it could happen if that route was taken.

[kingantti1874]

Interesting mori poll today - I'm glad that the default view of the nation is to maintain the union... If the SNP are to win they will have to empirically prove that we will be better off... Less chat, more facts please..

 

http://twitter.com/IpsosMORIScot/status/258847788211785728/photo/1

[Boris]

Less chat, more facts please..

 

 

Wholeheartedly agree!

[kingantti1874]

Wholeheartedly agree!

 

And if they do so I will look at it with an open mind, one of the biggest things that irritates me around this debate are individuals presenting idealistic scenarios as fact, we will be better off, we will have fiscal autonomy, we will never be involved in foreign conflict, we will get rid of trident etc etc- these are all smashing statements none of which are based on fact or do-ability and with even less thought dedicated to the consequences...

 

If independence is genuinely a good deal for the Scottish people the nationalists should be intelligent enough to campaign in a way where they accept the onus of proof and remove a lot of risk from the decision.

 

If they fail,I firmly believe the grown ups will deliver a resounding no

[Boris]

And if they do so I will look at it with an open mind, one of the biggest things that irritates me around this debate are individuals presenting idealistic scenarios as fact, we will be better off, we will have fiscal autonomy, we will never be involved in foreign conflict, we will get rid of trident etc etc- these are all smashing statements none of which are based on fact or do-ability and with even less thought dedicated to the consequences...

 

If independence is genuinely a good deal for the Scottish people the nationalists should be intelligent enough to campaign in a way where they accept the onus of proof and remove a lot of risk from the decision.

 

If they fail,I firmly believe the grown ups will deliver a resounding no

 

Similarily, the No campaign have to spell out the benefitsof Union.

 

They also, crucially imo, need to tell the elctorate what will happen about devo-max, the non-option which, according to polls, most Scots voters actually want.

 

This is key for me. No committment to a future referendum on devo-max then I'll probably vote for independence.

 

The status quo isn't good enough, imo, however the unionist politicians have to respect the will of the people - and by burying devo-max they are doing quite the opposite!

[kingantti1874]

So you think the debate and decision you make should only be based on the economy and if you'll be better off?

 

I don't think either side can say definitively if anyone would be better or worse off as there are too many unknowns. My view is that there wouldn't be such a clamour from the English Unionists to keep us in the Union unless we were contributing more to the collective, what else is there for a Tory PM in Scotland unless it is cash to the treasury? Why else would the need us?

 

There are lots of other reasons... The role of the UK in world poliocs would be diminished for one...

 

Like most other people the most important thing is how this impacts my family..

[kingantti1874]

Similarily, the No campaign have to spell out the benefitsof Union.

 

They also, crucially imo, need to tell the elctorate what will happen about devo-max, the non-option which, according to polls, most Scots voters actually want.

 

This is key for me. No committment to a future referendum on devo-max then I'll probably vote for independence.

 

The status quo isn't good enough, imo, however the unionist politicians have to respect the will of the people - and by burying devo-max they are doing quite the opposite!

 

I agree, and I think they will try to do that however if the referendum was held today the union would be maintained hence my comment about the onus of proof being on the nationalists..

 

And despite protestations to the contrary the most important question to e asked is impacts on the economy... People are not going to vote for some notion political idealism if they are going to be worse off.. Money is the key factor - everything else is chaff

[Boris]

So you think the debate and decision you make should only be based on the economy and if you'll be better off?

 

I don't think either side can say definitively if anyone would be better or worse off as there are too many unknowns. My view is that there wouldn't be such a clamour from the English Unionists to keep us in the Union unless we were contributing more to the collective, what else is there for a Tory PM in Scotland unless it is cash to the treasury? Why else would the need us?

 

 

There are lots of other reasons... The role of the UK in world poliocs would be diminished for one...

 

Like most other people the most important thing is how this impacts my family..

 

I was going to say that "better off" can mean a variety of things to a variety of people.

 

For example, I'm happy to pay more taxes if it means that we have better schools and hospitals and social care and provision.

 

Financially "worse" off, but society as a whole is "better off" which makes me, as a member of that society, "better off" too.

 

The UK's role in world politics being diminished does not worry me one jot. We've been punching above our weight since 1918. Everyone else in the world has known this for years, but only now are we recognising it.

[kingantti1874]

Are there really lots of other reasons and the one you list isn't true either.

 

I agree with you about the impact on your family but I tend to take Boris's view on this. It is not necessarily the amount of pennies better off I am that counts, but rather the society I live in as a whole.

 

I believe that Scotland is different enough from the rest of the UK to have different needs/requirements that an Independent Scotland fighting for Scotland would function better than the UK representing us.

 

you are correct in saying the Yes campaign are behind and have to start getting there argument across, but I'd also like to see some positive arguments from the No campaign as to why the Union is better. Unless they convince me of what benefit the Union has rather than scaremongering about the potential Armageddon of Independence then they'll never convince someone like me to vote no.

 

I don't disagree with anything in your post Brian although at present I sit on the other side of the dance albeit with an open mind, society implications important yes but rightly or wrongly If people perceive that they will be worse off in the pocket then the vote is doomed IMO..

[southside1874]

Should it? Sorry I dispute that. I'd rather be well off and tied to a larger neighbour than getting progressively poorer but somehow "scottish".

Freedom at any cost- no.

Nationalism is a flexible concept that now includes everyone resident in this country no matter what their origin.

the question of EU membership has not as yet been resolved

IF we are wedged into the EU we would merely be gaining our sovereinty on one hand before hosing it away to an even more remote control centre who have an even worse record of ignoring people and being unaccountable- what would be the point in that- especially with tighter political and fiscal EU union very much on the agenda.

IF we were to go independant I would follow the Monaco model- tiny taxation and harbour the wealthy from Europe of their relative tax obligations- soak the rich? Na. Flood the place with them so they spend their dosh here? Yes please

I think the point is you have to take your chances. Personally I believe we will be better off but that is not why I would make the choice. If the Westminster Government thought they would be better off without Scotland, I don't think they would give two hoots if we left.

When I left my parents house, I was going to be worse off but I wanted my own independence and in the long term I think I have became wealthier in a lot more ways than just financial.

I don't really buy into this EU membership either, thats a debate that should come after the independence vote. I'm not a scottish flag waving patriot, I just think we can run things better for ourselves and for the betterment of the folk in this country whether they are Irish, Polish or Argentinian.

[The Real Maroonblood]

There are lots of other reasons... The role of the UK in world poliocs would be diminished for one...

Like most other people the most important thing is how this impacts my family..

That is a very valid point.

[Big D]

The SNP are refusing to reveal what the legal advice they have on joining the EU as a new country. We must surmise that the likely advice is that the new country would have to join the Euro - as if the advice was that Scotland could retain an opt-out (with the new rump Bank of England running Scotland's monetary policy with the only regard for Scotland then being how it might affect the UK's inflation rate) - as now seems to be SNP policy) then presumably the SNP would have published the advice.

 

As for a Eurosceptic Government in London. You have to be joking!

 

You will not like Viviane Reding's (the EU dep)non doctored interview about Catalan independence with regards to the EU. The transcript of which has now been altered by, I dunno, London, Madrid, Brussels? They are the three most corrupt governments I can think of who have most to lose, so I'm probably bulls on this. I've not provided a link because those provided with a good Scots education have to start using it to find the truth for themselves. You want a better future you have to start fighting those that will lose out when you are successful for your family, friends and neighbours.

[Ulysses]

Every year? Ad infinitum?

 

Surely the unspecified 'they' would be better able to influence that scenario in an independent nation?

 

But that wasn't the point of the question. My point was more "core" than that. My point was about whether or not a relatively small amount of money would make a difference to your vote. If it would not, then you are probably voting on principle and the economic arguments won't convince you one way or the other. If it would, then to be quite honest who really cares if you're Scottish, British or TransEurAsiAtlantean?

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Didn't work properly.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2012 by J.T.F.Robertson

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Similarily, the No campaign have to spell out the benefitsof Union.

 

They also, crucially imo, need to tell the elctorate what will happen about devo-max, the non-option which, according to polls, most Scots voters actually want.

 

This is key for me. No committment to a future referendum on devo-max then I'll probably vote for independence.

 

The status quo isn't good enough, imo, however the unionist politicians have to respect the will of the people - and by burying devo-max they are doing quite the opposite!

 

Boris, digressing here, I suppose, but do you not find you're advocacy of independence, at conflict with your socialist principles? I realise it's not written in stone, right enough. (leastwise, don't think it is)

[Coco]

 

 

You will not like Viviane Reding's (the EU dep)non doctored interview about Catalan independence with regards to the EU. The transcript of which has now been altered by, I dunno, London, Madrid, Brussels? They are the three most corrupt governments I can think of who have most to lose, so I'm probably bulls on this. I've not provided a link because those provided with a good Scots education have to start using it to find the truth for themselves. You want a better future you have to start fighting those that will lose out when you are successful for your family, friends and neighbours.

 

Come again?

[Boris]

1350587745[/url]' post='3200482']

Boris, digressing here, I suppose, but do you not find you're advocacy of independence, at conflict with your socialist principles? I realise it's not written in stone, right enough. (leastwise, don't think it is)

 

Well, I'm not advocating independence as such, devo max would get my vote, however I'll try to answer your question.

Nationalism is, IMO, a construct created by and exploited by the Bourgoise to dilute the political consciousness of the Proletariat.

That said, I reckon I would be closer to a moderately socialist society in an Independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The class system and old school tie brigade seems more entrenched within the political establishment at a UK Level, compared to Scotland. Scotland also has a New Democratic process, compared to the Westminster model. The fact that House of Lords reform has fallen away somewhat speaks volumes. As too did the stitch up over PR with the compromise of AV which nobody really wanted.

Looking at things economically, it is patently obvious that free market economics are a busted flush. Yet no mainstream political party, and I include the snp in this, seem to want to change anything. Despite the bluster, this recession will be ridden out, growth will return, then bubble, then pop, then recession etc etc repeat ad nauseum. The political class at Westminster will not allow this to change. As mentioned, the Westminster electoral system will not facilitate this. The battle ground at general elections is for Basildon Man so regardless of how Scotland, Wales, the north of England etc vote, it's down to those key seats that decides how the whole nation is governed.

So, while one can have an internationalist outlook, it is perhaps better to get ones own house in order first.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Well, I'm not advocating independence as such, devo max would get my vote, however I'll try to answer your question.

Nationalism is, IMO, a construct created by and exploited by the Bourgoise to dilute the political consciousness of the Proletariat.

That said, I reckon I would be closer to a moderately socialist society in an Independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The class system and old school tie brigade seems more entrenched within the political establishment at a UK Level, compared to Scotland. Scotland also has a New Democratic process, compared to the Westminster model. The fact that House of Lords reform has fallen away somewhat speaks volumes. As too did the stitch up over PR with the compromise of AV which nobody really wanted.

Looking at things economically, it is patently obvious that free market economics are a busted flush. Yet no mainstream political party, and I include the snp in this, seem to want to change anything. Despite the bluster, this recession will be ridden out, growth will return, then bubble, then pop, then recession etc etc repeat ad nauseum. The political class at Westminster will not allow this to change. As mentioned, the Westminster electoral system will not facilitate this. The battle ground at general elections is for Basildon Man so regardless of how Scotland, Wales, the north of England etc vote, it's down to those key seats that decides how the whole nation is governed.

So, while one can have an internationalist outlook, it is perhaps better to get ones own house in order first.

 

Opiate of the masses (I just made that up ) stuff, along with religion, music, x-box, alcohol, drugs and the like.

 

"Charity" begins at home.

 

Seriously though, I was curious, that's all. I'm (a lot)more the armchair socialist, as opposed to the academic.

[Coco]

Well, I'm not advocating independence as such, devo max would get my vote, however I'll try to answer your question.

Nationalism is, IMO, a construct created by and exploited by the Bourgoise to dilute the political consciousness of the Proletariat.

That said, I reckon I would be closer to a moderately socialist society in an Independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The class system and old school tie brigade seems more entrenched within the political establishment at a UK Level, compared to Scotland. Scotland also has a New Democratic process, compared to the Westminster model. The fact that House of Lords reform has fallen away somewhat speaks volumes. As too did the stitch up over PR with the compromise of AV which nobody really wanted.

Looking at things economically, it is patently obvious that free market economics are a busted flush. Yet no mainstream political party, and I include the snp in this, seem to want to change anything. Despite the bluster, this recession will be ridden out, growth will return, then bubble, then pop, then recession etc etc repeat ad nauseum. The political class at Westminster will not allow this to change. As mentioned, the Westminster electoral system will not facilitate this. The battle ground at general elections is for Basildon Man so regardless of how Scotland, Wales, the north of England etc vote, it's down to those key seats that decides how the whole nation is governed.

So, while one can have an internationalist outlook, it is perhaps better to get ones own house in order first.

 

You don't need to have bubble/burst policies of the Brown type.

 

He was running a structural deficit of 5.2% of GDP at the very top of his bubble. Better management of the economy would allow the beneficial aspects of capitalism to help the people of the country. Instead we had a corporatist public opinion obsessed pork barrel politician stoking up the boom and then buying the bad bank balance sheets after the bust.

 

What system do you think is going to be established in independent Scotland or devo-maxed Scotland which is going to appeal to your political tastes - given the points made repeatedly on this thread that the finances (at least in the early years) would be unbelievably tough.

[southside1874]

Well, I'm not advocating independence as such, devo max would get my vote, however I'll try to answer your question.

Nationalism is, IMO, a construct created by and exploited by the Bourgoise to dilute the political consciousness of the Proletariat.

That said, I reckon I would be closer to a moderately socialist society in an Independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole. The class system and old school tie brigade seems more entrenched within the political establishment at a UK Level, compared to Scotland. Scotland also has a New Democratic process, compared to the Westminster model. The fact that House of Lords reform has fallen away somewhat speaks volumes. As too did the stitch up over PR with the compromise of AV which nobody really wanted.

Looking at things economically, it is patently obvious that free market economics are a busted flush. Yet no mainstream political party, and I include the snp in this, seem to want to change anything. Despite the bluster, this recession will be ridden out, growth will return, then bubble, then pop, then recession etc etc repeat ad nauseum. The political class at Westminster will not allow this to change. As mentioned, the Westminster electoral system will not facilitate this. The battle ground at general elections is for Basildon Man so regardless of how Scotland, Wales, the north of England etc vote, it's down to those key seats that decides how the whole nation is governed.

So, while one can have an internationalist outlook, it is perhaps better to get ones own house in order first.

Pretty much the way I see it. I don't think Westminster has ever done anything for Scotland, in fact I think they go out their way to make things difficult for Scotland to move forward. As you say, government policy is made to suit the large populated areas of England and therefore can't possibly do anything to help the lower populated areas of Scotland, Wales and North England.

 

The difference it made to folk on Skye and Lochalsh when they stopped the tolls on the Skye bridge is unbelievable. The difference it makes to people to know that they can go to university if they put the effort in at school is unmeasurable. I don't see Westminster as investing in its population but using them to balance its economy.

[southside1874]

You don't need to have bubble/burst policies of the Brown type.

 

He was running a structural deficit of 5.2% of GDP at the very top of his bubble. Better management of the economy would allow the beneficial aspects of capitalism to help the people of the country. Instead we had a corporatist public opinion obsessed pork barrel politician stoking up the boom and then buying the bad bank balance sheets after the bust.

 

What system do you think is going to be established in independent Scotland or devo-maxed Scotland which is going to appeal to your political tastes - given the points made repeatedly on this thread that the finances (at least in the early years) would be unbelievably tough.

 

If we didn't spend so much on going to war with folk and we didn't have to borrow money to finance these wars, would we still have a deficit? It's easy to say that better management of the economy would allow beneficial aspects of capitalism but the fact that governments don't actually run the economy because they are in so much debt and have to do what is asked of the bankers or they will downgrade them must strike a chord with you?

 

Does the fact that these financial organisations now rampage through europe downgrading countries to create havoc with the value of the euro not have a bearing on the value of the pound?

 

It's probably the "reward" for buying the bad bank balance sheets of the banks. maybe;-)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If we didn't spend so much on going to war with folk and we didn't have to borrow money to finance these wars, would we still have a deficit? It's easy to say that better management of the economy would allow beneficial aspects of capitalism but the fact that governments don't actually run the economy because they are in so much debt and have to do what is asked of the bankers or they will downgrade them must strike a chord with you?

 

Does the fact that these financial organisations now rampage through europe downgrading countries to create havoc with the value of the euro not have a bearing on the value of the pound?

 

It's probably the "reward" for buying the bad bank balance sheets of the banks. maybe;-)

So because the rating agencies, who didn't do their job properly before the crash, are doing their job properly now, it is unacceptable?

[southside1874]

So because the rating agencies, who didn't do their job properly before the crash, are doing their job properly now, it is unacceptable?

Do you honestly think they're doing their job properly now? Ask the Greeks if they're doing their job properly.

[3fingersreid]

Do you honestly think they're doing their job properly now? Ask the Greeks if they're doing their job properly.

And you can guarantee me that eck and the rest can run everything perfectly here what with swinney as chancellor and sturgeon as foreign secretary

 

one of my many doubts about independence is we - and this goes for ALL the current msp' s- don't have any politicians of real international statesmanship and experience

[davemclaren]

And you can guarantee me that eck and the rest can run everything perfectly here what with swinney as chancellor and sturgeon as foreign secretary

 

one of my many doubts about independence is we - and this goes for ALL the current msp' s- don't have any politicians of real international statesmanship and experience

 

 

You keep missing the point that they may well not form the government after any yes vote. Also, do we expect all our current MPs to suddenly give up or find constituencies in the residual UK? Who are the experienced international statesmen or stateswomen in the current UK government by the way?

[southside1874]

And you can guarantee me that eck and the rest can run everything perfectly here what with swinney as chancellor and sturgeon as foreign secretary

 

one of my many doubts about independence is we - and this goes for ALL the current msp' s- don't have any politicians of real international statesmanship and experience

My opinion is that the SNP manifesto states they will disband if Scotland becomes independent so I don't look at things this way. How can any MSP be good at international statesmanship if they are never in that fold but merely a regional politician of the UK. My experience of debating Scottish independence with foreigners I meet boil down to them thinking we are bampots because they see us as run from England and allow it yet try to be full of national pride when it comes to everything else (sport). How others see us...........as they say.

[Das Root]

That is a very valid point.

 

 

 

The UN is a rather ineffectual organisation that couldn't agree on what day of the week it was without someone vetoing it, run by the USA, China and Russia. While the EU is owned by Germany, and secondly France. The UK is second tier at best in terms of world status.

[3fingersreid]

You keep missing the point that they may well not form the government after any yes vote. Also, do we expect all our current MPs to suddenly give up or find constituencies in the residual UK? Who are the experienced international statesmen or stateswomen in the current UK government by the way?

Im well aware they might not be the party of power and maybe not just because they may not get in as election winners but because the snp might just might find themselves in a civil war within their own party in that the left and the right of the party after getting independence might find it hard to stay together and as to the

statesmen and women at Westminster your right very few exist but there are still one or two which is something we don't have

[davemclaren]

Im well aware they might not be the party of power and maybe not just because they may not get in as election winners but because the snp might just might find themselves in a civil war within their own party in that the left and the right of the party after getting independence might find it hard to stay together and as to the

statesmen and women at Westminster your right very few exist but there are still one or two which is something we don't have

 

 

Who?

[2NaFish]

Barack Obama has a tattoo that reads Gideon and a What Would Michael Gove Do? wristband.

[Coco]

If we didn't spend so much on going to war with folk and we didn't have to borrow money to finance these wars, would we still have a deficit? It's easy to say that better management of the economy would allow beneficial aspects of capitalism but the fact that governments don't actually run the economy because they are in so much debt and have to do what is asked of the bankers or they will downgrade them must strike a chord with you?

 

Does the fact that these financial organisations now rampage through europe downgrading countries to create havoc with the value of the euro not have a bearing on the value of the pound?

 

It's probably the "reward" for buying the bad bank balance sheets of the banks. maybe;-)

 

Yes there would still have been a huge structural deficit under Brown if the war spending had been omitted.

 

The bond markets are important to pork barrel politicians because they lend them the money to buy votes with free mince. If the Governments across Europe had not borrowed so much money they would not be in thrall to the lenders.

 

There will be no rewards to the country for Brown buying the banks. Many years of balance sheet adjustment to come.

[JamboX2]

Not sure about that, I have a feeling the size of result may well affect what the terms are. Also we would be negotiating with the UK and the EU.

 

I tend to agree with Coco that the EU should be up for grabs too.

 

Thinking as I type here, maybe the best way would be Yes/No vote, Hold a Scottish election with the parties policies on how they are going to negotiate/form a government in the New Scotland being the basis of that vote, then do the settlement, then another referendum.

 

Might take time and cost some cash but we need to get to the situation where the people end up the Scotland that they want and can vote based on the actual situation, not what politicians tell us it might be.

 

If any of that makes sense.........

 

People keep saying it'll be the next election that decides what a new Scotland will look like, but its foolish.

 

The process is this;

 

1. 2014 vote - if the Yes side win it becomes incumbent on the Government of Scotland, currently the SNP to negotiate the secessionof the Svottish state from the Union. So via negotiation by the SNP they will design a Scotland they feel is best. There is to be NO vote on the terms they negotiate.

 

2. UK 2015 election - Scottish MPs will depart Westminster with their seats being abolished.

 

3. 2016 - Independence day on whatever the negotiated date will be.

 

4. 2016 Scottish election - Scotland holds her first independent elections. Parties will set out their visions but will be saddled by the 2014/15 negotiated terms. It is highly unlikely given the upheaval this process will have caused that the EU or the UK will want to renegotiate any settlements reached in the past few years. That means it'll be an SNP blueprint of Scotland; the ? and bank of England, the Queen, NATO, possibly a reapplication to the EU (i think we do have re-apply for one). This means folk like Patrik Harvie and Tommy Sheridan wont get the Scotland they want in the slightest. The fact is life in Scotland after independence will be no better, in fact with the caution and lack of determination in the SNP on many issues to do something radical or different, it'll be a mini-UK. In hoc to big business and the usual stiflers of progress, just magnified on a smaller stage.

 

I have consistently said independence will not be a panacea, that it'll create an SNP hegemony and that it'll be as unaccountable as Westminster is to the people. If this were an open debate we would get votes on NATO, the EU and the settlement terms to decide for ourselves what we really want. As it is its another politicians stich up. I'll be voting No as it stands as i see us stronger together as one nation of 4 across these islands andthat devolution is the best of both worlds. Also the fact that the Yes Camapign is an extended front of the SNP, who after 60-70 years still have no idea what they want, even after 5 years building to this in government to me is just taking Scots for chumps. They've not discussed anything about it with UK departments, with the EU or with NATO as to our prospective treaty obligations. Its a mess and with it being 2 years off its created a political dead end till after then.

[Boris]

This means folk like Patrik Harvie and Tommy Sheridan wont get the Scotland they want in the slightest.

 

Unless they themselves win the 2016 election (or whenever) and instigate legislation that moulds society as they wish.

 

That's what the democratic process is all about.

 

Got a link to the source for that timetable you detailed, btw?

 

there are plenty of questions to be answered about a new constitution, political system, e.g. would we introduce a bicameral system?

 

What the YES campaign need to do is answer these questions and reign the SNP in a bit.

[JamboX2]

Unless they themselves win the 2016 election (or whenever) and instigate legislation that moulds society as they wish.

 

That's what the democratic process is all about.

 

Got a link to the source for that timetable you detailed, btw?

 

there are plenty of questions to be answered about a new constitution, political system, e.g. would we introduce a bicameral system?

 

What the YES campaign need to do is answer these questions and reign the SNP in a bit.

 

That time table is the same as the one which Salmond outlined in the 2011 campaign and in the draft 2010 bill (with amended dates). The one thing the SNP have consistently said is that 2016 will be the year of independence. Prior to that uts just negotiations.

 

Harvie and Sheridan, and the scottish right, will be saddled with Salmonds Scotland. It is ludicrous to suggest, should these 2 men with radical policies, renegotiate so soon after. The UK could go to the WTO or ICJ if a Socialist Scotland chose to nationalise north sea oil and boot BP and Shell and Texaco etc out. These matfers will be decided by negotiations long before the 2016 election. If UKIP won a UK general election it'd take them years to negotiate out of tge EU. Same appkues to Scotland on independence, if a socialist eurosceptic won out to be FM it'd be years of fighting to get out of agreements.

 

Fact is the SNP negotiated settlement will bind Scotland on tge currency, north sea oil and our foreign commitments. If the Greeks cant get out of the Euro without causing panic in the markets the idea of leaving the pound-zone for the Scots Dollar (say) would cause an equal amount of market panic. Independence will be an SNP independence. It'll resemble everything they want and call on now. The Greens and elements of tge Scottish far left are just making up the numbers on it. They'll not get their stand alone Scotland. Its a falsehood. Watching Sheridan on This Week last night was laughable. His Scotland will never exist. The negotiations on independent scotland will establish the way Scotland will be for generations to come.

 

The constitutional model? Scotland Act 1998 + is your answer. Take out the reserved powers schedule, pad out on head of state and establish a supreme court and incorporate the ECHR and you've got it. The Holyrood parliament will stay exactly the same. 129 MSPs and a few extra powers. Wouldnt hold out for a 'we hold these truths as self evident...' style document. It'll start like tge Scotland Act does; s.1 There shall be an independent Scotland. And you know why? Because its the established language and default position of Scottish devolved politics for all 'dynamic, progressives' to talk and sound like Donald Dewar.

 

As for the YES campaign and the SNP being reigned in? Nonsense. The Yes campaign would loose tomorrow if Salmond and Sturgeon were to go, as would the SNP. They are one of the same. Blair Jenkins is frankly as much an SNP tool in this as Darling is an extension of Labour.

 

The talk of noble Agreements and big heroic political language around all this is a joke. A cheap idea being pushed that this is the beginning of something special. The Monday event of signing tge s.30 order was not a big deal. Its happebed numerous tines, it was mery Cameron going you have the power till 2014. Not some grand international event it was spun out to be. It was the starting pistol of 2 years in which Scottish politics becomes an even more divided and more of a broken record than it has been since 2001. Its a question that both sides know could bevdealt with by this time in 2013. We've had 40-50 years of this debate. If you still dont understand the debate or what it entails then its not that hard to decide now. Facts and figures change and will change in these coming 2 years. End of the day this is a vote on your gut feeling if who you are and who you affiliate to.

 

Regardless tge next 2 years will see Scotland become divided and stagnate beyond belief.

[Boaby Ewing]

That time table is the same as the one which Salmond outlined in the 2011 campaign and in the draft 2010 bill (with amended dates). The one thing the SNP have consistently said is that 2016 will be the year of independence. Prior to that uts just negotiations.

 

Harvie and Sheridan, and the scottish right, will be saddled with Salmonds Scotland. It is ludicrous to suggest, should these 2 men with radical policies, renegotiate so soon after. The UK could go to the WTO or ICJ if a Socialist Scotland chose to nationalise north sea oil and boot BP and Shell and Texaco etc out. These matfers will be decided by negotiations long before the 2016 election. If UKIP won a UK general election it'd take them years to negotiate out of tge EU. Same appkues to Scotland on independence, if a socialist eurosceptic won out to be FM it'd be years of fighting to get out of agreements.

 

Fact is the SNP negotiated settlement will bind Scotland on tge currency, north sea oil and our foreign commitments. If the Greeks cant get out of the Euro without causing panic in the markets the idea of leaving the pound-zone for the Scots Dollar (say) would cause an equal amount of market panic. Independence will be an SNP independence. It'll resemble everything they want and call on now. The Greens and elements of tge Scottish far left are just making up the numbers on it. They'll not get their stand alone Scotland. Its a falsehood. Watching Sheridan on This Week last night was laughable. His Scotland will never exist. The negotiations on independent scotland will establish the way Scotland will be for generations to come.

 

The constitutional model? Scotland Act 1998 + is your answer. Take out the reserved powers schedule, pad out on head of state and establish a supreme court and incorporate the ECHR and you've got it. The Holyrood parliament will stay exactly the same. 129 MSPs and a few extra powers. Wouldnt hold out for a 'we hold these truths as self evident...' style document. It'll start like tge Scotland Act does; s.1 There shall be an independent Scotland. And you know why? Because its the established language and default position of Scottish devolved politics for all 'dynamic, progressives' to talk and sound like Donald Dewar.

 

As for the YES campaign and the SNP being reigned in? Nonsense. The Yes campaign would loose tomorrow if Salmond and Sturgeon were to go, as would the SNP. They are one of the same. Blair Jenkins is frankly as much an SNP tool in this as Darling is an extension of Labour.

 

The talk of noble Agreements and big heroic political language around all this is a joke. A cheap idea being pushed that this is the beginning of something special. The Monday event of signing tge s.30 order was not a big deal. Its happebed numerous tines, it was mery Cameron going you have the power till 2014. Not some grand international event it was spun out to be. It was the starting pistol of 2 years in which Scottish politics becomes an even more divided and more of a broken record than it has been since 2001. Its a question that both sides know could bevdealt with by this time in 2013. We've had 40-50 years of this debate. If you still dont understand the debate or what it entails then its not that hard to decide now. Facts and figures change and will change in these coming 2 years. End of the day this is a vote on your gut feeling if who you are and who you affiliate to.

 

Regardless tge next 2 years will see Scotland become divided and stagnate beyond belief.

 

 

The panic is caused by the Greeks leaving the euro so they can default on their debt (and screwing the French, German and Spanish banks in the process). The panic is not caused by their tin pot economy ******* off per se.

 

No one has suggested Scotland would default as a result of independence, but bash on anyway. They would like face slightly higher interest rate payments on their share of the debt/deficit, but that's not the same as causing widespread market panic.

 

Thanks in advance.

[JamboX2]

The panic is caused by the Greeks leaving the euro so they can default on their debt (and screwing the French, German and Spanish banks in the process). The panic is not caused by their tin pot economy ******* off per se.

 

No one has suggested Scotland would default as a result of independence, but bash on anyway. They would like face slightly higher interest rate payments on their share of the debt/deficit, but that's not the same as causing widespread market panic.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Never said we'd default. But the markets do not like destabilisation. Scotland deciding to keep tge poubd tgen dropping it a year later will destabilise them.

 

I want to know exactly how the negotiations will be done. I want to know if it'll be cross party ir SNP led or whatever. These details are needed. But based on what we know i dont think what i've said is far off based on SNP press releases.

[kingantti1874]

There will be no rewards to the country for Brown buying the banks. Many years of balance sheet adjustment to come.

 

Given the banks are the bedrock of the UK economy, millions would have been jobless either directly or indirectly, so strongly disagree with that...

 

There is no uk economy without the bank, at least not a viable one .. Do I agree with that reliance? Certainly not, we certainly need to look to diversify and invest in other industries to safeguard ourselves in the future, but it doesn't change the fact that every single person in this country would have suffered massively if the banks had gone pop.

 

Also there is a very very good chance that the tax payer will make a tidy 'direct ' profit out of that investment over her next decade ..