Even More SNP Nonsense

[jumpship]

12 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Aye theres a good few brainwashed, self interested, blinkered shitehawks in Scotland though....

Scotland is turning into a two party state.

 

Those who want Scottish  freedom to build a better world for our kids.

 

and those who don't care about anyone else but themselves.

[Roxy Hearts]

5 hours ago, EwanHearts said:

You must have wool in your ears, or in your head.

I meant in basic terms. When asked what country are you from folk here would say Scotland. I don't see UK as a country more a construct. 

[Doogz]

4 hours ago, jumpship said:

Scotland is turning into a two party state.

 

Those who want Scottish  freedom to build a better world for our kids.

 

and those who don't care about anyone else but themselves.

Or alternatively:

 

Those who care about the potential negative consequences of independence and want to make an informed decision to guarantee the best future for themselves, their families & country as a whole.

 

Those who are so focused on arbitrary political/geographical boundaries that they'll ignore the facts and figures, refuse to openly debate issues and attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't share their "vision". 

 

 

[Hasselhoff]

10 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I am 100% sure there are people who could convince you that indy is a much better course of action. 

Follow them on your Twitter for links and articles if you desire.

 

I have already uploaded 2 PDF's for your info. 

 

Here is another decent article https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/06/07/why-scotland-should-reject-the-sterlingisation-option-and-instead-create-its-own-currency/

 

Cameron Archibald, the student the yes side are treating as some kind of expert. He was picked up on this  in Twitter the other day by Sam Taylor (a very smart guy who works with These Islands) who gives him an education. https://mobile.twitter.com/staylorish/status/1004708445763883008

 

In other news, anyone see Sturgeon's channel 4 interview?  https://mobile.twitter.com/channel4news/status/1005087122246782976. This is the only thing that matters to her, how could she not have the numbers in her head? She wanted to avoid the question but luckily this new channel 4 Scotland correspondent isn't like usual journalists like Brian Taylor or Andrew Marr and actually asks difficult questions.  

 

 

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

47 minutes ago, Doogz said:

Those who are so focused on arbitrary political/geographical boundaries

 

 

With regard to which, I would like any independence-supporting socialists on here to explain something. I thought socialism was, by its very definition, supposed to be international? What kind of socialist are you if you believe solidarity stops at some arbitrary border? 

 

40 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Cameron Archibald, the student the yes side are treating as some kind of expert. He was picked up on this  in Twitter the other day by Sam Taylor (a very smart guy who works with These Islands) who gives him an education. https://mobile.twitter.com/staylorish/status/1004708445763883008

 

I see no 'education' being given to him there at all. I see a discussion with both making good points. That's it.

 

No, Scotland is not Japan - and the Japanese economic model is no example of anything really, given its never-ending stagnancy. However, a huge amount of the ludicrous conservative obsession with "sound money" is, purely and simply, bollocks. The time to borrow and spend is when a country's struggling (idiot austerians think you can just cut and cut with no consequences); and beyond that, it is unclear to me that anything that bad happens when a sovereign state with its own money supply is in debt.

 

That's not to say it's all a bed of roses or something. An independent Scotland would, of course, need a good credit rating to be able to borrow effectively, and substantial reserves too. But the constant nonsense of "do you want to turn into Zimbabwe?" at a time inflation and interest rates remain very low across the West is laughable.

 

After the Second World War, the UK was in all kinds of horrible trouble, and needed US support, or else. At the same time, we built the entire welfare state, including massive amounts of housing. I'd like austerians and Austrian economists to explain: how do they suppose this happened?

 

As a result of that enormous investment, we entered 20 years of prosperity and stability, for far more people than had ever previously enjoyed it. By contrast, during a long period in which we've finally rid ourselves of the deficit, poverty, hardship and deprivation have grown horrendously.

Edited June 9, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Barack said:

Just noticed on a YouGov poll, that Sturgeon's approval rating has slipped to -2. Yet Davidson's is at +11.

 

What's going on there then? It's not actually a one-off either, the approval rating has been sliding for 3 years. 

 

If the SNP, as expected and shown, based on SM's poll earlier, are expected to win the next elections...where does that leave her? Quite surprised faith in her, is that low. If she's to be the figurehead of the next campaign, such low confidence numbers in a leader isn't tenable ultimately, no?

 

If May, Corbyn or over the water...Trump even, had such low approval...there would rightly have to be questions asked within the parties, and by the electorate.

 

What's people's issue with her, if the SNP as a party, are more or less doing fine? Is her public persona & demeanour about independence, putting some undecided people off? A change of strategy needed by her if Indyref2 materialises?

 

1. May, Corbyn and Trump's net approval ratings are all wayyyyy lower.

 

2. If, say, 40% of people say they're going to vote SNP (an amazing figure after 11 years in government), that leaves 60% who aren't. Amid the divisive Scottish political scene, that might suggest Sturgeon's net approval is remarkably solid. 

 

3. Approval ratings for opposition leaders who seem fairly likeable and cultivate an image of themselves as the plucky underdog are often good. For a still relatively recent example across the UK, see the late Charles Kennedy. Yet this never translated into any real Lib Dem surge in share of the vote. His high approval was in part because he was seen as very different... and hence, never taken that seriously.

 

In Davidson's case, we can factor in independence too. What's the current No/Yes gap according to the polls? About 10 points or so. So she gets positive ratings even from those who still don't plan on voting Tory - but who do want the union to be protected. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Boris]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

I don't think NI is a country - it's never been a nation in it's own right so doean't have its own geopolitical history. It's only ever been a region of a larger country as far as I know, firstly of Ireland then the UK. 

 

Scotland, England, Wales and the UK are unarguably countries though. 

 

Im not sure Wales has ever been an unitary nation state ever?

[shaun.lawson]

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries. 4 countries within one - depending on your viewpoint - country or nation state. 

 

How can 4 countries exist within 1 country? Good question, which FIFA have been asking increasingly plaintively for decades. But they do. Such is the curious political construct of the UK. 

 

Within that construct, it's quite remarkable to see Northern Ireland's claims to being  a country denied (it very much is a country, folks); and Wales still referred to as a 'principality', when it has its own government and assembly, and the Prince of Wales ceased to have any power a long, long, long time ago.

[pablo]

10 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Im not sure Wales has ever been an unitary nation state ever?

 

Alright Borisimo? 

 

Shaun was wondering how you working class hero types justified switching off your social conscience at Gretna?  Seeing as your passion for Independence is nothing to do with nasty Nationalism or anything like that.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Alright Borisimo? 

 

Shaun was wondering how you working class hero types justified switching off your social conscience at Gretna?  Seeing as your passion for Independence is nothing to do with nasty Nationalism or anything like that.

 

Not only that - but the Labour Party has never, at any point in its history, supported nationalism. Instead, it's always supported internationalism.

 

For the crime of remaining true to its deepest principles (the unprincipled thing to do would've been to support independence, given it'd have prospered hugely in a newly independent Scotland), furious 'socialist' indy supporters destroyed it. Confused.com.

[The Comedian]

8 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Nowt to do with Geography.

 

A country - perhaps. A state - no.

 

http://www.un.org/en/member-states/

 

 

The above link is to the United Nations' List of Member States - if you can be bothered to read it, you will find that it is quite easy to navigate so scroll down to "S" to see if you can spot Scotland.

 

Scroll down a wee bit further and see if you can find "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The United Kingdom is described elsewhere as "A Commonwealth Realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." (plus Overseas Territories). The United Kingdom is the Sovereign State.

 

The EU vote was a referendum of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which was organised into councils and regions for the sake of administrative convenience in the poll. All that mattered in the outcome was total votes for Leave vs Remain.

 

The Independence vote was a referendum of an administrative part of the United Kingdom which was organised by council areas for the sake of administrative convenience. All that mattered in the outcome was was total votes for Yes vs No.

 

Both polls were carried out under the Representation of the People legislation (UK Law).

 

 

Another fact to add in. The SNP lost both of them. 

 

 

Carry on. 

[Boris]

22 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Alright Borisimo? 

 

Shaun was wondering how you working class hero types justified switching off your social conscience at Gretna?  Seeing as your passion for Independence is nothing to do with nasty Nationalism or anything like that.

 

Hahaha, socialists have long supported the right of peoples to self determination. 

 

Perhaps an independent Scotland would be more internationalist in its outlook, than the increasingly insular British Government?

 

Independence could also spark off imitation down South. Pour encourager les autres, so to speak.

 

But, as I've consistently stated throughout, federalise the uk, democratise it and I'd be happy. Independence isn't about nationalism for me, it's about democratising society.

 

 

[Boris]

37 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries. 4 countries within one - depending on your viewpoint - country or nation state. 

 

How can 4 countries exist within 1 country? Good question, which FIFA have been asking increasingly plaintively for decades. But they do. Such is the curious political construct of the UK. 

 

Within that construct, it's quite remarkable to see Northern Ireland's claims to being  a country denied (it very much is a country, folks); and Wales still referred to as a 'principality', when it has its own government and assembly, and the Prince of Wales ceased to have any power a long, long, long time ago.

The "what is a country" reasoning regards the home nations is semantic, by and large.

 

Regardless of definition, it is churlish not to recognise the home nations as anything other.

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

federalise the uk, democratise it and I'd be happy.

 

 

My thoughts exactly. I find it mindboggling that it still hasn't happened. A considerable part of the reason for the government's incompetence is that the old, Whitehall-based model of centralisation simply cannot cope with modern requirements at all.

[Boris]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

My thoughts exactly. I find it mindboggling that it still hasn't happened. A considerable part of the reason for the government's incompetence is that the old, Whitehall-based model of centralisation simply cannot cope with modern requirements at all.

That and the evil malevolence of the Tory party, desperate to retain power, using every trick in the book to play to the base fears of the proles so they can divide and conquer. Nationalism, eh? It's a bitch!

[pablo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Hahaha, socialists have long supported the right of peoples to self determination. 

 

Perhaps an independent Scotland would be more internationalist in its outlook, than the increasingly insular British Government?

 

Independence could also spark off imitation down South. Pour encourager les autres, so to speak.

 

But, as I've consistently stated throughout, federalise the uk, democratise it and I'd be happy. Independence isn't about nationalism for me, it's about democratising society.

 

 

 

Good lad ha ha

 

And now that the "Growth" Commission Report shows that Independence would impact the most vulnerable in society quite negatively, I'd imagine you're facing a bit of a dilemma?

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

That and the evil malevolence of the Tory party, desperate to retain power, using every trick in the book to play to the base fears of the proles so they can divide and conquer. Nationalism, eh? It's a bitch!

 

British nationalism certainly is.  

[Boris]

24 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Good lad ha ha

 

And now that the "Growth" Commission Report shows that Independence would impact the most vulnerable in society quite negatively, I'd imagine you're facing a bit of a dilemma?

 

 

 

Not really. It would be up to the government of an Indy Scotland to mitigate these impacts. 

 

Ive never said Indy would overnight lead to nirvana, I think I've been consistent in saying it would be tough initially.

 

The status quo isn't really helping the most vulnerable though, so somethings got to give.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

I imagine sometime back in the late 1690s there were broadsheets handed out in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland promising “realms of gold”. Perhaps our ancestors studied all 354 pages of the scheme. Maybe they studied in detail the cunning plan to turn Scotland into a great economic power. The whole world would be faced with the same dilemma: either pay us and take the short route or face the dangers and delays in going the long way round. How could it fail? We would all be at least four thousand pounds a year richer.

 

 

So get rich schemes are not new. Today they pop up unwelcome in your email inbox. They promise that you can make a good living by staying at home and doing nothing. All you have to do is send off for the following ebook. Please send ten dollars and hope that no-one steals your credit card details. At other times get rich quick schemes promised that Greenland was green and that Newfoundland (Vinland) grew grapes or is that a mistranslation? Who knows? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that whoever was fooled into travelling to either place because of promises of riches found instead somewhere that did not quite live up to expectations. Norse settlement in both places eventually died out when the world turned colder.  No doubt this was because they didn’t drive enough motor cars or is it that humans can only make the world hotter? Global cooling is never our fault but always because Thor is angry.

 

The gullible and the desperate believe that you can get richer by putting a cross in box and saying that you are independent. They read a headline promising that they would get four thousand pounds if only Scotland were like Finland. But let’s test this? Every single Scot has the right at present to live and work in Finland. So if you move there, do you get four thousand pounds? Luxembourg and Switzerland are also very rich countries. They have GDP per capita that is much higher than in the UK. There is nothing stopping anyone from the UK moving to these places. Does the fact that they have high GDP per capita mean that I personally get a share of this money just by living there? Unfortunately not. The streets of Lëtzebuerg are not actually paved with gold and Scots who move there don’t actually get to pick them up and put them in their pockets.

 

There’s a relatively simple idea that some independence supporters struggle to grasp. It is this: People get wealthy by working. Even if you could increase the GDP per capita of Scotland, it would not mean this increase was just handed out to everyone in their baby box.

 

If increasing GDP per capita were easy why doesn’t everyone do it? If independence were the route to prosperity, why isn’t South Sudan as wealthy as Norway by? After all they have been independent for 7 years. Doesn’t independence kill all known germs and cure all diseases? How can it be that poor South Sudan still has a GDP per capita of only two hundred and twenty eight dollars a year? They too had a detailed plan set out by a Growth Commission. No doubt someone promised them that they too would get four thousand pounds a year if only they were independent.

 

Increasing prosperity in Scotland requires that we have sensible economic policies and for individual Scots to increase their productivity and help create businesses that make a profit. The easiest way and probably the only way for each of us to make an extra four thousand pounds  a year any time soon is to get a job that pays that amount more than we earn at present. Just working rather than living on benefits is far more likely to lead to an income gain of four thousand pounds than voting for the SNP. If independence supporters put as much effort into working as they do into marching they might find they didn’t need the SNP to give them money, they could earn it by themselves.

 

The SNP’s latest scheme depends on all sorts of ifs and buts. Their four thousand pounds headline figure depends on growing the Scottish economy over a few decades. With good policies this is indeed possible. But then again with good economic policies the Scottish economy could equally grow as part of the UK. It is pure guess work to suppose that we would be four thousand pounds better off if we were independent. After all it isn’t as if the UK economy would stand still.  What if they grew more than Scotland did. Then we would be worse off. Who is to suppose that this couldn’t happen? Do the SNP have a crystal ball?

 

The biggest problem with the SNP scheme however, just like the one that was developed in the 1690s is that it depends on everything going right and nothing going wrong. There is a fatal flaw in the plan that makes it as risky as any scheme in Scottish history.  The SNP intends us post-independence to use the pound unilaterally.

 

It is not uncommon for certain countries to use the currency of someone else. This is usually known as dollarization. Many small countries use the US dollar.   Panama is a good example. Some tiny islands use the Australian or New Zealand dollar. Other countries like Zimbabwe use the dollar because their own currency had a serious inflation problem. For these sorts of places there are advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. But does Nicola Sturgeon seriously think that Scotland should go down the route of Pitcairn Island and Tuvalu?

 

Using Sterling outwith a currency union with the other parts of the UK is perfectly possible. No-one could stop an independent Scotland doing this. But why would we want to? The main advantage of having your own currency is that you have a central bank that underpins the whole economy. It acts as a lender of last resort. The Bank of England as we have seen in recent years can print money, engage in quantitative easing (QE) and keep interest rates very low indeed so as to encourage growth. In difficult economic circumstances the exchange rate adjusts. This might make it more expensive for us to go on holiday, but it makes our exports cheaper and encourages people from other countries to spend their money here.

 

Using the pound unilaterally would be possible, but it would hardly be desirable. Scottish banks were bailed out in 2008. Who would bail them out if such a crisis were to occur again? There is nothing wrong about being optimistic about the future, but we have to be prepared for things to go wrong, especially when they did go wrong ten years ago.  

 

If an independent Scotland were to face a financial crisis while using someone else’s currency we could not print money, we could not use QE, and we could not lower interest rates. If a Scottish bank failed, this could potentially mean that everyone with any money in that bank would lose it. Who would bail out the savers?

 

But under those circumstances who would put their money in a Scottish bank? Who would use financial services based in Scotland? Who would insure their house with a Scottish firm?

 

So if things went wonderfully well the Scottish economy might after some decades be a few thousand pounds per person better than it is now. It might. But each of us if we faced a rerun of the crisis of 2008 could lose all of our money.

 

This I’m afraid is a rerun of the Darien scheme.  In the 1690s absurdly optimistic Scots put all their money in the idea that we could control the Isthmus of Panama. They ignored the fact that Darien was disease ridden and that anyway it was a Spanish colony that the Spanish might fight for. Even if the scheme had succeeded and Scotland had established a successful colony in Panama is it really likely that larger powers than ours would have meekly handed over their money for ever? What would have stopped them seizing it just as we did?

 

Anyway as we all learned in primary school the Darien scheme failed and bankrupted Scotland leaving many wealthy families bawbeeless.  The Panama pound could have exactly the same effect on Scotland. We are promised riches, but we just as before we ignore the risks. A crisis no-one can dream today may arrive a few years from now, but unfortunately our cunning plan lacks a lender of last resort. I am forced to conclude that the major problem with Scottish primary education is that no-one ever learns from it. Next we will challenge England to a rerun at Flodden.

 

It might be that even if Scotland were independent the Bank of England would still be forced to bail us out. But this too is a repeat of the Darien scheme. English money bailed out Scotland in the early eighteenth century, if it had to bail out an independent Scotland the result would be the same.

 

Roll up, roll up, the SNP have a new Panama pound scheme. Get rich quick. Put everything you have into Darien. There are realms of gold there.     
 

[Pans Jambo]

7 hours ago, jumpship said:

Scotland is turning into a two party state.

 

Those who want Scottish  freedom to build a better world for our kids.

 

and those who don't care about anyone else but themselves.

[Roxy Hearts]

6 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

I imagine sometime back in the late 1690s there were broadsheets handed out in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland promising “realms of gold”. Perhaps our ancestors studied all 354 pages of the scheme. Maybe they studied in detail the cunning plan to turn Scotland into a great economic power. The whole world would be faced with the same dilemma: either pay us and take the short route or face the dangers and delays in going the long way round. How could it fail? We would all be at least four thousand pounds a year richer.

 

 

So get rich schemes are not new. Today they pop up unwelcome in your email inbox. They promise that you can make a good living by staying at home and doing nothing. All you have to do is send off for the following ebook. Please send ten dollars and hope that no-one steals your credit card details. At other times get rich quick schemes promised that Greenland was green and that Newfoundland (Vinland) grew grapes or is that a mistranslation? Who knows? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that whoever was fooled into travelling to either place because of promises of riches found instead somewhere that did not quite live up to expectations. Norse settlement in both places eventually died out when the world turned colder.  No doubt this was because they didn’t drive enough motor cars or is it that humans can only make the world hotter? Global cooling is never our fault but always because Thor is angry.

 

The gullible and the desperate believe that you can get richer by putting a cross in box and saying that you are independent. They read a headline promising that they would get four thousand pounds if only Scotland were like Finland. But let’s test this? Every single Scot has the right at present to live and work in Finland. So if you move there, do you get four thousand pounds? Luxembourg and Switzerland are also very rich countries. They have GDP per capita that is much higher than in the UK. There is nothing stopping anyone from the UK moving to these places. Does the fact that they have high GDP per capita mean that I personally get a share of this money just by living there? Unfortunately not. The streets of Lëtzebuerg are not actually paved with gold and Scots who move there don’t actually get to pick them up and put them in their pockets.

 

There’s a relatively simple idea that some independence supporters struggle to grasp. It is this: People get wealthy by working. Even if you could increase the GDP per capita of Scotland, it would not mean this increase was just handed out to everyone in their baby box.

 

If increasing GDP per capita were easy why doesn’t everyone do it? If independence were the route to prosperity, why isn’t South Sudan as wealthy as Norway by? After all they have been independent for 7 years. Doesn’t independence kill all known germs and cure all diseases? How can it be that poor South Sudan still has a GDP per capita of only two hundred and twenty eight dollars a year? They too had a detailed plan set out by a Growth Commission. No doubt someone promised them that they too would get four thousand pounds a year if only they were independent.

 

Increasing prosperity in Scotland requires that we have sensible economic policies and for individual Scots to increase their productivity and help create businesses that make a profit. The easiest way and probably the only way for each of us to make an extra four thousand pounds  a year any time soon is to get a job that pays that amount more than we earn at present. Just working rather than living on benefits is far more likely to lead to an income gain of four thousand pounds than voting for the SNP. If independence supporters put as much effort into working as they do into marching they might find they didn’t need the SNP to give them money, they could earn it by themselves.

 

The SNP’s latest scheme depends on all sorts of ifs and buts. Their four thousand pounds headline figure depends on growing the Scottish economy over a few decades. With good policies this is indeed possible. But then again with good economic policies the Scottish economy could equally grow as part of the UK. It is pure guess work to suppose that we would be four thousand pounds better off if we were independent. After all it isn’t as if the UK economy would stand still.  What if they grew more than Scotland did. Then we would be worse off. Who is to suppose that this couldn’t happen? Do the SNP have a crystal ball?

 

The biggest problem with the SNP scheme however, just like the one that was developed in the 1690s is that it depends on everything going right and nothing going wrong. There is a fatal flaw in the plan that makes it as risky as any scheme in Scottish history.  The SNP intends us post-independence to use the pound unilaterally.

 

It is not uncommon for certain countries to use the currency of someone else. This is usually known as dollarization. Many small countries use the US dollar.   Panama is a good example. Some tiny islands use the Australian or New Zealand dollar. Other countries like Zimbabwe use the dollar because their own currency had a serious inflation problem. For these sorts of places there are advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. But does Nicola Sturgeon seriously think that Scotland should go down the route of Pitcairn Island and Tuvalu?

 

Using Sterling outwith a currency union with the other parts of the UK is perfectly possible. No-one could stop an independent Scotland doing this. But why would we want to? The main advantage of having your own currency is that you have a central bank that underpins the whole economy. It acts as a lender of last resort. The Bank of England as we have seen in recent years can print money, engage in quantitative easing (QE) and keep interest rates very low indeed so as to encourage growth. In difficult economic circumstances the exchange rate adjusts. This might make it more expensive for us to go on holiday, but it makes our exports cheaper and encourages people from other countries to spend their money here.

 

Using the pound unilaterally would be possible, but it would hardly be desirable. Scottish banks were bailed out in 2008. Who would bail them out if such a crisis were to occur again? There is nothing wrong about being optimistic about the future, but we have to be prepared for things to go wrong, especially when they did go wrong ten years ago.  

 

If an independent Scotland were to face a financial crisis while using someone else’s currency we could not print money, we could not use QE, and we could not lower interest rates. If a Scottish bank failed, this could potentially mean that everyone with any money in that bank would lose it. Who would bail out the savers?

 

But under those circumstances who would put their money in a Scottish bank? Who would use financial services based in Scotland? Who would insure their house with a Scottish firm?

 

So if things went wonderfully well the Scottish economy might after some decades be a few thousand pounds per person better than it is now. It might. But each of us if we faced a rerun of the crisis of 2008 could lose all of our money.

 

This I’m afraid is a rerun of the Darien scheme.  In the 1690s absurdly optimistic Scots put all their money in the idea that we could control the Isthmus of Panama. They ignored the fact that Darien was disease ridden and that anyway it was a Spanish colony that the Spanish might fight for. Even if the scheme had succeeded and Scotland had established a successful colony in Panama is it really likely that larger powers than ours would have meekly handed over their money for ever? What would have stopped them seizing it just as we did?

 

Anyway as we all learned in primary school the Darien scheme failed and bankrupted Scotland leaving many wealthy families bawbeeless.  The Panama pound could have exactly the same effect on Scotland. We are promised riches, but we just as before we ignore the risks. A crisis no-one can dream today may arrive a few years from now, but unfortunately our cunning plan lacks a lender of last resort. I am forced to conclude that the major problem with Scottish primary education is that no-one ever learns from it. Next we will challenge England to a rerun at Flodden.

 

It might be that even if Scotland were independent the Bank of England would still be forced to bail us out. But this too is a repeat of the Darien scheme. English money bailed out Scotland in the early eighteenth century, if it had to bail out an independent Scotland the result would be the same.

 

Roll up, roll up, the SNP have a new Panama pound scheme. Get rich quick. Put everything you have into Darien. There are realms of gold there.     
 

FFS! 

[Pans Jambo]

8 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

I imagine sometime back in the late 1690s there were broadsheets handed out in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland promising “realms of gold”. Perhaps our ancestors studied all 354 pages of the scheme. Maybe they studied in detail the cunning plan to turn Scotland into a great economic power. The whole world would be faced with the same dilemma: either pay us and take the short route or face the dangers and delays in going the long way round. How could it fail? We would all be at least four thousand pounds a year richer.

 

 

So get rich schemes are not new. Today they pop up unwelcome in your email inbox. They promise that you can make a good living by staying at home and doing nothing. All you have to do is send off for the following ebook. Please send ten dollars and hope that no-one steals your credit card details. At other times get rich quick schemes promised that Greenland was green and that Newfoundland (Vinland) grew grapes or is that a mistranslation? Who knows? It doesn’t matter. What matters is that whoever was fooled into travelling to either place because of promises of riches found instead somewhere that did not quite live up to expectations. Norse settlement in both places eventually died out when the world turned colder.  No doubt this was because they didn’t drive enough motor cars or is it that humans can only make the world hotter? Global cooling is never our fault but always because Thor is angry.

 

The gullible and the desperate believe that you can get richer by putting a cross in box and saying that you are independent. They read a headline promising that they would get four thousand pounds if only Scotland were like Finland. But let’s test this? Every single Scot has the right at present to live and work in Finland. So if you move there, do you get four thousand pounds? Luxembourg and Switzerland are also very rich countries. They have GDP per capita that is much higher than in the UK. There is nothing stopping anyone from the UK moving to these places. Does the fact that they have high GDP per capita mean that I personally get a share of this money just by living there? Unfortunately not. The streets of Lëtzebuerg are not actually paved with gold and Scots who move there don’t actually get to pick them up and put them in their pockets.

 

There’s a relatively simple idea that some independence supporters struggle to grasp. It is this: People get wealthy by working. Even if you could increase the GDP per capita of Scotland, it would not mean this increase was just handed out to everyone in their baby box.

 

If increasing GDP per capita were easy why doesn’t everyone do it? If independence were the route to prosperity, why isn’t South Sudan as wealthy as Norway by? After all they have been independent for 7 years. Doesn’t independence kill all known germs and cure all diseases? How can it be that poor South Sudan still has a GDP per capita of only two hundred and twenty eight dollars a year? They too had a detailed plan set out by a Growth Commission. No doubt someone promised them that they too would get four thousand pounds a year if only they were independent.

 

Increasing prosperity in Scotland requires that we have sensible economic policies and for individual Scots to increase their productivity and help create businesses that make a profit. The easiest way and probably the only way for each of us to make an extra four thousand pounds  a year any time soon is to get a job that pays that amount more than we earn at present. Just working rather than living on benefits is far more likely to lead to an income gain of four thousand pounds than voting for the SNP. If independence supporters put as much effort into working as they do into marching they might find they didn’t need the SNP to give them money, they could earn it by themselves.

 

The SNP’s latest scheme depends on all sorts of ifs and buts. Their four thousand pounds headline figure depends on growing the Scottish economy over a few decades. With good policies this is indeed possible. But then again with good economic policies the Scottish economy could equally grow as part of the UK. It is pure guess work to suppose that we would be four thousand pounds better off if we were independent. After all it isn’t as if the UK economy would stand still.  What if they grew more than Scotland did. Then we would be worse off. Who is to suppose that this couldn’t happen? Do the SNP have a crystal ball?

 

The biggest problem with the SNP scheme however, just like the one that was developed in the 1690s is that it depends on everything going right and nothing going wrong. There is a fatal flaw in the plan that makes it as risky as any scheme in Scottish history.  The SNP intends us post-independence to use the pound unilaterally.

 

It is not uncommon for certain countries to use the currency of someone else. This is usually known as dollarization. Many small countries use the US dollar.   Panama is a good example. Some tiny islands use the Australian or New Zealand dollar. Other countries like Zimbabwe use the dollar because their own currency had a serious inflation problem. For these sorts of places there are advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. But does Nicola Sturgeon seriously think that Scotland should go down the route of Pitcairn Island and Tuvalu?

 

Using Sterling outwith a currency union with the other parts of the UK is perfectly possible. No-one could stop an independent Scotland doing this. But why would we want to? The main advantage of having your own currency is that you have a central bank that underpins the whole economy. It acts as a lender of last resort. The Bank of England as we have seen in recent years can print money, engage in quantitative easing (QE) and keep interest rates very low indeed so as to encourage growth. In difficult economic circumstances the exchange rate adjusts. This might make it more expensive for us to go on holiday, but it makes our exports cheaper and encourages people from other countries to spend their money here.

 

Using the pound unilaterally would be possible, but it would hardly be desirable. Scottish banks were bailed out in 2008. Who would bail them out if such a crisis were to occur again? There is nothing wrong about being optimistic about the future, but we have to be prepared for things to go wrong, especially when they did go wrong ten years ago.  

 

If an independent Scotland were to face a financial crisis while using someone else’s currency we could not print money, we could not use QE, and we could not lower interest rates. If a Scottish bank failed, this could potentially mean that everyone with any money in that bank would lose it. Who would bail out the savers?

 

But under those circumstances who would put their money in a Scottish bank? Who would use financial services based in Scotland? Who would insure their house with a Scottish firm?

 

So if things went wonderfully well the Scottish economy might after some decades be a few thousand pounds per person better than it is now. It might. But each of us if we faced a rerun of the crisis of 2008 could lose all of our money.

 

This I’m afraid is a rerun of the Darien scheme.  In the 1690s absurdly optimistic Scots put all their money in the idea that we could control the Isthmus of Panama. They ignored the fact that Darien was disease ridden and that anyway it was a Spanish colony that the Spanish might fight for. Even if the scheme had succeeded and Scotland had established a successful colony in Panama is it really likely that larger powers than ours would have meekly handed over their money for ever? What would have stopped them seizing it just as we did?

 

Anyway as we all learned in primary school the Darien scheme failed and bankrupted Scotland leaving many wealthy families bawbeeless.  The Panama pound could have exactly the same effect on Scotland. We are promised riches, but we just as before we ignore the risks. A crisis no-one can dream today may arrive a few years from now, but unfortunately our cunning plan lacks a lender of last resort. I am forced to conclude that the major problem with Scottish primary education is that no-one ever learns from it. Next we will challenge England to a rerun at Flodden.

 

It might be that even if Scotland were independent the Bank of England would still be forced to bail us out. But this too is a repeat of the Darien scheme. English money bailed out Scotland in the early eighteenth century, if it had to bail out an independent Scotland the result would be the same.

 

Roll up, roll up, the SNP have a new Panama pound scheme. Get rich quick. Put everything you have into Darien. There are realms of gold there.     
 

Did you write this Trapper?

Quite the work of a scared fearmonger who will go to any length to stop positive change by a big bully boy opinion with ZERO facts to back them up. Darien aye? Nice one. 

Everything negative thats happened over the last 300 years has had Westminster parties at the helm. Dont forget that!

I’m surprised Tory HQ is open this morning...swept the floor & made the tea yet Tory boy???

Edited June 9, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[JamboX2]

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

 

 

I looked it up, looks like it was 13th century when Wales was last independent, but independent it was.

 

Northern Ireland didn't exist until 1922 though and has no history as an entity before that. Ulster had existed previously but they're not the same thing of course. 

 

Wales was not really a unified nation though. It was a set of warring clans and princes under a high king. It was never comparable to a unified state like Scotland.

 

It is regardless of that now a country. There was never a Germany before 1870. It was a different grouping of small states all independent. A unified India barely existed before empire. Again a variety of kingdoms.

 

The fact something was or was not once independent doesn't make a country a country.

[jack D and coke]

20 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Did you write this Trapper?

Quite the work of a scared fearmonger who will go to any length to stop positive change by a big bully boy opinion with ZERO facts to back them up. Darien aye? Nice one. 

Everything negative thats happened over the last 300 years has had Westminster parties at the helm. Dont forget that!

I’m surprised Tory HQ is open this morning...swept the floor & made the tea yet Tory boy???

Incredible shite in that piece there eh  I’ve heard us compared to Zimbabwe, North Korea and a few others that slip my mind but never South Sudan  

Tripper gonna Trip I guess. 

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Wales was a set of warring clans

 

Funny - that reminds me of somewhere else.   

[Adam Murray]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Incredible shite in that piece there eh  I’ve heard us compared to Zimbabwe, North Korea and a few others that slip my mind but never South Sudan  

Tripper gonna Trip I guess. 

To be fair, there's not many countries left that we've not been compared too/could be like, from one side or the other

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Incredible shite in that piece there eh  I’ve heard us compared to Zimbabwe, North Korea and a few others that slip my mind but never South Sudan  

Tripper gonna Trip I guess. 

 

Not only that, but it swallows whole something which is palpably no longer true. "The best way to get rich is to work". Nope. In the UK, the best way to get rich is to be born rich, have a property bought for you by your rich parents, rent that property out, buy another from the proceeds, rinse and repeat.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Adam Murray said:

To be fair, there's not many countries left that we've not been compared too/could be like, from one side or the other

I think there’s ones that we’d both agree represent a more likely comparison than South Sudan ffs  

Laughbale pish from Tripper once again. 

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Not only that, but it swallows whole something which is palpably no longer true. "The best way to get rich is to work". Nope. In the UK, the best way to get rich is to be born rich, have a property bought for you by your rich parents, rent that property out, buy another from the proceeds, rinse and repeat.

Seems so these days pal yep. 

[Trapper John McIntyre]

6 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Incredible shite in that piece there eh  I’ve heard us compared to Zimbabwe, North Korea and a few others that slip my mind but never South Sudan  

Tripper gonna Trip I guess. 

 

 

All 'Independent" countries who use other nations currency. Quite an elite group to be part of. Quite?

 

Oh well, Gnats and their nutty policies gotta nut, I guess.

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

 

All 'Independent" countries who use other nations currency. Quite an elite group to be part of. Quite?

 

Oh well, Gnats and their nutty policies gotta nut, I guess.

Are you that Alistair McConnachie dude?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Not only that, but it swallows whole something which is palpably no longer true. "The best way to get rich is to work". Nope. In the UK, the best way to get rich is to be born rich, have a property bought for you by your rich parents, rent that property out, buy another from the proceeds, rinse and repeat.

 

Not up to your usual standard of debate there, Shaun. Expect a little better from you. 

 

The blog is from an admittedly Conservative blogger, Euphemia Deans. You're smart enough to know what she means without resorting to the Wolfie Smith stuff.

 

[Trapper John McIntyre]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Are you that Alistair McConnachie dude?

 

Are you the Bishop of Bath?

[shaun.lawson]

6 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

 

All 'Independent" countries who use other nations currency. Quite an elite group to be part of. Quite?

 

Oh well, Gnats and their nutty policies gotta nut, I guess.

 

The country I live in has both its own currency, and uses the dollar for all larger transactions too. It has the lowest levels of poverty and inequality in Latin America; has had constant economic growth for 15 years; has good credit ratings from investment agencies; concentrates on keeping inflation down and attracting foreign investment; has legalised abortion, gay marriage and regulates cannabis; has the freest press and least corruption in Latin America; is consistently rated amongst the world's leaders (well above the UK) for personal freedom and strength of its democracy; and has done all this under a left wing government, in power since 2004.

 

How "nutty". I'm sure an independent Scotland would want nothing to do with any of this "nuttiness".  So much better if it's tied to the worst performing economy of any developed nation. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Trapper John McIntyre]

12 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The country I live in has both its own currency, and uses the dollar for all larger transactions too. It has the lowest levels of poverty and inequality in Latin America; has had constant economic growth for 15 years; has good credit ratings from investment agencies; concentrates on keeping inflation down and attracting foreign investment; has legalised abortion, gay marriage and regulates cannabis; has the freest press and least corruption in Latin America; is consistently rated amongst the world's leaders (well above the UK) for personal freedom and strength of its democracy; and has done all this under a left wing government, in power since 2004.

 

How "nutty". I'm sure an independent Scotland would want nothing to do with any of this "nuttiness".  So much better if it's tied to the worst performing economy of any developed nation. 

 

How wonderful for you and the great nation of Uruguay.

 

Have you ever lived in Scotland?

Edited June 9, 2018 by Trapper John McIntyre

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

How wonderful for you and the great nation of Uruguay.

 

Have you ever lived in Scotland?

 

Uruguay has plenty of Scottish emigres. Uruguay has 3.4m people; Scotland has 5.3m. Uruguay and Scotland both have enormous amounts of gorgeous, unspoilt green spaces. Uruguay beat the world at football by adapting the Scottish passing game. Even Montevideo bears a certain resemblance to Edinburgh, especially during the long, cold winters here.

 

Uruguay has many similar cultural issues to Scotland too - fear of change, a certain bald men fighting over a comb tribalism and parochialism, small 'c' conservatism, total duopoly by two famous but faded football clubs who dominate all conversations around the club game, enclaves of hideous poverty. 

 

Yet it does rather well, all things considered. It's made a go of it by being distinctive, doing things very differently (more calmly, more moderately, more modestly, with a constant emphasis on consensus and pluralism) to the rest of the continent, and defining itself politically and culturally as more or less everything its much larger, more famous neighbour isn't. 

 

If it, with all its geographical and globalisation-related disadvantages, can do this, why can't Scotland?

[Harry Potter]

13 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Uruguay has plenty of Scottish emigres. Uruguay has 3.4m people; Scotland has 5.3m. Uruguay and Scotland both have enormous amounts of gorgeous, unspoilt green spaces. Uruguay beat the world at football by adapting the Scottish passing game. Even Montevideo bears a certain resemblance to Edinburgh, especially during the long, cold winters here.

 

Uruguay has many similar cultural issues to Scotland too - fear of change, a certain bald men fighting over a comb tribalism and parochialism, small 'c' conservatism, total duopoly by two famous but faded football clubs who dominate all conversations around the club game, enclaves of hideous poverty. 

 

Yet it does rather well, all things considered. It's made a go of it by being distinctive, doing things very differently (more calmly, more moderately, more modestly, with a constant emphasis on consensus and pluralism) to the rest of the continent, and defining itself politically and culturally as more or less everything its much larger, more famous neighbour isn't. 

 

If it, with all its geographical and globalisation-related disadvantages, can do this, why can't Scotland?

Quite simply because over half of Scotland dont want independence. 

[Trapper John McIntyre]

40 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Uruguay has plenty of Scottish emigres. Uruguay has 3.4m people; Scotland has 5.3m. Uruguay and Scotland both have enormous amounts of gorgeous, unspoilt green spaces. Uruguay beat the world at football by adapting the Scottish passing game. Even Montevideo bears a certain resemblance to Edinburgh, especially during the long, cold winters here.

 

Uruguay has many similar cultural issues to Scotland too - fear of change, a certain bald men fighting over a comb tribalism and parochialism, small 'c' conservatism, total duopoly by two famous but faded football clubs who dominate all conversations around the club game, enclaves of hideous poverty. 

 

Yet it does rather well, all things considered. It's made a go of it by being distinctive, doing things very differently (more calmly, more moderately, more modestly, with a constant emphasis on consensus and pluralism) to the rest of the continent, and defining itself politically and culturally as more or less everything its much larger, more famous neighbour isn't. 

 

If it, with all its geographical and globalisation-related disadvantages, can do this, why can't Scotland?

 

Sorry Shaun, watching Trooping of the Colour at the moment.Marvellous stuff.  By heaven, it makes you proud to be British.

 

I did a bit of research a few years back on the disastrous British 1806 campaign in the river Plate. Quite a shambles. Do you know much about that?

 

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

Quite simply because over half of Scotland dont want independence. 

Half of those were duped by the MSM into beleiving that Scotland will sink either sink into the North Sea or become a scene from World War Z. Go figure. 

[Pans Jambo]

39 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 

Sorry Shaun, watching Trooping of the Colour at the moment.Marvellous stuff.  By heaven, it makes you proud to be British.

 

I did a bit of research a few years back on the disastrous British 1806 campaign in the river Plate. Quite a shambles. Do you know much about that?

 

A few years back? How about the buried McCrone report in the 70’s? Do you much about that?

[Harry Potter]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Half of those were duped by the MSM into beleiving that Scotland will sink either sink into the North Sea or become a scene from World War Z. Go figure. 

Or getting schoolkids to vote, how was that ever allowed , more goalposts getting moved than the gyle park.

[JackLadd]

13 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Or getting schoolkids to vote, how was that ever allowed , more goalposts getting moved than the gyle park.

 

Ref2 it will be if you have pubes you get a vote.

[Pans Jambo]

15 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Or getting schoolkids to vote, how was that ever allowed , more goalposts getting moved than the gyle park.

So you dont think 16 yr olds should be given the right to decide their future? By the same token, should we tell anyone over 75 their no longervallowed to vote because they wont live much longer? Of course not, its ridiculous. 

 

16. 

Have sex

get married

join the armed forces

 

not allowed to democratically decide your own future???

 

Pish. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

So you dont think 16 yr olds should be given the right to decide their future? By the same token, should we tell anyone over 75 their no longervallowed to vote because they wont live much longer? Of course not, its ridiculous. 

 

16. 

Have sex

get married

join the armed forces

 

not allowed to democratically decide your own future???

 

Pish. 

Well said.

[JackLadd]

4 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

So you dont think 16 yr olds should not be given the right to decide their future? By the same token, should we tell anyone over 75 their no longervallowed to vote because they wont live much longer? Of course not, its ridiculous. 

 

16. 

Have sex

get married

join the armed forces

 

not allowed to democratically decide your own future???

 

Pish. 

 

Why should I allow somebody that can't buy a drink or watch a film with swearing an equal say in a once in a generation decision?

Edited June 9, 2018 by JackLadd

[Phil Dunphy]

2 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Why should I allow somebody that can't buy a drink or watch a film with swearing an equal say in a one in a generational decision?

 

You're asking someone who thinks the other side are all Scotland-hating, Daily Mail reading racists.

[JackLadd]

6 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

You're asking someone who thinks the other side are all Scotland-hating, Daily Mail reading racists.

 

 

I don't read the Daily Mail online or off. Click bait for idiots and pro Trump.

 

SNP won't lower the drink age to 16 though, or abolish the 18 film certificate. Hypocrites in that case.

Edited June 9, 2018 by JackLadd

[Phil Dunphy]

3 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

 

I don't read the Daily Mail online or off. Click bait for idiots and pro Trump.

 

To be fair, the comments section of a Daily Mail article make good reading if you want a laugh.

 

But there's no point trying to engage with Pans Jambo, he thinks everyone who voted No was brainwashed

[JackLadd]

12 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

To be fair, the comments section of a Daily Mail article make good reading if you want a laugh.

 

But there's no point trying to engage with Pans Jambo, he thinks everyone who voted No was brainwashed

 

Brainwashed by the snp is a more acute condition. 

[Phil Dunphy]

8 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Brainwashed by the snp is a more acute condition. 

 

Factual and alarming.