How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[The Treasurer]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Are you referring to the 1979 Referendum?

 

If so, it had nothing to do with independence, just devolution. Not too different from the more recent referendum on devolution. 

 

1979 was a referendum on the implementation of the Scotland Act 1977. If it had reached the requirement in terms of support, the result would have been the formation of a Scottish Assembly. 

 

In terms of the the number of votes required, a “supermajority” is far from unusual in referendums. In 1979, 63% of the turnout would have meant that the Act would have passed into law. 60 to 65% or even two thirds is viewed as reasonable for a supermajority for major constitutional change. 

 

We might be in quieter times if the U.K. insisted on a minimum of two thirds of the vote to initiate change. 

It had everything to do with independence.

Had the majority vote stood (as it should have), independence was more or less accepted as the next step.

[ri Alban]

19 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Is there any difference?

 

It doesn’t matter how you cut it, there will be a dominant area which will be treated more favourably or be perceived to be so treated. It’s human nature. 

 

Is having a Glasgow-centric Scotland going to produce better outcomes across Scotland than Nottingham (why Nottingham?) or London? It’s just another of the long and growing list of unknowns which may or may not be “alright in the night”.

 

 

Why would it be? The SNP at holyrood isn't Glasgow centric. 

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

Why do people insist on calling it "Indy Ref 2"

We've already had two independence votes, the first one actually resulted in a majority vote in favour, but of course the UK government moved the goalposts, saying it had to be a majority of those eligible to vote rather than the votes actually cast

That was devoref1. 

[frankblack]

16 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm so offended!

 

No worries, I did say that I was leaning towards Yes next time, so it was an understandable mistake. There's a lot going to happen between now and a potential next referendum so I can't call how I will vote quite now.

 

That is just it.

 

We should be out of the EU and possibly the single market depending on how negotiations conclude, and the Nationalists are going to do well to persuade the No voters to change their minds when it is so easy for "Project Fear 2" to put people off.  The Yes vote is going to have to turn around a lot of hard No voters and persuade the No voters that their lives would not be worse off.

 

In a Post-Brexit UK, I think a lot of voters would struggle to be persuaded that splitting from our biggest market - the rest of the UK - is a viable option.

 

Aspects to consider:

- Jobs

- Currency (Scottish Pound, UK Pound, Euro?)

- Personal wealth and savings

- Share of government debt inherited

- Effect on public services

- Border with England and effect on transport infrastructure - road, rail, air.

 

The short term impact on these could be decisive in any Indy 2 vote.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Correct. First vote for devolution was 1979. Where a Labour government brought in a last minute amendment that 40% of the eligible voters had to vote for devolution. It was 37% in the end but was still a majority for.

 

It was about 33%, 37% for Brexit tho. 

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

That is just it.

 

We should be out of the EU and possibly the single market depending on how negotiations conclude, and the Nationalists are going to do well to persuade the No voters to change their minds when it is so easy for "Project Fear 2" to put people off.  The Yes vote is going to have to turn around a lot of hard No voters and persuade the No voters that their lives would not be worse off.

 

In a Post-Brexit UK, I think a lot of voters would struggle to be persuaded that splitting from our biggest market - the rest of the UK - is a viable option.

 

Aspects to consider:

- Jobs

- Currency (Scottish Pound, UK Pound, Euro?)

- Personal wealth and savings

- Share of government debt inherited

- Effect on public services

- Border with England and effect on transport infrastructure - road, rail, air.

 

The short term impact on these could be decisive in any Indy 2 vote.

The total opposite. But that's only through my own circle. All but 2 have switched because of Brexit and the state of Labour. 

[John Findlay]

14 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was about 33%, 37% for Brexit tho. 

Scotland didn't vote on its own with regards Brexit. It voted as part of the UK. Whether you or I like it or not the UK overall voted to leave. Whether you and I like it or not. That was Scotland's fault for voting no in 2014.

[frankblack]

26 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

The total opposite. But that's only through my own circle. All but 2 have switched because of Brexit and the state of Labour. 

 

The state of Labour really has no relevance to voting for or against Independence.

 

Voting for Independence on top of Brexit might be a hard one for the nationalists to sell as it could lead to a full on recession and the major loss of jobs to the rest of the UK.  Would Lloyds want to keep all their Scottish operations (HBos, Scottish Widows, etc) up here or move all but a token number of jobs down south, for example?

 

People voting could be playing Russian Roulette with the careers.

[Thunderstruck]

57 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

It had everything to do with independence.

Had the majority vote stood (as it should have), independence was more or less accepted as the next step.

 

What was on the ballot paper?

 

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

The state of Labour really has no relevance to voting for or against Independence.

 

Voting for Independence on top of Brexit might be a hard one for the nationalists to sell as it could lead to a full on recession and the major loss of jobs to the rest of the UK.  Would Lloyds want to keep all their Scottish operations (HBos, Scottish Widows, etc) up here or move all but a token number of jobs down south, for example?

 

People voting could be playing Russian Roulette with the careers.

 

On the other hand, the EU might be very sympathetic to Scotland being fast-tracked to membership to get one back at the UK for having deserted it, and combined with a UK economy suffering from post-Brexit blues that might encourage some folk to decide that independence is attractive after all. A situation like that, combined with good planning, could well see me vote Yes next time.

[Space Mackerel]

6 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

To be fair Thunderstruck has just wiped the floor with you regarding FPTP in Scotland.

 

Stick to posting pics of beef wellington on Facebook. You're good at that.

 

He didn't you know. Boris made the point that where are these Glasgow based policies now? Holyrood has existed for quite a few years now.

 

Glad you enjoy them though, always value feedback on a foodpic. ?

[frankblack]

17 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

On the other hand, the EU might be very sympathetic to Scotland being fast-tracked to membership to get one back at the UK for having deserted it, and combined with a UK economy suffering from post-Brexit blues that might encourage some folk to decide that independence is attractive after all. A situation like that, combined with good planning, could well see me vote Yes next time.

 

You need a cast iron guarantee not a guess to make a judgement such as that if you are cutting yourself off from our biggest market, the UK.

[Cruyff Turn]

There’s ex Scots Guardsmen on my Facebook who served in the 70’s in N.I, who are Rangers fans and who actually guarded the Queen, that are now full blown Independence supporters.

If it you can turn them, you can turn anyone. 

[eddiepolio]

Was a No before, will be a No again. Will stay a No until the key financials have some sort of cohesive detailed plan that the SNP are willing to actually stand behind. Then I'll likely change to a Yes.

[Space Mackerel]

I like this new “U.K. market” slogan that’s popped up after Brexit and the threat of an Indy 2 Ref. 

 

You never here Brexiteers screaming about it though on the telly. Weird. 

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Scotland didn't vote on its own with regards Brexit. It voted as part of the UK. Whether you or I like it or not the UK overall voted to leave. Whether you and I like it or not. That was Scotland's fault for voting no in 2014.

It was a comparison. Both votes were below 40% of the electorate. As for Brexit, we were guaranteed EU membership by voting no. That has changed, time to ask again. Whether you like it or not, Wm shat the bed. 

[frankblack]

7 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It was a comparison. Both votes were below 40% of the electorate. As for Brexit, we were guaranteed EU membership by voting no. That has changed, time to ask again. Whether you like it or not, Wm shat the bed. 

 

We were guaranteed that oil money would prop up the Scottish economy in the SNP white paper before the Indy referendum.  That collapsed spectacularly in months after the vote.

[frankblack]

48 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

I like this new “U.K. market” slogan that’s popped up after Brexit and the threat of an Indy 2 Ref. 

 

You never here Brexiteers screaming about it though on the telly. Weird. 

 

How secure do you think all the financial sector jobs in Edinburgh will be if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the UK, including London?

[Unknown user]

35 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

How secure do you think all the financial sector jobs in Edinburgh will be if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the UK, including London?

You keep saying we'd be cutting ourselves off, but that seems extreme and unlikely. Surely it would be in everyone's interests to agree friendly deals with our oldest and closest ally as we move towards self rule?

I don't think you can fairly assume Scotland would be completely cut off from England, in fact after centuries of union, I'm not sure it would even be possible.

 

England aren't our enemy, they're our oldest friend (and vice versa) and I'd like to see an agreement that reflects that. There's no reason we couldn't have a mature and responsible conversation leading to a jointly beneficial arrangement. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Smithee

[frankblack]

41 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You keep saying we'd be cutting ourselves off, but that seems extreme and unlikely. Surely it would be in everyone's interests to agree friendly deals with our oldest and closest ally as we move towards self rule?

I don't think you can fairly assume Scotland would be completely cut off from England, in fact after centuries of union, I'm not sure it would even be possible.

 

England aren't our enemy, they're our oldest friend (and vice versa) and I'd like to see an agreement that reflects that. There's no reason we couldn't have a mature and responsible conversation leading to a jointly beneficial arrangement. 

 

Those are the same arguments people are criticising the Tories for over Brexit negotiations.  At the end of the day, what would Scotland have to sacrifice to access the UK markets, and where would the financial services jobs be post independence?

[Space Mackerel]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

How secure do you think all the financial sector jobs in Edinburgh will be if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the UK, including London?

 

Have you ever wondered how London became the biggest financial centre in the world? Have a wee watch of this.

 

 

 

I think most Edinburgh jobs will be fine.

 

How do you think they’ll be after Brexit? Banking passports et all.

 

[Gorgiewave]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Have you ever wondered how London became the biggest financial centre in the world? Have a wee watch of this.

 

 

 

I think most Edinburgh jobs will be fine.

 

How do you think they’ll be after Brexit? Banking passports et all.

 

 

It's a good thing London't the financial capital of the world. That's what pays for free university tuition in Scotland, among other things.

[Alan_R]

I'd vote yes. (again)

 

[SwindonJambo]

6 hours ago, eddiepolio said:

Was a No before, will be a No again. Will stay a No until the key financials have some sort of cohesive detailed plan that the SNP are willing to actually stand behind. Then I'll likely change to a Yes.

 

If they could do that, they’d have a decent chance of winning. Some kind of acknowledgement of the likely challenges and how they’d address them would be reassuring too. But there’s no talk from them about ANY challenges!  However accurate or not the GERS figures are, it is an incontrovertible fact that Scotland has a very large public sector, and deep, early cuts would be needed and/or big tax increases. These moves would be very unpopular but necessary and would need very tough and non populist leadership to make them. Unless they are delusional dreamers, They must secretly realise that themselves.

 

With no credit history, and in an era of huge Sovereign Debts all around the World, lenders wouldn’t exactly be queueing up. Borrowing would be very expensive so balancing tax receipts with public spending would be a priority. Once it proved it can do that, a credit rating would be earned and Scotland could borrow at a decent rate.

 

In summary, of course it could  be done and good luck if it happens but the early years would likely be very bumpy. An open trade arrangement with rUK would be absolutely crucial. 

[Cruyff Turn]

9 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

If they could do that, they’d have a decent chance of winning. Some kind of acknowledgement of the likely challenges and how they’d address them would be reassuring too. But there’s no talk from them about ANY challenges!  However accurate or not the GERS figures are, it is an incontrovertible fact that Scotland has a very large public sector, and deep, early cuts would be needed and/or big tax increases. These moves would be very unpopular but necessary and would need very tough and non populist leadership to make them. Unless they are delusional dreamers, They must secretly realise that themselves.

 

With no credit history, and in an era of huge Sovereign Debts all around the World, lenders wouldn’t exactly be queueing up. Borrowing would be very expensive so balancing tax receipts with public spending would be a priority. Once it proved it can do that, a credit rating would be earned and Scotland could borrow at a decent rate.

 

In summary, of course it could  be done and good luck if it happens but the early years would likely be very bumpy. An open trade arrangement with rUK would be absolutely crucial. 

We already borrow money. https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2018/05/1497/4

[SwindonJambo]

25 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

We already borrow money. https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2018/05/1497/4

Yes I know. But not as a separate sovereign state. It’s not a valid comparison.

[Cruyff Turn]

2 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

If they could do that, they’d have a decent chance of winning. Some kind of acknowledgement of the likely challenges and how they’d address them would be reassuring too. But there’s no talk from them about ANY challenges!  However accurate or not the GERS figures are, it is an incontrovertible fact that Scotland has a very large public sector, and deep, early cuts would be needed and/or big tax increases. These moves would be very unpopular but necessary and would need very tough and non populist leadership to make them. Unless they are delusional dreamers, They must secretly realise that themselves.

 

With no credit history, and in an era of huge Sovereign Debts all around the World, lenders wouldn’t exactly be queueing up. Borrowing would be very expensive so balancing tax receipts with public spending would be a priority. Once it proved it can do that, a credit rating would be earned and Scotland could borrow at a decent rate.

 

In summary, of course it could  be done and good luck if it happens but the early years would likely be very bumpy. An open trade arrangement with rUK would be absolutely crucial. 

Talk about spinning a negative. 

 

Firstly - “they’d have a decent chance of winning if...” 

 

There was what, 5% in it last time? I’d imagine a fair chunk of that 5%, possibly even more, were duped by the Vow.

 

Secondly, a large number of EU Nationals voted in the last Referendum which I’m sure the majority of which would have voted No, considering their entire lives depended on it, according to the No Campaign. 

 

And thirdly, considering the size of the vote to remain in the EU and how likely that has increased, or will increase after the cluster**** that is Brexit, i’d Imagine some of those No voting EU remainers, are possibly now Yes. 

 

This is a point that is completely neutral and absolutely 100% true - There can be savings made on many areas of the Scottish Public Sector Economy which are both in Reserved and Devolved areas. 

 

And - Most Western Countries run at a deficit.

 

To say there would be “deep, savage, muckle big enormous, huge, astronomical cuts to the Public Sector and eye watering, blinding, huge big tax increases - Is a big steaming pile of negative and unfounded conjecture. 

 

The sky isn’t going to fall in mate. We’re a 1st world civilised, highly skilled, highly educated Country with Natural Resources and great things to export. 

 

With most, or all fiscal powers, (depending on the Currency), and all other Reserved powers coming back to Scotland. You don’t know how we would use them to attract jobs and investment or collect different taxes including N.I. Contributions. You can’t say where we would need to cut, what we would cut and where we could make savings along the way, unless you are some sort of time traveler or have a crystal ball?

 

1 hour ago, SwindonJambo said:

Yes I know. But not as a separate sovereign state. It’s not a valid comparison.

 

An Article from 2014 suggests Scotland would probably be given an ‘A’ credit rating.

 

”Scotland would likely hold a lower credit rating than the rest of the UK immediately after independence, according to the ratings agency Moody's. The agency predicted an independent Scotland would hold an investment-grade A rating - below the UK's current Aa1” - 1 May 2014

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27247870

 

Since then - 

 

“The UK's credit rating has been cut over concerns about the UK's public finances and fears Brexit could damage the country's economic growth. Moody's, one of the major ratings agencies, downgraded the UK to an Aa2 rating from Aa1.” - 23 Sep 2017

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41369239

Edited September 26, 2018 by Cruyff Turn

[ri Alban]

11 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

How secure do you think all the financial sector jobs in Edinburgh will be if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the UK, including London?

London... After Brexit! Now if they're OK, why wouldn't Edinburgh and Glasgow be?

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

It's a good thing London't the financial capital of the world. That's what pays for free university tuition in Scotland, among other things.

No it isn't. It's  paying back it's overdraft to the rest of the UK. It didn't get to where it is for free. As for Scotland we pay for ourselves and we  pay our debt. Or do you think the so called overspend goes to holyrood.  The only country subsidised is Spain by Catalonia. 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and should everyone outside of London bill them for the financial crash. How much was the bailout again? 

Edited September 26, 2018 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

It's a good thing London't the financial capital of the world. That's what pays for free university tuition in Scotland, among other things.

Bailout of £1.2 T, aye thank feck for london. They still owe  £70b. And you think we're subsidised. Thank god for the people, London should be saying, and the AAAA rate North Sea oil and gas provides. 

[Nixie]

On 18/09/2018 at 20:33, Horatio Caine said:

I have never favoured independence, however, as has been stated above, the prospect of Johnson in charge - or even worse - Rees-Mogg might persuade me to change my mind.  

 

You do realise they are only in charge for a short time, potentially four years or shorter? An Independence Yes vote is for a life time. A lot of people don’t quite get this.

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Nixie said:

 

You do realise they are only in charge for a short time, potentially four years or shorter? An Independence Yes vote is for a life time. A lot of people don’t quite get this.

And the SNP won't be in charge either, but that doesn't matter to some No voters, does it. 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

It's a good thing London't the financial capital of the world. That's what pays for free university tuition in Scotland, among other things.

UK Nation debt £1.8t

Scotland's share £162b

Wales share £85b

N Ireland's share £54b

And England's share £1.49t which London's share is £225b. Where's all this money going, certainly not to make our lives better. 

And it's all going one way... up!!!!! 

[Space Mackerel]

9 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

It's a good thing London't the financial capital of the world. That's what pays for free university tuition in Scotland, among other things.

 

Tell you what, you watch the documentary and so how it relates to free university education., then get back to me. 

 

Theres an estimated £50 TRILLION squirrelled away out in Jersey, Cayman Islands etc by the British elite all to avoid tax. 

 

 

[Unknown user]

12 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Those are the same arguments people are criticising the Tories for over Brexit negotiations.  At the end of the day, what would Scotland have to sacrifice to access the UK markets, and where would the financial services jobs be post independence?

 

They're totally different though, it doesn't need to be like the sabre rattling, unfriendly Brexit.

I don't know what would need to be given and taken, negotiations haven't started yet. I also don't know exactly how the financial services would pan out (how could I??) but I see no reason to fear some vague bogeyman.

 

None of these things are unstoppable problems that kill all arguments, they're just hurdles that need to be cleared. Change shouldn't be feared, not when you look at what we'd be moving away from. 

 

 

[frankblack]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

They're totally different though, it doesn't need to be like the sabre rattling, unfriendly Brexit.

I don't know what would need to be given and taken, negotiations haven't started yet. I also don't know exactly how the financial services would pan out (how could I??) but I see no reason to fear some vague bogeyman.

 

None of these things are unstoppable problems that kill all arguments, they're just hurdles that need to be cleared. Change shouldn't be feared, not when you look at what we'd be moving away from. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day the big companies are going to put their staff where their markets are to avoid red tape, tariffs, etc.  Scotland's population is what 6m and the rest of the UK 54m?  UK companies are likely to assess where best to put their staff, and a post-Brexit independent Scotland may not have a free trade agreement with the rest of the UK.

 

It is just a consideration, and as someone who is about to take up a job in the financial sector with an English owned company its a bit of a concern.

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Bailout of £1.2 T, aye thank feck for london. They still owe  £70b. And you think we're subsidised. Thank god for the people, London should be saying, and the AAAA rate North Sea oil and gas provides. 

 

Yeah, its just as well no major Scottish banks needed bailing out.  Oh wait.

 

[Space Mackerel]

22 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

At the end of the day the big companies are going to put their staff where their markets are to avoid red tape, tariffs, etc.  Scotland's population is what 6m and the rest of the UK 54m?  UK companies are likely to assess where best to put their staff, and a post-Brexit independent Scotland may not have a free trade agreement with the rest of the UK.

 

It is just a consideration, and as someone who is about to take up a job in the financial sector with an English owned company its a bit of a concern.

 

Bit of a risk taking a job in that sector with Brexit just about to hit the fan then? 

[frankblack]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Bit of a risk taking a job in that sector with Brexit just about to hit the fan then? 

 

Not really when your current company is shutting down and laying off everyone.

[jack D and coke]

30 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Yeah, its just as well no major Scottish banks needed bailing out.  Oh wait.

 

Yeah they did but with 7% of their business in Scotland we could’ve easily coped. 

The bank bail out was a massive lie that people like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling got away with. France bailed out Belgian banks, British banks Irish etc etc. It was where the debt was that mattered. 

To think Brown and Darling we’re allowed to pedal the lie that the Scottish taxpayer was on the hook for RBS’s worldwide debt because they had a plaque on a wall here and Scotland in their name was scandalous. People still believe it too. 

[Unknown user]

40 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

At the end of the day the big companies are going to put their staff where their markets are to avoid red tape, tariffs, etc.  Scotland's population is what 6m and the rest of the UK 54m?  UK companies are likely to assess where best to put their staff, and a post-Brexit independent Scotland may not have a free trade agreement with the rest of the UK.

 

It is just a consideration, and as someone who is about to take up a job in the financial sector with an English owned company its a bit of a concern.

 

I totally agree it's a consideration, and these are the things that would need ironed out, but again there's no reason to assume extreme red tape or tariffs. Countries have long had alliances and trade agreements, why could we not be close to England, but with the ability to vote our own government in, to choose our own direction?

 

I spent years in finance myself, so I know that they're risk averse, but I also know they're very loathe to make big changes unless absolutely necessary. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't have a Benelux style agreement with England, especially with all parties outside the ties of the EU, to the satisfaction of the financial sector. 

 

[Unknown user]

40 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

At the end of the day the big companies are going to put their staff where their markets are to avoid red tape, tariffs, etc.  Scotland's population is what 6m and the rest of the UK 54m?  UK companies are likely to assess where best to put their staff, and a post-Brexit independent Scotland may not have a free trade agreement with the rest of the UK.

 

It is just a consideration, and as someone who is about to take up a job in the financial sector with an English owned company its a bit of a concern.

 

I totally agree it's a consideration, and these are the things that would need ironed out, but again there's no reason to assume extreme red tape or tariffs. Countries have long had alliances and trade agreements, why could we not be close to England, but with the ability to vote our own government in, to choose our own direction?

 

I spent years in finance myself, so I know that they're risk averse, but I also know they're very loathe to make big changes unless absolutely necessary. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't have a Benelux style agreement with England, especially with all parties outside the ties of the EU, to the satisfaction of the financial sector. 

 

[Unknown user]

48 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

At the end of the day the big companies are going to put their staff where their markets are to avoid red tape, tariffs, etc.  Scotland's population is what 6m and the rest of the UK 54m?  UK companies are likely to assess where best to put their staff, and a post-Brexit independent Scotland may not have a free trade agreement with the rest of the UK.

 

It is just a consideration, and as someone who is about to take up a job in the financial sector with an English owned company its a bit of a concern.

 

I totally agree it's a consideration, and these are the things that would need ironed out, but again there's no reason to assume extreme red tape or tariffs. Countries have long had alliances and trade agreements, why could we not be close to England, but with the ability to vote our own government in, to choose our own direction?

 

I spent years in finance myself, so I know that they're risk averse, but I also know they're very loathe to make big changes unless absolutely necessary. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't have a Benelux style agreement with England, especially with all parties outside the ties of the EU, to the satisfaction of the financial sector. 

 

[Unknown user]

So true I said it thrice!

[frankblack]

19 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Yeah they did but with 7% of their business in Scotland we could’ve easily coped. 

The bank bail out was a massive lie that people like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling got away with. France bailed out Belgian banks, British banks Irish etc etc. It was where the debt was that mattered. 

To think Brown and Darling we’re allowed to pedal the lie that the Scottish taxpayer was on the hook for RBS’s worldwide debt because they had a plaque on a wall here and Scotland in their name was scandalous. People still believe it too. 

 

Like it or not, RBS is headquartered at Gogar, which is a little bit more than just a plaque on the wall, and that has to be responsible for the whole business.

Edited September 26, 2018 by frankblack

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Like it or not, RBS is headquartered at Gogar, which is a little bit more than just a plaque on the wall, and that has to be responsible for the whole business.

If RBS is a Scottish bank would you agree that Barclays is an English bank? They received billions in bailouts from the federal reserve for loans in the US, surely the English taxpayer would have to bail out the American market then no? 

Like it or not the Scottish taxpayer was NOT on the hook for mortgages etc in other countries. It was a lie. 

There is a plaque on the wall but that’s all it is, almost all it’s business is conducted elsewhere and only something in the region of 7% of it is here. 

In the event of Indy RBS etc would have to properly incorporate in England as most of their business is there. 

Wouldnt that be a shame. Good riddance. 

[jack D and coke]

3 hours ago, Nixie said:

 

You do realise they are only in charge for a short time, potentially four years or shorter? An Independence Yes vote is for a life time. A lot of people don’t quite get this.

Have you noticed the amount of countries dying to get ruled by WM once again they get their independence? 

Only Scotland would be different though eh we’d fall flat on our faces and beg to get let back in?  

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Have you noticed the amount of countries dying to get ruled by WM once again they get their independence? 

Only Scotland would be different though eh we’d fall flat on our faces and beg to get let back in?  

Crudely made, but it is a good point. Are there many countries that have achieved independence then begged to get back in?

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Crudely made, but it is a good point. Are there many countries that have achieved independence then begged to get back in?

I think the answer is none. 

Scotland wouid probably be the first though, we’re hopeless??‍♂️

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

If RBS is a Scottish bank would you agree that Barclays is an English bank? They received billions in bailouts from the federal reserve for loans in the US, surely the English taxpayer would have to bail out the American market then no? 

Like it or not the Scottish taxpayer was NOT on the hook for mortgages etc in other countries. It was a lie. 

There is a plaque on the wall but that’s all it is, almost all it’s business is conducted elsewhere and only something in the region of 7% of it is here. 

In the event of Indy RBS etc would have to properly incorporate in England as most of their business is there. 

Wouldnt that be a shame. Good riddance. 

 

I can't say I know the details of the Barclays situation and why it differs from RBS.  The fact is that RBS was going bust without the immediate intervention of the government.  Why this happened is solely the blame for the Labour government for failing to monitor the UK banks and building societies or legislate to protect against irresponsible lending and lack of liquidity.

 

The SNP government were equally as complacent as Labour, with Salmond holding these banks up as glowing examples of Scottish success.  However, the SNP didn't have the powers of central government to act here even if they had forseen it.

 

I think your last paragraph is a tad niave.  A successful independent Scotland needs to grow jobs not toss them over the border to England.