Should Scotland be an independent country?

[Ked]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You may be better protected from inflation but if you are the weaker link in the chain and less competitive, you drive up unemployment.

 

Why do you think the Irish "diaspora" exists the way it does? It isn't just because of the Famine. The Irish crippled themselves maintaining parity with sterling until the 1970s.

That's because they used their own currency.

And their internal market was like every other at that time.

I'm taking time out bud .

I've posted too much .

And I'm bad for thinking I've the answers when I'm just a radge .

😄

 

Guid tho arguing with you and others.

Beats just the abusive shite

👍

[Dawnrazor]

And still the basic question being asked is, what will be in bank accounts and wallets after and if independence happens, I honestly don't think that's unreasonable.

This is obviously for the SNP to answer, I just wish they would.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Dawnrazor

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, Ked said:

 

 

 

Guid tho arguing with you and others.

Beats just the abusive shite

👍

I just wish civility would break out more often 👍

[Japan Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You may be better protected from inflation but if you are the weaker link in the chain and less competitive, you drive up unemployment.

 

Why do you think the Irish "diaspora" exists the way it does? It isn't just because of the Famine. The Irish crippled themselves maintaining parity with sterling until the 1970s.

 

guess it's not just me then that thinks that the policies required to make a new currency stick would require adjustments in public spending that are diametrically opposite to the current trajectory 🙂 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, Ked said:

That's because they used their own currency.

And their internal market was like every other at that time.

I'm taking time out bud .

I've posted too much .

And I'm bad for thinking I've the answers when I'm just a radge .

😄

 

Guid tho arguing with you and others.

Beats just the abusive shite

👍

It would have made zero difference had they used sterling instead of the punt (the currencies in practice were interchangeable in Ireland because of parity).

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Japan Jambo said:

 

guess it's not just me then that thinks that the policies required to make a new currency stick would require adjustments in public spending that are diametrically opposite to the current trajectory 🙂 

 

Yes, they would in the short-term but it doesn't mean that is a bad thing in the medium term. Scotland has a lot of natural resource advantages over the rest of the UK beyond oil. It's ahead in renewable energy, for example. Changing economic direction away from public sector to private sector will be a big task no matter what the governance was of an independent Scotland.

[FWJ]

20 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

all I'm seeing tonight is folks having a civil conversation and trying to learn more. pleasing change from the norm.

This!

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It would have made zero difference had they used sterling instead of the punt (the currencies in practice were interchangeable in Ireland because of parity).

Not true.

Panama had little effect from the 2008 fallout because its internal economy was robust although aligned to the dollar.

That's my point.

Despite that shit storm currency held its value but affected economies that were weak .

Currency is only a promise to pay.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Ked said:

Not true.

Panama had little effect from the 2008 fallout because its internal economy was robust although aligned to the dollar.

That's my point.

Despite that shit storm currency held its value but affected economies that were weak .

Currency is only a promise to pay.

 

Using the crash of 2008 as any sort of guide here is not a good idea. If what you said was true there would have been no such thing as the PIIGS in the Eurozone.

[Ked]

5 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

guess it's not just me then that thinks that the policies required to make a new currency stick would require adjustments in public spending that are diametrically opposite to the current trajectory 🙂 

 

No I agree.

Which is why independence on current trajectory is the best option.

As current and previous trends show that Scotland is in a rut.

 

Right as promised I'm off

😄

[FWJ]

7 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I just wish civility would break out more often 👍

And this

[Ked]

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Using the crash of 2008 as any sort of guide here is not a good idea. If what you said was true there would have been no such thing as the PIIGS in the Eurozone.

The Eurozone is totally different as it's aligned to political unification .

It is pegged to following the economics of Germany and not merely a free currency.

 

 

[Ked]

12 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

And still the basic question being asked is, what will be in bank accounts and wallets after and if independence happens, I honestly don't think that's unreasonable.

This is obviously for the SNP to answer, I just wish they would.

 

The pound would hold the value of the pound buddy

[Pasquale for King]

35 minutes ago, Ked said:

Difficult initially.

We would get picked off by the bookies .

 

Nothing is going to be easy but it can all be done. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

The Eurozone is totally different as it's aligned to political unification .

It is pegged to following the economics of Germany and not merely a free currency.

 

 

The Eurozone follows exactly the model you are prescribing above.

[Pasquale for King]

35 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You do need a central bank. Who is buying and selling the sterling to peg the currency to?

 

Also, the point is that this cost is a significant cost for a government to pursue. The GDP Ireland allocated to maintain the sterling-punt peg was quite significant.

You start a Central bank, like every other country does. 
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15631730.an-independent-scotland-could-set-up-a-central-bank-that-would-pay-for-itself/

[FWJ]

12 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It would have made zero difference had they used sterling instead of the punt (the currencies in practice were interchangeable in Ireland because of parity).

If I remember correctly, people in the R of I were always happy to take Sterling (at the same level as the Punt)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Pasquale for King said:

You start a Central bank, like every other country does. 
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15631730.an-independent-scotland-could-set-up-a-central-bank-that-would-pay-for-itself/

Exactly. Saying you don't "need" a central bank is utter nonsense.

[Ked]

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The Eurozone follows exactly the model you are prescribing above.

It doesn't.

It does if you expect a bailout and to be part of its internal market.

But merely using it doesn't mean that.

Its legal tender worldwide.

 

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

The pound would hold the value of the pound buddy

I hope you take my point that folk really just want certainty on such a big aspect of independence, all the back and forth and he said and she said really should've been sorted out by now.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, FWJ said:

If I remember correctly, people in the R of I were always happy to take Sterling (at the same level as the Punt)

During the 1980s, there was effective dual pricing in the likes of Donegal. It saved the need for currency exchange for punters crossing the border.

[FWJ]

Good night gents

 

This has been a breath of fresh air tonight.

[Ked]

Right beat it ya nippy gits .

I'm off.

Is there no one else can articulate better my argument?

Please

😁

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

I hope you take my point that folk really just want certainty on such a big aspect of independence, all the back and forth and he said and she said really should've been sorted out by now.

Definitely b7ddy

[Pasquale for King]

18 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

And still the basic question being asked is, what will be in bank accounts and wallets after and if independence happens, I honestly don't think that's unreasonable.

This is obviously for the SNP to answer, I just wish they would.

 

All the options are out there, it’s time they picked one. 
Im not a member but I’m sure the rank and file voted for our own currency. 

[Ked]

1 minute ago, FWJ said:

Good night gents

 

This has been a breath of fresh air tonight.

Aye its been good.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Ked said:

It doesn't.

It does if you expect a bailout and to be part of its internal market.

But merely using it doesn't mean that.

Its legal tender worldwide.

 

Ok, so when the ECB had oversight of the Irish budget and signed it off, a new Italian PM was enforced, Greece had fiscal discipline enforced on it etc. why do you think that was? You pulled Panama out, an economy that exists on canal tolls and registering shipping. How that is meant to be comparable in your world is bonkers.

[Lone Striker]

Sturgeon's tactic of pre-empting legal challenge by getting in first to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of holding a referendum without a Section 30 Order is quite clever and sensible.    However if the Supreme Court rules that its NOT legal,  its stretching things a bit to claim that the SNP's showing at the next GE (on a single issue manifesto) represents a valid Indyref substitute.   

 

  

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Sturgeon's tactic of pre-empting legal challenge by getting in first to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of holding a referendum without a Section 30 Order is quite clever and sensible.    However if the Supreme Court rules that its NOT legal,  its stretching things a bit to claim that the SNP's showing at the next GE (on a single issue manifesto) represents a valid Indyref substitute.   

 

  

 

 

I actually think it will be interesting if the Supreme Court rules that it isn't competent. Using the General Election as a defacto referendum could lead to a bizarre situation where the unionist parties agree to run one candidate per constituency versus a nationalist.

[Japan Jambo]

I'm interested to see to what degree the unionist side of the debate actually engages in the debate rather than just sitting back and saying no section 30.

 

The SNP are clearly out of the blocks with a positive upbeat offering of sun lit uplands and look how it could be, some of that will no doubt be/is preposterous but importantly its a positive vision and I fear the unionist response will be focused solely on dismantling that. Even if that is intellectually effective it may well miss the mark on an emotional level. Can't help but feel that the unionist side of the debate needs to identify and sell the benefits far more coherently.

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Ked said:

Wouldn't be a bad thing .

Too many on their phones.

 

Scotland becoming a stronger economy would attract investment.

Right now Scotland is what I would describe as a dependency economy.

Believe it or not some see that  as justifying staying part of the Union.

Surprisingly used by conservatives.

I just don't get it.

As a conservative.

 

Irish people hate the British Tories - venomously so.  Yet Irish voters have traditionally voted in very large numbers for parties here with very similar policies.  Why?  Because our conservative parties are just that - OUR conservative parties.  Scotland has always had solid conservative and centrist voting blocs.  Why wouldn't that be the case in an independent Scotland?

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Jonkel Hoon said:

Probably not the best example, given that the UK helped bail them out

 

It was the EU, the ECB and the IMF who lent Ireland the bailout funds in 2010.  The UK added in an extra 4% (at a handsome profit and since paid back) because it wanted to help prop up one of its most important export markets.

 

Ireland is actually a really good example, and possibly the best example.  We have longer life expectancy than the UK (and the highest in the EU), higher pensions and welfare, a higher rating on the international Human Development Index, and a higher percentage of our population staying in education through to third level.  We couldn't have done that by remaining tied to Britain - and we did most of the work in the period since 1979.  We also did it from a starting point far worse and far poorer than Scotland would have if it became independent.

 

We also made a bollix of our banks and public finances leading to that bailout in 2010.  But it was our choice to run our economy and public services the way we did - and that's the point about independence; it means you get to decide how to run your country and your society, and not someone else.

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I agree. We would start from a much stronger position and it is probably true that no country has ever been better prepared for independence. 

On the other hand I don't think Ireland really enjoyed any real levels of prosperity until the 90s. In other words a lifetime

I doubt it would take us quite as long but even a decade or generation of deeper austerity than the last 10-12 years is a bitter pill. I'm not sure if the population is up for that. Even if the prize is a much fairer, progressive society. 

 

Ireland's starting position was far, far worse than Scotland's.  I can't stress enough how important that is - in the decades leading up to independence, nearly half our population had died or emigrated.

 

Here's something worth thinking about, and it almost beggars belief, but it's true.  Ireland had a big international bailout in 2010.  We had huge public spending cuts.  So logically, it should follow that Irish public servants, pensioners and welfare recipients must have fallen behind their UK counterparts during those years.

 

But they didn't.  And that was for two reasons.  First, in the same period you had the Con-Lib "austerity" coalition, and their cuts were mostly aimed at public servants, welfare recipients and pensioners, while the Irish cuts were designed to protect many of those people.  Secondly, the UK had much higher inflation, which eroded the real earnings of those people.  Since 2015, the incomes of those people have improved faster than their British counterparts, so now they are considerably better off.

 

That's not because the Irish economy had some magical powers not available to the British economy.  It's because our governments (made up of centre-right parties) made different policy choices.  And that's what independence is, the right (and the responsibility) to make your own choices, and to manage the consequences.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Ulysses

[doctor jambo]

It’s a no from me.

I see no signs that this higher taxes than ruk country is doing well or even any better.

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ireland's starting position was far, far worse than Scotland's.  I can't stress enough how important that is - in the decades leading up to independence, nearly half our population had died or emigrated.

 

Here's something worth thinking about, and it almost beggars belief, but it's true.  Ireland had a big international bailout in 2010.  We had huge public spending cuts.  So logically, it should follow that Irish public servants, pensioners and welfare recipients must have fallen behind their UK counterparts during those years.

 

But they didn't.  And that was for two reasons.  First, in the same period you had the Con-Lib "austerity" coalition, and their cuts were mostly aimed at public servants, welfare recipients and pensioners, while the Irish cuts were designed to protect many of those people.  Secondly, the UK had much higher inflation, which eroded the real earnings of those people.  Since 2015, the incomes of those people have improved faster than their British counterparts, so now they are considerably better off.

 

That's not because the Irish economy had some magical powers not available to the British economy.  It's because our governments (made up of centre-right parties) made different policy choices.  And that's what independence is, the right (and the responsibility) to make your own choices, and to manage the consequences.

 

Thanks for explaining. My knowledge is quite limited. the principle you describe tied in with my general thinking and the post 2008 narrative gives me quite a bit more confidence. 

I never believed Osborne and Cameron needed to go down the route of austerity. They wanted to do it because they sure as hell weren't going to make their pals pay for the mess they made of the economy when they could cut benefits and services. Ireland demonstrated a far better route.

However, I worry about the quality of politicians in Scotland. Well meaning as most of them are. I can't see anyone capable of guiding us through what will be v choppy waters.  This current government has increasingly chased headlines rather than outcomes.  It would rather write off £xm than pay for someone to make sure the money is spent wisely as long as they got their headline. And I see nothing I'm opposition capable of laying a glove on them. 

So still on the fence for now. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 hours ago, jonesy said:

Agreed that that's part of it.

 

What I'm asking folk to ponder is how did, despite all the buffoonery, balderdash and brexiteering, we get to the point where it appears that there's going to be a very tight vote?

I think there are a few reasons. Scotland's natural conservatism and lack of self confidence. A lot of us believe we are too small, too weak and too daft to make it on our own. And WM and the media are more than happy to remind us. Like it or not there is an affinity with the rUK. Historical ties, including two world wars and a shared culture that stretches back hundreds of years. And despite enduring some incompetent and sometimes callous Governments none of us really know if independence will make it any better. 

Personally, I'd like to see a Referendum during a period of stability so we can make a choice that doesn't involve hitting the panic button. 

[ri Alban]

 

 

Bye Hoose Jocks, I'm sure you'll be very welcome.

[manaliveits105]

October 24th 2023 

[i wish jj was my dad]

The two posts above are precisely what puts me off this debate. Nothing to add other than chucking shite at each other. If I thought either of them represented the mindset of scotland, I'd honestly emigrate. 

[Dazo]

36 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

The two posts above are precisely what puts me off this debate. Nothing to add other than chucking shite at each other. If I thought either of them represented the mindset of scotland, I'd honestly emigrate. 

They do and a fairly large proportion. Have you seen the nick of the people who go on marches/rallies from either side ?  It’s such a divisive subject it brings the worst out of people. 

[FWJ]

38 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

The two posts above are precisely what puts me off this debate. Nothing to add other than chucking shite at each other. If I thought either of them represented the mindset of scotland, I'd honestly emigrate. 

Exactly.

 

[XB52]

Pleasantly surprised to see intelligent, polite debate on here the last few hours (apart from the 2 loonies but even they are matched, 1 on each side). 

The SG have promised to release several reports in the next few months, one specifically on the currency issue. I would expect that to say we would use the pound initially before moving to our own currency, backed by a Scottish central bank. 

[Jambos1983]

It's an easy yes this time for me. The years of this Tory government have been the worst in my lifetime and there is no scope to vote them out. 

 

The chance to get the government Scotland votes for and the ability to vote them out if it doesn't work sounds much more appealing. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Reasonable chat last night on one of the main issues - Currency.

 

Can I ask of those wondering what currency Scotland would use, which of course is the pound that we have been part of for over 300 years, is there an implicit suggestion that Scotland would not be allowed to use the pound? Otherwise I can't see the real validity of the question. 

 

If that was the suggestion then I'd like to see how that plays out with voters either way. 

[OTT]

8 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Sturgeon's tactic of pre-empting legal challenge by getting in first to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of holding a referendum without a Section 30 Order is quite clever and sensible.    However if the Supreme Court rules that its NOT legal,  its stretching things a bit to claim that the SNP's showing at the next GE (on a single issue manifesto) represents a valid Indyref substitute.   

 

  

 

 

I think it’s a bit of carrot and stick. Ultimately she wants to work with the UK government to replicate the gold standard of 2014. We’re told that it’s a voluntary union and partnership of equals. So having to force them to the table like this isn’t a good look. She’s effectively laying out exactly what will happen it the UK refuses to engage on the mandate the electorate has given her. 
 

The notion that you can join a union and the ability to leave be entirely at the behest of the other party is ridiculous and painfully not democratic. 
 

The Supreme Court could still rule against her. I think Boris and the UK won’t want to open up the can of worms that a general election being a de facto referendum will bring though, as who knows what knock on effect that will have and it means they have no control at all over the process. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

36 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Reasonable chat last night on one of the main issues - Currency.

 

Can I ask of those wondering what currency Scotland would use, which of course is the pound that we have been part of for over 300 years, is there an implicit suggestion that Scotland would not be allowed to use the pound? Otherwise I can't see the real validity of the question. 

 

If that was the suggestion then I'd like to see how that plays out with voters either way. 

Scotland COULD use sterling if it wished. If it did, its economic policy would be even more in the control of Westminster than it is now for the reasons given above.

[jack D and coke]

18 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Scotland COULD use sterling if it wished. If it did, its economic policy would be even more in the control of Westminster than it is now for the reasons given above.

Scotland can’t use sterling unless the British govt agree. They made that clear last time. Wouldnt be a great idea either for the reasons you state. 
We can use the pound though. That’s not the same thing. 

[hmfc_liam06]

Was no last time.

Cast iron YES this time.

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

This will end up as a pretend vote, wee flags waving in the pissing rain there is no legislation for yet another referendum, the money, man hour's and energy wasted on this would be better put into budgets towards infrastructure, education, crime prevention and the massive drug problem on the streets of Scotland of which the greensnp party have decriminalised, 16 more months of hot air to go if buts and maybes, blaming each other as these politicians can never give an honest straight answer to a simple question 

[periodictabledancer]

9 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Sturgeon's tactic of pre-empting legal challenge by getting in first to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of holding a referendum without a Section 30 Order is quite clever and sensible.    However if the Supreme Court rules that its NOT legal,  its stretching things a bit to claim that the SNP's showing at the next GE (on a single issue manifesto) represents a valid Indyref substitute.   

 

  

 

 

I don't think that's the aim (or maybe I'm misreading her) but assuming a S30 ruling favours Westminster then a Gen Election platforming for independence would potentially make a decisive case for S30 to be granted if there's a strong SNP)Green vote . It also puts the unionist parties in an awkward place - do they acknowledge her and counter or simply ignore her. Equally, a unionist majority vote at the GE could answer that question , possibly  for the foreseeable future.