Politics At The Football...?

[ScottyDFA]

Sure, people have things to lose. Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies have generous salaries, second homes and expense accounts to lose for example.

 

Maybe rUK will engage in an act of vandalism and scupper a formal currency union - but Scotland can still use the pound in any case, so all those transaction costs to business that everyone's so concerned about will never materialise. Will the lack of a formal currency union cause iScotland to start off with a Double-A rather than Triple-A credit rating? Possibly, but probably not, as the rating reflects ability to pay above all other factors (so iScotland would most likely be assigned AAA rating. (The difference between borrowing costs for these two ratings is marginal in any case). Of course, operating at a surplus (which is not inconceivable in the case of Scotland) would negate the need for public sector borrowing altogether. (In that scenario credit ratings become irrelevant unless you want to borrow for a large infrastructure project, say).

 

We definitely have a lot to lose with regard to things that we cherish (if we have any integrity at all) like the NHS. The argument that the only power that can introduce private money into the NHS in Scotland is the Holyrood government is a sham of sorts, because the decision might be forced upon it by decisions taken south of the border. The explanation for this assertion is a simple one, but far better left to someone better-placed to give it authority:

 

 

Scotland has been getting done up like a kipper by Westminster for years. Here's a good example:

 

 

If you really believe that the Conservatives, or New Labour (who in no way resemble the Labour Party I knew growing up), or the Lib Dems will do anything to benefit Scotland, then I don't know what to say...

 

A No-voter in the audience at the 5 Live debate said, in effect, that nationalism is a nasty inclination, and that it had led to a number of conflicts in human history. She completely misses the point that nationalism is only ugly when it refers to the kind of thing that was going on in Germany in the 1930s, when the Nazis asserted that the Aryan race/German nation was superior.

 

The nationalism we have in Scotland is not about asserting any kind of superiority - not even close. It is about asserting that we are as good as anybody else - not better. What's wrong with the people of Scotland, that we don't merit self-determination like everyone else?

[ScottyDFA]

For what it's worth I had a meeting with my Financial Advisor last Monday to review my pension plan.I was given the value of my pot and advised that it was now worth £2000 less than it was a fortnight ago all due to the possibility of a yes vote .It's a sad fact of life that the financial markets are no respecter of dreams and hopes

 

And the value of your pension will bounce back once the dust settles on all of this. Look at the value of NASDAQ and FTSE the day after 9/11 due to uncertainty, then look at the values of those indices today...

 

I might add that the uncertainty that's causing temporary lowering of share values is being promulgated by the Better Together campaign, so you have them to thank.

[scotty]

I take it we'll all vote tory in the next general election because the CEOs of various companies and financial institutions want us to.

[allyo]

For what it's worth I had a meeting with my Financial Advisor last Monday to review my pension plan.I was given the value of my pot and advised that it was now worth £2000 less than it was a fortnight ago all due to the possibility of a yes vote .It's a sad fact of life that the financial markets are no respecter of dreams and hopes

 

That's why I don't base my life choices on financial markets.

[ScottyDFA]

You will never meet a wealthy gambler.

 

Yet you are willing to roll the dice on what might happen to Scotland if it stays in the UK? Tell me, my friend who loves a sure thing...

 

1) Who's going to win the next UK general election? And,

 

2) What will be the outcome of an in/out referendum in the UK on continued EU membership?

 

I don't want any guesses here, you understand. I want firm facts.

[cyprusjag]

The reality is that a Yes vote will merely herald an 18month period of uncertainty as the negotiations /bargaining begin.Markets will not "bounce " back until all financial matters are resolved .

[ScottyDFA]

There are two possible scenarios with regard to an independent Scotland's membership of the EU. Assuming that membership is desired by the Scots:

 

Best case scenario - apply as an autonomous state from within the EU (having been a member within the UK), so no interruption of membership. Or,

 

Worst case scenario - have to apply from outside the EU (having voluntarily seceded from a member state). Temporary interruption of membership.

 

The two possible scenarios if Scotland stays in the UK are:

 

Best case scenario - in/out UK referendum result is "in", therefore uninterrupted membership, (same as best case scenario for iScotland). Or,

 

Worst case scenario - in/out UK referendum result is "out", therefore Scotland's EU membership is over. Somewhat worse than the worst-case scenario for iScotland, don't you think?

[potty trained]

The reality is that a Yes vote will merely herald an 18month period of uncertainty as the negotiations /bargaining begin.Markets will not "bounce " back until all financial matters are resolved .

 

Did you discuss what will happen to your pension if we stay in the Union?

[ScottyDFA]

The reality is that a Yes vote will merely herald an 18month period of uncertainty as the negotiations /bargaining begin.Markets will not "bounce " back until all financial matters are resolved .

 

Are you retiring in the next 18 months?

[Lionel J. Botch]

Relax everyone. Ming Campbell has set out the LibDems' grand-sounding "Home Rule Commission", so there's nothing to worry about...

 

The last time there was something called 'Home Rule', that ended well didn't it?

[Meister Jag]

For what it's worth I had a meeting with my Financial Advisor last Monday to review my pension plan.I was given the value of my pot and advised that it was now worth £2000 less than it was a fortnight ago all due to the possibility of a yes vote .It's a sad fact of life that the financial markets are no respecter of dreams and hopes

 

A couple of quick questions: Is this a pension pot that is being managed by a Scottish firm (so monies are being invested in global markets - pretty unusual as many pension investments are spread all over the place; but I'm sure you could stipulate what and where you want to invest your money)? And if not and your invest is being managed by a UK fund manager, does this mean that there will be many others in a similar position? (Thinking other non-Scottish UK investors who may be nearing retirement or simply wishing to check what their pot might be worth.) TBH, haven't seen reports of this type of scenario in the papers. I'm a no vote, but some of the tit-for-tat scaremongering from both sides is mind-numbing.

 

Could it just be that your FA is just using the referendum as a convenient excuse for poor performance - the old investment may go up as well as down routine.

[cyprusjag]

Already retired 6 years ago on a drawdown pension so if pot doesn't continue to cover my drawdown I'll either have to reduce my income or reduce the pot sooner than intended. Listen , I'm not saying that independence won't or can't work but please be honest. It will be a long hard road (another poster in favour suggest5/20 years ) but you never hear Salmond or anyone else say it will be a struggle .It's the promised land. Sorry to say there isn't one politician I would trust .

[lady-isobel-barnett]

You will never meet a wealthy gambler.

 

Used to hear the expression "you'll never see a poor bookie". What do bookies do? Do they not take a gamble every time they receive a bet?

[Meister Jag]

Are you retiring in the next 18 months?

 

Scotty, in the event of a yes vote, would Scotland gaining independence be sorted in the next 18-months? Yesterday's papers were full of all sorts of stories about how independence could be blocked in the event of a close vote; to include the passage of enabling legislation through parliament. One paper (pro-independence Herald) event mentioned 3-years to sort things out. Maybe the papers just stirring things but I'd imagine there would be a bun fight before the ties were finally cut. (At risk of contradicting my earlier post above, if the markets become jittery, things might progress quicker. Money must be made and markets steadied and all that...)

 

Anyone else got a take on this?

[Meister Jag]

Another question - full of them tonight: If the Queen stays as sovereign (she will) does this mean that we will get a Governor General (the guy who could recommend that parliament be dissolved if it's corrupt or whatever. Thinking Australia where this did happen - Gough Whitlam government in 1975)? I believe the term is to prorogue - which sounds like something that half the Tory cabinet had to endure as a right of, erm, passage at Eton.

[cyprusjag]

Why in God's name would an Independent Scotland want to keep the queen ????

[ScottyDFA]

You forget that people have things to lose.

 

You mean like parents losing a son or daughter whose been sent overseas to fight in a phoney, trumped-up "war" (more accurately, a plundering).

 

You mean like seeing billions squandered on completely irrelevant nuclear weapons.

 

You mean like paying through the snotter to fund a high-speed rail service that's, really, only ever going to reach as far north as Birmingham....

 

Are these the kind of losses you're referring to?

 

.

Edited September 15, 2014 by ScottyDFA

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Your figures aren't correct.

 

At the last Scottish elections the SNP received 45% of the popular vote (L32%, C14%,LD8%). Although not +50% they were preferred to any other party by a long way.

 

Comparing this to the last General Election where the Conservatives came 4th in Scotland yet are in charge of our affairs, with the Lib Dems propping them up who came 3rd (L42%, SNP20%, LD19%, C17%). Our Scottish Parliament is much closer to what the people in Scotland voted for in the Scottish election than what he have been given in Westminster despite the Scottish results in the General Election. Overall in the UK, Conservatives only received 36% of the popular vote (less than what SNP received in the Scottish Elections).

 

It's also important to remember that no-one actually voted for the coalition. It's fair to say the majority of Conservatives will have been ok with it as it leaves them in power but there were many Lib Dem voters left disillusioned with their party for the deal they made.

 

For me, my decision in the referendum mainly comes down to who runs our affairs. We have a devolved Parliament who are given some money to run parts of our society. We are now being told by parties in WM there will be more powers to Scotland but they won't tell us what they are. We have a chance to take control of everything. No need to rely on the 'promises' of these other parties. We as a people can decide exactly what we want to do in our country, without being affected by how people in England decide to vote. I am under no illusions as to how risky this is and to the fact that we won't see the benefits of a Yes vote until maybe 15 or 20 years down the line. However, it's a risk worth taking compared to what we're being given at the minute.

 

Norge said "23% of the electorate".

 

SNP formed an executive at Holyrood by achieving 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout yet have 53% of the seats.

 

59% voted for one of the coalition parties gaining 56% of the seats at westminster and turnout was 65% (UK wide)

 

About 900,000 people voted SNP in 2011. About 500,000 voted SNP in 2010. About 400,000 in Scotland voted conservative in 2010. About 1,050,000 voted either Lib/lab/con in 2011.

 

The Scottish electorate I think is just shy of 4million. Not voting does not make one a non-citizen.... yet.

 

One could legitimately argue that in the referendum for a referendum on independence (the 2011 holyrood elections) the SNP failed to secure a majority.

Edited September 15, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[ScottyDFA]

Yesterday's papers were full of all sorts of stories about how...

 

Please don't tell me you... You don't believe what you read in the... Do you...?

 

One paper (pro-independence Herald) event mentioned 3-years to sort things out. Maybe the papers just stirring things but I'd imagine there would be a bun fight before the ties were finally cut.

 

Seriously though, three years before a complete, final settlement sounds reasonable. But all the main issues will be settled far more quickly than that for exactly the reason you give below. Never forget the pressure big business can exert on politics, or the desire of some politicians to reach satisfactory outcomes in a timely manner.

 

At risk of contradicting my earlier post above, if the markets become jittery, things might progress quicker. Money must be made and markets steadied and all that...

 

 

Sorry to hear you'll be attempting to vote down this chance for Scotland to take responsibility for itself. One thing is for sure - as a people (collectively) we will get the government we deserve after the referendum. I personally feel we deserve better than the mediocrity we've had to endure up to now.

 

(Sincerely.) Good luck!

[angry gaz]

Why in God's name would an Independent Scotland want to keep the queen ????

 

To get the Knuckle daggers to vote yes.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Norge said "23% of the electorate".

 

SNP formed an executive at Holyrood by achieving 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout yet have 53% of the seats.

 

59% voted for one of the coalition parties gaining 56% of the seats at westminster and turnout was 65% (UK wide)

 

About 900,000 people voted SNP in 2011. About 500,000 voted SNP in 2010. About 400,000 in Scotland voted conservative in 2010. About 1,050,000 voted either Lib/lab/con in 2011.

 

The Scottish electorate I think is just shy of 4million. Not voting does not make one a non-citizen.... yet.

 

One could legitimately argue that in the referendum for a referendum on independence (the 2011 holyrood elections) the SNP failed to secure a majority.

 

All factually correct although a rather moot point.

 

There has never been a party in the history of UK politics who have been returned with 50% of the electorate.

 

Only the likes of Robert Mugabe achieves such figures. Allegedly.

 

Let's keep things proportional.

[ScottyDFA]

... you never hear Salmond or anyone else say it will be a struggle. It's the promised land...

 

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard Salmond or anyone else say that it won't be hard work. "Struggle" is a bit overly-emotive, don't you think. More of a stimulating task. And you're going to have to point me to the quote where a prominent member of the YES campaign described an independent Scotland as "the promised land". If you can't refer to a direct quotation, you should maybe think about withdrawing that. You were pleading for honesty after all...

[Willjag]

This appears to have gone from a football related thread to something else so I'll move it over to the other side now.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Scotland has been getting done up like a kipper by Westminster for years. Here's a good example:

 

 

If you really believe that the Conservatives, or New Labour (who in no way resemble the Labour Party I knew growing up), or the Lib Dems will do anything to benefit Scotland, then I don't know what to say...

 

The nationalism we have in Scotland is not about asserting any kind of superiority - not even close. It is about asserting that we are as good as anybody else - not better. What's wrong with the people of Scotland, that we don't merit self-determination like everyone else?

Excellent post. Not a lot of folk know about the Stolen Seas. The generous term is "cooking the books". The straight term is "thieving badstars".

 

We can never trust the UK government to look after Scotland's interests. This has been proven time and time again.

[Meister Jag]

Why in God's name would an Independent Scotland want to keep the queen ????

 

Well, to put it simply, after the referendum she will still be the Queen, our sovereign, she has a right to be consulted on all matters of state. It might be pedantic, but I think there's also something about her having a "right to encourage" and "right to warn" "her" PM. We're not voting to become a republic; or have I missed something? The family business will still be about.

 

Comrade Jaggy B of this very forum is a fan and can no doubt provide better analysis and comment. (He apparently has pictures aplenty. Laminated ones of Zara Phillips, but don't tell...)

 

In case it helps, I think any new Scottish parliament would still be appointed to govern on behalf of HM - royal prerogative and all that. Not sure, but maybe the Scottish government would have to go to her to ask if it was okay to acknowledge a foreign state, declare war or annex foreign land (she did this when we nabbed Rockall for territorial boundary purposes - oil fields probably had something to do with it as well). But the serious point is that I don't think we say cheerio to the royals after Friday; or after any other day. Which poses yet another question: Will we still have to pay for her upkeep post-independence? She has a fair bit of land and a couple of braw hooses in Scotland.