Just Say Yes

[Norgethistle]

From snp.org

“Scotland will continue to use the pound, and it is widely agreed that this provides the best starting point for an independent Scotland. The international economists on the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission Working Group argued that retaining the pound after independence would be in the interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK due to our trade and financial links.

 

The recommendation of the Working Group and Scottish Government policy is for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the 'Sterling Zone', just as it does just now. There are many countries around the world in currency unions.

 

Monetary policy would continue to be decided independently by the Bank of England, taking account of economic conditions across the currency zone – just as it is just now. And limits on excessive spending and borrowing are sensible for any government, including Scotland’s. As the expert Fiscal Commission Working Group pointed out, this framework would provide the country with “key new levers for the government to grow the economy and to tackle challenges in Scottish society and Scotland's economy”.”

 

 

 

I'm not concerned. Are you concerned? If so, why are you concerned? Do you have grounds for concern? Could you quote specific examples of why you think that the Bank of England would harm Scotland?

Paul Kavanagh:

“Despite its name, the Bank of England is the UK central bank, and as such Scots have an 8.6% share in it. As an independent nation we would not be without influence in the central bank, as we are shareholders in it and would be party to negotiations to form a new sterling area. At the moment we only have the influence of George Osborne and Danny Alexander, even a minority say in the Bank of England is better than that. But more importantly we'd have full control over our own tax and spending.”

 

 

 

Check Hypothetical Harry go. A new currency would very unwelcome in my opinion. Some of the Yes camp (outwith the SNP) have mentioned this. They are in the minority and will have no influence. I’m guessing that you already know what the USSR’s pitfalls were. Please feel free to share your wisdom with less restraint, althought I do think it’s kind of irrelevant in the end. A vote for the SNP is a vote for the pound. Seemples.

 

 

 

I’d be surprised if we didn’t borrow at the same rate as the UK, given the SNP excellent track record to date.

 

You can drill down deeply into some performance data here

http://www.scotland....2013/05/4084/14

 

The gist of it is that Scotland has run an overall net fiscal deficit in recent years, as has the UK. This is common among national governments.

 

Despite being in deficit, between 2007-08 and 2011-12 Scotland has been in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the UK. When expressed in cash terms, Scotland's relatively stronger fiscal position compared to the UK during this period is estimated to be equivalent to £12.6 billion. This means that over the past five years, Scotland could have had higher spending, for example on infrastructure investment, and/or lower taxation and still had a smaller fiscal deficit than the UK.

 

Bank risk assessment for Scotland (to quote their secret terminology): "considered good”.

 

This is the SNP's view on it, but the glaring mistake is it keeps quoting as part of the UK, we won't be so all what they quote is null and void

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Phoenix,

 

My dig was intended as humorous banter, sorry if it came across as personal.

 

Why would I be surprised if Scotland wasn't allowed to borrow at 2%? Because of Scotland's relatively good handling in financial matters, coupled with the country's net worth. Applying some logic to the economic reports would suggest banking reference as "considered good". This is just my personal speculation and I'm not pretending otherwise. But what do I know? I'm just a Jags fan on a fitba' forum!

 

Have you tried directing your questions straight to the SNP via E-Mail? It would be interesting to see what the response would be. On actual brrowing rates though, could even the governor of the Bank of England himself tell you what the base rate would be in 3 years time?

 

This is the SNP's view on it, but the glaring mistake is it keeps quoting as part of the UK, we won't be so all what they quote is null and void

Slight over reaction Norge. I don't think that's a mistake at all. I would read UK to mean "England, Wales and Northern Ireland" (although that could open up a new debate)...

 

Check out what Gus O'Donnell says. (wiki: British senior civil servant and economist, who between 2005 and 2011 (under three Prime Ministers) served as the Cabinet Secretary, the highest official in the British Civil Service.) I think we could agree that he knows what he's talking about.

 

Writing in The Scotsman, 29 May 2013, Eddie Barnes wrote:

 

"ONE of the UK’s most respected political commentators offered his views on Scottish independence last week. It took more than 1,000 words of elegant copy to declare that, if independence was what the Scots wanted, then he wasn’t going to lose any sleep over it.

 

The referendum debate may be consuming newsprint here, but it appears England is concluding that, as with a furious domestic row in a neighbours’ house which can be heard through the plasterboard, it is probably best not to become too involved.

 

That is not how (Lord) Gus O’Donnell sees it, however. The former head of the UK civil service began his academic career in Glasgow. When he retired as cabinet secretary in 2011, he left a note for ministers giving them a list for their in-box. Top was Scotland’s referendum.

 

In April, he published a lengthy article on the issue. At the weekend, he gave a series of interviews on the subject. He is keeping a very close eye on proceedings indeed.

Doubtless, some pro-independence supporters will seek out the smell of a rat given Lord O’Donnell’s background within Whitehall. However, he has thought hard about the subject and reached some telling conclusions. At the weekend, he was pointing out the need for Scotland to build up credibility so that, if there is a “yes” vote, cheap debt finance will be available.

 

He also had some views to share on Alex Salmond’s idea of a pound-sharing deal with the rest of the UK.

 

Unlike the Treasury’s own analysis, O’Donnell notes that there would have to be a two-way street after independence. Both new countries – Scotland and the remaining UK – would need oversight of one another. Or, in other words, Scotland would need to have a say over whatever the Westminster chancellor was up to so as not to destabilise Scotland’s economy. He suggests that a neutral referee (he calls it an office of budget responsibility for the sterling area) could be set up to make sure both sides stick by the rules. Under this arrangement, he says, the thing might be made able to work."

 

 

Sounds like a believable pathway to me...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________

↓ The A to Z of Independence - Sorting myth from fact ↓

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Blackpool Jags]

Racist tosh

 

Myself, I'd find it useful if you could use a tongue-in-cheek emoticon or some other form of alert to denote that you're not being the faintest bit serious.

[Guy Incognito]

 

Fair enough, JB, I didn't know that the soldiers had been told they have the option of not transferring. I was going purely by my own experiences. Mind you, I am just a pen-pusher, and we are pretty much the sh*te on the shoe in the pecking order of government employees (A 1% pay rise cap Mr Osborne? Gee t'anks. That'll be six years since I last had a pay rise that actually matched inflation.)

 

However, I still do not accept that no one would want to join a Scottish defence force. By all accounts the Irish army is so oversubsribed that many Irish lads join the British army instead. The Irish army is a popular career choice because it provides its members with transferable skills and a good pension. The fact that they are not regularly asked to go and invade other countries does not seem to deter people from joining. As far as not wanting to send soldiers any soldiers anywhere, it was my understanding that all members of NATO and the UN are obliged to send forces overseas when required to do so.

 

The reasons given for going into Afghanistan were always a bit muddled. Initially we were supposed to believe that it was to stem the thread of the taliban and Al Qaeda, but that then superseded by the line that we were there to curb the drugs trade. Either way, some people seem to have conveniently forgotten that the taliban was armed by allied forces when fighting against Soviet occupation.

 

As a matter of interest, do you know how many Scots are currently serving in the armed forces? That isn't a rhetorical question either, I am genuinely curious.

[Guy Incognito]

More racist tosh.

 

Most I know tend to be Commie Beatnicks.

[alx]

Most I know tend to be Commie Beatnicks.

 

That is scarily accurate for quite a few in my branch!!!!

[jaggybunnet]

Fair enough, JB, I didn't know that the soldiers had been told they have the option of not transferring. I was going purely by my own experiences. Mind you, I am just a pen-pusher, and we are pretty much the sh*te on the shoe in the pecking order of government employees (A 1% pay rise cap Mr Osborne? Gee t'anks. That'll be six years since I last had a pay rise that actually matched inflation.)

 

ditto

 

However, I still do not accept that no one would want to join a Scottish defence force. By all accounts the Irish army is so oversubsribed that many Irish lads join the British army instead. The Irish army is a popular career choice because it provides its members with transferable skills and a good pension. The fact that they are not regularly asked to go and invade other countries does not seem to deter people from joining. As far as not wanting to send soldiers any soldiers anywhere, it was my understanding that all members of NATO and the UN are obliged to send forces overseas when required to do so.

 

it is only 7500 strong and is used to transport large amount of money and guard the prisons so is realy a police force rather than an army to be honest that only gets safe areas to go to when it is deployed

 

The reasons given for going into Afghanistan were always a bit muddled. Initially we were supposed to believe that it was to stem the thread of the taliban and Al Qaeda, but that then superseded by the line that we were there to curb the drugs trade. Either way, some people seem to have conveniently forgotten that the taliban was armed by allied forces when fighting against Soviet occupation.

 

not forgotten. its just what happens, we accepted it, don't know why others cant.

 

As a matter of interest, do you know how many Scots are currently serving in the armed forces? That isn't a rhetorical question either, I am genuinely curious.

i will check when i go to work tomorrow but its is difficult with all the team Fiji and those from the old colonial countries to say exactly how many.

[Guy Incognito]

Brilliant, proper questions not vote "YES" or your a traitor nonsense I doth my hat to you sir, this is one of countless questions that needs to be answered BEFORE people are allowed to vote

 

Who has called anyone a traitor on here?

 

I honestly don't know which way I will vote. I believe that Scotland should be an independent country but I'm unsure of a lot of things, mostly to do with finance. It wasn't long ago that Ireland and Iceland were being held up as an example of how things would be ok if we were independent and look what's happened there.

 

Over the past two years Iceland has seen economic growth. Its unemployment rate is also lower than the UK's. In contrast to Westminster's response when British banks went belly-up, the Icelandic government sent the people responsible to prison, rather than allowing them to be rewarded with large bonuses and lucrative pensions. They also refused to support those ailing banks, meaning that taxpayers were not burdened with their banking debt as well.

 

I was in Ireland about a year ago and it didn't look to me like a country on its knees. On the other hand, its unemployment rate and the fact that young people are vacating the country in droves speaks for itself.

 

Iceland and Ireland were always poor comparisons, however. For one thing, neither country has Scotland's natural resources. In Ireland's case it went from being, to all intents and purposes, a third world country to very much a first world one over a very short period of time and this created a buble. By contrast, Scotland has been an industrialised country for far longer and even now has more strings to its economic bow. Ireland didn't discover oil, it discovered money. Monopoly money. Basing an economy on shoving other people's money around is a risky business because money, ultimately, is not real.

 

 

Thanks, JB, I'd appreciate that. Maybe I am splitting hairs here but according to this Ireland's armed forces consist of more than 9,000 active personnel, 8,500 of whom are in the army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Forces_(Ireland)#cite_note-report2011-2

 

Either way, it is interesting that despite having such a small armed forces - smaller than I expected - they still appear able to defend themselves adequately.

[Jaggernaut]

Lets start with Finance then . What currency will we be using? Should we stay with the pound? Would there be any concerns about the currency in an independent country being 'run' by another country e.g. interest rates? If we look at the EU as an example, what is good for Germany or France might not be good for Spain or Greece. If the Bank of England has to make a decision and one way benefits Scotland but hurts England and vice versa what way do you think they will decide? Would a new currency be the answer? If so how much would that cost to set up and who would control this? Other countries have done this e.g. after the break up of USSR. What pitfalls did they find when dealing with these problems? When Scotland needs to borrow money (as every country does) at what % rate would we be borrowing at? Currently the UK borrows at roughly 2%, other countries in the EU can be up to 20%. At what rate would Scotland (having no 'credit history' with the markets) be borrowing at? Maybe these things have already been decided, if so please give us the facts.

 

I couldn't begin to give the answers to those questions, but indeed other countries have embraced independence and have dealt with those "problems". And not a single one has voted to go back to being dependent on another country.

[jaggybunnet]

I couldn't begin to give the answers to those questions, but indeed other countries have embraced independence and have dealt with those "problems". And not a single one has voted to go back to being dependent on another country.

 

 

is that don't want to or cant?

[jaggybunnet]

Who has called anyone a traitor on here?

 

 

 

Over the past two years Iceland has seen economic growth. Its unemployment rate is also lower than the UK's. In contrast to Westminster's response when British banks went belly-up, the Icelandic government sent the people responsible to prison, rather than allowing them to be rewarded with large bonuses and lucrative pensions. They also refused to support those ailing banks, meaning that taxpayers were not burdened with their banking debt as well.

 

I was in Ireland about a year ago and it didn't look to me like a country on its knees. On the other hand, its unemployment rate and the fact that young people are vacating the country in droves speaks for itself.

 

Iceland and Ireland were always poor comparisons, however. For one thing, neither country has Scotland's natural resources. In Ireland's case it went from being, to all intents and purposes, a third world country to very much a first world one over a very short period of time and this created a buble. By contrast, Scotland has been an industrialised country for far longer and even now has more strings to its economic bow. Ireland didn't discover oil, it discovered money. Monopoly money. Basing an economy on shoving other people's money around is a risky business because money, ultimately, is not real.

 

 

 

Thanks, JB, I'd appreciate that. Maybe I am splitting hairs here but according to this Ireland's armed forces consist of more than 9,000 active personnel, 8,500 of whom are in the army: http://en.wikipedia....te-report2011-2

 

my bad , i was looking at there army only not the entire armed forces as the navy and def the airforce dont count...its a army thing

 

Either way, it is interesting that despite having such a small armed forces - smaller than I expected - they still appear able to defend themselves adequately.

 

they would have difficulty defending themselves against a toddlers group and who stands in at the prison if they are needed..the local brownies group?

[Norgethistle]

 

 

He also had some views to share on Alex Salmond’s idea of a pound-sharing deal with the rest of the UK.

 

Unlike the Treasury’s own analysis, O’Donnell notes that there would have to be a two-way street after independence. Both new countries – Scotland and the remaining UK – would need oversight of one another. Or, in other words, Scotland would need to have a say over whatever the Westminster chancellor was up to so as not to destabilise Scotland’s economy. He suggests that a neutral referee (he calls it an office of budget responsibility for the sterling area) could be set up to make sure both sides stick by the rules. Under this arrangement, he says, the thing might be made able to work."

 

 

Sounds like a believable pathway to me..

 

 

 

Scotland would need, but say Westminster don't want to allow, like a kid moving out and coming back home asking to have his washing done "You broke away son, big enough to stand on your own so go stand on your own"

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Most I know tend to be Commie Beatnicks.

Seems I missed a post last night. Must have been whilst I was smoking pot and reading Camus in my black polo neck...

[Guy Incognito]

is that don't want to or cant?

 

Both.

 

Incidentally, congratualtions to Croatia, who today became the latest member of the EU. How they manage to survive without all those handouts from Belgrade beats me though.

 

they would have difficulty defending themselves against a toddlers group and who stands in at the prison if they are needed..the local brownies group?

 

Prison guards, presumably.

 

As for the former point, I would personally be loathe to suggest such a thing to any Irishman, lovely people though they are, especially one who has undergone armed forces training.

 

Seems I missed a post last night. Must have been whilst I was smoking pot and reading Camus in my black polo neck...

 

You didn't miss much. The edited post describes its content rather well!

[twinny]

I readily admit that the Tory rampage in England that would inevitably follow Scottish independence is not Scotland's problem, and should never be a consideration for those voting in the referendum. Labour, these days (both North and South), is an embarrassing caricature of eg the post-war Attlee government which did so much good work in creating the NHS, the welfare state, free universal education and so so much more. But it's all we've got that isn't crazed royal blue right wing madness.

 

Scotland's proud rejection of anything Tory over past decades is another thing that makes this 70's economic migrant fiercely proud to be a Scot, albeit as an ex-pat. Scotland fully deserves the opportunity not to held back by blue rinse England any more and to embark on a new forward thinking politics.

 

I made my bed when I scarpered down here to indulge myself in the bright lights by the seaside all those years ago, after being made redundant, but I'll never begrudge those I left behind the chance to determine their own affairs. If the YES vote prevails, I hope it proves to be a storming success.

 

Scotland's vote in general elections has rarely, if ever, swayed an election one way or another.

[kni]

Scotland's vote in general elections has rarely, if ever, swayed an election one way or another.

 

It stopped Cameron winning an overall majority in 2010 and forced him into Coalition with the Lib Dems..

[Norgethistle]

Scotland's vote in general elections has rarely, if ever, swayed an election one way or another.

 

Being only 10% of the total population you would expect that to be the case

[twinny]

It stopped Cameron winning an overall majority in 2010 and forced him into Coalition with the Lib Dems..

 

1945 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1950 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1951 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1955 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1959 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1966 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1970 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

October 1974 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1979 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1983 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1987 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1992 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1997 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2001 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2005 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

 

So I have missed out three post war elections there, 1964, February 1974 and 2010. In 2010 Scotland voted exactly the same as they had in 2005 and we ended up with a very different government, so the insinuation that Scotland's vote significantly affects the UK government is nonsense, and by separating Scotland would not be imposing a permanent Tory Government on England.

[Guy Incognito]

It stopped Cameron winning an overall majority in 2010 and forced him into Coalition with the Lib Dems..

 

The Tories still emerged as the largest party though. And in any case, any pacifying effects the Lib Dems have had on their coalition partners has been, at best, minimal.

[Guy Incognito]

1945 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1950 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1951 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1955 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1959 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1966 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1970 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

October 1974 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1979 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1983 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1987 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1992 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1997 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2001 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2005 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

 

So I have missed out three post war elections there, 1964, February 1974 and 2010. In 2010 Scotland voted exactly the same as they had in 2005 and we ended up with a very different government, so the insinuation that Scotland's vote significantly affects the UK government is nonsense, and by separating Scotland would not be imposing a permanent Tory Government on England.

 

Good post.

 

The only debatable point is a very minor one about how much different Labour's policies actually were from those of Cameron's Tories. Either way, the Tories were not the party the majority of the Scots electorate voted for.

[jaggybunnet]

Both.

 

Incidentally, congratualtions to Croatia, who today became the latest member of the EU. How they manage to survive without all those handouts from Belgrade beats me though.

 

 

 

Prison guards, presumably.

 

in there high risk prison the army man it and transfer prisoners

 

As for the former point, I would personally be loathe to suggest such a thing to any Irishman, lovely people though they are, especially one who has undergone armed forces training.

 

 

 

You didn't miss much. The edited post describes its content rather well!

[Norgethistle]

Good post.

 

The only debatable point is a very minor one about how much different Labour's policies actually were from those of Cameron's Tories. Either way, the Tories were not the party the majority of the Scots electorate voted for.

 

But they were the party the majority of the UK voted for, that's democracy. So IF Scotland gets independence and Glasgow votes Labour but the North East, The Highlands & Islands & Edinburgh vote SNP and they win, will be complaining that Glasgow never voted them in and we should go alone??

[yoda-jag]

You didn't miss much. The edited post describes its content rather well!

 

From memory TMQ posted wording along the lines of the snp were racists and no different in essence to that of another political party (you only need to change one letter), and until recently were viewed by majority as a party of marginal lunatics.

 

To me, a statement like that says more about the poster than what such subject matter adds to the debate.

[Guy Incognito]

 

Okay, but I would be surprised if it takes 8,000 of them to do that.

 

But they were the party the majority of the UK voted for, that's democracy. So IF Scotland gets independence and Glasgow votes Labour but the North East, The Highlands & Islands & Edinburgh vote SNP and they win, will be complaining that Glasgow never voted them in and we should go alone??

 

Probably not, no. Aside from ignoring recent Holyrood voting patterns and the fact that both parties are essentially centre-left at their core (Labour's lurch to the right and the SNP's fascination with low business tax notwithstanding) Glasgow would still have a greater voice in Holyrood than Scotland has in Westminster. This is partly because of demographics - the Greater Glasgow area accounts for around 20% of Scotland's overall population, whereas Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK's - and partly because the PR system used by Holyrood enables fairer representation than the first past the post system deployed by Westminster. For instance, although Labour may not win a constituency seat in, say, Aberdeen, they could still get a candidate into parliament via the regional list.

[kni]

1945 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1950 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1951 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1955 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1959 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1966 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1970 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

October 1974 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

1979 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1983 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1987 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1992 Tory govt without Scotland's votes would still be Tory

1997 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2001 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

2005 Labour govt without Scotland's votes would still be Labour

 

So I have missed out three post war elections there, 1964, February 1974 and 2010. In 2010 Scotland voted exactly the same as they had in 2005 and we ended up with a very different government, so the insinuation that Scotland's vote significantly affects the UK government is nonsense, and by separating Scotland would not be imposing a permanent Tory Government on England.

 

By missing out 2010 you have proved my point. A Conservative government with a healthy overall majority, i.e. over 50 seats, would be very different to the current Coalition.

 

Scotland and Wales, by having more seats per 100,000 voters than England, have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of general elections. All seats should have the same number of electors. The Conservatives tried to deal with that anomaly but were stuffed by the Lib Dems who reneged on the Coalition agreement.

 

BTW, it's a bit rich of the Lib Dems to oppose the EU referendum bill. Their 2010 manifesto included a pledge to hold an in/out referendum on EU membership. As usual, the lazy media journalists have failed to expose their hypocrisy.