One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[Mr Scruff]

Scotland will be better off independent because we'll have a govt at Holyrood making decisions for and creating policy for the 5m people of Scotland rather than a govt at Westminster attempting a one size fits all approach for 65m people. Even if I thought the UK govt was trying to do the best it could for the whole of the country I'd believe fundamentally that a Scottish govt could make better decisions for Scotland. That the current political climate south of the border is lurching further to the right of centre makes it even more important in my eyes to vote Yes. While I don't expect UKIP to make much headway in terms of the number of seats they claim at the next election their rise in popularity is dictating policy for both the Tory and Labour parties. We already have the the 4th most unequal society in the developed world and I can only see this pattern continuing under a UK govt.

 

If you're looking for absolutes when it comes to the financial side of things then you're probably going to be disappointed. Both sides are obviously going to spin the numbers to suit the outcome they're after. However, if you look at Scotland's resources and diverse economy there's no doubt we have what it takes to be a successful independent country. Cameron, Darling and Paddy Ashdown amongst others have all said as much. I don't see many other European countries of a similar size struggling to make ends meet so why would Scotland be any different. I don't expect it to be easy, far from it, but I see just as much uncertainty if we vote No.

Responding to the first point: from my perspective there's an optimum size for various activities, and there is question over whether the UK is that or independent Scotland is that for some things smaller countries are more vulnerable; for others the larger organisation is and your statement holds true.

 

But I do have to disagree with the highlighted statement. There's a number of struggling smaller economies (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Eastern European countries), , Some of them would be in even more dire circumstances if it wasn't for the EU. Some arguably might have fared better if they hadn't been part of the EU (cf Greece and Iceland). What does that tell us - probably nothing other than you can't illustrate future performance from one country by casual comparison with others.

[Duck snort]

But I do have to disagree with the highlighted statement. There's a number of struggling smaller economies (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Eastern European countries), , Some of them would be in even more dire circumstances if it wasn't for the EU. Some arguably might have fared better if they hadn't been part of the EU (cf Greece and Iceland). What does that tell us - probably nothing other than you can't illustrate future performance from one country by casual comparison with others.

 

You're right of course. I didn't phrase my post very well (it was late!). I should have said countries of a similar size with comparable economies to Scotland's. The No side of the debate love to bring Greece up, but there are very few similarities with them economically.

[Big Dan]

At a Primary School in Larkhall, the pupils have set up a food bank to assist fellow pupils and others who are going hungry. Westminster is not working.

 

http://www.robertsmillie-pri.s-lanark.sch.uk/index_18_3466554751.pdf

 

Vote Yes.

[Norgethistle]

At a Primary School in Larkhall, the pupils have set up a food bank to assist fellow pupils and others who are going hungry. Westminster is not working.

 

http://www.robertsmi..._3466554751.pdf

 

Vote Yes.

 

Unfortunately food-banks are not a new thing and not confined to the UK, although the reporting of them here is a new thing, they have been in the US since the 60's and massively used since the 80's, Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain all have them as well. There is a world wide recession on, although everyone seems to be able to afford a mobile and to eat in MacDonalds etc as these places are always rammed (Macdonalds were one of the few companies to avoid the recession!!!)

 

The SNP's plan of increasing public spending by 3%year on year would work if the tax level wasn't meant to freeze or drop, add to that the benefit hikes they have mentioned, and what will happen is a quick feel-good followed by vast inflation to pay back the borrowing which will then see taxes rise and benefits drop putting the country 2 steps behind where it is.

[Jaggernaut]

Unfortunately food-banks are not a new thing and not confined to the UK, although the reporting of them here is a new thing, they have been in the US since the 60's and massively used since the 80's, Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain all have them as well. There is a world wide recession on, although everyone seems to be able to afford a mobile and to eat in MacDonalds etc as these places are always rammed (Macdonalds were one of the few companies to avoid the recession!!!)

 

The SNP's plan of increasing public spending by 3%year on year would work if the tax level wasn't meant to freeze or drop, add to that the benefit hikes they have mentioned, and what will happen is a quick feel-good followed by vast inflation to pay back the borrowing which will then see taxes rise and benefits drop putting the country 2 steps behind where it is.

 

How can you be so certain of the future? So what is going to happen for the UK? Actually, no need to exercise your predictive powers; everybody knows that there will be another quick feel-bad followed by a longer-term feel-bad, and then a permanent feel-bad for millions alongside an increasing feel-good for the privileged.

[Mr Scruff]

At a Primary School in Larkhall, the pupils have set up a food bank to assist fellow pupils and others who are going hungry. Westminster is not working.

 

http://www.robertsmi..._3466554751.pdf

 

Vote Yes.

Non sequitor, though.

 

You could equally make the argument that it's membership of the EU or some other structural issue that causes this. If it's the flavour of the government in Westminster in essence that's not a structural issue.

[Jaggernaut]

Non sequitor, though.

 

You could equally make the argument that it's membership of the EU or some other structural issue that causes this. If it's the flavour of the government in Westminster in essence that's not a structural issue.

 

I'm not really sure I get your point here. Do you mean that the because the EU could in theory be blamed for all that's wrong in modern society, that Westminster cannot be blamed for the massive increase in social inequality and the rise of childhood poverty in our country?

[Mr Scruff]

I'm not really sure I get your point here. Do you mean that the because the EU could in theory be blamed for all that's wrong in modern society, that Westminster cannot be blamed for the massive increase in social inequality and the rise of childhood poverty in our country?

No.

 

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that being a member of the EU had structurally created this situation (unless we were in the monetary union, but that's another debate). My use of this example was only to illustrate the point that it's a structural issue.

 

If you're contention is that this government has increased inequality then that's a policy issue rather than a structural one. Scottish Independence is a structural debate.

[Jaggernaut]

No.

 

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that being a member of the EU had structurally created this situation (unless we were in the monetary union, but that's another debate). My use of this example was only to illustrate the point that it's a structural issue.

 

If you're contention is that this government has increased inequality then that's a policy issue rather than a structural one. Scottish Independence is a structural debate.

 

Got it now.

[Norgethistle]

How can you be so certain of the future? So what is going to happen for the UK? Actually, no need to exercise your predictive powers; everybody knows that there will be another quick feel-bad followed by a longer-term feel-bad, and then a permanent feel-bad for millions alongside an increasing feel-good for the privileged.

 

Simple maths,

 

drop taxes = less income

higher spending & greater welfare benefits = Greater outgoings

Outgoings greater than income = big doodoo

[Jaggernaut]

Simple maths,

 

drop taxes = less income

higher spending & greater welfare benefits = Greater outgoings

Outgoings greater than income = big doodoo

 

How come you're not giving expert advice to governments all over the world?

 

Or if the maths is so simple, how do Chancellors all over the world (take the UK as an example) manage to mess up their countries' finances in such spectacular fashion?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[mrD]

Non sequitor, though.

 

You could equally make the argument that it's membership of the EU or some other structural issue that causes this. If it's the flavour of the government in Westminster in essence that's not a structural issue.

 

Not really a non-sequitor if the underlying premises are around the political and economic direction that westminster has taken since thatcher has led to the kind of rising inequality that leads to the phenomena of more foodbanks. When one looks at whats on offer between the parties there is no divergence from the neoliberal consensus and thus corresponding prospects of an increasing immiseration amongst those of us who haven't done well out of the post thatcher years.

 

I think what motivates a lot of people to vote yes is the possibility of shifting policies in a different direction and the powers that exist within develotion are probably not suitable for going in that direction. (for example welfare policy is a reserved matter). Going towards a beveridge style welfare state including full employment is most definately not possible under devolution.

 

Now whether such choices are also constrained by wider 'structural' matters is another question, but even if one accepts that there are constraints from the way the global economy is structured, this does not negate the idea that national soverignty should be used in a fashion that at least amilierates the social ramifications of such policies or indeed challenges such a state of affair (albeit as a small nation with limited clout in the international arena). For those of us who are motivated by such concerns there are absolutly no prospects of such policy directions being undertaken in the UK.

 

As for all the chat on this forum about the overarching need to 'balance the books' as the only worthy imperative of consideration for economic policy - all i can say is no thanks! If keynsianism is totally unsustainable, fair dos but id much rather start looking for alternative ways of going about how we produce and distrubute our goods and service rather than the ideas we have in circulation at the moment in westminster.

Edited July 1, 2014 by mrD

[Guy Incognito]

Not really a non-sequitor if the underlying premises are around the political and economic direction that westminster has taken since thatcher has led to the kind of rising inequality that leads to the phenomena of more foodbanks. When one looks at whats on offer between the parties there is no divergence from the neoliberal consensus and thus corresponding prospects of an increasing immiseration amongst those of us who haven't done well out of the post thatcher years.

 

I think what motivates a lot of people to vote yes is the possibility of shifting policies in a different direction and the powers that exist within develotion are probably not suitable for going in that direction. (for example welfare policy is a reserved matter). Going towards a beveridge style welfare state including full employment is most definately not possible under devolution.

 

Now whether such choices are also constrained by wider 'structural' matters is another question, but even if one accepts that there are constraints from the way the global economy is structured, this does not negate the idea that national soverignty should be used in a fashion that at least amilierates the social ramifications of such policies or indeed challenges such a state of affair (albeit as a small nation with limited clout in the international arena). For those of us who are motivated by such concerns there are absolutly no prospects of such policy directions being undertaken in the UK.

 

As for all the chat on this forum about the overarching need to 'balance the books' as the only worthy imperative of consideration for economic policy - all i can say is no thanks! If keynsianism is totally unsustainable, fair dos but id much rather start looking for alternative ways of going about how we produce and distrubute our goods and service rather than the ideas we have in circulation at the moment in westminster.

 

An excellent post, MrD. You have reflected many of my own sentiments here perfectly.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Guy Incognito

[Granville Island]

Not really a non-sequitor if the underlying premises are around the political and economic direction that westminster has taken since thatcher has led to the kind of rising inequality that leads to the phenomena of more foodbanks. When one looks at whats on offer between the parties there is no divergence from the neoliberal consensus and thus corresponding prospects of an increasing immiseration amongst those of us who haven't done well out of the post thatcher years.

 

I think what motivates a lot of people to vote yes is the possibility of shifting policies in a different direction and the powers that exist within develotion are probably not suitable for going in that direction. (for example welfare policy is a reserved matter). Going towards a beveridge style welfare state including full employment is most definately not possible under devolution.

 

Now whether such choices are also constrained by wider 'structural' matters is another question, but even if one accepts that there are constraints from the way the global economy is structured, this does not negate the idea that national soverignty should be used in a fashion that at least amilierates the social ramifications of such policies or indeed challenges such a state of affair (albeit as a small nation with limited clout in the international arena). For those of us who are motivated by such concerns there are absolutly no prospects of such policy directions being undertaken in the UK.

 

As for all the chat on this forum about the overarching need to 'balance the books' as the only worthy imperative of consideration for economic policy - all i can say is no thanks! If keynsianism is totally unsustainable, fair dos but id much rather start looking for alternative ways of going about how we produce and distrubute our goods and service rather than the ideas we have in circulation at the moment in westminster.

 

Great stuff Mr D!!

[Norgethistle]

Not really a non-sequitor if the underlying premises are around the political and economic direction that westminster has taken since thatcher has led to the kind of rising inequality that leads to the phenomena of more foodbanks. When one looks at whats on offer between the parties there is no divergence from the neoliberal consensus and thus corresponding prospects of an increasing immiseration amongst those of us who haven't done well out of the post thatcher years.

 

I think what motivates a lot of people to vote yes is the possibility of shifting policies in a different direction and the powers that exist within develotion are probably not suitable for going in that direction. (for example welfare policy is a reserved matter). Going towards a beveridge style welfare state including full employment is most definately not possible under devolution.

 

Now whether such choices are also constrained by wider 'structural' matters is another question, but even if one accepts that there are constraints from the way the global economy is structured, this does not negate the idea that national soverignty should be used in a fashion that at least amilierates the social ramifications of such policies or indeed challenges such a state of affair (albeit as a small nation with limited clout in the international arena). For those of us who are motivated by such concerns there are absolutly no prospects of such policy directions being undertaken in the UK.

 

As for all the chat on this forum about the overarching need to 'balance the books' as the only worthy imperative of consideration for economic policy - all i can say is no thanks! If keynsianism is totally unsustainable, fair dos but id much rather start looking for alternative ways of going about how we produce and distrubute our goods and service rather than the ideas we have in circulation at the moment in westminster.

 

Even I will admit its a good post apart from the "No thanks to balancing the books", if the country doesn't balance its books how does the teachers, doctors, nurses, fireman etc get paid, how do hospitals, schools etc get maintained, who will take your household rubbish away if there is no money to balance the books?

A country can only borrow for so long before it destabilizes the currency, causing massive inflation and affecting business and trade, which leads into a spiral of more inflation less trade etc. The UK is seriously in debt but has announced austerity measures to attempt to tackle it, fortunately the UK pound is stable, the UK has a decent credit rating and as such pays a lower rate of borrowing.

An independent Scotland following the white paper will drop taxes, increase spending by 3% year on year, all this with its share of the UK debt, a new untried (and possibly un trusted) currency, plus no credit history so a higher interest rate on borrowing. This doesn't make any long term sense for a country.

How long before the money runs out, the inflation rises to a crippling limit and investment and business is affected, spinning the country into full on depression?

[Jaggernaut]

An independent Scotland following the white paper will drop taxes, increase spending by 3% year on year, all this with its share of the UK debt, a new untried (and possibly un trusted) currency, plus no credit history so a higher interest rate on borrowing. This doesn't make any long term sense for a country.

How long before the money runs out, the inflation rises to a crippling limit and investment and business is affected, spinning the country into full on depression?

 

And how have other countries that gained independence managed to survive? Your speculation is just that, speculation from a unionist perspective, designed to make the worst possible case, but in any case most industrialised countries have known economic crises/depressions at one time or another. Even the UK has had to go cap in hand to the IMF to get bailed out.

 

Even if the awful austerity measures that Westminster plans to unleash on us continue for the next 20 years, the UK's debt will not be cleared, such has been the mismanagement under successive governments. It's time to change. I for one would rather trust my and my family's financial future to someone like John Swinney than to the likes of George Osbourne or Ed Balls.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Norgethistle]

And how have other countries that gained independence managed to survive? Your speculation is just that, speculation from a unionist perspective, designed to make the worst possible case, but in any case most industrialised countries have known economic crises/depressions at one time or another. Even the UK has had to go cap in hand to the IMF to get bailed out.

 

Even if the awful austerity measures that Westminster plans to unleash on us continue for the next 20 years, the UK's debt will not be cleared, such has been the mismanagement under successive governments. It's time to change. I for one would rather trust my and my family's financial future to someone like John Swinney than to the likes of George Osbourne or Ed Balls.

 

Very few of these countries had an inherit debt, most of these countries have a very poor welfare system (worse than what we complain we have), most of these countries have massive unemployment, and a lot of them have had huge investment due to the countries seriously low wages as being ex soviet block countries, as I posted previously here are the figures for the recent independant countries against Scotlands current figures

 

Czech Republic wages €900 a month and unemployment of 8%

Slovakia wage ave of €650 and an unemployment of 13%

Serbia average wage of €550 and unemployment level of 20%

Bosnia & Herzegovina average wage of €500 a month with an unemployment rate of 45%

Kosovo average wage €364 of with unemployment of 30% and 45% below the poverty line

Romania average wage of €685 with unemployment of 7%,

 

Scotland average wage of €2400 a month with unemployment of 7%

 

The austerity measures may be awful but like families have to do when debt spirals harsh cuts need to be made, its not speculation its based on what the SNP put in their white paper, less taxes and more spending will increase a defecit

Edited July 2, 2014 by Norgethistle

[Jaggernaut]

Very few of these countries had an inherit debt, most of these countries have a very poor welfare system (worse than what we complain we have), most of these countries have massive unemployment, and a lot of them have had huge investment due to the countries seriously low wages as being ex soviet block countries, as I posted previously here are the figures for the recent independant countries against Scotlands current figures

 

Czech Republic wages €900 a month and unemployment of 8%

Slovakia wage ave of €650 and an unemployment of 13%

Serbia average wage of €550 and unemployment level of 20%

Bosnia & Herzegovina average wage of €500 a month with an unemployment rate of 45%

Kosovo average wage €364 of with unemployment of 30% and 45% below the poverty line

Romania average wage of €685 with unemployment of 7%,

 

Scotland average wage of €2400 a month with unemployment of 7%

 

The austerity measures may be awful but like families have to do when debt spirals harsh cuts need to be made, its not speculation its based on what the SNP put in their white paper, less taxes and more spending will increase a defecit

 

May I ask where you got those income and unemployment figures? (Of course the Scottish figure is the median figure for those in full employment only.)

 

I got the source, I guess: Wikipedia?

 

Some others:

 

Norway: 3554 euros

Denmark: 3113 euros

Luxembourg: 3189 euros

Switzerland: 4047 euros

Edited July 2, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Norgethistle]

May I ask where you got those income and unemployment figures? (Of course the Scottish figure is the median figure for those in full employment only.)

 

I got the source, I guess: Wikipedia?

 

Some others:

 

Norway: 3554 euros

Denmark: 3113 euros

Luxembourg: 3189 euros

Switzerland: 4047 euros

 

Many companies keep a list of average wages and unemployment levels generated by the EU (It helps us to determine where to push work or invest)

 

The countries you mentioned have always been independant bar Norway which gained independance over 100 years ago

 

Norway pays approx 40% tax average on income (I pay 48%) and has the highest cost of living in europe, we also pay council tax, road tax and road toll tax PLUS tax on savings in the bank yearly, we also pay 25% VAT on all goods bar food which is 15% and transport at 8% (Childrens clothing is 25%!!)

I'm not sure where the source of the 3554 wage is as thats only 330000Nok less tax of around 85000Nok (we only get paid 11 months a year!!!) and an unfurnished 1 bedroom apartment will cost you 100000Nok a year

 

Denmark pays 50% income tax

 

Luxembourg pay from 4% to 35% (20,000 euros to 140,000 euros) so on a 3189 euros average you would pay 16%

 

Switzerland being a tax haven only pays between 1 and 11% income tax, and having worked in Basile before is rediculusly expensive

 

Uk pays around 20% + NI on an average wage

[mrD]

Even I will admit its a good post apart from the "No thanks to balancing the books", if the country doesn't balance its books how does the teachers, doctors, nurses, fireman etc get paid, how do hospitals, schools etc get maintained, who will take your household rubbish away if there is no money to balance the books?

A country can only borrow for so long before it destabilizes the currency, causing massive inflation and affecting business and trade, which leads into a spiral of more inflation less trade etc. The UK is seriously in debt but has announced austerity measures to attempt to tackle it, fortunately the UK pound is stable, the UK has a decent credit rating and as such pays a lower rate of borrowing.

An independent Scotland following the white paper will drop taxes, increase spending by 3% year on year, all this with its share of the UK debt, a new untried (and possibly un trusted) currency, plus no credit history so a higher interest rate on borrowing. This doesn't make any long term sense for a country.

How long before the money runs out, the inflation rises to a crippling limit and investment and business is affected, spinning the country into full on depression?

 

To be honest Norgethistle, the nitty gritty of how economic policy is not one of my strong points so im not going to debate the figures - important though they are to any realisation of any vision. What i was getting at more than anything else is that at the moment is that all the ideas that circulate about how we go about social policy and its relationship to economic policy has for the last 30 years or so constrained by a purported realism (i.e - there is no alternative) that places massive limits upon the imagination about what direction we want to take our society in. And this realism is been predicated by an economic orthodoxy that has only been in place in the last 30 years, whereas in the post war period there was another orthodoxy (keynsianism) that had a different set of possibilities in terms of social policy. The fact that there has been 2 competing narratives about how we go about doing things in the interelationship between economics, politics, and social policy surely in the wake of 2008 should allow us at this juncture to start thinking of going back to the drawing board, or at the very least, not being committed to a particular approach to doing things, since a sober look at past events shows that there are problems with both.

 

And i think thats why this independance debate has got people so engaged, as it does to some extent allow us to imagine new possibilities outside of the same-piss-different-bottle stuff on offer in the westminster elections. I mean, for every social democrat who wants independence, there is probably a corresponding fan of hayek that wants to go down making scotland into a low tax, free capital, and inward investment haven, post independance! (as if the UK doesnt already fulfil that function..)

 

But more than just that, i think it allows us to think of things that are just not politically acceptable in the middle england - westminster mileu - that instead of being simply ill thought out ideological stuff, can actually have good pragmatic import. Take for instance quantitative easing as a response to the freezing of interbank loaning that was having an impact on accessing credit in the real economy and thus impacting on spending and so on. One of the criticisms of it at the time was that, instead of it being able to circulate down into the real economy by virtue of freeing up borrowing constraints, banks instead went about hoarding these new stashes of money in their reserves. Now any neoclassical economics 101 textbook will tell you that people on low incomes have a far greater marginal propensity to consume, that is poor people, by virtue of being poor, don't save - they spend. So based on that insight, a good way to have stimulated the economy would have been to disperse such money to the lowest earners, say as a one off, have a good time giro and what was intended by quantitative easing but failed to have happened would have happened. But in the context of middle england having an impact on the range of political choices such a policy would be politically unacceptable. Now im not saying scotland would pick such a policy- im sure there would be good reasons to not pick a policy like that, but i think by virtue of the new-ness of independance; the slightly more to the left policy climate we already have here, then we might be able to entertain ideas that would be untenable in westminster by virtue of the mantra of there is no alternative.

Edited July 2, 2014 by mrD

[Norgethistle]

To be honest Norgethistle, the nitty gritty of how economic policy is not one of my strong points so im not going to debate the figures - important though they are to any realisation of any vision. What i was getting at more than anything else is that at the moment is that all the ideas that circulate about how we go about social policy and its relationship to economic policy has for the last 30 years or so constrained by a purported realism (i.e - there is no alternative) that places massive limits upon the imagination about what direction we want to take our society in. And this realism is been predicated by an economic orthodoxy that has only been in place in the last 30 years, whereas in the post war period there was another orthodoxy (keynsianism) that had a different set of possibilities in terms of social policy. The fact that there has been 2 competing narratives about how we go about doing things in the interelationship between economics, politics, and social policy surely in the wake of 2008 should allow us at this juncture to start thinking of going back to the drawing board, or at the very least, not being committed to a particular approach to doing things, since a sober look at past events shows that there are problems with both.

 

And i think thats why this independance debate has got people so engaged as it does, to some extent allow us to imagine new possibilities outside of the same-piss-different-bottle stuff on offer in the westminster elections. I mean, for every social democrat who wants independence, there is probably a corresponding fan of hayek that wants to go down making scotland into a low tax, free capital, and inward investment haven, post independance! (as if the UK doesnt already fulfil that function..)

 

But more than just that, i think it allows us to think of things that are just not politically acceptable in the middle england - westminster mileu - that instead of being simply ill thought out ideological stuff, can actually have good pragmatic import. Take for instance quantitative easing as a response to the freezing of interbank loaning that was having an impact on accessing credit in the real economy and thus impacting on spending and so on. One of the criticisms of it at the time was that, instead of it being able to circulate down into the real economy by virtue of freeing up borrowing constraints, banks instead went about hoarding these new stashes of money in their reserves. Now any neoclassical economics 101 textbook will tell you that people on low incomes have a far greater marginal propensity to consume, that is poor people, by virtue of being poor, don't save - they spend. So based on that insight, a good way to have stimulated the economy would have been to disperse such money to the lowest earners, say as a one off, have a good time giro and what was intended by quantitative easing but failed to have happened would have happened. But in the context of middle england having an impact on the range of political choices such a policy would be politically unacceptable. Now im not saying scotland would pick such a policy- im sure there would be good reasons to not pick a policy like that, but i think by virtue of the new-ness of independance; the slightly more to the left policy climate we already have here, then we might be able to entertain ideas that would be untenable in england by virtue of the mantra of there is no alternative.

 

Another great post, unfortunately for politicians when it comes to re-distributing wealth that is like turkeys voting for Christmas and that includes the MSP's, look to their wages, expenses compared to the average Joe ho works a full 37.5 hrs without being able to claim transport, meals or accommodation. As humans we are greedy, selfish and generally will do whatever to get one up on the next person, its why we are one of the only animals that will kill for fun and not for food or to prevent being ate. It is why we are top of the food and evolution chain. The political reform I would love to see is for MP's to get the same wage as they currently earn prior to being in politics up to a max limit, this stops the career MP's doing it for the cash and the glory and instead brings the "real" person forward who actually wants to make a difference. Expenses should be treated like company expenses..... reasonable meal, normal accommodation and all properly receipted, not flats for mistresses or jaunts to watch the golf in the US, that isn't part of the expense of the job.

[mrD]

I would like to believe we are not, by nature, selfish and greedy and ready to get one over the next person. But having just come back from a group job interview where there is this horrible thing were people in competition for the jobs need to co-operate to complete the tasks demanded in the interview, with people breaking from the social rules of co-operation to get a better chance at getting the job, one does tend to think that this is the state of affairs for humanity! (obviously the marxist in me would say that this is just how we are under the capitalist mode of production where the iron laws of competition hold sway!) But yeah, grim stuff nevertheless!

 

One thing that i would like to see post independance would be nationalising of oil production. In numbers this would surely mean 100% of the oil revenues (obviously taking away production costs and further investment costs) which might be able to offset the more bleak predictions about how much oil revenue is predicted to reside in the north sea (i.e- the figures advanced by unionists). I don't think one needs to be like chavez to see the utility in such a decision - and i don't think, apart from shareholders in the oil companies, that it would alienate many people in scotland regardless of what their politics are. Interesting to see thats not on the agenda of Salmond and so on. But to be fair to salmond its a pretty tough gig, trying to sell independance to the hayek fans (lower cooperation taxes!) and to the social democrats (better welfare!). If independance happens it will be good to see political parties emerge that dont have to hold rather contradictorary notions together...

 

ETA

Also - if we don't get independance then (ala my signature) i want to start a campaign about amalgamating scottish football with english football - on the basis of being part of the same nation state - that i have banged on here many a times on this forum!!

Edited July 2, 2014 by mrD

[Norgethistle]

One thing that i would like to see post independance would be nationalising of oil production. In numbers this would surely mean 100% of the oil revenues (obviously taking away production costs and further investment costs) which might be able to offset the more bleak predictions about how much oil revenue is predicted to reside in the north sea (i.e- the figures advanced by unionists). I don't think one needs to be like chavez to see the utility in such a decision - and i don't think, apart from shareholders in the oil companies, that it would alienate many people in scotland regardless of what their politics are. Interesting to see thats not on the agenda of Salmond and so on. But to be fair to salmond its a pretty tough gig, trying to sell independance to the hayek fans (lower cooperation taxes!) and to the social democrats (better welfare!). If independance happens it will be good to see political parties emerge that dont have to hold rather contradictorary notions together...

 

That will never ever be allowed to happen in an independent or non-independent country its (hopefully) not a country that starts to force nationalization on privately or publicly owned companies, can you imagine the US (Chevron), France (Total) and England (BP) sitting back and letting this happen? Scottish oil would be boycotted, the country would have crippling trade embargoes placed on it, what would be next Macdonalds as it turns a profit and is popular, the whisky industry our biggest export, machine shops?? Next you have a post revolution Russia

[mrD]

Being honest, i don't know much about what the impacts would be if we were to undertake such a thing. But surely there would be some conciliatory ways to do such a thing (e.g. - offering 100% compensation for the investment made by oil companies in current oil fields).. If after reasonable measures like that were taken, aggressive trade embargos were still going to happen then i think this in a nutshell exposes what is so problematic of capitalism in how it encloses common resources for private profit to flourish to the detriment of the commonweal.. but that is another debate!!!

Edited July 2, 2014 by mrD

[Norgethistle]

Being honest, i don't know much about what the impacts would be if we were to undertake such a thing. But surely there would be some conciliatory ways to do such a thing (e.g. - offering 100% compensation for the investment made by oil companies in current oil fields).. If after reasonable measures like that were taken, aggressive trade embargos were still going to happen then i think this in a nutshell exposes what is so problematic of capitalism in how it encloses common resources for private profit to flourish to the detriment of the commonweal.. but that is another debate!!!

 

Russia and various other countries tried the old communist model, and still there ended up a massive gulf in wealth from those in power and those not, only difference between communism and capitalism it seems is the choices of haircuts your allowed