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

[yoda-jag]

The messiah has spoken!

 

http://www.yesscotla...rial-experience

 

 

Yes! Yes! Yes!

 

:D

 

 

 

all together now .....

 

johnny lambies

independence army!!!

 

johnny lambies

independence army!!!

 

johnny lambies

independence army!!!

 

johnny lambies

independence army!!!

 

johnny lambies

independence army!!!

 

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggybunnet

 

I don't understand how you say we can deal with debt better in the UK. Surely all the evidence of UK policies have shown that debt will continue to rise. Even with the austerity cuts in place they at best are only making a fractional difference and it is very reliant on a housing bubble in London?

 

that is why we have the cuts the debt will go down but it will take a good while, snp want to bin all cuts and spend our way out of it.

 

Also everyone talks about the oil running out (which it will) but only the Yes movement is offering ideas on how Scotland continues to grow its economy (development of green energy, diversification of ship buildiing, encouraging manufacturing, reducing emigration etc)

 

no they are fantasy plans, green plans depend on eu subsidies and grants, it cost a lot to build in the uk to build anything compared to other countries. emigration, this wont happen if Scotland cant afford all those nice freebies from the snp

 

 

 

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone from the BT campaign explain how Scotland will remain a net contributor to the UK coffers post the oil running out? Are we seriously expecting that the UK will see us ok after the oil is gone? They think we are subsidy junkies and expect us to be grateful just now - what will they be like if this was actually true?

 

Yes but eck need to pull his finger out, Aberdeen apart from the "oil areas" is still not that great, the Scottish parly should have been sorting out the infrastructure years ago, only now are we looking at dealing with the shambles that is the A9 (thank you Juggernaut for the info) we are far to reliant on wind and wave farms which in turn cant survive without the subsidies and grants from the eu and others.

 

[Norgethistle]

Jaggybunnet

 

I don't understand how you say we can deal with debt better in the UK. Surely all the evidence of UK policies have shown that debt will continue to rise. Even with the austerity cuts in place they at best are only making a fractional difference and it is very reliant on a housing bubble in London?

 

Also everyone talks about the oil running out (which it will) but only the Yes movement is offering ideas on how Scotland continues to grow its enconomy (development of green energy, diversification of ship buildiing, encouraging manufacturing, reducing emmigration etc)

 

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone from the BT campaign explain how Scotland will remain a net contributor to the UK coffers post the oil running out? Are we seriously expecting that the UK will see us ok after the oil is gone? They think we are subsidy junkies and expect us to be grateful just now - what will they be like if this was actually true?

 

The Uk has a proven credit rating and as such pays a low rate on borrowing, also the UK as well as owing is also owed a lot from other countries.

The fact the UK is in debt is not an issue as long as it can service the debt and its assets outweigh that debt, it also has a population of 64 million to offset that debt against, also remember these debts are not likely to be called in soon, but in worse case scenario charge every tax payer £10 extra a week in income tax and you have £3 billion a year in revenue to help pay it back.

 

Scotland as a new country will have no credit rating so borrowing rates will be higher, yes it has assets but nothing owed to it to offset the considerable debt it will inherit as part of the divorce package. A new currency could be unstable for a few years again adding to this cost.

With a population of around 5 million it will be harder to pay its debts quicker, especially when offering earlier pensions, lower taxes and increased spending. It may also not have a bank of last resort if it is not in a currency union which will greatly alarm businesses, who will probably then bank and invest with English based banks to protect (to a degree) their assets.

 

I think if Scotland really wants to go it alone, then set up a currency, a national bank, BUT prepare for big tax and cost rises and benefit drops

[laukat]

Jaggybunnet, Norgethistle

 

Thanks for the reply, always interested in different points of view form folk who have studied the issues

 

Appreciate also that you disagree on how successful the Yes campaign plans would be (only a yes vote and time will tell) but I still don't have anything that tells me how Scotland within the UK thrives post the oil?

 

If the UK is in debt just now with North Sea oil how will the UK have the funds to subsidise Scotland once the oil runs out? (I accept that the percentage loss to the UK econmy is less that to an Independent Scotlands but it is still sizeable loss that the UK has no plan to deal with) Surely the UK would have to have a plan to grow Scotland's economy? If they don't have any is the future of Scotland within the UK post oil to be a burden on the city of London and we end up excarbating the current emmigration and wealth ditribution problems?

 

Norgethistle - appreciate the your answer on how you see debt being better maintained by a larger taxation base however the evidence at hand is contrary to that assessment. If the UK could pay its debts iwe wouldn't need austerity. We are already witnessing drops in benefits and cost rises within the UK and the way in which the UK Government is avoiding tax rises is by reducing state spending by privatising the Royal Mail and the NHS and encouraging an unhealthy housing bubble.This UK government is not unique in the approach it has been the UK way since the start of the 1980's

 

We have problems just now within the UK with limited powers to do anything about it. With Independence we will still have problems but at least have the maximum amount of ability to address them.

[Norgethistle]

Jaggybunnet, Norgethistle

 

Thanks for the reply, always interested in different points of view form folk who have studied the issues

 

Appreciate also that you disagree on how successful the Yes campaign plans would be (only a yes vote and time will tell) but I still don't have anything that tells me how Scotland within the UK thrives post the oil?

 

If the UK is in debt just now with North Sea oil how will the UK have the funds to subsidise Scotland once the oil runs out? (I accept that the percentage loss to the UK econmy is less that to an Independent Scotlands but it is still sizeable loss that the UK has no plan to deal with) Surely the UK would have to have a plan to grow Scotland's economy? If they don't have any is the future of Scotland within the UK post oil to be a burden on the city of London and we end up excarbating the current emmigration and wealth ditribution problems?

 

Norgethistle - appreciate the your answer on how you see debt being better maintained by a larger taxation base however the evidence at hand is contrary to that assessment. If the UK could pay its debts iwe wouldn't need austerity. We are already witnessing drops in benefits and cost rises within the UK and the way in which the UK Government is avoiding tax rises is by reducing state spending by privatising the Royal Mail and the NHS and encouraging an unhealthy housing bubble.This UK government is not unique in the approach it has been the UK way since the start of the 1980's

 

We have problems just now within the UK with limited powers to do anything about it. With Independence we will still have problems but at least have the maximum amount of ability to address them.

 

Oil is a small % of GDP for the whole of the UK, but a much larger one for Scotland, but not the be all and end all it actually employs a very small % of Scotlands population directly or indirectly plus the majority of the money from the oil never see's Scotland or the UK it goes to companies based outside the isles, as Scotland's majority of exports go to the rest of the UK with no export tax or customs handling on the one currency with the same banking system, being a union actually helps and grows business, how much excise duty is generated on Whiskey from the whole of the UK which Scotland will lose when it "Exports" to England and Wales. I don't see it as a matter of subsidizing Scotland I see it as a matter of pulling resources across the country to be able to compete and gain business, I think that to an extent will be lost as well as.

[laukat]

It can be argued how many billions oil brings to the UK economy but the bottom line is it generates income. If the UK is loosing income then you must have a way of either replacing that income, reducing your expenditure, borrow more money or spend your savings.

 

The Yes campaign are coming forward with ideas to replace the income (green energy etc), reduce expenditure (remove trident, smaller military spend) and create savings (oil fund). I more than willing to accept you can question the credibility of the plans but to do so from a position of having no counter proposals to offer seems odd.

 

You might not see it as subsidizing Scotland but that is the reality post oil within the UK. Pulling and sharing only works if both ends can perform both functions. I very much hope the future of Scotland for my kids is not to be part of a country that is seen as a drain of resources. As I mentioned earlier the comments of Westminster polticians are bad enough just now when we are putting in more than we take out why on earth would we want to hang around and see how we get treated when the opposite is true.

 

The only way to avoid this is have the powers to deal with our problems expecting Westminster to fix them has proven to lead to disappointment at every turn.

 

Regarding Whiskey exports and excise duty I'm not sure I follow the point. Is it that you think Whiskey companies will be charged extra to export to England, Wales and Northern Ireland or is that you expect these duties will be higher than what is currently paid to say export to France or Eire? or is it another point and I have missinterperated? If you could clarify I would appreciate it

[P-R]

The Uk has a proven credit rating and as such pays a low rate on borrowing, also the UK as well as owing is also owed a lot from other countries.

The fact the UK is in debt is not an issue as long as it can service the debt and its assets outweigh that debt, it also has a population of 64 million to offset that debt against, also remember these debts are not likely to be called in soon, but in worse case scenario charge every tax payer £10 extra a week in income tax and you have £3 billion a year in revenue to help pay it back.

 

Scotland as a new country will have no credit rating so borrowing rates will be higher, yes it has assets but nothing owed to it to offset the considerable debt it will inherit as part of the divorce package. A new currency could be unstable for a few years again adding to this cost.

With a population of around 5 million it will be harder to pay its debts quicker, especially when offering earlier pensions, lower taxes and increased spending. It may also not have a bank of last resort if it is not in a currency union which will greatly alarm businesses, who will probably then bank and invest with English based banks to protect (to a degree) their assets.

 

I think if Scotland really wants to go it alone, then set up a currency, a national bank, BUT prepare for big tax and cost rises and benefit drops

Do you mean 300 million a week ? (£10 p/w * approx 30,000,000 UK tax payers)

 

Don't think I'm understanding your debt argument and how having more people makes a difference, if Country A had 10 people that owed £100 & Country B had 100 people that owed £1000 then it still remains that each person owes £10 in both countries.

[Yellow & Redneck]

 

I'd listen to what the great man has to say.

[kni]

^ Politicians should keep out of sport. Sportsmen should keep out of politics. Would you want Alex Salmond to manage Thistle?

[laukat]

^ Politicians should keep out of sport. Sportsmen should keep out of politics.

 

Generally agree with this point and certainly anyone choosing to vote because someone else they like is voting that way is the type of approach that has held Scotland back for years.

 

However if Carling were to do political endorsements for thistle fans.....

[i@n]

John Lambie is also a Scotsman who is eligible to vote and entitled to voice an opinion as would a Doctor or a Tesco worker or someone on a football forum. Why should he 'keep out of politics'. It involves him too. Never understand that sort of thinking. Perhaps it just doesn't sit well with your thinking?

[kni]

^ I was a yes supporter but I'm undecided now. Salmond has not addressed the EU and currency issues and dodged them in the debate with Darling. There is no plan B and, as a result, the huge uncertainty will damage the economy and jobs.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Asked if he had any advice for those withering on whether to vote Yes, the Great Lambini was very forthcoming:

 

 

"Get behen' them FFS. Get the ******* cross in the box."

[laukat]

^ I was a yes supporter but I'm undecided now. Salmond has not addressed the EU and currency issues and dodged them in the debate with Darling. There is no plan B and, as a result, the huge uncertainty will damage the economy and jobs.

 

Kni - trying to understand where you are coming form and what your concerns are so please don't take the following as anything other than an attempt to understand your statement.

 

From what I have heard the following are the options

 

1. The pound in a currency union

2. The pound outside a currency union (so-called “sterlingisation”)

3. A Scottish currency pegged to Sterling

4. A new, fully independent, “floating” Scottish currency

5. The Euro

 

I assume we all agree these are the options and I can't be the only one who's heard them repeated over and over again?

 

So option 1 is the preferred option and we already know that option 5 is not an option either politically or in practice (need to have you own currency for 3 years to join)

 

That leaves option 2,3 and 4. The Yes campaign have been adamant that its "our pound and we're keeping it" that really only leaves option 2 - Sterlingisation

 

This option is actually quite appealing mainly because you have no debt. Thats not to say its without risk as you don't have a lender of last resort (even this has plusses and minuses to) Panama does very well out of this type of arrangement with the Dollar

 

So assuming I'm not the only one who has figured this out I would presume that what people are really after is for the Yes campaign to name their plan B?

 

the reasons for this are fairly obvious

 

1. If you name a plan B you have given away your negiotiating position for the post referendum negotiations with RUK

2. Why should RUK demand a plan B on currency when they can't give us plan A on how Scotland prospers by staying in the UK?

3. There is a surprising number of people who will feel that Westminster is dictating to Scotland and will in turn vote yes

4. In all political debates the aim of the game is to make your oponent change position e.g. Margaret Thatcher was famously quoted as saying that her proudiest achievement was New Labour as it showed her that she had fundementaly changed the labour party and that left wing politics would never again be a force in the UK. (Unfortunately time has proven her correct on this)

Edited August 8, 2014 by laukat

[kni]

The pound belongs to the UK. If Scotland leaves the UK, it is not "our pound" as belongs to RUK, not us. Salmond is talking nonsense on that point. It's not RUK that is demanding an answer on plan B, it's the voters who have to decide in the referendum.

 

There are no clear proposals how would "sterling-isation" actually work in practice without a lender of resort. There are no figures on what would be the impact be on interest rates and, as a result, the economy and jobs.

 

In the absence of a lender of last resort, i.e. the Bank of England, Scotland's banks would have to beef up their reserves and interest rates would need to rise substantially. to reflect the risk of default. Depositors would also have to take out deposit insurance unless the Scottish government was willing have its own costly protection scheme.

 

And don't you think that voters in RUK should have a say on "sterling-isation"? Or should they accept being told what to do to by the Great Dictator in Edinburgh who wants his country to leave theirs? The irony defies belief.

 

Your options 3, 4 and 5 are not being offered by Salmond. With Juncker (a fanatical federalist and architect of the Euro) taking over the European Commission Presidency, option 5 would be the key requirement of Scotland being allowed to join the EU as a "special case". That is the proverbial"elephant in the room" that Salmond will not discuss. It is, however, the lost likely outcome and the one that I would not accept.

[MerryHell]

IMO it all boils down to this - whatever happens (and I really do mean whatever) post referendum, I know I'll never regret voting Yes.

[laukat]

The pound belongs to the UK. If Scotland leaves the UK, it is not "our pound" as belongs to RUK, not us.

 

I find this amazing that people on Scotland think this way. I as a taxpayer in scotland have contributed to sterling as other scots have for the last 300 years. Why is it acceptable for ruk to retain the asset Scotland helped pay for?

 

I believe Darling on Tuesday compared it to divorce and said you can't have a divorce and keep the joint account.I'm not sure how many of you have the misfortune to have experienced divorce but once you divorce there is no longer a joint account amen.

 

Unlesss we are now saying it wasn't a marriage between Scotland and England but a four-way open relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland. Not only is that not how the act of union was written it makes any divorce-type analagies meaningless as no court in the land recognises that type of hippy-convent goings on!

 

Probably the best comparision I can think of is to a mortgage at the point of divorce. At the point of divorce you can either sell the assett and split the proceeds (not possible in this case) buy the other party out (effectively rUK keeps the currency but 'buys' Scotlands debt - sterlingisation) or lastly you might co-habit until you get a place of your own (currency union)

 

And don't you think that voters in RUK should have a say on "sterling-isation"?

 

That is the nature of how sterlingisation works for all other countries. You don't need the permisson of anyone as again Darling admitted on Tuesday. I think his words were we could use the Dollar, yen or ruble as well if we wanted.

 

Same also applied to pegging a new currency to your own. You don't need the permission of the country of origin as their currency is fully convertable

 

If you want Scotland to strike agreement to use sterling then by the nature of reaching agreement you have a currency union. This is what the Yes campaign have consistently proposed so its difficult to see how you can accuse them of dictating to the rUK when they are actually wanting to reach an agreement.

 

Only dictators I have seen so far are Osbourne, Cameron, Darling, Milliband and Balls. I'll ignore Clegg and Rennie as in my opinion they will never be in a position to dictate.

Edited August 8, 2014 by laukat

[kni]

Dollarisation or ruble-isation is very different due to the amount of currency in circulation. The Bank of England would have a lot of power over a Scottish economy that is dependent on Sterling.

 

How would an "independent" Scottish government have control over the country's interest rates? It seems that the lessons of Ireland's Euro debacle have not been learned by the SNP.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I will repeat my preference is for a truly independent Scotland (outside theEU) to have its own currency and central bank but that's not on offer from Salmond.

 

Btw, it is Osborne unless you think that the Chancellor is Isaac or the lead singer of Black Sabbath or his wife.

[laukat]

We have no power over Interest rate control just now. Rates are set to suit the city of London.

 

Ireland suffered because its banks over comitted themselves and took too many risks. One of the benefits of sterlingisation is that it discourages this by having no lender of last resort.

 

Really interested to know how if your preference is an indpendent Scotand outside the EU how you expect to achieve this by voting no? Are you expecting another referendum any time soon?

 

RE: Osborne, I wish Isaac was the chancellor. An ex-jag would surely be an improvement and maybe the only way of providing a positive case for the union!

Edited August 8, 2014 by laukat

[kni]

"Ireland suffered because its banks over committed themselves and took too many risks. One of the benefits of sterlingisation is that it discourages this by having no lender of last resort."

 

Having no lender of last resort would result in a big increase in interest rates. What would be the immediate impact on an independent Scotland's economy? The SNP have not addressed that key issue.

 

"Really interested to know how if your preference is an indpendent Scotand outside the EU how you expect to achieve this by voting no? Are you expecting another referendum any time soon?"

 

For me, the priority is for Scotland to leave the corrupt and undemocratic EU, even as part of the UK. Cameron, even though I dislike him intensely, is promising a referendum on EU membership.

 

Salmond (and his party) is committed to EU membership and is not offering an alternative. Ironically, the EU bureaucrats don't want an independent Scotland because it would encourage separatists in Spain and Belgium.

Edited August 8, 2014 by kni

[laukat]

Kni

 

Enjoyed the chat but I think the chances of you achieving an Independent Scotland outside of the EU are not good.However good luck with trying even though its not something I agree with

[Jaggernaut]

^ Politicians should keep out of sport. Sportsmen should keep out of politics. Would you want Alex Salmond to manage Thistle?

 

No.

 

But the Sturge, by contrast......

[Jaggernaut]

^ I was a yes supporter but I'm undecided now. Salmond has not addressed the EU and currency issues and dodged them in the debate with Darling. There is no plan B and, as a result, the huge uncertainty will damage the economy and jobs.

 

This is nonsense. Read the Scottish Chambers of Commerce's most recent report. Business in Scotland will thrive in an independent Scotland. Note that Westminster has no plan B for when it loses 40 billion from oil and whisky exports when Scotland becomes independent, and it has no plan B concerning what to do with the obscene Trident. These are the ONLY reasons they want to maintain control over Scotland. Don't anybody believe it's because they value us.

[Jaggernaut]

The pound belongs to the UK. If Scotland leaves the UK, it is not "our pound" as belongs to RUK, not us. Salmond is talking nonsense on that point. It's not RUK that is demanding an answer on plan B, it's the voters who have to decide in the referendum.

 

There are no clear proposals how would "sterling-isation" actually work in practice without a lender of resort. There are no figures on what would be the impact be on interest rates and, as a result, the economy and jobs.

 

In the absence of a lender of last resort, i.e. the Bank of England, Scotland's banks would have to beef up their reserves and interest rates would need to rise substantially. to reflect the risk of default. Depositors would also have to take out deposit insurance unless the Scottish government was willing have its own costly protection scheme.

 

And don't you think that voters in RUK should have a say on "sterling-isation"? Or should they accept being told what to do to by the Great Dictator in Edinburgh who wants his country to leave theirs? The irony defies belief.

 

Your options 3, 4 and 5 are not being offered by Salmond. With Juncker (a fanatical federalist and architect of the Euro) taking over the European Commission Presidency, option 5 would be the key requirement of Scotland being allowed to join the EU as a "special case". That is the proverbial"elephant in the room" that Salmond will not discuss. It is, however, the lost likely outcome and the one that I would not accept.

 

With all due respect, you claim that you were a "YES" voter, but the tone of your posts, including referring to Alex Salmond as "the Great Dictator in Edinburgh" suggests to me that you were never a "YES" voter.

[Jaggernaut]

IMO it all boils down to this - whatever happens (and I really do mean whatever) post referendum, I know I'll never regret voting Yes.

 

Same here.