Level Of Independence Debate.

[stillresigned]

Having seen the latest contribution to the No campaign, i.e. the statement from Jo Swinsom adding that we would all definitely face higher mobile charges, dearer stamps and worst of all exorbitant roaming charges if we successfully manage to negotiate the armed guards(not to mention barbed wire fences etc.) when we attempt to travel south of the border, if we decide to opt for independence.

This is just the latest, in a long list of nonesense emanating mainly, but by no means exclusively from the anti campaign. Is it not time that politicians started treating us the people as grown up adults. Instead of recalcitrant children who are unable to understand any concept not outlined in the sports or fashion pages of the Daily Ranger.

Regardless of your viewpoint on the subject of independence, I'm sure you expect a higher quality of debate and argument than we have had hitherto. It is to be expected that emotion plays a large part in this debate, but surely in the 21st Century it is not too much to expect that that emotion is guided in a substantial part by reason.

[Guy Incognito]

It says a lot when the level of debate on a football message board - q.v. the 'Just Say Yes' thread - is superior to that which has taken place to date amongst the so-called professionals.

 

The anti-independence scare stories seem to be getting progressively sillier. The silliest thing of all about this latest one is that the EU plans to scrap roaming charges by July 2014 - that's two months before the referendum and two years before Scotland would actually become independent.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10119159/EU-to-end-mobile-roaming-charges-next-year.html

 

As far as stamps are concerned, well, correct me if I am wrong but has the price of a stamp not skyrocketed recently anyway?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17522500

[The Mighty Quinn]

stamps are soo 1980s. just use e-mail

[kni]

Having seen the latest contribution to the No campaign, i.e. the statement from Jo Swinsom adding that we would all definitely face higher mobile charges, dearer stamps and worst of all exorbitant roaming charges if we successfully manage to negotiate the armed guards(not to mention barbed wire fences etc.) when we attempt to travel south of the border, if we decide to opt for independence.

This is just the latest, in a long list of nonesense emanating mainly, but by no means exclusively from the anti campaign. Is it not time that politicians started treating us the people as grown up adults. Instead of recalcitrant children who are unable to understand any concept not outlined in the sports or fashion pages of the Daily Ranger.

Regardless of your viewpoint on the subject of independence, I'm sure you expect a higher quality of debate and argument than we have had hitherto. It is to be expected that emotion plays a large part in this debate, but surely in the 21st Century it is not too much to expect that that emotion is guided in a substantial part by reason.

 

Politicians of all parties talk nonsense, especially the SNP. It has failed explain how Scotland can be truly independent if can't control its own laws, courts, borders or currency. The SNP is only offering separation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

The European Union's laws (if it allows Scotland to join after leaving the UK and that's not the current policy) have supremacy over Member State's laws under the existing Treaties. The European Court of Justice can over-rule the judgements of Member States' courts, e.g. on extradition. All new European Union countries must join the Euro and open their borders to all EU citizens.

 

Even if Scotland votes Yes and is allowed to keep the UK Pound Sterling by the EU, the Bank of England will control taxes and spending through a fiscal treaty. The Bank of England will have control over economy as it will set interest rates. Those interest rates will be set to benefit the economy of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, not a separate Scotland. Do you think European Central Bank thinks about the small countries when it sets the Euro interest rates?

 

I want real independence (like that enjoyed by most countries outside the continent of Europe ) but no party, especially not the Europhile SNP, is proposing it.

Edited June 30, 2013 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Politicians of all parties talk nonsense, especially the SNP. It has failed explain how Scotland can be truly independent if can't control its own laws, courts, borders or currency. The SNP is only offering separation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

The European Union's laws (if it allows Scotland to join after leaving the UK and that's not the current policy) have supremacy over Member State's laws under the existing Treaties. The European Court of Justice can over-rule the judgements of Member States' courts, e.g. on extradition. All new European Union countries must join the Euro and open their borders to all EU citizens.

 

Even if Scotland votes Yes and is allowed to keep the UK Pound Sterling by the EU, the Bank of England will control taxes and spending through a fiscal treaty. The Bank of England will have control over economy as it will set interest rates. Those interest rates will be set to benefit the economy of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, not a separate Scotland. Do you think European Central Bank thinks about the small countries when it sets the Euro interest rates?

 

I want real independence (like that enjoyed by most countries outside the continent of Europe ) but no party, especially not the Europhile SNP, is proposing it.

 

So are you saying that you want independence, but you'll vote "no"?

[crazy davie]

Having seen the latest contribution to the No campaign, i.e. the statement from Jo Swinsom adding that we would all definitely face higher mobile charges, dearer stamps and worst of all exorbitant roaming charges if we successfully manage to negotiate the armed guards(not to mention barbed wire fences etc.) when we attempt to travel south of the border, if we decide to opt for independence.

This is just the latest, in a long list of nonesense emanating mainly, but by no means exclusively from the anti campaign. Is it not time that politicians started treating us the people as grown up adults. Instead of recalcitrant children who are unable to understand any concept not outlined in the sports or fashion pages of the Daily Ranger.

Regardless of your viewpoint on the subject of independence, I'm sure you expect a higher quality of debate and argument than we have had hitherto. It is to be expected that emotion plays a large part in this debate, but surely in the 21st Century it is not too much to expect that that emotion is guided in a substantial part by reason.

Daily Ranger readers aren't interested in a reasoned debate about independance.

 

Daily Ranger strategies for selling more papers don't include raising the level of the debate.

 

The No campaign have got the press onside and therefore don't have to raise the level of the debate.

 

The Yes campaingn is going to have to debate elsewhere, I'm afraid...

[Guy Incognito]

So are you saying that you want independence, but you'll vote "no"?

 

In fairness to kni, he indicated on the other thread that he is poised to vote yes in the referendum (I think he did anyway).

 

I can see where he is coming from. I am broadly in favour of us being in Europe, but I would rather we moved towards having our own currency at some point, rather than sharing one with another country - particularly the one we want to be independent from!

 

However, as a medium term measure it makes sense, and voting yes next year ensures that at least one hand is removed from our shoulders.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Guy Incognito

[kni]

So are you saying that you want independence, but you'll vote "no"?

 

As I said before, the SNP is not offering a vote on independence, just separation. We still do not know what the deal (the terms of the separation) is with the rest of the UK. There is very little detail available at the moment, especially as Scotland uses services provided by government agencies in England.

 

It is possible that Scotland could be stuffed financially by the Bank of England, the Treasury (abolition of the Barnett formula etc) and other government departments - especially on transfer costs or user contracts. Much will depend on the negotiating expertise of the respective Ministers and civil servants.

 

Then there is the deal with the EU, especially Scotland's financial contributions. Britain is a contributor to the EU budget and Scotland's portion, based on population, would be around £1.5 billion a year and is likely to rise by around 3 to 5% per annum.

 

I will look at both the UK and EU deals when they are finalised and then decide.

[Guy Incognito]

As I said before, the SNP is not offering a vote on independence, just separation. We still do not know what the deal (the terms of the separation) is with the rest of the UK. There is very little detail available at the moment, especially as Scotland uses services provided by government agencies in England.

 

It is possible that Scotland could be stuffed financially by the Bank of England, the Treasury (abolition of the Barnett formula etc) and other government departments - especially on transfer costs or user contracts. Much will depend on the negotiating expertise of the respective Ministers and civil servants.

 

Then there is the deal with the EU, especially Scotland's financial contributions. Britain is a contributor to the EU budget and Scotland's portion, based on population, would be around £1.5 billion a year and is likely to rise by around 3 to 5% per annum.

 

I will look at both the UK and EU deals when they are finalised and then decide.

 

A currency union has to do what is best for all its members. As I have said, retaining a currency with the rUK is not my favoured option in the long term, but for the time being I think it suits both parties. Even as part of a currency union an independent Scottish government would still be able to borrow and to raise its own taxes - something the present Holyrood administration is unable to.

 

In theory the Bank of England could skew its policies in favour of England, Northern Ireland and Wales (more likely just the south of England) but to do so would be foolish. Without Scotland's oil and gas revenues to maintain the balance of payments it is doubtful how strong sterling would actually be.

 

If EU contributions are worked out on a per capita basis I don't think Scotland's would increase by as much by 5% per annum. Scotland's net population has only grown by 5% over the past 10 years.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Guy Incognito

[Mojo4171]

On holiday at present in Croatia and have just returned from a day trip to. Montenegro who use the euro. Strange in that Montegro are not in the EU. When they split from a union with Serbia they did not have a currency of their own. They decided to use the euro to facilitate a new tourist trade with the agreement of Brussels. The European Central Bank do not interfere in bank rates etc leaving it up to Montenegros own financial institutions. Strange how Scotland could not do this with the pound if they so wish. Anyone ever been to The independent Isle of Man who use the pound, offer rather strange money opportunities without involvement of the Bank Of England. I guess we have to say no on the grounds that we cannae do that or youcannae do this! Bye the way Mobile charges a d roaming are just the same as anywhere else and for a country who was at war with itself in the 1990s don't have bar wire fences at border controls.

[kni]

A currency union has to do what is best for all its members. As I have said, retaining a currency with the rUK is not my favoured option in the long term, but for the time being I think it suits both parties. Even as part of a currency union an independent Scottish government would still be able to borrow and to raise its own taxes - something the present Holyrood administration is unable to.

 

In theory the Bank of England could skew its policies in favour of England, Northern Ireland and Wales (more likely just the south of England) but to do so would be foolish. Without Scotland's oil and gas revenues to maintain the balance of payments it is doubtful how strong sterling would actually be.

 

If EU contributions are worked out on a per capita basis I don't think Scotland's would increase by as much by 5% per annum. Scotland's net population has only grown by 5% over the past 10 years.

 

The Eurozone is a currency union and the European Central Bank focuses on what;s best for the big countries rather than the small countries. Take a look at the huge contraction in Ireland and the Baltic States. Estonia was prospering until it joined the EU and Eurozone.

 

Do you honestly think that the Bank of England or the Treasury in Whitehall is going give a damn about an independent Scotland? Most of the oil and gas revenues will go to Scotland, not the UK Treasury whose balance of payments will be affected adversely - a key factor in the separation negotiations.

 

The BofE's monetary policies, especially interest rates, will be focused on improving the English economy that funds the rest of the UK. Only London, the South East and the East of England have budget surpluses. Those regions fund the other English regions, Wales and Ulster through transfer payments to the devolved and local governments.

 

Scotland's contribution to the EU will increase substantially because the Brussels is seeking large increases in the budget to fund the accession countries, e.g. Croatia which has joined this week. Those countries will need huge amounts of money to meet the conditions of Eurozone entry and to comply with the EU's economic and social legislation.

 

Don't believe the politicians or the establishment who are only looking after the own interests.

[Jaggernaut]

The Eurozone is a currency union and the European Central Bank focuses on what;s best for the big countries rather than the small countries. Take a look at the huge contraction in Ireland and the Baltic States. Estonia was prospering until it joined the EU and Eurozone.

 

Do you honestly think that the Bank of England or the Treasury in Whitehall is going give a damn about an independent Scotland? Most of the oil and gas revenues will go to Scotland, not the UK Treasury whose balance of payments will be affected adversely - a key factor in the separation negotiations.

 

The BofE's monetary policies, especially interest rates, will be focused on improving the English economy that funds the rest of the UK. Only London, the South East and the East of England have budget surpluses. Those regions fund the other English regions, Wales and Ulster through transfer payments to the devolved and local governments.

 

Scotland's contribution to the EU will increase substantially because the Brussels is seeking large increases in the budget to fund the accession countries, e.g. Croatia which has joined this week. Those countries will need huge amounts of money to meet the conditions of Eurozone entry and to comply with the EU's economic and social legislation.

 

Don't believe the politicians or the establishment who are only looking after the own interests.

 

On both sides, of course. The UK establishment in particular will do all in their power to preserve the status quo, with Scotland basically being owned by Westminster for ever more. The relentless and frankly crazy scare stories (England might need to bomb Scottish airports; Scotland wouldn't be able to defend itself; postal services will come unaffordable, etc etc), all part of the Too Wee Too Poor Too Stupid campaign, are among the more benign of their attacks, I fear.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Jaggernaut

[alx]

On both sides, of course. The UK establishment in particular will do all in their power to preserve the status quo, with Scotland basically being owned by Westminster for ever more. The relentless and frankly crazy scare stories (England might need to bomb Scottish airports; Scotland wouldn't be able to defend itself; postal services will come unaffordable, etc etc), all part of the Too Wee Too Poor Too Stupid campaign, are among the more benign of their attacks, I fear.

 

Sometimes you think 'what on earth are they up to?'. Stephen Noon the ex-SNP now-Yes strategist has a humorous policy of explaining how the No campaign should proceed in order to win. Fully in the knowledge that they are too thick to take his advice. The way you would go about this would, for starters, be honest and dignified. Chances of that happening? Hee haw. It must be some sort of imperial attitude -- sneaky divide and rule stuff that has served the leaders of the union so well all these years.

[kni]

On both sides, of course. The UK establishment in particular will do all in their power to preserve the status quo, with Scotland basically being owned by Westminster for ever more. The relentless and frankly crazy scare stories (England might need to bomb Scottish airports; Scotland wouldn't be able to defend itself; postal services will come unaffordable, etc etc), all part of the Too Wee Too Poor Too Stupid campaign, are among the more benign of their attacks, I fear.

 

The UK establishment, which includes the Labour Parliamentary Party too, is in favour of the Union. Opinions polls have suggested suggest that a growing number of English voters would like to kick Scotland out of the UK.

 

Btw, how much of the RBS and HBOS debt will Scotland take on?

 

Be wary of the EU which has long sought to grab North Sea oil and gas revenues from the Member States. It's one of the reasons that the Norwegian people have rejected EU membership despite the politicians and establishment being in favour. The EU was even given the Nobel Peace Prize!

[Norgethistle]

The UK establishment, which includes the Labour Parliamentary Party too, is in favour of the Union. Opinions polls have suggested suggest that a growing number of English voters would like to kick Scotland out of the UK.

 

Btw, how much of the RBS and HBOS debt will Scotland take on?

 

Be wary of the EU which has long sought to grab North Sea oil and gas revenues from the Member States. It's one of the reasons that the Norwegian people have rejected EU membership despite the politicians and establishment being in favour. The EU was even given the Nobel Peace Prize!

 

Absolutely spot on, Norway has a high level of tax and alot of money due to the oil fund, the "NEI til EU" campign which is still very active had highlighted how much of this oil revenue would go, how much lower the tax rate would be, and in effect turn Norway from a super rich to a also ran, whilst probably plunging the country into meltdown.

 

The greatest thing Norway has done since inventing the paper clip was to say NO to the EU, my fear is Salmond is so adament that the EU is the way forward whilst various countries (Spain, Greece etc) and even the UK are starting to re-evaluate how benificial the membership is.

 

One tax rate, currency etc only works if the product and services cost approximatly the same in all the states and the wages are the same............. Communism, which failed like the EU will

[kni]

^ And the SNP still have not worked why the EU will not Scotland to"inherit" Britain's membership!

 

It's a simple deal - give us the North sea and gas money revenues as part of your contribution for EU membership.

[Guy Incognito]

The Eurozone is a currency union and the European Central Bank focuses on what;s best for the big countries rather than the small countries. Take a look at the huge contraction in Ireland and the Baltic States. Estonia was prospering until it joined the EU and Eurozone.

 

Do you honestly think that the Bank of England or the Treasury in Whitehall is going give a damn about an independent Scotland? Most of the oil and gas revenues will go to Scotland, not the UK Treasury whose balance of payments will be affected adversely - a key factor in the separation negotiations.

 

The BofE's monetary policies, especially interest rates, will be focused on improving the English economy that funds the rest of the UK. Only London, the South East and the East of England have budget surpluses. Those regions fund the other English regions, Wales and Ulster through transfer payments to the devolved and local governments.

 

Scotland's contribution to the EU will increase substantially because the Brussels is seeking large increases in the budget to fund the accession countries, e.g. Croatia which has joined this week. Those countries will need huge amounts of money to meet the conditions of Eurozone entry and to comply with the EU's economic and social legislation.

 

Don't believe the politicians or the establishment who are only looking after the own interests.

 

I generally pay very little attention to politicans at the best of times and try and come to my own conclusions about things. I am light years away from being an expert on these matters but from what I have digested of late here are my thoughts.

 

The euro zone is struggling because it includes countries with very large economies, like France and Germany, as well as countries with very small ones, like Cyprus. Such a situation between the rUK and Scotland does not exist because there is less of a disparity in terms of output.

 

The Whitehall treasury may not give a damn about an independent Scotland - it is debatable how much they really care about Scotland now - but the Bank of England is separate from the UK state. You are right; the majority of the gas and oil revenues would go to Edinburgh rather than London (which is the real reason why the establishment are so desperate to keep us). So why then spurn such a wealthy potential partner? Why make it harder for English businesses to trade in Scotland by having to worry about currency conversions?

 

However, if the Bank of England decided they are no playing then I suppose we would have no option but to strike out on our own. New currencies usually take a bit of dunt initially, but even that can have its advantages, e.g. goods become cheaper, therefore imports increase, tourism increases etc. With the oil and gas revenues, currently propping up sterling, to keep this new hypothetical currency afloat it is possible that it could actually become quite strong and a Scottish central bank would certainly be in a position to set its own interest rates. Since this is the option that you and favour it could be a blessing in disguise.

 

I have never seen anything to suggest that it would cost Scotland £1bn per year to be in the EU. Currently we are paying around £130 million and I read something once from an 'expert' who reckoned that this could rise, as we may no longer be eligible for the rebate that the UK receives. However, since Scotland receives less back via Barnett than it actually contributes to the UK ecomony and in conjunction with other savings (a certain set of missiles springs to mind) then it could still be affordable.

 

Whether or not it is worthwhile is another matter. What would be better, in my view, would be for a referendum on EU membership to be held following a yes vote for independence, and the pros and cons could be debated thereafter. If we did end up in the EU we almost certainly would have is greater representation. Currently Scotland has five MEPs, whereas similarly sized countries like Denmark and Finland send more than twice that number to Brussels. Either way, at least the Scots would be making the decision themselves, rather than the people of England effectively deciding for them (Cameron has pledged to hold a referendum on EU mentioned if the Tories win the next Westminster election, which is a distinct possibility).

[Chicofan]

Having seen the latest contribution to the No campaign, i.e. the statement from Jo Swinsom adding that we would all definitely face higher mobile charges, dearer stamps and worst of all exorbitant roaming charges if we successfully manage to negotiate the armed guards(not to mention barbed wire fences etc.) when we attempt to travel south of the border, if we decide to opt for independence.

This is just the latest, in a long list of nonesense emanating mainly, but by no means exclusively from the anti campaign. Is it not time that politicians started treating us the people as grown up adults. Instead of recalcitrant children who are unable to understand any concept not outlined in the sports or fashion pages of the Daily Ranger.

Regardless of your viewpoint on the subject of independence, I'm sure you expect a higher quality of debate and argument than we have had hitherto. It is to be expected that emotion plays a large part in this debate, but surely in the 21st Century it is not too much to expect that that emotion is guided in a substantial part by reason.

 

Jo Swinson is a rocket..went to school with her....the boot claimed a newspaper on her expenses.. her excuse? "they wrote a story about me and I'm not paying for it" tight snobby coo!

[Rid Skwerr]

Jo Swinson is a rocket..went to school with her....the boot claimed a newspaper on her expenses.. her excuse? "they wrote a story about me and I'm not paying for it" tight snobby coo!

She's our MP and I seem to remember it being said that she had bought dental floss and stuck the bill to the taxpayer!

Edited July 4, 2013 by Rid Skwerr