Salmond V. Darling

Share

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:30 pm

Bertie, what cross border costs? What people don't realise that these costs will fall solely to Scottish business. I have worked with American and European companies and they insist that contracts are in their currency (ie Dollar or Euro) that meant that my employer needed to take the exchange rate and costs as a hit. In fact I believe that Bear (who have the contract for repairing Scottish highways up to 2018) have in their contract with the Scottish Government that they will get paid in GBP.

How come most of the "yes" supporters cannot accept the democratic opinions of those who disagree with their conclusion on the referendum? I am not falling for the No campaigns lies, I have taken all of the facts on board and come to a conclusion, you have done the same and reached a different conclusion - that is democracy. Whatever happens on the 19th of September (when the votes are counted), we need to continue to get on. While people can be passionate the use of phrases (and I am not suggesting that you use them) from the so called cyber nats like traitor, misguided, fools etc is not helpful. For me I cannot understand how we can get rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cut corporation tax, set up an oil fund, set up a whole government system - as Paul Daniels would say "now that's magic".


Last edited by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typing)
avatar
mozam76

Posts : 206
Join date : 2014-06-10

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by mozam76 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:04 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
How come most of the "yes" supporters cannot accept the democratic opinions of those who disagree with their conclusion on the referendum? I am not falling for the No campaigns lies, I have taken all of the facts on board and come to a conclusion, you have done the same and reached a different conclusion - that is democracy. Whatever happens on the 19th of September (when the votes are counted), we need to continue to get on. While people can be passionate the use of phrases (and I am not suggesting that you use them) from the so called cyber nats like traitor, misguided, fools etc is not helpful. For me I cannot understand how we can get rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cut corporation tax, set up an oil fund, set up a whole government system - as Paul Daniels would say "now that's magic".

With regards use of phrases etc I'd largely agree with this Biko, although it can be said for both sides of course. For every mention of Cameron being a "blue suited Tory Twat" or the numerous derisory things said about Johann Lamont, you can sub them with Salmond being a "fat so and so" or Sturgeon being a "helmet heided boot". Supporters on both sides have descended into nonsense throughout this whole process, make no mistake. When people stick to political debate without name calling, the debate seems much more mature, and people stand to be better informed.

With regards your final point, the one I've bolded. One of the reasons I'm voting Yes is because in an Independent Scotland we CAN do the things you mention. It may take longer than the politicians would have you believe, but a change on those things you mention CAN happen.



Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:54 pm

mozam76, I can appreciate the aspirations and agree that there are some on the No side of this argument that are equally banal as some of the extreme people on the Yes side.

For what it is worth there are 4 groups within this debate.

1. Yes, I am voting for independence irrespective of what arguments come up.
2. No, I am voting against independence irrespective of what arguments come up.
3. I'm no voting
4. I will vote when I find out more.

The difficulty with number 4 is that it is difficult to get unbiased information. For me the White Paper created more questions than it answered. Consequently, for debate and not for a slanging match I would like to pose some questions/scenarios to the people who favour independence.

1. Assuming there is no agreement on Fiscal Union and an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt, what makes them think that they can take 8.8% of the UK national assets.

2. Much has been made of the comments of an unnamed Cabinet Minister (Guardian) saying of course there will be agreement of monetary union. What he said was the Scots want monetary union we want Trident to stay on the Clyde there is always a basis for negotiation. Would it be acceptable to the Yes supporters for a key plank of independence to be negotiated away?

3. All of my life I have seen all shades of governments, what they do is spend money which is paid from taxes or borrowing. If an iScotland is getting rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cutting corporation tax, setting up an oil fund, setting up a whole government system - where is the finance for this coming from?

4. I have heard from the Yes side that the only way to keep in the EU is to be independent, I am not sure that I want to be in the EU - I would really need to see all of the arguments.

5. We are told that with an independent Scottish government we would not get things that we did not vote for foisted upon us. What about Gay marriage (no I am not homophobic), Armed police officers on our streets, or a named guardian for our children/grandchildren. None of that appeared on any manifesto.

6. Finally, with the exception of Alex Salmond and Ruth Davidson the quality of our MSPs is extremely poor - I fear for my future with any combination of Holyrood at the helm. Yes, I know that Westminster is not much better, but we have experience of them.


Last edited by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Changed duplicate number 5)

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:06 pm

Bertie Bassett wrote:Exactly LF.

I have said from the outset that the currency argument from the "No-es" is a bunch of nonsense, how many nations share the Euro? How many nations that used to have the £ retained it on first getting independence before eventually devising their own currency? Answer to both is loads.

Unfortunately Bertie, your argument is somewhat flawed.

a) How many Nations share the Euro? 18 of the 27. So Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland and Italy have all run into problems and Spain is a stone throw away. Solution - the European Commission via the EU Central Bank is imposing budgets of all 18 countries and they are moving towards a single tax policy. Is this integration not the polar opposite to independence?

b) It is not the retaining of the pound that is at stake. That is sterlingisation one of the options B-F within the White Paper. The issue is the Bank of England underwriting the currency backed by the taxpayers. Also, are the citizens of the rUK not allowed to offer an opinion on this or does the Fiscal Commission dictate for them. The major Westminster parties have said no, I cannot see them changing their mind.

On a separate point. Assume we get independence on 19th September 2014 and start negotiating with the rUK. No one has mentioned that half way through these negotiations there is a UK General Election. Irrespective of the outcome the shape of those we are negotiating with will change - complicated.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Liviforever on Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:09 pm

Therealbiko wrote:mozam76, I can appreciate the aspirations and agree that there are some on the No side of this argument that are equally banal as some of the extreme people on the Yes side.

For what it is worth there are 4 groups within this debate.

1. Yes, I am voting for independence irrespective of what arguments come up.
2. No, I am voting against independence irrespective of what arguments come up.
3. I'm no voting
4. I will vote when I find out more.

The difficulty with number 4 is that it is difficult to get unbiased information. For me the White Paper created more questions than it answered. Consequently, for debate and not for a slanging match I would like to pose some questions/scenarios to the people who favour independence.

1. Assuming there is no agreement on Fiscal Union and an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt, what makes them think that they can take 8.8% of the UK national assets.

2. Much has been made of the comments of an unnamed Cabinet Minister (Guardian) saying of course there will be agreement of monetary union. What he said was the Scots want monetary union we want Trident to stay on the Clyde there is always a basis for negotiation. Would it be acceptable to the Yes supporters for a key plank of independence to be negotiated away?

3. All of my life I have seen all shades of governments, what they do is spend money which is paid from taxes or borrowing. If an iScotland is getting rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cutting corporation tax, setting up an oil fund, setting up a whole government system - where is the finance for this coming from?

4. I have heard from the Yes side that the only way to keep in the EU is to be independent, I am not sure that I want to be in the EU - I would really need to see all of the arguments.

5. We are told that with an independent Scottish government we would not get things that we did not vote for foisted upon us. What about Gay marriage (no I am not homophobic), Armed police officers on our streets, or a named guardian for our children/grandchildren. None of that appeared on any manifesto.

5. Finally, with the exception of Alex Salmond and Ruth Davidson the quality of our MSPs is extremely poor - I fear for my future with any combination of Holyrood at the helm. Yes, I know that Westminster is not much better, but we have experience of them.

5. I'm too feart to vote Yes so i'll stick to the shite we've got being ruled by Westminster, and feed off their scraps.

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:39 pm

Liviforever wrote:

5. I'm too feart to vote Yes so i'll stick to the shite we've got being ruled by Westminster, and feed off their scraps.

Well that really adds to informed debate. Fancy trying to answer some of the other points. It is no wonder people shy away from politics if this is an example of reasoned argument. The SNP lied about having a legal ruling on the EU and only on Thursday John Swinney was found to be lying about being in technical discussions with HM Treasury about Fiscal Union. He, and or his official's, had asked some questions, that it not entering discussions. From my perspective it seems that both sides will do and say anything to get their result.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Liviforever on Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:30 am

Don't get your knickers in a twist, just letting you know there was a 5th option to your list.

Folk are too scared to vote Yes no matter what arguments are made. There are no guarantee anything the Yes campaign say will happen, but that's the same with all parties during an election, they can lay out a manifesto making promises, more often than not they just do what they want after they're elected.

Those that want guarantees are imo going to vote No anyway, at this stage I doubt anyone is still on the fence.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:18 pm

Therealbiko wrote:Bertie, what cross border costs? What people don't realise that these costs will fall solely to Scottish business. I have worked with American and European companies and they insist that contracts are in their currency (ie Dollar or Euro) that meant that my employer needed to take the exchange rate and costs as a hit. In fact I believe that Bear (who have the contract for repairing Scottish highways up to 2018) have in their contract with the Scottish Government that they will get paid in GBP.

How come most of the "yes" supporters cannot accept the democratic opinions of those who disagree with their conclusion on the referendum? I am not falling for the No campaigns lies, I have taken all of the facts on board and come to a conclusion, you have done the same and reached a different conclusion - that is democracy. Whatever happens on the 19th of September (when the votes are counted), we need to continue to get on. While people can be passionate the use of phrases (and I am not suggesting that you use them) from the so called cyber nats like traitor, misguided, fools etc is not helpful. For me I cannot understand how we can get rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cut corporation tax, set up an oil fund, set up a whole government system - as Paul Daniels would say "now that's magic".

So you are saying that the businesses in Scotland that export to England will be unable to insist on the currency & will have to bow down to the English buyers? Technically they could agree to their contracts being settled in gold bars if they want to; the point is a Formal Fiscal Union does away with any hassle.

You can have your democratic opinion, you can be wrong if you want to be  Very Happy (in case you are not sure that was a jest on my part...much as my "falling for" comment was tongue in cheek)

If you want to find out how iScotland can afford such things why not attend a Yes event & ask the question; I was at the Nicola Sturgeon event last week & they were crying out for "No-es" & "Don't knows" to ask questions.
There is another event coming up at Deans High School a week on Wednesday, featuring Jim Sillars & a couple of women (can't recall their names but at least 1 is a highly respected business woman); starts at 7pm.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:27 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
Liviforever wrote:

5. I'm too feart to vote Yes so i'll stick to the shite we've got being ruled by Westminster, and feed off their scraps.

Well that really adds to informed debate. Fancy trying to answer some of the other points. It is no wonder people shy away from politics if this is an example of reasoned argument. The SNP lied about having a legal ruling on the EU and only on Thursday John Swinney was found to be lying about being in technical discussions with HM Treasury about Fiscal Union. He, and or his official's, had asked some questions, that it not entering discussions. From my perspective it seems that both sides will do and say anything to get their result.

So asking questions & getting answers is not having a discussion?

The "Better Together" mob are offering increased powers but won't say what they are...do you believe them? I don't.
Westminster has handed P45's to soldiers while they were serving their country in Iraq & elsewhere; they are laying off substantial numbers of the Police force down south while Scotland has a record high in terms of police officers; what do you think will happen if the country rejects independence?

Billions of pounds being spent on keeping nuclear weapons on the Clyde or increased funding for education/health/creating jobs? The choice is yours.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:35 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Exactly LF.

I have said from the outset that the currency argument from the "No-es" is a bunch of nonsense, how many nations share the Euro? How many nations that used to have the £ retained it on first getting independence before eventually devising their own currency? Answer to both is loads.

Unfortunately Bertie, your argument is somewhat flawed.

a) How many Nations share the Euro? 18 of the 27. So Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland and Italy have all run into problems and Spain is a stone throw away. Solution - the European Commission via the EU Central Bank is imposing budgets of all 18 countries and they are moving towards a single tax policy. Is this integration not the polar opposite to independence?

b) It is not the retaining of the pound that is at stake. That is sterlingisation one of the options B-F within the White Paper. The issue is the Bank of England underwriting the currency backed by the taxpayers. Also, are the citizens of the rUK not allowed to offer an opinion on this or does the Fiscal Commission dictate for them. The major Westminster parties have said no, I cannot see them changing their mind.

On a separate point. Assume we get independence on 19th September 2014 and start negotiating with the rUK. No one has mentioned that half way through these negotiations there is a UK General Election. Irrespective of the outcome the shape of those we are negotiating with will change - complicated.

In what way is it flawed, you have proven my point; the fact they are not making the Euro work very well is irrelevant; we already know that sharing the pound works. All of the monitory options have flaws but the Formal Fiscal union has the least flaws & the most advantages. (again I refer you to the link posted earlier which takes you to the Fiscal Commission report for full details) - incidentally, Westminster commissioned its own report despite the Fiscal Commission sending them theirs & encouraging discussions between both camps; the Westminster report brought up things that the Fiscal Commission had answers for but it would seem Westminster have chosen to ignore those. (I haven't researched what these are but I am referring to a statement made by the Fiscal Commission; its on the same web site as the report.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Liviforever on Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:43 pm

Not being dragged into illegal wars will save a few million too Bertie.

As for the fixated currency issue by the better together, they get lumbered with all the debt if they want to tell us to go do one, I'm betting they want us to share in some of it and will negotiate with us over sharing the pound. The plan B that Salmond wont talk about is no different from Darling/Cameron refusing to talk about what they'd do if it was a Yes win, it would give everyone too much information and they don't want that. Neither side wants to tell us voters things that would go against them.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:42 pm

Good points LF esp the one on the debt landing on the rUK if there is no currency union; incidentally the "Yes" folk have stated they don't want that to happen.

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:06 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:Good points LF esp the one on the debt landing on the rUK if there is no currency union; incidentally the "Yes" folk have stated they don't want that to happen.

So iScotland being refused fiscal union refuses to take it's share of the UK national debt, do the Yes supporters really think that they can take their share of the UK assets? On another point, assuming that we vote for independence and Scotland gets it's oil, which is currently a UK asset surely an iScotland cannot get all of the oil and 8.8% share of the rest of the assets. The it would be like on a divorce the wife getting the house and half of all of the remaining assets. If an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt then I would expect the rUK to veto any application to join the EU, which according to recent prognosis seems to be be under Article 49, not the SNP's favoured Article 48. Now Sir Ian Wood much vaunted by the First Minister has said that the SNP's estimates for oil resources are 60% overstated. For me there are so many people allowing their heart rule their heads.
avatar
EdinburghLivi
Admin

Posts : 774
Join date : 2014-06-09
Age : 24
Location : Edz

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by EdinburghLivi on Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:55 pm

Lead for No (including undecideds) down by 2 points to 10. Still very confident in a No victory by 10 points.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:02 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Good points LF esp the one on the debt landing on the rUK if there is no currency union; incidentally the "Yes" folk have stated they don't want that to happen.

So iScotland being refused fiscal union refuses to take it's share of the UK national debt, do the Yes supporters really think that they can take their share of the UK assets? On another point, assuming that we vote for independence and Scotland gets it's oil,  which is currently a UK asset surely an iScotland cannot get all of the oil and 8.8% share of the rest of the assets. The it would be like on a divorce the wife getting the house and half of all of the remaining assets. If an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt then I would expect the rUK to veto any application to join the EU, which according to recent prognosis seems to be be under Article 49, not the SNP's favoured Article 48. Now Sir Ian Wood much vaunted by the First Minister has said that the SNP's estimates for oil resources are 60% overstated. For me there are so many people allowing their heart rule their heads.

Actually, I believe that the No-es have recognised that technically, the rUK is liable for the debt if there is no fiscal union. Not sure what the rUK would gain by veto-ing Scotland's application to join the EU apart from noising up the neighbours...and if they did, once the rUK gets itself out of the EU after Cameron's referendum, we could get in anyway.

For me there are so many people allowing their fears to hold sway over their hopes. You should always vote on your hopes not on your fears. There is more to Scotland than oil.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:06 pm

EdinburghLivi wrote:Lead for No (including undecideds) down by 2 points to 10. Still very confident in a No victory by 10 points.

Sadly, I can't see the lead being overhauled either.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Liviforever on Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:45 am

Therealbiko wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Good points LF esp the one on the debt landing on the rUK if there is no currency union; incidentally the "Yes" folk have stated they don't want that to happen.

So iScotland being refused fiscal union refuses to take it's share of the UK national debt, do the Yes supporters really think that they can take their share of the UK assets? On another point, assuming that we vote for independence and Scotland gets it's oil,  which is currently a UK asset surely an iScotland cannot get all of the oil and 8.8% share of the rest of the assets. The it would be like on a divorce the wife getting the house and half of all of the remaining assets. If an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt then I would expect the rUK to veto any application to join the EU, which according to recent prognosis seems to be be under Article 49, not the SNP's favoured Article 48. Now Sir Ian Wood much vaunted by the First Minister has said that the SNP's estimates for oil resources are 60% overstated. For me there are so many people allowing their heart rule their heads.

Wouldn't believe what Wood says, certainly don't believe he has no allegiance to either side, pretty convenient popping up at this time to cast doubts over how much oil there is. Here is a link to the clair oil field which is absolutely massive and has produced 100 million barrels. A new drill site the clair ridge is starting in 2016 and has 640 million barrels in it. BP will be using new technology that can get far more oil out of sites too and costs less. It has the potential to get billions more barrels out of sites using this tech.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/149342965138095?view=permalink&id=728812567191129    


We've also great potential for renewable energy in Scotland too with the wind and sea.  

Here's something I found on Woods.
http://i57.tinypic.com/den0x4.jpg

Nice bit of tax avoidance.

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:40 pm

Liviforever wrote:
Wouldn't believe what Wood says, certainly don't believe he has no allegiance to either side, pretty convenient popping up at this time to cast doubts over how much oil there is. Here is a link to the clair oil field which is absolutely massive and has produced 100 million barrels. A new drill site the clair ridge is starting in 2016 and has 640 million barrels in it. BP will be using new technology that can get far more oil out of sites too and costs less. It has the potential to get billions more barrels out of sites using this tech.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/149342965138095?view=permalink&id=728812567191129    


We've also great potential for renewable energy in Scotland too with the wind and sea.  

Here's something I found on Woods.
http://i57.tinypic.com/den0x4.jpg

Nice bit of tax avoidance.
Sir Ian Woods is like all of the business people - making money off the workers, however, he knows all about North Sea Oil, a fact mentioned so many times by the First Minister. This is an issue that people believe passionately about and it is not about being 'feart' or 'fantasist' by all means argue the case, but if we are being truthful there are not the answers that (as the Americans would day) WE THE PEOPLE deserve to be told. Currency, Pensions, NHS (see the Scottish Government have been panned this morning on that) and cost of setting up an independent country from the Yes side. Austerity, NHS funding, additional powers (Devo Max) for Holyrood from the No side. It comes down to a decision based on your interpretation of what is being proposed. We live in a democracy so the First Ministers assertion on the back of a Yes vote that the sovereign will of the Scottish people is for a currency union. Assume that it is a 51% - 49% vote for yes that is roughly 4.9% of the UK voting population , does this mean that the sovereign will of the remaining 95.1% is worth nothing?

For what it is worth, the First Minister won last nights debate, but we heard nothing new.

Therealbiko

Posts : 13
Join date : 2014-08-17

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Therealbiko on Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:45 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
1. Assuming there is no agreement on Fiscal Union and an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt, what makes them think that they can take 8.8% of the UK national assets.

2. Much has been made of the comments of an unnamed Cabinet Minister (Guardian) saying of course there will be agreement of monetary union. What he said was the Scots want monetary union we want Trident to stay on the Clyde there is always a basis for negotiation. Would it be acceptable to the Yes supporters for a key plank of independence to be negotiated away?

3. All of my life I have seen all shades of governments, what they do is spend money which is paid from taxes or borrowing. If an iScotland is getting rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cutting corporation tax, setting up an oil fund, setting up a whole government system - where is the finance for this coming from?

4. I have heard from the Yes side that the only way to keep in the EU is to be independent, I am not sure that I want to be in the EU - I would really need to see all of the arguments.

5. We are told that with an independent Scottish government we would not get things that we did not vote for foisted upon us. What about Gay marriage (no I am not homophobic), Armed police officers on our streets, or a named guardian for our children/grandchildren. None of that appeared on any manifesto.

6. Finally, with the exception of Alex Salmond and Ruth Davidson the quality of our MSPs is extremely poor - I fear for my future with any combination of Holyrood at the helm. Yes, I know that Westminster is not much better, but we have experience of them.
I would love to hear from someone on the Yes side of this argument about question 2. I recently heard Alex Bell (part author of the White Paper) say the same thing about Trident on the radio.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:32 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
Wouldn't believe what Wood says, certainly don't believe he has no allegiance to either side, pretty convenient popping up at this time to cast doubts over how much oil there is. Here is a link to the clair oil field which is absolutely massive and has produced 100 million barrels. A new drill site the clair ridge is starting in 2016 and has 640 million barrels in it. BP will be using new technology that can get far more oil out of sites too and costs less. It has the potential to get billions more barrels out of sites using this tech.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/149342965138095?view=permalink&id=728812567191129    


We've also great potential for renewable energy in Scotland too with the wind and sea.  

Here's something I found on Woods.
http://i57.tinypic.com/den0x4.jpg

Nice bit of tax avoidance.
Sir Ian Woods is like all of the business people - making money off the workers, however, he knows all about North Sea Oil, a fact mentioned so many times by the First Minister. This is an issue that people believe passionately about and it is not about being 'feart' or 'fantasist' by all means argue the case, but if we are being truthful there are not the answers that (as the Americans would day) WE THE PEOPLE deserve to be told. Currency, Pensions, NHS (see the Scottish Government have been panned this morning on that) and cost of setting up an independent country from the Yes side. Austerity, NHS funding, additional powers (Devo Max) for Holyrood from the No side. It comes down to a decision based on your interpretation of what is being proposed. We live in a democracy so the First Ministers assertion on the back of a Yes vote that the sovereign will of the Scottish people is for a currency union. Assume that it is a 51% - 49% vote for yes that is roughly 4.9% of the UK voting population , does this mean that the sovereign will of the remaining 95.1% is worth nothing?

For what it is worth, the First Minister won last nights debate, but we heard nothing new.

I disagree, we heard Darling say "Of course we could use the pound" - granted he did go on to say he didn't think it would be a good idea but when pressed to answer what he thought WOULD be a good idea for currency in an independent Scotland he couldn't provide an answer...in other words, while he has erroneously been hammering away at Salmond for a lack of a plan b on currency, Darling doesn't even have a plan a for currency should the country choose independence. Of course you could argue "why should he? He isn't seeking independence" which is quite right but only an incompetent leader would not have anything in place to bring to the negotiating table if he lost the vote.

At the same time I'm glad you heard nothing new from Salmond; simply proves the point that the answer to the currency plan b question is not exactly a secret, Salmond virtually spelled it out last night.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:49 pm

Therealbiko wrote:
Therealbiko wrote:
1. Assuming there is no agreement on Fiscal Union and an iScotland refuses to take share of the UK national debt, what makes them think that they can take 8.8% of the UK national assets.

2. Much has been made of the comments of an unnamed Cabinet Minister (Guardian) saying of course there will be agreement of monetary union. What he said was the Scots want monetary union we want Trident to stay on the Clyde there is always a basis for negotiation. Would it be acceptable to the Yes supporters for a key plank of independence to be negotiated away?

3. All of my life I have seen all shades of governments, what they do is spend money which is paid from taxes or borrowing. If an iScotland is getting rid of food banks, bedroom tax, cutting corporation tax, setting up an oil fund, setting up a whole government system - where is the finance for this coming from?

4. I have heard from the Yes side that the only way to keep in the EU is to be independent, I am not sure that I want to be in the EU - I would really need to see all of the arguments.

5. We are told that with an independent Scottish government we would not get things that we did not vote for foisted upon us. What about Gay marriage (no I am not homophobic), Armed police officers on our streets, or a named guardian for our children/grandchildren. None of that appeared on any manifesto.

6. Finally, with the exception of Alex Salmond and Ruth Davidson the quality of our MSPs is extremely poor - I fear for my future with any combination of Holyrood at the helm. Yes, I know that Westminster is not much better, but we have experience of them.
I would love to hear from someone on the Yes side of this argument about question 2. I recently heard Alex Bell (part author of the White Paper) say the same thing about Trident on the radio.

In the event of Scotland voting "yes", clearly our exit from the UK would be subject to various negotiations; it remains to be seen whether Scotland will vote "yes" & whether negotiations will be necessary.
In my opinion, any monetary union negotiations will focus on financial assets & liabilities. We can't be stopped from using the £ but can be denied the assets of the Bank of England to support that currency but if the assets are denied then the liabilities also remain the responsibility of the rUK so despite wanting to take a share of those liabilities iScotland can walk away with none. This point is borne out by legislation which gives the existing state responsibility for asstes & liabilities while the element which is leaving has none.
I suspect the negotiations regarding Trident on the Clyde will focus more on the length of time the rUK has to move them elsewhere, Salmond wants it gone in 5.5 years but opponents say it will take much longer. I think it will probably take longer than 5.5 years but not as long as the opposition are suggesting, so we have a negotiation on time. I don't think the negotiations for currency union will be determined by iScotland relenting on Trident. Of course I could be wrong on that but I'm willing to take the chance...after all if we do keep Trident in order to secure monetary union then we will be able to charge "rent" to a foreign nation for housing its WMDs... possible big money earner right there.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Liviforever on Wed Aug 27, 2014 12:38 am

Salmond wiped the floor with Darling this time, also got beaten up from the audience asking him questions. The one that said if we're better together, why aren't we better just now, hit him right on the chin. Laughing

It was all one upmanship though, that's really all these tv debates are. It was be great if you could stick them both on a lie detector machine and get them to actually give straight answers to any question they were asked.
avatar
LiviLion

Posts : 799
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 21
Location : Livingston

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by LiviLion on Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:08 am

Liviforever wrote:It was all one upmanship though, that's really all these tv debates are. It was be great if you could stick them both on a lie detector machine and get them to actually give straight answers to any question they were asked.

I think it would be better to get Yes Scotland and Better Together to compete in their own Hunger Games.

Sponsored content

Re: Salmond V. Darling

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:26 pm