Independence referendum

Share

Poll

How will you vote?

[ 8 ]
50% [50%] 
[ 8 ]
50% [50%] 

Total Votes: 16

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:37 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:
EdinburghLivi wrote:Standard Life moving jobs down to England in the event of Yes. Apparently up to 80% down to England and the remaining 20% may not even stay in Scotland.

Scary, scary stuff.

Yep, that is the point of scaremongering; rule by fear.

I used to work at Scottish & Newcastle; they said they would move everything out of Scotland after devolution...did they? Not quite; instead they sold everything off to Heineken.

Not exactly sure how that is scaremongering. Scottish and newcastle moved out - luckily Heineken moved in and bought up the facilities - surely that was a fortunate occurance? What would have happened is Heineken hadn't done that?

With regard to the financial services question Scotand has no stock exchange or lender of last resort (I believe you can thank Charles II for that). As far as I can see our only option will be to join the Euro - there is no other feasible option that we could afford as an independent nation with an already substantial national debt.

Unfortunately there is no national equivailent of going into administration
avatar
Lexi Collector
Admin

Posts : 785
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 24

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Lexi Collector on Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:10 pm

Scottish Widows, Standard Life and RBS - all Scottish businesses threatening to abandon operations in their own country as a result of independence. Whilst it is scary for, and certainly makes you think again about your vote, it's an absolute cunt move from these businesses. Can imagine a lot of stress for their current employees. There's nothing to suggest that their operations wouldn't run as effectively in an indy Scotland, so whilst I sympathise and understand the view of the unionists on this one, it's all down to scaremongering. Whether they'll actually leave Scotland is another matter, although these threats are very unpleasant.

I'm graduating from University with a business related degree in the summer, and in my field most jobs are in either London or Manchester. I'd rather not leave central Scotland and would prefer to live/work here. It was my understanding that in an independent Scotland more jobs in my field for experienced workers and graduates would be created in Scotland. Financial security, national identity and keeping dickhead political parties away (I.e. fairer voting representation) are my main motives for voting - but large organisations on our doorstep threatening to 'move to England' throws a massive spanner in the works for people like me. Scottish & Newcastle > Heineken was good for Scotland (and certainly Livingston), but can these circumstances be replicated again with RBS and Standard Life? Extremely unlikely.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:47 pm

They will move their registered office, but no operations or jobs.

They're under polital pressure from the Govt to make these statements. What would actually happen if it was a YES vote and things were better in Scotland then the rest of the UK once negotiations had been done, I'd imagine SL and RBS will wait for a bit to see how it all pans out before doing anything.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:11 pm

Take that BBC.

avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:57 pm

BasilF wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:
EdinburghLivi wrote:Standard Life moving jobs down to England in the event of Yes. Apparently up to 80% down to England and the remaining 20% may not even stay in Scotland.

Scary, scary stuff.

Yep, that is the point of scaremongering; rule by fear.

I used to work at Scottish & Newcastle; they said they would move everything out of Scotland after devolution...did they? Not quite; instead they sold everything off to Heineken.

Not exactly sure how that is scaremongering. Scottish and newcastle moved out - luckily Heineken moved in and bought up the facilities - surely that was a fortunate occurance? What would have happened is Heineken hadn't done that?

With regard to the financial services question Scotand has no stock exchange or lender of last resort (I believe you can thank Charles II for that). As far as I can see our only option will be to join the Euro - there is no other feasible option that we could afford as an independent nation with an already substantial national debt.

Unfortunately there is no national equivailent of going into administration

S&N sold out they didn't move out. If Heineken hadn't bought them, someone else would have. S&N "bought" Courage around 1994 to form Scottish Courage & you would have thought it was the other way around...it wasn't long before the Newcastle Brewery was closed followed by Fountainbridge.  I was long gone from the company by the time Heineken took over so I have to accept Lexi's comment that it was good for Scotland & clearly Heineken have maintained an office presence up here despite the demise of Fountainbridge so perhaps they were able to refresh some parts that S&N had failed to reach. However, had S&N realised that Scotland is actually worth staying in & working in I have no doubt they would have stayed, instead they accepted the UK government line (just as some are doing now) & despite warnings of moving South they sold out to the Dutch. I say again; Westminster don't want Scotland to stay because it will be better for Scotland, they want Scotland to stay because that is better for the rest of the UK.

In terms of the UK, Scotland has no democratic voice; the Scottish vote has little or no impact on the UK general election. The only way we can have a democratically elected government in Scotland is through full independence. This is not hearsay or rhetoric, it is established fact.

Also, Scotland as an independent country is willing to take its share of the UK debt but has more than enough wealth to service it; the UK government has recognised that the debt is the UK's & a departing Scotland has no obligation to share that debt; do you really think the UK government will NOT take up Scotland's offer to take on its fair share? Then it will no doubt also be willing to allow Scotland a share in the assets which will mean full fiscal union...ergo the £ will be the currency.

Read "The Wee Blue Book" - it only takes a couple of hours, less if you are a quick reader. Its relatively jargon free, is unashamedly pro-independence but is based on quotes from Nay-sayers & impartials along with common sense applications that drive home the point, "Can we be a success independently? Yes we can!"
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:18 pm

The London School of Economics (LSE) E book on the transition to a new Scottish state is also a good read. That isn't biased in any way to either side.

avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:21 pm

Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
avatar
Smithy

Posts : 574
Join date : 2014-07-01

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Smithy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:23 pm

Bertie Bassett wrote:Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
maybe it's because of them not having any substance that has raised the No vote in the poll.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:08 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:S&N sold out they didn't move out. If Heineken hadn't bought them, someone else would have. S&N "bought" Courage around 1994 to form Scottish Courage & you would have thought it was the other way around...it wasn't long before the Newcastle Brewery was closed followed by Fountainbridge.  I was long gone from the company by the time Heineken took over so I have to accept Lexi's comment that it was good for Scotland & clearly Heineken have maintained an office presence up here despite the demise of Fountainbridge so perhaps they were able to refresh some parts that S&N had failed to reach. However, had S&N realised that Scotland is actually worth staying in & working in I have no doubt they would have stayed, instead they accepted the UK government line (just as some are doing now) & despite warnings of moving South they sold out to the Dutch. I say again; Westminster don't want Scotland to stay because it will be better for Scotland, they want Scotland to stay because that is better for the rest of the UK.

In terms of the UK, Scotland has no democratic voice; the Scottish vote has little or no impact on the UK general election. The only way we can have a democratically elected government in Scotland is through full independence. This is not hearsay or rhetoric, it is established fact.

Also, Scotland as an independent country is willing to take its share of the UK debt but has more than enough wealth to service it; the UK government has recognised that the debt is the UK's & a departing Scotland has no obligation to share that debt; do you really think the UK government will NOT take up Scotland's offer to take on its fair share? Then it will no doubt also be willing to allow Scotland a share in the assets which will mean full fiscal union...ergo the £ will be the currency.

Read "The Wee Blue Book" - it only takes a couple of hours, less if you are a quick reader. Its relatively jargon free, is unashamedly pro-independence but is based on quotes from Nay-sayers & impartials along with common sense applications that drive home the point, "Can we be a success independently? Yes we can!"

Surely selling out is the same as moving out - if you were to move out wouldn't you try to sell your house - from their perspective selling the business presumably meant that most of the staff would be tupe'd across meaning that they had a drastically reduced liability? However they've still gone.

Its not a case of Scotland;and being willing to take its share of the national debt; it has to honour the share of national debt as agreed as part of the act of union (parcel o' rogues I think they were called) else it will be deemed to be a defaulter on the national markets putting it in the realm of only getting international credit on similar terms to third world countries.

Also the act of the financial institutions moving their head offices out is not merely an act of moving a brass plaque; a company pays its corporation taxes in the country of registration That represents a very significant hole which will need to be made up. Of course one way it could be achieved would be to lower business taxes here to try to encourage business to remain north of the boarder but the Scottish government has had that power for about 16 years and never used it yet no matter who was in the hot seat. The same goes for income tax as the government have the power to amend Scottish income tax by three percent up or down but haven't used that power either yet.

As for Salmond blue book - no thanks - I've had enough of his your either with us or your not really Scottish/team scotland rhetoric to last me a lifetime.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:33 am

BasilF wrote:

Its not a case of Scotland;and being willing to take its share of the national debt; it has to honour the share of national debt as agreed as part of the act of union (parcel o' rogues I think they were called) else it will be deemed to be a defaulter on the national markets putting it in the realm of only getting international credit on similar terms to third world countries.

.

No it doesn't. If we get independence it wont be our debt unless our offer to take on some of it is accepted in the negotiations for a share of the assets.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:05 am

Smithy wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
maybe it's because of them not having any substance that has raised the No vote in the poll.

The regurgitated scare stories being laid on thick in the media the last couple of days will be the most likely reason. Their whole campaign has been one of negativity and fear.

The huge gain by the YES campaign has at least got a devo max option to increase powers to the Scottish Govt, so at the very least we're being promised a better deal with it being so close. That wouldn't have happened with a landslide NO victory.

avatar
Smithy

Posts : 574
Join date : 2014-07-01

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Smithy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:30 am

Liviforever wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
maybe it's because of them not having any substance that has raised the No vote in the poll.

The regurgitated scare stories being laid on thick in the media the last couple of days will be the most likely reason. Their whole campaign has been one of negativity and fear.

The huge gain by the YES campaign has at least got a devo max option to increase powers to the Scottish Govt, so at the very least we're being promised a better deal with it being so close. That wouldn't have happened with a landslide NO victory.

My thoughts are that a massive effort from the No campaign was required because they couldn't sit back and watch people being conned by the Yes campaign.

Supporters of many clubs,including our own,should should realise that believing everything you hear is not always the best option.

Granted you could say that goes for all politicians and I would agree,however a Yes vote is a massive gamble I am unwilling to take for the future of our country.


BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:28 am

Liviforever wrote:
No it doesn't. If we get independence it wont be our debt unless our offer to take on some of it is accepted in the negotiations for a share of the assets.

I believe you'll find the act of union says differently. Saying its not your debt doesn't make it so and certainly wont in the case of international bank. Also a significant amount of national debt is actually owed to people north of the boarder in the shape of Gilt edged stock; government backed loans; pensions and even premium bonds although I suspect a lump of that is now in the Post office (or what ever they call themselves now) sphere.


BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:34 am

Smithy wrote:My thoughts are that a massive effort from the No campaign was required because they couldn't sit back and watch people being conned by the Yes campaign.

Supporters of many clubs,including our own,should should realise that believing everything you hear is not always the best option.

Granted you could say that goes for all politicians and I would agree,however a Yes vote is a massive gamble I am unwilling to take for the future of our country.


I dislike two of the three intensely (almost as much as I do Salmond but at least there the feeling is mutual) but can't help feeling a certain sympathy for the situation. The SNP implied that it was arrogant of them to come up at the last minute to gander support but if none had appeared they would have said it was arrogant if they hadn't.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:34 pm

BasilF wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:S&N sold out they didn't move out. If Heineken hadn't bought them, someone else would have. S&N "bought" Courage around 1994 to form Scottish Courage & you would have thought it was the other way around...it wasn't long before the Newcastle Brewery was closed followed by Fountainbridge.  I was long gone from the company by the time Heineken took over so I have to accept Lexi's comment that it was good for Scotland & clearly Heineken have maintained an office presence up here despite the demise of Fountainbridge so perhaps they were able to refresh some parts that S&N had failed to reach. However, had S&N realised that Scotland is actually worth staying in & working in I have no doubt they would have stayed, instead they accepted the UK government line (just as some are doing now) & despite warnings of moving South they sold out to the Dutch. I say again; Westminster don't want Scotland to stay because it will be better for Scotland, they want Scotland to stay because that is better for the rest of the UK.

In terms of the UK, Scotland has no democratic voice; the Scottish vote has little or no impact on the UK general election. The only way we can have a democratically elected government in Scotland is through full independence. This is not hearsay or rhetoric, it is established fact.

Also, Scotland as an independent country is willing to take its share of the UK debt but has more than enough wealth to service it; the UK government has recognised that the debt is the UK's & a departing Scotland has no obligation to share that debt; do you really think the UK government will NOT take up Scotland's offer to take on its fair share? Then it will no doubt also be willing to allow Scotland a share in the assets which will mean full fiscal union...ergo the £ will be the currency.

Read "The Wee Blue Book" - it only takes a couple of hours, less if you are a quick reader. Its relatively jargon free, is unashamedly pro-independence but is based on quotes from Nay-sayers & impartials along with common sense applications that drive home the point, "Can we be a success independently? Yes we can!"

Surely selling out is the same as moving out - if you were to move out wouldn't you try to sell your house - from their perspective selling the business presumably meant that most of the staff would be tupe'd across meaning that they had a drastically reduced liability? However they've still gone.

Its not a case of Scotland;and being willing to take its share of the national debt; it has to honour the share of national debt as agreed as part of the act of union (parcel o' rogues I think they were called) else it will be deemed to be a defaulter on the national markets putting it in the realm of only getting international credit on similar terms to third world countries.

Also the act of the financial institutions moving their head offices out is not merely an act of moving a brass plaque; a company pays its corporation taxes in the country of registration That represents a very significant hole which will need to be made up. Of course one way it could be achieved would be to lower business taxes here to try to encourage business to remain north of the boarder but the Scottish government has had that power for about 16 years and never used it yet no matter who was in the hot seat. The same goes for income tax as the government have the power to amend Scottish income tax by three percent up or down but haven't used that power either yet.

As for Salmond blue book - no thanks - I've had enough of his your either with us or your not really Scottish/team scotland rhetoric to last me a lifetime.


Limiting myself to the bits in bold...
You are wrong on all of these...the UK government AGREES that the debt is the UK's responsibility; iScotland doesn't HAVE to honour anything, but is willing to do so as part of the "deal" which would see fiscal union.

Corporation tax is NOT paid in the country of registration but IS paid in the country in which MOST of its economic activity takes place. So if a company currently has its registered office in Scotland but does most of its business in England it pays in England; moving its registered office south of the border will not change that.

It is NOT "Salmond's blue book"; it is an analysis by Rev. Stuart Campbell of the facts that you will not see in the daily papers, none of which support independence & most of which are owned south of the border...it is not anti-English, jingoistic or filled with rhetoric but filled with common sense & level headed views.

We live in a country (at least we think we do, in reality the view the rest of the world has had of us is more accurate, we really are only a small, voiceless state within the UK, no wonder much of the rest of the world thinks we are part of England) that cannot democratically elect a government; as part of the UK our "regional" vote has no impact on the overall result. If we ever get the government we vote for it is because by coincidence England has voted the same way & if in the unlikely event that we had voted the other way, it wouldn't have changed the result. So on Thursday we have the chance to choose whether we want to remain a small country with a chip on its shoulder or a small country with a voice to be heard.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:38 pm

Smithy wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
maybe it's because of them not having any substance that has raised the No vote in the poll.

The regurgitated scare stories being laid on thick in the media the last couple of days will be the most likely reason. Their whole campaign has been one of negativity and fear.

The huge gain by the YES campaign has at least got a devo max option to increase powers to the Scottish Govt, so at the very least we're being promised a better deal with it being so close. That wouldn't have happened with a landslide NO victory.

My thoughts are that a massive effort from the No campaign was required because they couldn't sit back and watch people being conned by the Yes campaign.

Supporters of many clubs,including our own,should should realise that believing everything you hear is not always the best option.

Granted you could say that goes for all politicians and I would agree,however a Yes vote is a massive gamble I am unwilling to take for the future of our country.


Voting "Yes" is no bigger a gamble than voting "No"; you are effectively saying better the devil you know...do you really think it will be the same or better after a No vote as it is now? Now THAT is a massive gamble.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:39 pm

avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:38 pm

BasilF wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
No it doesn't. If we get independence it wont be our debt unless our offer to take on some of it is accepted in the negotiations for a share of the assets.

I believe you'll find the act of union says differently. Saying its not your debt doesn't make it so and certainly wont in the case of international bank. Also a significant amount of national debt is actually owed to people north of the boarder in the shape of Gilt edged stock; government backed loans; pensions and even premium bonds although I suspect a lump of that is now in the Post office (or what ever they call themselves now) sphere.


But it is only partly our debt if we're in the Union, if we got independence then it wouldn't be and I haven't seen anything to say it would be from anyone. We'd have to negotiate after the referendum and that would be a major playing card for us, as would Trident, as salmond knows the deadline he's given them is impossible.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:46 pm

Smithy wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:Just noticed our poll has gather momentum on the "no" side. Perhaps we should get Salmond, Sturgeon & Sillars to write a few posts to stave off the possibility of it being overhauled!
maybe it's because of them not having any substance that has raised the No vote in the poll.

The regurgitated scare stories being laid on thick in the media the last couple of days will be the most likely reason. Their whole campaign has been one of negativity and fear.

The huge gain by the YES campaign has at least got a devo max option to increase powers to the Scottish Govt, so at the very least we're being promised a better deal with it being so close. That wouldn't have happened with a landslide NO victory.

My thoughts are that a massive effort from the No campaign was required because they couldn't sit back and watch people being conned by the Yes campaign.

Supporters of many clubs,including our own,should should realise that believing everything you hear is not always the best option.

Granted you could say that goes for all politicians and I would agree,however a Yes vote is a massive gamble I am unwilling to take for the future of our country.


My viewpoint is the exact opposite of yours Smithy, the NO campaign has conned us into believing it is a big gamble when it isn't. Even Cameron has said Scotland would be fine going it alone, but he believes we're stronger together. Imo the UK is stronger as a Union but I don't believe Scotland is. Their whole campaign is made up of fear and lies. It's a shame people are buying it and scared to vote YES.

From what I've read the devo max promise is nothing more than an election promise, the same as the LibDems student fees were, it would have to be voted on and would most likely not be given. I really think if the BT campaign wins we'll see it was all lies and in 5 to 10 years time this will all start up again, only this time they wont hoodwink everyone.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:22 am

BasilF wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
No it doesn't. If we get independence it wont be our debt unless our offer to take on some of it is accepted in the negotiations for a share of the assets.

I believe you'll find the act of union says differently. Saying its not your debt doesn't make it so and certainly wont in the case of international bank. Also a significant amount of national debt is actually owed to people north of the boarder in the shape of Gilt edged stock; government backed loans; pensions and even premium bonds although I suspect a lump of that is now in the Post office (or what ever they call themselves now) sphere.

The following is taken from the wee blue book by Rev Stuart Campbell:
While the Scottish Government has said it wants to take on a fair share of the UK’s debt burden, in hostile negotiations it could also walk away from accepting any, which would be disastrous for the rUK economy. The UK government has already accepted that it is solely responsible for the debt, and only goodwill compels Scotland to accept a share at all.

Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”

A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.

Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:23 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:The following is taken from the wee blue book by Rev Stuart Campbell:
While the Scottish Government has said it wants to take on a fair share of the UK’s debt burden, in hostile negotiations it could also walk away from accepting any, which would be disastrous for the rUK economy. The UK government has already accepted that it is solely responsible for the debt, and only goodwill compels Scotland to accept a share at all.

Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”

A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.

Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.

Taking this twisted logic then presumably England could leave the UK and not be liable for any of the national debt either - after all they had no say in how it was spent either?

I've heard plenty of respected economists and legal experts say that Scotland would have to take its share of the National Debt. As far as I'm concerned the evidence is overwhelming; certainly this will never convince the dyed in the wool national socialists but there you go.

As far as I'm concerned a vote for full independence represents an unacceptable risk; a no vote doesn't mean there couldn't be another referendum in 10 years’ time for example and the UK government would be very mindful of that in its future dealings with a devo max Scottish government but a yes vote means there's no going back - you're in team Salmond whether you like it or not.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 2114
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:02 pm

BasilF wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:The following is taken from the wee blue book by Rev Stuart Campbell:
While the Scottish Government has said it wants to take on a fair share of the UK’s debt burden, in hostile negotiations it could also walk away from accepting any, which would be disastrous for the rUK economy. The UK government has already accepted that it is solely responsible for the debt, and only goodwill compels Scotland to accept a share at all.

Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”

A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.

Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.

Taking this twisted logic then presumably England could leave the UK and not be liable for any of the national debt either - after all they had no say in how it was spent either?

I've heard plenty of respected economists and legal experts say that Scotland would have to take its share of the National Debt. As far as I'm concerned the evidence is overwhelming; certainly this will never convince the dyed in the wool national socialists but there you go.

As far as I'm concerned a vote for full independence represents an unacceptable risk; a no vote doesn't mean there couldn't be another referendum in 10 years’ time for example and the UK government would be very mindful of that in its future dealings with a devo max Scottish government but a yes vote means there's no going back - you're in team Salmond whether you like it or not.

I agree with you it is bizarre but it is established & agreed by both sides...I'm not saying its the way it should be, I'm saying its the way it is.

The problem is Devo Max is not an option; no matter what Cameron & Co pretend to be offering us now. For me remaining in the UK is a more unacceptable risk; just like '79...the vote back then was in favour but Thatcher loaded the "No" vote with the percentage that chose not to vote at all...then came the reprisals, the poll tax, shipyards & other industries decimated & so on.

Its NOT "Team Salmond" because there will be an election & the country will be able to decide who gets first crack of the whip at making independence a success. And so far no country which has become independent has wanted to go back; why would they?

avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3772
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:15 pm

A bit more than people having a go at your accent made you change to NO Basil, you seem determined to believe what you want despite it not being the case at all for the debt. Negotiations will determine if we take on some of the UK debt under an independent Scotland.

Also it certainly isn't team Alex, as Bertie has said, there will be an election to decide who takes government. Imo the SNP wont even be needed and I can see new parties forming. Prob be a strong socialist party in the running.

The devo max promise is nothing more than words from an rUK coalition, it has no substance and was all bluster to bolster a run on the NO vote.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:24 am

Liviforever wrote:A bit more than people having a go at your accent made you change to NO Basil, you seem determined to believe what you want despite it not being the case at all for the debt. Negotiations will determine if we take on some of the UK debt under an independent Scotland.

Also it certainly isn't team Alex, as Bertie has said, there will be an election to decide who takes government. Imo the SNP wont even be needed and I can see new parties forming. Prob be a strong socialist party in the running.

The devo max promise is nothing more than words from an rUK coalition, it has no substance and was all bluster to bolster a run on the NO vote.

Actually I don't possess an accent - being educated by masters in black capes who didn't tolerate any semblance of regionalisation certainly beats it out of you fairly quickly. Bit of an education to a 7 year old Falkirk boy. However being occasionally accused of sounding like Tony Blair or David Cameron doesn't exactly help my cause. My concern roots from the anti-English jingoism which is being taken to extremes by some of the less intelligent members of society.

As far as being determined to believe what you want I could make the same statement of you; I could bring up example after example where to demonstrate where national debt must be apportioned but I'm sure your mind seems set on the matter so I'm wasting my (electronic) breath and vice versa.

Likewise I disagree that devo max is nothing more than words - I have always believed that it offered the best possible alternative for Scotland - a real control of its own destiny without being the lap dog of the German's etc. which it will be if it ends up having to join the Euro. That being said membership of the Euro will likely not come about as Spain will never allow us in to the EU as they already have growing problems with the Catalans and others - actually I know of one girl from Catalan, who has been living in this country for 3 years whilst she did her degree, who is voting YES as she believes it will give Catalan a greater chance of devolution/independence.

An independent Scotland would need a 100% vote in favour from all member nations to join the EU.

Changing the subject what would be team Salmond's position id Shetland's wanted independence from Scotland? They already feel more Viking than Scottish and are only here as part of a wedding present I believe. It is also likely that their waters possess the only hydrocarbon fields that will last (commercially) past 2020 although Greenpeace are already campaigning against the disruption to cetacean. Surely they have the right to self-determination?

For me devo max is a risk free best of both world scenario; full independence presents a hige risk with no option of going back; Devo Max gives the option od another referendum in 10 years time if things dont work out. For me Salmond is so focussed on independence that he hasn't worked out any of the important thing like lender of last resort; stock markets etc How can he deflect attention from this very serious matter - well we could suggest it was scare mongering and blame it all on a UK government conspiracy?

All this aside the thing that concerns me the most is the growing racism and rabble rousing generated by the YES campaign; I cannot accept that Salmond is unaware that its happening and seems to be using it more and more to his own advantage with statements like "team Scotland" and immediate discarding of any criticism as scare mongering etc. A quarter of my family lived in Germany in the 30's and were systematically eradicated by a nationalist party who sought to detract all focus on the current problems by blaming it on a separate ethnic community. They also had a little book, increased public spending and cancelled out all national debt when coming to power.

Nationalism is all very well when focused on positive things about the nation in question but once you start picking on other nations or ethnic groups etc. then it becomes a very dangerous precedence.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:28 am

Incidentally I caught a clip of Nigel Farage on the TV the other night - what is the guy on?

It really is a eye opener that the referendum is nothing to do with Scottish independence but all about membership or the EU?

Sorry?

Sponsored content

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:42 am