The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

No siree. Just an opinion which I have now stated a few times. I accepted earlier that you think it is bullshit.

I`m not sure how you and all these other experts have sussed this out already as it is a point of view on an event that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

You've said you've sussed it out, so why can't they have too?

The difference of course is that they know what they're talking about, and will put their money where their mouth is. If they're wrong they'll lose billions.

Guessing as you've done on the basis of self-interest/bias/nothing does no one in Scotland any favours.

One last time : IF......in the unlikely event of a YES vote there would have to be a negotiation / discussion about what currency Scotland will use. The 7 on your list would be watching this with some interest ( remember this is during the period of negotiation ).

you're doing it all wrong. The risks to Sterling that iScotland represents is *ALREADY* priced in to Sterling's value.

Why do you think Osborne had to make the statement earlier this year that the UK is responsible for all the debt?

Do you think he did that to give Salmond a free campaigning gift?

Or might it be that he needed to calm the market's fears about the risks that an iScotland represents?

My view is ...

...guessed at with no evidence, as you've already admitted.

that any ongoing delays and posturing from either side will not be in the interests of the money men as part of the negotiation will be around the debt mountain - I posted a link to it earlier but it will have increased since then as you know. Delays and uncertainty are never good.

Markets have already got the certainty they want and need. What of that has passed you by?

And the markets know that rUK can carry Scotland's share of the debt easier than iScotland can carry it's own share. The UK has *NEVER* defaulted and its word has *always* proven to be good, and that means something; it means a LOT!

(Of course, that's not saying they'd be no markets impact if iScotland robs us, but the markets still know it's a weight that the UK can carry).

I just happen to think that Osbourne would agree to a CU that would not be for ever.

that only proves that you know nothing about currency or currency unions. Anything other than 100% permanent will be ripped apart by speculators.

Look up what happened when Czechoslovakia split. Their currency union last just 38 days.

(you can find some words of mine in this thread saying similar to yours from 7 or 8 months ago. Since then I've taken the trouble to inform myself, so I know how bad my ignorant guess at things was).

I`m aware that I may be in the minority here.

amongst yes-ers, you're not - and that's the worrying thing for those who do have some sort of realism and grasp of facts rather than made-up guesses.

I honestly don`t think it is in anyones interest to cut iscotland loose.

Then perhaps you shouldn't try and cut it loose by voting yes?

Look what happened when Ireland required " help " in the past *

There's a big difference between freely choosing to help out at a level of your own choice, and being legally obliged to do so to the full extent.

But as you've mentioned Ireland, perhaps you should take note of what Irish politicans have said of their pegged currency from the '20s to 1979 and how much it screwed Ireland.

* I realise that was totally different but they are a neighbor who required assistance and got it.

The difference is....? The difference between a CU and no CU.

You really need to be taking these differences on board. It's fair enough if you're happy to carry the risks and take the losses on the chin, but you cannot do that for all of the while you're ignorant of the stuff you should know to make an informed choice.

[Comfy Bean]

I`m not normally one for listing up people`s opinions because you can always dig up another " expert " who holds the opposite view. Anyway - as a one off, here is the view of a guy called Stiglitz. I have never met him or even heard of him but he gave his view while in Edinburgh the other day. I note that he is a prof and a nobel prize winning economist but concede that he is no match for our financial experts on here.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

[eFestivals]

Indy Scotland = Trident out. So, Would the people of ruk then want to continue with the re-newal programme and invest approx £100billion ?

Personally I hope not, but I'm not in charge.

Like it I don't, but I suspect that the UK population is behind Trident. I often hate the results, but democracy is what I do.

In our earliest days as an Independent Country we could be making the world a better place or.....would you be happy to continue without us ?

The world a better place? So you're going to leave the oil in the ground then, and not damage the world more-so than the UK's nukes do?

That might seem facetious, but you should think on that one.

[eFestivals]

I`m not normally one for listing up people`s opinions because you can always dig up another " expert " who holds the opposite view. Anyway - as a one off, here is the view of a guy called Stiglitz. I have never met him or even heard of him but he gave his view while in Edinburgh the other day. I note that he is a prof and a nobel prize winning economist but concede that he is no match for our financial experts on here.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

I suggest you check out what Stiglitz's opinions were on Greece, and how right he was.

He was 100% wrong.

That's how much of an economic/political expert he is. A poor one.

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: you might want to check out what his opinion is on using Sterling outside of a CU.

PPS: you might also want to check who his current employer is.

[Comfy Bean]

PS: you might want to check out what his opinion is on using Sterling outside of a CU.

PPS: you might also want to check who his current employer is.

Done and done. I take your point. He remains a professor and nobel prize winning economist and as I said at the time of posting we can all have opinions and dig up an " expert " to back up one view or another. I like to take a simple view on this. Some may say very simple I never claimed to be one of the many " experts " whove got this all worked out.

We have to decide YES or NO on " Should Scotland be an independent country ". We will then have an election and then another one by which point things will have settled down. Political parties will put a set of policies before our country and we will vote one of them in ( or out ) based on what they are and whether they deliver on their promises. Our countries ( Scotland and England ) are made up differently. This is not a bad thing and is the same the world over. I believe that Scotland will have a working class majority and would ( eventually and in theory ) have a government that would reflect this. England vote in a Tory party which they are entitled to do of course but you seem to think it`s right and fair that they then get to decide on our future when we did not vote for them. I have said before that in the event of YES the SNP would need to re-invent itself with its main goal achieved and that Scotland could see the emergence of a real Labour party again.

In my crazy and simple head, I think a NO vote will see us having an SNP govt for many many years and a YES vote could give us a Labour administration by our 2nd general election. We would be certain of getting the government we voted for which is not the case as things stand.

[kaosmark2]

Done and done. I take your point. He remains a professor and nobel prize winning economist and as I said at the time of posting we can all have opinions and dig up an " expert " to back up one view or another. I like to take a simple view on this. Some may say very simple I never claimed to be one of the many " experts " whove got this all worked out.

We have to decide YES or NO on " Should Scotland be an independent country ". We will then have an election and then another one by which point things will have settled down. Political parties will put a set of policies before our country and we will vote one of them in ( or out ) based on what they are and whether they deliver on their promises. Our countries ( Scotland and England ) are made up differently. This is not a bad thing and is the same the world over. I believe that Scotland will have a working class majority and would ( eventually and in theory ) have a government that would reflect this. England vote in a Tory party which they are entitled to do of course but you seem to think it`s right and fair that they then get to decide on our future when we did not vote for them. I have said before that in the event of YES the SNP would need to re-invent itself with its main goal achieved and that Scotland could see the emergence of a real Labour party again.

In my crazy and simple head, I think a NO vote will see us having an SNP govt for many many years and a YES vote could give us a Labour administration by our 2nd general election. We would be certain of getting the government we voted for which is not the case as things stand.

I just want to reiterate a few points:

Because Salmond is the current leader of the independence movement and the Scottish devolved government, he would be the one to determine and negotiate the terms of "independence".

Scotland votes for our governments just as much as England does. London/Yorkshire/Northwest proportionally vote Labour. This "Scotland votes differently" means nothing, and the idea that it does mean something is just a myth that's perpetuated to try and manipulate people into voting for "independence".

[eFestivals]

Done and done. I take your point. He remains a professor and nobel prize winning economist and as I said at the time of posting we can all have opinions and dig up an " expert " to back up one view or another.

We can, tho I'm trying to keep things on an even keel.

If someone directly employed by 'no' makes a statement about currency union - you know, like Darling, or Osborne, or Clegg, or Balls - you dismiss their opinion as worthless.

Stiglitz remains a direct employee of Salmond.

And isn't it strange that Stiglitz has chosen to give his opinion in direct support of Salmond when Salmond is under the cosh?

That aside, he's giving only an economic opinion (which might be wrong just as he was wrong about Greece). The decision about a CU is never an economic decision, it's always 100% a political decision - and it was always clear what the rUK's political decision would be, given the 25 years of anti-CU propaganda.

Stiglitz is trying to pre-guess the politics, without knowing much about UK politics (just as he tried to guess EU politics about Greece, and got that wrong too).

Who knows, Stiglitz might5 be right about the economics, but I'd take the opinion of any UK economics academic over Stiglitz for this situation, because they'd at least get the culture that economic decisions would be taken within.

So despite his qualies, there's a thousand different reasons why he's not the best person to be listening to over this.

[Comfy Bean]

I just want to reiterate a few points:

Because Salmond is the current leader of the independence movement and the Scottish devolved government, he would be the one to determine and negotiate the terms of "independence".

Scotland votes for our governments just as much as England does. London/Yorkshire/Northwest proportionally vote Labour. This "Scotland votes differently" means nothing, and the idea that it does mean something is just a myth that's perpetuated to try and manipulate people into voting for "independence".

Now Salmond says alot of things as do all politicians. I believe him some of the time !

On the negotiations you are saying he would be the one to determine and negotiate but he says it will be " Team Scotland " I know !!!! and it would be made up of negotiators from all parties and include various " experts " - they could perhaps get some from on here

I disagree with you that "Scotland votes differently means nothing ". On this point there are various facts / results that can be quoted from elections over the years. We do NOT always get the government our Country votes for.

[eFestivals]

We have to decide YES or NO on " Should Scotland be an independent country ". We will then have an election and then another one by which point things will have settled down.

nah, it'll take longer than that for the economics to settle down, so that the politics can settle down off the back of it.

All the while the economics are down, the policies will be chasing the money and the parties over-promising because of it.

Personally, i reckon within 25 years you'll be no less disparaging of the SG as you are now of Westminster. And that's about the point it'll really hit home.

I believe that Scotland will have a working class majority and would ( eventually and in theory ) have a government that would reflect this.

If Scotland does actually have that left leaning society - which i personally doubt - then that will be over after two parliaments, and the best you'll then get is a UK-type yo-yo between (centre-ish) right/left parties.

Unless you want to point out a European democracy that does always go just on the one side?

I can see all the reasons why the supposed benefits appeal. But i also see, when I drill into those supposed benefits, that they quickly evaporate if they were ever there at all.

England vote in a Tory party

and then they vote in a tory-lite, just as every other democracy does.

I don't like it, but i'm not pretending it's something different to anywhere else in the world.

which they are entitled to do of course but you seem to think it`s right and fair that they then get to decide on our future when we did not vote for them.

Care to show me the part in the act of Union or any law passed since which says that Scotland (or any other part of the union) should have a sovereign govt that only it voted for?

By pretending Scotland as something different to what it is, you get to create your own problem out of nothing. If you were a bit older, you've have seen how Salmond has cooked up this myth.

And then nasty old tory party* were horribly mean to Scotland and gave it the indyref Scotland voted for. That's how much they hate and discriminate against Scotland.

(* I think they're c**ts in general, but yes-ers don't half talk a lot of shite about them all the same)

You're probably believing the m,yht of the stolen '79 ref too. Most yes-ers do.

In my crazy and simple head, I think a NO vote will see us having an SNP govt for many many years and a YES vote could give us a Labour administration by our 2nd general election. We would be certain of getting the government we voted for which is not the case as things stand.

PMSL - in that para, it reads to me like you're complaining that you'll be self-determinating by having the indyref, that you'll get the result you vote for in the indyref, and then afterwards you'll get the govt you vote for - all as a bad thing.

I love yes-ers, they're comedy gold sometimes.

[eFestivals]

Because Salmond is the current leader of the independence movement and the Scottish devolved government, he would be the one to determine and negotiate the terms of "independence".

Correct.

His self-written constitution grants himself all powers for all decisions on Scotland's future, without reference back to the people about anything.

And it also gives him all power forever.

Not the people, who have less sovereignty within iScotland under Salmond's self-written constitution than they have within the UK right now today.

[eFestivals]

Now Salmond says alot of things as do all politicians. I believe him some of the time !

On the negotiations you are saying he would be the one to determine and negotiate but he says it will be " Team Scotland " I know !!!! and it would be made up of negotiators from all parties and include various " experts " - they could perhaps get some from on here

If you've noticed anything about Salmond at all, you'll already know that he doesn't tolerate any descent on his word from within the team he leads.

[kaosmark2]

I disagree with you that "Scotland votes differently means nothing ". On this point there are various facts / results that can be quoted from elections over the years. We do NOT always get the government our Country votes for.

London doesn't always get the government it votes for. Yorkshire doesn't. "The North" doesn't. The UK does. What's your point?

[eFestivals]

We do NOT always get the government our Country votes for.

and nor does any other part of the Union.

The rest of us are democratic, and not self-centred.

[Comfy Bean]

London doesn't always get the government it votes for. Yorkshire doesn't. "The North" doesn't. The UK does. What's your point?

My point is that Scotland could and should be an independent country. This would then enable us to vote for a Scottish Govt that would be representative of the people of Scotland. I believe that it being " Scottish " and based here makes it more likely to focus 100% on whats best for the people of Scotland. When I tried to make this point earlier I mentioned that the Tories have nothing to lose ( seat wise ) by not making decisions that are in the best interest of people up here. I don`t agree with the way they do that but I understand the maths. I suppose the Poll Tax would be the best example but there are plenty of others.

Weve had that point about London and Newcastle etc and how they vote before. I can only repeat that they are in the same country ( England ). Glasgow and Edinburgh may well vote for different parties but I`ve got them as both being in Scotland. I do see the point your making though.

[Comfy Bean]

and nor does any other part of the Union.

The rest of us are democratic, and not self-centred.

Yeah...........but Scotland are having a referendum.

[Comfy Bean]

If you've noticed anything about Salmond at all, you'll already know that he doesn't tolerate any descent on his word from within the team he leads.

This team haven`t even been invented yet - apart from the horrific name - Team Scotland. It seems very American to me. #goteamscotlandyoucandoit

Anyway it doesn`t exist yet and probably won`t as these negotiations are unlikely to even happen but you`ve got it all worked out and dismissed as a failure already. I was tempted to quote your last post about us being self centered

[Comfy Bean]

Correct.

His self-written constitution grants himself all powers for all decisions on Scotland's future, without reference back to the people about anything.

And it also gives him all power forever.

Now are we sure about this. Call me old fashioned but I was under the impression that a general election would follow after any YES vote. Is it only Salmond that can stand now ? Almost serious question but that seems to be what your saying here.

With great power comes great responsibility - Spiderman............. and maybe Voltaire.

[Comfy Bean]

PMSL - in that para, it reads to me like you're complaining that you'll be self-determinating by having the indyref, that you'll get the result you vote for in the indyref, and then afterwards you'll get the govt you vote for - all as a bad thing.

I love yes-ers, they're comedy gold sometimes.

If you honestly read it like that then it is not how I intended it. I was trying to highlight the possibility that anyone who didn`t fancy Salmond or the SNP could in theory see a labour govt in place up here quicker if we get a YES rather than than a NO vote. I sense you knew fine well what I meant but happy to explain it again. If you honestly thought that I was posting that getting a government you vote for was " a bad thing " then you have ignored the majority of my posts on Indy.

[LJS]

Comfy, you are truly amazing.

I hereby award you the Nobel prize for patience.

How you put up with the barrage of half arse "facts" from these guys who have mugged up on a few Wikipedia pages & are now more learned than those who have studied for years (if they disagree with the NoBrain prize winners on here) I have no idea.

The crude insults that you accept with good grace & politeness would cause a lesser man (e.g. me) to say forget it.

I have never known a period in history when so many people (on both sides) had such profound knowledge & expertise in so many technical & academic fields.

Stick to your guns , Comfy. This is about principles & should not be reduced to some petty point scoring game.

Pray for me as I am now in the evil land of Engerrland.

& the rest of you....fucking grow up!

[kaosmark2]

My point is that Scotland could and should be an independent country. This would then enable us to vote for a Scottish Govt that would be representative of the people of Scotland. I believe that it being " Scottish " and based here makes it more likely to focus 100% on whats best for the people of Scotland. When I tried to make this point earlier I mentioned that the Tories have nothing to lose ( seat wise ) by not making decisions that are in the best interest of people up here. I don`t agree with the way they do that but I understand the maths. I suppose the Poll Tax would be the best example but there are plenty of others.

Weve had that point about London and Newcastle etc and how they vote before. I can only repeat that they are in the same country ( England ). Glasgow and Edinburgh may well vote for different parties but I`ve got them as both being in Scotland. I do see the point your making though.

See, I think this argument is circular:

"I think Scotland should be an independent country so that it can have a government that is representative which I think it needs because I believe it should be an independent country".

The government should represent the people who vote for it, and many Westminster governments fail in that, however I don't think Scotland is particularly special in being failed by multiple governments, I think large areas of the UK are, and that we need better education, understanding and a better system to improve it across the whole of the UK, not just section separately into areas and pretend there's no ties and association.

[wee_insomniac]

What I don't really understand is why Yes voters think that Alex Salmond won't go back on his word when it comes to negotiations on the terms of independence. Almost every single political party has laid out policies in a manifesto and then gone back on them, once elected...

He talks about Scotland being highly educated, with great natural resources and being a hub for enterprise... I can only see the vote shifting right, especially as he talks about cutting corporation tax. Public services will have to be cut somewhere to fund it.

I just can't see how the numbers add up...

[eFestivals]

Yeah...........but Scotland are having a referendum.

Yep. That those nasty hate-Scotland tories who rule Scotland as a colony ( ) allowed you to have, and have said they'll honour the result.

Unlike in Spain, where the soon-to-happen Catalan referendum is not recognised by the Spanish govt, and will not lead to independence if they vote yes.

Unlike in the USA, which once went to war to maintain its union, and where Obama has recently blocked all hope of any independence refs in its states.

Scotland voted for an indyref. Scotland got an indyref. That in itself is the self-determination of Scotland.

While I'm well aware that Cameron has made a political gamble over Scotland so there's deviousness within the very purpose of the indyref, I'm still sick to death of the claims by many in Scotland that those nasty evil tories have denied Scotland a vote on DevoMax when Scotland has shown no electoral support for DevoMax.

And now we have the SNP trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with anyone of their many policies without substance is a tory by default ... and these wonderful social justice democrats will lead Scotland to the promised land via lies to their own supporters, deception to Scotland, no centre-left policies, no social justice policies, and right-of-tories economic policies.

[eFestivals]

This team haven`t even been invented yet - apart from the horrific name - Team Scotland. It seems very American to me. #goteamscotlandyoucandoit

Anyway it doesn`t exist yet and probably won`t as these negotiations are unlikely to even happen but you`ve got it all worked out and dismissed as a failure already. I was tempted to quote your last post about us being self centered

Erm .... I'm talking about Team Salmond, that exists right now.

Where Salmond leads the yes side, and not the leader of the yes side.

Where EVERYONE who disagrees with Salmond is wrong and bullying Scotland.

Where it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to be wrong about Plan A. In fact it's so impossible that Salmond won't say what his alternative is - and where a statement about the next best choice does zero damage to Salmond's negotiating position and chances of getting a CU.

Salmond knows that without a CU, the *ONLY* possible alternative is a new Scottish currency - and he won't tell you that.

Because it will definitely lose him the vote, and it's more important to him to win the vote by deceiving the people of Scotland into supporting something they don't support than it is to actually respect the views of the people of Scotland.

If any of this has passed you by, you don't know what you're voting in support of.

The only thing I'm dismissing as a failure if Salmond getting genuine democratic support within Scotland (cos he's lying to get that support), and his failure to be able to deliver on his promises.

Just like he failed to deliver on his promise not to write the constitution.

Edited August 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Comfy, you are truly amazing.

I hereby award you the Nobel prize for patience.

How you put up with the barrage of half arse "facts" ...

The facts that you never actually get around to disputing with facts of your own - even when you say you will do.

You're starting to clock up a little list of doing that. You're like a mini version of Salmond, where discussions of substance are unwanted .... but only because you know they always lead to uncomfortable truths.