The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

really? - here's the link to the article I take it you are referring to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11066699/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-warnings-about-privatisation-of-NHS.html

I guess the reason you didn't share the link is that a: it is clearly not a core NHS service & b: they do not even appear to have attempted to get a response from the Scottish Government. We have quotes from Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives, Better Together & Gordon Brown.

What this article is, is a perfect example of the depths to which supposedly serious journalism has sunk in this country.It looks suspiciously like a Better Together/Scottish Labour press release uncritically recycled. I am no fan of the Telegraph ( & I guess you aren't either) but this is just rubbish.

The very reason I didn't link to it was because I fully accept it's scaremongering and a bullshit story.

When the same thing was being said by Salmond about the NHS in England being "privatised" in exactly the same way, that was a bullshit story too.

As I said at the time.

So, are you going to admit that Salmond has been cooking up votes with bullshit (and stealing the sovereignty of Scottish people by doing so), or do you oper5ate double-standards?

If you're operating in a fair manner, are you telling your fellow Scotsmen that Salmond has been bullshitting just as you're telling the world that the Telegraph is bullshitting? Or might your actions be less honest, and you're happy to steal the sovereignty of Scotland?

Edited September 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: have you heard about TTIP?

That will force iScotland to put its NHS out to tender, via the preferred political options of iScotland.

Vote yes to save the NHS, by having Scotland join the EU and so ensure the Scottish NHS gets privatised?

Rather sadly-amusingly, that's the yes-ers chosen path.

(Yes, I realise that voting no ends up nowhere different with regard to TTIP. I'm merely pointing out how much misleading bollocks comes from the yes side, where they're telling people one thing will happen whilst knowing for sure it's the opposite.)

[eFestivals]

Who mentioned momentum?

You did, but when there was no momentum to be seen.

This time there's certainly movement (unless the YouGov methodology has changed again? I've not checked if it has). Whether it's 'movement' or 'momentum' tho we've yet to see.

There's certainly a bounce to the step of online yes-ers at the mo, and they're dominating everything right now - tho still sadly by shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, and still never actually addressing any counter point. There is still only bluster that is in disagreement with Salmond.

As i've said all along, I'm happy for Scotland to vote yes, as long as it knows what it's voting for. It's clear that it doesn't.

The result I want most for Scotland is a result that the people get behind and can move forwards together from. I'm struggling to see how (from the almost-even split of opinion that the polls suggest) the yes support will be sustained post-indy when so many will be disappointed to not have rain outlawed and replaced by jam.

On the basis of the bullshit of yes and that not a soul on the yes side will hold the bullshitters to account, I'm thinking that in 2 years time the support for indy will back around the 30% mark - an utterly dreadful result for iScotland if so.

Edited September 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[Stash]

Are you saying that the UK taxpayer also helped with this years Commonwealth games in Glasgow ?

Are you seriously suggesting they didn't?

[Comfy Bean]

Neil I`m not sure why you mentioned the olympics ?

Since you did heres my own personal view on it. The UK tax payer contributed towards the cost of the London Olympics. I have no problem with that as I believe that sport and physical education feed into our overall health agenda. The Uk tax payer contributed towards the Manchester Commonwealth Games. I have no problem with that for the reasons stated. One of the main reasons it didn`t go to Sheffield was because they were to up front about saying they would need help from the UK tax payer.

The Glasgow Commonwealth games were not funded by the UK taxpayer.

This was my full post mate. As I explained I was " happy " to contribute to the Olympics and Manchester claimed that they would not need " my" help ( unlike Sheffield ) but as it turned out they did. I did not bring this up ( as you can see above ) as a point scoring exercise and like the NHS chat we`ve had on here I think that sport and health funding concern us all no matter what side of Indy you are on.

I sense you may know better than me..... but I always understood that Glasgow was funded 80 / 20 by the Scottish Govt and Glasgow City Council.

Edit to add :

Didn`t know that Scotland also lost out on £150mil of lottery funding due to the London Olympics and allegedly the same again as the capital spend on it was not subject to the normal Barnett calc. I think that last bit may be pish but the loss of lotto money seems legit. Just to confirm again that I personally didn`t really have an issue with this although I never really liked West Ham !! Here`s an article on it here with one or two quotes ?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/138984/New-Games-cash-scandal

Edited September 2, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

YES puting up Patrick Harvie tonight on the live STV debate tonight. Good move in my opinion. He is a much more palatable alternative to Salmond for our much needed Labour voters. Plus I always think he talks alot of sense. Saw him about 6 months ago in my town hall, my favourite YES man !

[Comfy Bean]

More from Sir Ian. He actually says " best of both worlds ". Where have we heard that before.....

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

[Comfy Bean]

The result I want most for Scotland is a result that the people get behind and can move forwards together from. I'm struggling to see how (from the almost-even split of opinion that the polls suggest) the yes support will be sustained post-indy when so many will be disappointed to not have rain outlawed and replaced by jam.

You don`t give us much credit sir. The slow rise of the YES vote could suggest that alot of people have taken their time and listened to both sides of the arguement before coming round to YES. It`s not as if YES romped to an early lead ( far from it ) as we were all going flag waving crazy screaming FREEDOM.

NO still have the lead and could well cling on to it.

Do you think any of the papers will " flip " ? I realise it`s not as important these days but if the Sun or the Record came out for YES then that could make it really interesting.

[LJS]

Neil, I'm sure you will have a view on George monbiot. I've always had time for his views. Not always agreed with everything he has said but have admired his commitment to his principles & always believed his heart was in the right place. I certainly agree with this piece...

"Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

[eFestivals]

No mention of the ex-EU official who has just drawn yes-ers attention to the EU's core fiscal rules, that mean an iScotland using sterling wouldn't be accepted into the EU?

Some of us have known about this fact for a while. You can find a few mentions of it by me (and an empty dismissal in reply, I think).

There was me yesterday saying that online yes-ers had a spring in the step, and now suddenly they're mostly back in their box as reality starts to hit home.

There's some who are remaining brash, saying that matey is Dave's chum, or that the EU is on the UK's side (different to the previous yes-er claims of how the EU loves Scotland but hates the UK ), or that because matey is a fan of austerity he's george's chum ... and never once a realisation that all of those things about matey could be true (I've no idea either way) and that the words he speaks could also be true. Or even some research into the EU's core principles to see that its true.

Why isn't Montenegro an EU member? Cos it has no meaningful currency or central bank (it actually has both, but everyone uses the Euro) - and so its economy cannot be aligned with the EU's requirements, and therefore cannot enter the EU.

(Yes, it's an "entry candidate", but it doesn't get to enter until it complies with the Copenhagen criteria).

Will the EU abandon its very purpose because it loves iScotland so much?

These things are true. Ignore them at your peril.

[eFestivals]

You don`t give us much credit sir. The slow rise of the YES vote could suggest that alot of people have taken their time and listened to both sides of the arguement before coming round to YES. It`s not as if YES romped to an early lead ( far from it ) as we were all going flag waving crazy screaming FREEDOM.

NO still have the lead and could well cling on to it.

Oh, i'm well aware that many people say they want indy whatever the consequences. Many of them might even be genuine with that and won't utter a squeak if their mortgage rises, the economy tanks, they lose their job, are excluded from the EU, services are cut hugely, or massive taxes rises happen.

But I'm also well aware that the people thinking that is only a sub-section of those who intend to vote yes. Plenty of others have sucked up Salmond's vacuousness and somehow turned it within their minds into substance.

A quick look online to the huge numbers in denial about so very many well established or factual things (the risks to iS's financial centre and jobs and tax revenue; iS's current massive deficit, bigger than the UK's; iS's weak negotiating position; etc, etc) gets to show just how few are really behind the idea of independence at any cost.

If that was what they were really thinking, the real consequences wouldn't matter and there'd be no need to deny the truth.

Do you think any of the papers will " flip " ? I realise it`s not as important these days but if the Sun or the Record came out for YES then that could make it really interesting.

Who knows what parts of your country have been promised by your leader to his mate Murdoch for the support of his papers. Don't expect your leader to tell you. He won't even tell you that he secretly visits Murdoch at your expense.

I don't doubt that Murdoch has had a corrupt offer (my guess is that he's been offered the SBC) from Salmond, but Murdoch is smart enough to know that the offer is only any good if Salmond wins. If Murdoch doesn't flip then an indy win is a dead donkey, that you can be sure of.

Edited September 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil, I'm sure you will have a view on George monbiot. I've always had time for his views. Not always agreed with everything he has said but have admired his commitment to his principles & always believed his heart was in the right place. I certainly agree with this piece...

"Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

an interesting article.

The first two paras? You don't have to "imagine" such a scenario. It's happened a number of times as better students of history than George already know - and not out of desperation either.

So the lead-in is a false premise, and everything else is flawed as a result.

He talks about a currently sound economy and then talks about a big change of Scottish society, but never once does he consider that a changed society impacts onto that society's economy and changes it.

(and more, he's wrong in saying its a sound economy in the first place, given the bigger deficit in Scotland than the UK, the 3rd worst deficit in Europe by Salmond's own [manipulated] figures).

He talks about an iScotland being different by having thrown off the shackles of neoliberalism - but fails to notice there's not a single non-neoliberal party in Scotland.

And then he presents some non-facts as facts, such as "The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today". If the BoE really only did what London wants/needs as he suggests then interest rates would have risen already ... when the reality is they're currently being stopped from rising because of the bad impact that would have on the likes of Scotland.

It's some wonderful out-of-this-world intellectual speculation, that i'd sign up to like a shot if it actually had truth, or support - support anywhere in the world, but there's none anywhere (at least, not to any meaningful extent).

Anyone can sell a dream, because there's always some who will buy into it. It doesn't mean there's anything meaningful to the dream tho.

The simple fact is that while supporting the current situation can be regarded as "self-harm" from a particular angle, supporting a change can cause even greater harm. There is nothing that guarantees that changing things from a current bad situation leads to an improvement; the change can lead to something worse.

Your job in the indyref is to weigh up all of the factors and make your choice, and then you have to keep your fingers crossed that you've got everything right with your considerations and that it works out as you've been hoping.

For many yes-ers that's simply not happening, because they refuse to accept there's anything to *ANY* of the negative stories about the possible consequences. Apparently, iScotland will be the world's first perfect nation state where only the good things happen.

Edited September 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

"GQ Men of the Year Awards: Tony Blair named 'Philanthropist of the Year'"

Get me out of this madhouse!

[eFestivals]

"GQ Men of the Year Awards: Tony Blair named 'Philanthropist of the Year'"

Get me out of this madhouse!

Lol - that's magazines for you.

I know someone who works for a magazine. I think you do too. Perhaps he's as sane?

[eFestivals]

I started off reading about the indyref because a lot of the postings on newspaper websites by cybernats were comedy gold. There was an awful lot of amusement value in some of the clearly-non-factual idiocy that some were spouting.

(Just as an example, only yesterday i saw a post where a yes-er claimed that the ref on the 18th is only the first ref; they'll be another to accept or not the result of the negotiations before independence is finally decided ).

With assertions and counter-assertions coming from each side, my interest was then piqued to look deeper, to see if there was any truth to be found behind any of the claims/counter-claims. And I found that there was.

From that I ended up forming a view on how some things would pan out if Scotland went independent, and my conclusions are that the yes claims for the economics are wildly wrong.

From those poor economics, my view is that the desires of yes-ers for iScotland become exceedingly difficult; just about impossible. I feel that iScotland will get significantly worse economic and so-also social outcomes than Westminster delivers to them.

I've formed that view on lots of different aspects, and while I remain confident about that view overall, there's no doubt some parts I've misjudged for whatever reasons. I only get to find out how good my judgement is if Scotland votes yes.

And so, no matter how I feel from other angles, there's a large part of me that wants Scotland to go for it. It'll be interesting to observe the consequences - tho luckily for me in rUK I won't have to suffer very much of those consequences myself.

Then again, I can't wish bad onto anyone, and particularly not for just my own curiosity.

Many yes-ers like to say that anyone who opposes them is a secret tory, and a full-on supporter of everything tory - tho that's of course the narrative of a full-on idiot.

It's perfectly possible to support the general principles of indy and to want the same great results from indy as the most enthusiastic yes supporter ... but still to recognise the realities of the world and believe that things won't go where those hopes want things to go.

i'll miss it when it's over, if it's over on the 19th.

Then again, it'll be back soon.

Edited September 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So, two weeks to go.

That's two weeks to protect your savings from capital controls and a possible haircut if the vote is yes. It's just about impossible for there to be a yes vote without it having a huge impact on finances in Scotland.

Yes, iScotland can be viable and successful (successful at some level, anyway). The damage comes via the change from what exists now to whatever will exist in the future. That change can't happen without negative impacts.

Edited September 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Thanks to the wonderful Dick Gaughan for pointing out that better together have gifted a new word to the language...Scotbut.

Usually preceded by " I am a proud..."

& followed by several minutes of shite.

How many unionists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, light is a volatile resource that cannot be relied on.

[eFestivals]

Thanks to the wonderful Dick Gaughan for pointing out that better together have gifted a new word to the language...Scotbut.

Usually preceded by " I am a proud..."

& followed by several minutes of shite.

How many unionists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, light is a volatile resource that cannot be relied on.

So even you're now buying into the "all true Scotsmen will vote yes" bollocks?

I thought this was about civic nationalism, and not nazi nationalism?

In the civic world, sovereign individuals are allowed their own individual sovereign opinion.

Yes, even when it's different to your own.

Edited September 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is quite interesting.:-

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/03/scottish-independence-myths-national.html

While I don't claim to understand the accounting/economics, it's basically saying that all national debt is illusionary because it's ultimately owed by a govt to itself. From that it's saying that means that iScotland's share of the debt could be written off at no cost to rUK.

(just as an aside, if true, that would weaken iScotland's negotiating position with rUK, so it's not necessarily a good thing for iScotland).

I'm not entirely sure it's correct tho. The UK currently spends around £50Bn a year on debt interest alone - and I'm sure that money disappears from the UK Govt's pot (without all of it coming back via another route).

I'm aware that there is an amount of this scenario going on tho. The BoE makes a profit around its dealings with the National Debt, and the Treasury snaffles that profit back to itself. For example:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20268679

That article includes the lines "The Bank has been purchasing government debt from the market with newly created money as part of its QE policy since March 2009.

If the bank has been purchasing from the market it must mean there's debt on the market - and so not in the ownership of govt. What they've been purchasing can't have been owned by govt, surely? And must instead have been debt this owned by 'the public' and not 'govt'?

From what I've read in the past, I'm of the belief that only around one-third of the National Debt is 'borrowed' by the govt from the govt.

I'm guessing that the difference is where govt has allowed the new money it needs to create [as an asset] when it also creates debt to 'escape' out of its own ownership and into the wider money supply (which is inflationary, tho it also decreases the true value of the debt via that inflation).

Damn, it's complicated.

Does anyone have any better ideas?

Edited September 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[lost]

The article is wrong. Your second bit is right.. About a third of the UK debt have been funded by qe .. The rest is in private hands such as pension funds.. Annuities in this country are mainly made up of 30 year gilts ( British government bonds)

I always thought this is why the no vote was strongest in the pensioner age group they would be receiving income in british pounds whilst purchases could be made in euros or Scottish pounds leaving them open to currency fluctuations

Edited September 4, 2014 by lost

[eFestivals]

The article is wrong. Your second bit is right.. About a third of the UK debt have been funded by qe .. The rest is in private hands such as pension funds.. Annuities in this country are mainly made up of 30 year gilts ( British government bonds)

Thanks for your input.

Just so I'm correctly understanding why you think he's wrong, might it be with the bit I've quoted below?

That reads to me like he's turned a debt into an asset - tho he also says the balanced liability/asset numbers he quotes are what the govt accounts say, so I'm still a little confused.

Taxpayers' Equity is described there as 'Liabilities to be funded by future revenues', which sounds ominous. However it would just as correct to describe them as 'Liabilities represented by Taxpayer cumulative net savings', because the alternative to net saving is spending, spending passes taxation points and thereby become 'future revenues'.

-----

That aside, if a third of govt debt is owed to the govt, that's more than enough to cover iScotland's share.

So could that part of what he's said work, that iScotland's share just be written off with zero consequences onto rUK (&/or Sterling's value)?

My own thinking (not necessarily right) says that any 'write-off' like that has a matching inflationary effect (or matching currency devaluation effect, perhaps?).

Edited September 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[lost]

yes qe was always designed so the bank would sell the debt back into the market. We are currently "tapering" which is reducing purchases. The bank may decide to hold the bonds till maturity this will be inflationary but will be seen as off setting the deflationary forces due to the drop in demand in the private sector

[eFestivals]

I always thought this is why the no vote was strongest in the pensioner age group they would be receiving income in british pounds whilst purchases could be made in euros or Scottish pounds leaving them open to currency fluctuations

That's not actually going to be the case from what both govts have suggested.

The UK govt have said that UK pensions will still be guaranteed; they haven't said that payment by the UK govt is guaranteed.

The SG's 'White Paper' says that the SG will take-over responsibility for current and future pension provision within Scotland from the UK govt.

So presumably it'll be something like the SG suggests. I can't see how else it might work, given that there is no pensions pot and today's earners pay today's pensions.

[lost]

That's not actually going to be the case from what both govts have suggested.

The UK govt have said that UK pensions will still be guaranteed; they haven't said that payment by the UK govt is guaranteed.

The SG's 'White Paper' says that the SG will take-over responsibility for current and future pension provision within Scotland from the UK govt.

So presumably it'll be something like the SG suggests. I can't see how else it might work, given that there is no pensions pot and today's earners pay today's pensions.

should of said I was talking about private not state pensions

Edited September 4, 2014 by lost

[eFestivals]

should of said I was talking about private not state pensions

ahh, of course. Yes, they'll keep the currency of their investment, I guess.