The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

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.

It's a joke

[eFestivals]

It's a joke

I'm pleased to hear it.

There's too much of that desperately seeping into things right now from what I get to see.

-----

I see Fat Dave has explicitly said that he won't be resigning if it's a yes vote. Much as i'd like him to resign, I'm pleased to hear him say that.

It should remove any chance of anyone voting yes in the hope of damaging him ... tho given how so many yes-ers seem to think the real world will be the exact opposite of what any no supporter says things probably won't work that way.

Fat Dave also said that Salmond shouldn't resign if there's a no, btw.

As yes-ers like to say: it's not about Salmond (or Fat Dave).

While I agree that Salmond shouldn't resign on the basis of a no vote, he should resign for being a fucking moron who would sell his countrymen out for his dream.

[kaosmark2]

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.

I haven't read the article, but this is a semi-true statement. National debt is substantially less real than any personal debt, or business debt. What governments can't do though, is infinitely borrow.

[lost]

The thing is if Scotland choosing to go the route of using the pound without a currency union its debt will behave more like personal or company debt than government debt, It will be in a similar situation many African countries have ended up in where it pays its debt in money it has no control over. It would not be able to print debt or money denominated in sterling but instead have to borrow British pounds secured against Scottish assets.

The amount of debt a government with a central bank can issue is effectively linked to the question “If I buy this debt will I see a real rate of return whilst holding it?” The minute its seen as a bad investment that’s when government have a problem.

Edited September 4, 2014 by lost

[LJS]

I'm pleased to hear it.

There's too much of that desperately seeping into things right now from what I get to see.

There really isn't - if there was the BBC & the rest of the media wouldn't have had to spend 3 days spinning out the Tale of Murphy's Egging. they would have much more lurid things to report! Go to the English Scots for Independence site & you will find numerous examples of English people in Scotland experiencing no racism & no hostility. Of course you will find nutters on line but as they don't ever leave their cupboards they are not to be taken seriously.

-----

I see Fat Dave has explicitly said that he won't be resigning if it's a yes vote. Much as i'd like him to resign, I'm pleased to hear him say that.

It should remove any chance of anyone voting yes in the hope of damaging him ... tho given how so many yes-ers seem to think the real world will be the exact opposite of what any no supporter says things probably won't work that way.

Fat Dave also said that Salmond shouldn't resign if there's a no, btw.

As yes-ers like to say: it's not about Salmond (or Fat Dave).

While I agree that Salmond shouldn't resign on the basis of a no vote, he should resign for being a fucking moron who would sell his countrymen out for his dream.

Hmmm! Dave would say that wouldn't he? It might be best for you guys if he did though as Boris would find it hard to become leader while not in Parliament.

[LJS]

Just an observation, as Neil has observed there is a clear spring in the step of the Yes campaigners following the somewhat remarkable YouGov poll. There seems to be almost a conviction that a Yes victory is all but inevitable.

I think this may be somewhat premature & folk have forgotten that this is "just one poll" & have placed massive faith in it because YouGov have been consistently the most "no friendly" pollster.

One thing I think we can be fairly sure of is that, however big any swing from no to yes has been, it has not been as big as this over the past month:

yes up from 39-47%

no down from 61-53%

so some of these figures are wrong. Now many yes supporters have long believed that YouGov have consistently underestimated the Yes vote and there has much talk if the famous "Kellner correction" but apparently they have not changed their methodology, their questions or the way they weight their results. Could they somehow have moved from underestimating to overestimating the yes vote? & if so how?

It's all very strange - all I will say is that, much as I am buoyed by the poll, I will need to see a couple more before I get over excited.

We will also have to contend with an inevitable & continual stream of what Neil calls facts & I call scare stories as the establishment suddenly wakes up to the fact that they might just lose this one. I can imagine the Gentlemen's (sic) clubs of London are a hotbed of activity as favours are called in & honours offered in an attempt to get some "respected independent" financial experts & institutions to spill the beans on the looming nightmare.

Hawd on tae yir sporrans!

Edited September 4, 2014 by LJS

[Stash]

Now many yes supporters have long believed that YouGov have consistently underestimated the Yes vote and there has much talk if the famous "Kellner correction" but apparently they have not changed their methodology, their questions or the way they weight their results. Could they somehow have moved from underestimating to overestimating the yes vote? & if so how?

Maybe MI5 subverted the poll in order to lull yesers into feeling secure and rally the no camp into voting on polling day?

[LJS]

Maybe MI5 subverted the poll in order to lull yesers into feeling secure and rally the no camp into voting on polling day?

Yay!!!!!!!!

Give me more conspiracy theories

a special prize for anyone who gets Putin in

[LJS]

any of you budding economists have anything to say on this?

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

Should an independent Scotland claim, under international law, its fair share of North Sea oil, these export revenues will no longer appear on the UK’s balance of trade. Over the last year, the loss of North Sea oil would have bumped our current account deficit from 4.4% of GDP, to just under 7%.

just re-read this - & just to be clear, this is not a challenge - I have no opinion on this article - as I've always said there is a wide range of views out there - what we haven't had until fairly recently is a great deal around what a Yes vote will mean for rUK. So I am looking for opinions - not a fight.

peace & love

Edited September 4, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

I am astonished at some of the people I know who are moving from no to yes. Some of them I would never have thought to even try & persuade.

Comfy, are you seeing this?

[wee_insomniac]

You can't get away from the fact that the markets are worried about a yes vote....

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2741890/Pound-dives-poll-reveals-threat-Scotland-voting-Yes-markets-fear-uncertainty.html

[LJS]

You can't get away from the fact that the markets are worried about a yes vote....

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2741890/Pound-dives-poll-reveals-threat-Scotland-voting-Yes-markets-fear-uncertainty.html

Markets don't like uncertainty. Which means, in the event of a yes vote, there will be a massive incentive for rUK to start meaningful negotiations asap & get some agreements in principle in place pretty fast.

[eFestivals]

Markets don't like uncertainty. Which means, in the event of a yes vote, there will be a massive incentive for rUK to start meaningful negotiations asap & get some agreements in principle in place pretty fast.

Markets love uncertainty; without it there's no place for spivs. It's 'sensible investors' that don't like uncertainty, as it doesn't give them confidence about their investments.

Who do you think will be cashing in on the uncertainty that's naturally created by a circumstance like this? The spivs. The irony is striking that a Scottish claim to reject spiv-ery is making the spivs rich on Scottish money (and rUK money right now too, but most of the final take if a yes vote will come from Scotland).

[eFestivals]

Edited September 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just an observation, as Neil has observed there is a clear spring in the step of the Yes campaigners following the somewhat remarkable YouGov poll. There seems to be almost a conviction that a Yes victory is all but inevitable.

A massive amount of yes-ers have been saying victory is inevitable even when it looked a certain no - so the spring in their step isn't necessarily tied to reality.

And when ex-EU matey said a few days ago that a Sterling-using iScotland would be denied EU entry the deflation was like a balloon being pricked.

But with 24 hours they'd bounced back, having thrown off yet another important fact and pretended it's of no consequence. The whole world will do iScotland's bidding just because ... well? .... it's Scotland.

I think this may be somewhat premature & folk have forgotten that this is "just one poll" & have placed massive faith in it because YouGov have been consistently the most "no friendly" pollster.

I'm glad you've realised your statement of "momentum" was premature.

(note: that's not me saying it might not be later proven as that, I'm merely saying it's not that with the evidence currently available).

Could they somehow have moved from underestimating to overestimating the yes vote? & if so how?

I suggest you find the analysus article that youGov matey wrote for the Guardian the day after that poll was released - it'll help you fill in some of the blanks.

It's all very strange - all I will say is that, much as I am buoyed by the poll, I will need to see a couple more before I get over excited.

I refer you to your posts of a few days back.

We will also have to contend with an inevitable & continual stream of what Neil calls facts & I call scare stories

So you're saying that there's no negative consequences for iScotland in changes to its currency use?

The SNP's fiscal commission that you started off quoting had something to say. Why don't you quote them now?

Might it be that you reject information on the basis of bias, and not with reason?

I'm glad that some yes-ers are still keeping up the comedy gold for my amusement, anyway.

as the establishment suddenly wakes up to the fact that they might just lose this one. I can imagine the Gentlemen's (sic) clubs of London are a hotbed of activity as favours are called in & honours offered in an attempt to get some "respected independent" financial experts & institutions to spill the beans on the looming nightmare.

The only true facts are the ones that Salmond says.

The only true Scotsmen are the ones who realise this and vote yes.

But it's civic nationalism, and you reject these ideas, right?

[eFestivals]

any of you budding economists have anything to say on this?

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

just re-read this - & just to be clear, this is not a challenge - I have no opinion on this article - as I've always said there is a wide range of views out there - what we haven't had until fairly recently is a great deal around what a Yes vote will mean for rUK. So I am looking for opinions - not a fight.

peace & love

The bit you've quoted - that the rUK's balance of payments slumps - is perfectly true.

(note: I've not checked the quoted numbers to know if the numbers they quote are true, tho I've no reason to doubt them).

But guess what? The rUK's balance of payments is that bad whether there's a CU or no CU, and it's something that rUK will have to deal with.

And that is one very good reason why the SNP's claimed benefits to rUK of a CU is not actually any benefit.

It's a huge benefit to Scotland tho. That wealth would get transferred north.

rUK can get a better deal on the open markets than it would get by setting for eternity that transfer of wealth to iScotland. Which is yet another reason why a CU is not in rUK's best interests.

Given that any CU would break down in the future at some point, why put off the small-ish financial shock for rUK of that happening? It makes no difference when it happens for the shock to hit, and rUK would rather have some control over managing that shock than none at all (which would be the case with a CU that iScotland chose to dump to it's own timings). Which is yet another reason why a CU is not in rUK's best interests.

And all of that is before the fact that it's certainly not in rUK's best interests to be acting as iScotland's financial guarantor, which would be the biggest consequences of a CU - because at some point in the future rUK *would* have to bail out iScotland.

Of course, iScotland would have to reach into it's pockets to bail out London's bankers too..... so if you can find me just ten Scotsmen who say they'll pay higher taxes to bail out London bankers I'll be happy to support a CU with iScotland.

On the basis of what is bolded there, at least you now know that a CU is less attractive to iScotland than it is to even rUK.

And with that knowledge, you're now able to adjust your own thinking, and the economic position of iScotland, right?

[eFestivals]

Women on the radio just said, regarding a yes vote, that its stupid to suggest you are going to need new passports or you won't be able to visit your family in England. We can go all over Europe and that isn't going to change.

I saw one of my favourite all-time cybernat quotes within the last 24 hours on much the same line - and posted without a hint of irony.

vote yes to ensure that Scotland is not kicked out of the EU by little Englanders

It's hilarious. And here's betting that the likes of LJS can't see why it's hilarious.

I don't think the Yes voters totally understand what independence means.

Correct. And that actually because Salmond is not offering Scotland independence. It's really Devo Max wrapped up as something different.

But the question is about indy, and rUK will take Scotland at it's word.

I know the white paper says Scots can keep UK passport until expiry but I don't understand how that can work. Surely like every other promise, that is up to the UK to decide if we want that to be the case.

Correct again.

Tho, given the UK's citizenship rules both currently and historically, it does appear likely that no current British citizen will lose their citizenship against their will - tho that is not guaranteed.

There's good logical and rational reasons why the rUK might choose to not go that route this time, because just as iScotland fears its free universities getting swamped by people from the rUK, rUK has much more reason to fear getting swamped by people from an independent Scotland at some point in time.

[LJS]

The bit you've quoted - that the rUK's balance of payments slumps - is perfectly true.

(note: I've not checked the quoted numbers to know if the numbers they quote are true, tho I've no reason to doubt them).

But guess what? The rUK's balance of payments is that bad whether there's a CU or no CU, and it's something that rUK will have to deal with.

And that is one very good reason why the SNP's claimed benefits to rUK of a CU is not actually any benefit.

It's a huge benefit to Scotland tho. That wealth would get transferred north.

rUK can get a better deal on the open markets than it would get by setting for eternity that transfer of wealth to iScotland. Which is yet another reason why a CU is not in rUK's best interests.

Given that any CU would break down in the future at some point, why put off the small-ish financial shock for rUK of that happening? It makes no difference when it happens for the shock to hit, and rUK would rather have some control over managing that shock than none at all (which would be the case with a CU that iScotland chose to dump to it's own timings). Which is yet another reason why a CU is not in rUK's best interests.

And all of that is before the fact that it's certainly not in rUK's best interests to be acting as iScotland's financial guarantor, which would be the biggest consequences of a CU - because at some point in the future rUK *would* have to bail out iScotland.

Of course, iScotland would have to reach into it's pockets to bail out London's bankers too..... so if you can find me just ten Scotsmen who say they'll pay higher taxes to bail out London bankers I'll be happy to support a CU with iScotland.

On the basis of what is bolded there, at least you now know that a CU is less attractive to iScotland than it is to even rUK.

And with that knowledge, you're now able to adjust your own thinking, and the economic position of iScotland, right?

As ever Neil your opinions are very welcome. Thanks for sharing them.

[eFestivals]

Hey, shall we play a bit of indy-campaign bingo?

The rules are: you have to find the biggest whopper by the opposite side, and that nothing of that 'whopper' is able to stand up to any scrutiny from within the context that it's been said.

Let's start by offering the yes campaign an open goal, by giving them first shot...

[eFestivals]

As ever Neil your opinions are very welcome. Thanks for sharing them.

You say a CU is certain, but you can't even bring yourself to say you stand behind what a CU means.

The emptiness of your claimed position and the claimed position of iScotland is demonstrated by your response.

[eFestivals]

Some more of those inconvenient facts.

According to Unison, SNP policies have led to the loss of 40,000 local govt jobs in Scotland, with most of those jobs lost in services for the poorest.

Also, SNP education policy - which pans out as being free Uni places for the middle classes - has led to the cutting of 130,000 further/higher education places. No prizes for guessing which social class is most effected.

Along the refusal to increase income taxes on the highest earners because it would be wrong to increase taxes on the richest at a time of austerity (says Salmond), this is social justice iScotland style.

Vote yes with confidence for more Scottish social justice including a further tax cut for the rentier classes.

Edited September 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I see the egg thrower has been caught and has been before the courts.

And yet another yes-ers myth has been shown to be that myth.

[LJS]

Oh, I hadn't realised you were my eyes.

the BBC and the like go for the obvious in front of them. Especially when it contains pictures as well.

Anyone who has spend a modicum of time reading a range of comments online will know there's a huge amount of it going on (even if the overall proportion of it is pretty low).

But hey, just pretend it's not there.

I have made the point many many times that what you see from Bristol is very different to what I see here. And what the UK media is reporting is not really an accurate representation of what is happening.

[LJS]

Some more of those inconvenient facts.

According to Unison, SNP policies have led to the loss of 40,000 local govt jobs in Scotland, with most of those jobs lost in services for the poorest.

Also, SNP education policy - which pans out as being free Uni places for the middle classes - has led to the cutting of 130,000 further/higher education places. No prizes for guessing which social class is most effected.

Along the refusal to increase income taxes on the highest earners because it would be wrong to increase taxes on the richest at a time of austerity (says Salmond), this is social justice iScotland style.

Vote yes with confidence for more Scottish social justice including a further tax cut for the rentier classes.

And do Unison pin the blame on? ... "The union says cutting any vital services – which is a direct result of UK coalition government’s unnecessary austerity measures and the Scottish government’s council tax freeze – is not the way forward."

So it's both the Uk & Scottish government's responsibility. And of course the responsibility of whoever runs local authorities in each area.

As for college places, it's not quite as simple as the headline figure you quote as there has been a switch from part time to full time courses & I believe the number of hours of further & higher education delivered has remained roughly the same. I will be happy to admit that I am not enough of an expert on the subject to comment on how m uch that is a good or a bad thing.

And of course what you are attacking is the record of the SNP government which is not what we are voting on despite your constant refrain to the contrary.

[Lizzim]

I have made the point many many times that what you see from Bristol is very different to what I see here. And what the UK media is reporting is not really an accurate representation of what is happening.

.

And what I see in Edinburgh is a lot of bullying and lies or naive opinions.

Actually this discussion on this forum has been the most informative and rational debate on both sides that I have come across.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Lizzim