The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I hate the overuse of the word, but that's a very naive response. Scotland can decide how to negotiate, but it cannot decide what it gets. It can't decide to have a CU without rUK agreeing, it can't decide to a common travel area without rUK agreeing. If it lacks either of those things, many aspects of life will become more difficult for Scots and the Scottish government.

It may be that such difficulties are worth it. We don't know and I doubt we ever will, but IF Scotland has any greater link to rUK than the rest of the EU it will be more beholden to the policies and decisions of a rUK government than other countries, and will have sacrificed its ability to impact such decisions.

Exactly right.

One of things i've posted here - and not meant as any insult, just as an observation - is that Scotland is not ready for independence because it doesn't understand what independence and sovereignty means.

The fact that Salmond can go around asserting that independent-of-Scotland bodies have to submit to his will because it's been mandated by the people of Scotland and no one on the yes side is holding to account for that tosh is very telling.

And the fact that Darling's "of course you can use the pound" is taken as Salmond being right about a CU only furthers the idea that too many in Scotland don't understand the question.

As does "we're already in the EU", and "we will get more EU rebates than anyone ever", as does "we won't pay our share of the UK debt but can you please collect our taxes for ten years?", and so many other things.

I'm happy for any democratic decision, but it's better if people aren't voting in the belief of bullshit. That'll only come back bad onto Scotland.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

i'm wondering if in history today will be known as Money-run Monday?

[eFestivals]

Robert Peston confirms that RBS would relocate to rUK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103437

The real impact of that isn't the 50,000 or more jobs that Scotland will lose from its financial sector, it's the 6%-10% of annual tax revenue that instantly disappears from iScotland's books.

[lost]

As far as I know the final act of dissolving the union would come via a vote in parliament. I can't see many home counties Tory MP's voting in favour of policies such as a currency union without major restrictions on what the Scottish government can do as it might threaten their constituents precious house prices.. A rejection would simply keep the Union intact and send everyone back to the negotiating table.

[eFestivals]

As far as I know the final act of dissolving the union would come via a vote in parliament. I can't see many home counties Tory MP's voting in favour of policies such as a currency union without major restrictions on what the Scottish government can do as it might threaten their constituents precious house prices.. A rejection would simply keep the Union intact and send everyone back to the negotiating table.

From what Peston says, RBS won't wait to find out which ways it goes. It announces its relocation south on 19th Sept if there's a yes vote.

[lost]

From what Peston says, RBS won't wait to find out which ways it goes. It announces its relocation south on 19th Sept if there's a yes vote.

Yes I was replying to the previous point. We had an item on the local news up here recently about HBOS jobs moving from Scotland to Halifax if there is a yes vote. Standard Life are another who I believed have said they will move.

[kaosmark2]

Exactly right.

One of things i've posted here - and not meant as any insult, just as an observation - is that Scotland is not ready for independence because it doesn't understand what independence and sovereignty means.

The fact that Salmond can go around asserting that independent-of-Scotland bodies have to submit to his will because it's been mandated by the people of Scotland and no one on the yes side is holding to account for that tosh is very telling.

And the fact that Darling's "of course you can use the pound" is taken as Salmond being right about a CU only furthers the idea that too many in Scotland don't understand the question.

As does "we're already in the EU", and "we will get more EU rebates than anyone ever", as does "we won't pay our share of the UK debt but can you please collect our taxes for ten years?", and so many other things.

I'm happy for any democratic decision, but it's better if people aren't voting in the belief of bullshit. That'll only come back bad onto Scotland.

It really bothers me how Salmond's portraying independence. It isn't a case of being able to cherry-pick facets of the union they like and keeping those, it's a case of becoming independent and negotiating with a separate and distinct state for extremely special international privileges.

If Scotland wants independence, good luck. But what Salmond is offering isn't independence, it's a form of greater dependence which gives him power to negotiate what he'd like.

[eFestivals]

The fact it requires that vote in parliament almost guarantees Scotland will get very little of what it demands. Its going to became a massive political hot potato if Scotland vote yes.

I'd say you're over-playing it.

The UK is quite happy to give Scotland its share of things. Sure, they'll be arguments on what size its share should be (Barnett formula percentage, or population percentage, for example?), but the fact it's entitled to its share won't be questioned or obstructed.

And further than that, rUK will be, I'm quite sure, very happy to help out to help an independent Scotland on its way. For example, Scotland has no separate tax system (there's a reason for EU membership refusal right there, btw) and intends to rely on rUK to collect its taxes for it for a number of years - and I don't see why rUK would object to doing so (for an appropriate fee, of course).

But things like that cause problems for iScotland. How could iScotland refuse its share of the debt when rUK will still have control of iScotland's finances? However the assets arguments play out, the idea of it really welching is absurd.

And that absurdity means that all of the arguments about the CU are already settled, and Salmond knows it. He's quite happy to lie to the Scottish people and doesn't care how they'll be affected. He'll get his dream.

[eFestivals]

It really bothers me how Salmond's portraying independence. It isn't a case of being able to cherry-pick facets of the union they like and keeping those, it's a case of becoming independent and negotiating with a separate and distinct state for extremely special international privileges.

If Scotland wants independence, good luck. But what Salmond is offering isn't independence, it's a form of greater dependence which gives him power to negotiate what he'd like.

I'm glad you've spotted it. His self-written constitution gives him sole power.

Not "the people" despite the grand opening line. The people get no further say after a yes vote until Salmond has constructed all parts of the new country in the way he sees fit.

And just as raising taxes that have already been lowered is unpopular in rUK, so it will prove in iScotland - too late to stop the elite running away with the cash.

[eFestivals]

I am probably over playing it but behind it all will be the fact that the outcome will need to be acceptable to a majority of the UK parliament before it can result in iScotland being real.

"acceptable", yes. Unreasonable? No.

While I'm under no illusions for why Cameron allowed this vote, the simple fact remains that it was the right, democratic thing to do - in light of Scotland electing a majority govt that had an indyref as one of its primary policies.

There's no stepping back from that now.

And aside from that, there's no reasons why rUK should act with animosity towards iScotland. It's to both sides advantage to have cordial relations.

However, where Scotland has misread this is by thinking that cordial means that rUK will do everything iScotland wants. And that's because of the lack of understanding of what sovereignty means.

[eFestivals]

Does anyone want to take a guess at how much the support for indy might drop if Salmond turned around today and said "OK, I accept that Westminster is right, we won't have a CU with them. We'll do something else instead"?

My own guess is that yes would instantly lose something like 15% or greater.

But whatever the actual percentage was, I doubt anyone would disagree with the idea that no would win.

Which is why Salmond has to keep up with the lie.

What is much more puzzling is why people believe the lie, on the basis of nothing at all?

[mrtourette]

I'm guilty of complete apathy towards this vote, but it seems to me that due to the culture of certain demographics of the Scottish public that even the use of the I word is enough to give it more weight and support that it probably deserves and that the emotional attachment to the propect is clouding the reality that it won't actually be true independence. I suppose that if the yes voters know this and take an 'anything's better than nothing' or 'at least it's a move in the right direction' point of view then that's up to them, I just wonder how many people are kidding themselves and just voting yes for independence without actually realising what it is. Salmond gets to tick his 'make Scotland independent' box, the Scottish public get to rid themselves of the evil English persecutors and take more pride in their day to day affairs as an independent nation (even if it is to some degree a sham), the UK goverment is still relied upon to perform functions for an 'independent' Scotland and charge accordingly (or do it in exchange for other benefits) and English people can have a good laugh at Scots who insist on crowing about independence. As long as ignorance truly is bliss, I guess everybody wins?

[eFestivals]

As long as ignorance truly is bliss, I guess everybody wins?

Not the Scottish people, who will find themselves living in a poorer economy.

edit: and actually, the same will be true for rUK too - tho to a lot lesser extent. The impact onto a rUK individual on average will be something like 2%-6% of the impact onto an individual on average within iScotland.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think Salmonds "We will take the pound" followed by Darling confirming "You can use the pound" followed by seal clapping and a jump in the polls pretty much confirms this...

Many idiots took that as Salmond being right...

I agree that many watching have taken it to mean that, but there's no accounting for their stupidity.

I'm not sure that within that audience it was that tho. Those people are likely to have been following things more closely, and will have known that 'no' had been saying a blanket "can't use the pound" without it being qualified around a CU.

It's quite possibly the case that 'no' thought that listeners would grasp the unsaid meaning, but again there's no accounting for stupidity.

Having said that, i'm sure there's plenty of 'stupid' voting no too. I wouldn't be much surprised to find an equal 50% of stupid on both sides - but it's the yes side who are meant to be trying to make the case for change, and they shouldn't be doing that by lying. Any stupidity of voters doesn't excuse the lying.

[kaosmark2]

I'm guilty of complete apathy towards this vote, but it seems to me that due to the culture of certain demographics of the Scottish public that even the use of the I word is enough to give it more weight and support that it probably deserves and that the emotional attachment to the propect is clouding the reality that it won't actually be true independence. I suppose that if the yes voters know this and take an 'anything's better than nothing' or 'at least it's a move in the right direction' point of view then that's up to them, I just wonder how many people are kidding themselves and just voting yes for independence without actually realising what it is. Salmond gets to tick his 'make Scotland independent' box, the Scottish public get to rid themselves of the evil English persecutors and take more pride in their day to day affairs as an independent nation (even if it is to some degree a sham), the UK goverment is still relied upon to perform functions for an 'independent' Scotland and charge accordingly (or do it in exchange for other benefits) and English people can have a good laugh at Scots who insist on crowing about independence. As long as ignorance truly is bliss, I guess everybody wins?

I'm more bothered by the sham of it than the outcome. I would prefer a no vote because I think everyone will be worse off in the event of a yes - particularly as proposed - but the fact that Salmond's "changes" are actually just more of the same but with added bollocks and horseshit irks me.

[LJS]

I hate the overuse of the word, but that's a very naive response. Scotland can decide how to negotiate, but it cannot decide what it gets. It can't decide to have a CU without rUK agreeing, it can't decide to a common travel area without rUK agreeing. If it lacks either of those things, many aspects of life will become more difficult for Scots and the Scottish government.

It may be that such difficulties are worth it. We don't know and I doubt we ever will, but IF Scotland has any greater link to rUK than the rest of the EU it will be more beholden to the policies and decisions of a rUK government than other countries, and will have sacrificed its ability to impact such decisions.

Apologies if I did not express myself clearly. I said iScotland can decide to have its OWN currency. I have never said iScotland can unilaterally declare CU. My views on CU have varied a little one way or another but at no time have I believed or stated that it is inevitable.

Clearly everything is subject to negotiation.

And before you all remind me of Alex salmond's view, I will remind you that I am not here to defend Alex salmond or the Snp.

Edited September 8, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Apologies if I did not express myself clearly. I said iScotland can decide to have its OWN currency. I have never said iScotland can unilaterally declare CU. My views on CU have varied a little one way or another but at no time have I believed or stated that it is inevitable.

Clearly everything is subject to negotiation.

And before you all remind me of Alex salmond's view, I will remind you that I am not here to defend Alex salmond or the Snp.

In which case you'll be able to condemn it where necessary.

So why do you never do that?

Just as you can't condemn the lies of WoS, or anything else. Just like Alex the victory is everything and lies to the Scottish people are A Good Thing.

You and Salmond are Westminster and I claim my five pounds.

I'd like to say that was a joke.

[LJS]

But you are voting Yes to the SNPs take on independence... That is what is on offer and what you are ultimately saying yes to...

Funnily, enough no one else has shared their vision of independence with us although I am Ruth,Johan & Willie will have some ideas shortly after the 19th.

So, you think I should vote no & wait for a better independence to come along?

[eFestivals]

NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS - NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS - NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS

Scottish exceptionalism identified at last

In the last days of the independence campaign where it's been claimed an independent Scotland will break new ground in national exceptionalism, new research has finally confirmed the existence of this Scottish exceptionalism.

After following Alex Salmond around for a few days on the campaign trail and seeing the reaction of the people of scotland, it's amazing that the source of this exceptionalism hasn't been identifed sooner than now.

The exceptionalism that exists within the gob of its leader and his capacity to lie is only outstripped by the gullibility of anyone falling under his spell.

With Scottish exceptionalism now properly identified and assured, it's believed that Scotland will vote yes with confidence on 18th September.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

In which case you'll be able to condemn it where necessary.

So why do you never do that?

Just as you can't condemn the lies of WoS, or anything else. Just like Alex the victory is everything and lies to the Scottish people are A Good Thing.

You and Salmond are Westminster and I claim my five pounds.

I'd like to say that was a joke.

I've made clear a number of areas where I don't see eye to eye with Salmond.

I don't feel this thread is suffering from a great shortage of critics of him and the Snp.

So I'm sure you will forgive me if I concentrate my energy elsewhere.

[LJS]

NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS - NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS - NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS

Scottish exceptional identified at last

In the last days of the independence campaign where it's been claimed an independent Scotland will break new ground in national exceptionalism, new research has finally confirmed the existence of this Scottish exceptionalism.

After following Alex Salmond around for a few days on the campaign trail and seeing the reaction of the people of scotland, it's amazing that the source of this exceptionalism hasn't been identifed sooner than now.

The exceptionalism that exists within the gob of its leader and his capacity to lie is only outstripped by the gullibility of anyone falling under his spell.

With Scottish exceptionalism now properly identified and assured, it's believed that Scotland will vote yes with confidence on 18th September.

Not sure that was really worth the effort, Neil.

[eFestivals]

So, you think I should vote no & wait for a better independence to come along?

Me, I do, yes.

You want to believe that there's nothing that could be worse than Wsstminster. Fair enough.

Me, I think that Salmond and his consequences is MUCH worse than Westminster.

As you'll get to find out, tho your inability to answer my simple question about blame means you won't be blaming Alex.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Not sure that was really worth the effort, Neil.

What it lacks in comedy value it makes up with truth.

You're welcome to decide where the lines of each fall yourself.

[LJS]

I agree that many watching have taken it to mean that, but there's no accounting for their stupidity.

I'm not sure that within that audience it was that tho. Those people are likely to have been following things more closely, and will have known that 'no' had been saying a blanket "can't use the pound" without it being qualified around a CU.

It's quite possibly the case that 'no' thought that listeners would grasp the unsaid meaning, but again there's no accounting for stupidity.

Having said that, i'm sure there's plenty of 'stupid' voting no too. I wouldn't be much surprised to find an equal 50% of stupid on both sides - but it's the yes side who are meant to be trying to make the case for change, and they shouldn't be doing that by lying. Any stupidity of voters doesn't excuse the lying.

Are you subtly implying it's ok for the no side to lie? (you know like the oil & the pound & the better devo if we voted no in 79)

[eFestivals]

Are you subtly implying it's ok for the no side to lie? (you know like the oil & the pound & the better devo if we voted no in 79)

No, it's not OK for the no side to lie.

The only "lie" I've identifed by the no side tho is "Scotland can't use the pound" - where it's possible to take it as meaning one thing while it's probably meant in another way.

I've asked you to give me the lies of no, but you keep declining to.

You also asked me to give you the lies in the Wee Barmy Book, which I did do but you don't think worthy of any comment at all.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals