The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

PS: you say you'll be voting for something better than lies from England ... But lies written in Bath, England are now counting as something better from Scotland, are they?

As you know I have always accepted there will be lies, distortions, exaggerations etc on both sides.I may need to call on your help here.

Whilst I accept that the wee blue book is somewhat one sided in quoting expert opinion that is in favour of Indy, I didn't spot any lies - would you care to help me here?

As opposed to the lies that we won't get paid our pensions, won't get organ transplants, will be stranded without consular representation etc etc

I await your response with interest

[LJS]

So .... Have you stopped laughing yet?

So are you saying is that going along with a deliberately deceptive narrative that is designed to con is a good thing or a bad thing?

That aside, there are not just the words (or hidden words, with mccrone), there's the consequences of their fulfilment.

The deception with mccrone was for the good of the whole, there's no getting away from it, even if you object to it happening.

Now, do please tell me how its a good thing for the whole of Scotland to con people's vote out of them by pretending that there's zero consequences onto Scotland from (for example) Scotland running out on their share of the UKs debt?

If you are a true believer in democracy and sovereignty you should be mightily offended by wings.

Why?

You are aware of course that the UK government insists it will be the "continuing state" (i.e. it is the UK) so it is technically & legally accurate that it is responsible for the debt of the UK. Scotland may have a moral responsibility to take on some of that debt but it does not have legal responsibility to do so & the amount of the debt it should take on is highly debatable. Since the UK is being so intransigent on any aspect of post referendum negotiations at present, why exactly should Scotland, at this stage, be falling over itself to volunteer to take on a huge share of the debt?

The UK's unwillingness to discuss anything post Indy is OK and threats of borders & alienation are fine though!

Edited August 11, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

I was having a discussion with a Yes-er colleague earlier and this was his argument.

'It is completely reasonable that we can keep the pound. 74 ex-UK colonies including Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Egypt have all had currency unions and used the pound after independence. The UK itself was in formal currency unions setting a fixed rate with the USA and then Germany from the war until 2002 meaning they affected our fiscal policy similar to how the rUK would to Scotland, do you not consider the UK to be truly independent in those years?'

I can't buy that being accurate surely? The SNP would be all over that fact.

No, I think it's rubbish

Although the pound was sort of tied to the dollar for many years under something known as the Bretton Woods system which I believe ended in the 1970's - It wasn't exactly a currency union but it did involve fixed exchange rates - a bit like if Scotland used the pound without a currency union - or had its own currency tied to the pound.

I don't pretend to be an expert on all this & I am sure Neil will be along in due course to correct any errors I have made

So in summary a lot of what your colleague told you is rot but there is an inconvenient nub of truth there that it is far from unknown, unusual or outrageous for countries either to use the currency of another country or have their own currency & peg it to another one.

But, hey, Scotland is unique in the whole world as being the only country that has no viable currency option.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Edited August 11, 2014 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

can't see it myself.. Isn't ship building moving from Portsmouth to Scotland on the basis of a no vote? I can't see the remainder of Britain allowing that to happen then Scotland walking in 10 years, it would make any long term investment impossible.

There were ship building contracts awarded to Glasgow over Portsmouth recently your right. In fairness, they represented a drop in the ocean compared to the contracts that Glasgow has lost during the periods that the Tories have been in power.

You can feel free to swap shipbuilding/Glasgow with any other industry that was once alive and kicking in Scotland.

[Comfy Bean]

Has anyone else seen a common yes-er claim that no country has ever wanted to reverse its independence?

As with so many indie claims its a porkie. Read up on Newfoundland.

I`m not sure that you aren`t missing the bigger picture with this statement. How many countries that didn`t look back did you score off your list before going with Newfoundland ?

[Comfy Bean]

That aside, there are not just the words (or hidden words, with mccrone), there's the consequences of their fulfilment.

The deception with mccrone was for the good of the whole, there's no getting away from it, even if you object to it happening.

You have defended what happened quite a few times on this thread now. Stepping away from Indy for a second I am honestly surprised at your stance. I understand your argument and the reasons that you have put across but I am genuinely surprised at your position.

[eFestivals]

I was having a discussion with a Yes-er colleague earlier and this was his argument.

'It is completely reasonable that we can keep the pound. 74 ex-UK colonies including Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Egypt have all had currency unions and used the pound after independence. The UK itself was in formal currency unions setting a fixed rate with the USA and then Germany from the war until 2002 meaning they affected our fiscal policy similar to how the rUK would to Scotland, do you not consider the UK to be truly independent in those years?'

I can't buy that being accurate surely? The SNP would be all over that fact.

Another yes-er who doesn't understand what a CU is.

As far as I'm aware, none of the colonies/dominions/etc have had a cu post indie. Many have initially shadowed the pound with their own new currencies.

Within the Breton Woods agreement until the eighties (with various adjustments along the way) just about all currencies were loosely pegged to another major (reserve) currency for their exchange rates.

Nothing of either is a CU.

Edited August 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

I've said all along, let's see how long iScotland keeps free prescriptions and zero tuition fees.

Not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you would also like to see the bedroom tax re-instated ? *

* If we see an iScotland the bedroom tax will be abolished.

[eFestivals]

Not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you would also like to see the bedroom tax re-instated ? *

* If we see an iScotland the bedroom tax will be abolished.

I think his point is that these things would have to paid for by iscotland. Are you sure it has all the funds to pay for all you have now?

[eFestivals]

As you know I have always accepted there will be lies, distortions, exaggerations etc on both sides.I may need to call on your help here.

Whilst I accept that the wee blue book is somewhat one sided in quoting expert opinion that is in favour of Indy, I didn't spot any lies - would you care to help me here?

As opposed to the lies that we won't get paid our pensions, won't get organ transplants, will be stranded without consular representation etc etc

I await your response with interest

Will give them to you tomorrow when at my PC.

[LJS]

I think his point is that these things would have to paid for by iscotland. Are you sure it has all the funds to pay for all you have now?

Might well do once we stop paying for Trident, decide we don't need to have the 6th highest defence spend in the world, don't have to contribute to Westminster, don't have to pay for upgrading London's infrastructure, don't have to pay towards a Railway line from London to wherever the hell HS2 ends.

You never know!!!

Oh! forgot the bloody nuclear power station

Edited August 11, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Why?

You are aware of course that the UK government insists it will be the "continuing state" (i.e. it is the UK) so it is technically & legally accurate that it is responsible for the debt of the UK. Scotland may have a moral responsibility to take on some of that debt but it does not have legal responsibility to do so & the amount of the debt it should take on is highly debatable. Since the UK is being so intransigent on any aspect of post referendum negotiations at present, why exactly should Scotland, at this stage, be falling over itself to volunteer to take on a huge share of the debt?

The UK's unwillingness to discuss anything post Indy is OK and threats of borders & alienation are fine though!

The UK is the continuing state. Precedence says so, not the UK.

As you note, there is a moral obligation to Scotland's share of the debt. The same moral obligation new lenders to iScotland will base the risk of their loans on.

The UK is not being intransigent about anything. A sovereign state has sovereignty... You do know what sovereignty is, don't you? The UK is allowed to say no. The UK is allowed to refuse to underwrite a foreign country's finances.

Given that you are being sold a plan that rUK won't go along with, its the right thing to do to make you aware of that.

The borders thing will forever remain as a real possibility, even if unlikely. It is the inevitable consequence of a border between different sovereign states. It might even be you lot that has to put it up at the insistence of the EU.

[Comfy Bean]

I think his point is that these things would have to paid for by iscotland. Are you sure it has all the funds to pay for all you have now?

I think I understand his point but LJS has already highlighted what we currently do find money to spend on. Can I add that the bedroom tax introduced by the westminster tories actually meant that the scottish government had to re-route funds to pay the bedroom tax through social fund payments to Scotlands poorest folks so they didn`t have to suffer the reduction in their benefits imposed by the bedroom tax. To be clear, you are not defending the introduction of the bedroom tax now are you ?

[eFestivals]

No, I think it's rubbish

Although the pound was sort of tied to the dollar for many years under something known as the Bretton Woods system which I believe ended in the 1970's - It wasn't exactly a currency union but it did involve fixed exchange rates - a bit like if Scotland used the pound without a currency union - or had its own currency tied to the pound.

I don't pretend to be an expert on all this & I am sure Neil will be along in due course to correct any errors I have made

So in summary a lot of what your colleague told you is rot but there is an inconvenient nub of truth there that it is far from unknown, unusual or outrageous for countries either to use the currency of another country or have their own currency & peg it to another one.

But, hey, Scotland is unique in the whole world as being the only country that has no viable currency option.

Sucks, doesn't it?

You're basically right.

Pegged currencies are a different beast in today's floating currency world. Remember that wonderful fiscal commission that Alex hired? It is their least favoured option.

Its not that iScotland doesn't have a currency option, it's that the man who would make you iScotland doesn't have an option for you, and more importantly a costed option.

[eFestivals]

I think I understand his point but LJS has already highlighted what we currently do find money to spend on. Can I add that the bedroom tax introduced by the westminster tories actually meant that the scottish government had to re-route funds to pay the bedroom tax through social fund payments to Scotlands poorest folks so they didn`t have to suffer the reduction in their benefits imposed by the bedroom tax. To be clear, you are not defending the introduction of the bedroom tax now are you ?

No, I'm not defending the bedroom tax.

But the money to pay for Scottish extras does not currently come from Scotland. Post Indy it all has to come from Scotland. Are you sure it has the money? Few outside of Alex are so sure it does.

[LJS]

No, I'm not defending the bedroom tax.

But the money to pay for Scottish extras does not currently come from Scotland. Post Indy it all has to come from Scotland. Are you sure it has the money? Few outside of Alex are so sure it does.

Yeah, you are so kind to allow us some of our money back to spend.

& yes recently you have given us more than we have raised. It's called a deficit. rUK has one of them too. Only bigger!

[eFestivals]

I`m not sure that you aren`t missing the bigger picture with this statement. How many countries that didn`t look back did you score off your list before going with Newfoundland ?

I was simply pointing out the claim was untrue.

I am not always against indie for Scotland, but I can't go along with the population being conned into voting yes on a false promise. Unlike other votes, there's no option to vote differently next time after the lies have been shown to be lies.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, you are so kind to allow us some of our money back to spend.

& yes recently you have given us more than we have raised. It's called a deficit. rUK has one of them too. Only bigger!

The point is that Scotland is not currently fiscally responsible, because it plays no part in setting taxes. Everything is different when choices have consequences.

And no, Scotland has the higher deficit when oil money is included. The oil money is fuck all now, remember?

[Comfy Bean]

No, I'm not defending the bedroom tax.

But the money to pay for Scottish extras does not currently come from Scotland. Post Indy it all has to come from Scotland. Are you sure it has the money? Few outside of Alex are so sure it does.

Agreed...and no I`m not " sure ". I have conceded that before more than once. I am " confident " that the people of Scotland would be capable of running our own Country. I would expect ups and downs and perhaps the real benefits would not be seen in my lifetime. The vast majority of people I know who are voting " NO thanks " are doing so because they are worried about their job, their pension, their mortgage. The currency issue is a big deal for them ( I agree it is a big deal ) but I have chosen to look beyond that one issue as we all know that in reality an iScotland would not grind to a halt on day 1.

Are you sure that IScotland would NOT have the money to look after the poorest and most vunerable people in our society ?

[eFestivals]

You have defended what happened quite a few times on this thread now. Stepping away from Indy for a second I am honestly surprised at your stance. I understand your argument and the reasons that you have put across but I am genuinely surprised at your position.

From one angle I'm against the deception, because govts work for the people and not to deceive the people.

Then again, the people are often morons, I'm sure we can all agree, and a govt has to be able to effectively manage, and sometimes that can be best done by surreptitious means.

If you know the guy next door will nick anything that isn't tied down, it's best not to tell him you've got a new TV. Its just that, really.

[LJS]

Agreed...and no I`m not " sure ". I have conceded that before more than once. I am " confident " that the people of Scotland would be capable of running our own Country. I would expect ups and downs and perhaps the real benefits would not be seen in my lifetime. The vast majority of people I know who are voting " NO thanks " are doing so because they are worried about their job, their pension, their mortgage. The currency issue is a big deal for them ( I agree it is a big deal ) but I have chosen to look beyond that one issue as we all know that in reality an iScotland would not grind to a halt on day 1.

Are you sure that IScotland would NOT have the money to look after the poorest and most vunerable people in our society ?

Agree wholheartedly.

Too much of this debate is about the "how" & not enough about the "why"

Although I do know some yes voters who have (in my opinion) unrealistic expectations for an independent Scotland, I know more who like myself & comfy are more "realistic"

Of course there is some danger of the first group being somewhat disappointed when things are not quite as good as they had hoped. However, we are well used to voting, then being disappointed with the outcome!

[eFestivals]

Agreed...and no I`m not " sure ". I have conceded that before more than once. I am " confident " that the people of Scotland would be capable of running our own Country. I would expect ups and downs and perhaps the real benefits would not be seen in my lifetime. The vast majority of people I know who are voting " NO thanks " are doing so because they are worried about their job, their pension, their mortgage. The currency issue is a big deal for them ( I agree it is a big deal ) but I have chosen to look beyond that one issue as we all know that in reality an iScotland would not grind to a halt on day 1.

Are you sure that IScotland would NOT have the money to look after the poorest and most vunerable people in our society ?

An admirable stance. If all yes-ers were voting on that basis because that's what the campaign was selling them I'd be very happy for Scotland to vote yes.

And yes, I believe that Scotland could afford all the things some aspire to for others, but I do not expect voters to vote themselves materially worse.... And the actual result will be the opposite of what is hoped for.

[eFestivals]

Agree wholheartedly.

Too much of this debate is about the "how" & not enough about the "why"

Although I do know some yes voters who have (in my opinion) unrealistic expectations for an independent Scotland, I know more who like myself & comfy are more "realistic"

Of course there is some danger of the first group being somewhat disappointed when things are not quite as good as they had hoped. However, we are well used to voting, then being disappointed with the outcome!

Those last lines of yours sadden me as a democrat.

If you truly believe that the best decisions for Scotland are made by Scots in Scotland that includes the result of the indyref.

If any are making their decision as the result of a false belief then that cannot be a good thing.

[russycarps]

A yes vote now being rated as a 12.8% chance on betfair being exchange

[LJS]

Those last lines of yours sadden me as a democrat.

If you truly believe that the best decisions for Scotland are made by Scots in Scotland that includes the result of the indyref.

If any are making their decision as the result of a false belief then that cannot be a good thing.

It saddens me too but it is the reality whether we are talking elections or referenda.

Too many people vote for their (perceived) narrow self interest. Others vote because they like or dislike individual politicians.

I am sure you & I both wish it were differentl but it ain't.

It is possible to argue that the Indy debate has seen a higher level of interest and engagement than a normal election (as it should) but that doesn't apply to the whole electorate by any means.