The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I`m not saying the numbers are a 100% accurate ( don`t imagine anyone actually counted the pigs ) but there is an underlying point that Scotland has more to offer than just oil. I am pleased to hear that there is an " army " of people getting that information out there. Scotland has a whole lot to offer. This, and the consequences of a NO vote, seems to pass you by.

the consequences of a no vote? What's that then? Some sort of threat?

Simply put, the loss of Scotland will have minimal impact onto the rUK. Simply put, an iScotland will (economically) miss the rUK hugely.

That's simply the result if the differences in size, and the economic realities. Scotland is a minimal market for the rUK, whilst rUK is 70% of Scottish exports - and if you care to look at how other countries serve their domestic markets and how other countries export (you have looked, haven't you?), you should be exceedingly worried.

Sure, those exports won't fall off a cliff on day one (tho Alex is trying to make that happen!!), but they *will* fall and keep on falling. Till rUK takes only around 30% of Scottish exports.

These are the economic realities that the world works to (but you'll no doubt call it 'spite' by rUK. )

Another way of looking at this referendum is that "we" have an opportunity to take a different direction and NOT follow the herd We CAN think for ourselves and have a government that we actually vote for taking decisions on our behalf but there you go, it`s all about opinions. I believe we would manage fine.

I believe you'll manage fine too.

But I also believe that that 'fine' will be something lesser than you currently have, because of the economic realities.

I've no problem with Scotland going indy if that's what it wants, and it's happy to take the consequences of its choice.

Salmond proves that the consequences of indy are npot what Scotland wants, which is why he pretends there's no consequences.

I agree that Salmond " won ". I doubt that many people will change their minds from NO to YES after watching but there will be some undecideds who atleast now have some info on trident, foodbanks, child poverty etc.

that info being that Salmond hasn't addressed the things he could address, which he claims are vitally important tro address whilst d0ing nothing at all?

(the only things he's done is not implement changes that Westminster has, so he can highlight differences. It's not any social conscience).

Hopefully they will do their own research on the NHS, oil etc and then make their mind up instead of believing that they wont be able to pay their mortgage or spend their wages and vote based on that shit.

if yours is a job with an exporter, there's no guarantee of still having a job with which to pay your mortgage.

if yours is a job within finance, there's no guarantee of still having a job with which to pay your mortgage.

if yours is a job at Faslane, there's no guarantee of still having a job with which to pay your mortgage.

if yours is a job shipbuilding on the Clyde, there's no guarantee of still having a job with which to pay your mortgage.

Etc, etc, etc.

Darling had a shocker. I almost felt sorry for him when he stumbled through his pre-prepared closing statement rambling on about stuff that Salmond HAD covered ( to a point ) minutes before. Embarrassing stuff.

So when did Salmond cover currency plan B?

[eFestivals]

Still looking unlikely. The closest poll I can see today has no on 50% yes on 39% with 11% undecided.

Talk of a 75-80% turnout which is pretty decent.

If those percentages are accurate, then there's no hope for yes. They'd need to 'win' all of those undecided's, and that's just not going to happen.

The fact of Darling doing dreadfully has probably helped the 'no' turnout by a lot too.

[Comfy Bean]

Scotland really has little power in post-independence negotiations...

The threat seems to be that if you don't get the currency union then you will act the c**ts over things like Trident and National Debt.

This article shows very well how little power you have when it comes to Trident / NATO negotiations... http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-nukefree-scotland/18727

And good luck with defaulting on your debt obligations and everything that goes with that.

Yes, the only option for idiots

The " threat " is that we will NOT get a currency union. I think this is at best an empty threat and that Osbourne is playing party politics. I set out my reasons above. I may be wrong in your opinion so of course that would make me an idiot. Yip, that`s how it works.

Salmond has said many many times that Scotland will take it`s share of the debt as part of the currency union. Feel free to pretend otherwise.

[Comfy Bean]

If those percentages are accurate, then there's no hope for yes. They'd need to 'win' all of those undecided's, and that's just not going to happen.

The fact of Darling doing dreadfully has probably helped the 'no' turnout by a lot too.

Agreed. Not sure many will actually turn from a no to a yes as Darling blunders his way to the line but your right that it will make the strong no`s get off their arse and vote. I have been pretty solid on 60/40 NO but think it may have narrowed slightly. Nothing like the momentum towards YES that I was hoping would come. Still time of course

[Comfy Bean]

Something you clearly don't get as well is us lot south of the border are no idiots. We realise that if you win independence you over night become the enemey in the war for jobs and investment. You plan on under cutting the rest of the UK in an attempt to fuck us over.

Oh Barry

A currency union will not be good for the majority of the remaining UK. God help the party who chooses to fuck over its own people for your benefit.

A currency union will see Scotland take it`s fair share of the debt ( you do know about the debt ? ). It remains my view that this would be good news for the remaining uk folks.

[eFestivals]

IF......Scotland votes YES I think that there will be a currency union as it will be in everyone`s interest.

yes-ers say this, but can never say how it's in the UK's interests to take on a guarantor role for the debts of a foreign state that they cannot control.

It's a bottomless pit, a commitment of an infinite amount of rUK's money for an iScotland.

If it's in rUK's interests, prove it to me by showing how it's in your interests to be guarantor of your neighbour's mortgage.

The markets will demand it

Laughable shite.

Check what the markets have said - the complete opposite. The UK's ratings will be downgraded if there's a CU.

And the pound keeps going upwards despite the percentages changing slowing in yes's favour.

And it went upwards both when Osborne guaranteed the debts, and when he said no CU.

Scotland will agree to pay it`s fair share of the debt in return.

no matter what the settlement, iScotland will pay its share. The econbomic realities will demand it.

Eitjher that, or iscotland'sa first election will be cancelled (Alex will love that ) due to the economic meltdown inn the first month, when public sector wages go unpaid.

Unless you're going to tell me how Scotland will magic money from the air?

He will be in a very strong position

I keep hearing this, and keep laughing.

The only 'strength' he has in negotiations is to refuse the debts - a policy that'll cost iScotland far more than it saves iScotland, and will (after a few years) make rUK a decent wedge.

Go for it, there's plenty in England willing that one on.

IF....it comes to this do you think Osbourne would refuse a currency union in return for Scotland taking its fair share of the debt ?[

Yes.

Why do you think they'll be different attitudes than there are towards the Euro? You know, the Euro that few in Scotland would accept.

Further, everyone in Scotland says it would be temporary. That attitude can never work with a CU; it's permanent, or it gets knocked down within days (just check out the Czechoslovak split).

And further still, a person who makes threats to not pay their debts is never a suitable partner for a CU.

A future currency union cannot ever be a past asset. But even if it were, it's not all of the assets, just a small part.

If iScotland pays no debt, it'll get nothing of it's share of rUK assets - that are worth hugely more than a CU is worth to iScotland.

There is a value to the past contribution of Scotland to Sterling's stability, but it's minimal in the scheme of things (my guess is less than £10Bn). It'd be a shit decision by Scotland to not accept (say) £10Bn and lose out on well over £100Bn of BoE assets (gold, FX, gilts, bonds, etc, etc,).

I expect things like the timescale for the removal of Trident might be another bargaining chip, not to mention all that pesky oil.

While Trident is an awkward issue for rUK, there's not actually any method that iScotland has to 'evict' it short of armed conflict.

(Whereas it's dead easy for iScotland to be evicted from the EU, by way of comparison.)

I wouldn't like to guess how the Trident issue pans out, tho I find it impossible to see it used as a bargaining chip over currency. A CU would have to be permanent by it's very nature, while I cannot see iScotland accepting the permanence of Trident.

[eFestivals]

Agreed. Not sure many will actually turn from a no to a yes as Darling blunders his way to the line but your right that it will make the strong no`s get off their arse and vote. I have been pretty solid on 60/40 NO but think it may have narrowed slightly. Nothing like the momentum towards YES that I was hoping would come. Still time of course

I'm guessing at about a 15% difference between yes & no, on the basis of the polls.

The amusing thing is, if yes did actually win, the win would be so small that there'd be a greater number of people in Scotland who were living in a country they hadn't voted for than would have voted for the 'landslide' victory of the SNP in 2011.

Now how's THAT for a democratic deficit in Scotland?

[eFestivals]

Something you clearly don't get as well is us lot south of the border are no idiots. We realise that if you win independence you over night become the enemey in the war for jobs and investment.

Poor choice of words there Barry.

Not "enemy", but "in competition with". And sadly for Scotland that's an awfully difficult conflict to win, given all the numbers and situations.

Meanwhile, investment. The SNP claims that just the fact of independence will give an investment boost, on the basis of what happened in the Eastern block/ Yugo countries.

It's true that they had money pour into those newly-free states ... in exchange for the public assets (schools, hospitals, nationalised industries, social housing, etc), which were sold off at a knock-down price. It's the tory dream.

[eFestivals]

The " threat " is that we will NOT get a currency union.

Nope, that's a straight-forwards sovereign response to a foreign state making demands that rUK hand over some of its sovereignty in response to iScotland's threat of robbery.

I think this is at best an empty threat and that Osbourne is playing party politics. I set out my reasons above.

It might be 'party politics', but it's also the long established view of all three major parties towards the idea of CU with a foreign state.

But it's also the economically advantageous response by rUK, which will be in competition with iScotland no less than it is other sovereign states.

And it's also the response that the markets desire.

Your 'reasons above' are tosh. Why not actually read up on the view of the markets rather than make it up out of nothing?

Salmond has said many many times that Scotland will take it`s share of the debt as part of the currency union. Feel free to pretend otherwise.

And RUK has said many times that a CU is not going to happen.

Meanwhile that threat is an empty threat. iScotland can afford to shun its moral debt less-so than it can operate without a CU.

[eFestivals]

If they want to join NATO then they are almost certainly going to have to live with the fact it will be using Scottish waters and maybe even their ports. But much like our NATO allies, nothing will be confirmed or denied

yep, that part is something that iScotland will have to go along with as a NATO member. There's no way around that if you're part of the nuclear club that is NATO.

[eFestivals]

It's true that they had money pour into those newly-free states ... in exchange for the public assets (schools, hospitals, nationalised industries, social housing, etc), which were sold off at a knock-down price. It's the tory dream.

PS: an iScotland will have to do the same if/when it establishes its own currency - because it will need foreign currency in exchange for its assets to underpin that new currency.

You disagree? Then you've not read up on what it takes to establish a new currency.

And now you know why the raving right-wing Adam Smith Institute is egging Scotland on to create its own currency.

[eFestivals]

PS: if you think Scotland will vote yes, move your money from Scotland now (yes, even you yes-ers).

Or lose it.

Cos you will.

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

the consequences of a no vote? What's that then? Some sort of threat?

Simply put, the loss of Scotland will have minimal impact onto the rUK. Simply put, an iScotland will (economically) miss the rUK hugely.

That's simply the result if the differences in size, and the economic realities. Scotland is a minimal market for the rUK, whilst rUK is 70% of Scottish exports - and if you care to look at how other countries serve their domestic markets and how other countries export (you have looked, haven't you?), you should be exceedingly worried.

Sure, those exports won't fall off a cliff on day one (tho Alex is trying to make that happen!!), but they *will* fall and keep on falling. Till rUK takes only around 30% of Scottish exports.

These are the economic realities that the world works to (but you'll no doubt call it 'spite' by rUK. )

Mis-understanding here sir. Having read it back, I didn`t make my point very clear about you not having much to say on the consequences of a no vote. My bad, I was distracted by all this silly talk of enemies etc !!

What I was meaning was the consequences for the people of Scotland if / when we return a no vote. I`m thinking about the welfare cuts which will hit the poorest the hardest and the public sector cuts ( how much is left to cut ? ). Everyone ( i think ) has accepted that there will be problems to overcome if its yes. Do you agree that the people of Scotland " could " suffer consequences if its a no ?

The clue is in the fact that the tories have nothing to lose up here ( seat wise ) Boris is already sounding off about it.

[Comfy Bean]

Question for the yes voters...

Do you want Trident removed from Scotland ?

Do you want Scotland to be members of the first strike nuclear NATO club?

If you answer yes to both of these question then please justify the point in removing Trident from Scotland. Interested to hear the reasoning.

I`ll give you my view Baza but I know you will start raging again if I don`t hold the same view as you

Yes.

No.

I`m with New Zealand on this one mate. Thought Salmond raised an interesting point during the debate. Feel free to take this one financially or morally. It works for both in my view.

IF.... Scotland votes Yes Trident is out. Is it possible that this raises an interesting question for the good folks left in rUK. Should you want to go down the road of renewing the Trident programme ? Lets call it £100billion. As I said morally or financially ? Salmond raised it, what would you want to do ?

Would the people who would be living near the nukes be happy ? Or would the need to continue posturing about with the Yanks being the world police mean that you would happily re-invest in weapons of mass destruction while pushing on with the welfare reforms.

[Comfy Bean]

For what its worth, I still think there will be a CU. I have read all the opinions above and to be honest I doubt we will ever find out. Think we will have to agree to disagree ( again ). I would not expect Osbourne to reveal his true hand anyway prior to any negotiation. That would be daft. I will stand by my earlier point that he will quickly need to explain to the markets / world that he was playing party politics. I agree that Scotland should be paying its share of the debt mountain. Any uncertainty over this will not be good for anyone was the point I was trying to make. I`m sure we are all agreed that Scotland will not grind to a halt nor will the sky fall in over currency.

Edited August 27, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

PS: if you think Scotland will vote yes, move your money from Scotland now (yes, even you yes-ers).

Or lose it.

Cos you will.

Not sure if serious.

[kaosmark2]

I`ll give you my view Baza but I know you will start raging again if I don`t hold the same view as you

Yes.

No.

I`m with New Zealand on this one mate. Thought Salmond raised an interesting point during the debate. Feel free to take this one financially or morally. It works for both in my view.

IF.... Scotland votes Yes Trident is out. Is it possible that this raises an interesting question for the good folks left in rUK. Should you want to go down the road of renewing the Trident programme ? Lets call it £100billion. As I said morally or financially ? Salmond raised it, what would you want to do ?

Would the people who would be living near the nukes be happy ? Or would the need to continue posturing about with the Yanks being the world police mean that you would happily re-invest in weapons of mass destruction while pushing on with the welfare reforms.

I don't want the UK, whether it includes Scotland or not, to waste money on the immoral and false security nukes theoretically provide, particularly on the overpriced Trident programme.

The "near the nukes" is a non-issue IMO. I don't think that matters a damn, it's all the other reasons being why I don't want them.

[eFestivals]

What I was meaning was the consequences for the people of Scotland if / when we return a no vote. I`m thinking about the welfare cuts which will hit the poorest the hardest and the public sector cuts ( how much is left to cut ? ).

As you say, what is there left to cut?

The only thing I'm seeing is the over-provision of welfare resources beyond what someone needs - such as a spare room.

While there's aspects of the 'bedroom tax' I strongly object to, unless people are willing to pay greater taxes to provide claimants with stuff they don't need the basic principle is (within that parameter set by the public) pretty sound.

It's all very well banging on about how unfair it is, but only the likes of me and you can change that - by happily paying more in taxes.

And like it or not, and despite the claimed greater support for social justice in Scotland, people in Scotland are no more willing to cough up those taxes than arch-tory England. It's almost like yes voters think they won't be taxed after a yes vote, that England will keep giving them a block grant even post indy.

Instead, iScotland is going to have to discover that there's difficult choices from a limited pot - and perhaps they might even discover that if they really actually want greater social justice and a reduction in poverty, the middle classes are going to have to lose the privileges that Alex has given them at the expense of the poor.

If Scotland really had that greater social justice, you'd have already dumped the SNP.

Instead, Scotland prefers to support anti-English sentiments rather than its own poor. You can't argue with the facts - including SNP policy increasing Scottish poverty.

Everyone ( i think ) has accepted that there will be problems to overcome if its yes.

Bullshit. If that was true, Alex wouldn't be pretending there will be no problems.

Do you agree that the people of Scotland " could " suffer consequences if its a no ?

Even the sun rising in the morning has consequences.

If healthcare costs rise - and they're rising (even in Salmond's wonderful NHS, hence it's problems), then something has to be done to cover that in some manner. The choices are:-

1. higher taxes.

2. cuts elsewhere.

That's no different in Scotland, in all circumstances.

Given that Scotland has a greater deficit and will take a heavy hit from indy, it's a certainty that the consequences in Scotland will be greater if everything else remains equal.

Even your beloved Barnet formula is imposing cuts in Scotland, because Scotland's wealth is fading by purely the efforts within Scotland.

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Not sure if serious.

I'm deadly serious.

If you think there won't be capital flight if there's a yes vote (or even before), you're kidding yourself.

And if Alex gets his dream, expect to see at least 20% reduction in people's personal wealth in Scotland. This is PRECISELY why Alex won't give you plan B.

Alex doesn't give a shit about impoverishing you. H gets everything he wants from just the yes vote. He doesn't want greater social justice, as his almost-constantly right-of-the-tories policies get to prove.

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

For what its worth, I still think there will be a CU. I have read all the opinions above and to be honest I doubt we will ever find out. Think we will have to agree to disagree ( again ). I would not expect Osbourne to reveal his true hand anyway prior to any negotiation. That would be daft. I will stand by my earlier point that he will quickly need to explain to the markets / world that he was playing party politics. I agree that Scotland should be paying its share of the debt mountain. Any uncertainty over this will not be good for anyone was the point I was trying to make. I`m sure we are all agreed that Scotland will not grind to a halt nor will the sky fall in over currency.

any evidence to back up your market claims?

I can show you opposite opinions from:-

1. UBS.

2. Commerzbank

3. S&P.

4. Moody's.

5. Deutsche Bank

6. the FX markets.

7. the stock market.

(they're merely the ones I can remember off the top of my head).

????

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The "near the nukes" is a non-issue IMO.

It makes me laugh when Scotland bangs on about "the UK wouldn't put this stuff close to its own large centres of population, but they've no problem putting it near Glasgow".

I suggest that the claimed better Scottish education is a myth. For geography at least.

There's a much greater danger from the nukes at Aldermaston and Burghfield, and they're much nearer a greater population too.

Scotland loves a myth.

[eFestivals]

hey comfy, you do know if you do the CU thing with rUK, you fail to then meet the EU entry criteria, don't you?

In fact, it might see the UK kicked out of the EU too - tho that's a bit less clear, because of the UK's currency opt-out. The point is, the UK's opt-out is not a permanent opt-out, and a CU with iScotland might be considered as making it permanent.

The same problem exists if you go for the Euro. Don't believe me? Just check out Montenegro and why it's not being accepted into the EU.

These are core EU principles. You won't get an opt-out on the requirement of being financially 'independent' via your own (actually-in-real-life useful) central bank.

Edited August 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

any evidence to back up your market claims?

I can show you opposite opinions from:-

1. UBS.

2. Commerzbank

3. S&P.

4. Moody's.

5. Deutsche Bank

6. the FX markets.

7. the stock market.

(they're merely the ones I can remember off the top of my head).

????

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. 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 ). My view is 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.

I just happen to think that Osbourne would agree to a CU that would not be for ever. I`m aware that I may be in the minority here. As I have said already, I think if this were to happen he would be quickly explaining to the markets that he was playing party politics before and we would co-operate. I honestly don`t think it is in anyones interest to cut iscotland loose. Look what happened when Ireland required " help " in the past *

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

[Comfy Bean]

It makes me laugh when Scotland bangs on about "the UK wouldn't put this stuff close to its own large centres of population, but they've no problem putting it near Glasgow".

I suggest that the claimed better Scottish education is a myth. For geography at least.

There's a much greater danger from the nukes at Aldermaston and Burghfield, and they're much nearer a greater population too.

Scotland loves a myth.

We do. Our favourite is the monster in the Loch. Anyway now that you have deflected away from the question with the geography lesson, the point that Salmond raised during the debate and I repeated earlier was :

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

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 ?

[eFestivals]

Scotland and the debt .... an easy guide for yes-ers...

In April 2013 (more than a year ago and before the SNP's white paper), Osborne said that the currency union was "unlikely", and Swinney replied that this was "scaremongering".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/23/osborne-scotland-sterling-currency-union

This was in relation to an official UK government's document published in April 2013, which stated that "the economic rationale for the UK to agree to enter a formal sterling union with a separate state is not clear".

The SNP demanded clarity, and they got as much clarity as is possible at this moment, and the answer is no, because the currency union is against the best interests of the rUK. Major foreign financial institutions also expressed this opinion (my list above).

Yet, the SNP keep hysterically shouting scaremongering, bluff and bluster (and threatening international creditors) instead of making credible currency plans for iScotland, taking into account also the fact that if iScotland wants to be an EU member, it will have to launch its own currency.