The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

WTF has a proposed interim constitution got to do with anything?

It's yet another thing where Alex is mugging you, and you've failed to notice.

He says "the people are sovereign", and then reserves *ALL* power for politicians and nothing for "the people".

Have you even read the bloody thing?

If you have, why haven't you noticed this???

[eFestivals]

Gosh ... imagine that!

A bit like the last 300 years.

Yes, imagine, voting for indy and getting a worse deal for Scotland .... but a better deal for Alex.

That would never happen, would it?

[eFestivals]

Better together?

"The chances of people on low incomes affording a decent life, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, have dramatically reduced "

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/01/minimum-income-standard-joseph-rowntree-foundation

No thanks

PMSL.

You only get to reject that if you replace it with something better.

Care to tell me how a country with lower resources but higher spending will maintain even the standards of now?

You only get to reject living in shit if you can drag yourself out of the shit. Nothiong of that happens purely by moving the centre of power.

it's not where the deciusions are made that matters. It's not where the peop[le are from that matters. It's *&ONBLY* the quality of the decisions that matter.

And the guy who you reckon makes the better decisions has a proven history of making much worse ones - ones that would already have driven Scotland into deeper shit if an indyref had been won ten years ago.

But Scottish people will make better decisions, yeah, just because they're Scottish.

(then please do notice the Scots who have helped run the UK into the ground and caused you to wackily think that Scots will do better).

[eFestivals]

I believe, hope perhaps but I think a realistic hope, that Scottish independence would be GOOD for the English

and Scotland likes to think that it's England that patronises Scotland. :lol:

not least in terms of thinking about the regions of England, perhaps getting some devolved powers.

it's clearly passed you by, but the people of England have bigger minds than to want little empires.

I heard today - rightly or wrongly - that 80% of the new private sector jobs were created in London.

wrongly according to govt figures. You should have listened closely, instead of hearing a snippet and making the rest up for yourself.

Oooooh, now there's a theme of the indyref.

It's not England I have a problem with - it's the selfish clusterfuck that is the Westminster Tory hegemony.

Oh, so it's democracy you have a problem with. Yep, i'd worked that out already.

People only redraw the boundaries to create their own desired result if they don't believe in democracy, and not because they do.

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't say it's lefty nationalism. I'd say it's centre-right masquerading as lefty, much like Lib Dems and Labour.

I'd say it's a bit different to that.

I'd say it's centre-right for many things, but right wing on economic matters - on the basis of the raving right wing policy statements that Alex has made over the years.

I don't think Salmond's much worse than the top end of those parties, but I think anyone who reckons HE would be better is delusional.

spot on. It's all of the same scam.

But it's a better scam because it's scam formed in Scotland by Scotsmen.... isn't that "civic nationalism" just grand?

Of course, maybe an independent Scotland wouldn't actually have the SNP in charge for long and end up with a genuine left or centre-left option. Who knows? But my guess is they won't and everyone will both be worse off and the high inequality will remain.

It's often said (as a deliberate lie by yes-ers, but ignore that for a mo) that Scotland leaving the UK will mean generations of tory govt for rUK due to the loss of Scottish Labour MPs. If that were true* in theory the tories would always have enough votes to win.

(*it's not as analysis of prior elections gets to show)

But is that what would really happen?

Nope, cos it doesn't take too long for the people to want a change of govt, for some things to be reversed, and fresh faces at the controls. So (with everything else remaining equal) rUK would continue to swap parties every election or two as it has done.

And guess what? Much the same will happen in iScotland. They'll be a supposedly "left-leaning" govt (probably no more 'left' than nuLabour) followed by a conservative govt doing many of the standard English tory things.

If it ain't that then it'll definitely be bankruptcy for iScotland, cos the people of iScotland cannot afford to pay for their fantasies to be implemented, and the people of iScotland will not agree to pay for their fantasies to be implemented.

Edited July 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

You think the FPTP is democratic, rather than designed to be anti-democratic?

You could even hear your leader, David Cameron, boast about how the GE FTPS system will keep out the UKIP vote. I'm happy with keeping UKIP out, but the same mechanism that keeps out UKIP despite popular support is the same system that has stagnated British politics to having "one party with two front benches", as a famous "tutor-to-power" once put it.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed - Steve Biko

Sometimes I wish you'd remember this applies to you as much as anyone.

[eFestivals]

No, but if David Cameron has his way you'll have to change your Pounds Sterling into something tradeable such as wine or steel*.

Hey, I know you people in Scotland want rUK to underwrite your debts, but let's just see how equitable the opinion is. Do the people of Scotland want subsidies from the rUK without being prepared to do the same themselves?

So, let's find out.

Every Scot who will agree to pay higher income tax to bail out bankers in London as will be required by a Currency Union, sign up below:-

1. <blank>

2. <blank>

3. <blank>

4. <blank>

5. <blank>

6. <blank>

7. <blank>

8. <blank>

................

Until that's signed by the population of Scotland, it's subsidy from rUK that iScotland wants and not a CU.

[eFestivals]

You think the FPTP is democratic, rather than designed to be anti-democratic?

I don't think it's democratic, but I also don't think it was designed to be anti-democratic.

That's merely what's it's become by circumstances over time - essentially by the introduction of more than just two parties. If there's only two parties, FPTP works perfectly.

You could even hear your leader, David Cameron, boast about how the GE FTPS system will keep out the UKIP vote.

and in the next election it'll also keep out the tory vote, precisely because of UKIP.

Sometimes FPTP has its advantages.

That doesn't mean I support FPTP (I've been a fan of PR for over 30 years), but it's all we have to work by right now.

Meanwhile, in that beacon of democracy called Scotland (as well as England), the people of Scotland didn't want an electoral system that would better deliver their own political wishes. Funny that, eh?

That's democracy for you. You either accept the will of the people as right (if a little stupid ), or you're on the side of Kim-il-Jong.

[russycarps]

Murray out, bad news for Alex as no Scottish success to piggy back on this year

[eFestivals]

Murray out, bad news for Alex as no Scottish success to piggy back on this year

haven't you heard and seen?

Any person in Scotland or from Scotland who shows any equal affinity to anywhere other than Scotland is not Scottish, nor is anyone who dares dispute the sacred and irrefutable word of Alex

They're traitors and quislings.

It's almost as tho this is a prophesy.

[LJS]

Salmond's bank lax regulation thing was to the right of the tories - in fact, perfectly in line with John Redwood, the man too right wing even for the tories.

Irrelevant - he was not in power & as I've stated a gazillion times - very few people were warning of the risks in deregulation - meanwhile Labour & the Tories fought over who could deregulate the most - in other words the entire UK political establishment are equally to blame.

Who cuts corp tax to benefit the richest? That'll be the right wingers too.

Again, everyone does & I see Labour are banging on again about who friendly to business they will be - no doubt they will pass on some of the money they claw back from benefit scroungers to the rich. There is a proposal to cut corporation tax by up to 3% in the White Paper. You will be well aware that business taxes have been cut by a number of governments throughout the world in an attempt to stimulate growth & attract inward investment. Not all of these governments are right wing and it is a typical oversimplification to present this as a simple left/right issue. (just for the record, I will repeat that I personally remain to be convinced that a cut is corpn tax should be a priority & certainly it would need to be balanced with a range of other measures.)

Who sucks up to Murdoch? Those on the right.

Pretty much all politicians do - whether you can still classify labour as being anywhere within a million miles of "the left" is very much open to debate.

The fact that these 3 examples are the best you can manage to demonstrate that Salmond is right wing despite having been first minister for 7 years, demonstrates clearly that you either have no idea what you are taking about or you simply have no case.

[LJS]

I wouldn't say it's lefty nationalism. I'd say it's centre-right masquerading as lefty, much like Lib Dems and Labour.

I don't think Salmond's much worse than the top end of those parties, but I think anyone who reckons HE would be better is delusional. Of course, maybe an independent Scotland wouldn't actually have the SNP in charge for long and end up with a genuine left or centre-left option. Who knows? But my guess is they won't and everyone will both be worse off and the high inequality will remain.

that's the plan

We have an electoral system which makes it very difficult for any one party to gain an overall majority - it's only happened once & that was due to a particularly favourable set of circumstances for the SNP.

I will certainly not be voting based on my like or dislike for Alex Salmond.

[Comfy Bean]

Have been reading ( again ) about how things would be much worse today if it wasn`t for the excellent work done by the food banks in Scotland. Sadly I cannot see things changing for the poorest in society with a NO vote. The cuts that will come after the next general election ( in the event of a no vote ) will in my view make things much much worse. This is NOT about Salmond or jam or blaming everything on Engerland ( has anyone on here ever done that or does Neil just keep peddling it incase someone believes him ). Surely we are capable of running our own country and taking full responsibility for ourselves. Is this the issue with NO voters. Do they think that Scotland is NOT capable ?

[LJS]

Have been reading ( again ) about how things would be much worse today if it wasn`t for the excellent work done by the food banks in Scotland. Sadly I cannot see things changing for the poorest in society with a NO vote. The cuts that will come after the next general election ( in the event of a no vote ) will in my view make things much much worse. This is NOT about Salmond or jam or blaming everything on Engerland ( has anyone on here ever done that or does Neil just keep peddling it incase someone believes him ). Surely we are capable of running our own country and taking full responsibility for ourselves. Is this the issue with NO voters. Do they think that Scotland is NOT capable ?

You are so right.

(thought I'd get that in before Neil tells us Alex will make soup from the poor & feed it to the bankers.)

[kaosmark2]

This is NOT about Salmond or jam or blaming everything on Engerland ( has anyone on here ever done that or does Neil just keep peddling it incase someone believes him ).

I think Neil peddles it because Salmond peddles it. I don't think most of the yes-ers here have argued unreasonably, I just think it's a yes vote based on a sense of optimism and hope I completely lack regarding any political change for the entirety of the UK. I believe that Salmond will get more power and influence over the negotiations as to what "independence" actually means (ie. it won't), and that Scotland, Wales, NI and England will all end up substantially worse for it.

In the event of a yes vote, I see the outcome being this:

Scotland becomes "independent". They gain a greater proportion of the oil revenues than their population, but less than the territorial claim Salmond argues. They gain a proportional amount of the debt.

The hassle of steadily splitting civil services, nationalities in passports, healthcare exchange, university rights exchange, etc. is burdened upon the taxpayers of both countries, harming the poor in rUK and the whole of Scotland, the only ones getting away with limited impact being the top 5% or so in England. This has a corresponding impact on all public services across the newly separate countries, doing long-term lasting damage of a degree that hasn't been seen since Thatcher's cuts.

Salmond, fresh on the wave of of a successful election in 2014, will win the first "independent" Scottish election. The SNP may not get a large majority, or even one at all, but they will be by a distance the dominant party and will be dictating negotiations with Westminster for the immediate future.

rUK gets a strong Tory majority, with the currently projected weak Tory majority -> Labour/Lab coalition being cut by Scots no longer having a vote over Westminster. However, Westminster's decisions will still have a massive impact on the Scots, as "independence" will only be pseudo-independence for several parliaments.

This will have fiscal implications on both countries, with Scotland steadily losing right to use Sterling as it is forced to switch to the Euro as per demands from Westminster, Spain, Brussels, etc. However Scotland will remain dependent on rUK as there will be a temporary to mid-term currency union which will slow the transition to actual independence further.

Meanwhile, from the POV of the rest of the world, Sterling will weaken substantially as will both the rUK economy and the new Scottish economy, due to the fact that markets don't like uncertainty and new things, at all. Noone will have confidence in either's ability to go it alone, and Scotland will get it worse than UK.

My issue is not that I think Scotland any more incapable of governing itself than any other country. My issue is that with the way modern society works, with a particular emphasis on capitalism and international markets, the transition will be brutal to Scotland and painful to rUK, to a degree from which there won't be a sufficient recovery for any hope of funding for left-wing policies to break through.

Remember, everyone who says "I'm prepared to pay more tax if it results in better public services" still expects near-instant results. If the tax rise doesn't produce something they see as tangible, they'll start demanding they're lowered again as they're not getting their money's worth. It's a twisted ideology, but it's how people, particularly British people work. The only way you can get a greater investment in public services, is by borrowing against good credit and reputation, and then rising tax to coincide with the improvement that's already been invested in. Hell Boris has a good rep in London because he's ridden the goodwill from a number of policies Ken implemented but didn't get appreciated until a couple of years until BJ became mayor. Scottish independence leading to a centre-left Utopia that will show rUK up as the heaving mire of inequality it is won't happen. It might well be easier than I'm predicting, but it won't be smooth or pleasant for anyone.

[viberunner]

I've been trying to get to grips with eFest and his... views.

This handy sketch cleared a lot of things up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MF6bLIWJiY

[viberunner]

The hassle of steadily splitting civil services, nationalities in passports, healthcare exchange, university rights exchange, etc. is burdened upon the taxpayers of both countries,

Why should health care, university rights, passports, etc. be in the least difficult?

Scotland and England already have different universities and different healthcare systems, and there are existing templates for interaction via the EU. Scotland already has a full, experienced, parliamentary, national civil service. It needs expanding to include non-devolved items such as foreign policy and defence - the world class education and university systems won't hurt on that front - but it does not need creating from scratch.

From England I mean rUK's perspective, Iceland and the PIIGS countries, with little industry, survived peak Bear markets. Surely a G7 member and EU net contributor can survive the economic loss of 4 million people from 65 million?

Yes, part of the YES campaign is based on optimism. But it's also based on the observation some very much poorer countries with far less effective political management have gone through very much worse and survived, and there's no reason to think it should be as bad as that unless rUK politicians continue to act with petulance and hatred (already reason enough to require a YES vote).

[eFestivals]

Irrelevant - he was not in power & as I've stated a gazillion times

It's VERY relevant.

You're voting for the idea that Scotsmen will run Scotland better from Scotland than Westminster does.

Salmond's views from back in 2007 gets to show that Scotsmen running Scotland from Scotland have the ability to fuck up far worse than Westminster does.

very few people were warning of the risks in deregulation - meanwhile Labour & the Tories fought over who could deregulate the most - in other words the entire UK political establishment are equally to blame.

do behave.

Labour had reached the limits of their deregulation.

The tories wanted things deregulated a tad more.

Salmond wanted to tear it all down and give the bankers free reign (same as Redwood, who's too right wing for even the tories).

It was very far from being the same.

Again, everyone does & I see Labour are banging on again about who friendly to business they will be

and yet not as friendly to business as the SNP are planning to be.

Stop pretending that being more right wing than Labour makes them the same as Labour. It's against every fact.

a typical oversimplification to present this as a simple left/right issue.

That can be the case if there is a balanced set of policies.

When the only thing on offer is tax cuts for the richest exactly as the SNP are offering, it's a right-wing dream.

Pretty much all politicians do

No, only those on the right do.

Is Sheridan sucking up to Murdoch? Is Caroline Lucas sucking up to Murdoch? No.

Only those on the right are doing that, and the one sucking up the most nowadays (more-so than even the tories) is St Alex.

- whether you can still classify labour as being anywhere within a million miles of "the left" is very much open to debate.

well, to you, you make Labour left or right as suits you, as a way to try and pretend that the SNP are something better - this whole post of yours I'm replying to is doing just that.

We all know that Labour are a right wing party, with a smattering of social justice.

The SNP are also a right wing party - further to the right as their policies get to show - with less of a smattering of social justice.

The SNP don't do social justice at all. They do denigration of the English, to their political advantage, which sometimes results in a smattering of social justice - but what will happen when they no longer need to denigrate the English for their political advantage?

The fact that these 3 examples are the best you can manage to demonstrate that Salmond is right wing despite having been first minister for 7 years, demonstrates clearly that you either have no idea what you are taking about or you simply have no case.

PMSL - Alex has spent the last 7 years doing nothing left wing.

You say I can't point out anything right wing about him - and yet I have, things, BIG things, important things, that have a big effect on all individuals lives, and all further to the right than the tories.

And yet you cannot (I asked above!) point out anything left wing that Alex has done that has been done because of a belief in that left wing idea.

Edited July 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

that's the plan

We have an electoral system which makes it very difficult for any one party to gain an overall majority - it's only happened once & that was due to a particularly favourable set of circumstances for the SNP.

and you have a draft constitution which gives St Alex the power to change it to his advantage before you get any chance of any say about it.

The people are sovereign, but....

The people get no say on no-nukes. Perhaps Alex is right and the people would vote for no nukes, but the people are not sovereign in this issue.

The people get no say on the EU. Alex definitely isn't right with this, cos the people in Scotland would vote for out, and the people's sovereignty counts for fuck all.

Which leads on to the nutty idea that the biggest economic danger to Scotland is the UK leaving the EU. It's actually the case that the biggest economic danger to Scotland is the UK leaving the EU and Scotland not leaving at the same time.

I'm not supporting that scenario, I'm merely stating the economic facts. 63% of Scotland's exports are to the rUK, whilst only 16% of its exports are to rEU. Creating barriers to which of those markets would hit iScotland hardest?

There's a big set of data of EU states both big and small which shows how out-of-step with those others Scotland's economic situation is regarding trade with other EU states excluding rUK, which will make it very difficult for Scotland to have any similar economic success if iScotland is on a different economic playing field to rUK.

[eFestivals]

Have been reading ( again ) about how things would be much worse today if it wasn`t for the excellent work done by the food banks in Scotland. Sadly I cannot see things changing for the poorest in society with a NO vote. The cuts that will come after the next general election ( in the event of a no vote ) will in my view make things much much worse. This is NOT about Salmond or jam or blaming everything on Engerland ( has anyone on here ever done that or does Neil just keep peddling it incase someone believes him ). Surely we are capable of running our own country and taking full responsibility for ourselves. Is this the issue with NO voters. Do they think that Scotland is NOT capable ?

Only the nutters think Scotland is incapable of running itself.

The big questions is about how well Scotland might do if running itself - not to do with any politican's capabilities, but to do with the hard realities of iScotland's current and future prospects from facts and not dreams.

As for the increase in poverty in Scotland, it's very sad. But it's a bit telling that it's only in the SNP-governed Scotland where this is happening to this extent, whist those horrible tories are causing far less of the same effect around the rest of rUK.

Now, you might say it's because those tory policies don't suit Scotland. Or you might say that those tory policies are deliberately designed to hurt Scotland. Or....

It might be the case that St Alex is very deliberately causing this situation by taking money from local authorities which would be spent on poverty alleviating matters to spend on pet projects that benefit the richer classes more than the poorest, to create a false impression of Westminster screwing up Scotland.

Now, who's got some figures for how poverty was going in Scotland under previous SG's that Alex didn't control?

[eFestivals]

You are so right.

Ahhh, the man who'll be giving us those poverty rates under each SG, I presume.

after all, if you know it's not Alex's fault, you know all these numbers to give to me, right?

[eFestivals]

In the event of a yes vote, I see the outcome being this:

you've spotted some important things, but also fallen for some bullshit.

For example, Sterling won't weaken by any meaningful amount, as much of what might happen is already built into its exchange price.

And don't forget that the reduction of spending in Sterling will be equalled by a proportional reduction in the liabilities of rUK.

It may weaken by 5%-ish, but that's not a particularly bad thing seeing as it's risen by more than that just this year alone.

Remember, everyone who says "I'm prepared to pay more tax if it results in better public services" still expects near-instant results.

Before we even get to that, someone in Scotland has to come up with a deficit reduction programme that's something similar to what the UK govt is currently doing. Scotland has a annual deficit of over £10Bn, and it's not sustainable.

If Scotland does not, then the *only* long-term possibility is higher taxes and lower public services, and not even a sniff of that social justice dream.

Edited July 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Scotland and England already have different universities and different healthcare systems, and there are existing templates for interaction via the EU.

There is indeed - which means that Alex will no longer be able to operate his racist Uni fees policy.

And yet Alex intends to continue to operate his racist Uni fees policy.

Worse than that for Scotland is that all the Alex economic plans are based on continuing with that racist policy that is illegal within the EU, and so the economic plans aren't worth shit.

Tho they're not worth shit anyway - everything in the white paper is based on iScotland having a CU, and seeing as none of you have taken my challenge to commit to paying higher taxes to bail out banks in London if and when required, we all know a CU is not happening.

And so Alex has no economic plan at all.

From England I mean rUK's perspective, Iceland and the PIIGS countries, with little industry, survived peak Bear markets.

the people of Iceland took a 25% cut in their incomes. Are you voting that for yourself, and thinking it's fine?

Do note that while there's been an effective cut in the UK to deal with our own issues from the banking crisis, it's been a far lower drop in real incomes.

Yes, part of the YES campaign is based on optimism. But it's also based on the observation some very much poorer countries with far less effective political management have gone through very much worse and survived, and there's no reason to think it should be as bad as that unless rUK politicians continue to act with petulance and hatred (already reason enough to require a YES vote).

Yep, having to deal with the real-world instead of believing in fairy stories is hatred of Scotland.

If any one on the 'no' side mentions the banking issues, it's bluster and bullying to yes-ers.

And yet, no matter in which direction the banking issues play out, the consequences are quite mega onto iScotland - and yet Alex says there's be zero consequences.

It's either a big loss of jobs, or a big loss of tax income. Both hugely change the eco0nomic situation in iScotland.

Will yes-ers face up to this and admit the dreamed-of social justice is further away in an iScotland, or do they brush it off as bluster like Alex?

Edited July 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Now I've caught up with that lot....

Dickhead Dave is at it again. He's failing to see the irony in him saying nationalism is awful.

Still, if yes can't get over 50% in opinion polls with Dave helping them out as much as he can, it's a busted flush.

Edited July 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

There is indeed - which means that Alex will no longer be able to operate his racist Uni fees policy.

There you go. It's racist not to want burden students with massive tuition fees.

Everything you have ever argued on everything is can be summed-up by that single ubermendacious statement of yours.