UKC

Thought this was an interesting article in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottis...

Probably a more valid comparison than Norway...

In reply to PeterM: To be fair, with regards to the banks they're not Scottish, they're UK - currently.

In reply to PeterM: I nearly forgot, PROJECT FEAR!!!!!!!!

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Stop bullying me!!! ...oh sorry I'm on the wrong side..

It was just an interesting point of view... I hadn't considered Slovakia. I still do think we're in a very unique position, and not comparable to anyone really..

In reply to PeterM:


Only forth post in

In reply to PeterM:

Interesting only because he shares your miss informed information based of fear.



"The Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic went their separate ways after 1 January 1993, an event sometimes called the Velvet Divorce. Slovakia has remained a close partner with the Czech Republic. Both countries cooperate with Hungary and Poland in the Visegrád Group. Slovakia became a member of NATO on 29 March 2004 and of the European Union on 1 May 2004. On 1 January 2009, Slovakia adopted the Euro as its national currency."

Your correct, our situation is unique, at least Slovakia and the Czech Republic remained friends and Slovakia didn't get the same negative scare tactics that the Scottish independence campaign received, seems the Czech Republic was far mor civilised than the ruk could ever hope to be.
It was termed the "Velvet divorce" because it was a smooth transition to independence with out the usual threatening behaviour and bull shit propaganda regularly seen in simular circumstances.

In reply to PeterM:

Scotland is subsidised by the UK? The EU has ruled out Scotland joining for many years? Scotland's GDP would simply fall by a third to Slovakian levels?

If you're taking this article seriously then there's really no point in having a debate at all.

In reply to 999thAndy:

In reply to Donnie:

Nope, wasn't clear.

Nobody's disagreeing with you on that comparison and it's a stupid comparisson. Hence the confusion as to what you're banging on about..

If rUK won't go for a formal currency union Scotland will either join the Euro or get it's own currency. If it was better just to be pegged to the pound everybody would be doing it....

In reply to PeterM:
And if you want a little example of Unionist lies then try this one....

http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/alex-salmonds-1.3m-taxpayer-bill-for-t...

Better together: Alex Salmond’s £1.3m taxpayer bill for the White Paper doesn’t look like money well spent

The truth: It actually cost £800,000 and all the funds came from donations not tax payers.

In reply to lynx3555:


PeterM made the joke and you came out with the bullying stuff in all seriousness ONCE AGAIN! Do you have it saved in 'ctrl c' on your computer so you can get it out as quickly as possible at every opportunity?

In reply to crayefish: I think you lot have exhausted the "bullying" accusations, try something else for a change.....bit hypocritical when you mock the SNP for making the "Bullying" accusations.

In reply to lynx3555:


Oh I didn't know you were English! There was me thinking you were Scottish. Sorry! Yes you're right... the SNP has exhausted the bullying accusations. lol

I think some guy on here with a very similar username to you has certainly been doing his share

In reply to crayefish:


There's a difference between calling the no campaign bullies and accusing them of scare tactics......

Do you genuinely believe they're giving an objective account of the downsides and upsides of independence?

If you do, well, the nicest thing I could say is you're a bit naive. If you don't, well then you know they are exagerating the risks - ie indulging in scare tactics....

In reply to PeterM:

Carrying on from the previous thread since I can't reply to it any more...




Before you dismiss me, I'm an interested southern Englander with no stake in the game who would prefer the Union to stay together, rather than a gung-ho self-deluded Jock...

There's no real point in voting based on what Alec or anyone else promises as their spending priorities right now. Given you've got at least a year of negotiations before independence happens, then more than likely several years of transitional arrangements you've got at least one Scottish parliamentary election before there can be any meaningful changes in spending priorities. By then it's entirely possible that the SNP and Salmond will no longer be in power, it's also a remote possibility that at the next election (ie while negotiations are ongoing) the various parties may have realised that now they have meaningful power they need to play grown-up politics and the manifestos at that point will more than likely be radically different than what you are presented with at the moment.

So, to be blunt, basing your vote now on whether one politician promises to spend .5% less of GDP on defense or spend 50% more on the welfare budget or give a free goldfish to every child under the age of 5 is completely meaningless. Whatever they promise now, there will have been at least one more election before they can do anything significant so all previous bets will be off.

In any case, there's nothing particularly unusual about Scotland, they'll be buoyed up for a while by oil and also by renewable energy, I'm sure they'll be able to do as good a job at running an independent state as any other country of a similar size and life will carry on much the same whether you go for independence or not. I don't see that you should be any more scared for the future than say Denmark.

So, going back to my previous point, whether you vote yes or no has to come down to the fuzzy feelings of Scottishness and how you see the country in the future as there isn't any empirical data to prove whether you'll be better off or not. It's a leap in the dark so it's gut feelings and guesswork the whole way...

In reply to lynx3555:

Not sure you've got that right. The Deputy First Minister was defending that amount today as public money well spent to ensure a better informed electorate. Production and delivery costs of White Papers are paid for by the Scottish Government not donations.

In reply to lynx3555:


Surely the BBC wouldn't be printing blatant lies...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26528814

Or do you have a source for the £800000 figure?

In reply to Donnie:

This spoof youtube.com/watch?v=5SvdecwnYJ4& is actually quite funny considering this thread.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Ha! Yeah, saw that.

In reply to chris j:



Yes I agree. It's all down to whether one wants Scotland to be alone or not. I personally haven't been persuaded one way or another by any figures, politician tactics or so called bullying. Being neither English nor Scottish, I am puzzled about what I will vote. I don't mind the Union, I have little to do with England except the occasional foray down to the grit or the lakes.

My feeling is that it will boil down to whether Scots want to be independent Scots. No other arguments weigh enough to really swing it!?!

In reply to PeterM:

Except the whole thesis of the article was bogus: Slovakia did not start out prosperous and become bankrupt because of independence. It started out in deep trouble as the less developed part of an ex-communist state and its GDP has been growing rapidly post independence (albeit on a somewhat of a roller-coaster ride) as a result of some fairly radical free market capitalism and the EU providing a large market and stable currency.

Wikipedia: "The economy of Slovakia is a high income economy.[8] With the highest sustained GDP growth in the European Union, reporting 10.4% in 2007 and the highest rating from V4 countries,[9] the Slovak economy has been considered a tiger economy known as the Tatra Tiger."

Would Slovakia be growing as fast as the poor half of the Czechoslovakia with all the investment and power focused on Prague?

In reply to Big Top:
I thought I'd throw that one in as a demonstration of how the Better Together bams regularly do the same....And so it should be paid for by the tax paper..and the 800,000 was quoted by your other unionist sypathysing TV channel STV....
http://news.stv.tv/politics/268018-sales-of-independence-white-paper-pass-1...

In reply to chris j:







Mostly a very good point! We'll be independent a long time, and are unlikely to be much richer or poorer than we'd otherwise have been. It doesn't just come down to feeling Scottish though! Different choices about what you do with your money make a big difference to peoples lives. I really believe iScotland would be a more equal, progressive society and people would be happier as a result.

In reply to French Erick:


No! It's not! Really! For me (and all my yes voting chums) it's about wanting a more equal progressive social democratic society... (excuse the jargon)

Honestly if the centre ground of UK politics shifted a fair bit to the left and looked set to stay there I'd vote no in a flash.

In reply to Big Top:

And, to be fair, a million quid isn't that much to spend.

Say the averagae wage of the kind of person you need to work on this is £50,000. (Junior staff would be around £25g - £35g Mid ranking £40g - £60g plus lawyers, consultants, senior staff more £60g - £100... (probably more for senior lawyers and consultants))

Then add your overheads to that £50g and your pushing £100g. So, you have about 6 or 7 people working full time for a couple of years.

In reply to Donnie:

Do you think the ECB want to be iScotland's lender of last resort?
Good luck with your new currency.
Andy


PS. Comparison only has 1 s.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Why do you think Scotland would be better off sticking with the pound with no LoLR than having our own currency?

(Nb: the ECB wouldn't decide on that, other EZ countries would.)

In reply to PeterM:

Scotland: The new Slovakia?

Dropping unemployment, dropping inflation, GDP growth of over 2.5% per annum, half the debt to GDP ratio of the UK, doubling of GDP per capita in 10 years.

GET OUT OF MY WAY! I want to vote for that!

============================================

But seriously, in spite of Slovakia's successes, any numpty who thinks that Slovakia is a better example than the northern four; Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Finland; is a complete idiot.


(I have worked with Slovakians and seen Slovakian engineering up close and they are excellent. I am a big fan.)

In reply to PeterM:


I wasn't suggesting you had voted Tory. I was just comparing additional admin costs with the cost of remaining with rUK, which is fairly regular Tory governments. (Not to mention the last Labour one!) So I suppose I was actually assuming that you weren't a Tory voter....

In reply to lynx3555:



wow... 1. you didn't read the article.. 2. It does seem any link which is pro-union is propaganda.. any link pro-independence is seeing sense..

You do realise when they split the larger country Czech feared slovakia's economy going downhill so separated their currencies? That's OK.. yet what the rUK want isn't? I'm not sure how it differs. It was essentially two separate currencies.

On the wiki page it says: After a transition period of roughly four years, during which the relations between the states could be characterized as a "post-divorce trauma",

So it sounds as though things weren't rosy at all, velvet just refers to the lack of blood shed...

I'm with PeterM.. I've looked and I cant see many valid comparisons..

Norway is way way off.. I'm not sure this is either.

That was 2 countries splitting, one what is now 10 million one what is now 5 million population, the UK is 3 countries with 58 million people and with 1 leaving with 5 million people.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Thats impossible to answer?

GDP growth isn't a great measure.. its hugely affected by where you are coming from. The greatest GDP growth will be in poor countries.

But you are right independence itself wasn't easy.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
>at!



I dont think that as I said.. but i just can't see how Norway is? I dont think neither are. I'm yet to see an example which fits well.

Similar population size and has oil.. but it produces a lot more, has a superb fishery which if in the EU Scotland won't.. a huge land area..

I can see the oil fund, but the argument is Scotland can be wealth from oil.. therefore the money must be being spent? Norway has a huge surplus so sticks it all in its fund.

Serious question, could Scotland afford to do that?

Can it actually do that? Aren't most/all production sites privately owned?

In reply to chris j:




It seems 1.25 or 800,000 are the two figures consistently mentioned.. some say 'extra 800,000k'

So maybe its 1.25 in total? Pretty ambiguous.

But yeah it looks like tax payers money but again pretty ambiguous as it came from Scottish water 'increased interest receipts'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10415927/Alex-Salmond-to-spend-ext...

In reply to PeterM:

Think about UKC. It would have to change its name! UKNISC (United Kingdon Not Including Scotland Climbing)

In reply to PeterM:



You should try reading the very informative comments, it'll take a wee while but you'll find them interesting (or maybe not)...if the Editor of Forbes has any sense then he'd think twice about allowing him to continue writing on this subject......you'll probably like the first comment but beyond that.....

In reply to IainRUK:

1. Actually, I did and then I went on to read up about it...very interesting but I struggle to find a comparison with Scotland.
2. And you are surprised that I doubt the words of the Unionists....actually, I do question some of what the pro-independence brothers say, I'm not for CU for one, I personally would prefer not to be attached to the ruk other than by being fellow members of the EU....that is if you are still members after 2017 (ish)

Well Slovakia is using the Euro now and appear to be doing very well for themselves.


Scotland is it's own very special place, why waste your time looking for comparisons.

In reply to Donnie:


Which currency to use is something for iScotland to decide. Whether or not to be iScotlands l.o.l.r is something for rUK to decide

In reply to 999thAndy:


If we're going to have a meaning full discussion about what the advantages for rUK of agreeing to a LoRL currency union are, then you need to have discussion about what Scotland would do if they say no. You need to ask whether it's a credible 'threat' that Scotland would drop the pound for something else if rUK say no?

You can't just say that's for Scotland to decide and then pick the options that's most advantageous to rUK to compare it to.

(Note: I've not been moaning about threats or bullying from the no campaign)

In reply to IainRUK:



Just to show my objectivity, Scotland will be nowhere near as rich as Norway. Mainly because we have much less oil. And it's unlikely we'd have enough for an oil fund.

My understanding is that on current estimates we'd have enough that we wouldn't be any poorer than we are now for a good twenty, thirty years, but that estimates of oil tend to more to the low side. Also, the price of oil varies a lot, so people really don't know.

In reply to Donnie:




But we don't know, because having been told there wouldn't be a cu Salmond's only response is to say "yes there will".

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You're right, we don't know. Clearly he's not going to say anything different from that because he'd either have to say we're going it alone, joining the euro or having no LoLR. All of which would scare the electorate more than just saying 'yes, we will'.(This is, I agree, not the honest way to go about things)

So, given we don't know, you have to make a judgement. If Scotland were negotiating for a CU, would it be credible for them to say 'if we don't have LoRL CU we'll get a different currency'?

In reply to PeterM: And in other news, let's all make up figures http://scottishpol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/kindergarten-logic-part-2.html?m=...

In reply to Donnie:



We don't know because the yes campaign won't say, so why should the Scottish electorate have to try and second guess?

In reply to chris j:







I've said it before and I'll say it again, I see very little evidence of interest in the issue from the point of view of nationalist sentiment. Not from interested punters like my friends and colleagues or from those involved in the yes campaign. The most I've seen of anything of such tone is with reference from those of a more unionist or English position, so I'm guessing it's a being projected in critical articles because I just haven't witnessed it despite my interest.

You're right that the SNP and their policies are not the centre point of the independence argument, and may well cease to be the government during negotiations. It's good that point is filtering through, and it's worth noting that post independence, aspects like a formal currency union will almost certainly be argued for across all parties after independence.

It's not just oil. The GDP per capita is pretty much the same as the UK's without oil revenue. To me that means we will be at a slight disadvantage thanks to the extra cost of rural Scotland and the geographical dispersion of people. However, we do have some benefit from oil revenues, as well as exports like food and drink, tourism, and a developing advanced manufacturing sector. An iScotland should have a balanced economy without a trade deficit. There's a lot of infrastructure going into Scotland at the moment that isn't needed intrinsically, and is destined for export, e.g. Beauly Denny is needed to facilitate power distribution south of the border and is already at theoretical capacity with the spectrum of projects happening up north that will feed in to it. Scotland punches above its weight in biotech per number doing it, even though the sector is relatively small, it is growing fast and is hub like with inward investment from pharmaceutical companies like GSK. So it's not just oh Scotland will do okay with oil and renewables. Scotland should do ok full stop irrespective of oil.

So given it's not about nationalism? What is it about? Well the most frequent argument I encounter is that it facilitates more of a social democracy, and prioritisation across the board, including the full gamut of tax prioritisation, even if it doesn't mean the SNP's particular view on what taxation should be implemented.

In reply to everyone droning on about the currency: Can we have an end to this yes we will, no you can't rubbish? It's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense initially which way things will go - assuming rUk stands firm on the Lolr Scotland will use the pound at first in an informal union while negotiations on EU membership and opt-outs are ongoing. By the time its settled whether they have to join the Euro at least one election (2016) will have been and gone. So I predict that in 2020 if Scotland isn't on track to join the Euro there will be a party standing on a 'return the Scottish groat' platform, one on a 'carry on using the pound' message and the Scottish Lib Dems standing on a 'lets join the Euro even though we just negotiated an opt-out' message...

Now that's enough already!

In reply to contrariousjim: 'Scottishness' was not the best word for me to use as I didn't intend to imply nationalism and didn't want to suggest all good Scots are in favour of independence. But at the time it was too easy a fall-back word to pick as I was struggling and failing to find a simple word for what I was trying to say.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think what he actually says is "yes we can" because he thinks it makes him sound like Obama. Yes it does.

In reply to chris j:

If you want to stop the debate on currency, that's not how to do it. Post a vote for independence there will be a majority I'd wager in Scotland across the political spectrum in favour of Sterling in a formal currency union. Meanwhile the political reason to rule out a currency union in rUK will likely be replaced by a pragmatic what can we get out of this situation best. Do we want to potentially undermine integrated financial industries by pushing Scotland away from Sterling (because they won't be in an informal currency union for long), and do we want some of the balance to Sterling to continue with contributions from Scotland's exports such as from oil to be maintained? Such negotiations will involve necessary monetary and fiscal compromises from Scotland as well as a permanent commitment with set down exit costs. Negotiation on asset shares will go hand in hand with negotiation on proportionate assumption of liabilities in Scotland. You are right that this will transcend future elections, which is a damn good thing in my view as it allows democracy and negotiation to oh hand in hand. I see plenty of appetite for the EU and very little for the Eurozone in Scotland. This seems much more problematic for Scotland given that I suspect the preferred position is to be part of the common market, part of EU negotiations, law making and EU wide negotiations, but not the Eurozone. In other words we'd like to be in with opt outs. Unlike the rUK, I see no appetite for an exit from the EU, which is another factor post a vote on independence that could upset the apple cart. I'd prefer to see a pact of countries working together with a different attitude to Europe, not part of the Eurozone, but able to influence CFP, CAP and applicable European laws as well as contribute to European wide infrastructural projects which will be necessary for future sustainability of food and energy. If Scotland isn't part of a formal currency union then it'll be part of an informal one until it sets up its own currency and central bank, I doubt that there would be an appetite for taking on the Euro, especially after the behaviour of Germany led Central Europe and the tardy ECB to the financial crisis. In this situation the ability to devalue your economy seems critical, and Scotland would have to take on the initially higher (but according to S&P not unfeasible) costs of borrowing.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Er. Yes. I agree with that. Bit slow this morning?

We're discussing whether Scotland could credibly say it would rather have a separate currency than no LoLR. Any insights appreciated?

In reply to naffan:


Are there any climbers on here? All the ones I know never post. What about RUK?>NO.com

In reply to Donnie:




Obviously both sides are prone to exaggeration but some of the statements coming from the Yes campaign are just pure fantasy. And it is the Yes lot, for the most part, who are constantly moaning about bullying... eg. Mr. Lynx

In reply to crayefish:

Leaving aside economics and the detail, what do you think about self-determination?

In reply to Donnie:



Well, if we're ruling out using the pound with no cu http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/02/24/scots-wha-hae/ and as joining the euro is years away, then the only options are to use the euro without joining (which brings the same problems Krugman raises) or to have its own currency. The question then is would iScotland have the funds to create a central bank with the capability of acting as a lender of last resort.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Let's face it... there is no simple answer. There is a balance between that and retaining a strong union. After all, what if Aberdeen wanted to be an independent country? What if every region in Scotland did? How far do you go?

In reply to crayefish:

I was just asking about the principle. Not whether the Union is strong or not as that is a matter of opinion.

You go as far as people want in my opinion.

So what do you think about it?

Should Scotland determine which government it gets?

In reply to Saor Alba:


That's up to you and 5 million others..... it's not an argument in itself, it's more or less the question on the ballot paper!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Well yes. And that is my point. The NO campaign is trying to present the inherent unknown things about independence as a weakness in the YES campaign.

There are many things that can't be answered such as what, exactly, will Scotland spend on the military etc. Who knows as it would be the result of policies by whoever is in power.

I don't know a single country that has decided on independence on the basis of having exact details on every domestic issue around. It misses the whole point.

Either you want Scotland to be in charge of the things sovereign nations are or you don't. It is that simple.

Of course if you believe that people in Scotland are uniquely incapable of managing their own affairs you can then head down Paranoid Road, stopping at numbers 10 and 11.

But if you take the view that people in Scotland are capable as those anywhere else then it's a decision in principle.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm pretty sure that in the long run SCotland's not going to continue without a LoLR. No other similar country does that.

RE deposits to set up a central bank. 10% of whatever the BoE uses would be a start.

In reply to contrariousjim:


I am not sure that is how Europe works... as Cameron is discovering. And he has much more negotiating power in Europe than Scotland will have.

I still don't get the out of UK, in Europe argument. You want out of the repressive shackles forced upon you by rUK but into Europe, with all the bureaucracy, regulations and directives that you will have to implement anyway?

In reply to Saor Alba:





But that is the point... the principle is not black and white! If a village in Scotland decided that it wanted to be independent would Scotland let it? Of course not! You can't just say 'well if we want self determination we'll get it'.

In reply to crayefish:


Which ones in particular? Because the no campaign quite often exaggerates the the extent of SNP 'assertions'.


Constantly moaning's a bit of an exaggeration, and no particular comment on Mr L, but yeah our side does that a bit. I don't like it and try not to do it, but probably a sensible tactic....

In reply to Saor Alba:


I completely agree with this. Right now the details are irrelevant because whatever choices are made within reason practical people will make it work.

I would like the Union to stay together (for my part mostly for historic sentimental reasons) but the sky won't fall in if it doesn't.

The thing I worry about most resulting from this campaign is the bad feeling generated from the 'I'd rather eat gravel than ask an Englishman for help' rhetoric spouted by lynx3555 last week.

In reply to crayefish:

Yes you can. It's in the first article of the UN. Anyone can decide what they want to do. Of course it wont happen with villages, silly example, but I ask the questions again, in principle:

Should Scotland determine which government it gets?

In reply to chris j:

I agree 100% with you.

The constant aggressive calls for "detail", which miss the whole point, is really starting to frustrate those who understand it's not about detail and all about principle.

I understand why these calls for detail on every single minute issue are being made - it distracts from the fundamental principle and that question of principle is really tough for the Unionists as they would have to be against self-determination of a nation to not agree with it.

You have your barking people like Al Evans who things small regions such as Yorkshire are equatable with a nation but he hasn't really every understood it all.

In reply to chris j:




Here, here!! I would like to nominate Chris J for the reasonable no campaigner of the week award.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Why is that a silly example? If everyone in the village wants it, why shouldn't they be allowed then? Are you denying them self-determination?


It does... it votes in the general election. The same as Wales, NI and England does. And it has Holyrood.

In reply to Saor Alba:



No, pretty much everyone accepts the principle of self-determination. It's just that what you regard as details (currency, pensions, mortgages, jobs etc) are pretty central to most people's live so they will want reasonable, workable proposals about how they will be handled if they vote yes - not certainty but practicable, thought through plans. Currently they aren't getting them. In fact, it's increasingly clear the Yes campaign hasn't even considered many of these issues.

In reply to crayefish:


Because out in the real world, villages don't become countries. That is why it is a silly example.


No it doesn't, presuming you accept Scotland as a nation, I can't think of any other nation apart from Wales that doesn't get the government it votes for. Scotland voted Labour at the last GE.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I can't think of any other nation apart from Wales

Probably most "nations" don't from time to time. Federal or similar countries will have central governments that don't reflect the voting patters of their constituent parts on occasion - USA, India, Germany, Italy, to name a few.

In reply to Donnie:



Fair enough, you get 8.5% (based on population) of BoE reserves, that gets you £34 billion. Remind us how much was ploughed in to rbs?

In reply to MG:

I don't agree. I don't think any nation has voted on independence on the basis of thought through plans on every subject.

But there are thought through plans. It's just that in the case of the CU one side says they wont do it. That doesn't mean those plans are wrong, unreasonable etc.

The principle is being confused with the domestics.

In reply to MG:

Ok so only Wales and Scotland. Those were my two also.

Now to make up for this democratic problem the positives needs to be vastly in excess of the negatives. They aren't.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yeah it's quite negative, and I think the Yes campaign have fallen into the trap too.

In reality I think a Yes vote would give the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate these things, and UK/EU wouldn't be as churlish as some (yes and no) are making out..... it's a big deal, I don't think a later second referendum would be over the top.

In reply to Donnie:


Thank you! I have to say though that I am expecting a barking mad announcement from Mr Salmond some time soon that an independent Scotland will change to driving on the right side of the road, or possibly just a scurrilous rumour from the No campaign that the EU would demand this as part of the price for an opt-out from the Euro...

In reply to crayefish:


You are being a bit silly now. There are criteria which define what constitutes a 'people', and without wasting too much time I'd assume Scotland qualifies.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


If Scotland has a central bank and their own currency then they can indulge in QE and print money just as the UK did, at the cost of higher import costs, increased inflation and a weaker currency, all of which the UK suffered.

But I'm not getting sucked into arguments based on meaningless detail anymore...

In reply to Saor Alba:

Well OK if that's what you think. Most people it appears don't agree with you and find those issues important.

In reply to Saor Alba:


? I just a load more. Here are some further ones - Indonesia, China, and Canada. In fact "nation states" aren't that common.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Agree. In an ideal world the press would be a bit more mature but millions of people have a Daily Mail mentality and think in headlines.

"Now they let in immigrants!"
"Now pensions are under threat"

Etc.

Unfortunately mad accusations seem to be the main tactic of NO.

The perfectly reasonable comparison of Norway and Scotland - No that isn't acceptable!

The democratic deficit - it doesn't exist! What about villages?

Whit? It's like a playground.

Mind you, 90% of those people don't get a vote.

In reply to MG:

Sorry I don't follow you there. I am not debating what forms a nation, I am asking in the general sense of "nation" which ones don't get the government they vote for.

You are just trying to avoid the answer but trying to talk about what constitutes a nation.

Indonesia, China and Canada do have the government they voted for (China???? This get sillier by the minute) under the system they have chosen.

In reply to ByEek:


It is a function of negotiation. As I said, a pact of countries working together in Europe is a louder voice than Cameron "banging on about Europe" in splendid isolation. Sure, Scotland by itself would not have the loudest of voices - being independent needn't mean refusing potential political alliances with the rUK, or for example with countries we may share political values with, such as Sweden and Denmark who are also outwith the Eurozone. Of course, if rUK votes itself out of the EU, then that will be a big change, and I think there is a pretty fair chance that will happen.


Well if you look at it in such binary idealistic terms, I'm not surprised. Some shackles I am fully in support of.. ..such as human rights legislation. Other shackles need reform, such as the CFP, CAP and EWTD. Overall, those European shackles do not seem burdensome compared to the democratic deficit that feels palpable in Scotland, especially because it seems perfectly obvious that future sustainability will necessitate European wide infrastructure projects. The reality is that Scotland is more in support of Europe, than is the rUK, or at least England appears to be, so democratically, it feels less costly to be a part of Europe.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


And where did that money that was ploughed into RBS come from?

In reply to Donnie:


Can't argue with that! Pretty refreshing really!

In reply to chris j:


That would certainly be one option.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


a. that number seems very small. where did you get it from?

b. the money to bailout rbs wasn't just taken from bank reserves

c. RBS, as was, would have been mostly bailed out by rUK anyway, because that's where it does most of it's business. (AS you say, it might not have been in Scotland in the first place if we were independent)

In reply to Donnie:

Why are you bothering out of interest?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Principalities exist, so a town isn't too different. And anyway, that's not what you asked. I quote 'what do you think about self-determination?'


Seriously? MG put it very well to be honest. Scotland has Holyrood and also it's share of MPs as voted for. The same as any region in the UK, including England.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Smaller 'nations' inside larger states can be seen in many places.

For example Alaska, Texas, California etc. in the USA. Prussia etc. in Germany.

Switzerland is a very good example recently of parts of the country not getting what they want in a national vote, a lot of the western cantons were not in favour of the restriction of the free movement of people, but they still got it.

In reply to crayefish:

Ok if you want to go around avoiding the question that is fine with me.

Scotland or England aren't regions. That appears to be the root of your misunderstanding.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I answered your question. You just seem to want a black and white 'yes/no' type answer. I would hope you have the brains to see that it is not that simple,.


Totally irrelevant. Let's say Cornwall wanted independence, would you oppose just because they are a 'region'?

In reply to kestrelspl:

Can they really? I don't know a single person, have heard anyone say, read anywhere and so on, that those places are nations.

Good luck trying to sell that one!

You guys are just avoiding the question. I understand why as it's all bad news for Unionists but I would have thought that after 300+ years those in favour of it might have been a bit more ready to recognise that everything has pros and cons.

One of the cons of the Union is the fact that Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for. It would be better to just recognise that instead of trying to draw irrelevant comparisons.

In reply to crayefish:

Yes I do want a black and white answer:

Here is the question>>>>>>>>>

Should Scotland determine which government it gets?

You haven't answered that. All you have said is Scotland has Holyrood.

Given that Scotland voted Labour at the last General Election and the LIb Dems and Tories are in power clearly Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for.

This is true in more than half of occassions.

In reply to crayefish:




NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many times do I have to say that before you understand???????

In reply to Saor Alba:





Well, that's an answer which provokes a different question doesn't it, which is: Should Scotland's government be fully determinative? How do you explain the discrepancy between the way people vote in Scotland for MPs and how they have voted for MSPs?

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'll try again. You said that "I can't think of any other nation apart from Wales that doesn't get the government it votes for." I listed a whole host of states that contain nations which often don't get the government they voted for. Texans, for example tend to vote Republican but get Democratic presidents. Ditto for examples in all the ones I listed.

Not always getting the government you vote is just how democracy works. It's not a reason to split up states. Otherwise, as I pointed out yesterday, you will eventually end up with everyone being their own "state".

In reply to Donnie:


Small? Well, everything is relative I suppose. I googled it, feel free to find a bigger figure.


No, but if you're going to have a central bank with a lolr capability, or a government with the capability to bail out large financial institutions, there has to be some backing for it.


Indeed as I said. But a flight of financial institutions (and money) would bring its own problems.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Typically narrow!


It has a say currently.


And that has been the case with England too. Welcome to the real world. Does Florida (or any other US state) try and split with the US because they don't get the president/party they voted for?



Calm down buttercup You have just proved my point. You were moaning because I was talking about self determination of regions and you state 'Scotland or England aren't regions' as if it makes a big difference. Make up your mind!

In reply to Saor Alba:




Eh? They are all nations just as much, if not more so, than Scotland. You haven't met many Texans have you?

In reply to MG:

Agree.. it's a huge issue.. minute details are about passport agencies, immigration, Scotlands DVLA, military splits.. these can all be sorted out. The time frame is ridiculously tight. But currency isn't.

Its not about having comprehensive plans just showing a smooth path is planned. Is it 18 months from vote > independence? It really doesn't give long and a lot, pensions etc, will be hugely affected by the currency.

To pretend it's not a major issue is head in sand and banks/financial institutions will want to know.

Re the rUK not helping Scotland.. no it won't. We want the big finance players based in the rUK, not Scotland if Scotland went independent. I'd want Scotland to be independent but like Ireland and many ther countries you use incentives to get and keep companies in your country. It seems the argument is the BoE should be LoLR resort to help Scotland get established and keep its finance industry intact.

There's a difference between being spiteful and wanting the best deal for your own people. Lets face it when the oil is divided Scotland will push for well over 90%, it'll want the best deal for Scotland, not to harm England, just because a country wants what is best for it.

Soar.. quit the norway Scotland comparison.. even Donnie has admitted that isn't valid.. all you've done is pick a successful country that has oil.. ignored the many who also have oil deficits. Norwegian oil is state owned, Scottish isn't. Norway exports its surplus. Scotland, post independence, would have a surplus I guess, but for what 10 years? 20 years? The decline in production is pretty stark. However even if you do the companies will take the profits and invest in new oil fields elsewhere. It's what private companies do. Norway owns 2/3rds of stat oil so can dictate where their profits go.

How can Scotland be comparable?

In reply to MG:

Hold on, you are saying Texas and California are nations? Says who?

I think what I am saying it fairly clear.

Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for. Despite you calling it "rare" it's actually in 53% of occassions since the second world war.

That is a problem in my view. Of course it might not be for you as you appear to agree with the Tories on many things but for the rising numbers of people in poverty it's massive issue. Life changing.

You appear to want to protect an establishment at all costs, because it suits your nostalgia, and the effects of that can be explained away by "compromise" as you say.

I think that's what set's us apart Martin. You are happy for wars to go ahead, poverty levels to rise and explain it away through "compromise" as it maintains the cosy establishment which gives you that warm feeling.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yes, just as much as Scotland is.



a) Don't lie b)Cut the passive-aggressive crap, c) Stop avoiding the question.

In reply to Saor Alba:

And so do Scotland..

I'm not sure the tibetans chose Chinese government, nor a fair few other areas.

Why do you talk of areas you clearly have no knowledge of. This isn't me being an expert but any casual glance of the news will let you know there are pretty much regular issues with separatist movements in China and it is made up of previously independent countries which have been violently oppressed.

In the States, TX did talk of independence, Governor Perry even spoke of it before opting to run for president.. as politicians do.

www.texnat.org

Texas can cede from the US, it is one of the few states able to leave if the people decide.

In reply to IainRUK:



Beautifully said!

In reply to MG:


To me the question is.. ..do Texans have a group democratic conscious majority that wants independence? If not, then there is sufficient democratic contentment for the persistence of the status quo. However, given the large contribution of Texans to the US economy, and the subsidy of other underperforming states, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a voice for Texan independence:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/we-want-to-be-alone-the-te...

In reply to MG:


I've met a few. Texas was briefly a nation but it has been referred to as a State of the USA since it joined. It's probably the best example for your argument but I don't think it cuts the mustard.

Scotland's situation is unique, I thinks it's right they get this vote so really Soar's question is down to personal preference.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Are you serious??

The Alamo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

TX opted to join the US.. seriously read up before you make such statements.

I'm not so up on California as I worked in TX but think they also had a brief period as a republic.

In reply to crayefish:
I think you'll find it's the Unionist on here that use the term "Bully" to mock accusations made by Salmond etc....I did point out that your unionist councillor in Aberdeen, one Willie Young has also accused Alex Salmond of bullying him...so it seems both side have exhausted that word.

In reply to contrariousjim:

How is that different from Scotland? Almost every? or is it every? poll suggests the majority want the union.

Had Perry gone for it, he only hinted at it (pretty much a threat), I think we'd have seen higher support. I don't think it would have gone but I'd have not been surprised had 25-33% gone for it.

The TX call for independence is more about minimal government than it subsidising other states, that Barrack is too much in peoples homes.. yet it's OK for Texas to effectively ban abortions, gay marriage etc.. thats not interfering..

In reply to lynx3555:

You've said many times that the rUK would be, and is, being spiteful.

In reply to IainRUK:

I don't think it is different. I'm agreeing with MG, I can't see why the Texans shouldn't become independent from the US, and certainly not that it hinges on some possible or not idea of being a "nation" or not as Soar wants to imply, but I can also understand that the rUS wouldn't want to lose such a contributor so will be using any and every political device to stop it.

In reply to contrariousjim:

ah ok.. I don't think it will. The Mexico situation alone would kill it. Immigrants, drugs.. those border states struggle enough as it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26541575

With a debt like this AS can only see that "..Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.". The Douglas Fraser analysis is pretty fair. I cannot see how we can be independent without raising taxes and cutting public spending. With the cuts the bastard tories have already made I can only see a further increase in poverty in scotland and reduced healthcare. When will they stop giving everything away for free and consider a more just system? The free care for the elderly is unsustainable- which means shortly there will be a flip to unreasonable charges for it. Could've been avoided with a more progressive system from the start. They talk about favourable business tax and removing/reducing passenger air duty, but the f..k the western isles with a removal of RET for haulage? Hypocritical at the very least..trying to attract big business but communities can take a running jump...

In reply to Saor Alba:
You keep saying this...


Whereas in actual fact, only 42% of the votes in scotland were for Labour suggesting that 58% of Scotland DID NOT vote labour. 19% SNP, 18% LIB DEM 16% conservative and so on into the smaller parties.
So it's fair to say that at least 18% of the country (64% turnout) DID get the government they voted for. That's something we like to call 'Democracy'.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Care to share the link?

In reply to graeme jackson:

Yes I do mean that. That is the system used FPTP. I am in favour of PR but given that the UK used number of MPs and Labour gor th majority of MPs in Scotland it is no big deal to say Labour won the election Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Bothering with what?

In reply to lynx3555:


Nope... it's almost exclusively Salmon and his cohort. And one Aberdeen councilor using it hardly constitutes 'exhausting' it. But then again no doubt that will be a result of the 'anti-scottish press'. lol

In reply to MG:



Lying about what? Please don't be so personal. I am not being passive aggressive either. I just simply think you are wrong, misguided, aligned with with pretty horrible structures that have caused great harm and which question?

In reply to Donnie:

Replying to someone who is constantly trying to be smart, doesn't have a vote on this and will never change their mind and instead try to do everything to weaken your case.

In reply to crayefish:

You really need to keep up with the news!

In reply to Saor Alba:


Coming from the one who sees china as a nice single nation...

In reply to IainRUK:

Ha ha you don't even know what I was referring to and even after that your expertise allows you to make informed comment. You should write a set of encyclopedias.

I see you have calmed down from yesterday though so that is good.

In reply to PeterM:


Why on earth is it hypocritical? Growing the economy is the best way to get the money to look after communities.

In reply to IainRUK:


Lol

In reply to Saor Alba:


I would have thought you did have a vote? Or are you actually living in cloud cuckoo land instead of Scotland?

In reply to Donnie:


As you seem to be struggling http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England
I used a figure of £400 billion to calculate iscotland's share, that might be why you thought the figure looked small.

In reply to crayefish:

Aye whatever. Another thread falls into pointless personal insults from a whole load of wannabe, but can't be, No voters.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Ah, yeah, Sir C is one of the worst.

I've tried ignoring the likes of him, Iain rUK and 999thAndy but then they make some obviously silly contribution and I can't help myself.

I suppose part of me thinks if I just explain it well enough they'll see sense and revert to a position something like ChrisJ's above. Then we could all discuss merits (or not) of more social democratic policies or even just respectfully agree to disagree..

And I have a deadline, so am in top procrastinating mode...

In reply to Donnie:


But of course... the Yes camp are the ONLY ones who see sense. Funnily enough that is one of the main arguments from Salmon and co.

Funny that the majority of industry doesn't see it that way (including big and well run companies like Shell). But what would they know?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Thanks.

I'm not a central banker, but I'd assume we wouldn't need much more than our proportional share of BoE deposits?

Either way lots of similar countries do have their own currency. If you can think of a reason that we couldn't come back to me.

In reply to Saor Alba:



" (China???? This get sillier by the minute) "

I'm using my expertise in analysing human behaviour to lump for China...

I don't make informed comments on China.. I didn't bring it in, I just know, like most informed people, China is far from a single nation.. It's composed of numerous smaller regions/countries, some we will have all heard of, others I have no clue about. But we hear enough to know there are separatist demonstrations and unrest.

In reply to Donnie:

Aye. A huge part of it is the cultural connection and confusion between England/UK. This leads to some pretty silly stuff like comparisons with Slovakia in every way (obviously only the bad bits), the idea that Scotland really does get what it votes for, is not a nation and so on.

When things don't go their way the insults appear Tim - "Anti-English", MG - "lying", IainRUK multiple dummy spitting episodes etc.

It really is a shame that this is the case as I am sure you or me harbour no bad feeling towards these individuals but they find it really hard not to fire the insults out.

In reply to IainRUK:

And I didn't say it was either. We are in full agreement - you have just imagined that we aren't, again.

In reply to Donnie:




they do, but I can't see why you would start a new currency from here? The euro has issues, but there's a reason it came in. I just think with some new currency Scotland will suffer with its exports. If it takes the euro then the systems are all in place. We export to the euro countries all the time.. so for most of scottish exports there won't be an issue.

The smaller a currency is the more volatile it is generally.

In reply to Saor Alba:


MG - "lying",

I called you a liar because you are one. You know nothing about my attitude to wars or child poverty or anything else you claim to. After making claims about me being happy with these things you then have the gall to tell me not to personalise things.

In reply to Donnie:

Please explain whats silly? I think we agree on 90% of things tbh.. its just where we don't agree you just say I am silly. It seems holding different views is not welcome for the new democratic Scotland...

In reply to Saor Alba:

No I don't think so. Im actually just a dog.
http://mlkshk.com/r/97VP

In reply to Saor Alba:
Brilliant.. how did I spit my dummy.. you are the one holding up Norway as some shining example but cannot explain why it is a valid comparison? I asked earlier?

Norway has excess oil
Norway has state controlled oil production
Scotland has privatised production.

Remind me again how this will work?

Even Donnie admits the oil fund won't happen.

For you disagreeing is dummy spitting.. you were the one who got all angry yesterday.

No we don't have a vote.

This is UKC.. you seem so unhappy that people on UKC are pro-Union..

I'm gobsmacked tbh.. you are against the union.. but pedal your views on UKC.. so you want the best of both worlds.. a UK and a Scotland.. our currency and your independence... vote SNP by any chance?

And yes you did say China was a silly comparison before you realised you spoke from total ignorance.

I'm not an expert, but as I said, before I speak about a subject I read up. On here I spoke of TX, not California, I don't know the California situation, I have lived and worked in Texas for long periods.

But lets get this right.. anyone who disagrees with you is somehow spitting their dummy, lying or claiming some other injustice.. those who are pro-iScotland talk sense?

I've agreed with Donnie a lot, I think he speaks sense, unfortunately on any matter you disagree with him about is just clearly you being wrong.. there is such a situation where you can see someones argument and not agree..

Like CU, I can see why you think you have a share, I Just don't agree, and most importantly neither do the UK government, and these are the issues where the rUK have a say..

In reply to Saor Alba:


I'm off work on disability..

So running 100+ mile a week whilst I have time.

In reply to naffan:



Bahaha that made me laugh!

In reply to Donnie:

To be fair I'm sure they think the same way about you and Saor Alba. For instance the point made that Scotland is the only 'nation' other than Wales which is part of a larger state made by Saor.

In reply to IainRUK:


It's really not that simple.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Privatised production does make putting all the profits from oil into a sovereign wealth fund quite difficult though.

In reply to kestrelspl:

Obviously. But no-one's talking about doing that.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Except in that it's a large contribution to Norway's success, and thus part of the Scotland-Norway comparison that Iain was asking Saor to defend.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I don't expect it to be, but it must make it nigh on impossible to simply lift the norwegian system and implement it in Scotland?

Care to explain how you think an oil fund can work?

If it can, the graphs on production are pretty clear about the future.

We, and Scotland included, don't have a huge amount of free money to re-nationalise, and it probably isn't worth it for 20-30 years more?

what do you suggest should happen? Soar says I'm an expert, I'm not and you know it, but I still think, as does Donnie, the Norwegian oil fund is incomparable to the UK's situation, especially taking into account our economic state during the north sea oil boom.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Soar has constantly mentioned Norwegians Oil fund..

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


"Despite having oil the UK has built up a massive debt which is a problem for many generations to come. The lack of an oil fund is further demonstration of strength... "

"In your world it no change and promotion of a system that has created huge debt and no oil fund. "

"I can tell you the oil fund comparison quite easily. Norway has one. The UK doesn't. "

As I said, Norway is an excess producer of state owned oil, it's a very simple model, sell what you need internally, use everything else to form a fund.

The UK, which opted for no oil fund, is a net importer and privatised.

In reply to IainRUK:

The reliance on Scottish oil as a backbone of funding for an independence is not a good model I think. North Sea oil and gas are declining and need a huge investment. People wouldn't be exploring drilling in the Artic (VERY difficult and expensive) if the North Sea had such good reserves.

In reply to MG:

That is not lying Martin. I simply said that is what I thought you thoughts were. Lying would be something else.

Oh well, another thread descends into personal insults from the No camp.

In reply to crayefish:


Who says it's a back bone? It helps, but it's not the back bone of funding. And what is indicative in the desire for arctic oil exploration is world security of supply, which is also the reason why the value of North sea oil yielded will increase per unit volume.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Whereas the YES camp just insult our intelligence..

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes, but no-one's talking about putting *all* the profits into an oil fund, which was the specific point I was replying to. Even the Norwegian oil fund doesn't do that.

And no, I wouldn't care to explain how I think an oil fund could work - I'm not an economist.

What I would say is that if it's possible in Norway, it ought to be possible here. A lot of oil & gas production in Norway is in the hands of private companies, just like it is here. BP, ConocoPhillips, GdF Suez, etc. - they are all represented in the production stats from the Norwegian Continental Shelf. In recent years Norsk Hydro and Statoil have been consolidated into one giant company (initially known as Statoil Hydro, now just Statoil), which is 67% state-owned. But the oil fund certainly doesn't depend on state ownership of oil & gas production.

Of course, there's no way that a Scottish oil fund could ever be as succesful as the Norwegian one - that ship has very definitely sailed.

In reply to Saor Alba:


More lies to try and obscure your first set. You didn't say anything about your thoughts or my thoughst, you made a simple statement about me. You stated quite clearly " You are happy for wars to go ahead, poverty levels to rise..."

I'm not happy with either. You are a liar.

In reply to MG:


Well I have several friends in Texas and I'm sure they "whoop my ass" if they heard me say this but legally there situation is very different to Scotland's. I lived in Texas for 4 years....yes they like to bang on about being the "Lone Star State", and like to fantasise about being able to leave the Union, but the legal reality is quite different. The last time they wanted to leave was just after the Civil war, obviously so that they could reinstate slavery but that was squashed.

Quote: “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.”

http://www.decodedscience.com/can-texas-legally-secede-from-the-united-stat...

In reply to lynx3555:




So all really very similar to the situation in Scotland then, what with an Union "for ever". I don't really follow this "nation" argument anyway. I thought the Yes campaign wasn't based on nationality but was all warm and fuzzy and included anyone living in Scotland. If so, what does it matter if Scotland is country or the Scots a nation?

In reply to lynx3555: The 1707 Act of Union states that it's final too, but presumably you don't accept that?

In reply to IainRUK:

Here is where you spat the dummy most recently (from what I can be bothered to look for - given you are number 1 in the posters!)

"Do not try to misrepresent and lie like that you disgusting little man."

It was quite a funny one actually.

Anyway, back to why Norway is a good comparison.

* It has similar topography to large parts of Scotland
* It gained independence from it's larger neighbour
* It discovered oil at the same time as Scotland did, as part of the UK
* It has a similar population level
* The infrastructure challenges are similar
* It sits in roughly the same part of the planet
* It's population is sparse in many areas
* It has a large west coast with challenging geography
* It is in a strategic location
* It's policy framework is often cited as an example in various debates in Scotland
* It provides well for its population.
*etc



No problem at all. You could learn a lot from Chris.


It is a silly comparison. I can't think of one further away from Scotland with an utterly different history, political system and no democracy. However I may be wrong which means it's directly comparable to England too.


No that is just your imagination.


No again, in your massive output on UKC you have misunferstood.


I have never even said I wanted a CU. Again you have imagined it.

You have spent many days arguing with yourself.

In reply to MG:



Exactly. Huge difference between 'I think that you think...' and 'you think...'

It's the same old story for Saor... every time his logic runs short he starts claiming that everyone against him is being mean and using personal insults etc, yet clearly cant see the irony of his own hypocrisy.

"Unfortunately mad accusations seem to be the main tactic of NO."

And once again can't see the irony here given that all he has done is spout wild accusations of various things, inc. bullying, lying and probably all of the seven deadly sins

"The perfectly reasonable comparison of Norway and Scotland - 'No that isn't acceptable!'" And once again backtracking on everything said previously when his lack of knowledge of the subject is exposed.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

OK i was just simplifying it, but the oil fund in its simplest form is that. I thought statoil was state owned before that company was formed and that was the major producer in Norway?

"The SNP has consistently argued that an oil fund is still possible. Speaking in May this year, First Minister Alex Salmond pointed out that the UK Treasury was expecting tax receipts worth £13.4 billion from the sector this year."
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/5636-success-of-n...

But even if you just set aside the tax.. I thought Scotland was only profitable WITH North Sea Oil.. so you remove the tax revenue for some sort of oil fund and then Scotland wouldn't be profitable would it?

Obviously its debated how much oil is left and that's basically impossible to say now because global economics dictates that as much as actual reserves, look at gold mines being re-opened..

But had the UK government serious beliefs that Scotland had another 100+ years I think they'd have bent over backwards to retain the UK as is.

In reply to crayefish:



No, I don't go around calling people anti, liars and so on. Read the forums. And I amn't claiming everyone either. Just the people like Martin, Iain and Tim. Most people are pretty reasonable in the world.



Em no, not at all in fact. You just hope that people will not bother to look into that.


Yes it. It's talked about all the time in Scotland. It was on Radio Scotland yesterday, MFR, Facebook etc. If you think it's not a good comparison most seem to disagree with you. In fact there is even a letter today in the P&J from some Marquess of somewhere comparing them.

In reply to Saor Alba:



LOL. Relevant how?


Not even close.


So does France. Are you going to model your economy on theirs?


Few countries that aren't! Another irrelevant point.


Is West best? Or is East a beast? Not sure the compass really helps your argument here.


For European war? There are far more 'strategically' placed countries in Europe.


And we have just the flaw in that.


Are you saying that the UK provides well for Scotland then? Because currently it is the UK providing for them as Scotland is not independent.


Great point there! Have a medal.


He'd get more sense doing that than arguing with you

In reply to kestrelspl:


Well, it wasn't me that said that and, personally, I don't think it's that relevant to the debate... but it doesn't seem ridiculous? Don't think he meant to imply England isn't a nations?

More generally, probably they do think that. I think I'm pretty reasonable.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Try reading my statement again. If you still struggle to understand then let me know and I'll explain it more simply for you.


You mean like all the huge multi-national companies who think Scotland should stay in the UK economically? yeah they probably didn't look into it very hard and got their facts wrong.


You do a lot of talking!

Anyway, because something is talked about a lot doesn't mean it's right.

In reply to IainRUK:



I don't know about the SNP, but the economists in the fiscal commission certainly suggest that a fund for the purposes of smoothing volatility is still a theoretic possibility and a sensible plan for an iScotland. Why would the economists be wrong on that?

In reply to IainRUK:

Statoil was part-privatised in 2001. Norsk Hydro and Statoil merged in 2007.

As for whether Scotland would or wouldn't be profitable without oil & gas, who knows - I certainly don't. I guess it depends on how much money you want to spend. Is the UK "profitable" right now??

In reply to Saor Alba: Brilliant.. aye I have no job due to visa issues.. you insulted me first don't be so precious man.. where's your braveheart spirit..







.. well yes uts the same reserves..









here Soar.. have some cake and eat it..








Blah de blah blah..

In reply to crayefish:


But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about specific peoples' approach to arguing for their position. (If you extend that quote you'll see I mention a sensible NO position.)

In fact, your response is exactly the kind strawman nonsense that I'm complaining about.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Others suggest it would be far better paying off debt, but yeah I think both would be worthwhile, at least to set up a LoLR.. that must be an absolute must.

But books have to balance.. Scotland can't just divert money to that fund whilst the rest of the country is undersubsidised. The Uni's can't keep being treated like they are. The argument was, once independent, Scotland can manage its money and properly re-invest in them again.

So far this pot of money is really having to be spread thinly.. which is fine if you introduce tuition fees, let Uni's pay for themselves, charge for some medical treatments/prescriptions, for a few years, or at least contribute.. whilst the funds of the country establish some sort of LoLR.

In reply to ByEek:


And an email from Greenpeace reminds me of other value to having a such a European wide union:

Members of the European Parliament have passed a resolution to promote the protection of the Arctic environment. This is huge and it’s a massive step forward for our campaign!

The resolution calls for a conservation area in the waters around the North Pole. It also stresses the need for an agreement in the Arctic Council to prevent pollution from oil drilling (something which, astonishingly, the council currently doesn't have) and calls for a ban on industrial fishing.

Now, I’m not breaking out the party hats just yet - it’s still early days for this resolution and as with all political processes, a lot still needs to happen before we see our goal become a reality.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Perhaps it isn't that they're wrong, but that there might be competing priorities on what to do with the revenue. You might want to put the money in an oil fund but you might find you have to use it to pay old people's pensions, you might want to put the money in an oil fund or you might want to pay your civil servants. We don't know what a future budget would be so you can hardly allocate it to an oil fund just yet.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:



No, hence tuition fees. Hence prescription costs. We've tried, and I think it was worth it, to fund 50% of school leavers through eduction. It didn't work so we charged fees. the options were reduce student numbers, which reduces opportunity but most crucially would result in a brain drain..

Even as it stands I'm amazed more students don't go and do University abroad in the EU.

It's the argument for independence. That we are a drain on Scotland and Scotland can operate profitably without the RUK.

I can totally see the argument about military spending. But would that alone make us profitable? However I do think our UN and Nato obligations should be upheld so I'm not sure we can cut too much. But as I said the other day we should look to get in line with the rest of the EU on how much of our GDP we put in the military

In reply to contrariousjim:

we'll have to see on that.. I agree its good but I'm not sure how binding it is and once other countries start to drill and increasingly fish I think it may fall apart.

How does that sit with Greenland's actions?

In reply to Donnie:

I would agree that generally you are one of the more reasonable yes posters. My general point was that a lot of the things that you see as silly are in response to things said by the yes side that the no side think are equally silly.

On the specific point I wasn't talking about just in the UK, I meant internationally, Saor said that in the whole world the only nations he could think of subject to a larger state were Scotland and Wales and got quite upset when more were provided.

In reply to kestrelspl:


Agreed. Unfortunately Saor and Lynx let the side down quite a lot.

In reply to IainRUK:






Norway is always going to be an important example. Northern Europe, five million people just like us, oil, fishing, landscape and agriculture. So much comparable.

Look wider at the northern four though: Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Finland. All four have gained independence during the last 110 years. Look at their achievements. A few bumps in the road but, at worst, the recent bumps in the road have dragged them down to the UK's level!

Of the four, only Norway has extensive oil and gas, so it has been proved repeatedly that small north European nations can be successful whether they have vast oil wealth or not.

All four punch above their weight on the world stage. All four have well-educated, healthy, industrious populations with, in spite of the bumps in the road, a top echelon income level.

For those of us who know and love Europe, the unionist side are clearly insular, anachronistic and happy to build a case on lies.

For me, the monarchy and the pound mean the same old corrupt ways. Liberty resisted by tainted lackeys and an economy dominated by gamblers, so the Salmond path is not a particularly attractive one. At risk of sounding like anti-treaty IRA, Act One in an independent Scotland should be to get rid of Salmond and the SNP.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

You'd get my vote, Jim.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Good stuff I am sure, but the cynic in me sees this only as words on a piece of paper. When the US / Russian governments + big business start to converge on the Arctic motivated by rising world oil prices, I have little hope for the pristine nature of huge swathes of the Arctic.

A bit like the agreement on whale hunting that bans all nations from hunting whales for meat. However you can kill them for "research" and then sell the meat as a by-product. And no government does anything about it. How convenient.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No I don't accept that unionist propooganda and this is why...

Quote:
"A Claim of Right for Scotland was a document crafted by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly in 1988, declaring the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It was signed by all then-serving Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, with the exception of Tam Dalyell (Labour), a strident opponent of devolution. The list of signatories included several MPs who would later attain high office, including future prime minister Gordon Brown, future chancellor Alistair Darling, and future leaders of the Liberal Democrats Charlie Kennedy and Menzies Campbell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989
"The Claim was part of a process which led to devolution of powers from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to a new Scottish Parliament in 1999. Its title was a reference to the Claim of Right Act 1689, an Act of the Parliament of Scotland which limited the power of the Scottish monarch (at the time,William and Mary) in much the same manner as the English Bill of Rights passed the same year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_Act_1689

So in short...Scotland is very much legally allowed to undo the wrong imposed on it back in 1707.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

And mine. I wish I had his patience

In reply to IainRUK:


Certainly agree with that.. ..and was suggesting that people should long before the introduction of the £9k tuition fees, purely on the basis of educational inflation. I don't know the figures, but I saw a documentary about students doing exactly that, particularly to Belgium for some reason, but there was a chap on bbc radio who'd chosen to study engineering in Jaipur because of the cost of tuition fees. So people do move themselves!

In reply to Jim Fraser:

The fishing is seriously incomparable.

re Europe, I doubt there is a more pro-Europe person on here.. I've constantly said we should join the euro.

But you do realise why Norway has a fishery? Because it is not in the EU.

Iceland has huge energy reserves, not oil, but it also has its pluses.

Why not Denmark?


re the Monarchy.. jesus.. where do we go here thats a huge debate, we have a huge amount of history which brings in money.. I'm probably in the 'better the devil you know camp'..

I'm not sure quite why you need a northern comparison though and 110 years ago is a huge time in social history.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I'd disagree with that last sentence. The Iceland bank crisis being the example that first comes to mind.


In what respect do they? When talking about the great life they lead, you also have to consider that they are very expensive places to live, especially things like booze (important! lol).


You're starting to sound like Saor and Lynx there... not going to help your argument one bit if you go down that road.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Yup!

In reply to crayefish:


You mean with it's better than UK growth?!

In reply to lynx3555: I'm not saying the act can't be undone, but it still states (like Texas, remember?) that it's forever.

Oh and "the wrong imposed on it"? You are funny.

In reply to lynx3555:


Hahaha. I can totally picture you running across a field wielding a foam sword with blue pen on your face shouting 'Undo the wrong of 1707!'

In reply to contrariousjim:


Grown alone is meaningless. If the economy dropped to 50% say, then growth was at 10%, that isn't better than a 5% drop and 1% growth.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

This is the best post I've seen on all these threads.

I'm not Scottish so have no vote but if I did I would go for this. The biggest complaint I have with the Yes proposals is that they do not clearly state that they want to go for the Euro and then argue strongly for it. Also to get rid of the monarchy and all the crap that it stands for.

In reply to crayefish:


No, they're expensive places for us to visit.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


exactly.. however these aren't the utopian societies they are made out to be.. alcoholism.. suicide etc.

But yeah as long as you agree in short term losses and high taxes its great. Basically young single workers subsidise the rest, so when you have kids a penion etc.. you get back what you paid in. I'm not sure in the UK we can see things with such a big picture view and the understanding that if you dont have kids you lose out.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Well their cost of living is quite high http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp
But then so are wages.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Are their wages the highest in the world though? I don't know but I would be very surprised if they were.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

As said, a good post, until this..

The Uk has changed vastly over the years, Wales has its WAG, Scotland has devolved even further than Wales, we've become a more liberal society. It's not perfect by a long shot and things can still improve but its like you think there is no drive to reform. But the UK is one of the more socially integrated multi-national countries there is with much less issues with racism than other countries.

We do have issues to look at. The House of Lords etc (which I can see as a strength if properly run).. the monarchy.. joining the euro.. our relationship with Europe. But UK life isnt that bad and life wont change much regardless..

and now I'll get the 'why did you leave'.. I left to work in one of the worlds leading research organisations and now I've moved to be with my missus.. But I'd certainly look to move back if opportunity allowed.

In reply to crayefish:

no, but they have a much lower wage differential, well did. But it does have poverty issues. It's not all great over there.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



A curious statement. You don't think it is possible to love Europe and be a unionist?

In reply to crayefish:


Christ! It's like you haven't got access to the internet or something http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Interestingly, according to that Norwegians' wages at disposable PPP are lower than the UK's and only slightly higher overall.

In reply to MG:


That is unfathomably odd.. surely those who are pro-Unions, pro closer integratyion, are Pro the Union in the UK and Pro the European Union..

In reply to IainRUK:


I agree with many of your points but this seems to be the big paradox in the UK in that we are very multi-cultural and at the same time the anti-immigrant feelings and inequality just increases with very little effort to try to keep it in check.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No need to when you're so helpful

In reply to MG:


I think you are reading the Beer Drinkers' PPP column.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

If that's how you regard the ILO stats, then yes.

In reply to IainRUK:

A fine example of a libertarian north European state but an old power with the 1000 year monarchy so not in the category I was examining.



Money for who? London? Windsor? Why would I be concerned?

We don't remove history by appointing a President. The Palace of Versaille still stands and still draws crowds. Falkland Palace likewise. No Pol Pot here.

It's tiny tiny stuff anyway. Get over the empire, wise up and let's get to work.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Because it is money into the economy! Simple. More money = less you have to pay for various things.

In reply to IainRUK:


Not odd at all. Scotland needs to be in a union but it doesn't necessarily need to be in a hierarchy of unions. If the EU provides the larger market and currency there's less reason to pay for another layer of government in London.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


But who says that the EU would act in Scotland's best interests? You'd have even less say than Britain currently does and if you don't like the current elected government because 'most of Scotland didn't vote for them' then there will be a real shock given that nearly everyone ruling the EU you wouldn't have voted for.

Seems like out of the frying pan and into the fire to me.

In reply to crayefish:

You're not seriously comparing the level of control the EU would have over an independent Scotland to the level of control that the UK Government currently has, are you?

Then again, maybe you are...

In reply to Douglas Griffin:



Maybe by eyes are failing me... could you point out where in my post I referred to levels of control? I keep looking but seem unable to find it. That's the last time I type some of my post in such a small font!

In reply to crayefish:

implicit

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=implicit&oq=implicit&aqs=chrome.....

In reply to crayefish:

So what did you mean by "out of the frying pan into the fire"?

In reply to Donnie:

Well done... you know a word in the English language and can post a link to it. Have a cookie

It might seem implicit to you (the word not being used anywhere else) but that is the problem with it it... it's subjective so basically you're making an assumption. And we know that they say about assumptions! lol

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


A significant part of the argument seems to be about deciding Scotland's laws, finances and what not. Basically self governance in as many aspects as possible. Fair enough. But being part of the EU removes a lot of that... many of the laws are EU based, along with important things for Scotland such as fishing. Just seems a little counter productive. And Norway keeps getting cited as an example... remember that for example Norway has protected it's fishing industry by staying out the EU.

In reply to naffan:

Good point, better get a Scottish climbing forum up!

In reply to crayefish:

So, after all that, you were talking about control.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


I don't think there was any doubt about that was there? You were talking about the LEVEL of control. I made no such mention in that post and neither have I yet.

One thing that should be considered if you want to talk about the level of control, is that while we can both agree the UK would have more control over Scotland than the EU would, its the type of control and how it differs from the interest of the Scottish.

For example, many things that the UK 'controls' (including scotland) are in their best interests and they fight for it with the EU. The differences between England and Scotland are there, but I would predict significantly less than the differences in policy of the EU as a whole and Scotland. I doubt that Scotland will have many common policy and ideas as say Belgium, France or Poland. For example, fishing and agriculture will be very different for mainland European countries than for Scotland but the Scots would be dictated by the EU policy. Admittedly they are now as part of the UK, but the UK has significantly more power as a whole to fight things not in our interest than an independent Scotland ever would.

In reply to Saor Alba:

From Wiki " In 1871, German states united in creating the German Empire under Prussian leadership. In November 1918, the monarchies were abolished and the nobility lost its political power. Prussia was effectively abolished in 1932, and officially abolished in 1947."

So Prussia was a nation until 1971/1932/1947 depending upon how you look at it.

In reply to crayefish:

So you were talking about control, but not, somehow, the level of control. Sorry if I find that hard to follow.

Anyway, you've already implied that in your view Britain doesn't have a great deal of influence over EU policy. Yet you appear to think that Scotland would be worse off taking control over matters such as defence, foreign policy, welfare and all the other things that come with independence because the price of this would be to lessen its already minimal control over the influence that the EU has (which isn't much to start with)? Must admit, I'm struggling to follow your logic there, too.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:




Some influence is better than none! And it is economic things (rather than military or foreign policy) that will determine Scotland's success as an independent nation, and thus the quality of life etc. Afraid I can't explain it any more simply - at least not today with my brain filled with exciting matters of spray breakup

In reply to crayefish:

Kudos for the Brent-ism! 5 points

Here's two more words though: deliberately obtuse.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Doesn't balmoral bring in a chunk in that part of the word? I thought there was a fair tourist industry around that and the royal distilleries?

Re Versailles.. good point. It'd be interesting to compare revenue from ex-monarchy sites and current. Obviously we have a UK biased view but the changing of the guard type things draw crowds others couldn't.

I was much more anti-monarchy but have got less so. I've seen them at work, how good they are at trade issues, they do help out if a UK firm needs a deal.. and I've been to the palace to see a family member get an honour.. it meant so much to so many people. I'm not sure that would be the same. Its all small things but the honours system is a great thing, which I know gets abused, but when you go to one you maybe recognise 5-10 names out of the hundreds there.. bloody boring events.. I was just counting the crests on the ceiling..


I know we could do that, I just think we'd make a hash of it, it'd be corrupt anyway. Whenever we re-organise it just seems to cost just as much. I read somewhere it was 10p per person per year to have a monarchy.

But look at the Scottish Parliament.. it was a huge expense. Holyrood, I was in Glasgow at the time and remember costs spiralling, completion dates being pushed back.. what was it? at least 10 times over estimated costs?
I think we'd do similar. Build a home for the president.. a new system.. just waste millions and I dont think out system is that broken, reform the Lords.. look at PR..

The empire is gone... and that was British.. you cant lump that on the English, the Scots more than benefited from it... Don't go the Aussie way that anything bad that happened was the English anything good the Aussies...

But yeah I think it is all tiny stuff, the monarchy is not a ruling power and I like that we do have them as a last resort to dissolve parliament. It would probably finish them, but I like that we have a non-political system as a last resort.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So why does it follow that pro Unions are insular anti europeans?

In reply to Donnie:


I'd rather a cookie! Double chocolate chip please. And if you have sprinkles even better. YUM


Would this be in light of your wonderful unprompted posting of a link to a word definition? lol

In reply to IainRUK:


Did you expect any less on this thread? It's fisticuffs at dawn

In reply to crayefish:


I'm not sure you can divorce military/foreign policy from economic matters - there's the ongoing costs of Trident, foreign wars, etc.

It could be argued that an independent Scotland would have just as much if not more relevant influence at the EU than it does already - the UK's attention at Brussels recently seems to have been concentrated on threatening to re-negotiate terms if there is any perceived threat to the interests of the City of London, and of course it's even possible that the UK will withdraw altogether after 2017.

But even if we concede that Scotland would have reduced influence in Brussels, the net gain in power/control/responsibility (whatever you want to call it) that would come from Independence is surely self-evident.

I've heard plenty of arguments against Independence, but I think that's the first time I've heard anyone claim that an independent Scotland would have less influence over its own affairs than it currently has.

In reply to IainRUK:




Genuine question - why do you think he is lumping it all on the English? He hasn't even mentioned them.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Its been said before that the break up of the UK is the last segment of its once big empire and a reason the english don't want that..

And it does suggest as if Jim is suggesting that we are trying to retain an empire.. I think the UK is very different to the British Empire.

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes but he hasn't even mentioned the English.

I don't know anyone who thinks the Empire and UK are the same. There is certainly a residue of Britain once ruled the waves etc though.

I'm with Jim - small, modern, norther European democracy.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I dont see that..

But I do think the future is not 4 independent states, but 4 federal states within the UK that are in the EU... 4 separate parliaments and one federal parliament that maybe sits 4 times a year..

There's a US state which has something similar, no full time politicians, and the state senate only sits a few times a year when all decisions are made...

I think that will serve us best in the future.

And independence finishes that.

I think Salmond wants his day in the sun.. regardless of the costs and will use short term policies, like the tuition fees.. to sell his ideals then step away.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Not entirely of course, but the cost of Trident for example is rather insignificant to that of GDP.


No not really. While the UK has annoyed people with their push for changes etc, it is economic and political clout that speaks in the end. No one in their right mind (except maybe Saor or Lynx) would try to claim that Scotland would be a bigger player on the EU or world stage than rUK (assuming we stay in which is quite likely).


I never stated that at any point. Please feel free to dig around for a quote from me...

In reply to IainRUK:


Salmon wants a desk with one of those name plates that says 'president' simply

In reply to crayefish:


Let me know where and I'll send you a cookie. No sprinkles though. It's not an ice cream.



Your post implied that the levels of power the EU and the UK have over Scotland are comparable. When called on this you could have said "fair enough" or argued that they are in fact comparable. Instead you said where did I write that... this seems deliberately obtuse to me. Or, if you can't see the implied comparison, perhaps just obtuse.

In reply to crayefish:


This:

"But who says that the EU would act in Scotland's best interests? You'd have even less say than Britain currently does and if you don't like the current elected government because 'most of Scotland didn't vote for them' then there will be a real shock given that nearly everyone ruling the EU you wouldn't have voted for.
Seems like out of the frying pan and into the fire to me."

So what on earth were you trying to say? In what way would Scotland be worse off, compared to the present?

In reply to crayefish:


One. He didn't claim that Scotland would have more influence than rUK. More influence than as part of the UK.

Two. And this is just anecdotal, but I had the pleasure of representing GB at on an EU workgroup and Norway had more influence than us. And they're not even part of the EU.

In reply to Donnie:


In that case I'll have ice cream and sprinkles on it


That was in reference to something else entirely. Not sure how that got related to be honest. "Basically self governance in as many aspects as possible. Fair enough." The 'fair enough' meant that wanting self governance (part of the argument) is a fair point.

In reply to crayefish:


Incidentally, no-one is claiming that anyway. What could be reasonably argued is that Scotland's interests may not always be the same as the wider UK's, and that Scotland's interests may therefore be better served by direct influence at a lesser level. I don't know if that's true or not, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:





How you got that from what I said I have no idea. Not sure how much more simply I can explain it!

The point was that if maximum self-determination is the goal, why join the EU to give away power that an independent (and non EU) Scotland would have? Why give away power over important industries (probably more social than financial) such as fishing and agriculture? There seems to be much reading between the lines here. Should I leave gaps between lines to make it easier?

In reply to crayefish:


You keep saying that, but I'm not the only one who's having trouble following you.


Who said anything about "maximum self-determination" being the goal? You've made a bit of an assumption there yourself.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Yes that is certainly a possibility.

But Scotland has a similar population and GDP to Denmark who have a significantly lesser say in the EU than the big member states (France, Germany, UK, etc). I suspect the direct influence at a lesser level will not be as great as a result.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Then you're not the only one who needs to avoid reading between lines


It has been stated many times in many threads that self-determination and control is the key goal in many people's opinions.

In reply to IainRUK:



Been watching too much American TV perhaps.

The Presidents of Iceland, Ireland and Finland tend not to be known for lavish lifestyle or outlandish expenses.

In reply to crayefish:


No, but it might be more relevant to Scotland's needs. That's the argument.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Why would it? EU policy is dominated by mainland European countries with significantly different industries etc. In that respect, Britain is more similar.

Anyway, I must leave this thread for this evening as I am off out.

Been a pleasure debating!

In reply to crayefish:


Yes, obviously. But where does this "maximum" bit come in, apart from your imagination? Most people who favour Independence would prefer to see Scotland remain in the EU, even if that does mean loss of a certain degree of decision-making power in some areas. That's precisely why we've seen so attention in the media to the issue of Scotland's continuing EU membership.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
One thing that will be lost will be free tuition fees for Scottish but not English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students with the E.U. The current union allows for this but the E.U won't allow discrimination.

In reply to FreshSlate:
That has to go…
Already ive heard rumours from uni staff of selecting ruk students over scots… be hard to statistically check as ruk students would have declined in numbers but makes sense…

In reply to IainRUK:
Do you think the it's unfair that scotland pays for its own but not rUK students?

In reply to Donnie:


This isn't a moral consideration but a pratical one. At the moment the union allows the status quo but a independent Scotland would have to treat English, Welsh and Northern Irish students just as it does any other E.U student. They will either get free education, or Scotland will have to introduce fees.

In reply to IainRUK:


It doesn't follow that all pro-Unionists are anti-EU, but it is consistent: there is a redundancy and conflict between the layer of government at Westminster and that in the EU. It is obvious that one of the reasons the SE England branch of the Tories is viscerally anti-EU is because more power for the EU will mean less power for London.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So, as the polls shows more people in Scotland are of the "no" persuasion, you're saying the majority in Scotland are anti-eu? Interesting.

In reply to FreshSlate:

True. I think we might get special dispensation or find away round it though. If we did't we'd just have to introduce fees and, I think most EU states would be for free education.

I have heard quite a few people say it's unfair though. Which does seem strange to me.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Why on earth do you think that? Scotland has a policy which is normal for the EU and England is out of step with extortionate fees. Why would the EU want to force Scotland to adopt the English system?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

English???? Let me guess ruk is english…england isntruk…

You could not make this shit up

In reply to Donnie:

Why?

In reply to IainRUK:



The system in Wales is not the same as the system in England. It is England that has the £9K tuition fees.

In reply to Donnie:



What makes you think iScotland would get "special dispensation"?

In reply to IainRUK:



Relax Iain

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Well, I suspect it's a fairly unique situation. Scotland would have no choice but to charge similar fees to England. I doubt that's the case else where I the eu.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And Wales.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


You do come out with some tripe, Scotland doesn't charge other EU students but it does charge UK students from outside scotland, if scotland becomes an independent country and then joins the EU it will no longer be able to charge students from rUK.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


the fees are not really extortionate - its what the scottish govt pay as well after all - the question is how to fund this education general taxation or something more focussed?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Exactly. EU rules state you must charge any EU student from a different country the same as local students. You can have different rules internally within a country however.

In reply to MG:


http://university.which.co.uk/advice/quick-guide-to-fees-and-finance-if-you...

A bit less than half as much as in England.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I'm not sure it is. I saw the letter for my daughter from the Scottish fees people which gave a number they were paying for fees which was a *lot* lower than £9K. I could be wrong on this but there are also stories of Uni's trying to take more English kids they can charge £9K to as opposed to Scottish ones where they get less.

This is part of the reason the English system is so expensive. If they were actual loans where the amount paid back was strongly influenced by the amount borrowed and if you didn't get a good job after the course you still had to pay it back there would be a market mechanism for price competition and removing poorly performing courses out.

At least with the Scottish system the government has leverage to push down on prices and can push out poorly performing Universities and courses.

In reply to Donnie:


And in English?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Really? Okay...

The law, as it stands, would put an independent Scotland in a position where it would not be able to afford to have free higher education. I expect (but don't know) that this situation is unique within the EU. The law clearly isn't designed to prevent countries offering free education, and I don't think anyone would think it's a good thing if it has that effect. Therefore, I think other EU countries would be happy to find someway round it....

In reply to Donnie:

You mean charge fees for all? Or is this another special exception which will be made?

In reply to Donnie: And Romania, Spain, Greece et al are rolling in dough and will nod and smile benignly while iScotland dictates terms to the EU? Why do you think the rest of the EU cares?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


You have a Daily Mail like level of certainty of your opinions and a God like ability to summarize large bodies of law and regulations into a single sentence with absolute certainty. Probably Scotland will have to redraft its rules to avoid framing them as discrimination against one country but it will almost certainly be able to find something that has the same effect.

The EU is all about fudge and compromise. When this lands on the desk of a German person working in the EU they are going to spot that if an English kid goes to Germany they pay very little but if a German kid goes to England they pay £9K and have a lot of sympathy for the Scottish position.

In reply to dissonance:

A way round it that would allow the status quo to continue

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think they'd care if we charge rUK students

In reply to crayefish:

Growth alone is meaningless, but if even after GDP dropped by some >20% it was still doing better than the UK on a per capita basis, it makes the growth on Iceland's per capita GDP figures look rather good when you see how it is also growing:

http://bit.ly/1dSji20

In reply to Sir Chasm:

ps in my day job, I represent GB at EC meetings. I'm quite new to it, very junior and it's quite a niche area but what I've found is that so long as it doesn't bother anyone else people are mostly happy to live and let live.

In reply to Donnie:


Yes I am sure that rule is just there for a giggle and like all those other tedious rules will be dropped instantly for Scotland.

The amusing thing is if the scenario was the other way round Lynx and co would be going batshit about it.

In reply to dissonance:


Sorry, I didn't quote the message I was responding to. To clarify. I don't think Romania, Greece and [other poor EU country mentioned] would care if we charge rUK students.

I really do think that the EU would be happy to find someway to let Scotland have free higher education though. Really, why wouldn't they? Who would object?


Maybe they would... I'm not sure. It seems to me a really strange one for people to get annoyed. about

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Maybe re look at that... its still a huge difference.


So let me guess.. 9k extra ordinate.. 6k OK.... well thats OK.. lets just draw boundaries on paper... one side Ok other's shite.. just random squiggles...

In reply to Donnie:

Check the situation...

In reply to Donnie:

GB?

Do we have a GB interest in Europe? Always assumed it was UK.

Why is NI missed out in your job?

In reply to IainRUK:


"Welsh universities and colleges can charge up to £9,000 a year in tuition fees for a full-time degree course. But there’s a bit of brighter information if you’re from Wales, because the Welsh Assembly has pledged that – wherever in the UK you choose to study – you won’t have to pay more than £3,685 a year."

£3,685 is more than free but a lot less than £9K. No idea where you got £6K from.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Ah Ok miss read it.. its still a what increase... over double... that will change.

Interesting that in Wales we still offered teaching fellows.

We'll see.. in 5 years time I think we'll see similar rates..

In reply to IainRUK:




Good spot and top pedantry! (I mean that in a good way, as a fellow pedant)

For my job it is GB though...I'd rather not disclose who I work for in case I've said anything nasty about them on here. You can probably work it out though if you've the patience.

In reply to IainRUK:


The guy off of Jersey Shore?

In reply to Donnie:

Hold on... thats all loans no?

Is it that different between england and wales?

Still the Uni gets 9k per student.. but it looks fairly similar.

Ok Donnie.. you've lost me on Jersey Shore.. I'll pass on the expertise there..

In reply to IainRUK:

Jersey Shore man, it's top telly.

Not sure what you mean about the loans?

In reply to Donnie:

I dont have a TV.. bbc news online.
Whats amazing is in the UK NI students get f*cked as I see it.. they pay back on 17k per year.. not 21 k per year.

But english students get a full loan.. welsh students get a 3.7k loan and a grant.. scottish students full grant..

But its still a huge gap in what the RuK and Scotland get..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Because it's E.U law that's why. Scotland is out of step where it counts, and that's charging certain E.U members one price and other E.U members another.

In reply to Donnie:


I don't think Scotland will get special dispensation, a few countries have attempted this and failed. Scotland will probably have to introduce fees, at a level to discourage a good proportion of rUk students.

Can not see a way around this, perhaps something can be worked out between the two governments, another potential bargaining chip in this whole game.

Tom in edinburgh believes that it would totally unfair for English students to be treated the same as German students. I see a problem practically, and a problem within E.U law, one that will have to be resolved at some cost to the Scottish government, Financially or politically.


This is already the case. British students already study in Germany along side Germans on English speaking courses. Why should a German make an exception for Scotland to discriminate against British students when they themselves allow British students to study there? You're looking all very isolationist and backwards here, Europe welcomes British students with open arms so why would they allow one country to shut certain E.U citizens out? I'm not sure what sympathy they will have, Germany hasn't thrown it's toys out of the pram in regards to tuition fees but it will let Scotland do so?

In reply to Donnie:




Of course iScotland could have free higher education, I've never said they couldn't, but they can't charge students from one EU country and give it free to all the others.

I'm saying we could not afford to have free education if rUK students got it too and I think eventually something would be worked out

In reply to FreshSlate:

Which other countries?

Tom and I have already explained why we think an exception should be made. You don't agree but please stop this why why why prove it nonsense and debate in good faith. Thanks.

In reply to Donnie:


Aye, the standard arm-wavy "don't worry about the details the EU will do whatever we want" or perhaps "special dispensation".

In reply to FreshSlate:


We understand what the law is stop and have explained why we think it would be got round. Please debate like a reasonable person. Thanks

In reply to Donnie:


You haven't though. Why would all other EU states want Scotland (a newcomer) to get special treatment? All countries will have some quirk that they want to be treated differently for, for the EU to work this can't happen. (Or at least not unless you are a big enough country to have the clout to force the issues, which iScotland wouldn't be).

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Not at all. I think something would be worked and have given the reasons why I think that. It might not be....

My general assumption for all these things is that a. People tend to behave in their own interests b where they don't care either way they tend to be nice.

If you don't agree with that explain why. Don't just mutter your 'yesh, right' nonsense.