This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A lot of people supporting NO query why Scotland wants independence and a currency union as it won't have control of it's own monetary policy.
There's a fairly straight forward response to that. I've defineitly made it to Tim Chappel recently and I think I've made it to others on here a while back including Iain rUK.
When i make this response, I don't get a reply ackowledging that they agree or disputing it. And yet it keeps getting trotted out.
Why is that? Could it be that they're just parrotting things they've heard but don't really understand?
There's a fairly straight forward response to that. I've defineitly made it to Tim Chappel recently and I think I've made it to others on here a while back including Iain rUK.
When i make this response, I don't get a reply ackowledging that they agree or disputing it. And yet it keeps getting trotted out.
Why is that? Could it be that they're just parrotting things they've heard but don't really understand?
In reply to Donnie:
go on then, what is it?
TBF its pretty common that people make points in these long threads that no one follows up - its really easy to lose track, and people occasionally have life/jobs/climbing
go on then, what is it?
TBF its pretty common that people make points in these long threads that no one follows up - its really easy to lose track, and people occasionally have life/jobs/climbing
In reply to Donnie:
And history repeats itself....
I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
I know a few staunch No voters who I have tried to encourage to go to Yes and non-biased events but they avoid doing so everytime as they have all the answers apparently.
Conversely, I have tried to go to several BT events but you can never get in unless you have been vetted beforehand. It's a closed shop.
I think they do understand but are too scared to challenge their own views.
And history repeats itself....
I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
I know a few staunch No voters who I have tried to encourage to go to Yes and non-biased events but they avoid doing so everytime as they have all the answers apparently.
Conversely, I have tried to go to several BT events but you can never get in unless you have been vetted beforehand. It's a closed shop.
I think they do understand but are too scared to challenge their own views.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
And there it goes again. This is happening all the time. Simply refusing to deal with the issues and fire off an insult instead.
And there it goes again. This is happening all the time. Simply refusing to deal with the issues and fire off an insult instead.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I've wandered into a few without a glance; were you mistaking them for British Telecom shareholder meetings?
> Conversely, I have tried to go to several BT events but you can never get in unless you have been vetted beforehand. It's a closed shop.
I've wandered into a few without a glance; were you mistaking them for British Telecom shareholder meetings?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Ah - so I'm guessing that this :-
I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
I think they do understand but are too scared to challenge their own views.
is simply constructive debate. (or perhaps just your contribution to a debate that is "very good natured and a lot of fun")
> And there it goes again. This is happening all the time. Simply refusing to deal with the issues and fire off an insult instead.
Ah - so I'm guessing that this :-
I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
I think they do understand but are too scared to challenge their own views.
is simply constructive debate. (or perhaps just your contribution to a debate that is "very good natured and a lot of fun")
In reply to Kipper:
Really? Which ones. The one this week in Fort William requires pre-registration. I know of no other public meetings being held this way and it appears in this case that it's being organised by an MP's assistant. Hardly community driven.
Really? Which ones. The one this week in Fort William requires pre-registration. I know of no other public meetings being held this way and it appears in this case that it's being organised by an MP's assistant. Hardly community driven.
In reply to off-duty:
No it's my opinion, based upon experience of doing a lot of canvassing and speaking to a lot of people face to face.
Out of interest, have you been to any BT, Yes or impartial events in Scotland?
No it's my opinion, based upon experience of doing a lot of canvassing and speaking to a lot of people face to face.
Out of interest, have you been to any BT, Yes or impartial events in Scotland?
In reply to off-duty:
In fact having done about five minutes research, I see that quite a lot of other staff is being organised by parliamentary assistants. Nothing wrong with that but it does demonstrate that fundamental differences between the two campaigns.
In fact having done about five minutes research, I see that quite a lot of other staff is being organised by parliamentary assistants. Nothing wrong with that but it does demonstrate that fundamental differences between the two campaigns.
In reply to Donnie:
But it's not really a currency union if the other party doesn't want the union.
The idea that Scotland can walk away from the debt withoutitis pretty pathetic. One other big drivers for Scotland entering into the union in the first place was scotland's massive debt.
But it's not really a currency union if the other party doesn't want the union.
The idea that Scotland can walk away from the debt withoutitis pretty pathetic. One other big drivers for Scotland entering into the union in the first place was scotland's massive debt.
In reply to Donnie:
Whatever the response, it doesn't really matter if rUK don't want currency union, as is the case (with anyone it seems)
Whatever the response, it doesn't really matter if rUK don't want currency union, as is the case (with anyone it seems)
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
I think that comment absolutely applies to many of the people on the Yes side too.
Are there any circumstances which would persuade you to vote 'No'?
> And history repeats itself....
> I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
>
I think that comment absolutely applies to many of the people on the Yes side too.
Are there any circumstances which would persuade you to vote 'No'?
In reply to rogerwebb:
I like the "religious almost" comment from someone who spends his life trying to convert people to his beliefs and persuade them to go to meetings. Hmm which other groups go in for that behaviour!
I like the "religious almost" comment from someone who spends his life trying to convert people to his beliefs and persuade them to go to meetings. Hmm which other groups go in for that behaviour!
In reply to Donnie:
I thought the real point is that under current EU rules, any new accession state is committed to joining the Euro, and therefore roughly 5 years after independence Scotland would / will be a Eurozone member, and the initial currency choice is purely temporary anyway. If this is to be avoided, every one of the 28 member states would have to agree, as each has a veto
I thought the real point is that under current EU rules, any new accession state is committed to joining the Euro, and therefore roughly 5 years after independence Scotland would / will be a Eurozone member, and the initial currency choice is purely temporary anyway. If this is to be avoided, every one of the 28 member states would have to agree, as each has a veto
In reply to Saor Alba:
You do realise that the same could be applied to some Yes voters as well. Alec Salmond comes to mind. Although to be fair, he's changed his mind about the pound. Not so long ago, it was millstone around Scotland's neck. Now 'it's our pound and we're keeping it.'
> And history repeats itself....
> I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
You do realise that the same could be applied to some Yes voters as well. Alec Salmond comes to mind. Although to be fair, he's changed his mind about the pound. Not so long ago, it was millstone around Scotland's neck. Now 'it's our pound and we're keeping it.'
In reply to Donnie:
While I look forward immensely to your straightforward response, can I point out an error in your first sentence? Current evidence suggests that Scotland doesn't want independence.
> A lot of people supporting NO query why Scotland wants independence and a currency union as it won't have control of it's own monetary policy.
> There's a fairly straight forward response to that. I've defineitly made it to Tim Chappel recently and I think I've made it to others on here a while back including Iain rUK.
> When i make this response, I don't get a reply ackowledging that they agree or disputing it. And yet it keeps getting trotted out.
> Why is that? Could it be that they're just parrotting things they've heard but don't really understand?
While I look forward immensely to your straightforward response, can I point out an error in your first sentence? Current evidence suggests that Scotland doesn't want independence.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I am guessing this is the straightforward response which was ignored (although it wasnt by IainRUK and others).
So, my response is in 4 parts...
1. We have no or very little democratic control now. The parties don't really differ on monetary policy which is largely left to the BoE, people don't change their vote based on it and Scotland rarely influences the result of an election.
2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.
3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.
4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.
> While I look forward immensely to your straightforward response
I am guessing this is the straightforward response which was ignored (although it wasnt by IainRUK and others).
So, my response is in 4 parts...
1. We have no or very little democratic control now. The parties don't really differ on monetary policy which is largely left to the BoE, people don't change their vote based on it and Scotland rarely influences the result of an election.
2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.
3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.
4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Brilliant. That is an unbelievably condescending reply. You are saying " I am right and you are wrong".LOL
Brilliant. That is an unbelievably condescending reply. You are saying " I am right and you are wrong".LOL
In reply to Donnie:
Points worth getting answers to from No voters, with personal opinion below:
1. Once the oil runs out do you think Scotland's enlarged per capita public spending will continue?
- The oil money has been completely wasted and once it runs out the Middle England politicians will finally say at last now's the time to reign Scotland back in and stop treating them like needy children. There is plenty soundbite evidence that this will happen and logic states it will. I know how it works and I'm not stupid as political parties will circle the wagons around their core voter. So Yes for me to make sure Scotland can make best use of what's left to pay off our share of the debt and spend wiser and long term.
2. Do you honestly believe anything will happen to give Scotland more powers or Tax raising powers, which will distance us from politics at Westminster post 'No'
- Westminster will not give up anything that determines how money is raised and spent. They'd be mad to do that other than (and here's the real potential kick in the balls) to give tax raising powers but reduce oil subsidy to Scotland. They will have the perfect spin that here are the Tax raising powers you've been asking for what on Earth are you crying about, because you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't trust them one bit so vote Yes.
3. In what way are we actually stronger together?
- There seems to be a grand delusion that we are still some kind of super leader. I don't see what the benefit of this deluded status has been in defence, or in worldwide issues. We went into Iraq for US reasons, we do nothing and make no difference to Gaza, Ukraine etc. The financial sector is something I wouldn't ever depend upon due to its volatility and look at the mess it made of the UK. Scotland doesn't want or need to be a world player, and to be honest the only people that do are politicians.
4. Do you think an independent Scotland will be a closed shop with poor neighbourly relations?
- All will settle and sensible ways of working together for border controls, trade and defence. Monetary policy who knows but in all aspects rUK will still want systems that make working together easier than harder. It stands to reason and business will tell the politicians on both sides to grow up and sort it out.
Points worth getting answers to from No voters, with personal opinion below:
1. Once the oil runs out do you think Scotland's enlarged per capita public spending will continue?
- The oil money has been completely wasted and once it runs out the Middle England politicians will finally say at last now's the time to reign Scotland back in and stop treating them like needy children. There is plenty soundbite evidence that this will happen and logic states it will. I know how it works and I'm not stupid as political parties will circle the wagons around their core voter. So Yes for me to make sure Scotland can make best use of what's left to pay off our share of the debt and spend wiser and long term.
2. Do you honestly believe anything will happen to give Scotland more powers or Tax raising powers, which will distance us from politics at Westminster post 'No'
- Westminster will not give up anything that determines how money is raised and spent. They'd be mad to do that other than (and here's the real potential kick in the balls) to give tax raising powers but reduce oil subsidy to Scotland. They will have the perfect spin that here are the Tax raising powers you've been asking for what on Earth are you crying about, because you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't trust them one bit so vote Yes.
3. In what way are we actually stronger together?
- There seems to be a grand delusion that we are still some kind of super leader. I don't see what the benefit of this deluded status has been in defence, or in worldwide issues. We went into Iraq for US reasons, we do nothing and make no difference to Gaza, Ukraine etc. The financial sector is something I wouldn't ever depend upon due to its volatility and look at the mess it made of the UK. Scotland doesn't want or need to be a world player, and to be honest the only people that do are politicians.
4. Do you think an independent Scotland will be a closed shop with poor neighbourly relations?
- All will settle and sensible ways of working together for border controls, trade and defence. Monetary policy who knows but in all aspects rUK will still want systems that make working together easier than harder. It stands to reason and business will tell the politicians on both sides to grow up and sort it out.
In reply to dissonance:
IF those are the reasons, then 2) and 3) seem contradictory. 1) Might be true but it implies that politicians having control over interest rates is a good thing. The reason they currently don't is because they screwed it up previously. Anyway, how would independence change that? 4) Possibly true but if a credible threat to leave were there, I think rUK would be even more reluctant to sign up, which is a requirement and the stumbling block anyway.
IF those are the reasons, then 2) and 3) seem contradictory. 1) Might be true but it implies that politicians having control over interest rates is a good thing. The reason they currently don't is because they screwed it up previously. Anyway, how would independence change that? 4) Possibly true but if a credible threat to leave were there, I think rUK would be even more reluctant to sign up, which is a requirement and the stumbling block anyway.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Touche!
> While I look forward immensely to your straightforward response, can I point out an error in your first sentence? Current evidence suggests that Scotland doesn't want independence.
Touche!
In reply to dissonance:
Yes, that's basically it I would have put it a bit more simply here though, as Tim specifically mentioned democratic control.
Also Iain didn't respond to the issue of whether losing control of monetary policy was a good argument against independence. He changed the subject to whether we should have a currency union or not, which is a seperate issue.
> I am guessing this is the straightforward response which was ignored (although it wasnt by IainRUK and others).
> So, my response is in 4 parts...
> 1. We have no or very little democratic control now. The parties don't really differ on monetary policy which is largely left to the BoE, people don't change their vote based on it and Scotland rarely influences the result of an election.
> 2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.
> 3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.
> 4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.
Yes, that's basically it I would have put it a bit more simply here though, as Tim specifically mentioned democratic control.
Also Iain didn't respond to the issue of whether losing control of monetary policy was a good argument against independence. He changed the subject to whether we should have a currency union or not, which is a seperate issue.
Post edited at 09:54
In reply to rogerwebb:
Yes there are - many circumstances. If the Yes vote was to say we want nuclear weapons, we want to continue the current form of neo-liberalism, we want to continue with the House of Lords, we believe that power is projected through military force, we want to be a "top player", we think the way the oil money has been managed is good and there is no reason to consider there might be a better way.
If that was true then I would say better the devil you know. But it isn't true.
Yes there are - many circumstances. If the Yes vote was to say we want nuclear weapons, we want to continue the current form of neo-liberalism, we want to continue with the House of Lords, we believe that power is projected through military force, we want to be a "top player", we think the way the oil money has been managed is good and there is no reason to consider there might be a better way.
If that was true then I would say better the devil you know. But it isn't true.
In reply to MG:
Why are 2) and 3) contradictory?
I don't mean to imply that politicians having control over netrest rates is a good thing.
Possibility to leave imay be an argument against currency union for rUK. It's not an argument that losing control of monetary policy is a reason not to have independence.
The main point is that independence or not, Scotland will be no worse off in terms of control over monetary policy in the UK. Eitherway it will not significantly differ from what's deemed to be best for rUK.
Now, there are counter arguments you can make to this. But they don't make them. They just keep trotting out their side of it as this unaswered and unaswerable argument. They're really not engaging in a reasonable debate. (I realise not everyone on the yes side is always reasonable either)
Why are 2) and 3) contradictory?
I don't mean to imply that politicians having control over netrest rates is a good thing.
Possibility to leave imay be an argument against currency union for rUK. It's not an argument that losing control of monetary policy is a reason not to have independence.
The main point is that independence or not, Scotland will be no worse off in terms of control over monetary policy in the UK. Eitherway it will not significantly differ from what's deemed to be best for rUK.
Now, there are counter arguments you can make to this. But they don't make them. They just keep trotting out their side of it as this unaswered and unaswerable argument. They're really not engaging in a reasonable debate. (I realise not everyone on the yes side is always reasonable either)
In reply to tony:
I do realise it but I don't agree with it. Here is why - Yes is the opt in position. It's the decision for change (beyond political party change), it's to take a different view which isn't the status quo. There might be a whole load of reasons for it and I don't know others' reasons but I do know that most people who are going to vote Yes have travelled from the No side. In short it requires change.
To vote No is for the status quo.
I do realise it but I don't agree with it. Here is why - Yes is the opt in position. It's the decision for change (beyond political party change), it's to take a different view which isn't the status quo. There might be a whole load of reasons for it and I don't know others' reasons but I do know that most people who are going to vote Yes have travelled from the No side. In short it requires change.
To vote No is for the status quo.
In reply to neilh:
No I am not saying that. That is why I didn't say that.
I am saying that many No voters I know refuse to go to meetings that challenge their position and often say they have all the facts already. I am reporting what other people are saying.
No I am not saying that. That is why I didn't say that.
I am saying that many No voters I know refuse to go to meetings that challenge their position and often say they have all the facts already. I am reporting what other people are saying.
In reply to Donnie:
Well 2) seems to say there is little difference is desirable policy between iScotland and rUK, while 3) says its important that Scotland can affect decisions bearing in mind its own requirements.
I actually agree with you CU would probably be good overall for an "independent" Scotland (although there are risks), however, the benefits for rUK aren't there and it isn't wanted anyway.
> Why are 2) and 3) contradictory?
Well 2) seems to say there is little difference is desirable policy between iScotland and rUK, while 3) says its important that Scotland can affect decisions bearing in mind its own requirements.
I actually agree with you CU would probably be good overall for an "independent" Scotland (although there are risks), however, the benefits for rUK aren't there and it isn't wanted anyway.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Well said!
A lot of people on here and elsewhere just refuse to believe that it's not base anti english nationalism that's motivating the majority of YES voters.
> Yes there are - many circumstances. If the Yes vote was to say we want nuclear weapons, we want to continue the current form of neo-liberalism, we want to continue with the House of Lords, we believe that power is projected through military force, we want to be a "top player", we think the way the oil money has been managed is good and there is no reason to consider there might be a better way.
> If that was true then I would say better the devil you know. But it isn't true.
Well said!
A lot of people on here and elsewhere just refuse to believe that it's not base anti english nationalism that's motivating the majority of YES voters.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I'm not seeing much neo liberalism these days, and find it hard to see why constitutional change is required to alter any of that (apart from the house of lords where I believe it will happen any way)
I would vote 'yes' if the UK ceased to be a democracy, passed legislation that was in effect apartheid (on whatever basis), refused to have a referendum after there was a mandate for one or proscribed any political parties that were committed to democracy and peaceful means.
You get banned and I'll vote for you.
Problem is in most of those circumstances none of us would get a vote so best meet you at the barricades!
> Yes there are - many circumstances. If the Yes vote was to say we want nuclear weapons, we want to continue the current form of neo-liberalism, we want to continue with the House of Lords, we believe that power is projected through military force, we want to be a "top player", we think the way the oil money has been managed is good and there is no reason to consider there might be a better way.
> If that was true then I would say better the devil you know. But it isn't true.
I'm not seeing much neo liberalism these days, and find it hard to see why constitutional change is required to alter any of that (apart from the house of lords where I believe it will happen any way)
I would vote 'yes' if the UK ceased to be a democracy, passed legislation that was in effect apartheid (on whatever basis), refused to have a referendum after there was a mandate for one or proscribed any political parties that were committed to democracy and peaceful means.
You get banned and I'll vote for you.
Problem is in most of those circumstances none of us would get a vote so best meet you at the barricades!
In reply to MG:
3) wasn't intended to say anything about the importance of having control. Just that in a formal currency union we may actually have a tiny bit more control than the very little we do now. But even if it did, the two statements wouldn't be contradictory. If there's a small difference in what's good for Scotland and what's good for rUK it would be better for Scotland to have someone appointed by Scotland on the MPC than not.
For clarity, I don't we have much control now and I don't think we'd have much in the future.
Funnily enough I think we'd probably be better off with our own currency in the long run.
3) wasn't intended to say anything about the importance of having control. Just that in a formal currency union we may actually have a tiny bit more control than the very little we do now. But even if it did, the two statements wouldn't be contradictory. If there's a small difference in what's good for Scotland and what's good for rUK it would be better for Scotland to have someone appointed by Scotland on the MPC than not.
For clarity, I don't we have much control now and I don't think we'd have much in the future.
Funnily enough I think we'd probably be better off with our own currency in the long run.
Post edited at 10:07
In reply to Donnie:
I know and they are safe in their religious type of view. The further away people are (MG, IainRUK, etc) the more certain they are of this. That they actually aren't in the country where all of this is taking place makes no difference at all.
Maybe I could become an expert in Danish politics despite only having been there a few times and not being there whilst the discussion is taking place.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they are stupid or ignorant. The point I am making is that these people are missing out on about 90% of the information but still utterly certain of their arguments.
Often this certainty is very fragile and can't be questioned by listening to alternative thought so the tactic is to constantly question the Yes side on every subject. Nothing wrong with that but when you reflect that back you get a pretty hostile response. I could ask multiple questions about the UK in the future but when you do, you get a very dismissive view.
E.g. I asked when the UK debt will stop rising. Response - "When we spend less" - Well obviously. A child could have given me that answer but it is indicative of two things - 1) there is a lot of uncertainty about staying in the UK and 2) the No side demand detail on things that they are unwilling to offer in return.
I know and they are safe in their religious type of view. The further away people are (MG, IainRUK, etc) the more certain they are of this. That they actually aren't in the country where all of this is taking place makes no difference at all.
Maybe I could become an expert in Danish politics despite only having been there a few times and not being there whilst the discussion is taking place.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they are stupid or ignorant. The point I am making is that these people are missing out on about 90% of the information but still utterly certain of their arguments.
Often this certainty is very fragile and can't be questioned by listening to alternative thought so the tactic is to constantly question the Yes side on every subject. Nothing wrong with that but when you reflect that back you get a pretty hostile response. I could ask multiple questions about the UK in the future but when you do, you get a very dismissive view.
E.g. I asked when the UK debt will stop rising. Response - "When we spend less" - Well obviously. A child could have given me that answer but it is indicative of two things - 1) there is a lot of uncertainty about staying in the UK and 2) the No side demand detail on things that they are unwilling to offer in return.
In reply to nightclimber:
That's a point. Personally I think it's nonsense but I can't be bothered to run through it again.
That's a point. Personally I think it's nonsense but I can't be bothered to run through it again.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I suppose I view the Lords and Queen/Royalty the same way - I am more than happy for them to exist, do whatever they want - but I don't want them to have any power over the population or pay for them. The Lords is clearly here to stay for a long time and there are no concrete plans to reform them to a democratic way so it's clear a No vote is one that supports the undemocratic House of Lords. If someone is happy with that then fair enough or willing to let that be so they can secure a No vote, fine.
Personally I am just up for Scotland abandoning Westminster, it can do what it wants.
The same with the Queen. I have no problem with her either. I would just remove all subsidies and income from the state.
I suppose I view the Lords and Queen/Royalty the same way - I am more than happy for them to exist, do whatever they want - but I don't want them to have any power over the population or pay for them. The Lords is clearly here to stay for a long time and there are no concrete plans to reform them to a democratic way so it's clear a No vote is one that supports the undemocratic House of Lords. If someone is happy with that then fair enough or willing to let that be so they can secure a No vote, fine.
Personally I am just up for Scotland abandoning Westminster, it can do what it wants.
The same with the Queen. I have no problem with her either. I would just remove all subsidies and income from the state.
In reply to DaveN:
That's a seperate point with it's own thread. I was hoping to pin down this one point.
That's a seperate point with it's own thread. I was hoping to pin down this one point.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Maybe it happens all the time because you continue to be so condescending. Take a look in the mirror every now and again.
> And there it goes again. This is happening all the time.
Maybe it happens all the time because you continue to be so condescending. Take a look in the mirror every now and again.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Actually I am, but don't let facts bother. They normally don't.
90% of the information but still utterly certain of their arguments.
I think you are the one stuck in about 1920 with your town-hall meetings. These days most things happen electronically. The wireless has done marvels for communication and there's this newfangled internet thing.
It is horrible when people point out you are wrong isn't it?
> I know and they are safe in their religious type of view. The further away people are (MG, IainRUK, etc)
Actually I am, but don't let facts bother. They normally don't.
90% of the information but still utterly certain of their arguments.
I think you are the one stuck in about 1920 with your town-hall meetings. These days most things happen electronically. The wireless has done marvels for communication and there's this newfangled internet thing.
> Often this certainty is very fragile and can't be questioned by listening to alternative thought so the tactic is to constantly question the Yes side on every subject. Nothing wrong with that but when you reflect that back you get a pretty hostile response.
It is horrible when people point out you are wrong isn't it?
In reply to yer maw:
Good points all.
On three there probably are some benefits in terms of stability and borrowing costs.
Good points all.
On three there probably are some benefits in terms of stability and borrowing costs.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I am just saying what is happening. If you can't accept this then fair enough. You probably know some of the people I am referring to.
I am just saying what is happening. If you can't accept this then fair enough. You probably know some of the people I am referring to.
In reply to Donnie:
But that wouldn't be good for rUK. So the question is how do we square that circle?
Absolutely. Which is why I don't really understand some UKC contributor's eagerness to join the EU and with it, the Euro. If this debate is about control over Scotland's financial affairs, then being part of Europe seems like madness to me.
> it would be better for Scotland to have someone appointed by Scotland on the MPC than not
But that wouldn't be good for rUK. So the question is how do we square that circle?
> Funnily enough I think we'd probably be better off with our own currency in the long run.
Absolutely. Which is why I don't really understand some UKC contributor's eagerness to join the EU and with it, the Euro. If this debate is about control over Scotland's financial affairs, then being part of Europe seems like madness to me.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Basically that we'd be no worse off than we are now. Scottish and UK economies are similar and highly integrated, so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ. If it does it will, rightly, be set for rUK rather than Scotland. That will happen regardless of independence and currency union.
They do seem to happen more often where they've been caught out.
I'm actually off on my holidays now though. So please don't take a lack of respponse as my sneaking off.
> go on then, what is it?
> TBF its pretty common that people make points in these long threads that no one follows up - its really easy to lose track, and people occasionally have life/jobs/climbing
Basically that we'd be no worse off than we are now. Scottish and UK economies are similar and highly integrated, so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ. If it does it will, rightly, be set for rUK rather than Scotland. That will happen regardless of independence and currency union.
They do seem to happen more often where they've been caught out.
I'm actually off on my holidays now though. So please don't take a lack of respponse as my sneaking off.
In reply to MG:
And this is where you illustrate my point. It's not your fault, but you aren't aware of the multiple things happening at community level so assume they aren't happening. When someone who is actually involved in things at community level and knows where and when cavassing, meetings, events and so on take place tells you about this, you go into denial.
No matter how strongly you wish you had the whole picture, you don't. No matter how sure you are that you can get everything on the internet, you can't. No matter how much you post on a website, you can't reach a huge section of people.
This applies to a Yes or No supporter.
> I think you are the one stuck in about 1920 with your town-hall meetings. These days most things happen electronically. The wireless has done marvels for communication and there's this newfangled internet thing.
And this is where you illustrate my point. It's not your fault, but you aren't aware of the multiple things happening at community level so assume they aren't happening. When someone who is actually involved in things at community level and knows where and when cavassing, meetings, events and so on take place tells you about this, you go into denial.
No matter how strongly you wish you had the whole picture, you don't. No matter how sure you are that you can get everything on the internet, you can't. No matter how much you post on a website, you can't reach a huge section of people.
This applies to a Yes or No supporter.
Post edited at 10:22
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
No you are wrong there, its a simple answer to a simple question, but and I hesitate to quote him, as Ronald Reagan said, 'just because its simple doesn't mean its easy'
Neither side can give answers, it is uncertainty on both sides and cannot be otherwise.
Imagine we are in 1977, who then predicted, the collapse of the USSR, Bosnia, the Iran/Iraq war, Falklands, AIDS, the internet? All these things had massive economic, political or social effects upon the UK and wider world. The question when will the debt come down is simplistic, it cannot be answered without knowing the future. The question what do you believe will be the best way to get the debt down can be asked, but no one will ever really know the answer because we can't re run history to check.
Each side or view can simply make there best judgement and go with it, I don't think there are any answers to economic questions on both sides that shouldn't be prefaced with 'we believe that' or it is 'our view that'
>
> E.g. I asked when the UK debt will stop rising. Response - "When we spend less" - Well obviously. A child could have given me that answer but it is indicative of two things - 1) there is a lot of uncertainty about staying in the UK and 2) the No side demand detail on things that they are unwilling to offer in return.
No you are wrong there, its a simple answer to a simple question, but and I hesitate to quote him, as Ronald Reagan said, 'just because its simple doesn't mean its easy'
Neither side can give answers, it is uncertainty on both sides and cannot be otherwise.
Imagine we are in 1977, who then predicted, the collapse of the USSR, Bosnia, the Iran/Iraq war, Falklands, AIDS, the internet? All these things had massive economic, political or social effects upon the UK and wider world. The question when will the debt come down is simplistic, it cannot be answered without knowing the future. The question what do you believe will be the best way to get the debt down can be asked, but no one will ever really know the answer because we can't re run history to check.
Each side or view can simply make there best judgement and go with it, I don't think there are any answers to economic questions on both sides that shouldn't be prefaced with 'we believe that' or it is 'our view that'
In reply to ByEek:
If there was a formal currency union Scotland would probably have represenation on the MPC. Whether there will be one or not and the advantages or not to rUKis a seperate argument on which is done to death elsewhere.
I don't belive that if Scotland does get in the EU it would be have to join the Euro. I understand what the law says about new members. Again I've argued about this elsewhere and I'm off on holiday shortly so lets agree to disagree.
If there was a formal currency union Scotland would probably have represenation on the MPC. Whether there will be one or not and the advantages or not to rUKis a seperate argument on which is done to death elsewhere.
I don't belive that if Scotland does get in the EU it would be have to join the Euro. I understand what the law says about new members. Again I've argued about this elsewhere and I'm off on holiday shortly so lets agree to disagree.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I know. It's a question which can't be answered. In other words, there is a huge amount of uncertainty about staying in the UK. It might be uncertainty on something we know about but it's a huge uncertainty nonetheless.
Consider the quite frankly dumb argument from BT in response to the wider provision of child care in Scotland.
Yes it is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to do this - fact. Bt are right about this.
But it requires financial resources which aren't available right now. Fact, BT are silent on this.
It's like buying a house - we all have the powers to buy any house we want but we can't as we don't have the financial resources.
I know. It's a question which can't be answered. In other words, there is a huge amount of uncertainty about staying in the UK. It might be uncertainty on something we know about but it's a huge uncertainty nonetheless.
Consider the quite frankly dumb argument from BT in response to the wider provision of child care in Scotland.
Yes it is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to do this - fact. Bt are right about this.
But it requires financial resources which aren't available right now. Fact, BT are silent on this.
It's like buying a house - we all have the powers to buy any house we want but we can't as we don't have the financial resources.
In reply to Donnie:
Sorry, but this is, again, wrong. You say "so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ", do you not think there will be major differences depending on whether iScotland was in a CU, the eurozone, using a pegged currency, having its own free floating currency?
> Basically that we'd be no worse off than we are now. Scottish and UK economies are similar and highly integrated, so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ. If it does it will, rightly, be set for rUK rather than Scotland. That will happen regardless of independence and currency union.
> They do seem to happen more often where they've been caught out.
> I'm actually off on my holidays now though. So please don't take a lack of respponse as my sneaking off.
Sorry, but this is, again, wrong. You say "so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ", do you not think there will be major differences depending on whether iScotland was in a CU, the eurozone, using a pegged currency, having its own free floating currency?
In reply to Donnie:
Right so take these then
This is somewhat contradictory talking about Scotland rarely influencing an election (which ignores the way it influences votes in parliament but lets leave that for now) and then people not voting based on policy anyway.
Also exactly what is the SNP policy, beyond creating a bit of a tax haven?
2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.
Aside from the interests are more likely to diverge since Scotland will be more heavily into a couple of specific sectors. What would be a boom for Scotland based on oil would be the reverse for the rest of the UK
3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.
Placed against that though is the rest of the board will no longer need to consider Scotland and hence will influence their votes that way. Given the difference in population and economy the voting will be somewhat biased.
4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.
Which is the attitude that rules it out from the UK side. It gives huge uncertainty in the currency and would be a speculators paradise.
Right so take these then
> 1. We have no or very little democratic control now. The parties don't really differ on monetary policy which is largely left to the BoE, people don't change their vote based on it and Scotland rarely influences the result of an election.
This is somewhat contradictory talking about Scotland rarely influencing an election (which ignores the way it influences votes in parliament but lets leave that for now) and then people not voting based on policy anyway.
Also exactly what is the SNP policy, beyond creating a bit of a tax haven?
2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.
Aside from the interests are more likely to diverge since Scotland will be more heavily into a couple of specific sectors. What would be a boom for Scotland based on oil would be the reverse for the rest of the UK
3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.
Placed against that though is the rest of the board will no longer need to consider Scotland and hence will influence their votes that way. Given the difference in population and economy the voting will be somewhat biased.
4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.
Which is the attitude that rules it out from the UK side. It gives huge uncertainty in the currency and would be a speculators paradise.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Doesn't the Scottish parliament have tax raising powers?
> I know. It's a question which can't be answered. In other words, there is a huge amount of uncertainty about staying in the UK. It might be uncertainty on something we know about but it's a huge uncertainty nonetheless.
> Consider the quite frankly dumb argument from BT in response to the wider provision of child care in Scotland.
> Yes it is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to do this - fact. Bt are right about this.
> But it requires financial resources which aren't available right now. Fact, BT are silent on this.
> It's like buying a house - we all have the powers to buy any house we want but we can't as we don't have the financial resources.
Doesn't the Scottish parliament have tax raising powers?
In reply to Donnie:
You'd have to make some long term commitment, basically pay lip service. They won't insist new countries join till the euro crisis is sorted out. What you would need is your own central bank..... I can't understand why Salmond doesn't make Plan B have your own currency (Scottish Pound), your own central bank, but pegged to sterling for n years, I'd have thought that would suit everyone.
As we've talked about before, it's not just monetary policy but fiscal policy which which needs to be considered, that's the big lesson of the Euro crisis. Salmond seems to be getting too easy a ride on this. He's obviously gone off the Euro because of the crisis, but he seems to be completely ignoring the lessons.
> I don't belive that if Scotland does get in the EU it would be have to join the Euro. I understand what the law says about new members. Again I've argued about this elsewhere and I'm off on holiday shortly so lets agree to disagree.
You'd have to make some long term commitment, basically pay lip service. They won't insist new countries join till the euro crisis is sorted out. What you would need is your own central bank..... I can't understand why Salmond doesn't make Plan B have your own currency (Scottish Pound), your own central bank, but pegged to sterling for n years, I'd have thought that would suit everyone.
As we've talked about before, it's not just monetary policy but fiscal policy which which needs to be considered, that's the big lesson of the Euro crisis. Salmond seems to be getting too easy a ride on this. He's obviously gone off the Euro because of the crisis, but he seems to be completely ignoring the lessons.
In reply to Donnie:
But, or course if your wrong about the Euro - and your view is the opposite of the Commission's so there must be a good chance you're wrong - will Scotland i)join the Eurozone, and therefore have interest rates determined effectively by the finance minister of Germany, the Euro's dominant economic force, or ii) Scotland won't join the EU?
But, or course if your wrong about the Euro - and your view is the opposite of the Commission's so there must be a good chance you're wrong - will Scotland i)join the Eurozone, and therefore have interest rates determined effectively by the finance minister of Germany, the Euro's dominant economic force, or ii) Scotland won't join the EU?
In reply to Donnie:
This is like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and going "lalala I can't hear you".
> If there was a formal currency union Scotland would probably have represenation on the MPC. Whether there will be one or not and the advantages or not to rUKis a seperate argument on which is done to death elsewhere.
> I don't belive that if Scotland does get in the EU it would be have to join the Euro. I understand what the law says about new members. Again I've argued about this elsewhere and I'm off on holiday shortly so lets agree to disagree.
This is like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and going "lalala I can't hear you".
In reply to Saor Alba:
Rather like the proposal itself, where cost estimates vary from £700million to £1.2 billion. These costs to paid for by an additional 100,000 women entering the workforce despite there being only 640000 economically inactive young mothers.
This debate is moving towards both sides knocking lumps out of each others fantasies.
Rather like the proposal itself, where cost estimates vary from £700million to £1.2 billion. These costs to paid for by an additional 100,000 women entering the workforce despite there being only 640000 economically inactive young mothers.
This debate is moving towards both sides knocking lumps out of each others fantasies.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yes it does. These are insufficient to apply the policy.
Can you clear something up for me? The new powers which various parties are promising - where does the tax go to?
Yes it does. These are insufficient to apply the policy.
Can you clear something up for me? The new powers which various parties are promising - where does the tax go to?
In reply to rogerwebb:
Yes and whether the figures are fantasy or otherwise, the policy can't be implemented currently. BT know this but only give half the story.
Yes and whether the figures are fantasy or otherwise, the policy can't be implemented currently. BT know this but only give half the story.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Why are they insufficient? Raise tax and use the proceeds to fund the policy.
Which new power in particular? But if it's gathered by HMRC it would go to the UK treasury unless alternate provisions were made.
> Yes it does. These are insufficient to apply the policy.
Why are they insufficient? Raise tax and use the proceeds to fund the policy.
> Can you clear something up for me? The new powers which various parties are promising - where does the tax go to?
Which new power in particular? But if it's gathered by HMRC it would go to the UK treasury unless alternate provisions were made.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Sorry, I started this thread specifically to address a single issue that people were avoiding. I've explained at length why I think Scotland would get into the EU, not have the Euro and not join the shengen. You disagree, that's fine. But to say I'm just avoiding debate is nonsense.
If you can't remember, start a new thread and I'll respond to that.
I am though, genuinely, off on holiday shortly so it'll be a week before I can enlighten you (again)
Sorry, I started this thread specifically to address a single issue that people were avoiding. I've explained at length why I think Scotland would get into the EU, not have the Euro and not join the shengen. You disagree, that's fine. But to say I'm just avoiding debate is nonsense.
If you can't remember, start a new thread and I'll respond to that.
I am though, genuinely, off on holiday shortly so it'll be a week before I can enlighten you (again)
In reply to Sir Chasm:
The policy requires the SP to have the proceeds of tax. It's doesn't currently.
The policy requires the SP to have the proceeds of tax. It's doesn't currently.
In reply to Donnie:
That's ok Donnie, I remember, it boiled down to all 28 members of the EU bending to the will of iScotland.
> Sorry, I started this thread specifically to address a single issue that people were avoiding. I've explained at length why I think Scotland would get into the EU, not have the Euro and not join the shengen. You disagree, that's fine. But to say I'm just avoiding debate is nonsense.
> If you can't remember, start a new thread and I'll respond to that.
> I am though, genuinely, off on holiday shortly so it'll be a week before I can enlighten you (again)
That's ok Donnie, I remember, it boiled down to all 28 members of the EU bending to the will of iScotland.
In reply to nightclimber:
If that were to happen, in the current circumstancesI epxect we wouldn't join the EU.
I think it's very unlikely to happen. But If you would like to argue about the EU could we do this on another thread. This was specifically to try to pin down the monetary policy control thing, that NOs bang on about as some kind of unanswered and unanswerable argument.
I have set out my views on this before, so genuinely not avoiding the argument as Sir Chasm suggests. Which is particularly rich coming from him. If you set up another thread I'll respond to that when I get bacl from my holidays.
If that were to happen, in the current circumstancesI epxect we wouldn't join the EU.
I think it's very unlikely to happen. But If you would like to argue about the EU could we do this on another thread. This was specifically to try to pin down the monetary policy control thing, that NOs bang on about as some kind of unanswered and unanswerable argument.
I have set out my views on this before, so genuinely not avoiding the argument as Sir Chasm suggests. Which is particularly rich coming from him. If you set up another thread I'll respond to that when I get bacl from my holidays.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
That's a ridiculous characterisation of the situation.
I'm off. Cheerio
> That's ok Donnie, I remember, it boiled down to all 28 members of the EU bending to the will of iScotland.
That's a ridiculous characterisation of the situation.
I'm off. Cheerio
In reply to Saor Alba:
Oh, right, so when the SNP had their Penny for Scotland policy (I'll let you google it) and stated it would raise £230 million they'd got that wrong?
> The policy requires the SP to have the proceeds of tax. It's doesn't currently.
Oh, right, so when the SNP had their Penny for Scotland policy (I'll let you google it) and stated it would raise £230 million they'd got that wrong?
In reply to Saor Alba:
I really don't understand your fixation for demanding that the only people involved that can possibly comment are those who are going to meetings, meeting people daily on the streets etc etc.
I'm not clear exactly which otherwise unreported policies or points are coming out in these meetings - but clearly if you are unable to communicate them to the larger electorate then that is a big FAIL (- unless you propose to extend the disenfranchisement of Scots to include anyone that has failed to attend a community meeting)
Similarly if there is a messianic figure appearing at YES debates, destroying unionist arguments and presenting points of such compelling simplicity in favour of independence - then they need to be appearing on a larger scale.
I have no doubt that local debates can provide interesting talking points and arenas for attempting to persuade people who might be undecided that one way is better than another, but you appear to be suggesting
1)that there are vital and key facts that are only available to those attending those meetings
2)those that don't attend the meetings shouldn't take part in the debate
3)The nature and character of the way you believe these meetings are arranged should have a significant impact on the vote.
> And this is where you illustrate my point. It's not your fault, but you aren't aware of the multiple things happening at community level so assume they aren't happening. When someone who is actually involved in things at community level and knows where and when cavassing, meetings, events and so on take place tells you about this, you go into denial.
> No matter how strongly you wish you had the whole picture, you don't. No matter how sure you are that you can get everything on the internet, you can't. No matter how much you post on a website, you can't reach a huge section of people.
> This applies to a Yes or No supporter.
I really don't understand your fixation for demanding that the only people involved that can possibly comment are those who are going to meetings, meeting people daily on the streets etc etc.
I'm not clear exactly which otherwise unreported policies or points are coming out in these meetings - but clearly if you are unable to communicate them to the larger electorate then that is a big FAIL (- unless you propose to extend the disenfranchisement of Scots to include anyone that has failed to attend a community meeting)
Similarly if there is a messianic figure appearing at YES debates, destroying unionist arguments and presenting points of such compelling simplicity in favour of independence - then they need to be appearing on a larger scale.
I have no doubt that local debates can provide interesting talking points and arenas for attempting to persuade people who might be undecided that one way is better than another, but you appear to be suggesting
1)that there are vital and key facts that are only available to those attending those meetings
2)those that don't attend the meetings shouldn't take part in the debate
3)The nature and character of the way you believe these meetings are arranged should have a significant impact on the vote.
In reply to Saor Alba:
The resources would be available if the scottish parliament chose to divert them from elsewhere. YES are silent on this.
Rather like what will have to happen under Salmond's utopia.
> Yes it is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to do this - fact. Bt are right about this.
>
> But it requires financial resources which aren't available right now. Fact, BT are silent on this.
>
>
> But it requires financial resources which aren't available right now. Fact, BT are silent on this.
>
The resources would be available if the scottish parliament chose to divert them from elsewhere. YES are silent on this.
Rather like what will have to happen under Salmond's utopia.
In reply to off-duty:
I would be curious to see how unbiased a viewpoint he sees as well. Unless he comes across remarkably different in person I suspect many people would agree just to get on their way.
Be interesting to see how accurate the current polling turns out to be. Given that is a one off event it does mean methodology might not be correct.
> I really don't understand your fixation for demanding that the only people involved that can possibly comment are those who are going to meetings, meeting people daily on the streets etc etc.
I would be curious to see how unbiased a viewpoint he sees as well. Unless he comes across remarkably different in person I suspect many people would agree just to get on their way.
Be interesting to see how accurate the current polling turns out to be. Given that is a one off event it does mean methodology might not be correct.
In reply to dissonance:
Sorry, missed your points. Possibly a good one re chance of future divergance, I'll get back to you.
Sorry, missed your points. Possibly a good one re chance of future divergance, I'll get back to you.
In reply to Donnie:
you want to leave the EU out of a discussion of monetary policy control, when current EU treaty says Scotland would have to join the Euro, and the White Paper commits Scotland to join the EU? This isn't peripheral to monetary control, but the central point. Scotland may be about to cede control of monetary policy de facto to Germany.
you want to leave the EU out of a discussion of monetary policy control, when current EU treaty says Scotland would have to join the Euro, and the White Paper commits Scotland to join the EU? This isn't peripheral to monetary control, but the central point. Scotland may be about to cede control of monetary policy de facto to Germany.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Oh - I can answer that. When the dust has settled.....
wait for it.....
just a little longer....
Absolutely nothing will happen. Life will continue. The bins will still get collected and people will still get paid as before and there will still be a sense of disconnect between those in power and the man on the street. It will be such a dramatic anticlimax, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
> Rather like what will have to happen under Salmond's utopia.
Oh - I can answer that. When the dust has settled.....
wait for it.....
just a little longer....
Absolutely nothing will happen. Life will continue. The bins will still get collected and people will still get paid as before and there will still be a sense of disconnect between those in power and the man on the street. It will be such a dramatic anticlimax, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
In reply to ByEek:
I think you've missed the point I was making that to pay for all of salmond's promises, the 'scottish government will have to divert resources from elsewhere.
The scottish parliament currently has the power to divert resources into childcare.
I think you've missed the point I was making that to pay for all of salmond's promises, the 'scottish government will have to divert resources from elsewhere.
The scottish parliament currently has the power to divert resources into childcare.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Sorry, I'm late to the thread, but I just about wet myself laughing at the irony of that statement. Pot, kettle, black and all that...
> (In reply to Donnie)
>
> I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
> I think much of the No vote is made up of people who don't want to challenge themselves or expose themselves to arguments that challenge their very rigid, religious almost, mindset.
Sorry, I'm late to the thread, but I just about wet myself laughing at the irony of that statement. Pot, kettle, black and all that...
In reply to graeme jackson:
True. But it will only be the same as policy change in the current government system. The net effect is that you are never significantly better or worse off. I believe there have been proposed changes to the childcare system in the rUK. From what I can see, it is roughly the same as the one it is to replace in terms of monies available, but it has a new name so it is progressive and "fit for a modern Britain". It will be / is no different in Scotland.
Feeling that you are in control of your own destiny from a political point of view is a myth. Governments are not in charge. They merely tinker at the edges.
True. But it will only be the same as policy change in the current government system. The net effect is that you are never significantly better or worse off. I believe there have been proposed changes to the childcare system in the rUK. From what I can see, it is roughly the same as the one it is to replace in terms of monies available, but it has a new name so it is progressive and "fit for a modern Britain". It will be / is no different in Scotland.
Feeling that you are in control of your own destiny from a political point of view is a myth. Governments are not in charge. They merely tinker at the edges.
Post edited at 13:24
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I am not sure why you indulge in this style of posting. I didn't say that. Either you have misunderstood, got a bit confused or have imagined that I said someone different from what I actually did.
> Oh, right, so when the SNP had their Penny for Scotland policy (I'll let you google it) and stated it would raise £230 million they'd got that wrong?
I am not sure why you indulge in this style of posting. I didn't say that. Either you have misunderstood, got a bit confused or have imagined that I said someone different from what I actually did.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Correct. Decisions have been made and to do more, with the same priorities, you need more resources. You have clearly not understood the push behind the Yes movement which seems to be a very common issue on UKC.
I don't think there is any other website for such confused posting.
You are correct, it could direct resources from elsewhere but this is about having more resources. The £1.6 billion cost to Scotland for taxpayers and £5 billion for HS2 would be a good start.
> The resources would be available if the scottish parliament chose to divert them from elsewhere. YES are silent on this.
> Rather like what will have to happen under Salmond's utopia.
Correct. Decisions have been made and to do more, with the same priorities, you need more resources. You have clearly not understood the push behind the Yes movement which seems to be a very common issue on UKC.
I don't think there is any other website for such confused posting.
You are correct, it could direct resources from elsewhere but this is about having more resources. The £1.6 billion cost to Scotland for taxpayers and £5 billion for HS2 would be a good start.
In reply to nightclimber:
I want to leave it out of a discussion of a specifc point that I outlined at the start of this thread.
If you start another one, I'll discuss it there when I get back from my holiday.
I want to leave it out of a discussion of a specifc point that I outlined at the start of this thread.
If you start another one, I'll discuss it there when I get back from my holiday.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Differences in actual monetary policy? If we were in the Euro then possibly - I'm not sure how different Euro and Sterling rates tend to be? - if we have our own pegged currency then no if we have our own currency then rarely.
Although Dissonance raised the point that the intersts of rUK and Scot are more likely to diverge after independence. Which I think is true and I'm having a think about it.
> Sorry, but this is, again, wrong. You say "so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ", do you not think there will be major differences depending on whether iScotland was in a CU, the eurozone, using a pegged currency, having its own free floating currency?
Differences in actual monetary policy? If we were in the Euro then possibly - I'm not sure how different Euro and Sterling rates tend to be? - if we have our own pegged currency then no if we have our own currency then rarely.
Although Dissonance raised the point that the intersts of rUK and Scot are more likely to diverge after independence. Which I think is true and I'm having a think about it.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Well, you said "The policy requires the SP to have the proceeds of tax. It's [sic] doesn't currently". But the Scotland Act 1998 which allows for tax to be increased also provides for the increase to go to the SP. So you have tax raising powers and could use them to fund the policy. But the SNP know that increasing income tax is a vote loser, they wanted to do it in 99 and bottled out then.
> I am not sure why you indulge in this style of posting. I didn't say that. Either you have misunderstood, got a bit confused or have imagined that I said someone different from what I actually did.
Well, you said "The policy requires the SP to have the proceeds of tax. It's [sic] doesn't currently". But the Scotland Act 1998 which allows for tax to be increased also provides for the increase to go to the SP. So you have tax raising powers and could use them to fund the policy. But the SNP know that increasing income tax is a vote loser, they wanted to do it in 99 and bottled out then.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I was always of the belief that the Scottish public were net beneficiaries. Per head of population they enjoy significantly more spending on public services than those south of the border. Or is this a battle of selective statistics?
> You are correct, it could direct resources from elsewhere but this is about having more resources. The £1.6 billion cost to Scotland for taxpayers and £5 billion for HS2 would be a good start.
I was always of the belief that the Scottish public were net beneficiaries. Per head of population they enjoy significantly more spending on public services than those south of the border. Or is this a battle of selective statistics?
In reply to Donnie:
How can you say that? The simple answer is you don't know. No one does. At present, the eUK and Scottish economies are loosely aligned. However, post independence, there is nothing to stop them diverging. In the scenario where Scotland's economy boomed whilst the rUK and / or Europe flatlined, should Scotland tie in with the pound or Euro inflation could spiral out of control. Have your own currency and Scottish business will take on the burden of being at the mercy of global exchange rates when they export their goods and services. It is a tough one.
> Differences in actual monetary policy? If we were in the Euro then possibly - I'm not sure how different Euro and Sterling rates tend to be? - if we have our own pegged currency then no if we have our own currency then rarely.
How can you say that? The simple answer is you don't know. No one does. At present, the eUK and Scottish economies are loosely aligned. However, post independence, there is nothing to stop them diverging. In the scenario where Scotland's economy boomed whilst the rUK and / or Europe flatlined, should Scotland tie in with the pound or Euro inflation could spiral out of control. Have your own currency and Scottish business will take on the burden of being at the mercy of global exchange rates when they export their goods and services. It is a tough one.
In reply to ByEek:
How can I say that monetary policy would possibly by quite different if we were in the Euro? Or that it'd not be if we were pegged to the pound?
How can I say that monetary policy would possibly by quite different if we were in the Euro? Or that it'd not be if we were pegged to the pound?
Post edited at 15:08
In reply to ByEek:
The other relevant point is the SNP's policy on corporation tax: by making Scotland a tax haven with the same corporation tax rate as Hong Kong, the burden of tax will be pushed onto income and sales taxes (VAT), which is rather difficult to square with wanting a more "just" society (whatever that actually means).
The other relevant point is the SNP's policy on corporation tax: by making Scotland a tax haven with the same corporation tax rate as Hong Kong, the burden of tax will be pushed onto income and sales taxes (VAT), which is rather difficult to square with wanting a more "just" society (whatever that actually means).
In reply to Donnie:
Sorry fella. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - grammatically.
> How can I say that possibly by quite different if we were in the Euro? Or that they'd not if we were pegged to the pound?
Sorry fella. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - grammatically.
In reply to nightclimber:
I'm not for lower corporation tax. (And I wouldn't vote for the SNP post independence)
But you could square it by taxing the rich more in otherways.
> The other relevant point is the SNP's policy on corporation tax: by making Scotland a tax haven with the same corporation tax rate as Hong Kong, the burden of tax will be pushed onto income and sales taxes (VAT), which is rather difficult to square with wanting a more "just" society (whatever that actually means).
I'm not for lower corporation tax. (And I wouldn't vote for the SNP post independence)
But you could square it by taxing the rich more in otherways.
In reply to Donnie:
I understand it.. I still think it's s contrasting idea as it is not independence..
We don't have to agree on how we see things..
I understand it.. I still think it's s contrasting idea as it is not independence..
We don't have to agree on how we see things..
In reply to Donnie:
Who?
I think most know that's not true despite the efforts of lynx..
> Well said!
> A lot of people on here and elsewhere just refuse to believe that it's not base anti english nationalism that's motivating the majority of YES voters.
Who?
I think most know that's not true despite the efforts of lynx..
In reply to Saor Alba:
I lived in Scotland for 4 years.. My sister has lived there for 12 years... My parents split their time between a house in the NE and Sheffield...
When back in the UK I spend all my time, as that's where we have the family holidays at the scottish house..
You do realise people can hold different views? If they have a different one to you they are scared to challenge themselves....
I am amazed you've not had more success converting voters...
I lived in Scotland for 4 years.. My sister has lived there for 12 years... My parents split their time between a house in the NE and Sheffield...
When back in the UK I spend all my time, as that's where we have the family holidays at the scottish house..
You do realise people can hold different views? If they have a different one to you they are scared to challenge themselves....
I am amazed you've not had more success converting voters...
In reply to Donnie:
When was this? I did ask you to say which question I missed? But ironically you missed that one,.. That happens on long threads,..
I'm not convinced they are separate issues.. I'd be more in favour of independence if it was a full split and not the UK being responsible for another nations decisions..
It's just not independence... The argument for independence often centers around the freedom to set tax rates, have your own fiscal system, have control of it... You wouldn't...
I just think it would be unworkable and long term we'll both go the Euro. I also think salmond has shown how poor he is at negotiating, it's just threats and bluster, so how can a currency union work? I think it would be a failed system and independence would therefore not work... I think Scotland would be less successful as an independent nation dictated to by the Uk then an independent nation in the euro or with its own currency..
When we enter the euro we want a strong a pound as possible... It's still one of the worlds strongest and most traded currencies which is why you want in..
I've said Id be in favour of further devolution as has happened, but certain things should remain central... Immigration and the larger financial system being the two obvious ones...
Let's remember why you want the £.. And why it's no longer a millstone around your neck? Because the euro hit a bump...
Most think the euros problem is actually that there is too much freedom of each state to run their own economy and a more common fiscal policy will provide a stronger euro...
For the euro to work countries need to hand over more fiscal powers to the EU..
And likewise if a currency union between Scotland and the UK was to work Scotland would have to hand over control... Or have a lot of UK influence,.. And as Scotland would be a minority part of the currency union the RUK would dictate to it and we,d be back at square one...
I've said that all along,, you may disagree fair enough..
I think AS wants the euro.. He wants free from the UK but knew he stood no chance campaigning on that after the 2009 crash.. A currency union would mean us restructuring our fiscal management for a short term period.. I don't think there's any long term desire to keep the pound in an independent Scotland.. Even if the EU allowed it..
> Yes, that's basically it I would have put it a bit more simply here though, as Tim specifically mentioned democratic control.
> Also Iain didn't respond to the issue of whether losing control of monetary policy was a good argument against independence. He changed the subject to whether we should have a currency union or not, which is a seperate issue.
When was this? I did ask you to say which question I missed? But ironically you missed that one,.. That happens on long threads,..
I'm not convinced they are separate issues.. I'd be more in favour of independence if it was a full split and not the UK being responsible for another nations decisions..
It's just not independence... The argument for independence often centers around the freedom to set tax rates, have your own fiscal system, have control of it... You wouldn't...
I just think it would be unworkable and long term we'll both go the Euro. I also think salmond has shown how poor he is at negotiating, it's just threats and bluster, so how can a currency union work? I think it would be a failed system and independence would therefore not work... I think Scotland would be less successful as an independent nation dictated to by the Uk then an independent nation in the euro or with its own currency..
When we enter the euro we want a strong a pound as possible... It's still one of the worlds strongest and most traded currencies which is why you want in..
I've said Id be in favour of further devolution as has happened, but certain things should remain central... Immigration and the larger financial system being the two obvious ones...
Let's remember why you want the £.. And why it's no longer a millstone around your neck? Because the euro hit a bump...
Most think the euros problem is actually that there is too much freedom of each state to run their own economy and a more common fiscal policy will provide a stronger euro...
For the euro to work countries need to hand over more fiscal powers to the EU..
And likewise if a currency union between Scotland and the UK was to work Scotland would have to hand over control... Or have a lot of UK influence,.. And as Scotland would be a minority part of the currency union the RUK would dictate to it and we,d be back at square one...
I've said that all along,, you may disagree fair enough..
I think AS wants the euro.. He wants free from the UK but knew he stood no chance campaigning on that after the 2009 crash.. A currency union would mean us restructuring our fiscal management for a short term period.. I don't think there's any long term desire to keep the pound in an independent Scotland.. Even if the EU allowed it..
Post edited at 16:02
In reply to IainRUK:
Is that all you can say from the No campaign on the points I've made? I'll assume you agree with me.
> (In reply to yer maw)
> The oil money hasn't been wasted... It's been spent..
> The oil money hasn't been wasted... It's been spent..
Is that all you can say from the No campaign on the points I've made? I'll assume you agree with me.
In reply to yer maw:
OK..
1. Once the oil runs out do you think Scotland's enlarged per capita public spending will continue?
As said it hasn't.. its been spent.. you may consider it a waste..
- The oil money has been completely wasted and once it runs out the Middle England politicians will finally say at last now's the time to reign Scotland back in and stop treating them like needy children. There is plenty soundbite evidence that this will happen and logic states it will. I know how it works and I'm not stupid as political parties will circle the wagons around their core voter. So Yes for me to make sure Scotland can make best use of what's left to pay off our share of the debt and spend wiser and long term.
2. Do you honestly believe anything will happen to give Scotland more powers or Tax raising powers, which will distance us from politics at Westminster post 'No'
I think it will, we'll have to disagree.. as with a currency union you will only get certain leeway.. as should happen with the euro which isn't a fiscal union but needs to be if it is to not suffer mistakes of the past...
- Westminster will not give up anything that determines how money is raised and spent. They'd be mad to do that other than (and here's the real potential kick in the balls) to give tax raising powers but reduce oil subsidy to Scotland. They will have the perfect spin that here are the Tax raising powers you've been asking for what on Earth are you crying about, because you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't trust them one bit so vote Yes.
3. In what way are we actually stronger together?
The economy.. hence you want to keep the pound.. strong unions are stronger, more robust, hence why the US and the EU are two of the most stable unions.
You may not think we are a world leader, we probably aren't the leader, but we are a strong force for such a small nation.. look at the currency, one of the most traded and valued in the world..
You may think we are volatile financially, well we went through the 2009 crash better than most forecast and better than many in europe, hence the 'millstone around scotlands neck' rhetoric suddenly changed to 'the pounds ours'..
- There seems to be a grand delusion that we are still some kind of super leader. I don't see what the benefit of this deluded status has been in defence, or in worldwide issues. We went into Iraq for US reasons, we do nothing and make no difference to Gaza, Ukraine etc. The financial sector is something I wouldn't ever depend upon due to its volatility and look at the mess it made of the UK. Scotland doesn't want or need to be a world player, and to be honest the only people that do are politicians.
4. Do you think an independent Scotland will be a closed shop with poor neighbourly relations?
- All will settle and sensible ways of working together for border controls, trade and defence. Monetary policy who knows but in all aspects rUK will still want systems that make working together easier than harder. It stands to reason and business will tell the politicians on both sides to grow up and sort it out.
No.. I've said many times I think iScotland will be fine...
OK..
1. Once the oil runs out do you think Scotland's enlarged per capita public spending will continue?
As said it hasn't.. its been spent.. you may consider it a waste..
- The oil money has been completely wasted and once it runs out the Middle England politicians will finally say at last now's the time to reign Scotland back in and stop treating them like needy children. There is plenty soundbite evidence that this will happen and logic states it will. I know how it works and I'm not stupid as political parties will circle the wagons around their core voter. So Yes for me to make sure Scotland can make best use of what's left to pay off our share of the debt and spend wiser and long term.
2. Do you honestly believe anything will happen to give Scotland more powers or Tax raising powers, which will distance us from politics at Westminster post 'No'
I think it will, we'll have to disagree.. as with a currency union you will only get certain leeway.. as should happen with the euro which isn't a fiscal union but needs to be if it is to not suffer mistakes of the past...
- Westminster will not give up anything that determines how money is raised and spent. They'd be mad to do that other than (and here's the real potential kick in the balls) to give tax raising powers but reduce oil subsidy to Scotland. They will have the perfect spin that here are the Tax raising powers you've been asking for what on Earth are you crying about, because you can't have your cake and eat it. I don't trust them one bit so vote Yes.
3. In what way are we actually stronger together?
The economy.. hence you want to keep the pound.. strong unions are stronger, more robust, hence why the US and the EU are two of the most stable unions.
You may not think we are a world leader, we probably aren't the leader, but we are a strong force for such a small nation.. look at the currency, one of the most traded and valued in the world..
You may think we are volatile financially, well we went through the 2009 crash better than most forecast and better than many in europe, hence the 'millstone around scotlands neck' rhetoric suddenly changed to 'the pounds ours'..
- There seems to be a grand delusion that we are still some kind of super leader. I don't see what the benefit of this deluded status has been in defence, or in worldwide issues. We went into Iraq for US reasons, we do nothing and make no difference to Gaza, Ukraine etc. The financial sector is something I wouldn't ever depend upon due to its volatility and look at the mess it made of the UK. Scotland doesn't want or need to be a world player, and to be honest the only people that do are politicians.
4. Do you think an independent Scotland will be a closed shop with poor neighbourly relations?
- All will settle and sensible ways of working together for border controls, trade and defence. Monetary policy who knows but in all aspects rUK will still want systems that make working together easier than harder. It stands to reason and business will tell the politicians on both sides to grow up and sort it out.
No.. I've said many times I think iScotland will be fine...
In reply to Donnie:
But surely one of the arguments put for independence ( and a good one) is that economic policy can be more closely aligned to Scotland's needs - this suggests the two countries would diverge - And optimal currency policy will no longer be well aligned.
The fact that the economies are so intertwined seems a good argument for not trying to insert any gaps between them
Have fun!
> Basically that we'd be no worse off than we are now. Scottish and UK economies are similar and highly integrated, so optimal monetary policy for Scotland and rUK will rarely significantly differ. If it does it will, rightly, be set for rUK rather than Scotland. That will happen regardless of independence and currency union.
But surely one of the arguments put for independence ( and a good one) is that economic policy can be more closely aligned to Scotland's needs - this suggests the two countries would diverge - And optimal currency policy will no longer be well aligned.
The fact that the economies are so intertwined seems a good argument for not trying to insert any gaps between them
> I'm actually off on my holidays now though.
Have fun!
In reply to Dr.S at work:
It's not all black and white. Some degree of financial/taxation freedom is needed, but this does not have to be total.
I really think the best way forward would be more of a federal model. Central government giving a framework and then local government has some flexibility within the constraints of that common framework.
> But surely one of the arguments put for independence ( and a good one) is that economic policy can be more closely aligned to Scotland's needs - this suggests the two countries would diverge - And optimal currency policy will no longer be well aligned.
It's not all black and white. Some degree of financial/taxation freedom is needed, but this does not have to be total.
I really think the best way forward would be more of a federal model. Central government giving a framework and then local government has some flexibility within the constraints of that common framework.
Post edited at 02:12
In reply to RomTheBear:
I agree - hurrah!
> (In reply to Dr.S at work)
> [...]
>
> It's not all black and white. Some degree of financial/taxation freedom is needed, but this does not have to be total.
> I really think the best way forward would be more of a federal model. Central government giving a framework and then local government has some flexibility within the constraints of that common framework.
> [...]
>
> It's not all black and white. Some degree of financial/taxation freedom is needed, but this does not have to be total.
> I really think the best way forward would be more of a federal model. Central government giving a framework and then local government has some flexibility within the constraints of that common framework.
I agree - hurrah!
In reply to IainRUK:
You avoid answering the question because you know the increased capita spending will cease. Also compared to how oil money has been invested in the Middle East and Norway it has been wasted.
Agree to disagree.
Economies and currencies are changing so much more now with the growing economies in India and China. Maintaining currency union makes sense for England as well as Scotland post independence but a currency union and the trading of the pound on the stock exchange is not a good enough reason for maintaining the union is it, and you've clearly accepted that rUK don't need Scotland to go into wars or have a pseudo say in what China, USA or Russia et al does.
The crash of 2009 caught a lot out and many lessons learnt, though the London boom once again seems to be going down the path of making matters worse for the rUK while the Tories etc. think it is a great sign we are doing well when foreign money is dominating it.
> OK..
> 1. Once the oil runs out do you think Scotland's enlarged per capita public spending will continue?
> As said it hasn't.. its been spent.. you may consider it a waste..
You avoid answering the question because you know the increased capita spending will cease. Also compared to how oil money has been invested in the Middle East and Norway it has been wasted.
> 2. Do you honestly believe anything will happen to give Scotland more powers or Tax raising powers, which will distance us from politics at Westminster post 'No'
> I think it will, we'll have to disagree.. as with a currency union you will only get certain leeway.. as should happen with the euro which isn't a fiscal union but needs to be if it is to not suffer mistakes of the past...
Agree to disagree.
> 3. In what way are we actually stronger together?
> The economy.. hence you want to keep the pound.. strong unions are stronger, more robust, hence why the US and the EU are two of the most stable unions.
> You may not think we are a world leader, we probably aren't the leader, but we are a strong force for such a small nation.. look at the currency, one of the most traded and valued in the world..
> You may think we are volatile financially, well we went through the 2009 crash better than most forecast and better than many in europe, hence the 'millstone around scotlands neck' rhetoric suddenly changed to 'the pounds ours'..
Economies and currencies are changing so much more now with the growing economies in India and China. Maintaining currency union makes sense for England as well as Scotland post independence but a currency union and the trading of the pound on the stock exchange is not a good enough reason for maintaining the union is it, and you've clearly accepted that rUK don't need Scotland to go into wars or have a pseudo say in what China, USA or Russia et al does.
The crash of 2009 caught a lot out and many lessons learnt, though the London boom once again seems to be going down the path of making matters worse for the rUK while the Tories etc. think it is a great sign we are doing well when foreign money is dominating it.
> 4. Do you think an independent Scotland will be a closed shop with poor neighbourly relations?
> No.. I've said many times I think iScotland will be fine...
Glad to hear it because it will largely be business as usual, though if Scotland begins to prosper I suspect there would be some resentment issues.In reply to yer maw:
Norway is incomparable... A nation happy to pay vastly higher taxes.. Smaller population.. Largely State owned oil... Great natural resources in fisheries and oil to name a few.
At the time oil was found we were basically broke..
Norway is incomparable... A nation happy to pay vastly higher taxes.. Smaller population.. Largely State owned oil... Great natural resources in fisheries and oil to name a few.
At the time oil was found we were basically broke..
In reply to yer maw:
Re resentment.. Possibly... Likewise could be vice versa.. I think both will be fine, the UK economy has shown its strength during the recent recession, one of the more robust.
Scotland being smaller will be more volatile, that can be good and bad, quicker to react etc but the currency issue would need sorting sooner rather than later.
Re resentment.. Possibly... Likewise could be vice versa.. I think both will be fine, the UK economy has shown its strength during the recent recession, one of the more robust.
Scotland being smaller will be more volatile, that can be good and bad, quicker to react etc but the currency issue would need sorting sooner rather than later.
In reply to IainRUK:
Listen to the R4 programme from 8pm last night. It makes for illuminating listening.
Listen to the R4 programme from 8pm last night. It makes for illuminating listening.
In reply to Saor Alba:
It certainly did, meanwhile http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-econom... some commentary from a clown.
> Listen to the R4 programme from 8pm last night. It makes for illuminating listening.
It certainly did, meanwhile http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-econom... some commentary from a clown.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...