An Independent Scotland?

StewartR said:
The whole point? Really? How many Scots in the street would even recognise that argument, let alone agree with it?
Click to expand...
Stewart, sorry if you were under the impression I'm trying to speak on behalf of anyone other than myself? To my knowledge no-one here speaks formally on behalf of a group, everything that each of us says is our own opinion, mine included. Whether others recognise that or not, it's my position on independence.

I think most would agree that independence means not being dependent on someone else - the entire structure of this world is based around debt, who owns, issues, and controls the debt. Without breaking out of that there can be no such thing as independence. Indeed it's incredible for me that Scots call for "independence" yet want to keep the Pound. Or "independence" and want the Euro. It's no kind of independence that I recognise. But, it's a step on the right path, a step better than now, so I would take it and move on.
 
Moadib said:
If Scotland cannot use GBP, no way should debt denominated in GBP be accepted.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be revalued against the value of the currency being used. So if Scotland end up with a currency which is weak against the pound then they could have a problem. But if they use the pound from the markets so to speak, ie not a currency union, then it should be fine.

Personally i think they will get a currency union, but the bigger question may be at what cost?
 
I do like the way this conversation now assumes we're going to get the chance to argue over CU :D
 
Moadib said:
We don't have control of our own currency today. Money goes to Westminster, gets showered like confetti over the square mile, and some is given back as benefits. In terms of bailouts, I think you have it the wrong way round - it's the "international community" that WANTS to do the bailouts, as control of the debt issuance gives them de facto control of the country. Iceland fought tooth and nail to stop that (at least the Icelandic people did), so too did the Malaysians when they were offered bailouts to resolve the 1997 crisis. Bailouts are the "international community" giving a gift from the people of a country to the financiers. That's precisely what we need to put a stop to.
Click to expand...
With representation in Westminster today you have more control now then when you have no elected representation.

I gladly give you the point regarding international bailout, just like parents want to bail out their children ;) but please feel free to refuse when the time comes. I'm confident it will happen during my lifetime...
 
Steep said:
That's the thing, nobody wants to do that. My personal philosophy is you take responsibility for yourself and your actions, in other words you pay your debts and I'm sure iScotland would much prefer to pay it's share. It all comes down to what WM decide they want to do, I believe that the yes campaign are right in saying that there will be a CU because that's what is best for all parties (also as I've said many times "in the short term at least"). If WM really do decide to block CU then on their heads be it and the financial markets won't give a damn, as long as the debt is covered.
Click to expand...
If a cu becomes part of it, England must get a vote also. Westminster will be the least of your worries. The English public will not stand for it.
 
WM isn't in the habit of asking the electorate anything if they don't want to hear the answer. Once the fuss dies down, after the press moves back to picking on various muslims and immigrants the public will move on as well, they always do.
 
I reckon that's the same with regard to Trident. If removing Trident meant we had a less secure currency or had to increase taxes / reduce benefits etc for example, then I don't think people would kick up too much of a fuss to keep it where it is. At the end of the day money talks.
 
Steep said:
WM isn't in the habit of asking the electorate anything if they don't want to hear the answer. Once the fuss dies down, after the press moves back to picking on various muslims and immigrants the public will move on as well, they always do.
Click to expand...
gman said:
I reckon that's the same with regard to Trident. If removing Trident meant we had a less secure currency or had to increase taxes / reduce benefits etc for example, then I don't think people would kick up too much of a fuss to keep it where it is. At the end of the day money talks.
Click to expand...
I think you're both probably right.
 
dejongj said:
With representation in Westminster today you have more control now then when you have no elected representation.

I gladly give you the point regarding international bailout, just like parents want to bail out their children ;) but please feel free to refuse when the time comes. I'm confident it will happen during my lifetime...
Click to expand...

So you've accepted that we'll get independence then?
 
Steep said:
It all comes down to what WM decide they want to do.
Click to expand...
That's an absolute cop out. If you believe we should pay our debts it should be regardless of CU or not.
 
Aye ok dod.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So you've accepted that we'll get independence then?
Click to expand...
Tbh I am no bothered whether Scotland will or won't. However if the Scottish vote for it then I hope for them it will be independence. So for I haven't heard anything from the yes camp that suggest what they call independence will actually provide independence. And those area that will help along to achieve that goal will require agreement from other parties who aren't part of any such vote or talks. As such I doubt it will happen anytime soon, even when in the unlikely event you do get a majority vote.
 
dejongj said:
With representation in Westminster today you have more control now then when you have no elected representation.

I gladly give you the point regarding international bailout, just like parents want to bail out their children ;) but please feel free to refuse when the time comes. I'm confident it will happen during my lifetime...
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure Westminster would love to - it's an easy way to retain control over a vassal state. Anyway a bailout is yet another chance to create money (debt) and foist the service onto people. There isn't a chance in the world it would be refused by "the international community" (aka banks). I do hope it would be refused by the Scots, as for example the Icelandic people did.
 
Steep said:
I do like the way this conversation now assumes we're going to get the chance to argue over CU :D
Click to expand...
That's a given. For one logically I cannot see (a) why England would not want to allow Scotland to use GBP - by doing so they retain control over Scotland, but also (b) for the same reason I cannot fathom why Scotland would want to.

However even in the case England don't, Scotland can issue "the Scottish Pound" and just peg it to a value of 1:1 with English pound. Many countries do that with artificial ties to USD. Needs defended in terms of value, but very common to do.
 
Alex Salmond walked into a branch of RBS to cash a cheque.

As he approached the cashier he said "Good morning , could you please cash this cheque for me"?

Cashier: "It would be my pleasure Sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

Salmond: "Well I didn’t bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to - I am Alex Salmond, the First Minister!!!"

Cashier: "I’m sorry, but with all the regulations, monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers, etc. I must insist on proof of identity."

Salmond: "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier: "I am sorry First Minister but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Salmond: "I need this cheque cashed."

Cashier: "Perhaps there’s another way: One day Colin Montgomerie came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomerie he pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Colin Montgomerie and cashed his cheque. Another time, Andy Murray came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot where the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that spectacular shot we cashed his cheque. So sir, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the First Minister?"

Salmond stood there thinking and finally says: "Honestly, I can't think of a single thing I'm good at."

Cashier: "Will that be large or small notes, First Minister?"
 
Moadib said:
Stewart, sorry if you were under the impression I'm trying to speak on behalf of anyone other than myself?
Click to expand...
Fair point, and I apologise for the incorrect assumption. Obviously there are many possible reasons for wanting to vote Yes, just as there are many possible reasons for wanting to vote No. If your personal reason isn't necessarily shared by much of the electorate, that doesn't make it any less valid.
Moadib said:
I think most would agree that independence means not being dependent on someone else - the entire structure of this world is based around debt, who owns, issues, and controls the debt. Without breaking out of that there can be no such thing as independence.
Click to expand...
With respect, I disagree, and I think most people would. Debt is good. Debt makes economies work more efficiently. Debt allows you to do things you couldn't otherwise do. You may wish to be "independent" in the sense of living in your own mud hut and growing your own vegetables - and if you do, that's a legitimate goal, for you - but most people would not consider that to be a particularly desirable aspiration. That's not the kind of "independence" they want.

On a personal level, my wife and I owe money to the bank. In return for that we live in a nice house, far nicer than we could live in if we hadn't borrowed the money. Additionally my business owes money to several banks. In return for that I've been able to buy hundreds of lenses and cameras, which has made the business successful and has allowed me to escape from having to work for somebody else. And you'll find the same stories repeated millions of times up and down the country. Debt is good. And it's exactly the same at the national level as it is at the personal level.
 
Moadib said:
Oh I'm sure Westminster would love to - it's an easy way to retain control over a vassal state. Anyway a bailout is yet another chance to create money (debt) and foist the service onto people. There isn't a chance in the world it would be refused by "the international community" (aka banks). I do hope it would be refused by the Scots, as for example the Icelandic people did.
Click to expand...
I don't think Westminster or the remaining UK would actually care which currency you use. Although any remaining export would make it easy if Scotland uses the pound, then again we trade with many other currencies so not a big deal.

Don't forget that there is big difference with Iceland and its situation compared to what Scotland will be. Besides the oil company investments, if those go to Scotland, I can't see many other investments going that way personally. At least not in the foreseeable future assuming the yes camp gets what they want. Way too little certainty and too little facts known.
 
Moadib said:
That's a given. For one logically I cannot see (a) why England would not want to allow Scotland to use GBP - by doing so they retain control over Scotland, but also (b) for the same reason I cannot fathom why Scotland would want to.

However even in the case England don't, Scotland can issue "the Scottish Pound" and just peg it to a value of 1:1 with English pound. Many countries do that with artificial ties to USD. Needs defended in terms of value, but very common to do.
Click to expand...
England can't stop anyone using the pound, however using the pound doesn't mean sharing the controls over the currency. Sure you can link your own, however if I understood correct you then still need to hold the equivalent that you've issued in the original currency, and again you have no controls over that currency.

But hey it doesn't seem to bother the yes camp. I comes across like some little detail that will be sorted and no big deal. Well if they are happy with that good for them. I would want some very serious and detailed answers before I could vote yes. To me if those kind of answers aren't provided it is nothing more than a sentimental vote.
 
dejongj said:
I would want some very serious and detailed answers before I could vote yes.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable stance, and it shows how clever the Westminster government have been. By refusing to even discuss the currency arrangements and a whole load of other issues, they've made the Yes campaigners look like they don't have any answers, and they've got the electorate blaming that on Salmond and co.

If I had a vote, I would draw some comfort from the Edinburgh Agreement. In the event of a Yes vote, the Westminster government and the Scottish government are bound to negotiate a settlement which is in the best interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK. So the currency arrangements might not be what you would ideally want, but they won't be a stitch-up either. However I'm not sure whether that would be enough to allay my concerns. Fortunately I don't have to make that decision.
 
Salmond came across in the debate(or should that be shouting match) as a boorish lout who's had one too many in the pub beforehand. Can't see what was achieved that a boozy rabble at a football match could've put across.
The sooner that this vote has taken place, the sooner we can all get back to normality.
Unless of course the yes campaign wins, then the fun starts.......
 
I don't think it is reasonable to pin that one on Westminster. Westminster has no mandate to agree that, nor enter into discussions about that.

Those that want independence should set out their stall properly and explain what it means. And not only that, if they have a dependency on a monetary union be it either the pound, the euro, the U.S. dollar or whatever they should say so. Yet they keep using some obtuse language where they use Use and Share. Heck the normal person in the street seems to be not capable of many simple things let alone understand the impact of something so important.
 
Just as an extra to the currency union debate, I'm told that when the rest of the commonwealth countries who split from the UK actually went, the BofE on westminster's behalf sent officials to each of them to try and persuade them to keep using Sterling, Australia even did keep using it for a time. Now we're supposed to believe it's a bad idea because some politician thinks they can use it as a stick to beat us with.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Fair point, and I apologise for the incorrect assumption. Obviously there are many possible reasons for wanting to vote Yes, just as there are many possible reasons for wanting to vote No. If your personal reason isn't necessarily shared by much of the electorate, that doesn't make it any less valid.
With respect, I disagree, and I think most people would. Debt is good. Debt makes economies work more efficiently. Debt allows you to do things you couldn't otherwise do. You may wish to be "independent" in the sense of living in your own mud hut and growing your own vegetables - and if you do, that's a legitimate goal, for you - but most people would not consider that to be a particularly desirable aspiration. That's not the kind of "independence" they want.

On a personal level, my wife and I owe money to the bank. In return for that we live in a nice house, far nicer than we could live in if we hadn't borrowed the money. Additionally my business owes money to several banks. In return for that I've been able to buy hundreds of lenses and cameras, which has made the business successful and has allowed me to escape from having to work for somebody else. And you'll find the same stories repeated millions of times up and down the country. Debt is good. And it's exactly the same at the national level as it is at the personal level.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but an extremely important point has been missed being the ability to afford, control and ideally reduce the debt.
 
Steep said:
Just as an extra to the currency union debate, I'm told that when the rest of the commonwealth countries who split from the UK actually went, the BofE on westminster's behalf sent officials to each of them to try and persuade them to keep using Sterling, Australia even did keep using it for a time. Now we're supposed to believe it's a bad idea because some politician thinks they can use it as a stick to beat us with.
Click to expand...
Using sterling is not bad at all. However don't be under the illusion it will provide independence. And please don't mix up using with sharing like that the yes campaign seems to be doing.
 
gman said:
I agree with this but an extremely important point has been missed being the ability to afford, control and ideally reduce the debt.
Click to expand...

In the last thirty years Scotland has paid over £64 billion in interest charges alone on the UK debt, not paying off the debt. If we had been independent for that thirty years we would have zero debt, never mind interest payments, no debt at all.
 
Cowleystjames said:
Salmond came across in the debate(or should that be shouting match) as a boorish lout who's had one too many in the pub beforehand. Can't see what was achieved that a boozy rabble at a football match could've put across.
The sooner that this vote has taken place, the sooner we can all get back to normality.
Unless of course the yes campaign wins, then the fun starts.......
Click to expand...
Nothing constructive to add then?
 
Steep said:
An impressive list, not so impressive put against the 340,000 other businesses in Scotland who didn't sign it. (yes yes I know some of them would have given the chance)

/edit just noticed the letter is not meant to be from those businesses but personally from the signees.

That is why I said "business leaders".

The part of the letter that particularly caught my eye was " Uncertainty surrounds a number of vital issues including currency, regulation, tax, pensions, EU membership and support for our exports around the world; and uncertainty is bad for business. "

People have raised that on here. The uncertainty on the items concerned is a major concern. Perhaps other non signatories have that detail. If so, maybe they could do us a favour and point to where we can all find it.
Click to expand...
 
Steep said:
In the last thirty years Scotland has paid over £64 billion in interest charges alone on the UK debt, not paying off the debt. If we had been independent for that thirty years we would have zero debt, never mind interest payments, no debt at all.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm hoping that if we do go independent then new oil fields will allow us to take advantage and give us time to build on other sources of revenue.
 
arclight said:
The part of the letter that particularly caught my eye was " Uncertainty surrounds a number of vital issues including currency, regulation, tax, pensions, EU membership and support for our exports around the world; and uncertainty is bad for business. "

People have raised that on here. The uncertainty on the items concerned is a major concern. Perhaps other non signatories have that detail. If so, maybe they could do us a favour and point to where we can all find it.
Click to expand...


It's not certain that if you step out of your front door you won't be hit by a meteorite, there's doubt, uncertainty, we just don't know! Come to think of it, is your house roof meteorite proof? what if a really big one comes???

What I'm trying to say in my gentle and completely non sarcastic way is that uncertainty is a fact of life, in fact the only certain thing in life is that it ends, everything else is a lottery.

There will be 18 months after a yes vote to sort out any issues arising and you probably won't be surprised to find that most of the problems and hurdles touted by the no camp simply don't exist in reality.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
This is why I'm hoping that if we do go independent then new oil fields will allow us to take advantage and give us time to build on other sources of revenue.
Click to expand...

A message that the yes campaign have been trying to get across through all this is that Scotland is a prosperous trading nation even if you take the oil out of the equation entirely, oil is a bonus not a burden.
 
Steep said:
It's not certain that if you step out of your front door you won't be hit by a meteorite, there's doubt, uncertainty, we just don't know! Come to think of it, is your house roof meteorite proof? what if a really big one comes??
Click to expand...

I'm thinking a giant catapult and Alex Salmond...
 
Steep said:
WM isn't in the habit of asking the electorate anything if they don't want to hear the answer. Once the fuss dies down, after the press moves back to picking on various muslims and immigrants the public will move on as well, they always do.
Click to expand...
Come on Hugh, you argue for the right to independence but we do not get a vote on an issue that would limit ours. I doubt a formal currency union would go ahead without a referendum and I seriously doubt that the rUK electorate would go for it, sorry. As I said in a previous post attitudes towards Scotland, if the poll is to be believed, are hardening regardless of the result.
 
Steve, that's a wait and see, your opinion and mine differ but both could be wrong come the day. All I'll say is if there's a yes on the 18th we'll deal with whatever comes along, even meteorites.

Ref English feeling, I'm sure you're right in some circles but in others we get nothing but support, as far as that is concerned don't believe the papers or anything Richard Madely says on the subject, their only concern is to sell themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top