An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
Part quote:-
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.
Click to expand...

Now that is what I what I call optimism. Possibly the biggest bit of optimism since General Custer said he was going to round up those Indians.
 
Pessimism never got the job done.
 
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...

Just to quickly revisit this, but did Scotland not also benefit from whatever caused the accumulated debt? Or did the UK get itself in debt all for England?
 
Hard to tell exactly, I'm sure some of the spending was on Scotland directly and some generally, there will have been other spending that I'm sure we didn't benefit from.
 
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...

Most of that debt was accrued by bailing out the banks who had become bankrupt by the sheer stupidity of their management and shareholders. The rescue plan was, if I remember correctly, proposed and introduced by that well known Scottish financial genius Gordon Brown, who also destroyed my private sector pension, so I think it is only fair that the Scots pay their fair share.
 
Earley Man said:
Most of that debt was accrued by bailing out the banks who had become bankrupt by the sheer stupidity of their management and shareholders. The rescue plan was, if I remember correctly, proposed and introduced by that well known Scottish financial genius Gordon Brown, who also destroyed my private sector pension, so I think it is only fair that the Scots pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

GB has many things that don't enamour him to many of us (me included). However, I suppose we must be glad that he kept us out of the Euro otherwise we would be like all the basket case economies in Europe.
 
I'm sure the National debt and bank bailout are two different things.
 
gman said:
Just to quickly revisit this, but did Scotland not also benefit from whatever caused the accumulated debt? Or did the UK get itself in debt all for England?
Click to expand...
Steep said:
Hard to tell exactly, I'm sure some of the spending was on Scotland directly and some generally, there will have been other spending that I'm sure we didn't benefit from.
Click to expand...
Well, unless you have data to show that Scotland received less than 10% of the benefits of all that spending, you can't complain if Scotland has paid 10% of the charges...
 
Steep said:
Somebody quoted Singapore on the radio, they declared independence from the UK in 1963 and had a few rocky years in the beginning but look at them now. I'm not saying Scotland would be another Singapore but they are an example of a small newly independent country making good on their own merits.
Click to expand...

That is not the dream you're looking for.;) They're certainly rich but their welfare record isn't anything like as good as we have it here. They may be trying to improve it but they're running into the reality of the situation, it costs a fortune, even more so when you've got a system as flawed as ours seems to be e.g. (and I make no apologies for this) money to economic immigrants needs fixed but while we're in the EU I'm not sure what we can do about it. East, West, hame's best and all that.

http://www.economist.com/node/15524092

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/363688/singapore-and-welfare-state-reihan-salam

http://world.time.com/2013/11/01/the-welfare-state-isnt-dead-it-simply-moved-to-asia/

StewartR said:
Here's the exchange which affected my thinking - a link to an online opinion piece posted by (of course) @Steep, and my reaction to it:

I'd like to invite 'No' voters to reply to this.
Click to expand...
already did, although I'm technically still undecided, but leaning strongly towards no. Emotionally I want to vote yes. :confused:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/an-independent-scotland.387704/page-47#post-6417116
 
Earley Man said:
Most of that debt was accrued by bailing out the banks who had become bankrupt by the sheer stupidity of their management and shareholders. The rescue plan was, if I remember correctly, proposed and introduced by that well known Scottish financial genius Gordon Brown, who also destroyed my private sector pension, so I think it is only fair that the Scots pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

Another thing, if Scotland had been independent we wouldn't have had to bail the banks out, the country where the business is transacted is responsible and since 90%? of the banks business is/was conducted in London...
 
dod said:
That is not the dream you're looking for.;) They're certainly rich but their welfare record isn't anything like as good as we have it here. They may be trying to improve it but they're running into the reality of the situation, it costs a fortune, even more so when you've got a system as flawed as ours seems to be e.g. (and I make no apologies for this) money to economic immigrants needs fixed but while we're in the EU I'm not sure what we can do about it. East, West, hame's best and all that.
Click to expand...


I would hope/expect we'll do well in our own way, make our own messes and sort them out like any other nation. I don't for a moment expect that come 2016 we'll float off in a harmonious bubble to utopia but long term I believe Scotland has a great future independent.
 
StewartR said:
...living in your own mud hut and growing your own vegetables...
Click to expand...
Hmmm, we have differing concepts of polite debate. But for the sake of that debate I hope your other assumptions are not as 180 degrees wrong as your assumptions about me.
 
dejongj said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's nothing there to forget, I think the differences are stark between the countries - but in terms of how to manage a currency crisis (actually a bank solvency crisis, coupled with a political black hole) Iceland offers some good learnings.

In terms of the investment, to me that screams of the need for a different approach. The ongoing status quo has left Scotland as a public sector and benefits theme park - you say you can't see investments coming here, and I don't disagree with that. If I as a Scot can't see that....what on earth does it say for potential inward investors?! "If you keep doing what you're doing, you will keep getting what you are getting" - maintaining our same approach will mean that in twenty years, thirty years when Scotland is inherited by the next generation, it will be in even worse shape than today. That's what needs changed, and the status quo is not, and will not, do that.

This is an interesting read, and I empathise with much of this. For me it's not about the politics of today, or the argued economics of today. It's about the change to create something better.
http://kevsherry.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/why-i-changed-from-a-no-to-a-yes/
 
Steep said:
Another thing, if Scotland had been independent we wouldn't have had to bail the banks out, the country where the business is transacted is responsible and since 90%? of the banks business is/was conducted in London...
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the Americans providing a similar value bailout as the UK, which would suggest it was actually more like 53% UK and 47% USA. Furthermore, unlike the Americans the UK bailout also addressed the solvency issue and of course they didn't just give the money away, there was a lot of Capital Investment so there will be a return on it.
 
gman said:
I seem to recall the Americans providing a similar value bailout as the UK, which would suggest it was actually more like 53% UK and 47% USA. Furthermore, unlike the Americans the UK bailout also addressed the solvency issue and of course they didn't just give the money away, there was a lot of Capital Investment so there will be a return on it.
Click to expand...

I did know about the American money, I should have said about 90% of their UK business in London, The U.S. bailout covered the business RBS etc. did there.
 
Moadib said:
Hmmm, we have differing concepts of polite debate.
Click to expand...
Or maybe we have differing concepts of humour.

But anyway, you said categorically that true independence, the type of independence which you seek, means not to be in debt to anyone - because if they control the debt, they control you. My point is simply that I don't know how it is possible to live that way, except by eschewing all the benefits of our advanced economy which is built on debt. What am I overlooking?
 
Steep said:

If I'd been able to write, this is what I would have written. He says almost exactly what I think.
Click to expand...
Again, it's that left wing slant that turns me off. I actually agree with big chunks of what he says, right up to that point.
 
StewartR said:
It's very well written. But I thought saying almost exactly what you think was my job?
Click to expand...

No, your job is beating me to the punch saying what I was going to say.
 
Moadib said:
There's nothing there to forget, I think the differences are stark between the countries - but in terms of how to manage a currency crisis (actually a bank solvency crisis, coupled with a political black hole) Iceland offers some good learnings.

In terms of the investment, to me that screams of the need for a different approach. The ongoing status quo has left Scotland as a public sector and benefits theme park - you say you can't see investments coming here, and I don't disagree with that. If I as a Scot can't see that....what on earth does it say for potential inward investors?! "If you keep doing what you're doing, you will keep getting what you are getting" - maintaining our same approach will mean that in twenty years, thirty years when Scotland is inherited by the next generation, it will be in even worse shape than today. That's what needs changed, and the status quo is not, and will not, do that.

This is an interesting read, and I empathise with much of this. For me it's not about the politics of today, or the argued economics of today. It's about the change to create something better.
http://kevsherry.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/why-i-changed-from-a-no-to-a-yes/
Click to expand...
Creating something better and not accepting status quo is good. I like thinking big. However I've also learned to not blame others like Westminster or the rich for the current situation. The current situation is exactly what you and I and everyone else makes off it. It begins at home, and it could have started yesterday. There is nothing realistically there that Westminster stops you from doing today.
 
In the last thirty years or so Scotland has had over twenty years of conservative rule, without ever voting for it. It's not what we can do that Westminster won't stop - with 4,000 new statutes per year there's precious little that is allowed. It's what Westminster does that we can't stop. Some things are what we make them, but the bigger things in life need shaped to a vision, and that is mostly denied at present.
 
Moadib said:
In the last thirty years or so Scotland has had over twenty years of conservative rule, without ever voting for it. It's not what we can do that Westminster won't stop - with 4,000 new statutes per year there's precious little that is allowed. It's what Westminster does that we can't stop. Some things are what we make them, but the bigger things in life need shaped to a vision, and that is mostly denied at present.
Click to expand...
??? What do you mean without voting for it? I might be missing something however wasn't labour in power for 13 years? Seems the maths don't add up. A bit like what happen when labour was in power? I can't be bothered to count however it seems to me that representative to the vote there are always an awful lot of MPs with Scottish heritage, the rest of the UK don't complain about that yet you don't rejoice about it either. That's good isn't it?

And what about the Scottish executive? Or is that just a pointless expensive experiment as that is how it comes across with what you are saying.

But ultimately this seems to be about politics, wanting some socialistic experiment of which there have been many around the world and all failed miserably.
 
Moadib said:
In the last thirty years or so Scotland has had over twenty years of conservative rule, without ever voting for it. It's not what we can do that Westminster won't stop - with 4,000 new statutes per year there's precious little that is allowed. It's what Westminster does that we can't stop. Some things are what we make them, but the bigger things in life need shaped to a vision, and that is mostly denied at present.
Click to expand...

All the bigger things are shaped by the EU. That will not change.
 
arclight said:
All the bigger things are shaped by the EU. That will not change.
Click to expand...
Unless a possible independent Scotland doesn't get automatic admission to the EU. I mean why would you want to swap one dependency for another?

So many questions, and so little direction or even vision on what it actually is the yes camp want. So far it comes across like anything not to do with Westminster/English, and anything that can stick up two fingers to "the rich"...
 
Moadib said:
In the last thirty years or so Scotland has had over twenty years of conservative rule, without ever voting for it. It's not what we can do that Westminster won't stop - with 4,000 new statutes per year there's precious little that is allowed. It's what Westminster does that we can't stop. Some things are what we make them, but the bigger things in life need shaped to a vision, and that is mostly denied at present.
Click to expand...

The same can be said for Wales and Northern Ireland.

You can't keep complaining about not having a controlling vote when part of a union with a bigger country. Our population is 10 times smaller than England, do you think it would be fair that Scotland should be able to have the ability to decide who runs the UK? We already have overrepresentation at Westminster whereas England is underrepresented (I've proven this earlier). It's also worth remember that we have it far better than the other countries in the union and this is thanks to having our own Scottish Parliament (and of course a big block grant making it easier to balance the books).

Wanting to be able to elect your own Government is certainly a valid reason for wanting independence but stop banging on about the current electoral situation being unfair for Scotland whilst being part of the union because it's not.
 
In terms of population share it might not seem unfair but it's not just about the total number of MPs. It's about the type and calibre of those MPs, the system that breeds them, the political leanings which differ from those of the majority of the population 'up here'. That's only the Westminster part of the argument for independence, there's more than just a wish to get out from under. Having our own parliament has made us realise that despite centuries of being told "you can't" we can! and we want to, at least I hope the majority of us want to.
 
dejongj said:
Unless a possible independent Scotland doesn't get automatic admission to the EU. I mean why would you want to swap one dependency for another?

So many questions, and so little direction or even vision on what it actually is the yes camp want. So far it comes across like anything not to do with Westminster/English, and anything that can stick up two fingers to "the rich"...
Click to expand...

If there is automatic admission to the EU all the major things that the UK has surrendered (and there are a lot of them) will still apply to Scotland. If Scotland has to apply for membership all the 35 main fields must be complied with without negotiation according to the EU website.

There has been a lot of interesting debate on here, but it is getting very tedious. I supect that the bulk of the Yes voters are basically dedicated to independence at any cost. No amount of debate or argument will convince most of that group otherwise.

I don't see there being much chance of a Yes vote, although surprises cannot be ruled out. I follow the Telegraph poll of polls which takes an average of all the main opinion polls (somebody from the Yes camp will jump in soon to rubbish it). It currently stands at 51% No and 38% Yes (last updated 15 Aug). Scotland has a poor turn out record at voting and I suspect that the don't know group are largely part of the Don't Vote brigade.
 
gman said:
The same can be said for Wales and Northern Ireland.

You can't keep complaining about not having a controlling vote when part of a union with a bigger country. Our population is 10 times smaller than England, do you think it would be fair that Scotland should be able to have the ability to decide who runs the UK? We already have overrepresentation at Westminster whereas England is underrepresented (I've proven this earlier). It's also worth remember that we have it far better than the other countries in the union and this is thanks to having our own Scottish Parliament (and of course a big block grant making it easier to balance the books).

Wanting to be able to elect your own Government is certainly a valid reason for wanting independence but stop banging on about the current electoral situation being unfair for Scotland whilst being part of the union because it's not.
Click to expand...
What you're saying makes sense. I don't think the current situation is unfair, it's just not the right situation for Scotland.
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
If there is automatic admission to the EU all the major things that the UK has surrendered (and there are a lot of them) will still apply to Scotland. If Scotland has to apply for membership all the 35 main fields must be complied with without negotiation according to the EU website.

There has been a lot of interesting debate on here, but it is getting very tedious. I supect that the bulk of the Yes voters are basically dedicated to independence at any cost. No amount of debate or argument will convince most of that group otherwise.

I don't see there being much chance of a Yes vote, although surprises cannot be ruled out. I follow the Telegraph poll of polls which takes an average of all the main opinion polls (somebody from the Yes camp will jump in soon to rubbish it). It currently stands at 51% No and 38% Yes (last updated 15 Aug). Scotland has a poor turn out record at voting and I suspect that the don't know group are largely part of the Don't Vote brigade.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the "don't knows" do know, but they don't want to get caught up in debate/arguments etc.
I don't think there will be a poor turn out for this referendum. One things for sure, there won't be any complacency among the yes voters, so they will be out in force.
 
Patronising better together woman, with subtitles.

 
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray speaking at an English Scots for Yes meeting.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top