The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Good grief Neil, you know better than that. Neither side is making threats. They're pre-negotiation positions.

Nope.

Scotland gets to negotiate over the share-out of the things it has a right to, not the things it doesn't.

Otherwise the rUK can simply say "you take the debt and get no nice things else you get no independence at all", and that's a perfectly fair position in the eyes of those wanting independence - and we both know that's not how that would be viewed in Scotland.

After all, Scotland only gets its independence via an act of Parliament in Westminster.

So: how are the unwarranted threats of the yes campaign justified?

They can only be justified by Scotland being denied what they have a right to.

[Buff124]

Each side are deploying the resources their respective strategies dictate at this point in the process. Resources range from being able to buy in 'experts in their field' to having a dog whistle media which includes a State owned broadcasting service.

if its a yes vote (usual caveats apply) then both sides have to negotiate.

The UK Govt state there are some issues they will not negotiate on. Currency union is o ne of them. Scot Govt wheel out experts (including 2 Nobel prize-winners) who say currency union makes hard sense for both parties. UK still say no.

Might look a wee bit intransigent after a yes vote, however narrow the result.

We live in an age of global media, and how the negotiations are portayed by Al Jazeera will be important. Scotland could get enough victim equity to be able to walk away from the debt without too much in the way of international disapprobation

[Buff124]

...and back to the topic of *threats* being made.

A threat is only a threat if you feel threatened by it.

vis the *threat* of trade sanctions against Russia.

So are you arguing that the UK feels threatened by the possibility of iScotland (see I'm using it now ) not negotiating an equitable share of national debt ? HM Treasury have already publicly announced that they will underwrite the debt. The possibility of that happening has already been factored into the equation.

So who's threatened by it ? This is just media spun fog-of-war. Stop buying it.

[eFestivals]

Each side are deploying the resources their respective strategies dictate at this point in the process. Resources range from being able to buy in 'experts in their field' to having a dog whistle media which includes a State owned broadcasting service.

yeah, it's big bias to report facts such as Standard Life's stated and very reasonable concerns, particularly against a yes campaign that says no one will notice a jot of change but Scotlasnd will be suddenly fatastic.

if its a yes vote (usual caveats apply) then both sides have to negotiate.

Agreed - but they can only negoiate over the non-sovereign things which are possible to split between each side.

The sovereign things are what Scotland are choosing to give up on independence to create its own (or make other arrangements outside of the independence process itself).

The UK Govt state there are some issues they will not negotiate on.

Yep, the UK will not negotiate it's own sovereignty over what will remain of the UK.

And neither should anyone try to force it to. Nearly all wars start with a demand by one sovereign state to the sovereignty of another sovereign state.

Currency union is o ne of them.

It is.

Scot Govt wheel out experts (including 2 Nobel prize-winners) who say currency union makes hard sense for both parties.

and it might. It might even be possible to swing it politically within rUK (tho i doubt it).

But there's not a hope in hell that rUK will give up any sovereignty to a foreign power who is DEMANDING that rUK give up some sovereignty. If Salmond thinks he's a smart enough politican to swing the opinion of the rUK population via those threats then I have massive fears for the future of an iScotland with him in charge. He's over-playing his hand by a long long way.

UK still say no.

as is its sovereign right.

Which is why threats are wrong. As wrong as it gets. An iScotland is making massive and immoral threats before it's even independent.

Might look a wee bit intransigent after a yes vote, however narrow the result.

Yeah, the world will think rUK is out of order defending it's sovereignty.

We live in an age of global media, and how the negotiations are portayed by Al Jazeera will be important. Scotland could get enough victim equity to be able to walk away from the debt without too much in the way of international disapprobation

PMSL ... an iScotland can't bullshit the UK population into submission; it can't bullshit the EU member states into ignoring the treaties which are the EU; and it won't bullshit rich men by a refusal to accept debts it has already admitted its moral obligation to.

But before that, it can't walk away from the debt else it can't walk at all. It gets its independence via an act of parliament in Westminster, and nowhere else.

[Buff124]

It gets its independence via an act of parliament in Westminster, and nowhere else.

...and General Flintstone just punched Malcolm Tucker in the face. In public, in front of the international media and diplomatic community.

[eFestivals]

HM Treasury have already publicly announced that they will underwrite the debt.

Not quite how you're thinking it tho.

Here's the treasury's own summary of their full statement:-

The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum

The UK today stands behind the debt only on the basis that iScotland stands behind its share.

Spot the difference with what you've said?

[Buff124]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this bit


"The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government."

[eFestivals]

...and General Flintstone just punched Malcolm Tucker in the face. In public, in front of the international media and diplomatic community.

yeah, because that community is very dumb and won't understand the complexities of iScotland welching on it's moral obligations, eh?

Salmond might fool enough of the Scottish population, but he won't fool another bunch of slimeballs who operate on the same basis as him. He's smart, but he ain't that smart.

[eFestivals]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this bit

"The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government."

No, you're forgetting to read the other bit. The whole thing is a whole statement, to be taken as a whole.

It's not a get-out-jail-free-card for an iScotland. Why do you think it is?

[Buff124]

The technical note makes clear that in the event of iScotland not playing ball, the Treasury will pick up the tab. Market reassurance.

The note then goes on to say that all assets and debts should be subject to negotiation.

[eFestivals]

The technical note makes clear that in the event of iScotland not playing ball, the Treasury will pick up the tab. Market reassurance.

And if Scotland won't play ball, why does there have to be an independent Scotland?

If Scotland won't play ball, the UK can keep the oil.

If Scotland won't play ball, the UK can keep all UK-owned property in Scotland.

If Scotland won't play ball, it won't get to join the EU.

The UK can play the stupid demands game too, the difference being that the UK is able to have from an iScotland any stupid demand it makes because the UK is one holding every single card.

The UK has said it'll play fair.

If Scotland won't, it's not something that will work well for Scotland. It's not easy establishing an independent state even in agreeable circumstances.

And meanwhile, iScotland can make clear threats towards rUK, but if rUK or private businesses make a statement of their own position, that is only ever bullying towards an independent Scotland.

But anyway, the nats say there's this huge groundswell of growing support, the polls show nothing of the kind.

The note then goes on to say that all assets and debts should be subject to negotiation.

Scotland doesn't want independence by diktat from England, I'm guessing?

Edited March 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

The UK can play the stupid demands game too

I've told you before. They're pre-negotiation positions.

Think about the actuality of a Yes vote (usual caveats etc). It would be a huge shock result. Bit like 2010 [edit: 2011 duh] Holyrood election.

After a Yes vote, do you think policy positions might not have to be reviewed in light of events ?

Edited March 7, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

iScotland would sit down at the negotiating table and offer to be a friend, ally and partner to rUK, in the spirit of neighbourliness and co-operation.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

Here's a fundamental one.

For decades, the predominant social norm in Scotland has been egalitarianism

Scotland however is a minority partner in a State which appears to value meritocracy more highly. It could be argued that its becoming increasingly difficult to accomodate those somewhat incompatible philosophies within the existing governmental framework.

How does one resolve that tension ?

[grumpyhack]

Anyone else struck by the very different responses to some people in Scotland wanting to break away from the UK and some people in Crimea wanting to break away from the Ukraine?

[eFestivals]

After a Yes vote, do you think policy positions might not have to be reviewed in light of events ?

Just because the UK govt has stated a different position to the one that would be most-beneficial to iScotland and not of huge benefit to rUK, it doesn't make that stated position a lie. Just a thought.

It's a shame that when the yes campaign quote those treasury words, not only do just half of them get quoted, but it also refuses to recognise that Scotland is currently a part of the same UK that has issued the statement that it will stand behind the debt. Anyone might think the treasury's statement is being disingenuously interpreted to try and mislead the people of Scotland .... but it's only the UK govt that would do that, yeah?

Why is it that iScotland thinks the UK govt lie about everything where Scotland is involved, but their statement about the debt is unshakable?

Why is it that iScotland think the UK govt accepting responsibility for the debt is unshakable, but when Salmond clearly stated an iScotland's moral responsibility for its share that can be ignored?

[eFestivals]

iScotland would sit down at the negotiating table and offer to be a friend, ally and partner to rUK, in the spirit of neighbourliness and co-operation.

Which only works if both sides accept their moral obligations.

When a threat is issued over a moral obligation the side issuing the threat becomes an untrustworthy partner.

[eFestivals]

Here's a fundamental one.

For decades, the predominant social norm in Scotland has been egalitarianism

Scotland however is a minority partner in a State which appears to value meritocracy more highly. It could be argued that its becoming increasingly difficult to accomodate those somewhat incompatible philosophies within the existing governmental framework.

How does one resolve that tension ?

By independence, if that's what you choose.

People in Scotland say that people in the rUK don't get why you want independence. We do!

Most people in rUK don't have any problem with you having it, if that's what you choose for yourself. Good luck with it.

But that doesn't mean the independence process will be a smooth ride for either side, or that the opinions/predictions you choose to go with is what you'll get (and just about everyone seems to be going with Salmond's jam jam more jam and only jam). There will be significant negative effects onto an iScotland as well as any positives you might hope for.

(I suspect that the general themes are right, and an iScotland will eventually* be [tho perhaps only for a few decades or so, given the limits to the oil] more prosperous than rUK, and that they'll be quite significant bad effects onto the rUK economy. Both sides are more than able to ride out those bad bits however big or small they might be, and life will go on much as normal ... too much like normal for too many of the 'yes' believers I reckon.)

(* eventually, because the process will be a bumpy and by-nature expensive ride).

Edited March 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Good Morning

Yes Scotland is currently part of the UK, but is also a distinct entity in its own right.

iScotland however only exists in people's imagination. An infinite variety of iScotlands exist out there in the future as potential realities, part of the endless possibility wave.

Yes, I've been been reading Quantum Mechanics for Dummies again.

[Buff124]

and here's David Byrne in a kilt.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

Yes Scotland is currently part of the UK, but is also a distinct entity in its own right.

it is not separate from the UK in regard to anything of the UK's debts. That's the point, and that point remains at least as far as any 'yes' vote - which is what the treasury words were saying that the yes campaign is disingenuously pretending to have missed

But anyway, if an iScotland refuses the liabilities it refuses the assets too. They are part of the same principle, tho I'm not sure how those yes campaigners that think that threat is a good idea will stop their heads exploding when there's 'English' rent collectors at every public facility of an iScotland.

An infinite variety of iScotlands exist out there in the future as potential realities, part of the endless possibility wave.

But only one of those which your elected leader is trying to sell to you, including him making promises that are beyond the power of any sovereign state to deliver.

[Buff124]

But only one of those which your elected leader is trying to sell to you, including him making promises that are beyond the power of any sovereign state to deliver.

The real question then is can the general public living in Scotland be trusted to see through the inaccuracies and spin being pumped out by both sides of the debate. The general rule of thumb is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, in this case that would be somewhere equidistant from Armageddon and Nirvana.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

The real question then is can the general public living in Scotland be trusted to see through the inaccuracies and spin being pumped out by both sides of the debate. The general rule of thumb is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle

given that all elections in this country prove the electorate as unthinking morons, I suspect not.

Scotland loves to think of itself as a tory-free nation, yet even today around 20% will happily vote tory. And then there'll be plenty more who think all of the same things but have fallen for the lines about how Scots shouldn't vote like that but which get freed-up in a new nation.

And the UK politician most in bed with Murdoch? Yup, it's lovely Alex who'd never lie to the Scots, the man that 45% of Scots still voted for.

in this case that would be somewhere equidistant from Armageddon and Nirvana.

[eFestivals]

I keep reading words from those supporting the yes campaign that there's not a single positive thing that can be put forwards for why Scotland might keep the union with England.

Every time I read that I think "haven't these people read the white paper for independence where those supporting independence put forwards their own positive case for union"?

In case you've missed it, it's called "currency plan a".

(That's not necessarily a reason to keep the union, but it's certainly a positive thing for it).

Edited March 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[snoopyhill]

Everyone I know expects independence to be difficult and our standard of living may drop but we will be making our own decisions for better or worse. As far as currency is concerned it ranks 5th most important issue in Scotland behind Economy, Pensions, Welfare and our relationship with the rest of UK. We have a different set of priorities from Westminster. Personally I am fed up having a government that ranks London interests and the views of floating English voters above Scotland so I will be voting for independence and will put up with the problems and issues that brings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26102076

It amazes me that some of you think we blindly follow Alex Salmond this is simply wrong. In Scottish elections we vote for SNP because of what they stand for and how well they manage Scotland but for Westminster more than twice as many vote for Labour than SNP what happens to Alex's influence then?

Perhaps the Scottish electorate are a wee bit more sophisticated than some of you give us credit for.

Here's my prediction: As the referendum approaches the polls show a narrowing of the the gap, all Westminster parties promise more powers for Holyrood and the vote is a close run No.

2015 General Election UKIP make a impact in England/Wales and influence Government policy even more maybe even a Con/UKIP coalition if the polls are to be believed this in turn leads to UK leaving EU. Scottish elections are held in 2016 and SNP are returned with a larger majority a new referendum is called and 2018 Scotland votes for independence. 2020 sees the first Independent Scottish Parliament.

Edited March 16, 2014 by snoopyhill