The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Hey Buff, you know that you've suggested several times that anyone who posts in newspaper comments that shows the yes campaign in a bad light is a 'no' stooge?

I'm wondering which of these two might be the stooge?

1. "I'm Scottish, and us Scots aren't daft enough to vote yes"

(and in reply to that)

2. "if you're voting 'no' you can't be Scottish"

[eFestivals]

Yes of course it is. But as a principle in itself it is surely applicable at a number of levels. Think VSM. Think fractals.

well, yes, of course. Most ideas can be applied at a variety of different levels.

So concentrate on the idea, and not add some extra bullshit by implying that it's an EU principle that the UK is not doing so that the UK can shaft Scotland.

Perhaps I'm different to most folk in not being bothered which way Scotland decides to vote, while always being bothered by the bullshit of anyone no matter their views. It's the bullshit of the 'yes' campaigners that offends me, not the campaign itself.

[eFestivals]

EDIT: Its a question of where functions are best located, at which level. Why are some functions best dealt with at United Nations level ? Or European Union, and so on down the VSM model until you get to Parish Councils or something similar.

If you're not able to answer that question extremely well - and in real world terms, not theoretical unworkable bollocks - then I'm not sure that voting for independence is a great idea.

But as you are going to be voting for independence and claim a sophisticated Scottish electorate and claim to understand what Beer was on about, why not prove it all by tell me what a currency is and why an iScotland has a right to currency union with a foreign sovereign state?

[eFestivals]

oh ffs You are beyond worth bothering with

Yeah, those facts are always troublesome to you, eh Barry.

Sadly they're also troublsome to the yes campaign, which is why they've chosen to ignore the facts and bullshit their 'sophisticated electorate' instead.

Mmmmmm, jam. Everyone loves lashings of jam, even when there's no jam.

[eFestivals]

The reality is that nothing will crystallise until after the referendum.

That's nothing of what I asked. iScotland may or may not reach *agreement* with rUK over a currency union.

What I'm wanting to know is why the yes campaign believes that currency union with rUk is a *right* for iScotland, and not something to be mutually agreed between sovereign states.

TThe time lag betwen a yes vote and date of separation gives enough time to negotiate a seamless transition to EU membership

Really? PMSL.

There's few facts around independence, but you've just chosen to deny them. It's a practical impossibly, by the terms of the Lisbon Treaty whicvh defines the only route of membership.

...particularly if Clause 48 is successfully invoked.

Again, PMSL.

Just as the yes campaign is believing over currency, sovereignty means everything to Scotland but means nothing at all to all other countries who will all willingly give away their sovereignty to Scotland's benefit but not their own.

It's as laughable as it gets.

The following words sound mightily over-dramatic but it's still true: wars have been started over far lesser claims onto another country's sovereignty.

If iScotland wishes to be taken seriously within the international community - so that other states believe it to be a sensible partner they can do real meaningful business with - it *has* to stop doing this.

So joining the Euro as plan B shouldn't be ruled out either.

Currency pegging I don't know enough about so have a real handle on, but I don't particularly like the sound of it. Who knows ?

whichever plan it is, there's massive economic effects from that plan onto iScotland's economy, something else which is omitted from the white paper's perfect world.

[Buff124]

This stuff is just going in circles. The 'currency union is threat to sovereignty' argument is beginning to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. Its a reward to risk calculation.

Can we get the Glasto line-up soon please ? I wanna go back to posting uncalled for YouTube clips of Glasto performances by Mik Artistik, Dave Celia, and the Sufi Caravan of Love.

[eFestivals]

This stuff is just going in circles. The 'currency union is threat to sovereignty' argument is beginning to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. Its a reward to risk calculation.

whether or not a sovereign state might agree to a union for its benefit is a different thing to whether a sovereign state has a right to demand one of another while using threats to do so.

Scotland can only reasonably demand one if it has a right to it. So tell me why it has a right of ownership to the policy instruments of a foreign sovereign state.

Edited March 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

I'm not deliberately promoting gambling, but this is from a well known bookmaker's website

Scottish Independence Referendum


All selections void if no straight two choice referendum occurs before May 2016.

Scotland to vote NO to Independence in 2014 1/6
Scotland to vote YES to Independence in 2014 9/2


Yes Vote Percentage
Under 30% 8/1
30 - 35% 5/1
35 - 40% 7/2
40 - 45% 3/1
45 - 50% 5/1
50 - 55% 7/1
Over 55% 7/1


YES Vote Percentage (over/under)
Over (41.0) 10/11
Under (41.0) 10/11


Scotland's Currency on 1st Jan 2017
Bets void if Scotland remains in UK.
GBP 1/3
New Scottish currency 3/1
Euro 10/1

Edited March 19, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

but this is from a well know bookmaker's website

Scottish Independence Referendum

<snip>

ahh yes, quite the hot topic of the last day or two ... cos the polls don't say anything like the SNP has just claimed, the focus shifted to the betting odds, where an interpretation can be made of them to suit either side.

It rather reeks of desperation from the yes campaign, those conspiracy theories around the odds.

[Buff124]

This thread is on automatic pilot. Currency union is

a) hypothetical and getting more boring by the minute

b ) in the unlikely event of a you know what, will be the subject of negotiation, despite what the respective public pre-negotiation positions are just now.

Right, your turn to cut'n'paste previous post.

I'm sure they made me watch this at school. Unsettling.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

b ) in the unlikely event of a you know what, will be the subject of negotiation, despite what the respective public pre-negotiation positions are just now.

That's the thing. It won't. Scotland wanting its independence doesn't equal the rUK's sovereignty or even the UKs sovereignty - up for grabs.

I started the posting again in this thread recently about the currency. You and others have been kind enough to engage with me about it - and along the way you've also made some grand claims about how Scotland is more-suitable than many other places to be an independent state.

And yet the subject at the deepest heart of your independent future is one that you (as well as the wider yes campaign) don't wish to engage on at any level, instead believing that iScotland can threaten to welch on its part of the common debt and there would be no consequences back onto an iScotland from that, and that if grabbing the rUK by the short and curlies doesn't work iScotland can win any battle via a media PR campaign (in the same media that the yes campaign also says gives it no support whatsoever).

Could not not perhaps stand back for a moment and consider all of that?

Vote for independence if you like, but do it with a much greater sense of reality. The greatest danger of independence is disappointment.

[Buff124]

I strated posting recently on this thread cos I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of Prince threads

Can't say this hasn't been educational. Cheers, Neil, Baz, Kmk2, and everyone else who posts here.

Even the dude who gave me downticks for being too much of a smartarse. I most likely deserved it

Think I should revive the "What Do U think of Scots" thread with some bagpipe music ?

[kaosmark2]

It's certainly an interesting topic. There's not been any potential change quite as dramatic as this in a long time, yet politicians are being the same as ever. While I disagree with independence (both because I think Salmond is bullshitting the Scottish people, and I think everyone, both sides of the border, will end up worse off), I do have a macabre desire to see a Yes vote and all the fallout that'll come. It'd be an interesting change without there being any threat of WW3 (unlike when Russia get involved in international politics)

[eFestivals]

By chance this morning I stumbled across the page view numbers for wingsoverscotland, and was initially amused to see that it gets one third of what eFestivals does ... but then the brain kicked in to realise its got a far smaller potential audience, so now realise it's pretty damned good all things considered.

At least people are engaging, even if they're mostly engaging with bullshit - cos even the most fervent yes supporters have recognised that any comment that disses the SNP is not allowed there.

But I also discovered that wingsoverbath would be a far more apt name to the truth of things. Presumably after independence Scotland will be able to support its own video games magazines industry, and if not it will be the result of an English anti-Scots conspiracy.

Edited March 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[DomDom1984]

The Yes campaign has seen a shift in their favour, but at the same time, Better Together are still in the position of power at the moment.

The Scottish electorate has spent too long giving it the "better the devil you know" style of voting. Certain areas are worse than others for it, in that if you are in Labour no matter how much of a shitgibbon you are, you tend to get in. Doesn't help that so many people have the idiotic "I don't like the SNP so will be voting No" attitude.

Then you have the massive own goal from the SNP with regards to the currency situation. They're already arguing from a losing position if you ask me. What they don't need is to sway more folk to "No", and they managed to do so. They should have spoken with a more open mind on it. Alex Salmond's attitude seemed to be "this is the way and f**k the rest" which for someone who is a pretty good politician was a massive mistake to make.

As for my own views on this... I'll be going with the "Yes" vote. I agree that it could end in massive disappointment, but I'm not going to let fear of the unknown dictate what I do with my vote. The way I look at it is this. We have the opportunity to forge our own futures here. Make our own mistakes or on the flip sides, help ourselves to excel. Or things could just go on as they have done, just with us being an independent country instead. If this is the case, at least it'd be with a government that we voted for and elected. I don't buy the "WE'LL BE RICH!!!" cries from the more staunch Yes voters, and I don't see it as any guarantee that it will even go well.

Why not take the plunge though?

[eFestivals]

The Yes campaign has seen a shift in their favour

have they? Where, how?

They claim that every time an englishman opens their mouth the support swells - and yet the polls show a small fall (tho within the margin of error, so could just be that).

The facts are contrary to the claim.

Doesn't help that so many people have the idiotic "I don't like the SNP so will be voting No" attitude.

while I agree wholeheartly with that comment, it's still the funniest thing I've read in this thread.

Cos there's something very similar but MUCH bigger coming from the yes side.

It would be very nice if people on all sides voted on the basis of facts and desires and not prejudices, whilst realising that stated opinions are not reality or necessarily likely to become so.

Then you have the massive own goal from the SNP with regards to the currency situation. They're already arguing from a losing position if you ask me. What they don't need is to sway more folk to "No", and they managed to do so. They should have spoken with a more open mind on it. Alex Salmond's attitude seemed to be "this is the way and f**k the rest" which for someone who is a pretty good politician was a massive mistake to make.

Spot on, and nice to see for a change.

Because Salmond is normally a very good politician, I can only presume he's still being one and is determined to lose.

If yes were to win it would be by a small margin, and that's far from the ideal to establish a new country in the best circumstances. Plus, he'd no longer be able to blame the English for everything and would soon be exposed for the bullshit he's spouted.

Instead of going down as the father of a new nation he'd go down as the man who tore Scotland apart, which isn't the legacy he's wanting.

As for my own views on this... I'll be going with the "Yes" vote. I agree that it could end in massive disappointment, but I'm not going to let fear of the unknown dictate what I do with my vote. The way I look at it is this. We have the opportunity to forge our own futures here. Make our own mistakes or on the flip sides, help ourselves to excel. Or things could just go on as they have done, just with us being an independent country instead. If this is the case, at least it'd be with a government that we voted for and elected. I don't buy the "WE'LL BE RICH!!!" cries from the more staunch Yes voters, and I don't see it as any guarantee that it will even go well.

Why not take the plunge though?

It's very very refreshing to see this said.

Perhaps the 'rich' will come, but establishing a new country isn't going to be an easy task, not everything will pan out for the best, and it will certainly have a number of set-up expenses.

If the country doesn't go into independence willing to take the rough with the smooth that'll just increase the problems the country has to deal with.

Edited March 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

well, after taking the piss about the claim of rising 'yes' support not matched by the polls, I guess it's only fair that I post again now a poll has shown a significant rise.

But it's such a big rise against what's been pretty static i've got to admit that I'm sceptical about it. There's the possibility that for whatever reason it's a one-off polling result, so it'll be interesting to see what the next one says.

If it is the rise that's been claimed and for the reasons claimed too, I don't know whether to laugh or cry - because if people in Scotland are turning towards voting yes as the result of comments made from Westminster whilst ignoring what those comments are actually saying, then surely that should be a worry?

Edited March 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Ah leave them be... If they want to go let them....

I've no problem if they do.

Tho if they do, I'd far rather it worked out well for them - and working out well will need a yes victory by a significant margin so that the victory is not later reversed in people's heads if it's not everything they hoped for, as well as not creating a sense of expectation that the reality will never live up to (these two things are of course interlinked).

So far neither of those things looks probable, which is likely to make the birth of a new Scottish nation (if that's what happens) far from being the smooth thing that it might be in different circumstances.

Saddest of all is that if the yes campaign had chosen to go at things in a different - slower, and more rational - way, they could have far better managed the things which are not going to work in Scotland's favour.

For example, a slower road to independence after a yes vote would create a realistic possibility of iScotland remaining fully within the EU from the moment of its inception, whilst the timetable they're working to makes it near impossible within that timeframe for there to be the necessary EU treaty amendments plus ratification in each member country (with referendums in the countries that have to have them).

Likewise, a different manner could have created the conditions where a temporary currency union could happen (temporary, until iScotland could join the Euro as current EU rules say they'll be required to do). But the threat by the yes campaign of throwing their dummy out of the pram if they don't get what they want makes them a wholely unsuitable partner for that union, because a union could only ever work with a rational and trustable partner, and not one that takes the nuclear option if anything they don't like happens.

I get the feeling if they don't go then us guys in England will continue to get a lesser deal than them with all the parties all circling to throw extra powers at them if the vote no.]

Fuck that shit

yep, it certainly creates some issues.

Mind you, the yes campaign are running their own project fear cos they're telling people that "England will punish Scotland" for daring to hold to the vote in the first place.

[eFestivals]

Splitting the debt....

If Scotland votes yes, and it's agreed that Scotland should take its proportional share of the debt, what's the view in Scotland for what that proportion should be?

I'm interested because there's two different numbers it could be worked from - the proportion of population, or the proportion of UK govt money that Scotland gets via the Barnet formula.

I could be wrong, but I think population is 8.4%, and Barnet is 9.3% - which makes a fairly sizable difference for the debt iScotland might take on (a difference of around £10Bn)

The self-interested view of iScotland would be the lowest and the self-interested view of rUK would be the highest. That part's a no-brainer, but I suspect that neither of those would be acceptable to 'the other side'.

So how exactly might it get worked out? I've yet to see anyone put forwards a suggestion for this (outside of the laughable claims of Scotland having none of it).

I can see this issue being one of endless arguments, but it'll have to have a solution some how. So what do people think might be the solution?

Edited March 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[DomDom1984]

Tho if they do, I'd far rather it worked out well for them - and working out well will need a yes victory by a significant margin so that the victory is not later reversed in people's heads if it's not everything they hoped for, as well as not creating a sense of expectation that the reality will never live up to (these two things are of course interlinked).

Expectations aren't necessarily linked to how well it goes, although I do agree that the margin of victory will be something of an excuse if it's tight. Which it'll obviously be if it's a "Yes" vote. I think it'll be tight either way. And that expectation is linked to the almost inevitable reality as well. All of this stuff doesn't really bother me though. That's up to the more deluded Yes voters to think it'll be the land of gold.

Unfortunately, the more staunch voters think that's exactly how it'll be. Amazing if they're right. And maybe they are? I'd be inclined to think things could be better, but not the incredible land of the free and working man's heaven that they seem to think it will.

Saddest of all is that if the yes campaign had chosen to go at things in a different - slower, and more rational - way, they could have far better managed the things which are not going to work in Scotland's favour.

There's one thing about this. Oppertunism. I can't really blame them for taking a run at this now. The feeling towards the current government from Scots isn't a good one. This on it's own could sway potential undecided who otherwise wouldn't have voted, or even would have voted no.

This is why the EU stuff you have mentioned, which is a valid point, is one that has been ignored in order for the fast track and I'd tend to agree with them on that. The EU issue would not even be close to discussing because a No vote under a new government would probably be an absolute certainty, because I just don't see a Conservative government next time out.

It's worth noting that a lot of the post-Yes vote stuff has been discussed by them a million times over. Remember the SNP is a party who ultimately had one goal. It stands to reason this goal isn't something that has suddenly entered their minds. There is, of course, the reality that there will be a million kinks to iron out, but at the moment, I don't see much reason that they can't do so.

Likewise, a different manner could have created the conditions where a temporary currency union could happen (temporary, until iScotland could join the Euro as current EU rules say they'll be required to do). But the threat by the yes campaign of throwing their dummy out of the pram if they don't get what they want makes them a wholely unsuitable partner for that union, because a union could only ever work with a rational and trustable partner, and not one that takes the nuclear option if anything they don't like happens.

I think that if it came down to it, they'd be a reliable partner. Ultimately, it's not an issue that they can afford to play fast and loose with and that'll be something that people know.

The debt issue is one I'm not touching. I don't have a fucking clue. It stands to reason we have some of it though.

[eFestivals]

Expectations aren't necessarily linked to how well it goes

Really?

Don't you think that those who've been promised jam by the 'yes' campaign and who are expecting jam will be a bit pissed off to discover that some of that jam is only bread and water?

That's up to the more deluded Yes voters to think it'll be the land of gold.

there's certainly an amount of those types (a huge amount if those commenting in newspapers are typical).

Whatever that amount might be, because the margin of victory (if it's a victory) looks likely to be small, there's a decent chance that the un-met expectations of these types would be enough to take the result back to a 'lose' and not 'win'. I think there's a lot of danger for how well things might go within that.

The feeling towards the current government from Scots isn't a good one.

Not liking the results of the democracy that you currently have is the worst reason at all to vote for independence, cos sooner or later you'll dislike the independent govt while liking what Westminster is doing.

This is why the EU stuff you have mentioned, which is a valid point, is one that has been ignored in order for the fast track and I'd tend to agree with them on that.

eh? There's few facts within the whole independence issue, but iScotland being outside of the EU (at least initially) with the current legal situation is the most certain fact of all.

Scotland cannot be fast-tracked into the EU without there being new EU treaties - and those new treaties would take at least as long as accession via the current rules would take.

The only possible way around that would be for iScotland to delay its independence day to allow time for the treaty amendments to happen - *IF* those treaty amendments are going to happen (there's countries like Spain that won't be keen on making life easy for their own potential breakaways).

I think that if it came down to it, they'd be a reliable partner. Ultimately, it's not an issue that they can afford to play fast and loose with and that'll be something that people know.

A reliable partner is a partner that honours its commitments and obligations.

It isn't a partner that accepts it's obligations to its share of the debt and then uses those obligations to blackmail the other side - which is *exactly* what the yes campaign, the SNP and Salmond have all done.

As soon as the threats were made all possibility of currency union evaporated.

Welcome to the real world. This is realpolitik.

The debt issue is one I'm not touching. I don't have a fucking clue. It stands to reason we have some of it though.

Salmond has already accepted iScotland's obligation to a proportional amount of that debt, so in theory it's a piece of piss to sort out.

The problem that's going to kick in is which 'proportional' is the proportional that should be worked from? Population, or payment?

If I ruled the world ( ) I'd go for the easy option of splitting the difference, but I suspect that they'll be loud voices on both sides that will demand the most advantageous proportionate method should apply.

[kaosmark2]

there's certainly an amount of those types (a huge amount if those commenting in newspapers are typical).

On pretty much all issues, I really really hope that such people aren't a representative sample.

[viberunner]

For example, a slower road to independence after a yes vote would create a realistic possibility of iScotland remaining fully within the EU from the moment of its inception, whilst the timetable they're working to makes it near impossible within that timeframe for there to be the necessary EU treaty amendments plus ratification in each member country (with referendums in the countries that have to have them).

That's a rational position to take, but makes the assumption everyone is rational. The Spanish, with their eye on the Basque region, would never agree to it... it wouldn't be a slow-mo EU country so much as living never-never land. They're still in denial over Kosovo!

[eFestivals]

On pretty much all issues, I really really hope that such people aren't a representative sample.

it's very hard to judge how typical they are, but I'd say one or other of the following must apply:-

1. As no one on the 'yes' side is calling out lovely Alex over the very obvious factual bullshit in the white paper (such as EU entry, where they is only one entry method), those people are a representative sample.

or

2. those people within Scotland of a more sensible mind can't be bothered with the grief they'd get from 'cybernats' if they called Salmond to account for his bullshit so they're letting it go.

Either way, it doesn't look like a scenario that's going to play out well for an independent Scotland.

It's this sort of stuff that worries me for how it might go.

[eFestivals]

That's a rational position to take, but makes the assumption everyone is rational. The Spanish, with their eye on the Basque region, would never agree to it... it wouldn't be a slow-mo EU country so much as living never-never land. They're still in denial over Kosovo!

Spain probably won't agree to changes to the entry criteria that would benefit their potential break-away regions, tho there's probably ways that they could be made happy about it, if it's written in such a way to make things easy for Scotland but not necessarily for others.

It could be done via a recommendation from the country it's split-off from, for example. That would allow Scotland in while lessening Spain's worries by giving it a veto over Catalonia or Basque.

The standard entry method has all sorts of things which Scotland ain't gonna like:-

1. joining the Schengen Borders Code, which could well mean land borders with England (on both the Scottish and English sides btw - the EU will require them from iScotland).

2. no rebate (cost to iScotland approx £500M pa).

3. free Uni education for Welsh & English peeps at iScotland's expense.

4. joining the Euro.

5. no "lender of last resort" from the ECB. Scotland will carry the costs of its financial centre; depositors in Scottish banks risk having their savings seized (as happened in Cypress).

6. a huge part of iScotland's financial industry (which is 50% bigger than the oil and gas sector) doing a runner to rUK, with the loss of jobs and prestige, but most importantly masses of tax revenue - more than enough to turn the non-deficit average over 30 years that the yes campaign claims into a definite deficit.

7. the costs of having to establish a currency and central bank BEFORE switching to the Euro, which makes them huge costs for no meaningful purpose.

The massive advantage to iScotland from a new entry criteria being created for them is that Scotland would probably get a lot of the current opt-outs that the UK has, so that many of that list above could be avoided.