The Dirty Independence Question

[Buff124]

The actual Referendum campaign doesn't formally begin until 29th May. The 16 week campaign will be governed by Electoral Commission rules regarding stuff like balanced reporting by the media. It will run throughout the World Cup, the Commonwealth Games , and the commemoration of the Great War.

The formal campaign should also see a step change in activity by both the Yes and the No camps. Yes has apparently recruited around 4000 activists who have spent the winter being trained and equipped, whereas the No's will likely have to bus students up from the north of England. This is normal Scottish Labour Party practice during elections, as there's not much of a party machine left. There's never been much of a Tory or Lib Dem machine in the populated part of the country.

Yes also has a continuous polling unit that has operated since 2009. The polling base now stands at 20,000 people. Their bespoke campaign software is also state of the art. That combination went a long way towards winning the 2011 Holyrood election.

So, we have a polarised and entrenched debate, plenty of 'events' to act as potential curveballs, an upcoming one-sided 'ground war', the highest voter registration figures ever recorded, and a swing of 5-6% needed for a draw.

Plenty of game changers in that mix. This is not the beginning of the end, only the end of the beginning , as the man who sent tanks into Glasgow once said.

[LJS]

The currency union thing? Nah, it's nothing like those.

Long before it was an issue to do with Scotland it was an issue (towards the euro), and firm policies with decades of propaganda are long in place.

A smart Scottish politician would have realised that it would never be a viable option if put forwards in they way they've done.

& a currency union between I can't remember how many wildly diverse countries is really just the same thing as a currency union between 2 countries with much more in common than they have differences.

Oh, & just because I get the impression you haven't quite got this yet...I am not saying it will happen. I am saying it is perverse to rule it out.

Hoots mon

[LJS]

Of course the above is true....

But it's going to be a case of... So you want a currency union and we need somewhere to put our nuclear submarines....

To think otherwise is laughable... It's going to be give and take and you might find yourself with independence that looks nothing like independence....

Saying this... I still dint see how you can be independent and have a currency union... Look at the euro zone... They are nothing like independent countries... France and Germany are almost one when it comes to governing... Germany says jump and everyone says how high.... It would be the same with a iScottish rUK union...

Welcome back Barry ... I have missed you

I suspect the French & Germans might dispute what you say but I actually believe there is a bigger truth in there - Interdependence rather than independence. Internationalism rather than nationalism.

I know its a bit of a sound bite but there is some truth in there.

& as I said before there is world of difference between the Eurozone with Greece & Germany in it - let's face it they are a wee bit more diverse & divergent than iScotland & rUK would be.

[eFestivals]

& a currency union between I can't remember how many wildly diverse countries is really just the same thing as a currency union between 2 countries with much more in common than they have differences.

You're the man who said above that you don't know what a currency union is. I see that you're no wiser, but still trying to tell the world that something you don't understand is a good thing.

Within the Euro zone, the economies are not diverging but the opposite.

Oh, & just because I get the impression you haven't quite got this yet...I am not saying it will happen. I am saying it is perverse to rule it out.

Under any sort of "currency union" name it won't happen.

There might be some sort of temporary agreement - while iScotland gets its shit together to join the EU and Euro, most probably - that in effect does much the same thing, but that will be done more as a nicety to iScotland than anything else, and it will require the Scottish govt to do a number of things in the meantime - making Scotland *officially* the lacky of England for that time, and for the first time (the exactly opposite thing to what independence is meant to do for Scotland).

One thing you can be sure of. No 'right' of iScotland to a currency union will be accepted by rUK because that would be anti-intellectual on all levels. If anything in the ball park of CU happens, it will require iScotland to recognise it as the favour by a foreign state that it would be.

Any sort of 'temporary currency union' to help iScotland become established would not be the CU that the white paper is promising the people of Scotland, and whatever currency iScotland has will have huge negative effects on Scotland's economy (if perhaps only for a short-ish time of 5 or 10 years). Scotland will lose much of its financial business (jobs, etc), and more importantly the £10Bn+ in tax revenue that financial business brings Scotland.

Edited April 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

& as I said before there is world of difference between the Eurozone with Greece & Germany in it - let's face it they are a wee bit more diverse & divergent than iScotland & rUK would be.

Greece & Germany have a formal agreement to work together to narrow their economic and fiscal and political differences. In the case of disagreements, Germany gets to run Greece (as it's doing).

Scotland will have just decided to widen its economic and fiscal and political differences with rUK.

Spot the difference?

If iScotland wants to let rUK run Scotland like Greece has agreed with Germany to be able to share its currency, what is it you're voting for again?

Edited April 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The actual Referendum campaign doesn't formally begin until 29th May. The 16 week campaign will be governed by Electoral Commission rules regarding stuff like balanced reporting by the media. It will run throughout the World Cup, the Commonwealth Games , and the commemoration of the Great War.

The formal campaign should also see a step change in activity by both the Yes and the No camps. Yes has apparently recruited around 4000 activists who have spent the winter being trained and equipped, whereas the No's will likely have to bus students up from the north of England. This is normal Scottish Labour Party practice during elections, as there's not much of a party machine left. There's never been much of a Tory or Lib Dem machine in the populated part of the country.

Yes also has a continuous polling unit that has operated since 2009. The polling base now stands at 20,000 people. Their bespoke campaign software is also state of the art. That combination went a long way towards winning the 2011 Holyrood election.

So, we have a polarised and entrenched debate, plenty of 'events' to act as potential curveballs, an upcoming one-sided 'ground war', the highest voter registration figures ever recorded, and a swing of 5-6% needed for a draw.

Plenty of game changers in that mix. This is not the beginning of the end, only the end of the beginning , as the man who sent tanks into Glasgow once said.

I personally doubt there's much more change to come. That BBC poll on the economic aspects gets to show that around 40% are unmovable.

And it's worth remembering that the SNP's great victory was made with just 25% of the possible votes (and where a large number of those would not vote for indy), and where around 50% of the electorate care so little for the Scottish Parliament they didn't bother to vote.

It looks like it's going to be turnout that's going to win it for whoever wins it, and while I know the Nats like to believe that there's little to motivate no voters to go out while there is for those who want change, that's not how it worked with the AV referendum.

Given that a big chunk of the tory voters stopped bothering to vote in Scotland from the 80s, that high voter registration might not be everything it's presumed to be either.

And from what I've read it seems unlikely that polling is getting accurate responses (tho how big the variance is is impossible to sensibly guess at). People who will vote no are telling people yes, to give themselves an easy life.

There's too much mud in it all to get a clear view.

[LJS]

I personally doubt there's much more change to come. That BBC poll on the economic aspects gets to show that around 40% are unmovable.

And it's worth remembering that the SNP's great victory was made with just 25% of the possible votes (and where a large number of those would not vote for indy), and where around 50% of the electorate care so little for the Scottish Parliament they didn't bother to vote.

It looks like it's going to be turnout that's going to win it for whoever wins it, and while I know the Nats like to believe that there's little to motivate no voters to go out while there is for those who want change, that's not how it worked with the AV referendum.

Given that a big chunk of the tory voters stopped bothering to vote in Scotland from the 80s, that high voter registration might not be everything it's presumed to be either.

And from what I've read it seems unlikely that polling is getting accurate responses (tho how big the variance is is impossible to sensibly guess at). People who will vote no are telling people yes, to give themselves an easy life.

There's too much mud in it all to get a clear view.

I'd just like to put on record that I agree with most of that. although not sure how telling a pollster you are going to vote yes will get you an easy life.

[eFestivals]

although not sure how telling a pollster you are going to vote yes will get you an easy life.

Simply from the angle that those who don't agree with the yes-ers stands a chance of coming under attack for it. There's more than enough references to this sort of thing happening for it to be happening a fair bit, due to ... erm ... 'over-enthusiastic' yes supporters.

While that's not so likely to happen from a pollster, I suspect that some of those who are choosing to say 'yes' when they'll vote 'no' are giving the same porkie to all that ask. If they need to feel 'safe', they're likely to be making sure they're 'safe'.

I know this factor is out there. What I've got no idea about is how big a factor it might be.

However, with me having seen plenty of claims of "around 80% support for independence on the streets and when knocking on doors" (which is way out with what the polls say), it looks like it's a big factor within the normal people-contacts, so it's not unreasonable to think that there could easily be an amount of spill-over of the same thing happening within those polls too.

Edited April 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

You're the man who said above that you don't know what a currency union is. I see that you're no wiser, but still trying to tell the world that something you don't understand is a good thing.

It's a sure sign you are winning a debate when your opponent starts telling downright lies about you. I have never said I don't know what a currency union is. ( i made an error about the relationship between UK & ROI - so that means I didn't know the correct nature of that relationship not that I don't know what a currency Union is)

Within the Euro zone, the economies are not diverging but the opposite.

GDP comparison between Germany & Greece

source http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114

2008 2010 2012

greece 93 88 75

germany 116 120 123

now that's some convergence

By most estimates I have seen (from both sides) iSc & rUK would be starting off with similar GDP. I don't think the most optimistic nationilst or the most pessimistic Unionist is predicting the sort of divergence shown above. Of course if there was a currency Union & significant divergence over time, that would of course put the future of the currency union in question.

Nothing is forever

[eFestivals]

It's a sure sign you are winning a debate when your opponent starts telling downright lies about you. I have never said I don't know what a currency union is. ( i made an error about the relationship between UK & ROI - so that means I didn't know the correct nature of that relationship not that I don't know what a currency Union is)

Downright lies? You presented as evidence for CU something that was irrelevant.

You presented that as why rUK just has to go along with what iScotland wants.

You've yet to say why it is you think rUK has to with something that actually means something.

GDP comparison between Germany & Greece

source http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114

2008 2010 2012

greece 93 88 75

germany 116 120 123

now that's some convergence

you'd find a growing difference between just about every country in the world and Germany over that same period.

The longer-term trend is the other direction.

By most estimates I have seen (from both sides) iSc & rUK would be starting off with similar GDP. I don't think the most optimistic nationilst or the most pessimistic Unionist is predicting the sort of divergence shown above. Of course if there was a currency Union & significant divergence over time, that would of course put the future of the currency union in question.

Nothing is forever

It's not just GDP that matters but policies too, and one of the major stated reasons for iScotland is economic divergence from the rUK.

It's the yes campaign themselves who are putting forward the reasons for why a CU isn't economically practical in the long term, and as far as CU's go, yes they ARE forever (in intent, even if they won't ever be in reality).

As soon as a CU is revealed as temporary it ceases to be sustainable, because its wide open to speculative attack.

iScotland says that rUK will have to go along with a CU because it can't afford not to - but separation is already priced in, so rUK can certainly afford to.

Edited April 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Downright lies? You presented as evidence for CU something that was irrelevant.

You presented that as why rUK just has to go along with what iScotland wants.

You've yet to say why it is you think rUK has to with something that actually means something.

Fabulous... more lies

I have never said rUK just has to go along with what iScotland wants. Indeed I have made it clear, again & again & again & again,that i am not arguing that a currency union will happen. What I have said is that there is a coherent argument that a currency union is not only is Scotland's interest but also in the UK's interest, so it would be bizarre of the UK government not to consider it post referendum.

I've also made it clear that it would need to be negotiated which means if rUK is not happy with what iSC wants, they don't have to do it.

[Buff124]

Remember kids, this thread is *just for laffs*

[LJS]

ill sign the peace treaty

Let the love of our land's sacred rights
To the love of our people succeed
Let friendship and honour unite
And flourish on both sides of the Tweed.

[russycarps]

Just been reading todays reports in the financial press about the size of the scottish deficit in the event of independence. Absolutely eye watering stuff.

Much as I like the romanticism of independence, if I was scottish I think I'd be looking to move south of the border if it looks like the yes vote will win. I just cannot see an economic argument for independence.

[eFestivals]

Just been reading todays reports in the financial press about the size of the scottish deficit in the event of independence. Absolutely eye watering stuff.

Much as I like the romanticism of independence, if I was scottish I think I'd be looking to move south of the border if it looks like the yes vote will win. I just cannot see an economic argument for independence.

there's a reasonable economic argument with the status quo (so it would still hold true under devo max), but much of that economic argument heads south in the event of independence, as a result of default EU rules (applicable to every member, no opt-outs) or because of iScotland simply not being able to realistically stand as lender of last resort as it would need to for mega banks such as RBS and Lloyds.

Both RBS and Lloyds are registered as Scottish companies, and so their tax revenues are classed as Scottish tax revenues - and with those revenues (with 90% of oil licence income included) Scotland runs an average deficit fairly close to the UK average. If the revenues of the financial sector that iScotland will have to shed are removed, all the claims of how Scotland has paid more into the UK than the UK average for the last 30-ish years evapourates, and an independent Scotland will take a significant hit.

There's a big surprising coming for any yes voters who put their belief in anything said by the SNP.

The SNP don't even want to win the vote anyway. The whole campaign is centred around blaming England for losing the vote, just as their whole political stance is based on blaming the English. If the SNP actually have to try and deliver when they know they won't be able to, they'll...? Blame the English.

Fancy that eh? A nationalist party blaming those nasty foreigners.

[russycarps]

Yeh it's mad really. Anyone with any kind of understanding of economics would surely realise the best scenario for scotland is devo max. Which is why it's quite frightening to see the 2 scottish fellows in this thread still insisting they will vote for independence, while seemingly being aware of the economic reality of what that will mean.

Though perhaps their personal circumstances mean they will benefit from independence, even though the majority will suffer. A selfish position, but I suppose understandable.

I can understand people who have not bothered to read up on the subject, or who cant grasp the implications, to vote for independence - if I was 18 or whatever I would be voting yes, because I know my 18 year old self wouldnt have bothered to to read up on it, and it would seem like the "rebellious" thing to do.

But any sensible adults, with a family, voting for independence are really being very irresponsible, it seems to me.

It's an interesting experiment, that's for sure. I just thank goodness it will not affect me a jot.

[eFestivals]

Though perhaps their personal circumstances mean they will benefit from independence, even though the majority will suffer.

they will if they own a corporation, what with that tory-free left-leaning forever-social-democracy ideal Scotland promising tax cuts for the rich and nothing extra for anyone else.

I know a govt somewhere else that promises ever-more for the rich too.

Some people somewhere said they hate that sort of thing.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But any sensible adults, with a family, voting for independence are really being very irresponsible, it seems to me.

Nope, I disagree.

Doing the best for your family doesn't have to equal the highest personal income you can achieve.

The issue you raise arises when someone truly believes that a vote for yes will by-itself enrichen them, when it's far from certain that it will.

[russycarps]

Nope, I disagree.

Doing the best for your family doesn't have to equal the highest personal income you can achieve.

The issue you raise arises when someone truly believes that a vote for yes will by-itself enrichen them, when it's far from certain that it will.

I suppose there is an argument that peoples children will be morally better off if nuclear weapons are no longer kept on scottish soil. But what are the other positives really?

It has to come back to economics. Public services will suffer horribly.

[eFestivals]

But what are the other positives really?

well, I guess that if you believe that localism has a positive place in the world, it gets Scotland more localism.

Personally I'm of the view that there's a one-size-fits-all 'perfect' to be had for the world if we strive for it - but that we'll never reach it if we don't.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The Snp doesn't want a yes vote? Really? Can't quite work that one out. Please help me

[eFestivals]

The Snp doesn't want a yes vote? Really? Can't quite work that one out. Please help me

Cos they'll get found out.

They've played this to try and get a message to penetrate, but while also not expecting the campaign to win enough over.

If the SNP were confident of winning, they wouldn't have delayed the referendum for as long as they possibly could.

[LJS]

Cos they'll get found out.

They've played this to try and get a message to penetrate, but while also not expecting the campaign to win enough over.

If the SNP were confident of winning, they wouldn't have delayed the referendum for as long as they possibly could.

I think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory. All it takes is a leaked e mail from Alex to Nicola after the referendum saying "mighty me hen, yon was a close shave! I was seriously worried we were going to win for a while. Then we'd have been up shit creek eh? " then all the hundreds of Snp members who have given up thousands of hours to campaign for a yes vote will turn on him & he will be history.

[eFestivals]

I think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory.

It's a statement of fact to say that the man who claims to want independence has delayed the chance for as long as he can to possibly have independence.

[eFestivals]

The point I'm making is that if at the start of the campaign he had thought he might win, he'd have played everything differently to how he has.

He's made his own future as difficult as it's likely to be.