The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Moving the goalposts over to an "support for independence is anti-imperialism" argument is a damn sight better than you saying that supporters of Scots independence are anti-foreigner (and again by implication anti-English) full stop.

I've nowhere said that "supporters of Scots independence are anti-foreigner".

I've said - what is the truth - that the SNP do the normal nationalist party thing, of blaming all ills of the country on "others", "outsiders", "not those within the country" - summed up in the word "foreigners". And people within Scotland fall for it.

Yes, Scottish people, like people everywhere, can be influenced by propaganda. Unless they're aliens?

It's no different to what UKIP do, and if you care to check why those within England who support UKIP do support UKIP, you'll often find (aside from the direct thing of independence) a remarkable similarity of reasons with those who support the SNP despite that massive difference between UKIP and SNP policies. It's about the perceived failure of other parties to represent those people.

Plenty of people on Scotland define themselves politically as socialists, internationalists and republicans.

Yup. And many of those same people support the SNP.

That'll be the same SNP that in 2007 encouraged Fred the Shred to buy the Dutch bank that bankrupted RBS, with Alex sending his infamous "yours for Scotland" letter. You know, the left-wing SNP supporting those lovely banksters.

That'll be the same SNP that in 2007 said an independent Scotland wouldn't be mean like the Labour party run UK, and would free those lovely bankers like Fred from the noose of the UK's over-regulation, so that in an independent Scotland the bankers could run free ... you know, just like the raving-right-wingers of the tory party were doing at the same moment in time.

But the SNP are a left-wing party, aren't they?

Wise and lovely Alex, the best politician in the UK, would have helped the bankers rob that independent Scotland, and then would have celebrated it's much bigger bankruptcy than Iceland.

But hey, just convince yourself that that would have been a good thing for Scotland, and also pretend that the loss of 12% of Scottish tax revenue and all claims of "contributing more than we raise in taxes" being false are things which don't matter at all.

Quite happy to agree with your new stance that Scots independence can be framed within the struggle against (global) imperialism.

yep, Alex loving the bankers no less than the most nutty tory is lining them up against the wall and shooting them.

Edited April 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If you care to look at the yes campaign stuff, it's a lot more about the future than the past ( now you are still entitled to think that is bollocks) but they were smart enough to realise early on that it is more attractive & engaging to talk about what is good in the future they envisage than what is bad about the past.

and yet everything is "in an independent Scotland they'll be jam, the jam that those nasty outsiders said we weren't allowed to make".

Now, in my assessment it is perfectly reasonable to say, being ruled from Westminster has not worked in the best interests (in the broadest sense) of Scotland.

that wouldn't be saying anything about those nasty outsiders being bad, and the wonderful Scots being good, then?

To portray all this as England v Scotland is as simplistic

There seem s to be a bit of a disconnection between what those specific words say, and all of the rest of your post.

----

I asked....

Now, care to point out to me some stuff from the yes campaign where the problems being mentioned are the result of what happens within Scotland? And then we can all walk away happy in the knowledge that we're all able to identify shite no matter where it might originate.

.... and you just failed the challenge.

But it's not about those nasty outsiders, is it?

[eFestivals]

I can't remember who it was that posted here about the Standard and Poor report which (paraphrased) said "Scotland is a developed economy like other developed economies" (no shit sherlock ) which had the SNP and yes supporters in raptures of delight, but I'm pretty sure someone did.

Does that person have any comment to make on the latest S&P report on iScotland?

The one that says iScotland with currency union will be held hostage by its banks far more than the UK ever has been.

The one that says iScotland will, in reality, have to dump its financial sector including tens of thousands of jobs - and the 12% of tax revenue it generates (rUK says thanks, btw ).

The one that says iScotland will be a better bet without that currency union?

Edited April 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If the yes campaign was simply this:-

"together we can build a Scottish nation for everyone in Scotland"

and 60%+ voted yes, I'd cheer that Scotland on.

(FYI: the 60% is because I don't consider 50% + 1 vote to be a big enough opinion in favour to hold firm while that building happens. It'll work well with solid majority support, it becomes just another Westminster-like democratic failure if that support crumbles)

Instead, the campaign looks like it can only be won by misleading statements (like £300k from the oil for everyone), and promises of lashings of jam for everyone for ever.

You don't build a better nation on the same old bullshit.

[Stash]

Now, in my assessment it is perfectly reasonable to say, being ruled from Westminster has not worked in the best interests (in the broadest sense) of Scotland.

I always find this a strange sentiment to use as the primary motivation for independence. The UK parliament must have done some things right for Scotland as it's a part of a vibrant nation and like the other regions of the UK benefits from the Union. But apparently because it isn't dedicated only to the Scots, it is bad.

The parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland serves all regions of the UK. It has elected politicians from all regions of the UK and is lobbied by special interest groups from all regions of the UK. Yet somehow it is portrayed as an evil foreign organisation whose raison d'être is to put down the populace of Scotland and steal all of their money, and likely their first born too for all we know.

[Stash]

Plenty of people on Scotland define themselves politically as socialists, internationalists and republicans. They also support independence for Scotland. Environmentalists, anarchists, people who support the "Occupy" and "Idle No More" movements, they are pro-independence too.

How can you be an internationalist and a nationalist at the same time?

[eFestivals]

I always find this a strange sentiment to use as the primary motivation for independence.

It's patently false, that's why.

Yes, it's possible for Scotland to make better decisions, *IF* it has a unique brand of more intelligent politicians than anywhere else in the world.

But it doesn't.

You only have to look at what Alex was saying about the banks and bankers in 2007 - that they're wonderful, doing great things for Scotland, and should have more freedom to run riot (exactly the same as the most right-wing tories, no less!!) and not be more-regulated - and what the consequences of that would have been to see that it's just as capable of fucking up as anywhere else.

iScotland would be in financial ruin. People in Scotland would have lost all of their savings, and many their pensions.

But that's just me scaremongering for Project Fear, there's nothing useful to be got from the irrefutable facts.

Edited April 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Scottish banking system compared to Iceland by standard & poors. What a shock!

[russycarps]

Just more English scaremongering though right? Oh wait, they are a US company

[eFestivals]

Scottish banking system compared to Iceland by standard & poors. What a shock!

called more potentially dangerous and damaging than Iceland's.

It's going to be very amusing to see how 'yes' reacts to this, because they've previously hailed S&P as one of the few ho are able to recognise Scotland's greatness, rather than being part of that horrible nasty Project Fear.

[LJS]

called more potentially dangerous and damaging than Iceland's.

It's going to be very amusing to see how 'yes' reacts to this, because they've previously hailed S&P as one of the few ho are able to recognise Scotland's greatness, rather than being part of that horrible nasty Project Fear.

Excellent, you have found your sense of humour. Never fear, I will speak on the bank thing but you will need to be patient. Too many words will be required for my telephony typing skills.

Never fear I shall be at my trusty keyboard tonight.

Bet y'all can't wait.

[Stash]

Scottish banking system compared to Iceland by standard & poors. What a shock!

A Scottish Government spokesman "All of the points raised in this latest report have been addressed in the detailed macroeconomic framework put forward by the Fiscal Commission Working Group, and accepted by the Scottish Government. As part of a formal monetary union banks would be assessed against consistent regulatory standards, and there would be harmonised deposit protection."

I believe that translates to "The Bank of England will bail us out"

[eFestivals]

Alex Salmond, 7 April 2007 (from an article in the Times)

"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation."

A summary of (mega right-wing tory nutter) John Redwood's views from 2007:-

A vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

[eFestivals]

A Scottish Government spokesman "All of the points raised in this latest report have been addressed in the detailed macroeconomic framework put forward by the Fiscal Commission Working Group, and accepted by the Scottish Government. As part of a formal monetary union banks would be assessed against consistent regulatory standards, and there would be harmonised deposit protection."

I believe that translates to "The Bank of England will bail us out"

It does.

But apparently, there's not one good thing about the union.

[russycarps]

I disagree. It depends on what you use as the measure.

The problem I'm seeing with the Scottish referendum is that nearly every tape measure in Scotland seems to have been marked up incorrectly, with the numbers scattered all over the place and only the favourite numbers seemingly getting noticed.

If they were voting for a Venezuelan style left wing revolution (for example) then none of the figures would matter a jot, and I'd say go for it and be green with envy.

But all they are voting for is exactly the same type of right of centre politicians that they have now, and all the evidence points to an overall position that is worse than now, on almost any measure you care to pick, apart from an emotional measure.

That's why people think they are crackers, I think.

[LJS]

If they were voting for a Venezuelan style left wing revolution (for example) then none of the figures would matter a jot, and I'd say go for it and be green with envy.

But all they are voting for is exactly the same type of right of centre politicians that they have now, and all the evidence points to an overall position that is worse than now, on almost any measure you care to pick, apart from an emotional measure.

That's why people think they are crackers, I think.

Thanks for clarifying for me what I'm voting for. I have stated previously why I hope (yes hope - nothing is certain) we may see something closer to a genuine left wing option in an independent Scotland.

You may think i'm over optimistic.

I reserve the right to hope for better.

I certainly find it harder to imagine it happening in Westminster.

[Stash]

I reserve the right to hope for better.

Why would you expect a seismic change in political views post secession? Are all the right wing voters going to leave the country?

Surely the iScotland political map will end up being redrawn with new parties or alliances, probably all fighting over the centre ground.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for clarifying for me what I'm voting for.

but what about the fact that most others are not, they're instead voting to have jam delivered to their doorstep, as promised by Alex?

Don't you think it would be far better if the vote was won because the people of Scotland wanted independence, rather than a false promise of a guaranteed better economic tomorrow?

What do you think might happen when that jam fails to get delivered? Do you think there will be the same just-about-a-majority (at best, if the vote is won) in support of independence after independence?

Or might, instead, support for independence crumble because of undelivered promises, and Scotland will end up with the same "anti-democratic" that it claims as the reason for wanting to dump Westminster?

Unlike with Westminster, there's no future vote to reverse the decision in this vote, and then Scotland might never again get the anything politically that represents the views of the country.

The thing with democracy is that democracy is always the result of the majority of the population, and iScotland will be forever denying itself the possibility of having that one one of the possible basis' that it might choose.

[eFestivals]

To use a Neilism...

They think they are getting Jam when in reality they are getting Marmite!

Why don't you do the same as the yes campaign and make it up? Oh, hang on...

They believe they're getting jam, but no one really knows if they are.

You certainly can't work from what Alex says as always being good for Scotland, cos if Scotland had become independent 10 years ago, Scotland would now be the biggest bankrupt in the world ever.

There's no getting away from the fact that it's quite possible for iScotland to fuck up much worse than Westminster has ever managed, but without having the resources of Westminster to ride thru the crisis.

[eFestivals]

I've just been mulling over some "what if"'s.

If Salmond had had dream fulfilment from sometime around the late 1990's, here's how things would very probably have gone.....

An independent Scotland would have joined the Euro, because Sterling was "a millstone around Scotland's neck".

Back then, it would have stood a decent chance of being able to hang onto it's financial centre, all within the country .... meaning its banking sector would be a far greater potential liability than it is today (because the assets were worth more, and since 2008 RBS has sold loads of assets).

And Salmond would have shouted "freedom" - for the bankers - because he did, to the right of tory nuLabour, with Salmond mimicking the English tories.

So the Scottish banks would have got themselves into even deeper shit than they did do.

And then it would have gone tits-up in 2008. How would that have gone?

Well, think of the austerity of Greece combined with the savings robbery in Cyprus, and I reckon you just about have it.

There's an interesting more-hypothetical which can logically and reasonably follow that, but it'll blow your mind and have me stupidly labelled project fear (just for daring to consider all possibilities )), so I ain't going to go there. But it ain't good.

Edited April 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

If they were voting for a Venezuelan style left wing revolution

Is it possible to vote for a revolution ?

To answer Stash's question about whether its possible to be a nationalist and an internationalist, trying reading "Frank Aiken:Nationalist & Internationalist" a biography of one of the Republic of Ireland's founding fathers. http://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frank-aiken-nationalist-and-internationalist/

[russycarps]

Is it possible to vote for a revolution ?

Well how do you think Chávez got in to power?

[LJS]

I can't remember who it was that posted here about the Standard and Poor report which (paraphrased) said "Scotland is a developed economy like other developed economies" (no shit sherlock ) which had the SNP and yes supporters in raptures of delight, but I'm pretty sure someone did.

Does that person have any comment to make on the latest S&P report on iScotland?

The one that says iScotland with currency union will be held hostage by its banks far more than the UK ever has been.

The one that says iScotland will, in reality, have to dump its financial sector including tens of thousands of jobs - and the 12% of tax revenue it generates (rUK says thanks, btw ).

The one that says iScotland will be a better bet without that currency union?

I am no economist, so here's what one (PROFESSOR ANDREW HUGHES-HALLETT: Professor of Economics, University of St Andrew’s) says:

The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of the RBS and Scotland 10%. And the precedent for this, if you want to go into the details, are the Fortis Bank and the Dexia Bank, which are two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

I might point out that it’s also… it’s not just the UK Government, but the US government, in the form of the Federal Reserve, bailed out on liquidity basis both RBS and HBOS. I think it was about $200 billon for HBOS and about $400 billion for RBS. That’s another example of international sharing.

The reason the figures given are not precise is that the quote is a transcript from a radio programme (on BBC Radio Scotland) in 2011

I quote it not because I believe it is necessarily 100% true (I have no idea, I am not an economist nor an expert in International banking law & precedent) I am simply demonstrating there are other informed opinions available on this as in everything in the debate.

In practice is anyone seriously saying it is not in the interests of rUK to be involved in underwriting the UK banks who happen to have their HQ's in Scotland. 80-90% of their staff are in rUK & will pay tax to rUK. Equally 80-90% of their customers will be in rUK.

On the other hand it may never arise as BT say they will all flee to London.

On a serious not, the reason they need the level of support is because of the Credit/Crunch/bank crash/recession/whatever. A large part of the responsibility for that lies with successive Westminster Governments who, didn't just fail to regulate the banks, but actually reduced the level of regulation.

You have, terribly cleverly quoted Alex Salmond's enthusiasm for deregulation. Sadly he was far from alone. Tell me who was opposing it? Apparently the Tories wanted even more

in 2007, Cameron endorsed LESS regulation of banks and specifically mortgage and pension provisions by financial institutions.

The point is no one blew the whistle, but the people responsible for it were successive Westminster Governments. They contributed to the problem. they should continue to contribute to the solution.

As ever it will all be part of the negotiations post referendum & yet another area where, once the rhetoric has died down, the interests of iSc & rUK will be the same.

Edited April 24, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Why would you expect a seismic change in political views post secession? Are all the right wing voters going to leave the country?

Surely the iScotland political map will end up being redrawn with new parties or alliances, probably all fighting over the centre ground.

I think I would use the word hope rather than expect. & i'm not sure I would use the word seismic.

I've spoken of this ... here's what I said

It seems to me the Labour Party has moved so far to the right that they can no longer command my support. The notion that in an independent Scotland Scottish Labour, freed from the need to appease English Daily Mail readers. might just rediscover its Socialist roots is not too far- fetched.

and

In my lifetime, the political balance has shifted massively to the right & I have hung on for years waiting for it to change. From my viewpoint, that change is very unlikely to happen in the UK. It might happen in Scotland. No guarantee. But maybe just maybe.

What if I thought that change was achievable in the UK? It's a hypothetical question but it would certainly increase the chances of me voting No

as regards why it might not just be a fight for the centre ground...

Well, of course, one of the limitations of democracy is that you can only choose from what is put in front. For most of the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament there has not been a credible left wing option. For a brief time it appeared the Scottish Socialist Party appeared to offer that and indeed won 6 seats in the 2003 election. They were however too dependent on Tommy Sheridan & when he crashed & burned so did they. I don't know what happened that year but we also got 7 Green MSP's.

[LJS]

You are being incredibly naive,,,

Hi Barry

You might be right. Glass half full sort of guy I am (turning into Yoda too)

And although I find that half full glass somehow keeps emptying, I just fill it up again & then it's half full again.

Shit it's empty (hic) again