The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Thing is, there's negotiating positions, and then there's negotiating positions. When the "negotiation" is actually attempted blackmail, that's not negotiation; it's offensive, and shows an untrustworthy negotiating partner, and an untrustworthy partner for a CU. And particularly when it's all based within a very selective reading of a UK govt statement.

And then there's political reality, a reality that Salmond could recognise ten years ago (when he was getting everything else wrong) but pretends to be something else now.

When a nation starts its life playing the highest stakes brinkmanship it's got few places left to go, plus it's not going to attract the friends it needs. The 'Uk's best politician' is anything but.

At present there is no negotiation.

The difference pre & post is very straightforward - It is in the no campaign's interests (or so it has judged) to portray everything post independence as somewhere between disadvantageous to disastrous for iScotland. And they have certainly been doing that.

Post independence, again as I have already argued, I believe you will find that the interests of both parties are to reach agreement & many of the things that benefit Scotland will also benefit rUK. That's not to say the negotiations will be easy or without controversy. It certainly would be naive to believe that,

Despite my alleged hatred & distrust of everyone & everything south of Watford, I see absolutely no reason to believe rUK would enter into these negotiations with any intention of deliberately making things difficult. If the vote is Yes it is in everyone's interests to make it work. I'm quite sure an economic basket case next door would not be in rUK's interests.

[LJS]

oh well that's the end of this entire thread then. it was good while it lasted. i'm missing it already

[eFestivals]

ah so it's only "what if the vote had happened 10 years ago?" that has certainties

Why would it have more certainties than my" what if the vote had taken place 30 years ago?" which was my initial response to your "what if".

Anyway how you can have any certainties in a "what if?" i don't know

What if we both just agree to forget "what ifs?"

I'd rather not actually.

But only because the "what if" I presented is one with everything recent enough that most people can grasp the significance, and from that can see that an independent Scotland would be in massively weaker position than (very obviously) could happen to the UK as a whole.

It's a very good illustration of an advantage with things as they currently are, that counters the often stated "there's not a single thing which is good about the union". For all of the while there's people going around saying "there's not a single thing which is good about the union", you know those people who are helping decide your country's future are too poorly informed to be making a good decision.

[Buff124]

For all of the while there's people going around saying "there's not a single thing which is good about the union", you know those people who are helping decide your country's future are too poorly informed to be making a good decision.

[eFestivals]

I've just remembered, neither of you would answer my "what is a currency?" question.

Seeing as you're both in such a chatty mood, would you like to have a go?

Because that's central to whether or not iScotland has any 'right' to it as 'an asset' or not. It's the most central point of all negotiations.

[LJS]

now I suppose it would be remiss of me not to share my views on oil & "SNP lies"

Oil:

Yes the SNP estimates of oil are very optimistic it would appear. They are in my opinion the most extreme example on the Yes side of putting the most favourable spin on statistics to attempt to back up their case.

I'll talk more about honesty/dishonesty thing in a minute, but first I'd better explain why the likelihood that oil revenues in the first few years of an iScotland are likely to be significantly lower than estimated will not change my decision to vote Yes.

Firstly, I've already made it clear, I am not voting yes in the expectation of being financially better off. My view which remains unchanged is that, in the short term at least we might be a wee bit better off or we might be a wee bit worse off - I don't expect a huge difference.

Secondly, I don't think you will find I've said a great deal about oil in a future Scotland - I have made some observations about how it has been used in the past. I'm quite taken with the Green's views which, unsurprisingly are not wildly excited about us having some oil & would prefer us to look to our renewable strengths.

Thirdly, in my opinion, we will be "better off" as a society if we are a fairer society & there is less of a gap between the haves & the have nots.

Neil I'll save you the bother of replying to that ...

." massive tax cuts for the rich, race to the bottom, Rupert Murdoch,scraping the bottom of the jam jar etc etc"

Oh this post is long enough - i shall return to discuss my views on the " Lies of the NATS"

[LJS]

I've just remembered, neither of you would answer my "what is a currency?" question.

Seeing as you're both in such a chatty mood, would you like to have a go?

Because that's central to whether or not iScotland has any 'right' to it as 'an asset' or not. It's the most central point of all negotiations.

It's what you buy your beer with.

I presume you some fancy economic definition in mind - and I can find that with some help from Google - i'll save myself some search & stick with the beer thing. you will no doubt say what you want to say.

I will however tell you that I don't really see why the SNP have staked so much on the currency union thing. I can only assume they feared that the Scots would be so terrified by the scare stories of Losing the Pound that they decided it was worth the obvious risks of putting all your eggs in the Poundland Basket. For me & millions of people in both countries life would certainly be easier if we kept the pound. It would also benefit businesses on both sides of the border as well, .It would come at an inevitable price in terms of reduced fiscal autonomy, but it's not a deal breaker for me. It would be astonishing if iScotland was the only country in the world with no viable currency option.

Incidentally, it does look as if I may been wrong in my assessment that it was not a wise policy position from the SNP, as every time a better together spokesman stressed with more & more vehemence that a Currency Union would never ever ever happen, it seemed to add to the Yes vote. Perhaps that is why things have been a bit quieter on that front in the last few days.

It may all change ... who knows?

[LJS]

Yeah, i've thought of this a few times in the course of this debate

[LJS]

i don't see this in the festival listings

http://www.bannockburnlive.com/?gclid=CP3Buf-o_L0CFZShtAodQysAvw

[Buff124]

I'd much rather they didn't cast a vote based on lies or having been misled.

You don't seem to be too bothered about the UK government lying to you wrt several aspects of this whole referendum thingy ?

[LJS]

You don't seem to be too bothered about the UK government lying to you wrt several aspects of this whole referendum thingy ?

I occasionally get a wee bit of respect here for my stance - because I am voting yes on principle, not for financial gain but in the hope of a better & fairer society.

Here is no 3 in an increasingly pointless series of "what ifs"

What if instead of the 600 + page white paper Alex Salmond had said

"I believe we should govern ourselves. I can't promise you anything but if you vote yes I promise I will do everything in my power to deliver a Scotland that is fairer & better, where we look after those unable to look after themselves, where we seek to act as a power for good in the world"

How would the No campaign respond? Would it be something like this?

" we welcome Alex's principled appeal for independence for Scotland. We don't doubt his sincerity but we believe Scotland is better in the UK & will demonstrate that by telling you about all the good things the Union has done & will do.

Aye Right!!!

Edited April 25, 2014 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

But anyway, now i've stopped laughing, it's good that it is being pointed out - because that's going to start to bring some people back down to earth, and then there's a chance they'll make their decisions with better knowledge.

I don't particularly mind which way people choose to vote (it's not like it's going to impact meaningfully on me), but I'd much rather they didn't cast a vote based on lies or having been misled.

I`m glad Scotland is providing you with some amusement but you rattle on a bit about the " lies ".

In my opinion politicians talk shit and no matter what side they are on they are focused on " winning ". It`s the business they are in as you know. IF.... we had some folks certain on voting NO but due to " lies "from King Alex of Salmond they changed their mind and then voted YES, then I would be more than happy to agree with you that the people of Scotland were being conned and their YES vote was 100% based on SNP " lies "

BUT... meanwhile back in the real debate there is probably nobody who has went from a concrete NO to a YES due to anything Alex Salmond has said. In reality its not about a corporation tax con to win votes or anything to do with jam. It`s about the very long term future of a country who could perhaps do better if we were in 100% control of our destiny. It`s surely a decision we are entitled to make.

[Comfy Bean]

[Buff124]

Quick comments in reply to the 'What is A Currency' riddle that pops up here now and again. I read that Guardian article too. It caused a right old furore didn't it ? Not.

While I'm on.... not entirely sure about the idea of an iScotland (or indeed any country) being 100% in control of its destiny. Not sure if any country could be described as having a destiny either, come to think of it.....

....and my contender for today's theme tune comes from Sam the Sham

Edited April 26, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

Quick comments in reply to the 'What is A Currency' riddle that pops up here now and again. I read that Guardian article too. It caused a right old furore didn't it ? Not.

While I'm on.... not entirely sure about the idea of an iScotland (or indeed any country) being 100% in control of its destiny. Not sure if any country could be described as having a destiny either, come to think of it.....

....and my contender for today's theme tune comes from Sam the Sham

excellent Buff, you haev got my day off to a perfect start

here is my nomination, I decided to go for a Scottish band... & a damn fine one if I may say so

http://youtu.be/YDBoYglsM3o

NO! because I'm not old enough

NO! because I've been told enough

NO! because I should listen to my pa

[eFestivals]

I presume you some fancy economic definition in mind

Nope, a very practical definition. The thing which gives it its value; how people to trust it to have a value.

I will however tell you that I don't really see why the SNP have staked so much on the currency union thing. I can only assume they feared that the Scots would be so terrified by the scare stories of Losing the Pound that they decided it was worth the obvious risks of putting all your eggs in the Poundland Basket.

that's my guess too - as part of the pretence that an iScotland would be absolutely nothing different to what currently exists, apart from richer and more democratic.

For me & millions of people in both countries life would certainly be easier if we kept the pound.

at a very simple level, yes it would. But there's far more to it than such simplicity.

For example, rUK citizens wouldn't think life was easier with a shared pound if the iScottish Banks* went tits up and rUK citizens had to bail them out, and neither would iScotland citizens much like a tax hike or service cuts to fund a bail-out of rUK banks (in fact, I could easily see a big movement in Scotland to refuse to pay what you'd agreed to pay via having a CU).

(* whatever they might be, to avoid the circular RBS/Lloyds thing)

And then there's the fact that iScotland has already stated that it plans to use Sterling against the rUK's interests via a corp tax cut designed to steal the rUK's tax base. Why does anyone in Scotland think rUK citizens would be happy to agree to what would cause us to be taxed more heavily as individuals?

If CU were to happen, Scotland would have to agree to be little more independent than it is now. In fact, devo-max would give Scotland more freedom.

So then all the SNP's promises of a richer Scotland ARE out of the window, and what are you voting for? To be formally controlled and shackeed by the Westminster, worse than you are now.

It's a bit of a joke this independence thing, eh?

Incidentally, it does look as if I may been wrong in my assessment that it was not a wise policy position from the SNP, as every time a better together spokesman stressed with more & more vehemence that a Currency Union would never ever ever happen, it seemed to add to the Yes vote. Perhaps that is why things have been a bit quieter on that front in the last few days.

Either that, or some people are just too stupid to be making a decision of such scale, one or the other - because what people in Scotland (or England, come to that) think to be the case has no impact on what will actually be the case.

That's one hell of a gamble, eh?

It may all change ... who knows?

I think it probably will.

Yes have nothing left to offer. They can only keep restating "everything will be rosy and you'll be rich" and hope that more and more people are taken in by it. But there's so long left to run that the reality of nothing ever panning out that good is sure to hit home for many, I think (I'm not necessarily saying that reality will change minds).

So I reckon there'll be plenty who might reverse their decision in the next 5 months for one reason or another, tho whether the numbers doing so will be significant I'm less sure.

[eFestivals]

You don't seem to be too bothered about the UK government lying to you wrt several aspects of this whole referendum thingy ?

which? I'm not aware of any, but I'll be happy to hear some if you'd like to fill me in.

There's been plenty of "this is the scenario as I see it" stuff, but that's merely the other side to the white paper.

[eFestivals]

I`m glad Scotland is providing you with some amusement but you rattle on a bit about the " lies ".

In my opinion politicians talk shit and no matter what side they are on they are focused on " winning ".

absolutely, me too. I don't expect anything different from them in the main (there's a few individual exceptions). Which is why I've found it funny that Scotland has got so het-up by stuff like what Robertson said, when it was precisely what you'd expect.

The lies are a bit different tho. There's stuff like the oil estimates*, and then there's the pretence that the white paper is a "this is what will happen" document rather than a "this is the best-case scenario" document.

I accept that many have recognised things for what they are, but it's also clear that very many haven't.

And not a soul from the yes side speaks up and condemns the misleading of the Scottish people by some on the yes side. The victory, it seems, is more important than the truth.

That might be fair enough in a standard - and reversible - election, but it's a very poor basis on which to build a successful new nation.

* with the oil estimates, Alex has got very lucky. They now look less like massive whoppers than they did, but only because of some more recent industry estimates which went upwards (still not as high as Salmond claims tho).

Edited April 26, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Is Noam Chomsky a nationalist ? No, but he's in favour of Scottish independence, seeing it as part of the process of greater devolution throughout Europe. Do I qubble that its a quote from an interview with a Russian news agency ? Considering its Chomsky, no.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140424/189345058/INTERVIEW-Chomsky-Favors-Scottish-Independence.html

oh, and about whether the UK Government have been lying, I thought we had established that all politicians are habitual liars ?

Edited April 26, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

i don't see this in the festival listings

http://www.bannockburnlive.com/?gclid=CP3Buf-o_L0CFZShtAodQysAvw

perhaps they don't want it being publicised in England-land? They've certainly not bothered to tell us about it.

Mind you, I'm not sure why they'd have a problem with English websites, i hear there's one from Bath that's particular popular with yes-ers in Scotland.

Edited April 26, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Quick comments in reply to the 'What is A Currency' riddle that pops up here now and again. I read that Guardian article too. It caused a right old furore didn't it ? Not.

I've no idea what article you're referring to.

But I do have an idea why you won't ever address the currency question.

[eFestivals]

oh, and about whether the UK have been lying, I thought we had established that all politicians are habitual liars ?

We've got Alex on the hook for his lies (the oil estimates, if nothing else) and you claim them from UK politicians in response to that.

But no actual examples?

[Buff124]

We've got Alex on the hook for his lies (the oil estimates, if nothing else) and you claim them from UK politicians in response to that.

But no actual examples?

An example ?

UK Govt Minister George Osborne: There will not be a currency union

UK Govt Minister Philip Hammond: of course there will be a currency union.

I've no idea what article you're referring to.

But I do have an idea why you won't ever address the currency question.

This article, which you quoted from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

Why won't I address the currency question ? See Mr Hammond's comment above.

What is an interesting 'what if' - sorry LJS - is if there's a Yes vote, a currency union is agreed, then rUK votes to leave the EU. iScotland could not remain in a currency union with a non-EU country. Timescale for that would be 2018 or thereabouts ?

Edited April 26, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

perhaps they don't want it being publicised in England-land? They've certainly not bothered to tell us about it.

Mind you, I'm not sure why they'd have a problem with English websites, i hear there's one from Bath that's particular popular with yes-ers in Scotland.

Neil, you should come up ! i'll buy you a pint

Oh. wait a minute! I won't be there so you'll have to get your own

While we are on music, Neil, I am disappointed to see you have not selected your song for today. Come on, Join in the fun:)

[LJS]

Neil, you and I have discussed currency to death already.

In case any of you missed it, I'll summarise for you.

Neil thinks a currency Union is a Bad idea and has supplied plenty of reasons for this.

I think a currency Union should at least be considered and the orchestrated rejection of it by all three main parties strikes me as a campaigning strategy. I have given some reasons and examples why I think it should be considered.

Neil of course does not agree with my reasons.

To save Neil's weary fingers, I will confirm that at the start of our discussion i erroneously claimed the UK & Irish Republic had a currency union for about 50 years.

I have admitted my error. It has not altered my view. Neil kindly reminds me from time to time that I got something wrong.

So I shall not be saying much more about currency.