The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Sorry but that article is fucking awful

I have to agree. It might as well have finished the article with the 2nd sentence.

[Buff124]

Can I ask why you think a foreign state has to fund Scotland's sovereign choice?

Morning

I'm simply pointing out what could be perceived as HM Government's public position. I'm not judging it, am I ?

[eFestivals]

marks out of 10 please for rising above petty politics & entering into the spirit of the question.

It's a shame that your glorious Alex can't manage that.

He says there's nothing that comes from the unionist side that's worthy of any debate, because it's all "bluster", that is simply dismissed with that one word (or the alternative, "bullying").

[eFestivals]

I'm simply pointing out what could be perceived as HM Government's public position. I'm not judging it, am I ?

You're suggesting that rUK should fund a foreign country.

So yes, you're judging rUK as evil if it chooses not to fund that foreign country.

You seem to have missed what independence is all about somewhere along the line of that sophisticated yes campaign.

[Buff124]

You're also omitting the context somewhat.

HM Govt is saying if Scotland votes to re-imagine the relationship* between it and the other countries within the United Kingdom, then in the event of a Yes vote (caveats) the rest of the Union will not be particularly sympathetic.

Vote Yes and we'll try happily see you struggle. Nice. Couldn't possibly be perceived as an intimidatory

*assuming the Scot Govt White Paper amounts to Devo Max, and a close No vote leads to Devo More in short order.

[Buff124]

"Devolution should not simply be about handing over more powers to devolved governments. It is about improving how devolution works, but even more importantly about improving social outcomes across the UK. This can produce benefits for all; it is about a win-win game not ‘making concessions’*. It is also for all devolved governments; what we propose would be as applicable in Wales and Northern Ireland as in Scotland. " Alan Trench, IPPR

*my emphasis

[Buff124]

"Further acknowledgement of UK's multinational nature with the decision that Cornish people recognised as a national minority within UK" Alan Trench, IPPR

Edited May 4, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

Vote Yes and we'll try happily see you struggle. Nice. Couldn't possibly be perceived as an intimidatory

Oh FFS.

one of the few bits of substance of the yes campaign is "iScotland plans to steal rUK's tax base". That's Scotland's own attempt at making rUK struggle; it's hardly an act of friendship, is it?

Secondly, Scotland will be voting yes on the basis that "everything of Scotland's is only for Scotland". That's not very sharey, is it?

The union is about everything going into the pot and being shared out on (an idea of) what is fair. The implementation of that idea might be a long way from perfect in some people's eyes, but it's very definitely about sharing. A sharing idea that Scotland will have voted to remove itself from, to put itself first.

And thirdly, iScotland ceases to be the responsibility of rUK. The rUK will be busy looking after its own, exactly as iScotland plans to look after its own.

If you don't want these things, don't vote for them.

Don't be so foolish as to think that you are choosing to keep all the good bits of the UK when you're voting to leave the UK (even tho that's what the white paper says you'll be able to do).

If you're happy to lose the support that the union is able to give Scotland on a share-y basis, then you have nothing to fear from voting yes.

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

If the people of Scotland had wanted a devolution referendum, then they should have voted for a party that wanted that.

What ?

So which party promised a 'devolution referendum' as part of its manifesto for the 2011 election ? Who should Scots have voted for ?

Apart from anything else, a referendum is not required in order to transfer reserved powers from Westminster to any of the three devolved administrations. Devolution is a process not an event.

[Buff124]

Oh FFS.

one of the few bits of substance of the yes campaign is "iScotland plans to steal rUK's tax base". That's Scotland's own attempt at making rUK struggle; it's hardly an act of friendship, is it?

Ah, the old "But You Started It First" argument. Wondered when that would get rolled out.

Its called Whataboutery up here.

[eFestivals]

So which party promised a 'devolution referendum' as part of its manifesto for the 2011 election ? Who should Scots have voted for ?

I've no idea if there was a party offering that, but seeing as you have a PR system there's no reason why you shouldn't have had a party offering that - particularly if it's somethibng that people in Scotlamnd want so much.

If Scotland has such a great democracy and will do as an independent state, yet wants devolution more-so than independence, there seems to be a big mismatch in your views.

The *fact* is that you voted a party into majority which had as it's main policy a vote on (only) independence.

So who doesn't respect democracy? It seems like Westminster has the better respect for democracy here.

Apart from anything else, a referendum is not required in order to transfer reserved powers from Westminster to any of the three devolved administrations. Devolution is a process not an event.

However, you did hold a referendum on the first lot of powers, powers that included tax raising powers. Powers that could address the social issues in Scotland, that havwen't been used to address the social issues in Scotland.

That might be a clue for how the social issues in Scotland will be addressed post-independence.

But you keep telling yourself that the bankster-loving Alex who wanted extreme-tory bank deregulation will bring about a glorious socialist Scotland (where he's got the support on the basis of greed - it's all Scotland's).

[eFestivals]

Ah, the old "But You Started It First" argument. Wondered when that would get rolled out.

Its called Whataboutery up here.

PMSL. It's called gross stupidity here.

The very nature of sovereign states put them in competition with each other. Why the fuck do you think Scotland and England were continually scrapping until there was union?

That's not me suggesting that we'll physical-fight in today's world. In today's world we'll *BOTH* use today's tactics.

For iScotland that's trying to survive by stealing the UK's tax base. This is fully declared and 0out in the open.

rUK has less need to consciously do anything similar to iScotland (just by the fact of being a bigger and more successful state), but no doubt there'll be nuggets of something that rUK will chip off iScotland.

That's how it works, and in the much-changed situation of an iScotland and rUK, there'll be plenty of power vacuums for the power-crazed to cash in on, on both sides of the border and across the border in each direction.

Meanwhile, rUK tax-payers money isn't going to be chucked over the border at Alex's request. I think it's very VERY important that every yes voter understands that; it's not being nasty, it's exactly as iScotland will be wanting by voting yes.

[Buff124]

PMSL. It's called gross stupidity here.

The very nature of sovereign states put them in competition with each other. Why the fuck do you think Scotland and England were continually scrapping until there was union?

Meanwhile, rUK tax-payers money isn't going to be chucked over the border at Alex's request. I think it's very VERY important that every yes voter understands that; it's not being nasty, it's exactly as iScotland will be wanting by voting yes.

22 November 2010

Chancellor George Osborne has told MPs it is in the UK interest to join a rescue package for the Irish economy - including a direct bilateral loan.

He said the Republic of Ireland was a "friend in need", a major trading partner with a banking sector closely linked to the UK's.

Although earlier reports put the loan amount at £7bn, the chancellor said talks were still continuing, although the figure was "in the billions".

Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson said he supported assistance "in principle".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

Shome mishtake shurely ?

[eFestivals]

22 November 2010

Chancellor George Osborne has told MPs it is in the UK interest to join a rescue package for the Irish economy - including a direct bilateral loan.

He said the Republic of Ireland was a "friend in need", a major trading partner with a banking sector closely linked to the UK's.

Although earlier reports put the loan amount at £7bn, the chancellor said talks were still continuing, although the figure was "in the billions".

Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson said he supported assistance "in principle".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

Shome mishtake shurely ?

It was *LENT* to Ireland at an interest rate higher than the BoE charges the British govt for the creation of that money (and so profitable for the UK), and done because the UK wanted to.

And not done merely because the Irish leader asked.

Ultimately it was done to protect British workers jobs, because the such-severe downturn they'd have otherwise have been in Ireland would have been a major and instant shock to the UK's economy.

I'm sure we'd lend to an iScotland on a similar basis in similar circumstances - but not because it's good for iScotland, instead because it's good for rUK. Exactly as was the case with Ireland.

However, would we bail out the result of an iScotland screwing up its budgets (if it did), via (say) too much welfare spending? Nope, we'd say "manage your on budgets better" - no differently to what I'd expect towards the UK from any foreign state.

And so, if iScotland fucked up its budgets (say because the oil price crashed; it could happen), iScotland would have to slash its spending. It would have to take responsibility for itself.

If you think that's nasty of rUK, you've misunderstood what you'd be voting yes for.

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But it's interesting to see yes voters considering what the fall-back position might be, how their bad choice should be paid for by others, and it's nasty of those others if they don't.

Next up you'll be just-checking that you'll keep your UK citizenship, so you have a sanctuary if it all goes wrong (something I've already seen many yes-ers do ).

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

It was *LENT* to Ireland at an interest rate higher than the BoE charges the British govt for the creation of that money (and so profitable for the UK),

No it wasn't. Caught bullshitting,

Here's the excerpt from the agreement.

The rate of interest on each Loan is the percentage rate per annum equal to the aggregate of:

(i) the Service Fee (0.18%); and

(ii) a percentage rate equal to the Gross Redemption Yield on all United Kingdom Debt Management Office gilt issuances

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220641/int_loan_to_ireland_amendment_041012.pdf

[LJS]

Buff,

Good morning

I admire your patience

[eFestivals]

No it wasn't. Caught bullshitting,

My apologies for believing the technicalities were different to what I exactly said.

The two relevant points remain:-

1. it is/was a loan.

2. interest is paid on the loan, from which the UK govt makes a profit.

And your point was what?

I'm sure that iScotland will find that London has plenty of bankers who are happy to profit from lending iScotland money. Has that ever been in doubt?

[Buff124]

And your point was what?

I think my point was HM Govt describing RoI as a friend , yet hinting to people in Scotland that if they vote the wrong way then they are deffo off the Xmas card list. Its pretend nastiness. It lacks credibility.

My other point is that you do try and wing it a bit sometimes. It shows up in the lack of understanding of Devolution, i.e. its not something Scotland needs to ask for - the process has been in operation in Scotland for the past 15 years. During those 15 years, there's only been one direction of travel.

Try looking at a map of the British Isles upside down. Then imagine you lived in the bottom right hand corner of the map. Look how far you are from the capital. Devolution is as much about acknowledging geographical realities as societal ones.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

My other point is that you do try and wing it a bit sometimes.

I appreciate that you've had no real need to be au fait with current affairs in Scotland over the past 15 years.

[eFestivals]

I think my point was HM Govt describing RoI as a friend , yet hinting to people in Scotland that if they vote the wrong way then they are deffo off the Xmas card list. Its pretend nastiness. It lacks credibility.

Firstly you need to find one definition of what's nasty, and then stick to it.

It's one thing to loan money on a (mostly) commercial basis, it's another thing entirely to expect it given to iScotland just because it's iScotland. Independence is about making your own way, not expecting all of the same things in a majorly changed situation.

My other point is that you do try and wing it a bit sometimes. It shows up in the lack of understanding of Devolution, i.e. its not something Scotland needs to ask for - the process has been in operation in Scotland for the past 15 years. During those 15 years, there's only been one direction of travel.

Yep, tho Salmond keeps forgetting to use the powers he already has. Why is that?

The point is that this referendum is about independence, the independence referendum which was the major policy platform of the party Scotland voted into majority power.

What's to complain about with that in a democracy?

It's *exactly* what you voted for. You know, like independence will be *exactly* what you voted for.

You can't turn around afterwards and say "we didn't really mean it".

Try looking at a map of the British Isles upside down. Then imagine you lived in the bottom right hand corner of the map. Look how far you are from the capital. Devolution is as much about acknowledging geographical realities as societal ones.

One of the island groups (I forget which is which, soz) is further away from Edinburgh and Glasgow than those cities are from London, and has never voted SNP.

Will you be exceedingly happy to apply the same logic to them if they don't like Salmond's dream, or might you yes-ers suddenly become all project-fear-like, because iScotland is financially fucked if it happened?

At the end of the day, the whole "we should have independence" thing only ever works if you believe Scotland is a nation that should be independent in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong*, but it does mean it can't be logically justified - everything about it is about an imaginary line on the ground that you're choosing to make the most important factor.

(* it can be emotionally justified, but after 30+ years of well-aimed propaganda there'd be something very wrong if it couldn't).

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I appreciate that you've had no real need to be au fait with current affairs in Scotland over the past 15 years.

Absolutely true, tho less of it has passed me by than is the case for many Scotsmen whose words I've read.

What I do always hear, constantly, is how it's "Westminster" (which means "never the Scottish people") stopping anything of everything in Scotland.

And yet it's hardly like every public position in Scotland is staffed purely by English imports, is it?

Do I think that will change after independence? Nope. Another national myth will be cooked up, about how iScotland was shafted by Westminster/the English at the point of separation, and that is why iScotland has not lived up to the pre-independence promises.

That's what you get from nationalists.

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

At the end of the day, the whole "we should have independence" thing only ever works if you believe Scotland is a nation that should be independent in the first place.

The argument seems to have revolved around to defining independence again.

Interdependence, Globalised society, EU, UN, etc

[eFestivals]

Interdependence, Globalised society, EU,

NATO too.

Those are things you get via making mutually beneficial agreements, and not by any sovereign right.

I don't think many have grasped that part of the independence question.

Edited May 4, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

One of the island groups (I forget which is which, soz) is further away from Edinburgh and Glasgow than those cities are from London, and has never voted SNP.

Will you be exceedingly happy to apply the same logic to them if they don't like Salmond's dream, or might you yes-ers suddenly become all project-fear-like, because iScotland is financially fucked if it happened?

Its the Shetland Isles. You do know they have their own 1/4 billion pound oil fund ?

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/who-we-are

You'll also doubtless be aware of the "Lerwick Declaration"

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Lerwick-Declaration-2a7.aspx