The Dirty Independence Question

[Kyelo]

Looks like Cameron is going down the softly, softly route for now...trying to play on the heart strings(much like Salmond does from the opposite direction!)...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17052800

[kaosmark2]

Looks like Cameron is going down the softly, softly route for now...trying to play on the heart strings(much like Salmond does from the opposite direction!)...http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-17052800

I think it'd be a stupid mistake for all concerned, but that's a pretty pitiful way to try and make your point. "It'd be deeply deeply sad"....

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I think it'd be a stupid mistake for all concerned, but that's a pretty pitiful way to try and make your point. "It'd be deeply deeply sad"....

I just feel sad about it full stop. Sad that I think that we are missing out an opportunity for the UK to redefine itself. Many of the grumbles the Nationalists have are shared by people south of the border.

[kaosmark2]

I just feel sad about it full stop. Sad that I think that we are missing out an opportunity for the UK to redefine itself. Many of the grumbles the Nationalists have are shared by people south of the border.

Redefine itself as what?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Redefine itself as what?

Its place on the world stage really. We are approaching a time in our history when there will be no one alive that remembers the "Empire". It is that cultural memory that has us keeping ridiculous defence and foreign policies or as the politicians said in the election "punching above our weight". Is this an opportunity to get rid of Trident or rethink our place on the Security Council.

[kaosmark2]

Its place on the world stage really. We are approaching a time in our history when there will be no one alive that remembers the "Empire". It is that cultural memory that has us keeping ridiculous defence and foreign policies or as the politicians said in the election "punching above our weight". Is this an opportunity to get rid of Trident or rethink our place on the Security Council.

Ah. I get you.

Yeah, sadly not....

[treacle]

I have read many news articles about the independance question but none have touched me more than this from Ian Hamilton QC

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4354-soon-i-will-be-dead-but-oh-to-be-alive-at-this-moment-in-scotland

I know which way I will be voting and will be actively campaigning for the YES vote on the streets of Dumfries

Can i suggest The McCrone Report for a bit of light reading for anyong who needs a starting point to help them understand why some of us feel so passionate about the subject.

[kaosmark2]

If the split ever comes... I wonder which side of the line people will want to be on...

Depends on the negotiations doesn't it?

If Scotland get all the oil and none of the debt like Salmond thinks they will, people will want to be in Scotland.

But unless they do get some such ridiculous deal, England.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It would be good to see what public services would have to be relocated from Scotland. Obviously there is the military but apart from that I can only think of the the Student Loans Company. How many people do they employ? I know that many jobs will be created for some agencies like Tax Credits and Child Benefit but I wonder what the aggregate score will be. To be honest I can see many areas voting No purely based on employment. Is it 4000 work at the naval yard and that was due to increase to 5000 when all the subs move there.

[kaosmark2]

If your a business owner in the North of England then the attraction of moving a couple of miles more North to gain from cheaper corporation tax yet being close enough to trade with England could be a very interesting situation...

Then also free prescriptions, free uni for the kids etc etc

But Scotland wouldn't be able to fund such benefits unless they got the 90% oil/9% debt Salmond wants.

[kaosmark2]

They probably will...

Either way the cut in corporation tax is a certain move I would imagine....

How on earth would they?

[kaosmark2]

Which bit you referring to .

When you said 'they probably will' what did you mean? Did you mean they'll probably find a way to fund the benefits, or probably find a way to get 90% oil/9% debt?

Either way I can't see how.

[treacle]

The oil has already been decided by geography.

The debt is divided by population and if not 9% will be very close to it.

[treacle]

Royal Bank of SCOTLAND... Scotland should take more... Otherwise oil should be split on similar basis...

It's a plc.

Personally i would have let all the banks go under but that's another arguement.

[eFestivals]

It's a plc.

It's a plc with it's head office in Scotland, and with a name that an independent Scottish govt is going to want.

And that aside, if Scotland is not having its own stock exchange it's about as independent as a free-school which has to go begging to the govt for its funds.

So around the likes of RBS there's some big decisions that independent Scotland is going to have to make, and independent Scotland might not even be in the position to make its own decisions because it runs the risk of being severely shafted by the rump-UK.

Or is this another of these fantasy Salmond things where Scotland gets all the good side and none of the bad side, just as Salmond thinks he can spend the oil money and create a sovereign fund with it?

[treacle]

That is exactly what we will do Neil.

Why would we need the name of RBS?

[eFestivals]

That is exactly what we will do Neil.

what, have your cake AND eat it?

Why would we need the name of RBS?

the driver behind the whole independence thing is nationalism. That same nationalism will want ownership of something with the national name, otherwise it gets exposed as something different and far less noble and principled.

By ownership I'm not necessarsarily meaning the govt owning it, but if the rump-UK holds the ultimate power over RBS via it's London listing then that's not going to work for the likes of Salmond.

[Kyelo]

what, have your cake AND eat it?

the driver behind the whole independence thing is nationalism. That same nationalism will want ownership of something with the national name, otherwise it gets exposed as something different and far less noble and principled.

By ownership I'm not necessarsarily meaning the govt owning it, but if the rump-UK holds the ultimate power over RBS via it's London listing then that's not going to work for the likes of Salmond.

Or Salmond could just use the nostalgia around the name and brand for his ends while leaving it's problems in London? I don't think Salmond would want it but rather have it forced upon him by Cameron.

[eFestivals]

Or Salmond could just use the nostalgia around the name and brand for his ends while leaving it's problems in London? I don't think Salmond would want it but rather have it forced upon him by Cameron.

Oh, it might be forced on Scotland. And actually, I think it should be.

It's probably the case that one of the drivers behind saving it was as a sopp to Scotland. It's not traditionally one of the UK big banks (although I know it's recently-ish got much larger than it was), and if it wasn't for the Scotland in its name and how it being allowed to fail would be viewed north of the border when London banks were being saved I reckon it wouldn't have been saved. Plenty of banks within England were allowed to die, so why not RBS too?

But mainly I think that because its corporate headquarters are in Scotland and it's a Scottish company in every respect except its shareholding (but that's no different to any firm that's considered Scottish, English, or anything else), it should be Scotland's. Because if it's not dealt with in that way, the rump-UK taxpayer is left holding shares that is only to Scotland's benefit (via corp tax) while Scotland has the ability to make that shareholding almost worthless (tho that worthless bit can be worked the other way too).

It seems pretty clear from yours & treacle's posts that Scotland having RBS with it's liabilities isn't a popular idea in Scotland - and surely that's because you see it as a bad thing to have and not a good thing? Which of course gets to mean that Scotland wants England to have the shit and Scotland only have the good bits. ....

That's not what independence is about. Independence means being independent, not leeching off others when it suits you.

[kaosmark2]

That's not what independence is about. Independence means being independent, not leeching off others when it suits you.

This.

And I don't see any winners from any split. If one out-succeeds the other then they'll be resentment and nationalist hatred rather than banter.

[Donkey]

Let's remember that the Union was brought about solely as a response by the Scottish nobility to the Darien disaster. The Union will outlive it's usefulness and at some point in the future Scotland will be free again.

The WMD will leave Argyll, Scots lads will no longer be sent to die in NWO resource grabs and we will be left to deal with our problems on our own, but the smoking ban of 2006 gives me hope we are going the right direction.

All this RBS, debt, oil rights stuff. It's all w*nkery. Independence will happen at some point.

[kaosmark2]

Let's remember that the Union was brought about solely as a response by the Scottish nobility to the Darien disaster. The Union will outlive it's usefulness and at some point in the future Scotland will be free again.

The WMD will leave Argyll, Scots lads will no longer be sent to die in NWO resource grabs and we will be left to deal with our problems on our own, but the smoking ban of 2006 gives me hope we are going the right direction.

All this RBS, debt, oil rights stuff. It's all w*nkery. Independence will happen at some point.

Free?

Scotland isn't exactly an oppressed subservient nation.... It gets more govt spending per capita than anywhere else in the UK...

And English people get fed up of WMDs. English people don't want to be sent off to die abroad. Scottish soldiers are as much volunteers, and as much abused as English ones. No more, no less.

[eFestivals]

Let's remember that the Union was brought about solely as a response by the Scottish nobility to the Darien disaster. The Union will outlive it's usefulness and at some point in the future Scotland will be free again.

The WMD will leave Argyll, Scots lads will no longer be sent to die in NWO resource grabs and we will be left to deal with our problems on our own, but the smoking ban of 2006 gives me hope we are going the right direction.

All this RBS, debt, oil rights stuff. It's all w*nkery. Independence will happen at some point.

The Darien disaster ruined Scotland. If Scotland had been independent a few years ago then RBS would have done the same.

Anyway, if Scotland doesn't want its Scottish bank then the answer is pretty easy. It gets renamed The English Royal Bank (or something) and its corporate headquarters moves into England so that Scotland cannot benefit from the employment it offers and can't steal the corporation tax from an English-govt-owned bank. That would be perfectly fair.

Now, why do I get the feeling that those in Scotland who don't want their bank would find that fair solution no more palatable?

Edited February 23, 2012 by eFestivals

[Paul ™]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/business-17128477?psdata=11_3_8_4_9_10__CD11__CK12_14_15_

[Kyelo]

It seems pretty clear from yours & treacle's posts that Scotland having RBS with it's liabilities isn't a popular idea in Scotland - and surely that's because you see it as a bad thing to have and not a good thing? Which of course gets to mean that Scotland wants England to have the shit and Scotland only have the good bits. ....

No, no I'm meaning I can't see why Salmond/SNP would want it politically as you were implying.