The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Let's hope you dont have to find out.

Setting up a new currency from scratch, you dont think this will cause a period of massive financial upheaval?!

Or are you suggesting the first act of independence will to impose a self-denying ordinance

I think setting up a new currency from scratch is probably the least likely outcome.

But of course independence will lead to a bit of an upheaval, financially & otherwise. It would be kind of disappointing if it didn't. Although, I would prefer the slightly less emotive word Change. Massive financial change.

The No campaigners love words like upheaval, they sound so wonderfully apocalyptic.

[LJS]

See if the official NO campaign organisation was called Equal Together, then we might have been getting somewhere.

Osbourne promotes Equal Together Campaign.

Hmmm, just doesn't sound right does it?

[russycarps]

The yes campaign talking about equality!

Oh my sides!

[LJS]

The yes campaign talking about equality!

Oh my sides!

Yup.

Why shouldn't we?

[LJS]

I know it's crazy idealism to believe we could do better than Westminster has in its relentless efforts to close the gap between rich and poor.

But no harm in dreaming, eh?

[russycarps]

Lowering tax rates for the super rich is closing the gap between rich and poor??

[Buff124]

Lowering tax rates for the super rich is closing the gap between rich and poor??

If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that increases inequality

What if the rich get richer and the poor get richer too ?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

Oh, silly me! I thought the vote was about independence.

Just checked the question...yeah you're right russy, my ballot paper will say "do you want to give a massive tax cut to the super rich?"

How could I have missed that?

[Buff124]

Osbourne promotes Equal Together Campaign.

Hmmm, just doesn't sound right does it?

How about "We're All In It Together" ?

[LJS]

If anyone needs help understanding the difference between a referendum & an election, just let me know.

I'll be more than happy to help.

[Buff124]

UK income inequality increased by 32% between 1960 and 2005. During the same period, it increased by 23% in the USA, and in Sweden decreased by 12%

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/our-publications/research-digest-2-income-inequality-trends-and-measures

iScotland would to have to go some to beat that performance ?

[LJS]

UK income inequality increased by 32% between 1960 and 2005. During the same period, it increased by 23% in the USA, and in Sweden decreased by 12%

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/our-publications/research-digest-2-income-inequality-trends-and-measures

iScotland would to have to go some to beat that performance ?

You are right.

I think we are sometimes guilty of overstating Scottish commitment to fairness & equality.

We are not a nation of saints. We are prone to greed & selfishness like the rest of the human race.

Perhaps the best way to express it would be to say we are less tolerant of excessive inequality than the UK as a whole.

Some of us of course feel a little more strongly on the subject.

As do many people in the rest of the UK

Edited May 15, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

You are right.

I think we are sometimes guilty of overstating Scottish commitment to fairness & equality.

We are not a nation of saints. We are prone to greed & selfishness like the rest of the human race.

Perhaps the best way to express it would be to say we are less tolerant of excessive inequality than the UK as a whole.

Some of us of course feel a little more strongly on the subject.

As do many people in the rest of the UK

This is how we roll

[kaosmark2]

If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that increases inequality

What if the rich get richer and the poor get richer too ?

Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

[LJS]

Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

I agree

[eFestivals]

there is no currency option which will spell anything less than disaster.

even in the SNP's eyes, some currency options are more disastrous for iScotland than others - which is precisely why they want a CU.

And funnily enough, that's the identical view from Westminster - so the rationale works the same, it's the viewpoint a person looks from which changes the conclusion.

And so....

This is a perfect example of why the No campaign is so distrusted by a large part of the Scottish Electorate.

This is a perfect example of how the yes campaign doesn't apply the rational, instead operating double-standards where the Scottish view is always the right view for everyone.

----

And it's all so laughable. I've yet to see a single yes supporter say "CU is the best thing for Scotland", without exception they all say "my choice would be different". But then they go on to say "how dare Westminster refuse* Scotland anything, that proves they're evil".

(*even if it's something that person says they don't want )

And it's all so laughable. There's a campaign that's about how horrible it is to be shackled by Westminster, where the supporters of that campaign are complaining about Westminster refusing to shackle them.

And it's all so laughable. There's a campaign that aims to make Scotland a foreign country to the rest of the UK, where the supporters of that campaign are complaining about the fact that the UK will treat Scotland as a foreign country.

And it's all so laughable. There's a campaign that aims to change Scotland's status instead of keeping it the same, while supporters of that campaign complain about how Westminster aren't offering change.

The saying normally goes "you couldn't make it up". But Scotland has.

[eFestivals]

I think trying to make any kind of definitive conclusion from the polls would be difficult.

Not really. Yes hasn't got close to taking the lead, and in the absence of something new, hugely impactful onto Scotland, and completely unexpected, I can't see how that is going to change.

Particularly as those polls seem to show that as soon as the gap starts to close, people lose their bottle to go for it.

Politicians will always try & spin the results in their way ( or suppress them if they don';t like the results)

No spin is needed to say with certainty "there is no majority support for independence". Get back to me about that only if there's evidence of a change.

PS: grassroots campaign? Really? Then why is yes more dependent on it's funding from one millionaire - 80% of it - than BT is (which has several millionaires). The point is not the millionaires, it's that yes-ers aren't supporting yes.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

All I am saying, is "why rule out currency Union?"

post-independence, are you willing as an iScottish citizen to commit your taxes to support the population of the foreign state rUK in perpetuity?

Every single yes-er is against that idea. The point of yes is that everything of Scotland's should be Scotland's.

And yet the yes-ers expects different from the country they're leaving.

And are then surprised that the population of that country thinks "go fuck yourself".

Oh well, iScotland will learn. The hard way.

As you have ceaselessly pointed out (& everyone including the SNP recognises) the terms of any such Union would have to be negotiated. Both sides would clearly have their positions but the rUK would clearly be holding all the aces.

It can only be negotiated if there's a willingness for a CU.

rUK says "no chance" to that, no different to how iScotland says "no chance" to rUK nukes at Faslane.

I'll tell you what, if you'll state that iScotland's anti-nuke stance means fuck all and that iScotland will happily accept rUK nukes if that's how the negotiations pan out, I'll happily say that rUK will accept a CU.

I have serious reservations that these conditions may well limit the effective powers of an Independent Scottish government to such an extent that it may not be the best option, but I do believe it makes sense to discuss all the options.

that's because you people in Scotland won't be picking up the bill of what you want.

I will be. And I say "if you won't share then neither will I".

Get used to it. That's the independence you're asking for.

It makes sense for both sides.

and yet again, you show just how ignorant you are about this.

It does not make sense for rUK to take on the unlimited liability of being the financial guarantor of iScotland.

I don't think that iScotland can afford the yearly fee rUK would want for that to ever make sense to rUK.

I believe Scotland is England's second largest export market

guess what happens post-indy (no matter which currency option is used)?

They'll be a rationalisation of such things, where a significant amount of business on both sides of the border will change to remain within those new borders (as proven by all separations, ever).

But anyway, the UK copes with transaction costs with all other foreign states, so it will cope with transaction costs with the foreign state of iScotland.

And the simple fact is: those transaction costs are as good as meaningless to rUK because they'd be such a small proportion of the total economy. Those transaction costs will impact HUGELY on iScotland.

Oh well, that's what iScotland will have chosen to take on. Their choice, their consequences.

That's called respect for your choices btw - that's NOT being nasty. I know many Scots have difficulty understanding the difference.

- I haven't checked this fact - but at any rate we are bound to be a pretty significant one so it is actually in rUK's interest for Scotland to be an economic success.

No it's not.

Only in certain circumstances is it in rUK's interests for iScotland to be an economic success.

It's certainly NOT in rUK's interests for iScotland to be an economic success if that economic success is done by stealing rUK's tax base - which is PRECISELY the plan that iScotland has.

iScotland will learn one way or another why it's calling this all wrong.

Equally, if Scotland were to be the economic disaster some are predicting you run the risk of being flooded with economic McMigrants.

If that happens, it won't be rUK building a wall to keep you out, it'll be iScotland with a big fence and armed Scotsmen shooting other Scotsmen trying to cross the border. Or do you think Salmond will give up his hard-won dream with no fight?

I'm not demanding anything as a right. all I am demanding is what was agreed in the Edinburgh Agreement

The best interests of rUK are not what iScotland says they are.

What part of that don't you get?

Edited May 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

See if the official NO campaign organisation was called Equal Together, then we might have been getting somewhere.

and yet the ones wanting to change "equal" for "mine all mine" are .... guess who?

The yes-ers like you.

FFS.

"Would you like fish with that chip sir"?

[eFestivals]

I think setting up a new currency from scratch is probably the least likely outcome.

it's an *absolute* requirement for EU membership nowadays (including a "no exceptions" rule).

But of course independence will lead to a bit of an upheaval, financially & otherwise. It would be kind of disappointing if it didn't. Although, I would prefer the slightly less emotive word Change. Massive financial change.

The No campaigners love words like upheaval, they sound so wonderfully apocalyptic.

Oh FFS.

The yes campaign doesn't even like the word "change". They're falsely promising no change (when lots of change is inevitable) - the precise reason they want a CU.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yup.

Why shouldn't we?

Why shouldn't yes talk about equality?

because the yes campaign is based on the Animal Farm version of equality, where some are more equal than others.

Scotland is already (to its advantage) unequal to the rest of the UK by around £2k per citizen per year - so much so that it's able to provide things within its borders that are not affordable to the rest of the UK (in part because of the extra money that is being allocated to Scotland).

But for yes-ers that extra is not enough. There should be no benefit, no attempt at equality, given by Scotland to those outside of it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that increases inequality

What if the rich get richer and the poor get richer too ?

the sort of neoliberal policy which is a cut in corp tax hasn't achieved that in the UK, so why will it achieve it in iScotland?

[eFestivals]

If anyone needs help understanding the difference between a referendum & an election, just let me know.

I'll be more than happy to help.

likewise if the Scots need help to understand the difference between the lies from the mouth of a politician and the lies from the mouth of a politician, it'll be a very good idea if you ask before Sept.

[eFestivals]

Perhaps the best way to express it would be to say we are less tolerant of excessive inequality than the UK as a whole.

but that's bullshit, utter bullshit.

The SG has done zero to address inequality, despite having the power to.

It has managed to use a bit of the extra £2k it gets to throw a few pennies around (about ten quid of that £2k is what it's been), but has done zero to reduce inequality.

The only way it will do so is by increasing taxes on the rich.

But guess what happens if you do that? The rich will head south and the poor will be taxed harder than now to make up the shortfall.

(and which will then see many of those poorer also head south, a massive problem that Scotland already suffers from, so many of it's youth preferring England).

These are the realities of life that Scotland is currently protected from by the union. You know, that union that you believe gives you nothing - as you'll find out is not true post-indy.

[russycarps]

You are right.

I think we are sometimes guilty of overstating Scottish commitment to fairness & equality.

We are not a nation of saints. We are prone to greed & selfishness like the rest of the human race.

Perhaps the best way to express it would be to say we are less tolerant of excessive inequality than the UK as a whole.

Some of us of course feel a little more strongly on the subject.

As do many people in the rest of the UK

why do you think you can speak for the whole of scotland? Just because you live there? I wouldnt dream of thinking I speak for the whole of england. It is an absurd concept.

I am sure your personal values are admirable. But why on earth do you think you represent all of scotland?

Very bizarre.