The Dirty Independence Question

[russycarps]

Actually I'm English - in as much as I was born there, otherwise it's an irrational concept - so no it doesn't.

huh?

[eFestivals]

That's cool. The difference between the English and the Scottish is the Scottish wouldn't elect Gove to power. Because we're not right-wing fucking numpties like you guys Sarf of the Wall are.

hmmm ... if the tories didn't leave Scotland for the south of England as Gove did, perhaps you'd find there's a bigger liking for the tories than currently happens?

If you vote yes you're having him back. I'm gonna make sure it's written into the separation agreement.

[eFestivals]

did you see the reports that scottish independence is backed by more english people than scottish people

considering the Barnett formula. I'm not surprised. Though I doubt most english or scots have even heard of the barnett formula

hmmmm ... according to many Scots the Barnett formula is a crock of shit, because the money Scotland gets via it is less than the taxes raised in Scotland.

While that might be strictly true within the current set-up, I'm far from sure that it'll still be true after separation. For example, Scotland has a disproportionate amount of UK govt jobs; a disproportionate number of people within the armed services (who presumably won't be wanted in the rump-UK armed services, that's nortmally how it works); and a disproportionate number of military facilities ... plus where it works the opposite way, with the UK picking up a disproportionate cost of financial disasters, such as happened with RBS.

Then of course there's still the arguments over the gas and oil to be resolved, which are unlikely to work out as the best-case scenario that Salmond is said to have worked his numbers from.

[eFestivals]

The comments coming from Osbourne and Balls today are causing a bit of a stir.

For the Nats (as seen in all newspapers with comments sections), this is another part of 'Project Fear', or another example of English bullying, or the English stealing an asset of the UK that Scotland has a right to.

(and amusingly, the comments Nats are making now have replaced "they hint at no currency union, but they won't come out and explicitly say it. They're trying to scare us by their silence". Yet now they're scaring by substance. ).

Well, if the value of all UK assets are to be shared proportionally by population, where shall we start...? Oil and gas, perhaps?

Putting that aside, a currency union between two sovereign states has to be agreed mutually by both of those sovereign states, and given how anti currency union the UK has been regarding the Euro, it seems mighty strange to think that those same people will be happy to go along with a currency union that is designed soley for the benefit of a foreign nation state (as Scotland would be).

Personally, I'm 100% in favour of currency unions. In an ideal world there'd only be one currency, removing a level of rent extraction, for no work, by 'the system' for the exchange of currencies. But that doesn't mean I'd sign up to any offer of currency union no matter what the terms of that union.

In the case of Scotland, the idea (along with currency union) stated by the yes campaign is that Scotland would operate a tax regime that would undercut the rUK to 'entice' rUK businesses to Scotland - which within a currency union would be to use sterling against the interests of rUK.

Do that Nats really think that such a thing would be acceptable to many within the rUK, or politically viable for any politician to support? If so, they're fruitcakes.

Rights come with responsibilities. From the point of view of this supporter of currency unions, if Scotland wants the right to use sterling within a currency union then it must accept responsibilities too - such as rUK control of Scottish fiscal policy so that the standing of that currency is not undermined. Yet Scotland is voting on independence, not dependence.

Scotland of course is free to use sterling outside of a union - but that ends up in much the same place for Scotland - dependence on rUK for it's fiscal abilities, as rUK would control he money supply and interest rates.

(Scotland could of course try the counterfeiting route, but only if they very quickly want to lose a war along with all international support at all levels).

If you want independence you're very welcome to it, but if you think you can take the piss out of foreign states as the Nat's current fiscal plans are then you're going find independence very hard going.

It might be the case after all that a currency union might end up being agreed (tho I find it very hard to see how that could be done with political support. See the Euro question), but for anyone to vote for independence on the basis that it will be - as claimed by the likes of Salmond - is making a mis-informed vote. By the very nature of things Scotland cannot be in control of whether a currency union happens; that requires the mutual agreement of both sides, and as things stand (by what the Nats have stated as their post-independence plans) an agreement looks hugely unlikely. Live with it, that's what independent states have to do.

[russycarps]

I wonder how many people will vote for independence just to stick 2 fingers up at the english politicians, with no thought about the consequences?

It's laughable though, that they are voting for an independence where they keep the queen, keep the pound etc. If they want independence they should hang their balls out and and go for broke: all or nothing. No queen, no pound, no nukes on their soil. What sort of independence is this? It's a joke, really. An independence vote just gives more likelihood to a Tory government every 5 years still effectively controlling them. And you can bet those spiteful c**ts will make life for the scots as hard as possible.

Peter Dow will be choking on his haggis.

Edited February 13, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I wonder how many people will vote for independence just to stick 2 fingers up at the english politicians, with no thought about the consequences?

Sadly - again from those newspaper comment sections - quite a few.

More scary I think are those who believe that an independent Scotland will be free of all neo-liberal policies , or even further away, a socialist uptopia. I think, like most democratic states, it's exceedingly likely to swing between conservatism and social democracy (both meant in the broadest senses) with its govts, tho it might take a few decades to settle down. And while the conservatism might not be as nasty as the english version there'll still be plenty who find it offensive.

The vote should be solely about whether those within Scotland should by-themselves control their destiny. To make the decision on any other basis is making it on the wrong basis.

It's laughable though, that they are voting for an independence where they keep the queen, keep the pound etc. If they want independence they should hang their balls out and and go for broke: all or nothing. No queen, no pound, no nukes on their soil. What sort of independence is this? It's a joke, really.

nah, I disagree. They're entitled to choose for themselves the make-up of the type of state they want to build (tho with the currency and perhaps other things, it doesn't mean they can have it).... tho it would be nice to see any new state abandon feudal hangovers.

But at the end of the day the choices that are being put before them are not necessarily the choices that are the best for an independent Scotland but the policies that give the greatest chance of there being an independent Scotland ... in other words, the standard political bullshit, false marketing.

[russycarps]

Sadly - again from those newspaper comment sections - quite a few.

More scary I think are those who believe that an independent Scotland will be free of all neo-liberal policies , or even further away, a socialist uptopia. I think, like most democratic states, it's exceedingly likely to swing between conservatism and social democracy (both meant in the broadest senses) with its govts, tho it might take a few decades to settle down. And while the conservatism might not be as nasty as the english version there'll still be plenty who find it offensive.

The vote should be solely about whether those within Scotland should by-themselves control their destiny. To make the decision on any other basis is making it on the wrong basis.

nah, I disagree. They're entitled to choose for themselves the make-up of the type of state they want to build (tho with the currency and perhaps other things, it doesn't mean they can have it).... tho it would be nice to see any new state abandon feudal hangovers.

But at the end of the day the choices that are being put before them are not necessarily the choices that are the best for an independent Scotland but the policies that give the greatest chance of there being an independent Scotland ... in other words, the standard political bullshit, false marketing.

I agree with your points, but do you think the majority of scots actually want to keep the queen, in the event of independence then?? I find that incredible if it's true.

It cant be true, can it?

Edited February 13, 2014 by russycarps

[russycarps]

Scotland is no different than Ireland in that respect...

so keeping the queen is actually a plus point for independence? Amazing.

[eFestivals]

I agree with your points, but do you think the majority of scots actually want to keep the queen, in the event of independence then?? I find that incredible if it's true.

It cant be true, can it?

Those that want independence at all costs will accept it as a price worth paying, and those who are attached to the queen are now able to be swayed by the idea of independence.

That aside, the bigger any change, the more daunting us humans tend to find it. So by saying stuff like keeping the queen and the pound the extent of the change is lessened in people's minds, and they find it less scary to then go along with.

From both of those angles it's perfect politics. It's a standard political gambit, designed to try to win the vote, rather than to deliver what the people of Scotland might want.

[russycarps]

I get that with the pound, but I honesly thought saying "no queen" would have a positive effect on the yes vote. I assumed the majority hate her. Blinkered by my own views I guess.

Edited February 13, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I get that with the pound, but I honesly thought saying "no queen" would have a positive effect on the yes vote. I assumed the majority hate her. Blinkered by my own views I guess.

she's more a Scottish Queen than an English one.

For some I guess they might celebrate it as one of the few times they've had a power over England ... tho perhaps they should also remember just how quickly he relocated south.

[t8yman]

The queen isnt unpopular among Rangers fans AFAIK.

[eFestivals]

The queen isnt unpopular among Rangers fans AFAIK.

[Buff124]

Interdependence, not independence. Interdepence is by definition global, as we only have one planet AFAIK

Edited February 13, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

Well, that went down well with Salmond, eh?

It's good to see that the rUK will be negotiating with a bunch of adults, who have a real understanding of what sovereign nations are, what the word negotiations means, or even political realities.

And people are lining up to vote for this guy's ideas as giving them a bright future.

One day, the people of Scotland might get to realise that they only get their independence if Westminister says they can have it. You might not like that, but that is the irrefutable fact.

The rUK does not want to fuck Scotland over as far a I can see, but as the continuing state and not the leaving-to-be-on-our-own-state it gets to keep the functions of the state that are by definition what gives it its sovereignty.

FFS, grow up you silly little boy Salmond.

Edited February 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

To be told by all three political parties that there won't be a currency union and then for him to come out and just say "they are bluffing" is so funny

there's a number of different sides to things, so Salmond might end up correct in the end, but nothing about that makes it something he or scotland can dictate to rUK.

According to Salmond, it makes economic sense for England to go along with a currency union (and I get what drives that idea, tho it's looking at things at the most simple of levels); from the practicalities, it's definitely the way to go.

But no matter how much economic or practical sense it might make for rUK, that doesn't get to mean it will happen. It can only happen if there is enough political support within rUK for it to happen, and given how the anti-Euro thing has been spun for the last 20 years, I see that political support as an impossibility.

Edited February 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So, enough about how an independence movement with a stated liking for unionism ( ) has great difficulties recognising the rights and limits of independent sovereign states (including itself), because today there's many more laughs elsewhere....

Much as we've all laughed at the man who was once a milkman north of the border for a few weeks and who's said how great independence would be for a country he never goes to, we can now all laugh at the equally-as-big-a-moron who lives in New York and has left but says "don't leave us".

David Bowie, take a bow.

Edited February 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

he did himself no favours there. Has he lived here since the 60s?? He was in berlin before new york wasnt he. The tit.

[eFestivals]

he did himself no favours there. Has he lived here since the 60s?? He was in berlin before new york wasnt he. The tit.

berlin was the 70s.

I know he's lived in NY since he's been married to the woman with the unusual name that I forget, but I've not much of an idea for where he's lived outside of those two things.

[russycarps]

well being a sad case I just googled and the last time he lived in the UK was April 1974.

Since then he's lived in California, Berlin, New York, Switzerland, Sydney, the West Indies and back to New York.

So he has a strong connection to the UK...

[eFestivals]

So he has a strong connection to the UK...

so much like (tho the opposite of) Scotland's greatest nationalist then.

[eFestivals]

So... only one third of Scots think there might be any truth in the stated unlikeness of the rUK allowing an independent Scotland currency union with England.

I think that's very worrying, for the ability of people to understand what independence is all about and what they are voting for and against.

Vote for independence if you like (I've no issues either way, it's your choice to make), but don't go kidding yourself that an independent Scotland can force foreign countries to do everything that's good for Scotland but which that foreign country doesn't feel is good for itself.

Edited February 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

FFS, grow up you silly little boy Salmond.

Still, it's good to know not all Englishmen are patronising twats - just many of them.

[viberunner]

According to Salmond, it makes economic sense for England to go along with a currency union (and I get what drives that idea, tho it's looking at things at the most simple of levels); from the practicalities, it's definitely the way to go.

But no matter how much economic or practical sense it might make for rUK, that doesn't get to mean it will happen.

Exactly. Currency union would be of the most benefit to each country as so much trade is done. But the Eton sect are screaming they would rather pull the walls of the temple down than live with their neighbours.

That I understand, what I fail to see is why so many non-Eton types are lining-up to side with them.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed - Steve Biko

I agree. More people who have that as a sig, and more people who have that as a sig should contemplate it.

[eFestivals]

I can only guess that you,be been asleep for the last 25 years, to miss both all that has been said about the UK joining the euro in a currency union, and what salmond himself has said about about the pound and how bad it is for Scotland. Just as salmond has missed these things.

And then there's the simple fact that rUK doesn't want to underwrite Scotland's future debts.

Before getting to the rather ridiculous idea of Scotland having independence in name only, cos rUK would be controlling Scotland's finances.

Independence is yours if you want it. When you still want a union with rUK, that's not independence.