The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Never said you did, but as you are perfectly well aware we are not voting to decide the rate of Corp tax.

Not are we voting to install St. Alex as the lifetime president of the democratic republic of Scotland.

But then , it's easier to argue your case your way, isn't it?

If you were being led by the nose by English Tories you'd be feeling the embarrassment you should be feeling now.

That aside, you want to believe you're voting for better social justice, but just as you brush off the SNP's similarities to both ukip and the Tories, you brush off the questions of how it might be afforded in both the short and long term.

[LJS]

No one seriously disputes Scotland's ability to go it alone. The only dispute is whether we would be better or worse off.

This is a long term decision. Whilst some on the Yes side are happy to fling in a bit of short term gain to win votes, that is nothing to the No campaign's & your attempts to highlight potential short term losses.

This is irrevocably& undeniably a decision for the long term & there is only one side talking about the long term.

I know it's really easy to talk about alex, the Snp & the proposed cut in Corp tax but it is absolutely not what the debate is about

[LJS]

So, Neil, you've made it clear that, in your view, the Short term future for an independent Scotland is somewhere between poor & apocolyptic. We'll be frozen out of Europe, Nato & the pound, crippled with high interest rates & impoverished by the flight of thousands of financial services jobs to the safe haven of rUK.

But let's just assume we somehow survive for a few years, can you hold out any hope in the long term for us? or are we doomed for eternity?

[eFestivals]

Nothing apocalyptic, but often negatives for things claimed as neutral or positives.

If you care to note, the long term projections even from the SNP don't forecast happiness. In the snp's version there is about 30 years to turn Scotland into the land of milk and honey, to then be sustainable beyond that (beyond oil dependency, basically).

That essentially says that if IScotland gets everything it wants from ruk, and the EU, and everyone else it needs onside, and then is run to perfection for 30 years so that all of the snp's best projections have come true, only then does IScotland have a fruitful long term.

Given the ability of people to fuck up, that's one hell of a gamble.

Edited June 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is irrevocably& undeniably a decision for the long term & there is only one side talking about the long term.

Says the man who plans voting to quit a perpetual union.

[LJS]

Just had a butchers at the draft constitution.

Nice enough, with nothing of any real significance to comment on, apart from....

I'm loving the assumption that's written as fact of the EU position, showing that Scotland's often proclaimed better politics isn't beyond trying to mislead the people to victory.

how do you feel it compare's with the UK's constitution?

[LJS]

Nothing apocalyptic, but often negatives for things claimed as neutral or positives.

If you care to note, the long term projections even from the SNP don't forecast happiness. In the snp's version there is about 30 years to turn Scotland into the land of milk and honey, to then be sustainable beyond that (beyond oil dependency, basically).

That essentially says that if IScotland gets everything it wants from ruk, and the EU, and everyone else it needs onside, and then is run to perfection for 30 years so that all of the snp's best projections have come true, only then does IScotland have a fruitful long term.

Given the ability of people to fuck up, that's one hell of a gamble.

We know about the ability of people to fuck up. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron have all shown us that.

Frankly I'd rather we had the option of fucking up for ourselves thank you

[LJS]

Says the man who plans voting to quit a perpetual union.

What makes the Union perpetual?

It's a bit like marriage - we all say the "till death us do part" bit but not many marriages make it that far.

[LJS]

another view on Scotland's economic prospects

"An independent Scotland would have a stronger economy than you might think"

http://theconversation.com/an-independent-scotland-would-have-a-stronger-economy-than-you-might-think-27845

This kind of picks up on the point I've made previously that most of the doom & gloom predictions factor in everything that could go wrong but ignore what could go right. They also tend to assume that scotland will continue to do pretty much what the UK did.

As always, I am simply presenting this as evidence that other views are available from Neil's apocalyptic scenarios. The truth is, as it is the future, none of us can be sure what will happen.

[viberunner]

well, if England had an extra 20% to spend on its residents to take its spend per-person equal to Scotland's, then you can be sure that all of the same things could be afforded in England too.

But England, unlike Scotland, is happy to pool its revenue towards the common good.... so it makes me laugh a lot when I hear those claims of a fairer society.

Yes, England is indeed happy to "pool" the Scottish oil to the City of London, and then brag how giving a drop of it back to the true owners is an act of largesse.

You're a bunch of crazy frackers down there.

[kaosmark2]

An independent Scotland COULD have a better time of it, but I don't think the Scottish public, or the Scottish politicians, are as different as you're implying.

[eFestivals]

how do you feel it compare's with the UK's constitution?

I'm not fooled by meaningless bullshit.

A constitution is meaningless at the end of the day. It's simply another law that can be overturned by lawmakers.

And that's particularly true in this case, because despite the guff about "the people are sovereign", it ducks the question entirely of how that sovereignty might be exorcised.

Haven't you noticed that there's no "people" commitment to this temporary constitution nor to the writing of the permanent one, and neither is there any method of changing the constitution specified .... and after all the "we'll do this after the vote with public involvement" the SNP have now politically hi-jacked the whole process.

As for what's in the constitution itself, it gets to show it's been written by amateurs by the inclusion of policies (and SNP ones - what was that about a democratic deficit again? ).

[eFestivals]

We know about the ability of people to fuck up. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron have all shown us that.

Frankly I'd rather we had the option of fucking up for ourselves thank you

I see you've decided to be obtuse about the real point of what I said, because we can't have you facing up to real actual issues now, can we?

What the SNP have laid out for what needs to be in place within 30 years is the minimum needed *IN THEIR OWN VIEW* for iScotland to "keep up" on an economic basis with where it would be if still within the UK.

To state it explicitly: if the SNP are 100% perfect with their policies then iScotland avoids being in a long-term economically-worse position than the rUK in the SNP's own view.

As you recognise above, you're not going to get the required perfection.

Time to stop being obtuse, or do you still prefer a day out at the zoo watching the emus?

(If you do, that makes you part of just 2% who are happy to be emus).

[eFestivals]

What makes the Union perpetual?

Scotland's commitment to it in perpetuity. Has that passed you by?

If you're happy with the idea that Scotland's international commitments are empty, get ready to live by that.....

Cos guess what? An empty commitment to unionism is one very good reason why rUK would be mad to go along with iScotland's demand for currency union.

It's a bit like marriage - we all say the "till death us do part" bit but not many marriages make it that far.

yup - and so rUK shouldn't get into an unnecessary new marriage where the new spouse very clearly intends to run away with as much of jointly-built wealth as it's able to.

Cos only a fool might think there's any real commitment to any union.

-----

Meanwhile back at the constitution, it states how Scotland throws off the shackles of the UK only to shackle itself more firmly in all legal senses to Brussels.

And anyone with half a brain should see what this means: more EU (compared to the rUK) rather than less, continued open-door immigration, and ultimately the Euro - all things that Scotland does not want any more than the UK as a whole does.

The one encouraging thing I've seen from around the constitution is just how many object to the continuation of the monarchy, tho I've no doubts that opinion is waaaaay short of any majority.

[eFestivals]

The truth is, as it is the future, none of us can be sure what will happen.

True, but we do know what the rules say should happen:-

1. Scotland cannot be in a currency union if it wants EU membership.

2. Scotland would be outside of the EU for a minimum of two years before it could even apply to join the EU.

3. Scotland will have to commit to joining the Euro, and actually follow thru on that commitment.

But that's a future you cannot accept, so Alex has fantasised a future for you.

[eFestivals]

another view on Scotland's economic prospects

"An independent Scotland would have a stronger economy than you might think"

http://theconversation.com/an-independent-scotland-would-have-a-stronger-economy-than-you-might-think-27845

Nice headline for a nat, but a rather inconvenient first sentence....

A large majority of independent professional economists believe Scotland would not be better off if it were independent

Let's just ignore those as bullying, blustering, paid to say that by nasty England, a conspiracy against Scotland, and all of the other accompaniments for fish that are so popular up there.

[eFestivals]

Yes, England is indeed happy to "pool" the Scottish oil to the City of London, and then brag how giving a drop of it back to the true owners is an act of largesse.

You're a bunch of crazy frackers down there.

Ahh, so paying your share just 10% of the time and only by a lucky consequence of nature is something to feel pride in?

And you seem to have inconveniently forgot that Scotland cannot pay it's way, either within or outwith the UK.

Meanwhile those hated bankers go out and find Scotland anywhere between £6Bn and £12Bn a year (dependent on on who you choose to believe) without which Scotland really would be a disaster basketcase, and nothing of that changes on iDay (in fact the costs go up by 3%, as Swinney has just had to admit).

And England's 'surplus' contribution to the UK goes where? It goes towards creating the fairer society that the UK actually operates in reality and that Scotland doesn't now and won't after indy either - because no vote won on the basis of "it's all mine" like any any good Thatcherite is suddenly going to vote to share around... every single jot of yes is within the tory greed of "it's mine".

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

True, but we do know what the rules say should happen:-

1. Scotland cannot be in a currency union if it wants EU membership.

2. Scotland would be outside of the EU for a minimum of two years before it could even apply to join the EU.

3. Scotland will have to commit to joining the Euro, and actually follow thru on that commitment.

But that's a future you cannot accept, so Alex has fantasised a future for you.

Thanks for your opinions.

You call them facts, but as we know you have as much difficulty distinguishing between facts & opinions as you do between elections & referenda.

As you are well aware, other opinions are widely available.

[LJS]

Nice headline for a nat, but a rather inconvenient first sentence....

Let's just ignore those as bullying, blustering, paid to say that by nasty England, a conspiracy against Scotland, and all of the other accompaniments for fish that are so popular up there.

He doesn't ignore it. He adresses it. Perhaps too subtle a difference for you?

[LJS]

I see you've decided to be obtuse about the real point of what I said, because we can't have you facing up to real actual issues now, can we?

What the SNP have laid out for what needs to be in place within 30 years is the minimum needed *IN THEIR OWN VIEW* for iScotland to "keep up" on an economic basis with where it would be if still within the UK.

To state it explicitly: if the SNP are 100% perfect with their policies then iScotland avoids being in a long-term economically-worse position than the rUK in the SNP's own view.

As you recognise above, you're not going to get the required perfection.

Time to stop being obtuse, or do you still prefer a day out at the zoo watching the emus?

(If you do, that makes you part of just 2% who are happy to be emus).

As I probably won't vote snp, why would this be relevant?

[eFestivals]

another view on Scotland's economic prospects

"An independent Scotland would have a stronger economy than you might think"

http://theconversation.com/an-independent-scotland-would-have-a-stronger-economy-than-you-might-think-27845

Now i've stopped laughing at the first sentence and read further in, it's a total crock of shit.

For example, it says that iScotland would benefit from "the return or part-return of debt interest payments currently made to the UK treasury".

The idiot cybernat propaganda has clearly worked on that idiot writer, cos there's only that benefit if iScotland accepts none of the UK's debt as its responsibility (which with every practicality in mind, it simply cannot and will not do, no matter what else is given or not within negotiations).

(the reality will be that iScotland pays more in interest on new borrowings [perhaps not for its share of the historical UK debt], because it does not have a credit history).

If iScotland does not take its share of the debt that will only be so on an exchange basis, where assets due to iScotland via a fair share are kept by rUK in exchange for a matching part of the debt - which would leave Scotland short of assets which it would need to buy, so ultimately of no extra benefit to iScotland.

Good to see that that constitution says that iScotland will respect international law - cos that's an admission of defeat for the proposed currency union.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for your opinions.

You call them facts, but as we know you have as much difficulty distinguishing between facts & opinions as you do between elections & referenda.

As you are well aware, other opinions are widely available.

Not other opinions which match the EU rules.

You know, you should try actually reading those rules, rather than pretending they don't exist like a good cybernat.

Meanwhile, there's no acceptance within yes that the EU will extract its price for bending over for iScotland, if that's what it's prepared to do.

And there's total ignoral that the markets will take the EU not sticking to the Euro requirements for new members as the death of the Euro. Without the political commitment to take it forwards matched by actions, it's an easy conclusion that there is nothing to take forwards.

[LJS]

Scotland's commitment to it in perpetuity. Has that passed you by?

If you're happy with the idea that Scotland's international commitments are empty, get ready to live by that.....

Cos guess what? An empty commitment to unionism is one very good reason why rUK would be mad to go along with iScotland's demand for currency union.

yup - and so rUK shouldn't get into an unnecessary new marriage where the new spouse very clearly intends to run away with as much of jointly-built wealth as it's able to.

Cos only a fool might think there's any real commitment to any union.

-----

Meanwhile back at the constitution, it states how Scotland throws off the shackles of the UK only to shackle itself more firmly in all legal senses to Brussels.

And anyone with half a brain should see what this means: more EU (compared to the rUK) rather than less, continued open-door immigration, and ultimately the Euro - all things that Scotland does not want any more than the UK as a whole does.

The one encouraging thing I've seen from around the constitution is just how many object to the continuation of the monarchy, tho I've no doubts that opinion is waaaaay short of any majority.

I take their is something about perpetuity in the treaty of union, which I haven't read?

I think I'll pass on feeling obligated by that given the democratic values of the early 18tg century.

If only they'd had a referendum...

[eFestivals]

As I probably won't vote snp, why would this be relevant?

Do you think there's even brighter forecasts for Scotland's future than the SNP are giving?

The SNP's forecast is the very best case anyone anywhere is suggesting iScotland could have, and even that doesn't forecast a rosy long-term future, merely an adequate long-term future.

And you accept that the reality will be worse.

So be sure you understand that, from the best projections mixed with your own opinions, iScotland's financial future is lesser than it would be if stayed within the UK.

[eFestivals]

I take their is something about perpetuity in the treaty of union, which I haven't read?

any union is a commitment in perpetuity - that applies to all of the UK, the EU, and a currency union if iScotland were to be granted one.

Given that everyone knows that iScotland would not be committed to a CU and that causes big dangers for the pound (far greater than any other option), I just can't see any CU happening.

(I do see some sort of temporary arrangement that's presented as "helping iScotland during the transition" but which won't be to iScotland's particular advantage, it will be something iScotland will have to go along with purely because other options are worse for iScotland [during that transition, if not longer-term]).