The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I had a wee look on the the interthingy looking for this & could find nothing.

Knowing that you would never say anything on here that wasn't 100% true, I'd love you to share where you got this from.

If I didn't know better I'd say it was the most humongous load of bollocks since the last humungous load of bollocks you posted here.

I wait with bated breath to be proved wrong.

then your ability to discern and understand is seriously limited.

Who gets to vote in the indyref? And who gets Scottish citizenship (and so a vote) after a yes vote?

Are these two groups all of the same people? Nope.

In the indyref, residents of Scotland get to vote on the basis used for 'regional' elections.

After indy, only Scottish citizens get a vote.

How do you think you can make a good decision when you don't understand the decision you're making?

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

You've never given an answer on why you think some random will underwrite your mortgage &/or debts for free. You've always ducked the question, as you've done here again.

Who will underwrite your own debts for free? Anyone (except your family)? Nope.

Then why do you think the UK will guarantee iScotland's debts for free?

Because they are rUKs debts

[eFestivals]

My words, back in February.

Why should rUK underwrite the debts of a foriegn state? If rUK were to agree to do that i suspect the terms they'd want would be too humiliating for Scotland to accept

The Guardian reporting on Ed Balls' words yesterday...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/ed-balls-currency-union-independent-scotland-sterling-zone

Balls said that a successful post-independence sterling zone would mean the loss of so much financial and political independence for a new Scottish state that no Edinburgh government could agree to it. It would need "very, very, onerous fiscal strictures", Balls said.

And if you really want a laugh, read the comments.

In Scotland the people are sovereign

In Scotland the people don't understand what sovereign means.

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Because they are rUKs debts

Nope, they are the UK's debts.

Above you said you didn't understand the half-statements bit ... you're doing the half-statement thing right now, so you do understand it really.

But just in case, here's the meaningful bits of the full statement....

The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum

[eFestivals]

And if you really want a laugh, read the comments.

Not one of the funny ones, but a very pertinent comment all the same....

Salmond is the most slippery character in British politics. His U-Turns are numerous and profound - he was for the euro, then against it; he was against the pound (the 'millstone around Scotland's neck'), now he's desperately for it; he was a Republican, now he's a monarchist; he claimed he'd seen the legal advice on EU membership, but it did not even exist; he was against NATO, now he wants to join!

He has no conviction and has abandoned all principles. You think the UK will want to enter a currency union with such a chancer! Forget it!

The Nationalists will not get to cherry-pick all the benefits of the UK and dump all the responsibility on the English, Welsh and NI tax payer.

A man with no principles encourages his electorate to act on principle.

And what happens if they act on that principle? The man with no principles is given greater powers.

And that's the wise choice?

Meanwhile, I'm just loving the many comments pointing out the responsibility that Balls has for the financial fuck up, due to his overly-lax regulation - and saying how Salmond is so much better.

You know, the same lovely Alex that uttered these words when Balls was running his lax regulatory regime...

"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation."

Isn't it great that you'll have such a wise man raving right wing neoliberal tory in charge of socialist Scotland, who'll fuck it up worse than any tory.

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Not sure why I bothering as I am genuinely indifferent to what the Chinese premier thinks & i generally think the number of voters he will persuade can be counted on the fingers of one knee.

I just find it strange that he has an opinion ready on the subject.

the famous "sophisticated scottish voter" indifferent to what the chinese think! How incredibly small minded and inward looking. Which does perfectly sum up the Yes vote I guess.

Because they are rUKs debts

so scotland is not responsible for any of the debt whatsoever you seriously cant genuinely think that, can you?

wow....

[eFestivals]

so scotland is not responsible for any of the debt whatsoever you seriously cant genuinely think that, can you?

wow....

a surprisingly large number of yes voters do seem to genuinely believe that's the case - or at least, that Scotland's share of the debt can be used as leverage to get a CU.

(as ever, any nat comment on CU says "it's to the rUK's benefit" [cos that's what Alex said, and they mindlessly repeat him], without ever thinking that taking on an unlimited liability that doesn't need to be taken on can never be in a country's interests.)

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

Ok, let's start with an easy one ....

How many people do you know that are happy to underwrite other people's debts for free?

Now... can you address that substantive point, and apply the same idea to Alex's guff?

Who is underwriting debt for free? Scotland wants her share of the debt.

That was indeed an easy one.

[viberunner]

I refer to my earlier answer,

We'll be happy to help you out with your debts, we don't have any ...yet

I'm sure we will have soon though

I think this is about the BoE saying they'll take on the entire rUK debt. They volunteered this to ensure stability of the UK bond market. Scotland have already stated they WILL be taking on their share of the debt, even though the UK has said they don't legally need to.

Unless eFest has some other info to link in he's grasping at straws. All Loyalists do.

[viberunner]

As eFest himself lnks:

An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

[eFestivals]

Who is underwriting debt for free? Scotland wants her share of the debt.

That was indeed an easy one.

In Scotland, the people don't understand what sovereignty is.

I'm talking post-indy you plonker.

Alex thinks that rUK should underwrite all debts of an independent Scotland - that is what he is asked for by wanting a CU.

Just out of interest, are the people of an independent Scotland happy to have a (say) 3% income tax increase to bail out the banks of rUK after there's been another financial fuck-up?

Or might the people of an independent Scotland say "the fuck-ups of another, foreign, state is not our responsibility"?

We both know what the answer is, so why do the people of iScotland think other foreign states should help iScotland in a way that iScotland will not help others?

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think this is about the BoE saying they'll take on the entire rUK debt.

that's the Nat myth of what the Treasury said.

I posted above what they treasury actually said, but don't go letting the facts trouble you, eh?

Scotland have already stated they WILL be taking on their share of the debt,

No, Alex has said "unless rUK becomes subservient to iScotland with it's sovereignty, iScotland will rob the rUK".

even though the UK has said they don't legally need to.

I just love the idiocy of yes voters, who can't read a simple paragraphy without getting it totally wrong.

[eFestivals]

As eFest himself lnks:

An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

It is entirely reasonable but too reasonable for the yes campaign, which wants to place new and extra obligations onto rUk for iScotland to honour its own obligation.

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

My words, back in February.

The Guardian reporting on Ed Balls' words yesterday...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/ed-balls-currency-union-independent-scotland-sterling-zone

And if you really want a laugh, read the comments.

In Scotland the people are sovereign

In Scotland the people don't understand what sovereign means.

As you are well aware I am not fussed about a currency union myself & don't really get the Snp's obsession with it.

And of course it would mean some loss of "sovereignty" But then so does eu membership & many aspects of the modern world.

[kaosmark2]

There's clearly a number of different issues.

"Do Scottish people want independence based on their national identity?"

"Do Scottish people want independence because they are tired of the governments that are elected into Westminster?"

"Do Scottish people want independence because they believe they'll be richer?"

Regarding each of them, the first I feel is based on a combination of nationalist racism. Even those like LJS who seem like decent, intelligent people still want to build borders up rather than weaken them. I disagree with this on a basic principle, I feel any form of national identity is misleading, and shouldn't be a part of the modern world. That's my naive optimism though.

The second is understandable, but still IMO selfish and naive. "Screw the English, they can be left with governments we think are terrible". I also don't think that any independent Scottish government, whatever flavour it will be, will be remarkably different from the flavour of politics we currently have in the UK as is.

The third however, is bollocks, but it's what Salmond's trying to sell. Scotland MIGHT be better off, but it's an incredibly stupid reason to vote for independence, it's selfish, misguided, naive, and ultimately being completely twattish. It's Thatcherism at its core. "Our oil pays for our services", "Our family pays for itself", not giving a damn about those outside who you consider "your people". I loathe this ideology, and it shows the rampant hypocrisy of the SNP.

[LJS]

Nope, they are the UK's debts.

Above you said you didn't understand the half-statements bit ... you're doing the half-statement thing right now, so you do understand it really.

But just in case, here's the meaningful bits of the full statement....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum

because the UK government says it doesn't make it a fact - perhaps a more accurate phrase might be " iScotland will take on responsibility for part of the UK debt subject to negotiation

It's maybe splitting hairs & in practice few are seriously disputing Scotland will take on a share of the debt. The legal liability will however remain with the rUK.

[LJS]

Not one of the funny ones, but a very pertinent comment all the same....

A man with no principles encourages his electorate to act on principle.

And what happens if they act on that principle? The man with no principles is given greater powers.

And that's the wise choice?

Meanwhile, I'm just loving the many comments pointing out the responsibility that Balls has for the financial fuck up, due to his overly-lax regulation - and saying how Salmond is so much better.

You know, the same lovely Alex that uttered these words when Balls was running his lax regulatory regime...

Isn't it great that you'll have such a wise man raving right wing neoliberal tory in charge of socialist Scotland, who'll fuck it up worse than any tory.

Neil's found someone as demented as he is

[LJS]

the famous "sophisticated scottish voter" indifferent to what the chinese think! How incredibly small minded and inward looking. Which does perfectly sum up the Yes vote I guess.

so scotland is not responsible for any of the debt whatsoever you seriously cant genuinely think that, can you?

wow....

You're being silly now - you think we should take advice from china on how to structure our democracy?

And if you have read what Ihave said you would know the second statement is also rubbish.

[LJS]

In Scotland, the people don't understand what sovereignty is.

I'm talking post-indy you plonker.

Alex thinks that rUK should underwrite all debts of an independent Scotland - that is what he is asked for by wanting a CU.

Just out of interest, are the people of an independent Scotland happy to have a (say) 3% income tax increase to bail out the banks of rUK after there's been another financial fuck-up?

Or might the people of an independent Scotland say "the fuck-ups of another, foreign, state is not our responsibility"?

We both know what the answer is, so why do the people of iScotland think other foreign states should help iScotland in a way that iScotland will not help others?

I love how you twist & oversimplify everything: CU=UK bailing out Scotland.

Yeah that is the whole story isn't it?

[LJS]

Dear Neil

No, Alex has said "unless rUK becomes subservient to iScotland with it's sovereignty, iScotland will rob the rUK".

Do you understand how quotation marks work?

[LJS]

It is entirely reasonable but too reasonable for the yes campaign, which wants to place new and extra obligations onto rUk for iScotland to honour its own obligation.

it's called negotiation

[LJS]

There's clearly a number of different issues.

"Do Scottish people want independence based on their national identity?" Yes some do

"Do Scottish people want independence because they are tired of the governments that are elected into Westminster?" Yes some do, quite a lot I would say

"Do Scottish people want independence because they believe they'll be richer?" No doubt some do

Regarding each of them, the first I feel is based on a combination of nationalist racism. Even those like LJS who seem like decent, intelligent people still want to build borders up rather than weaken them. I disagree with this on a basic principle, I feel any form of national identity is misleading, and shouldn't be a part of the modern world. That's my naive optimism though.

I don't wish to build any borders - the borders already exist - I would hope post independence we can avoid barbed wire, machine gun posts & passport control. I think a sense of nationality is great as long as it is celebrating the positive. It is dangerous when it becomes arrogant, believing your nation is better than others. I am sure many of you will be hoping to celebrate your national identity in Brazil tonight. Football gives a perfect example of how the celebration of National Identity can be a positive. Footage of fans mingling with fans of other countries & sharing a common love of football. It goes without saying that football equally shows examples of the darker side of a "celebration" of national identity. I am very proud of being Scottish and love much Scottish culture. That doesn't mean Idon't appreciate Thomas Hardy, Beethoven or Robert Johnson.

I don't need Independence for that, it will not be changed by legislation.

The second is understandable, but still IMO selfish and naive. "Screw the English, they can be left with governments we think are terrible". I also don't think that any independent Scottish government, whatever flavour it will be, will be remarkably different from the flavour of politics we currently have in the UK as is.

I understand that argument & indeed it was my argument for many years. I've just given up on real change being delivered through Westminster. I've written at some length in the past why I think things can be better in an independent Scotland

The third however, is bollocks, but it's what Salmond's trying to sell. Scotland MIGHT be better off, but it's an incredibly stupid reason to vote for independence, it's selfish, misguided, naive, and ultimately being completely twattish. It's Thatcherism at its core. "Our oil pays for our services", "Our family pays for itself", not giving a damn about those outside who you consider "your people". I loathe this ideology, and it shows the rampant hypocrisy of the SNP.

I broadly agree with this. I have never voted in any election for the party that I think would make me richest - in fact I've never even considered it. But people are undoubtedly influenced by this ... which is perhaps why both sides use the "vote for us & you'll be better off argument."

For myself part of the reason I was uncomfortable with the independence campaign of the 70's & 80' was the explicit greed - "its Scotland's Oil". Now the oil has dwindled to the extent that while it is fairly significant in the finances of Scotland, It's loss will not plunge rUK into disaster.

[LJS]

then your ability to discern and understand is seriously limited.

Who gets to vote in the indyref? And who gets Scottish citizenship (and so a vote) after a yes vote?

Are these two groups all of the same people? Nope.

In the indyref, residents of Scotland get to vote on the basis used for 'regional' elections.

After indy, only Scottish citizens get a vote.

How do you think you can make a good decision when you don't understand the decision you're making?

as far as I can see this is just complete nonsense. what it is based on is "A consultation on an interim constitution for Scotland"

So it's a consultation on an interim constitution which gives a proposed definition of Scottish citizenship but no definition of who might be entitled to vote. (or at least not as far as i could find) You may think this is a serious omission. But in fact it isn't, because the first election to an independent Holyrood will take place using existing entitlements to vote & the second election to an independent Holyrood will take place under our new official constitution.

I don't know where you have picked up your crazy idea that swathes of the population are going to be disenfranchised & only the true Scots will be allowed to vote. But this is clearly amongst the most bonkers of your ideas.

Edited June 19, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

I don't have anything to criticise about the rest of it, but don't you think that by emphasising a national identity, you're actually celebrating differences from others, even if there's not any sense of superiority about it?

[LJS]

Want to save the United Kingdom? Move the capital to Glasgow

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/19/save-united-kingdom-move-capital-glasgow

Edited June 20, 2014 by LJS