Quote:
Originally Posted by Wad_2002
Chris,
Chris you right on money with the question (pardon the pun). But I believe the journey this now is understanding if we could leave and do it on our own without blowing the country up. Pretty much the concencus of your arguments that I have seen so far in this thread is that will happen if we leave. Anyways,
Britain may have been one of the great rulers over the past couple hundred years Chris, but when coming to rule the neighbour to the north, its a very controversial matter. More so over the last few decades for very obvious reason's.
|
This is another nationalist fantasy my friend. Britain did not come north to rule. England and Scotland passed Acts of Union in their own legislatures, preserving the bodies of law in each territory but agreeing that in future, those laws would be legislated in one common parliament. This parliament was based in London, which was the fair and reasonable choice for all sorts of reasons. Since 1707 Scots have been over-represented, in terms of population share, at the very top of UK institutions. Economically and socially Scotland has thrived and its people have enjoyed access to the first division of world affairs in a way that would not have happened otherwise.
Every government, everywhere in the world, has to govern for the good of the whole. This means its decisions will always be better for some than others. However on balance the overall health of the nation is good for the whole nation. An independent Scottish government sitting in Edinburgh would operate on exactly the same principles. The people of Shetland, for example, might reasonably point out that Edinburgh is still a very, very long way in terms of distance and culture.
Quote:
Chris you believe the union works very well. Well sorry I completely disagree with you on this.
We sell off our public utility's for a quick buck, hugely expand an inflated banking sector,crush a major world player in manufacturing, create an over inflated benefits system which totally lost focus of its original purpose, continue to pay bankers major bonuses, continue to do nothing about tax evaders, bbc scandals (public arm and big UK promtor), fund the royals, accept and influenced by a specific religion, sell off public assets (including council housing) and create an over inflated, heavily saturated private rent sector where again personal gain and profits prevail. The list goes on and on and on Chris. Where all the effective regulation, of which we also pay for out the public purse doesn't cut it.
Yeah, we can all say "yeah, but they can get everything right". Well I believe getting the basics and fundamentals right first and putting the power to the people first. Sadly that ain't the the case.
|
The idea that everything would have been completely different if only the government were in Edinburgh instead of Scotland is just another nationalist fantasy.
What the SNP is saying is,
none of these things would have happened if we had been in charge. That claim is nonsense for many reasons, two big ones being:
1. What makes the SNP so sure they'd have been in charge? They're a political party like any other. They are subject to the voters like any other.
2. Scotland has plenty of voters with centre-right sentiments - otherwise it would be politically unique in the Western world, and it isn't. There is a serious Tory image problem north of the border which masks that sentiment, and independence would most likely result in the death of the Tories in Scotland, followed by the formation of a new centre-right party. In time, this party would get its hands on power in Edinburgh. It's inevitable. So don't be so quick to assume that independence is the final solution to evil Tories. In the long run a government in Edinburgh would have its fair share of governments from both the Left and the Right, same as everywhere else.
What this comes down to is the SNP's amateurish failure to tell the difference between a national constitution, and party politics. Independence is a constitutional issue, but they are selling it on a 'white paper' which is actually an SNP party manifesto. They simply cannot guarantee that party political promises (such as free childcare) can last more than a few years beyond independence because such issues cannot be written in to a constitution.
Quote:
Why am I saying all this, because we can do nought about it. Salmond looks over the north sea, and see this money going south and dreams of what it could do for Scotland. Is that such a bad thing??...I mean really? AS knows the oil is running out and wouldn't be on the campaign trail if Scot had no oil.
You may not accept it, but I accept that oil is the lifeline of the current economic status of most advanced countries in this world and will go mental when the oil stops. But until that day, its major financial boost and incentive.
|
Alex Salmond wants to take oil revenue and create a sovereign wealth fund. Unfortunately, the state services that are currently paid for out of UK taxes are currently paid for, in part, out of that oil revenue. If Salmond takes oil revenue out of current spending, then in order to maintain spending on schools, hospitals and spare bedrooms for people claiming housing benefit, then he will have to find the money from somewhere else. He will find that money in the only other place it exists - your pocket. Independent Scotland, higher personal taxes. Your choice.
Quote:
|
I need to give credit where due in regards to your argument about the pound , but I think it will take more than whether it is the £ or not, to make or break Scotland is it decides to leave. I may be wrong, but Im sure the irish pound did fine until they joined the euro.
|
It did. But the SNP is not proposing a return to Pound Scots, it is proposing that IndeScotland continues to use Pound Sterling (GBP) via a formal currency union, which represents on the one hand, effectively surrendering Scottish independence as soon as it has been agreed, and on the other hand a significant political and economic risk for rUK.
Pound Scots means currency exchanges, and therefore fees, every time you do business with a company based in England. Paypal will make a fortune out of it, you certainly won't.
70% of Scotland's trade goes to other parts of the UK. Denominating those goods in Pound Scots adds currency costs that do not currently exist and puts Scotland on a footing with Ireland, France and wherever else in Europe. Once Scotland is just another country with a different currency, its current domestic advantage is gone.
And in reverse, goods coming to Scotland from rUK also become more expensive because of currency costs. And there are vastly more goods coming north than going south. This is a much bigger issue for Scotland than it is for rUK.
Quote:
|
Close the border, why? I mean like AS said, we would be your friendly neighbour to the north. I mean is that not good enough?
|
I don't think the border should be closed, not least because I live on the northern side of it.
However that is what being truly independent entails, if by independence you would point at Norway and Switzerland, as you did when you quoted David Cameron.
Quote:
Like another poster said, Im not an economist, and I have to rely on sources of info for that...
Other than losing sight of AS fundamental reasons for doing it, I will ask you though Chris, what would happen to the rest of the UK's wealth if Scotland left. You seem to have a very big insight on how bad it will be for Scotland, I am very interested to hear your views on the flip side.
All the talk I have heard so far is Scotland will emplode and the rest of the UK will will be fine and have to ride to Scotland's rescue. I mean really, do you believe anyone to accept that, weather anyone has a detailed economic financial reason which to me is all banker talk covering their rear ends. (not to imply that you are a banker or that).
|
You have not heard me arguing that Scotland will implode. You have not heard Better Together arguing that either. You may have heard some nutter down the pub saying that, but then there are nutters on both sides and I think we can safely ignore them.
You have heard me, and BT, argue that
on balance Scotland will be worse off, because loss of economies of scale will result in higher costs for groceries, higher costs for public services (resulting in higher taxes to pay for them), higher costs for students because Scotland will not be able to afford to pay fees for students from rUK, who would suddenly be entitled to them under EU law as citizens of a foreign member state.
You have also heard me, and BT, argue that the
risks of Scotland facing an economic catastrophe are greater because the economic shocks of 2008 and since have shown just how badly things can go wrong, how much money is required to put them right, and what fiscal structures are required in order to administer the treatment.
Quote:
|
Who do we we standing up now?, the govn. of the bank of England?...who may see less money coming in and have to deal with problems that he cannot even comprehend. What the head of the BP?...who has to worry about AS raising the rent on the fields.
|
I'm not sure what you mean about the Governor of the BoE seeing 'less money coming in'. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick here and perhaps you need to go and do some reading up on what the Bank of England is for, and what it does.
As for the boss of BP worrying about Salmond taxing his business, well yes, and why shouldn't he? Tax regimes are important to businesses, especially to multinational businesses. Hostile tax regimes deter investment by such businesses. You may think that's not your problem if some fat cat business gets thumped by a proud Scottish left-wing government, but it will become your problem pretty darned quick if that tax regime results in BP, and others, going elsewhere. When the tax take falls, other taxes go up or public services get cut. It is inevitable.
Quote:
|
You know Chris, if your right, and we leave and mess it up, I will come back here and give you your due, I am man enough to do that, but its going to take more than the better together campaign weak arguments to convince Scots to stay. Labour were wiped out in Scotland in the last election for a very good reason and are still shocked .
|
There are a lot of people who voted for the SNP in 2011 for reasons other than their stance on independence. The SNP's showing in the Holyrood elections should not be taken as an indication of the referendum voting intentions of the Scottish electorate.
Scottish voters are canny and tactical. They realised that in many cases the only way to 'get the Labour out' was to vote for his SNP rival. Holyrood elections are fought under a system that is *broadly* proportional but it is still not perfect. The SNP may have just scraped an overall majority of seats but they did so on 45% of the vote - i.e. they didn't get the support of the majority of voters. That's not to take anything away from their achievement in 2011, but don't for a moment think that those results read across to a 'yes' vote this year.
Join CF
You are here: 
