Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed, lcarlson

Independant Scotland?

Poll ended at Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:22 am

YES!
14
23%
NO!
37
62%
No Opinion
9
15%
 
Total votes: 60

User avatar
r0jaws
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by r0jaws » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:29 pm

PanzerGeneral wrote:.....I hope people can start to see why the thee main parties were so interested in preserving the union, mainly loss of finance, power and influence for the top percentile of the UK-and the only thing those in power are truly afraid of-is the thought that they will lose their power, money and influence.
The whole thing was pretty much a self preservation exercise for the establishment.
I see your point, but your argument that we would have had a currency union is based upon strong-arming/ blackmailing the rUK. That would have been about as popular as Jimmy Saville on a paediatric ward.

By the sounds of it, between London and Scotland the rest of us produce the square root of bugger all. It's a miracle we all survive.

User avatar
Nemesis
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:55 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by Nemesis » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:27 pm

PanzerGeneral wrote:Speaking as a Scottish person who lives in England, at first I was a bit nonplussed about the whole affair until I started getting pissed off with the media coverage and decided to do a bit of digging, the one thing that really started getting at me was the notion of England subsidising Scotland, so lo and behold it actually turned out that tax receipts in Scotland were actually contributing about £1700 more per capita than England, it is true that the government spends approximately £1200 a year per capita more in Scotland-but that would still leave a surplus of £500 per capita per year from Scotland.
It also transpired that GDP per capita in Scotland was nearly 1% higher than in England.
Basically taxpayers in the remainder of the UK would have to have made up the shortfall in finance and productivity probably through increased taxation.
It also transpires that the "impartial" figures that were bandied about by the 3 main parties were from the IFS, who got their figures from the OBR-who were a group set up by none other than George Osbourne.
With regards to media coverage-there are 37 newspapers in Scotland and only 1 backed independence, the BBC and Sky news reports were told mainly from the no perspective and devoted a wholly disproportionate amount of airtime to the better together campaign.
There was also the myth about Scotland getting free prescriptions, healthcare and further education at the expense of the English-this was actually funded through the cancellation of several capital projects in Scotland, England had the exact same option available to them but deemed projects like London Cross Rail to be more important than free prescription charges.
Another huge fly in the ointment was the mooted currency union-wether you liked it or not, had a yes vote won through-I can guarantee that it would have happened, if not Scotland would have walked away from it's portion of the national debt which would have been approximately £125 billion, under law they would have been allowed to as the debt was registered to the UK. Obviously this would have caused a huge issue for Westminster finances as there responsibility to the national debt would have increased by 8.3% but they would have had several million less taxpayers to service it.
There was also the issue of Trident, after independence it would be removed from Scotland within 5 years, there was no way a suitable storage facility for the warheads could be completed before 2028-leaving the remainder of the UK with no nuclear deterrent.
The remainder of the UK would also have to renegotiate it's position on the UN security council.
There would also be the tiny little point about energy, Scotland produces a surplus of oil, gas and electricity and is entirely self sufficient in all, the excess electricity produced goes into the national grid and is used by the rest of the UK.
I hope people can start to see why the thee main parties were so interested in preserving the union, mainly loss of finance, power and influence for the top percentile of the UK-and the only thing those in power are truly afraid of-is the thought that they will lose their power, money and influence.
The whole thing was pretty much a self preservation exercise for the establishment.
Regarding your point on the currency issue, your assumption that the rUK would've been forced into a currency union is as deluded as AS was on the matter. Up until 2008, the SNP were planning to adopt the Euro for an independent Scotland. However, after the financial crisis AS quickly shelved those plans and instead planned the currency Union with the rUK. He then insisted this would happen despite nobody South of the border actually asking for it. The UK govt didn't adopt a currency union in terms of the Euro so there's no chance it was going to be railroaded into one just because Scotland went independent. Seriously, I suspect most people would be livid in being forced into a currency Union just because another country went independent. Have the BoE underwriting all the Scottish banks and financial institutions? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Sure, Scotland could renege on its debts, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, their credit rating would be in tatters and the 1st thing an independent Scotland would be doing to maintain current tax levels, is to borrow. Not many institutions would be happy to lend money to country that just denied all liability for their share of the national debt.
Oh and if you want to do little social experiments on our forum don't post about them on your own you plum - Darren@Retro Gamer

User avatar
PanzerGeneral
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: N.W

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by PanzerGeneral » Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:25 pm

r0jaws wrote:
PanzerGeneral wrote:.....I hope people can start to see why the thee main parties were so interested in preserving the union, mainly loss of finance, power and influence for the top percentile of the UK-and the only thing those in power are truly afraid of-is the thought that they will lose their power, money and influence.
The whole thing was pretty much a self preservation exercise for the establishment.
I see your point, but your argument that we would have had a currency union is based upon strong-arming/ blackmailing the rUK. That would have been about as popular as Jimmy Saville on a paediatric ward.

By the sounds of it, between London and Scotland the rest of us produce the square root of bugger all. It's a miracle we all survive.


Re-the currency union, I personally would not have liked for it to happen, but with regards to strong arm tactics and blackmail-that is exactly what happened to ensure a no vote was successful.

User avatar
PanzerGeneral
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: N.W

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by PanzerGeneral » Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:34 pm

Nemesis wrote:
PanzerGeneral wrote:Speaking as a Scottish person who lives in England, at first I was a bit nonplussed about the whole affair until I started getting pissed off with the media coverage and decided to do a bit of digging, the one thing that really started getting at me was the notion of England subsidising Scotland, so lo and behold it actually turned out that tax receipts in Scotland were actually contributing about £1700 more per capita than England, it is true that the government spends approximately £1200 a year per capita more in Scotland-but that would still leave a surplus of £500 per capita per year from Scotland.
It also transpired that GDP per capita in Scotland was nearly 1% higher than in England.
Basically taxpayers in the remainder of the UK would have to have made up the shortfall in finance and productivity probably through increased taxation.
It also transpires that the "impartial" figures that were bandied about by the 3 main parties were from the IFS, who got their figures from the OBR-who were a group set up by none other than George Osbourne.
With regards to media coverage-there are 37 newspapers in Scotland and only 1 backed independence, the BBC and Sky news reports were told mainly from the no perspective and devoted a wholly disproportionate amount of airtime to the better together campaign.
There was also the myth about Scotland getting free prescriptions, healthcare and further education at the expense of the English-this was actually funded through the cancellation of several capital projects in Scotland, England had the exact same option available to them but deemed projects like London Cross Rail to be more important than free prescription charges.
Another huge fly in the ointment was the mooted currency union-wether you liked it or not, had a yes vote won through-I can guarantee that it would have happened, if not Scotland would have walked away from it's portion of the national debt which would have been approximately £125 billion, under law they would have been allowed to as the debt was registered to the UK. Obviously this would have caused a huge issue for Westminster finances as there responsibility to the national debt would have increased by 8.3% but they would have had several million less taxpayers to service it.
There was also the issue of Trident, after independence it would be removed from Scotland within 5 years, there was no way a suitable storage facility for the warheads could be completed before 2028-leaving the remainder of the UK with no nuclear deterrent.
The remainder of the UK would also have to renegotiate it's position on the UN security council.
There would also be the tiny little point about energy, Scotland produces a surplus of oil, gas and electricity and is entirely self sufficient in all, the excess electricity produced goes into the national grid and is used by the rest of the UK.
I hope people can start to see why the thee main parties were so interested in preserving the union, mainly loss of finance, power and influence for the top percentile of the UK-and the only thing those in power are truly afraid of-is the thought that they will lose their power, money and influence.
The whole thing was pretty much a self preservation exercise for the establishment.
Regarding your point on the currency issue, your assumption that the rUK would've been forced into a currency union is as deluded as AS was on the matter. Up until 2008, the SNP were planning to adopt the Euro for an independent Scotland. However, after the financial crisis AS quickly shelved those plans and instead planned the currency Union with the rUK. He then insisted this would happen despite nobody South of the border actually asking for it. The UK govt didn't adopt a currency union in terms of the Euro so there's no chance it was going to be railroaded into one just because Scotland went independent. Seriously, I suspect most people would be livid in being forced into a currency Union just because another country went independent. Have the BoE underwriting all the Scottish banks and financial institutions? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Sure, Scotland could renege on its debts, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, their credit rating would be in tatters and the 1st thing an independent Scotland would be doing to maintain current tax levels, is to borrow. Not many institutions would be happy to lend money to country that just denied all liability for their share of the national debt.

Scotland's credit rating would not have been affected in the slightest by refusal to shoulder a share of the national debt as there was no legal basis for a repayment of the national debt, it was merely mooted by the pro independence side as a good will gesture(thinly disguised as a way to ensure a currency union).
The only thing that would have had an effect on Scotland's credit rating was the fact that it would be starting as a new country with no credit history, based on current economic performance which is roughly in line with the remainder of the UK a temporary reduction to AA would be likely until such time as things had settled down and both parties had sorted out the split of assets.

User avatar
Nemesis
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:55 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by Nemesis » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:21 pm

^^ you can't expect there would be no consequences for reneging on the national debt.

Any attempt to effectively default would be viewed as “opportunistic” by international investors, who would then push up borrowing premiums or bar Scotland from capital markets, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warned.

Such a move is also likely to see Germany block any Scottish bid for European Union (EU) membership because it would set a “dangerous precedent” and leave the economic powerhouse exposed to insolvencies, the report suggests.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politi ... -1-6302790
Oh and if you want to do little social experiments on our forum don't post about them on your own you plum - Darren@Retro Gamer

User avatar
r0jaws
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by r0jaws » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:02 pm

PanzerGeneral wrote:...Re-the currency union, I personally would not have liked for it to happen, but with regards to strong arm tactics and blackmail-that is exactly what happened to ensure a no vote was successful.
There may have been some alarmist stories and utter garbage like Border guards, but the problem was that the SNP just did not provide enough solid answers to the questions that people were going to ask.
The currency was a no-brainer, and Salmond clearly did not think it through. Going from dumping Sterling, to insisting on a union that he would have had to fight for was never going to convince the undecided.
The SNP have had years to prepare for this, and the fact that they didn't plan for, and anticipate a rough road and instead relied on anti-Tory feeling and blind optimism tells you quite a lot about how things would have panned out.
The BT campaign has taken a lot of flack for it's tactics, but it was a reflection of the real fears and anxieties of the Scottish people. If the SNP were truly serious, they should have invested time in getting credible answers to those questions.
The fact of the matter is, the Yes campaign spent too much time having a "carnival" and being relentlessly positive, and they thought that would be enough. They didn't listen to, or respond well to the real anxieties of the people they needed to persuade. Instead they banged on about them just being scared. Damn right they were scared, why wouldn't they be? Even without the so called "Project Fear", the SNP had very few solid answers to the questions they had.
The SNP are the ones who you should be blaming, if you feel aggrieved. It was upto them to persuade people that what they wanted was desirable, achievable, and realistic.
However, come the next referendum I think things will be very different. Without real political change, this whole country is going to be in serious trouble.
I never disliked Mr Salmond, in fact I respect him, and admire his passion and his vision. I was interested in his idea that an independent Scotland could be a financial counterweight to London, and it definitely could. I know which end of the country I would prefer to be in. I think further devolution is just a waste of time, it can be rescinded at any time Westminster wishes. What the country needs is federalisation. Like Germany and the US, a strong union of nations/ regions, with inviolable rights and independent decision making powers, enshrined in a constitution. We would all be independent, but still be able to retain the advantages of a strong union.

User avatar
Nemesis
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:55 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by Nemesis » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:20 pm

r0jaws wrote:
PanzerGeneral wrote:...Re-the currency union, I personally would not have liked for it to happen, but with regards to strong arm tactics and blackmail-that is exactly what happened to ensure a no vote was successful.
There may have been some alarmist stories and utter garbage like Border guards, but the problem was that the SNP just did not provide enough solid answers to the questions that people were going to ask.
The currency was a no-brainer, and Salmond clearly did not think it through. Going from dumping Sterling, to insisting on a union that he would have had to fight for was never going to convince the undecided.
The SNP have had years to prepare for this, and the fact that they didn't plan for, and anticipate a rough road and instead relied on anti-Tory feeling and blind optimism tells you quite a lot about how things would have panned out.
The BT campaign has taken a lot of flack for it's tactics, but it was a reflection of the real fears and anxieties of the Scottish people. If the SNP were truly serious, they should have invested time in getting credible answers to those questions.
The fact of the matter is, the Yes campaign spent too much time having a "carnival" and being relentlessly positive, and they thought that would be enough. They didn't listen to, or respond well to the real anxieties of the people they needed to persuade. Instead they banged on about them just being scared. Damn right they were scared, why wouldn't they be? Even without the so called "Project Fear", the SNP had very few solid answers to the questions they had.
The SNP are the ones who you should be blaming, if you feel aggrieved. It was upto them to persuade people that what they wanted was desirable, achievable, and realistic.
However, come the next referendum I think things will be very different. Without real political change, this whole country is going to be in serious trouble.
I never disliked Mr Salmond, in fact I respect him, and admire his passion and his vision. I was interested in his idea that an independent Scotland could be a financial counterweight to London, and it definitely could. I know which end of the country I would prefer to be in. I think further devolution is just a waste of time, it can be rescinded at any time Westminster wishes. What the country needs is federalisation. Like Germany and the US, a strong union of nations/ regions, with inviolable rights and independent decision making powers, enshrined in a constitution. We would all be independent, but still be able to retain the advantages of a strong union.
Well said. I agree with everything apart from disliking AS. In the end the campaign was all about him and not about the BT arguments. AS gave Scotland hope but he also gave Scotland doubts. Doubts he couldn't resolve. The currency matter was his downfall and he should've come up with a better solution than a currency Union with a another country but with no political Union as well.
Oh and if you want to do little social experiments on our forum don't post about them on your own you plum - Darren@Retro Gamer

User avatar
r0jaws
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by r0jaws » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:03 pm

Had a look, it appears that the UK Govt has taken a hardline on never allowing another referendum again.

No more referendums of National importance allowed.

User avatar
markopoloman
Posts: 11657
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Poole, Dorset

Re: Scotland independence - YES or NO - VOTE

Post by markopoloman » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:23 pm

r0jaws wrote:Had a look, it appears that the UK Govt has taken a hardline on never allowing another referendum again.

No more referendums of National importance allowed.
:lol: :lol:
OFF TOPIC DISCUSSIONS - http://retrocanteen.boards.net/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest