Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Salmond and his sidekick are promising bigger pensions, free child care, etc without telling us where the money would come from. Scotland is full of OAPs like me. Will they rescind free bus passes, free prescriptions, free university tuition?
How is it independence to keep the monarchy? How are we free if we've got that eejit King Charles in the future?
The problem with the Nat's White paper is that it is more of a 'wish list' than a realisable policy objective, Most of the important stuff like the EU or the currency are heavily dependent upon the agreement of third parties such as other EU countries or the Bank of England to actually make them happen. In the real world, we know that, if Scotland does vote for independence, these third parties are going to negotiate for their own self-interest and not that of Scotland.
Take the EU/Europe/Euro. The White paper has fully 733 references to them. Membership of the EU is a cornerstone of Nationalist policy. The White Paper argues for 'continuity of effect' meaning that Scotland should be considered a continuing member of the EU and not a new entrant. But the White Paper also admits that Scotland's membership will be dependent upon the agreement of the other EU members (page 221). And yet, within 24 hours, both the EU Commission and Spain have come out and said that Scotland will have to be a new entrant.
And that does not just screw up the policy on the EU. It screws up policy on currency because, as a new entrant, Scotland will have to agree to adopt the Euro. And it screws up policy on the Common Travel Area (page 14) because, also as a new entrant, Scotland will be required to join Schengen.
And there is a decent amount of dishonesty in there as well. For example, loads of references to getting rid of nuclear weapons. It will even be unconstitutional to have them. And then, quietly, inserting a clause that nuclear weapons in NATO ships visiting Scottish ports are okay so long as nobody says anything (page 465). I suppose the Nationalist constitution isn't worth all that much. There is also a clause which gives the Nationalists an 'out' into allowing the UK nuclear sub base to carry on operating
So, after a big fanfare launch, you have a White Paper which is about as much use as a roll of toilet paper. And what is Plan B? Well, we are not sure what Plan B is. And Scots are expected to vote for these clowns?
Maybe if Salmond and co. came out and told Scots openly and honestly what the score is then he would have more credibility. A bit less spin and a bit more reality. Because, right now he is trying so hard to 'de-risk' independence (same head of state, same currency, same EU membership, same common travel area, etc. etc. ) that he is looking like a bit of a fool - and a dishonest one at that - each time reality intrudes on his fantasies.
The problem with the Nat's White paper is that it is more of a 'wish list' than a realisable policy objective, Most of the important stuff like the EU or the currency are heavily dependent upon the agreement of third parties such as other EU countries or the Bank of England to actually make them happen. In the real world, we know that, if Scotland does vote for independence, these third parties are going to negotiate for their own self-interest and not that of Scotland.
Take the EU/Europe/Euro. The White paper has fully 733 references to them. Membership of the EU is a cornerstone of Nationalist policy. The White Paper argues for 'continuity of effect' meaning that Scotland should be considered a continuing member of the EU and not a new entrant. But the White Paper also admits that Scotland's membership will be dependent upon the agreement of the other EU members (page 221). And yet, within 24 hours, both the EU Commission and Spain have come out and said that Scotland will have to be a new entrant.
And that does not just screw up the policy on the EU. It screws up policy on currency because, as a new entrant, Scotland will have to agree to adopt the Euro. And it screws up policy on the Common Travel Area (page 14) because, also as a new entrant, Scotland will be required to join Schengen.
And there is a decent amount of dishonesty in there as well. For example, loads of references to getting rid of nuclear weapons. It will even be unconstitutional to have them. And then, quietly, inserting a clause that nuclear weapons in NATO ships visiting Scottish ports are okay so long as nobody says anything (page 465). I suppose the Nationalist constitution isn't worth all that much. There is also a clause which gives the Nationalists an 'out' into allowing the UK nuclear sub base to carry on operating
So, after a big fanfare launch, you have a White Paper which is about as much use as a roll of toilet paper. And what is Plan B? Well, we are not sure what Plan B is. And Scots are expected to vote for these clowns?
Maybe if Salmond and co. came out and told Scots openly and honestly what the score is then he would have more credibility. A bit less spin and a bit more reality. Because, right now he is trying so hard to 'de-risk' independence (same head of state, same currency, same EU membership, same common travel area, etc. etc. ) that he is looking like a bit of a fool - and a dishonest one at that - each time reality intrudes on his fantasies.
Well said. Sounds scary to me. I think the SNP is counting on Scots voting with their emotions instead of their heads.
The SNP will more than likely not be in power in an independent Scotland - plus have you read it jaggy? EVERYONE is calling it a wish list, the first daft a*se on the news called it a wish list 20 minutes after it was released. Like anyone can read 600 plus pages in 20 minutes?!
The SNP will more than likely not be in power in an independent Scotland - plus have you read it jaggy? EVERYONE is calling it a wish list, the first daft a*se on the news called it a wish list 20 minutes after it was released. Like anyone can read 600 plus pages in 20 minutes?!
Yes, I have read it. That is why I was able to reference my comments with page numbers.
Scottish independence doesn't scare me. Why on earth would it?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking!
Quote:
What should scare the Scottish population is the economic illiteracy of Salmond & Sturgeon and their littany of assumptions that the UK & EU would somehow welcome the country into the pound & the EU.
Stewart, one of the things which has become readily apparent to me and most people north of the border (whether they're for or against independence) is that the No campaign and its support are determined to play dirty. You accuse Salmond & Sturgeon of being economically illiterate, but I'd like you to stop and think about what's really going on here. We're in the midst of a political campaign, and the Westminster Government are doing all that they can to try and sow as much uncertainty and fear as they can in the run-up to the referendum.
To take the issue of the EU, the No campaign keep bleating on like a broken record that the EU might now allow Scotland to become a member, and the EU might insist on this or that. At every opportunity they band around these uncertainties, and what they're hoping to do is scare people who would otherwise vote yes.
What you must understand Stewart, is that these are manufactured uncertainties which are nothing but the product of the No campaigns 'fear and uncertainty' strategy. The EU Commission actually volunteered to give a straight up answer on how it would treat an independent Scotland, but the Westminster Government rejected that offer. (1) That tells you everything you need to know Stewart. If you genuinely believe that the EU would allow there to be a break in the EU status of an independent Scotland (whether or not Scotland is treated as a new or existing member); then I put it to you that you are the victim of the No campaigns strategy. (Even if you're not the intended target.)
The question of the pound is more complicated, as the real issue is over the lender of last resort - not whether or not Scotland can continue to use the pound as a currency. As Alex Salmond rightly pointed out, any country in the world could use the pound as its official currency, just as any country in the world could use magic beans or cigarettes as its official currency. That is not the issue here, the issue here is whether (as I described in my last post) the Bank of England would continue to act as lender of last resort to Scottish based banks. Once again, you will notice by its absence the lack of an official position of the UK Government on this subject, all that they have done is the same old 'fear and uncertainty' broken record. The reality of this situation is that there's really only one option for the Bank of England. With Scottish banks owning tens of millions of mortgages, personal loans and credit cards, throughout the UK; the UK economy cannot afford for RBS or BoS to fall to a bank-run. What that would mean would be millions of English/Welsh/Northern Irish homeowners see their mortgages terminated, and millions more loans to individuals and businesses recalled. If you were sadistic enough, you could look at that as being a price worth paying to get back at us mutinous little Scots; but then given that the owners of RBS and BoS are ultimately the UK Government; you begin to see my point.
The real question, isn't if the Bank of England will permit an independent Scotland to use the pound, or even if it will act as lender of last resort. (In reality it's held hostage over both those questions.) The real question is on what terms it will act in that capacity. Naturally, that question does not make for as good a sound-bite in the 'fear and uncertainty' campaign, so it doesn't get asked.
Quote:
If Scotland were to be allowed to join the EU it would be entirely on their terms. No more pound, no more rebate. How is the Euro working out for those impoverished PIIGS? You may need to add an extra S to that acronym.
Stewart, you're probably a really nice guy in real life; and I mean that genuinely. But you seem determined on this subject to reduce every complex question down to some sort of dystopian nightmare scenario, and it's difficult to have a serious discussion on those terms. Cmon man, just talk to me like I'm a human being!
In the event, it is true that the EU requires new members to commit to joining the Euro, and it is certainly possible that Scotland would have to commit to that. But what this does not mean is that an independent Scotland would imminently have to join the Euro. To take Sweden as an example; Sweden joined the EU in 1995 and is obliged by the Treaty of Maastricht to join the Euro, just as you are implying Scotland would be. Sweden has not taken the necessary steps to join the Euro, and the Swedish Government have made clear that they will not join without a popular referendum of Swedes. The EU's response is that they're fine with this situation. They aren't monsters who are determined that the people of member states will join the Euro whether the people want it or not. The EU Commissioner for economic affairs confirmed that Sweden will not have to join without the consent of the Swedish people. (2) Furthermore, for a country to actually join the Euro it must meet 5 economic criteria. As things stand, the UK only meets 1 of those 5 criteria (3); in effect, an independent Scotland would be unlikely to even be allowed to join the Euro - but that fact doesn't (at present) fit into the 'uncertainty and fear' machines agenda.
Quote:
And to imagine the UK treasury rubbing its hands with glee if it needed to bail out Scotland is an amusing thought. Perhaps Salmond should consider you as chancellor.
I maybe didn't explain this concept well enough. The UK treasury is separate to the Bank of England. The treasury is part of the Government, while the Bank of England is largely independent of Government. There is no question of anyone bailing out Scotland, we're talking about the Bank of England providing short term loans to individual banks. Individual banks I might add which are mostly owned by the UK Government.
Quote:
The truth is Scotland is a one trick economic pony. And as the oil revenues continue to dwindle the rest of the economy has to expand just to stand still. I don't see anyone putting forward a workable idea to counter that.
You would be correct to assume that an independent Scotland would be dependent on north sea oil to maintain public spending at levels higher than the UK average; but if your opinion that Scotland has not got a diversified economy and is like the Saudi Arabia of northern Europe - dependent on north sea oil for its very survival, you'd be very wrong.
By GVA per capita (the productive output of each individual in a country), Scotland is the 3rd most productive part of the UK behind London and the South East, when north sea oil is excluded from the calculation. (6) North Sea oil isn't what will make Scotland a wealthy country, because it would be a wealthy country even without it! North Sea oil merely makes what would already be a wealthy country, even wealthier.
Again, this 'fear and uncertainty' mantra has managed to convince you that Scotland is some sort of economic monstrosity propped up by nothing other than black gold and the hard working English taxpayer. That's far from the truth.
There are some genuine problems that an independent Scotland will face due to the oil industry. Tax returns are notoriously difficult to predict because some years they are positively enormous, only to be followed by years where they're not nearly so large. That is a fact an independent Government will have to deal with, and I'm not trying to push that under the carpet. But your doom and gloom portrayal of Scotland leaves a lot to be desired.
Salmond and his sidekick are promising bigger pensions, free child care, etc without telling us where the money would come from. Scotland is full of OAPs like me. Will they rescind free bus passes, free prescriptions, free university tuition?
How is it independence to keep the monarchy? How are we free if we've got that eejit King Charles in the future?
While the effect of the SNP's policy will be higher pensions, what they're proposing is a state pension which will rise with inflation, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is higher. In a strict sense you're right, it will increase the value of the state pension. However this measure will not unto itself increase the proportion of the Governments tax revenue spent on pensions. For example if inflation was 3%, then the state pension will also increase by 3%. The value of the pension doesn't increase, it just doesn't decrease as happens at the moment. If earnings rise by 3% then Government tax receipts also increase by around 3%, and so the added value to state pension doesn't cost the Scottish Government any greater a proportion of tax revenue. The only scenario in which this proposal could actually cost the Government a greater proportion of tax revenue is if inflation and economic growth both added up to less than 2.5%, but I'm not aware of that ever having happened. (Obviously with a rising number of pensioners the costs will increase, but that would be the case with or without this measure.)
In fairness to the SNP's white paper, it can't explicitly define how specific measures will be paid for because it can't define its budget until negotiations are complete. That said, the white paper does go into some detail about public spending. Page 597 shows that UK public spending as a whole for 2011/12 was 45.5% of GDP, while an independent Scotland (because its GDP per capita will be higher) would spend only 42.7% if all else remained constant. That leaves quite a lot of wiggle room for the incoming Government to increase public spending or for tax cuts. The SNP are promising both.
I don't fully agree with your point about the monarchy. (Apart from Charles being an eejit.) It doesn't make any practical difference to Scottish politics whether the symbolic head of state is the Queen or a Giant Panda. I do see the ethical question over the monarchy, and I suppose if pressed to take a view I'd be a republican; but I don't consider the monarchy to be a priority. If the question were raised during the campaign I think it would only be a distraction from the real issues we face. I think it's better that this question is decided in a seperate referendum post independence.
Eoin
Last edited by Eoin (pronounced Owen); 12-01-2013 at 12:43 AM..
You would be correct to assume that an independent Scotland would be dependent on north sea oil to maintain public spending at levels higher than the UK average; but if your opinion that Scotland has not got a diversified economy and is like the Saudi Arabia of northern Europe - dependent on north sea oil for its very survival, you'd be very wrong.
By GVA per capita (the productive output of each individual in a country), Scotland is the 3rd most productive part of the UK behind London and the South East, when north sea oil is excluded from the calculation. (6) North Sea oil isn't what will make Scotland a wealthy country, because it would be a wealthy country even without it! North Sea oil merely makes what would already be a wealthy country, even wealthier.
Eoin, I didn't quote your whole reply as it is extremely long winded. You would do well to be vastly more concise so as to avoid boring everybody to death.
The oil bit did stand out though. Scotland is screwed without oil. Because Scotland exports virtually nothing else. The country can't exist on a cottage Whisky industry and a moderately performing tourism sector. The malaise of the manufacturing sector continues to be masked by the fact that most of it is for the oil industry.
Oil tax revenues for 2017/8 are forecast to be 2.6b less than last year. The Scottish economy will need to expand to fill that void. Fill it with what? More financial services maybe? How did that work out last time round? And while they're puzzling that they'll be servicing their 10yr debt at levels 1% or more above UK bond levels due to having no track record, making the hole even deeper. Salmond is silent on all of this for a reason Eoin.
The reason you're not hearing much from south of the border on these and other issues is that Salmond is doing a pretty slick job for the No campaign. The white paper raises more questions than it answers, and fat 'Eck is looking ever more like a cross between Forrest Gump & Bernard Manning.
Be in favour of independence by all means, but do so having the courage to face up to the cold reality of what it really means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
