Scottish Independance & Sectarianism

[Lifelinking]

Latest post of the previous page:

Thank you for a very interesting (and pejorative free) post.

This National Institute of Economic and Social Research report into Scotland’s Currency Options published today highlights the same issues you mention. It explores the three options of retaining Sterling, having a new currency or the Euro. The authors do make the point that:

There has been no meaningful discussion to date between the two governments on dividing the existing UK public debt and how an independent Scotland would in practice transfer the funds to the continuing UK. A definitive answer to the currency question is impossible as long as this issue is unresolved.

[Nick]

Thank you for a very interesting (and pejorative free) post.

This National Institute of Economic and Social Research report into Scotland’s Currency Options published today highlights the same issues you mention.

Not altogether surprising, as that was the report I was refering to....

It explores the three options of retaining Sterling, having a new currency or the Euro. The authors do make the point that:

There has been no meaningful discussion to date between the two governments on dividing the existing UK public debt and how an independent Scotland would in practice transfer the funds to the continuing UK. A definitive answer to the currency question is impossible as long as this issue is unresolved.

Indeed. And I'm not sure that it is destined to be decided before the referendum. So people won't know exactly what they may be letting themselves in for....

[Alan C.]

A bit off topic to what Nick and LL are discussing but something (a misconception) I think that needs to be brought up.

Nick
Indeed. And I'm not sure that it is destined to be decided before the referendum. So people won't know exactly what they may be letting themselves in for....

I expect we'll see a lot more of this scare mongering over the next twelve months and most of it will come from South of Gretna, Well I'm not buying it.
England and Wales stand to lose far more following a yes vote than Scotland does.
I believe Scotland contributes more per capita to the treasury than anywhere else in the Uk.

Link.

[Lifelinking]

I don't buy the scaremongering either Alan.

Indeed. And I'm not sure that it is destined to be decided before the referendum. So people won't know exactly what they may be letting themselves in for....

Well, constitutionally it simply could not be decided before the referendum, as is the case with very many other issues. But it can and will be openly and fully debated to allow people to make an informed decision.

[draykorinee]

Let them vote, if they want out who cares, its Scotland, whilst I love Scotland as a country I really dont see why we need to convince them to stay with the UK, its not the 1800s anymore, independence may well work out for both parties, it might not. There is scaremongering and misinformation on both sides, personally I think Scotland would become even more irrelevant on a global scale than it is now.

[getreal]

not exactly scientific, but I am curently in Macedonia, and since it split from Yugoslavia it has slid into real poverty. The economic decline has to be seen to be believed.

There are absolutly no new public buildings been built since before 1991. The schools and hospitals are akin to those of a developing country.

There is no running water in the school toilets, the squat toilets are not cleaned (no one is employed to do this) and children must take their own soap, towel and toilet paper to school.


Hey! But thei;re independant now! Yipee!!


I was begining to be won over by the yes arguments, mainly because I would hate for us to lose our superior health and eduaction systems. This week has changed my view.

sorry for the spelling and typos. the computers here are still steampoewred.

[Fia]

Gosh, Getreal, do you really think that we would

lose our superior health and education systems

?

... personally I think Scotland would become even more irrelevant on a global scale than it is now.

Interesting comment, draykorinee, in the light of Putin's recent put down of our little island/s. Do you think it's important for a small country to be relevant on a global scale?

[getreal]

I mean superior in terms of the other UK systems. And yes, I do fear that they could decide to take back some of that autonomy.

our health care system is entierly different to that in England.

[Alan C.]

draykorinee
Let them vote, if they want out who cares,

I do. And so should you.

draykorinee
personally I think Scotland would become even more irrelevant on a global scale than it is now.

Would you like to expand on that before I offer a reply? (other than this one)
If Scotland is so "irrelevant" Why are the politico's in England getting their knickers in a twist over the vote for independence?

[draykorinee]

draykorinee
Let them vote, if they want out who cares,

I do. And so should you.

draykorinee
personally I think Scotland would become even more irrelevant on a global scale than it is now.

Would you like to expand on that before I offer a reply? (other than this one)
If Scotland is so "irrelevant" Why are the politico's in England getting their knickers in a twist over the vote for independence?

Okay I was just being flippant on the first part, I do of course have a stake in the decision, I think what I meant is, if they want out let themvote and get out and see how things go.

As to point 2, If you notice I said a global scale, locally of course we have an interest but you can't tell me that Scotland will have an impact globally, they are not really that siginificant now, its only through the UK that scots like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are getting any place on the world stage. Scotland has a rich history but it does not have the financial or manufacturing power or natural resources it once had, politically it will be another small country with no real influence on any global issues, I would liken them to countries like Latvia, Iceland etc who, although great countries are not world movers in politics.

[lewist]

Hi, draykorinee, and welcome to TH.

I'm a Scot and will vote for independence, for the Union of the Parliaments to be dismantled, the Act of 1707 to be repealed. The United Kingdom will continue, as no one has seriously suggested doing away with the 1603 union of the crowns.

Even the shambolic No campaigners are admitting that Scotland can be a successful and viable nation. It increasingly looks as if the English politicians are becoming worried about the prospect of losing our financial contribution. We get back far less than we contribute, and we hold the sources of energy, not just oil but most of the renewables.

However, I'm interested in your assumption that it would be a good thing to have influence on the world stage. One of the events leading up the Act of Union was the Act Anent Peace and War, which was an assertion that foreign policy was a matter for parliament and not the crown. What's so great about being able to bully other nations in far flung places?

[draykorinee]

valid point, why does a country need to be important in the world stage, i have no answer other than they don't, i did imply a negative connotation to it but i can't think why.

As to whether it will be good for Scotland or the UK i couldn't say, it should absolutely be a choice Scotland has, I actually think the first vote will fall short of independence personally but it's only delaying the inevitable, as to oil last i heard it was British companies and it's not as simple as 'they belong to Scotland' I'll have to research that when I'm not at work.

[draykorinee]

Gosh, Getreal, do you really think that we would

lose our superior health and education systems

?

... personally I think Scotland would become even more irrelevant on a global scale than it is now.

Interesting comment, draykorinee, in the light of Putin's recent put down of our little island/s. Do you think it's important for a small country to be relevant on a global scale?

It's important for the uk to remain relevant, that being said on further consideration i don't see why Scotland needs to consider itself an influencer of global politics. The uk may be small but we have been including influencing the world in many ways for millennia, Putins just an arse, his comments do not correlate to the actual position the UK has in the global sphere. I'm at work today so can't put more effort in to my replies, but i do think Britain (i might be misusing Britain and uk? always confuses me) needs to keep itself relevant globally.

[lewist]

...scots like Tony Blair...

What? I don't think he's Scottish and I don't think we'll be offering him a Scottish passport. If he applied, it would need special consideration.

It's important for the uk to remain relevant...

Why? Scotland has huge relevance in terms of her contribution to science, medicine, technology and the arts. Scots culture is celebrated happily in all the places the diaspora reached. We are not in danger of losing that relevance; what we could happily lose is the power of the school bully as it is wielded by Westminster.

Is that last what you mean by relevance?

[petemster]

.

Did you hear the one about the guy who goes for an interview for a job as an economic expert?

Interviewer : What is 2 + 2 ?
Candidate : What would you like it to be?

I sometimes wonder what all the experts were doing right up to the 2008 crash. How come all these
"experts" failed to forecast it?

Now I'm no economist but it puzzles me that, according to respected experts such as NIESR,
a small country like Scotland - if it were to become independent - in spite of having large oil
reserves, would find itself in serious economic difficulty. So much so that their best hope of
survival would be to give all of the oil revenues - that is, ALL of the oil - to England, Wales and N.I.
Could there be some kind of jiggery-pokery going on here?

NIESR estimates that the Scottish debt in 2016 would be £153billion which would represent 86% of GDP
- compared to the remaining UK's debt of 101% of GDP.
Then they say that if Scotland wants to be/become part of the EU they would have to reduce the
debt ratio to 60% in order to meet the Maastricht criterion. That is, more or less instantly.
This is a highly dubious assumption to make. It's not at all inevitable that Scotland would be required to
achieve this target before becoming a member. It would probably be enough to show a real
commitment to reducing the debt over a reasonable timescale - in accordance with
a country-specific Medium-Term budgetary Objective.
This would be similar to the plan for other EU countries such as France with a debt ratio of 85%
and Germany with a debt ratio of 82%.
I use words like, "probably" because the whole process would involve politics, not just fairness,
but I imagine the debt plan would be part of the negotiations.

Another of NIESR's considerations is the price of oil. They say that Scotland couldn't cope with
fluctuations in such a volatile market. Reductions in the price of oil would reduce Scotland's income
- therefore Scotland would be better off giving the oil to the UK. What a stupid argument!
Quite apart from the fact that a low oil price assists economic growth, and government income, are they
actually forecasting a long-term or permanent fall in the price of oil? Is this their expert advice?

On a final point. Some people have said that an independent Scotland would face years of austerity
regardless of what policies it might adopt. This is scaremongering plain and simple - based on some
very selective and dubious assumptions.

As I said at the beginning, I'm no economist, so I'm willing to be convinced by rational economic argument.
But I do believe that Scotland has a strong economy which, together with its considerable natural
resourses including oil, make it well placed to make a success of independence.

Even if we conceded (which I don't) that the people of Scotland might possibly face some austerity
under independence, we can be sure that without independence we would definitely face austerity along with
the rest of the UK.
After all, the Westminster government have made that a promise.

[draykorinee]

...scots like Tony Blair...

What? I don't think he's Scottish and I don't think we'll be offering him a Scottish passport. If he applied, it would need special consideration.

It's important for the uk to remain relevant...

Why? Scotland has huge relevance in terms of her contribution to science, medicine, technology and the arts. Scots culture is celebrated happily in all the places the diaspora reached. We are not in danger of losing that relevance; what we could happily lose is the power of the school bully as it is wielded by Westminster.

Is that last what you mean by relevance?

Blair was born in edingburgh, i won't argue that his 'scottishness' is about zero, but you have to accept some of the blame! (plenty to go around)

Again, I'm talking about global political relevance of which Scotland has none. Scotland had a rich history and culture that is known world wide, don't get me wrong in thinking that Scotland is not an important country in regards to science, literature, culture, etc it is and certainly has been, but it's not a world player like it was. However, like i did and others have questioned, does it matter? probably not, it was certainly not my stance that Scotland can't influence the world in others ways. the whole bully thing i would have to disagree with, but that's another discussion.
I personally hope the vote passes and Scotland can be independent if only to shut my Scottish sister in law and her mother up, feed up of hearing them bang on about the English even though they both married one :p

[Alan C.]

draykorinee
Again, I'm talking about global political relevance of which Scotland has none.

Faslane?

Scotland had a rich history and culture that is known world wide,

I hope that was a typo and "had" should read has.

[Justme]

I'm not going to get into this. Not because I don't have a horse in the race, but that I believe all politics are the invention of mankind to perfect the ability to squabble between each other. It's always been about us and them, no matter who is involved and concentrates on group instead of the individual.

The powers that be can do what they will. I hope things turn out for the best for all sides, but I know that's impossible. Someone will have to loose and bitterness will result. The landscape will retain all the features of before but the barriers between brothers will multiply.

[Alan C.]

Justme
Not because I don't have a horse in the race, but that I believe all politics are the invention of mankind to perfect the ability to squabble between each other.

Is there another/better way to run things.

I believe all politics are the invention of mankind to perfect the ability to squabble between each other.

Hmm...I wonder what else that could apply to? I'll give it some thought

[draykorinee]

draykorinee
Again, I'm talking about global political relevance of which Scotland has none.

Faslane?

Scotland had a rich history and culture that is known world wide,

I hope that was a typo and "had" should read has.

Typing on phone at work is a fail, yes has and will continue to have.

I had to google faslane.

[Alan C.]

draykorinee
I had to google faslane.

We (Scotland) Are home to most of the UK nuclear "deterant" The Conservatives in the South of England are shitting themselves that following a yes vote, they might have to move the nukes into their own back yard.
Personally, I'd keep them here at a rent of astronomical proportions, (they'd probably pay up)