Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[arp1]

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

[toppstuff]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

Why does the rUk want Scotland to stay?

That is a good question. Personally, I am not THAT bothered.

But for me it is like watching a cousin in the family join a cult. They've been brainwashed to believe something even though there is overwhelming evidence to tell them its a stupid idea. And they are about to leap off a cliff without a safety net because the big man in the sky has told them it will be fine. You feel quite certain that they are really going to hurt themselves, so you try and talk them out of it.

Some people get tired of dealing with people who ignore facts and end up thinking they may as well just jump then. Don't blame us when gravity smashes you on the rocks below. We did tell you..

[mcdjl]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

Up to a point I'm not that bothered. Ultimately I think of myself as British and my country as the UK, I would rather not see it broken up. My emotional head quite likes the shared history culture etc that we've got. I like Scotland, and like that its part of my country. I've spent 2 weeks there this year, if its independent with a different currency, France is closer and has fewer midges.
In my rational hat I see a lot of costs on both sides, say Scotland gets 10% of the embasys, we need to replace them for the UK. That costs a lot of my tax money I'd rather not spend. I don't see what the benefits are. I've heard 'fairer society'. No ones managed to even come close to explaining it beyond 'it'll be fairer'. I've heard 'we'll have all the economic levers while being in a currency union', which doesn't make sense. i have moer respect for Fluffs dream land republic than the 'independence' being sold be calvib.
Beyond that i think the UK is greater than the sum of its parts and we're better together. For example, 10 years ago in India there were a series of sporting competitions. Theyre running them again in Glasgow this week. Back then England came 3rd, Scvotland 10th, Wales 13th and Northern Ireland 14th. The UK, had it entered would have been 1st by a long way (or 2nd based on golds rather than total see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Commonwealth_Gam... ). While sport is a purile example i think its a useful illustration and one that will more than likely be repeated in the coming days.
In conclusion i have no doubt Scotland will survive if it goes it alone. I have no doubt that many of AS promises will turn out to be worth less than the paper they're written on. I just think that we'll all be worse off for it in any way other than mel gibson shouting 'freedom'.

Edited by mcdjl on Tuesday 22 July 10:06

[Nick Grant]

I've spoke to a few yes voters who say "a vote for yes is not a vote for SNP" but apart from the Greens no other party supports independence. None have been able to tell me who this mystery stranger is who will sweep on to the scene and turn Scotland into the Eutopia that they are expecting.

If there was an inspirational politician who were able to do what would be required to achieve this miracle I think the vote would go the other way. I don't see anyone in Holyrood or indeed Westminster capable of a consitutional transformation of this scale. If there were, surely they would have sufaced by now and revealed thier grand plans.

[wolves_wanderer]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

I think both Scotland and the UK would both be diminished by a split.
I have Scottish friends and like Scotland.
I don't like Salmond lying to people.

I'm sure Scotland would be able to manage whatever happens but Salmond should be honest enough to run the Yes campaign on the "heart" (there will be hard times but we want to go our own way) rather than the "head" (nothing will change apart from more free money) I think he's selling them a pup.

ETA - For the yessers to suggest there will be no backlash is optimistic I feel. It gets fairly wearing seeing constant nonsense about being an abusive partner and leeching off Scotland. Whether the vote is yes or no damage has been done. No doubt Salmond's plan all along, to poison the well regardless.

Edited by wolves_wanderer on Tuesday 22 July 10:20

[bullies180]

Calvib said:

I don't know what you get so het up about anyway.

We'll vote YES.

Our respective governements bill bash out a deal that works better for both countries than the current set up.

This will involve a temporary currency union.

Scottish continued use of embassies.

A shared energy grid.

Very easy trading conditions.

Continued use of Union Flag.

We'll get on just fine and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Whats in this for the rUK? What do we get out of it?

[Alfa numeric]

Calvib said:

el stovey said:

Calvib said:

You need a geography lesson mate. Scotland will still be part of the British Isles (i.e. British) after independence. We just won't be in the UK. But we can still use the Union Flag.

Scotland can use the Union flag when it's not in the union?

Do your history...

later on Calvib said:

Continued use of Union Flag.

Why would you want to use the flag of a foreign country rather than your own?

[ianrb]

malks222 said:

The arguement/debate is really starting to get to me. I keep seeing details, scenarios, minority issues being debated, when all I want are the answers to the basics:

- start up costs
- currency union
- EU membership
- change

sadly the Yes campaign have failed on all 3 of them in my eyes.

- start up costs: they gave a figure of circa £200mil, but then when pushed on this, couldnt admit that 'disentanglement/separation' costs would also cost £1/2bil, very close to the initial figure given by the UK governement.

- currency union: Yes have said there will be a currency union, the UK governement have categorically said no. theres been no plan B, or alternative from the yes campaign. and after reading up on lender of last resort and central banks, I can completely see why there will be no currency union.

- EU membership: its on the current scottish government website, in letters between the scottish government and the EU. that on the day of independence scotland becomes a brand new country. nothing stopping iScotland from appyling to join the EU, but it will have to do so like every other country. I also can see that scotland will not get the opt outs and rebate that the UK government were able to negotiate in the beginning.

- change: a very open, vague point. but what its means to me is- what will be different? they keep talking about a much fairer society, but what is currently stopping the current scottish governemnt doing this now? is westminster stopping the scottish government policy in welfare/healthcare/social matters? I think not. if there are changes that can be made, why are they not doing it now, what is stopping them? yes supporters keep saying they hate the waste of the uk government (HS2, trident, infrastrucure projects) but would you not rather see the scottish government use the £1-2billion pounds they would spend on setting up an iScotland, on things like schools, hospitals, care for the vulnerable?

there are loads of other questions that need answered, but for me these would be a good starting point.

Regarding your last point, i.e Change, last week AS was talking about how Westminster was undermining NHS Scotland, and that the only way to improve it was via independence. Now there are two points there:
Westminster undermining NHS Scotland - The NHS is one of the devolved issues, ie it's under the control of the Scottish Government. I don't know how Westminster can undermine it, and AS didn't spell it out (as usual).
NHS Scotland can only be defended/improved via interdependence - There are so many thing wrong with that statement that it's difficult to know where to start. Until all the alternatives have been examined it is simply not possible to state (well state honestly) that independence is the best route. And as has been pointed out many times a post independence Scotland would have less money to spend, so the total pot of money for government spending would be reduced. Which would at the very least put additional pressure on the NHS budget. So quite possibly Scottish independence would be among the worst ways to support NHS Scotland.

[Alpacaman]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

I don't think many people on here think Scotland can't do it, many of us live in Scotland and love the place. The thing is most of us know that it will be a long and difficult journey not the instant utopia the SNP are promising. The fact that the nationalists are avoiding answering all the difficult questions is quite scary, when there are only weeks to go until the vote. When like calvib they absolutely refuse to see the evidence of something in front of them that shows facts are unimportant to them.

As to why the rUK wants to keep Scotland as part of the UK, hundreds of years of shared history, fighting side by side through two world wars, friendship, and plenty of others.

[Sway]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

For me, there's a head and heart reason...

Heart:
I've worked in Scotland, loved people from Scotland, enjoyed the friendly rivalry, but ultimately developed and had a fuller life due to Scotland being part of the UK. I'd miss that, and it would ultimately upset me that the feeling is not reciprocated.

Head:
First day after the vote, if Yes, Scottish financial businesses will experience capital flight. Doris from Eastbourne removing her pension from Scottish Widows/RBS/BoS, etc. There's just too much uncertainty in the post referendum environment (as we can see here) for there not to be significant fears.

However, that capital flight cannot be controlled, unlike cross border transactions. Everything is still in Sterling, and there would be no way (and equally no definition) of identifying those for whom restrictions should be applied. AS separation would not at that point have happened, the only scenario is that the UK Government steps in to bail out those institutions effected. Therefore the choice of the residents of Scotland would have significant, long reaching and severe effects on the UK as a whole.

We're big enough (and stable enough) to overcome those issues, as we have the first round of bank bailouts. But it's not been easy, and I would prefer that we didn't have to again.

[simoid]

Calvib said:

simoid said:

Trident will cost us billions to move,
HS2 is an investment for Scotland too.
We don't pay for London's sewers.
Public buildings need maintaining.
The Scottish government can dual the A9 and A96 any time they want, with devolution.

"Societal improvement"?

I was going to bed but I HAD to respond to this one!

This is the distilled nature of the utter subjective rhetoric on this thread. Spinning on the scale of pulsar star!

Each point, without exception, is utter spin.

PLEASE come to one of the televised referendum debates!

Subjective rhetoric?

I've given you five irrefutable facts and asked you to clarify one of the nebulous changes that you say independence could bring.

I'd be delighted to speak to my countries about the vote.

[andymadmak]

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

I don't think that Scotland can't do it. Indeed, I believe Scotland could do it. BUT... Not on the terms that Salmond and the SNP are saying will apply, and which they are using as the reasons for why Scotland should vote YES!. THAT's the big problem I have. Scotland is being sold a lie and the YES campaign is not even trying to conceal it's mendacity.
(Cue Calvib claiming that this is just abuse..)

Lets take 3 simple issues:


By any sensible analysis there will be no currency union with rUK. How can there be when the other party to that union has already ruled it out.. Yet Salmond says there will be. He even keeps parroting the line that such a union would be in the best interests of rUK, when every single expert on the subject has said clearly that it would not be.
Why does Salmond say this? Well you have to conclude that Scotland needs a currency union, and the only way to allay yes voters fears on this issue is to lie to them and say that rUK is bluffing and bullying when it says it's not going to happen. At this point Scottish "pride" takes over and the "they need us more than we need them" mantra churns out to cover up the mutterings of doubt.
Without a currency union, things are going to be VERY tough for Scotland - especially for the poor, the old and those unable to pick up their skills and migrate. Impossible for Scotland? No. Painful? More than likely.


All the sensible analysis says Scotland is out of the EU when it leave UK. There are letters from the EU that are pretty well unequivocal in this regard. It simply beggars belief that any YES voter can keep a straight face when parroting otherwise. Calvib hides behind the old "I think we both know that nothing is settled...." nonsense and uses this as "evidence" that continuance of EU membership is more than likely. There appears to be genuine cognitive dissonance at play here within the Yes fraternity. It's a massive, massive gamble, and one which really will have a massive impact on Scotland if the Yes camp is wrong in its assertions. Were I a Scotsman I'd expect more than just nudge nudge, style statements from Salmond and co in response to those EU letters if I was to be convinced that somehow Salmond was right and they were wrong..
Can Scotland get back into the EU? Yes, for sure. Can it be certain to do so quickly, and at the same preferential terms as rUK? No, not a cat in hells chance in my genuine opinion. Moreover, Euro opt out, Schengen opt out, rebates, etc..... Why would the EU give these goody things to Scotland when it's clear that a Scotland out of the UK will need the EU more than ever?
Even Scottish pride does not answer this point.

Shipbuilding. The UK has NEVER built complex warships outside the UK. The UK policy is to NOT build complex warships outside the UK. EU rules make it VERY difficult for the UK to build complex warships outside the UK but only in Scotland - all the others have to be allowed to compete too. The UK has dropped enormous hints that it will NOT build complex warships outside the UK in the vent of a yes vote.
Given that the above are all facts, how can it POSSIBLY be correct for salmod to assert that Scotland will continue to build complex warships for the Royal Navy? Even the bloody contractor (BAE) has as good as said it will relocate if it has to. On this point alone, every person involved in shipbuilding for the Royal Navy on the Clyde should be shaking their heads in disbelief at the sheer mendacity and casual disregard for their livelihoods shown by Salmond and co.



You asked why the rUK wants to keep Scotland? Ahh, this is the mantra of the Nats who seem hell bent on proving that Scotland is being raped by the Union. "Why do they want to keep the Union together?" they cry, "it's only because we pay more than our share, we prop up the rUK, we pay for everything, they are stealing our oil, they are a parasitic load" (all things said by yessers in these threads) This is of course based on the mentality that the Union itself is wrong and must only be being preserved for reasons that are detrimental to Scotland - there's that paranoia thing again!
Well the truth is none of those things. The truth is we want to keep the union because it works bloody well! . Any rational assessment of it could only come to that conclusion. Plus our diversity and cultural awareness of each other makes us strong. And in the final analysis the change in the event of a Yes vote will affect us all, north and south of the border. There will be damage, but we will recover from that, as will Scotland (eventually) but why inflict it in the first place, especially as the YES camp appears to be based on so many lies and misconceptions? (not to mention a good smattering of racism, xenophobia and sectarian nastiness) You only have to look at all the things that Scotland wants to keep from the union to realise just what a success the union is. I could say to Salmond, if you are so desperate to be independence, why do you still want the currency, the monarchy, the jobs, the subsidies etc?

Lastly, like so many other Englishmen, Welshmen and Norns I am personally very pissed off with the way the Yes camp has denigrated my country and abused its peoples in the course of this debate. I have been told that I am a bully, an abuser, a parasite and a thief. If you vote yes, do NOT expect ANY favours from me or people like me. The gloves will come off. That's not a threat, it's a bare cold hard fact. You cannot abuse us in the ways you have and then expect us to be all pally and roll over for the things you want (need!).
Reap what you sow Scotland.

[simoid]

Alpacaman said:

arp1 said:

There is great debate here and it's all good, but can someone please tell me why there is a lot of argument for why Scotland can't do it, or there are too many barriers and unknowns so shouldn't do it, but why the rUK want to keep Scotland as part of the uk...

I don't think many people on here think Scotland can't do it, many of us live in Scotland and love the place. The thing is most of us know that it will be a long and difficult journey not the instant utopia the SNP are promising. The fact that the nationalists are avoiding answering all the difficult questions is quite scary, when there are only weeks to go until the vote. When like calvib they absolutely refuse to see the evidence of something in front of them that shows facts are unimportant to them.

As to why the rUK wants to keep Scotland as part of the UK, hundreds of years of shared history, fighting side by side through two world wars, friendship, and plenty of others.

I think Scotland could do it.

I could also go out and lie to the bank about my earnings and get a mortgage for a £500k house and a brand new Aston Martin.

People would tell me why it's a bad idea, about the things that could possibly not go well, about the things I would need to sacrifice to maintain my spending, how I'd lose my financial security, and the problems that would occur if it all came crashing down around my ears.

But I wouldn't listen to them, I could just claim that I waste a lot of money at present and how economic growth would improve if I bought a new house, sorry I mean my earnings could increase a few per cent and then I might be ok.




See the parallels?

The SNP are nothing but dodgy salespeople trying to sign me into an irrevocable deal on questionable information.

[blinkythefish]

Alfa numeric said:

Calvib said:

el stovey said:

Calvib said:

You need a geography lesson mate. Scotland will still be part of the British Isles (i.e. British) after independence. We just won't be in the UK. But we can still use the Union Flag.

Scotland can use the Union flag when it's not in the union?

Do your history...

later on Calvib said:

Continued use of Union Flag.

Why would you want to use the flag of a foreign country rather than your own?

SNP mode: "Because we'll not be told by some Wastemonster politician that we can't use the flag. It's our flag too."

It really is a curious position. I seem to recall one of the previous Yessers(Fluff? VP?) going on about it being the "Butcher's Apron" - conveniently forgetting a long and in depth involvement of Scottish regiments in the British Empire - yet now we have one arguing that Scotland will still use the flag they are so desperate to flounce away from.


Idiots.

[paulrockliffe]

Intersting point above about capital flight. If there's a Yes vote and capital flight occurs before Independence Day, what are the financial implications and who bears any costs?

Is it a zero-sum game if the flight is to the rUK, or are there potential consequences?

Not my area of expertise, so just asking the question.

[simoid]

paulrockliffe said:

Intersting point above about capital flight. If there's a Yes vote and capital flight occurs before Independence Day, what are the financial implications and who bears any costs?

Is it a zero-sum game if the flight is to the rUK, or are there potential consequences?

Not my area of expertise, so just asking the question.

I imagine it could pose Northern Rock-esque problems for financial institutions with Scotland in their name if a noticeable amount of their deposits went to accounts at banks without Scotland in their name.

IIRC banks only have to hold 10% (?) of cash accounts in cash, so even a small percentage of people deciding they want their cash out of Scottish banks in notes could start a bit of a snowball.

/scaremongering

[Neonblau]

simoid said:

I imagine it could pose Northern Rock-esque problems for financial institutions with Scotland in their name if a noticeable amount of their deposits went to accounts at banks without Scotland in their name.

IIRC banks only have to hold 10% (?) of cash accounts in cash, so even a small percentage of people deciding they want their cash out of Scottish banks in notes could start a bit of a snowball.

/scaremongering

There is no cash reserve requirement in the UK and the actual percentage is likely to be around 1%. 1% is the mandatory requirement in the Eurozone.

In reality I think "Scottish" banks would cease to be Scottish registered before formal separation, the bulk moving registration with small Scottish subsidiaries being created.

[Borghetto]

I think Northern Rock would be small beer compared to the mass exodus of funds from Edinburgh to the safety of London. As the exodus would happen whilst Scotland remained in the UK, the reorganisation/transfer of legal HQ's would happen under the auspices of the UK treasury/BOE. The outcome would I expect mean Scotland loses practically all its banking industry to London and any costs are picked up by the current UK. So on independence day Scotland will already have seen one of its biggest employers decamp.

[simoid]

Neonblau said:

There is no cash reserve requirement in the UK and the actual percentage is likely to be around 1%. 1% is the mandatory requirement in the Eurozone.

In reality I think "Scottish" banks would cease to be Scottish registered before formal separation, the bulk moving registration with small Scottish subsidiaries being created.

Perhaps I got the 10% from the US or something, it's got to be floating about my brain for some reason

The original question was after a yes vote - so they're all still be UK institutions dealing in GBP etc

[E24man]

I think the damage to Scotlands reputation is underway and won't be stopped until Salmond and his type are removed.

The question of whether Scotland should or could make it on its own has been severely perverted by Salmond and his band of anti-English liars. It can't honestly be answered in public whilst the lies and deceit spread by the SNP are used as evidence, and the voices of reason are suppressed by the SNP and the Scottish Parliament.

Peoples opinions of Scotland have been, and will continue to be, damaged and tainted by the spiteful rhetoric of the SNP and it's supporters. Already Scottish products are being boycotted by both No and Yes supporters alike. Scottish investment plans have slowed to a trickle and won't restart after the 19th, or indeed for some significant period after.

Scotland unfortunately has timed its bid for Independence at an inopportune time. A time when its destiny following a Yes decision is bound by regulations beyond its borders, and indeed beyond the borders of the Union it may decide to leave. Those regulations aren't even decided by Senor Barroso or Herr Juncker whose 'opinions' on the subject of Scottish Independence are ultimately pointless. The regulations are decided by the faceless and innumerate bureaucrats of the EU who will diligently pore over and then apply the regulations as laid down in the treaties and governance rules written and agreed years ago by politicians and administrators who perhaps never envisaged a State attempting to divide itself.

Those same rules are written thick with democracy and, unfortunately for iScotland, the need for unanimity. The need for the dissenting voice not to be suppressed lest they be seen to be correct.