- Joined
- Saturday December 19, 2009
- Location
- Ayrshire
mr..bean said:
How old was she? Maybe she voted no in '79.
The future of the UK.
- Thread starter Fido
- Start Date
- Status
How old was she? Maybe she voted no in '79.
Politicians the same in Holyrood as Westminster ? Course they are. Thar's why our Parliament spent the first week of its existence debating their holidays before moving on to the important constitutional business of striking gold medals for themselves to commemorate the occasion of their stopping the gravy train long enough to climb aboard. Not to mention their publicly funded jolly to celebrate their very own 'Parliamentarian of the year ' before the parliament had even been in existence for one year. Plus of course their alteration of the Scotland Act to ensure that we are lumbered with paying for surplus to requirement MSPs.
Would have been nice had people of Scots nationality born in the homeland had a vote rather than only those living here meanwhile.
But then, I'm an old sceptical man who is still wondering how we'll fund a country where some 60% of us are on benefits. Oops, silly me, that's another expense which our inexhaistible oil supplies will cover.
JohnnyO.
Would have been nice had people of Scots nationality born in the homeland had a vote rather than only those living here meanwhile.
But then, I'm an old sceptical man who is still wondering how we'll fund a country where some 60% of us are on benefits. Oops, silly me, that's another expense which our inexhaistible oil supplies will cover.
JohnnyO.
- Joined
- Saturday June 14, 2014
First of all, this crap about independence being something that Alex Salmond has dreamt up for himself is utter phalacy. The SNP exists for the purpose of gaining independence; do you think all the SNP members are following their leader like mindless drones or perhaps they joined because that's what they wanted? If he wasn't pushing for independence he wouldn't be doing his job and should be replaced. People go on about how smug Salmond is, I just think he has that appearance because he has chubby cheeks, but when people have to resort to comments about demeanour and appearance it's nothing but cheap rhetoric.mr..bean said:
I saw the exchange between Salmond and Robinson last night and how you can call that coming across as a blustering bully is beyond me; what I saw was a calm and measured response whilst being heckled by Robinson towards the end. I do wonder which version you saw, as the first version I saw had Salmond refuse to even acknowledge the question and lasted 24 seconds. I just had a look and found another edited version which lasts 1:54 where Salmond is apparently rude, refuses to answer and flatly dismisses Robinson. This is smoke and mirrors, if you haven't seen the full unedited version have a look and if you still hold that belief I'll be surprised (gah, lag! Doggycam linked it first (not Clegg btw
), but my post is bigger (fnarr fnarr) so I started to post it first, honest!):[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM[/video]
And another example of bbc bias.
That was never an Irish flag but related to a chivarlic order introduced by George III. It was a good design, much better than the others, and the pretext that it was an Irish flag was shoehorned in to explain it. The only time you might see that being waved in Eire is when some unionists are looking for more trouble than they want. That aside, I'd point to the flags of New Zealand and Australia which both have the union flag, and the closest thing to controversy I've seen raised by this is Brits singing "get your shit stars, get your shit stars, get your shit stars off our flag".
I don't see why all the focus is on oil, we are a wealthy nation without it and the idea that adding oil into the mix should be a negative thing is something that could only happen on this island of whingers. One thing is a fact, that there has been heavy investment in the oil industry in the last couple of years. Hardly a sign of a flagging industry.
The union occuring because Scotland was bankrupt is a myth. I know a little about it but I've found this which describes the situation better than I could:
"Scotland wasn't bankrupt in 1707. But even if it was, so what? Norway was a basket case in 1707, Finland was a poverty stricken remote forgotten corner of Sweden, and Switzerland was a collection of remote mountain valleys with an economy based on cheese and yodelling. The state of the Scottish economy over 300 years ago isn't relevant to our economic potential in the 21st century. Bringing up Darien just goes to show that the anti-independence argument is stuck in the 18th century.
Even if this Unionist claim were true, are we supposed to base our decision on the future of our country because of a good turn done to us over 300 years ago? We've repaid that debt many times over. But the truth is that Scotland was not bankrupt in 1707, we did not need England to bail us out. They didn't bail us out, Westminster just bribed some lords, the 'parcel o rogues' Burns wrote about.
Scotland in 1707 was doing quite well for itself. According to the historian Michael Lynch, the Scottish economy was growing at 2.5% annually - a rather more impressive figure than we've managed these past few years under Westminster. Scotland, like other countries in Western Europe at the time, was beginning to develop a middle class and an urban working class. The towns and burghs of Scotland were cash rich, and were beginning to agitate for greater political power. This went down as well with aristos of Scotland and England as a Craig Whyte and Neil Lennon karaoke double act would go down at Gers fans night out.
The Darien colony was largely bankrolled by Lowland lords. However the idea that Scotland might embark on some colonialist adventurism off its own bat was anathema to Westminster, which believed it had a monopoly on imperialist ambitions. England sided with Spain and blocked Scottish access to all English colonies, as a result the Darien scheme was doomed even before it even got started.
Failure of Darien left the Lowland Lords in financial strife, and they were threatening to default on the bills they owed to their mainly English creditors. With war looming between England and France, Westminster was determined to secure its northern border. The infamous 'English gold' was sent north. The money paid by the English Parliament was in the form of bribes to private individuals to vote for Union, it was not a payment to bail out the Scottish national exchequer."
Saw this earlier, thought it was amusing:
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiMXuEmqAHA[/video]
- Joined
- Friday April 19, 2013
- Location
- Sunny Isle of Wight
Okay, I understand the polarising nature of this debate and my opinion as an Englishman is much less important than that of the average Scotsman. I think both countries will do well apart, I just do not understand where an independent Scotland will get the cash to underpin it's currency?
I think the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of England is probably more important in this debate. What if England refuse to back a Scottish currency? Scotland would need up to 100 billion to start it's own currency from scratch, which is clearly not doable. Therefore that leaves them the option of the pound or euro and the euro is a complete non starter.
So that leaves the Bank of England as the central banker for an Independant Scotland? How does that work then? I still haven't seen an explanation other than 'aww, of course they will let us use their currency'! That sounds like an unthought out vanity project to me? Plus WHY would an independant Scotland want to be subject to UK monetary policy. Bank of England raises interest rates to protect the currency against inflation and King Alex shrugs his shoulders and says 'it's not my fault'?
That's not independance. Either way it will be interesting viewing if a Yes vote prevails.
Condescension isn't even a consideration, that's your opinion. Financial reality is, however.
I think the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of England is probably more important in this debate. What if England refuse to back a Scottish currency? Scotland would need up to 100 billion to start it's own currency from scratch, which is clearly not doable. Therefore that leaves them the option of the pound or euro and the euro is a complete non starter.
So that leaves the Bank of England as the central banker for an Independant Scotland? How does that work then? I still haven't seen an explanation other than 'aww, of course they will let us use their currency'! That sounds like an unthought out vanity project to me? Plus WHY would an independant Scotland want to be subject to UK monetary policy. Bank of England raises interest rates to protect the currency against inflation and King Alex shrugs his shoulders and says 'it's not my fault'?
That's not independance. Either way it will be interesting viewing if a Yes vote prevails.
Condescension isn't even a consideration, that's your opinion. Financial reality is, however.
- Joined
- Saturday June 14, 2014
Half of the better together campaign is "you can't use the pound" and how bad it that would be. If they were to admit that a currency union would be best for both sides it would be a bullet in the foot for them. Way back in March the guardian quoted "a senior member of the government" *cough*William Hague*/cough* as saying "of course there will be a currency union".
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound
Another article on the same topic then quotes "The leading pollster and political science expert Professor John Curticek" who explains how strong the Scottish economy is and has been:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/of-course-there-will-be-a-currency-union-says-senior-uk-government-minister/
Of course if I can claim that articles the better together campaign trot out are partisan or rhetoric you can say the same about articles which I link/refer to, but I'm sure if you can get much more of distanced and unbias view than someone from Beijing.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound
Another article on the same topic then quotes "The leading pollster and political science expert Professor John Curticek" who explains how strong the Scottish economy is and has been:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/of-course-there-will-be-a-currency-union-says-senior-uk-government-minister/
Of course if I can claim that articles the better together campaign trot out are partisan or rhetoric you can say the same about articles which I link/refer to, but I'm sure if you can get much more of distanced and unbias view than someone from Beijing.
Has it started "to turn"? I saw a thread where people were exchanging views in a fairly balanced and reasonable manner. What did you add? I don't see any views but rather unfounded sneering at others. If you don't have anything to add you don't have to post.IanM said:
- Joined
- Monday August 19, 2013
- Location
- Angus, Scotland
I'm a proud Scot but I'm British through and through and I desperately hope there's a no vote next week. Not because I don't think we'd cope (although I think it would be bloody painful in the short to medium term, there's no way setting up a country is as cheap and easy as the yes campaign are making out) but because I find the idea abhorrent and the reasoning behind it crazy, we have been together 300 years and have achieved so much together. So we have a Tory (well actually it's not is it but let's not let facts get in the way) government and we are going through a tough spell of austerity but that's life. We had 13 years of labour prior to that (which we did vote for) and look how that ended up.
As for a currency union, the position seems to be we won't have one, whether this is rhetoric or not remains to be seen but I cannot fathom why we'd want one. Sturgeon spent that debate last night going on about being in control of economic levers in order to create jobs/opportunities - how can you do that if someone else is in charge of the currency? Even in a currency union we'd be a minority player - we might get 1 seat on the BOE committee.
I personally will be heartbroken if the country I love is broken up following next week's vote but I fear whichever way it goes the wounds that have been opened will be a long time healing.
As for a currency union, the position seems to be we won't have one, whether this is rhetoric or not remains to be seen but I cannot fathom why we'd want one. Sturgeon spent that debate last night going on about being in control of economic levers in order to create jobs/opportunities - how can you do that if someone else is in charge of the currency? Even in a currency union we'd be a minority player - we might get 1 seat on the BOE committee.
I personally will be heartbroken if the country I love is broken up following next week's vote but I fear whichever way it goes the wounds that have been opened will be a long time healing.
Simple question - and maybe someone will be able to tell me what the answer is - has anyone asked the Independence party to explain what their strategy is in the event of not being able to use sterling?
One thing is for sure - you cannot control economic policy if you don't control the purse strings.
One thing is for sure - you cannot control economic policy if you don't control the purse strings.
- Joined
- Monday August 19, 2013
- Location
- Angus, Scotland
They will either use Sterling (but not in a union) or start a currency. They are however adamant that we WILL be in a currency union despite what anyone else says.
mikebrownington said:
A new currency is a disaster waiting to happen - there would presumably be a change-over period with sterling still in use followed by big bang at agreed rates against other currencies - followed immediately by a down grading of the exchange rates whilst the international money markets tried to cash in on the Bear principle. In any event - holders of the new currency will see an immediate lowering of it's value.
The same will probably happen if the other option of joining the Euro is taken.
- Joined
- Saturday November 6, 2010
- Location
- Round the bend
Im going to get crucified for saying this, but deep down I suspect the real reason is that inside every Scot is the burning desire to paint their faces blue, wave their bums at the Brits and shout ....
If the vote yes then I wish them all the best, but suspect that the shower of s
e in Westminster will throw their toys out of the pram and make life as awkward as possible for Scotland. And as for RBS and Asda et al saying they will move out of Scotland well thats just silly IMHO
If the vote yes then I wish them all the best, but suspect that the shower of s
- Joined
- Monday August 19, 2013
- Location
- Angus, Scotland
And using the pound we're not truly independent! The euro probably isn't an option in the short term as we may well not be in the EU initially and if we are it'll probably be a while before we meet the entry requirements for the euro. It is a requirement of EU membership that new states commit towards joining the euro though so it might be where we end up eventually.
Not crucifixion, maybe just some light to moderate flagellation as there is a grain of truth in there. Not by any means all or even the majority of yes voters but a small but very vocal 'core' perhaps.
Father Ted said:Im going to get crucified for saying this, but deep down I suspect the real reason is that inside every Scot is the burning desire to paint their faces blue, wave their bums at the Brits and shout ....
Not crucifixion, maybe just some light to moderate flagellation as there is a grain of truth in there. Not by any means all or even the majority of yes voters but a small but very vocal 'core' perhaps.
- Joined
- Monday June 13, 2011
- Location
- Portsmouth
I've always been in favour of Scottish independence.
- Joined
- Saturday June 14, 2014
In the event etc. nobody would be able to stop Scotland using sterling (anyone can use any currency they choose), Isle of Man use it for example. Of course like IoM we wouldn't accept Scottish notes ironically.UKRob said:
We're each other's biggest import/export market, so using sterling would make that easier but a new currency would possibly make more sense. The ideas thrown around that Scotland somehow wont be able to do anything for themselves is absurd and bordering on insulting if not downright racist. Scottish enlightenment was a major influence and driving force in American independence.
"When Estonia gained independence in August 1991, the government decided to create a new currency to replace the rouble. Less than a year later, in June 1992, deposits held in Estonian banks were redenominated, from roubles to kroons. Special counters at the new central bank were opened to allow residents to swap the old currency for the new one. As a show of confidence in the kroon, residents were also permitted to switch roubles for German marks, a strong currency. The scheme, reviewed in a 2002 IMF paper, worked well: the switch to a new central bank and currency took a week.
An independent Scotland should be able to follow this example. It will have more time to plan: fully 18 months between the vote and independence, which would come in May 2016. Scottish notes already circulate, and production could easily be scaled up. The new country's share of Britain's foreign-exchange reserves—around £9 billion—would provide credibility."
Full article here.
When I worked at a certain Scottish bank we had to change our domestic only systems to from sinlge currency to also allow euros to allow for banking services in Ireland and that cost millions, but most systems already cater for foreign currency and it's just a case of adding a few new settings to a parameter file or table.
- Status