BHEASTS Face New Chanting Probe

[calscot 0]

Of course you can use any currency you want but without that currency's Central Bank it is pointless. If an independent Scotland had used sterling it would not have had the BofE as its Central Bank( lender of last resort). It couldnt run at any deficit & wouldnt be able to borrow on international markets.

 

Zimbabwe uses the USD. Panama uses the USD. Do you want Scotland to be like these countries?

 

That's a good point but I'm not sure about all those consequences. I'd have to learn more about it.

 

However, it's not the issue under discussion. And I still think the Bank of England could have been bluffing as a form of blackmail.

 

 

However, the damning thing it shows is that there is no benign feelings for Scotland from England and that to me proves that the campaign for no from England was in their own self interest, which puts a massive question mark over their arguments. I found that inconsistency a bit sinister which was added to when there was signs of not following through with promises over additional devolution. As I said, there is only one side that appear to be the bad guys. You seem to be emphasising that.

[RANGERRAB 3,741]

That's a good point but I'm not sure about all those consequences. I'd have to learn more about it.

 

However, it's not the issue under discussion. And I still think the Bank of England could have been bluffing as a form of blackmail.

 

 

However, the damning thing it shows is that there is no benign feelings for Scotland from England and that to me proves that the campaign for no from England was in their own self interest, which puts a massive question mark over their arguments. I found that inconsistency a bit sinister which was added to when there was signs of not following through with promises over additional devolution. As I said, there is only one side that appear to be the bad guys. You seem to be emphasising that.

 

Bluffing ? Westminster owns the Bof E. The main UK political parties made it abundantley clear an independent Scotland would not use sterling & get the Bof E as its Central Bank.

Yet the SNP continued to say the opposite during the referendum

Which one do you believe? I know which one I believe

Edited March 19, 2016 by RANGERRAB

[calscot 0]

You never played poker?

[craig 5,199]

You never played poker?

 

I'm not sure that Scotland could have gambled having no lender of last resort. Huge "blind all-in".

[RANGERRAB 3,741]

The SNP are an Independence Party. Whether Scotland is better off or worse off if they got independence is irrelevant to them. All they want is independence by whatever means. If that means distorting facts & figures then so be it for them.

Thankfully enough were able to see through their lies and deceit at the referendum in 2014

[blueflag 386]

Meanwhile there own survey shows a drop in support for independence. .. yet they are wasting more time and money with another push during the summer. ... in a way I'm glad I'm not in Scotland any more.. yet they still grinding my gears voting against english trading laws that had nothing at all to do with them

Edited March 20, 2016 by blueflag

[calscot 0]

I'm not sure that Scotland could have gambled having no lender of last resort. Huge "blind all-in".

 

I think we discussed this before about Panama - there are several reasons why this is not as bad as it sounds - and it is definitely a lot less likely than people think as non-monetary union is a bit of a nuclear option that could leave rUK in a lot of trouble.

 

Firstly it would not be in rUk's interest not to help out if needed - we have already helped Ireland and Scotland are a more important partner. Then there is the fact the risk has been massively lowered due to British and European changes in banking law separating the riskier businesses from the financial. Scotland would obviously go further in a Panama model to have very fiscally sound banking and would also join the European Banking Union. For last resort lending - which would obviously not be necessary on the scale of the latest UK bailout, would have some availability from the EU and finally the IMF.

 

If Scotland used non-monetary union to repudiate its share of the UK national debt, and then successfully show the financial community the reasons this is a one off and that as rUK are picking up the tab as they are the debtors, there is no default of payment, then with no debt, and about £11b of increased income and savings, Scotland could be quickly running a surplus to build up foreign equity reserves that would allow the country to self insure.

 

There are too many scenarios to call it a blind all in - I think there is a false perception that the risk is all one way. Brexit is a stark example of what was missing from the independence debate - ie the huge risks that could arise from the "status quo". There's no such thing as the status quo in this context.

[calscot 0]

The SNP are an Independence Party. Whether Scotland is better off or worse off if they got independence is irrelevant to them. All they want is independence by whatever means. If that means distorting facts & figures then so be it for them.

 

You realise that that doesn't make any real sense? The strange thing is that you think this but are ok with an English bases no campaign that had a massive conflict of interest. Perhaps you need to look up Occam's Razor.

 

You have two groups, one with no real motivation to lie and the other with huge motivation to lie and actual evidence that they were not all completely genuine (with the noises from some about reneging on devolution plus promises). And you come to the conclusion that the first group are lying.

 

 

Thankfully enough were able to see through their lies and deceit at the referendum in 2014

 

You really think this? I think you'll find that most people want independence, the problem is that a large number are too scared to take the risks, and another large number, think the change is too difficult. This probably leaves you in a small minority. Your views are incredibly extreme and it's hard to see where they are coming from as I haven't seen many representations from Scots with this viewpoint.

 

Just ask people if they would vote yes if an instantly prosperous and robust Scotland was guaranteed. The problem is that a guarantee is not realistic.

[Thinker 887]

You realise that that doesn't make any real sense? The strange thing is that you think this but are ok with an English bases no campaign that had a massive conflict of interest. Perhaps you need to look up Occam's Razor.

 

You have two groups, one with no real motivation to lie and the other with huge motivation to lie and actual evidence that they were not all completely genuine (with the noises from some about reneging on devolution plus promises). And you come to the conclusion that the first group are lying.

 

I'm in the strange position of feeling the need to side with Rab here....

 

What makes you say only one group had a motivation to lie? Politicians rarely tell the whole truth, and they're generally quick to dismiss any argument that undermines their goal. Both sides were guilty of that. The Yes campaign were definitely guilty of deliberately understating the risks of independence. For example, the claim that oil revenue is a bonus and that the Scottish economy is diverse enough to support public spending even if oil prices dipped has been demonstrated to be untrue.

 

You really think this? I think you'll find that most people want independence, the problem is that a large number are too scared to take the risks, and another large number, think the change is too difficult. This probably leaves you in a small minority. Your views are incredibly extreme and it's hard to see where they are coming from as I haven't seen many representations from Scots with this viewpoint.

 

Just ask people if they would vote yes if an instantly prosperous and robust Scotland was guaranteed. The problem is that a guarantee is not realistic.

 

You're inserting a caveat that makes the question pointless. The public typically get behind whatever promises a brighter future for them and their families. If you could show that the independence would guarantee greater prosperity, there would be a shift to the Yes camp. If you could show that remaining in the Union would guarantee prosperity there would be a shift towards No. Obviously.

 

The real problem for the Yes camp is that pooling resources on a larger scale (i.e. staying in the Union) clearly provides more stability. Ring fencing a natural resource as an alternative source of "enhanced" revenue for a small breakaway portion of the electorate, however, only provides stability as far as you can guarantee an acceptably high and stable price for that resource. Which, in the case of oil, you can't.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Thinker

[calscot 0]

I'm in the strange position of feeling the need to side with Rab here....

 

What makes you say only one group had a motivation to lie?

 

It's boiling down to basic principles and looking at motivation. I thought I'd explained it.

 

The yes side have to live with the decision if they win which means that they have no motivation to leave if it makes their lives worse. At worst they could be mistaken about the consequences, but they are unlikely to knowingly put Scotland in a worse position. If the SNP lie to get there, they would be committee political suicide as they would not be the only party to vote for post separation and would lose the trust of the electorate. They would be accountable.

 

Now the no group who don't live in Scotland, but who would gain from Scotland staying, obviously have a conflict of interest and so motivation to lie. The also don't have the accountability if found out. The more extreme premises that Rab is coming out with don't make sense motivation-wise as he is asserting that Scotland need to be subsidised by England to survive, the question is then why do they want us so badly?

 

Either side could lie but one side have far more obvious motivation due to the conflict of interest.

 

 

Politicians rarely tell the whole truth, and they're generally quick to dismiss any argument that undermines their goal. Both sides were guilty of that. The Yes campaign were definitely guilty of deliberately understating the risks of independence. For example, the claim that oil revenue is a bonus and that the Scottish economy is diverse enough to support public spending even if oil prices dipped has been demonstrated to be untrue.

 

Where has it been demonstrated to be untrue? Everything I've seen shows that Scotland have quite a high GDP per capita compared to most of Europe even without the oil. Discounting the oil as a mere bonus is vastly understating that Scotland's income as the oil price is usually higher and so is production. It is definitely a factor for the next 20 years. In fact the UK government are partially to blame for the current low revenue. Public spending is also partially caused by the UK government and has been shown to have been mismanaged for over a decade. You are also discounting things like raising tax - which the UK government are bafflingly cutting for the upper middle classes.

 

I believe the Scottish government would raise income tax and drop corporation tax to attract investment. Due to mismanagement by the UK government they would have to offer tax sweeteners for oil exploration and increased output but which would pay off now and in the future. There is also a whole load of savings to be made across the board and having the full oil revenue is a bonus but one you seem to be vastly understating.

 

The no side also vastly understated the risks of staying in the UK and pulled the wool over the electorate's eyes by making it out to be the "status quo". A Tory government and Brexit have completely changed the landscape and bringing immediate risk to Scottish life.

 

You're inserting a caveat that makes the question pointless. The public typically get behind whatever promises a brighter future for them and their families. If you could show that the

independence would guarantee greater prosperity, there would be a shift to the Yes camp. If you could show that remaining in the Union would guarantee prosperity there would be a shift towards No. Obviously.

 

As I said, I'm ambivalent as I know there are no guarantees either way. I am optimistic that Scotland would eventually be better off but that is balanced by my pessimism about the transition period which I think would be a lot of pain. I also therefore believe rUK would be worse off - and that's where I live. I also see the advantages of being part of a larger nation, which perhaps is demonstrated in the fortunes of our respective football leagues, but then the problem it also starkly shows is that in the union Scotland sometimes not only does not get the benefit of the union, it actually suffers as a result.

 

My main concern here is the presentation of the arguments where I see the no side as far more fallacious and deceptive. The £15b deficit being a typical latest example - as well dwelling on a short term low oil price, fantasies of not being allowed in the EU, blackmail over currency union etc. As I said they try often try to make the case as Scotland being some sort of basket case that needs looked after - but if Scotland leaves England will immediately stick the knife in and twist it. That to me is evidence that they don't want us for our own sake which makes their case lack credibility.

 

I think the vote itself did not boil down to economics, it was far more about political propaganda. I think the yes vote could win easily without showing that Scots would be much better off financially, they could do it by showing that there is a clear, precise and painless path to autonomy which is no more risk than staying part of the UK, but where the future is just no worse off. The advantages of making Scotland a place that reflects Scots values and tailoring the economy accordingly would be enough in my opinion.

 

The no side continuously forget that no does not mean that someone doesn't want it, it often means they are too risk averse to try.

 

The real problem for the Yes camp is that pooling resources on a larger scale (i.e. staying in the Union) clearly provides more stability. Ring fencing a natural resource as an alternative source of "enhanced" revenue for a small breakaway portion of the electorate, however, only provides stability as far as you can guarantee an acceptably high and stable price for that resource. Which, in the case of oil, you can't.

 

Your premises are already being challenged - the Tories, austerity and Brexit are not providing stability. Again I think you're understating the value of oil, it's always a valuable commodity and will not stay a low price for ever. In fact it could be argued it will become more valuable the more it runs out due to supply and demand. It's also not a short term thing and Norway have shown we could have been easily a whopping 50% better off had we become independent in the 70s. They are not too reliant on oil prices due to having half a trillion pounds worth of assets.

 

However, again you are understating the diversity and scale of the Scottish economy which without oil is around or not much less than the UK average in terms of GDP per capita. If the UK can survive then it follows Scotland can too. I think the worst case scenario is like that of an oil rich Ireland.

 

The whole tone of the no side seems to be that the English have been living off the sale of the Scottish family silver and now that there's not much left and the UK government have created a massive debt, Scotland is now dependent on the union to survive, and they'll damn well do their best to make living outside the union as hard as possible if we leave.

 

I think what the English are trying to hide is the risk of the perfect storm of Brexit, Scottish independence, Scotland joining the Euro with a Eurozone revival, both Scotland and Ireland being forced to join Schengen, and the EU treating rUK as a hostile market. That would leave rUK as the basket case, with Scotland suffering to start with until it shifts the majority of trade to the EU. You could add in the spice of no monetary Union and so Scotland repudiates the UK national debt.

 

In that scenario, I could easily see possibility of vast amounts of the London financial centre moving to Edinburgh - or mainland Europe.

 

There are plenty of scary scenarios but they are only talking about the worst for Scotland.