BHEASTS Face New Chanting Probe

[craig 5,199]

Do the SNP not have a conflict of interest too in that they are very clearly a pro-independence party ? They may be held accountable - but their end-game is independence. This, it could be argued, gives them every bit as much motivation to lie as anyone else - otherwise as a party they effectively have no party ethos "We want independence but we know the electorate don't... but we have to continue to want it as a party". Or am I being too simplistic ?

 

Looks to me from the above that you are using accountability as a solid reason for them having no reason to lie. That isn't always the case.... If you think about it the SNP could easily lie to get independence and then IF it turns out that they were stringing the electorate along they lose an election, maybe become unelectable for an election or two - but the chances of re-unifying with the rest of the UK at that point would be pretty slim I would imagine. Very much supposition on my part though.

 

I'm neither pro or anti independence to be honest.

 

On this part Cal :

 

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.

 

If that is so, how then is it that the SNP blame the 15 Bn deficit on the suppressed price of oil ? They cant have it both ways. Oil cant be a "bonus" when, even with oil revenues albeit at a much lower rate, the budget is running that much in deficit. That is hardly a "bonus". If oil was a bonus then I would have expected the country to be operating on a balanced budget basis i.e. a surplus or small deficit without oil. But in this instance they are operating at a fairly significant deficit even including the "bonus" oil money.

[Thinker 887]

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.

 

IMO your explanation is flawed. There are many nationalists who would accept reduced prosperity (or at least gamble with the strong possibility of reduced prosperity) in order to have independence. The fact that it doesn't make sense to you as a motivation doesn't mean they aren't prepared to do it. Some of them are naively optimistic, economically, and some of them value independence so highly that they consider it a price worth paying. The pro-Union argument is that long-term, everybody benefits.

 

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 projection the SNP gave, for an independent Scotland's deficit, was that at this point it would be roughly half of what the UK's is now. In fact if we were independent our deficit would be roughly double what the UK's is now. What has caused a hole in the figures? The plummeting price of oil. I'm not sure why you're confident that an independent Scottish government would be better able to manage the oil industry than the UK one...

 

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.

 

The No campaign exaggerated the positives of their argument and played down the negatives, just like the Yes campaign did. All bullshit being equal, the No arguments were more compelling and they won the referendum.

 

Personally, I don't vote Tory - but would you really class them as a risk to Scottish life? That seems a bit of an over-reaction. With regards to exiting the EU - I wouldn't vote for that either, but I guess the referendum will tell us if Scotland wants that or not. I've heard plenty of Yes voters say they want out of Europe. I'm pretty sure Bearger on here expressed that view.

 

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..

 

The idea is that sometimes each part of the UK pays in, sometimes they need a pay out, but overall it's a net gain. It's also a smoother ride, as the surpluses of one area of the larger economy cover the shortfalls of another.

 

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.

 

Do you really see all those arguments as fallacious? We do have a deficit of over 9% - worse than Greece and Portugal. The low price of oil may continue as new extraction techniques allow other sources (shale oil primarily) to be tapped - plus, the world is hopefully committed to moving away from dependence on fossil fuels. You may be comfortable to assume that Scotland would be admitted into the EU - and you're probably correct - but there is no precedent for it, and clear motivation for other EU nations (Spain for example) to vote against. The Yes campaign certainly could not guarantee that it would happen. With regards to currency union why would the rUK accept potential liability for Scotland by entering a formal currency union? What benefit would that have for the rUK over an informal currency union?

 

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.

 

If the Yes campaign could show that there is a clear, painless path to autonomy they'd be on to a winner. But they can't. The risks are part of the package they are offering. The risks are really what we were voting about.

 

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.

 

If the vote was to retrospectively be independent from the 1970s onward the Yes campaign would win easily, but the oil market has changed and the world's relationship with fossil fuel is changing.

 

The UK does face problems and IMO we need some measure of reform but independence doesn't guarantee us a better government or a better relationship with Europe.

 

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.

 

Take a look at the Irish economy. It had to be bailed out by the UK, and they are currently in the process of instigating austerity measures including public spending cuts and deeply unpopular additional taxes. Can oil revenue protect us from that?

 

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.

 

It all boils down to which scary scenario you take more seriously. And TBH, your argument loses a lot of traction with me when you start using phrases like "what the English are trying to hide". When you say that do you mean the conservatives?

[calscot 0]

Do the SNP not have a conflict of interest too in that they are very clearly a pro-independence party ? They may be held accountable - but their end-game is independence. This, it could be argued, gives them every bit as much motivation to lie as anyone else - otherwise as a party they effectively have no party ethos "We want independence but we know the electorate don't... but we have to continue to want it as a party". Or am I being too simplistic ?

 

Fundamentally, we can all lie to get what we want - everybody lies, but what I'm trying to boil it down to here is true motivation and reason to do so or not. When you have a whole party involved, lying becomes a conspiracy which all members have to agree to. The point is that they have to live with the consequences of this. There is no obvious reason why a large number of people in the party and almost half the population would want to leave the UK without some kind of payoff or advantage. I'm just applying Occam's Razor. They MUST believe Scotland will be better off, or what exactly is almost half the population's motivation?

 

Any chance of lying is reduced to the ends justifies the means type of stuff, but with the motivation to make Scotland better off.

 

Accountability produces the motivation against this type of lying. If they are found out they become unelectable whether Scotland leave or not.

 

 

An English based "no" campaign with the scenario that England are worse off if Scotland leave, have a much bigger motivation to lie or exaggerate as they have a potential pay off to do so. If Scotland leave then their accountability is zero which means no disincentive there, and if Scotland stay then their accountability is still low - as shown by the voices to renege on the hastily offered new devolution powers. So we even have actual evidence of a lack of integrity due to low accountability in Scotland.

 

Basically the SNP have no carrot to lie and a big stick to stop them. What they want to achieve is consistent with their message.

 

English based no campaign have a carrot to lie and not much of a stick to stop them. What they want to achieve has a conflict of interest and therefore has no guarantee to be consistent with their message. Their message actually does not show a pay of for them - quite the opposite, which makes it very suspicious.

 

Looks to me from the above that you are using accountability as a solid reason for them having no reason to lie. That isn't always the case.... If you think about it the SNP could easily lie to get independence and then IF it turns out that they were stringing the electorate along they lose an election, maybe become unelectable for an election or two - but the chances of re-unifying with the rest of the UK at that point would be pretty slim I would imagine. Very much supposition on my part though.

 

Again I don't get the motivation for such a conspiracy. You have to remember that if Scotland are independent, at the next election the USP of the SNP disappears and a natural order of party politics would take over and they would be judged on that. The actual members of the SNP, having achieved what they think is best for the country would individually now be free to join another party purely based on politics. They have a pay-off which would not be there if they were found to lie - and the ultimate question is why would you shaft Scotland without a pay-off?

 

I'm neither pro or anti independence to be honest.

 

Me neither. Although the style of no campaign and the repetition of it on here is incredibly off putting, disappointing and at times nefarious. The yes may have been overoptimistic and taking large risks but that at least is understandable. The risks were not only mostly about unknowns and a lack of cooperation from England, but outright threats from them. I can't understand why others don't see that. We don't seem to be in a Union with a country that cares for our well-being.

 

If that is so, how then is it that the SNP blame the 15 Bn deficit on the suppressed price of oil ? They cant have it both ways. Oil cant be a "bonus" when, even with oil revenues albeit at a much lower rate, the budget is running that much in deficit.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. The oil is always going to be a factor in reducing the deficit - that's part of the point - you need to aim for a much lower deficit when not including the oil, but when it's high you obviously need to use it - like Norway just have. When the deficit is clear you use the oil for a surplus to lower the national debt. If the debt was lower then you would invest the surplus for future generations and to even out fluctuations in the price of oil like Norway. You should be mostly budgeting without it and then the windfalls are there to help you out of trouble or to help safeguard the future.

 

The point is that there would not be a £15b deficit in an independent Scotland. I've read some calculations that Scotland would save between £11-12b as independent. Then, like I've previously said, they would NOT be cutting taxes, they would be increasing them, except for the least well off. The one tax they would reduce is corporation tax, and the theory is that with larger business investment, the amount of tax collected would be higher along with income tax from the jobs created.

 

There are plenty of other measures that can be done with a government that is fully targeting the needs of Scotland and tailoring policy to suit - and not the needs of England and especially London.

 

I'm not saying it's that simple but as half the Tories are now saying, you're not going to fix the economy by cutting taxes for the well off and then continually salami slicing expenditure across the board. There are other ways to balance the books as history has shown eg Truman, as well as the new current path of other countries like the USA.

 

Only the Tories believe in keeping taxes low and cutting expenditure to the bone. It will work to an extent but it doesn't make it the best way.

 

There are many ways of raising more money and certain UK expenditure responsibilities would be significantly reduced. And then there's the oil...

 

That is hardly a "bonus". If oil was a bonus then I would have expected the country to be operating on a balanced budget basis i.e. a surplus or small deficit without oil. But in this instance they are operating at a fairly significant deficit even including the "bonus" oil money.

Edited March 21, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

IMO your explanation is flawed. There are many nationalists who would accept reduced prosperity (or at least gamble with the strong possibility of reduced prosperity) in order to have independence. The fact that it doesn't make sense to you as a motivation doesn't mean they aren't prepared to do it. Some of them are naively optimistic, economically, and some of them value independence so highly that they consider it a price worth paying. The pro-Union argument is that long-term, everybody benefits.

 

I was boiling it down to basics but yes you can contrive any motivations - but then you are talking about a conspiracy, and it's far less compelling. I think there are too many people involved. The thing you're ignoring is that the referendum came in a perfect storm of a UK government who mismanaged the economy to create massive deficits and national debt, a Eurozone crisis, a world recession and plummet in the price of oil. Nobody predicted most of that which suggests EVERYONE was naive.

 

Everyone is SUPPOSED to benefit in the long run but it has been shown that just like Rangers, it doesn't quite work for Scotland. Not only that it works badly for the North of England and other parts of the country. IMHO one of the biggest problems with the UK is that our resources are continually lavished on an overheating London.

 

 

The projection the SNP gave, for an independent Scotland's deficit, was that at this point it would be roughly half of what the UK's is now. In fact if we were independent our deficit would be roughly double what the UK's is now. What has caused a hole in the figures? The plummeting price of oil. I'm not sure why you're confident that an independent Scottish government would be better able to manage the oil industry than the UK one...

 

You want to talk about deficit predictions? Seriously? Tell me who got it right? Certainly not the UK governments of Labour or Tory. I'm not sure a Scottish government would be better but like the opinions on McCoist here, I don't see how they could have done worse. A Scottish government, more reliant on oil, would have a much higher motivation to give it the attention it needs.

 

You are also judging the SNP for an non-independent deficit? I don't see how that makes sense. It would obviously be less with the full oil revenue no matter how low but as I've said I've seen independent figures that calculate at least a £10b swing - better on a good oil year. Maybe it's only half that but it would still be less than the UK. And as I've said several times now, it is highly related to Tory tax policy. You are judging the SNP on the performance of the Tories. It's not like the SNP's spending has suddenly increased by £15b or just several billion.

 

The No campaign exaggerated the positives of their argument and played down the negatives, just like the Yes campaign did. All bullshit being equal, the No arguments were more compelling and they won the referendum.

 

Compelling? If you call successful scaremongering and threats compelling. As I've said the vote was too close to give the no the credit you are applying - the no won due to the number of unknowns more than anything.

 

Personally, I don't vote Tory - but would you really class them as a risk to Scottish life? That seems a bit of an over-reaction.

 

Maybe you misunderstand me - they are the antithesis of the general gamut of Scots' fundamental beliefs. I really don't think many Scots are happy with a budget that robs the disabled to give the wealthy more money in their pocket.

 

With regards to exiting the EU - I wouldn't vote for that either, but I guess the referendum will tell us if Scotland wants that or not. I've heard plenty of Yes voters say they want out of Europe. I'm pretty sure Bearger on here expressed that view.

 

There's probably loads of individuals but the polls aren't even close in this in Scotland. And 54% say they would vote for independence if we come out.

 

The idea is that sometimes each part of the UK pays in, sometimes they need a pay out, but overall it's a net gain. It's also a smoother ride, as the surpluses of one area of the larger economy cover the shortfalls of another.

 

As said above, fine in theory, not always true in practice. It's also an argument for staying in Europe.

 

Do you really see all those arguments as fallacious? We do have a deficit of over 9% - worse than Greece and Portugal.

 

As said, so far it's a one off and without control of tax and the other major parts of the economy, it is UK government to blame. It is certainly fallacious to compare Scotland to those two countries. There is a difference to struggling to pay your mortgage for one month and almost defaulting on it. The other fallacious is ignoring that the UK has had it that high and over 10 years is NOT better than Scotland. In context, your argument suddenly becomes compelling for us to leave if these kind of deficits are so repulsive.

 

The low price of oil may continue as new extraction techniques allow other sources (shale oil primarily) to be tapped - plus, the world is hopefully committed to moving away from dependence on fossil fuels.

 

I think the SNP are supposed to be embracing renewables but they will take time to mature and for investment and so the oil helps pay until we get there. It's the rUK that could be in deep shit energy wise in the event of Brexit and Scot Ind.

 

You may be comfortable to assume that Scotland would be admitted into the EU - and you're probably correct - but there is no precedent for it, and clear motivation for other EU nations (Spain for example) to vote against.

 

I can think of no compelling reason for an expanding community to refuse re-entry to a small, relatively rich country who has already been a member for decades. Again there is just no motivation and it wouldn't make the slightest sense. There is a first time for everything.

 

Spain have already intimated they would not vote against and it easy to see why. The pressure on them from the rest of the EC would be enormous, the political cost at home quite high in Catalonia, the loss of trade with Scotland a large blow, and the very big ace in the hole - no legal fishing in Scottish waters.

 

The problem would not be getting in, it would be sticking points like the Euro and Shengen - although there is a precedent there...

 

The Yes campaign certainly could not guarantee that it would happen. With regards to currency union why would the rUK accept potential liability for Scotland by entering a formal currency union? What benefit would that have for the rUK over an informal currency union?

 

As I've said several times, the No campaign certainly could not guarantee we'd stay in the EU. The biggest problem for Yes is that the major details could not be negotiated with rUK and the EU beforehand. THAT is the MAIN reason the no vote won.

 

With regards to the currency union - why not? Why would a country be prepared to supposedly subsidise Scotland to the tune of billions, but not keep currency union when the alternatives would be highly detrimental to rUK? It seems like a huge bluff to influence the vote.

 

It would be difficult for the BofE to have currency union but with enough conditions on the fiscal policies of Scotland, it would easily cope and allow both countries to continue to have partnerships and trade without premium. It's a win-win instead of a lose-lose. The irony is that Sterlingisation would be totally out of their control and so of far greater risk. Having 10% of your currency used by a country with no fiscal conditions would be a nightmare for the BofE.

 

Besides, as I said, it's the nuclear option - with Scotland possibly using that to threaten to legally repudiate the share of the national debt. It's better to have a bad credit rating without debt than with it. The consequences of this could be worse for rUK than Scotland.

 

I've given a perfect storm scenario that would leave rUK incredibly weak and possibly losing its lucrative banking centre as well as an energy crisis, and aggressive protectionist trading measures by the EU and 100+% debt.

 

If the Yes campaign could show that there is a clear, painless path to autonomy they'd be on to a winner. But they can't. The risks are part of the package they are offering. The risks are really what we were voting about.

 

And we are generally a risk averse nation... The No didn't win in my opinion, this is the crux of it. The No campaign obfuscating everything and making it sound impossible was a tactic that's hard to beat. I would rather they won by showing how we're better together.

 

 

If the vote was to retrospectively be independent from the 1970s onward the Yes campaign would win easily, but the oil market has changed and the world's relationship with fossil fuel is changing.

 

Agreed but it may not have been too late.

 

The UK does face problems and IMO we need some measure of reform but independence doesn't guarantee us a better government or a better relationship with Europe.

 

As we can now see, nothing is guaranteed.

 

Take a look at the Irish economy. It had to be bailed out by the UK, and they are currently in the process of instigating austerity measures including public spending cuts and deeply unpopular additional taxes. Can oil revenue protect us from that?

 

It's been a bit boom and bust for them but the boom was long and prosperous. If the Eurozone recovers they will be fine and already are considered the 7th richest country in the world I think. The Celtic Tiger wasn't so bad.

 

I think Scotland is better placed to be stronger than Ireland AND there's the oil too.

 

It all boils down to which scary scenario you take more seriously. And TBH, your argument loses a lot of traction with me when you start using phrases like "what the English are trying to hide". When you say that do you mean the conservatives?

 

Maybe it wasn't a good turn phrase but like Rangers and Celtic news, there's usually only one side that gets the negative sensationalism - it might not be hidden but it's certainly not in the domain of discourse. But I'd rather you paid attention to the semantics of my words rather than dwell on my phrasing.

Edited March 21, 2016 by calscot

[Thinker 887]

I was boiling it down to basics but yes you can contrive any motivations - but then you are talking about a conspiracy, and it's far less compelling. I think there are too many people involved. The thing you're ignoring is that the referendum came in a perfect storm of a UK government who mismanaged the economy to create massive deficits and national debt, a Eurozone crisis, a world recession and plummet in the price of oil. Nobody predicted most of that which suggests EVERYONE was naive.

 

I’m not talking about a conspiracy. IMO the Yes campaigners genuinely believed that independence would ultimately be for Scotland’s good - but they were wrong. They're blinded by ideology, they were overly optimistic about the timescale and degree of risk that they asked the nation to face. They were – still are actually – labouring under a false belief that everyone on the Yes side is singing from the same hymn-sheet on how they think an independent Scotland should work.

As for the prediction of a perfect storm - the prediction only was, and only has to be, that the UK is better able to ride out the waves that the economy throws at it due to it being a bigger ship. That's been borne out.

 

Everyone is SUPPOSED to benefit in the long run but it has been shown that just like Rangers, it doesn't quite work for Scotland. Not only that it works badly for the North of England and other parts of the country. IMHO one of the biggest problems with the UK is that our resources are continually lavished on an overheating London.

 

Yup, we’re in the same boat as the North of England so why should we want to be separated from them? If the problem is that London gets more than its fair share of resources, then that is the problem we should be addressing. It’s not necessary to break up the union to fix that. We can do it and still preserve the benefits. It’s the same argument as you would make for staying in the EU. Fix it, don’t bin it.

 

You want to talk about deficit predictions? Seriously? Tell me who got it right? Certainly not the UK governments of Labour or Tory. I'm not sure a Scottish government would be better but like the opinions on McCoist here, I don't see how they could have done worse. A Scottish government, more reliant on oil, would have a much higher motivation to give it the attention it needs.

 

As I said above, the point is that the UK can deal with economic fluctuations more easily than indy Scotland could. If there was a simple, obvious way to get more dosh out of the North Sea, then the Conservative government would be all over it.

 

You are also judging the SNP for an non-independent deficit? I don't see how that makes sense. It would obviously be less with the full oil revenue no matter how low but as I've said I've seen independent figures that calculate at least a £10b swing - better on a good oil year. Maybe it's only half that but it would still be less than the UK. And as I've said several times now, it is highly related to Tory tax policy. You are judging the SNP on the performance of the Tories. It's not like the SNP's spending has suddenly increased by £15b or just several billion.

 

The Scottish Parliament have to take some of the blame for that deficit. It’s worse than the rest of the UK.

 

Compelling? If you call successful scaremongering and threats compelling. As I've said the vote was too close to give the no the credit you are applying - the no won due to the number of unknowns more than anything.

 

Given that a scary situation has come to be, you can hardly call what they did scaremongering. It was flagging the danger. Check the in/out EU referendum rhetoric. You’ll see that any attempt to flag up the negative consequences of leaving the EU is similarly branded as scaremongering by the Out campaign.

 

Maybe you misunderstand me - they are the antithesis of the general gamut of Scots' fundamental beliefs. I really don't think many Scots are happy with a budget that robs the disabled to give the wealthy more money in their pocket.

 

I think you’ll find that there are more people who agree with you South of the border than there are North of it. I also think you’d find, post-independence, that a lot of Scots are far more financially Conservative than the % vote for the Tories suggests. A Scottish Conservative party disconnected from Westminster and the city of London would probably do reasonably well. There are many people in Aberdeen and Edinburgh who express resentment at funding the benefit junkies in Glasgow, for example.

Basically what I’m saying is that I don’t think Scots’ fundamental beliefs differ dramatically from the rest of the UK’s. The Conservative party wins votes by reaching out to the self-interest of people in the South East of England. If there was a party that reached out to the self-interest of the more prosperous areas of Scotland, they’d do well in those constituencies.

 

There's probably loads of individuals but the polls aren't even close in this in Scotland. And 54% say they would vote for independence if we come out.

 

I guess we’ll find out if there are any significant differences over this when the votes are counted.

 

As said above, fine in theory, not always true in practice. It's also an argument for staying in Europe.

 

I agree. The arguments for staying in the UK are very similar to the arguments for staying in the EU. That's why I’m in favour of both.

 

As said, so far it's a one off and without control of tax and the other major parts of the economy, it is UK government to blame. It is certainly fallacious to compare Scotland to those two countries. There is a difference to struggling to pay your mortgage for one month and almost defaulting on it. The other fallacious is ignoring that the UK has had it that high and over 10 years is NOT better than Scotland. In context, your argument suddenly becomes compelling for us to leave if these kind of deficits are so repulsive.

 

Well the projections are that it’ll be a big deficit this coming year too. Once we get the deficit sorted out, then maybe it could be time to address the issue of independence again, but not before then and it's not going to happen soon.

 

I think the SNP are supposed to be embracing renewables but they will take time to mature and for investment and so the oil helps pay until we get there. It's the rUK that could be in deep shit energy wise in the event of Brexit and Scot Ind.

 

Again, once the renewable energy market is spinning big money, independence becomes a realistic proposition – but not until then. I take no comfort in the thought the rest of the UK could end up in deep shit – in fact, that makes independence less attractive to me.

 

I can think of no compelling reason for an expanding community to refuse re-entry to a small, relatively rich country who has already been a member for decades. Again there is just no motivation and it wouldn't make the slightest sense. There is a first time for everything.

Spain have already intimated they would not vote against and it easy to see why. The pressure on them from the rest of the EC would be enormous, the political cost at home quite high in Catalonia, the loss of trade with Scotland a large blow, and the very big ace in the hole - no legal fishing in Scottish waters.

The problem would not be getting in, it would be sticking points like the Euro and Shengen - although there is a precedent there...

 

As I've said several times, the No campaign certainly could not guarantee we'd stay in the EU. The biggest problem for Yes is that the major details could not be negotiated with rUK and the EU beforehand. THAT is the MAIN reason the no vote won.

 

I agree you’re probably right on EU membership. Probably. Not definitely.

 

With regards to the currency union - why not? Why would a country be prepared to supposedly subsidise Scotland to the tune of billions, but not keep currency union when the alternatives would be highly detrimental to rUK? It seems like a huge bluff to influence the vote.

 

It would be difficult for the BofE to have currency union but with enough conditions on the fiscal policies of Scotland, it would easily cope and allow both countries to continue to have partnerships and trade without premium. It's a win-win instead of a lose-lose. The irony is that Sterlingisation would be totally out of their control and so of far greater risk. Having 10% of your currency used by a country with no fiscal conditions would be a nightmare for the BofE.

 

Besides, as I said, it's the nuclear option - with Scotland possibly using that to threaten to legally repudiate the share of the national debt. It's better to have a bad credit rating without debt than with it. The consequences of this could be worse for rUK than Scotland.

 

Sometimes the UK would subsidise Scotland, sometimes Scotland would be a net contributor. Greater stability for all involved. That’s the win-win. When you think about it, the very argument that we should share a currency is an argument against independence. Our economies are utterly intertwined and as the Euro crisis has shown us, currency union without political union is a recipe for disaster.

 

I've given a perfect storm scenario that would leave rUK incredibly weak and possibly losing its lucrative banking centre as well as an energy crisis, and aggressive protectionist trading measures by the EU and 100+% debt.

 

The thing about perfect storms is that they’re very, very rare. The risk assessment on that one would be a green flag.

 

And we are generally a risk averse nation... The No didn't win in my opinion, this is the crux of it. The No campaign obfuscating everything and making it sound impossible was a tactic that's hard to beat. I would rather they won by showing how we're better together.

 

Regardless of your opinion No did win. By the very nature of the referendum question No was forced to be negative – and their line of argument had to be to warn us about what we’d miss out on. It’s more or less the same with the EU referendum (although In is a more positive word to pin a campaign on).

 

Agreed but it may not have been too late.

 

~ probably is though…

 

As we can now see, nothing is guaranteed.

 

It's been a bit boom and bust for them but the boom was long and prosperous. If the Eurozone recovers they will be fine and already are considered the 7th richest country in the world I think. The Celtic Tiger wasn't so bad.

 

I think Scotland is better placed to be stronger than Ireland AND there's the oil too.

 

It's been a lot boom and bust for them and that is what we want to avoid. Being part of a larger nation dampens the effects of economic ups and downs. There are a lot of folks in Ireland who were rich during the Tiger and are now flat broke. The fact that they used to be rich, if anything, makes their current situation harder to bear. Also, every time there’s a bust, a generation has to disperse around the world to Canada or Australia or wherever looking for employment. There are shitty consequences that persist long after the bubble bursts.

 

I think the the Republic of Ireland is pretty close to what an independent Scotland would be like. Their MPs are no more competent or popular than those in West Minster - they’re probably worse in fact. They have rotten public services (I’d urge you to find out how much you’d have to pay for a root canal in Ireland) and they have to pay a host of trumped up taxes. It's got to the point where even the hard-line Britain-haters in Northern Ireland would not vote to be reunited with the Republic since the standard of welfare would be so much worse.

 

Maybe it wasn't a good turn phrase but like Rangers and Celtic news, there's usually only one side that gets the negative sensationalism - it might not be hidden but it's certainly not in the domain of discourse. But I'd rather you paid attention to the semantics of my words rather than dwell on my phrasing.

 

I’ll let you off with the phrase then, but remember the Unionism is not a campaign waged purely from England. It’s the UK-wide, and it’s what the majority of Scots voted for. If you’re going to try to argue that the majority of the population where duped but you saw through it, I dispute that completely.

 

Anyway - I'm sorry but I'm going to have to leave this discussion at that. What we're talking about is off-topic and I don't really have the time or willpower to get drawn into a calscot "debate by attrition" mega-thread of humungous posts. Suffice to say that whatever your reply to this is, I probably disagree.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Thinker