| Author |
Thread |
|
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
 Posted - 2014/09/15 : 16:50:55
quote:
Originally posted by djDMS:
He's all about PR and making the right noises though. Wouldn't trust him to run a bath, never mind a country!
Yes he is. To be fair though, it may not necessarily be him running the country if it's a yes vote. Independance won't come until 18-24 months after the vote, at which point there will be an election to decide who governs us.
Alert moderator 
|
Ken Masters
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,447 posts
Joined: Feb, 2007
|
Posted - 2014/09/15 : 19:48:51
Since moving to England a couple of years ago i've taken a back seat on the whole thing, mostly due to the fact that not having a Scottish address means I don't have the right to vote anyway.
Not really fair that one in my opinion, it's a bit like saying "You've left & chances are you ain't coming back". I've lived in Scotland my whole life, i'm Scottish & proud to be Scottish. Just because an opportunity came along for me & my girlfriend to try something different & gain some life experience doesn't mean i've turned my back on my country & don't care about it's future. I think this act from SNP says a lot about their single minded, overly patriotic approach to politics. Hearts are ruling heads & in my opinion it's a recipe for disaster.
I go HOME & visit my family at least every 2 months & it's been interesting to see how quickly opinions towards independence have changed. When I left the majority of people seemed to be against it, however gradually, & more noticeably on the last trip I made in august, it was quite a shock to see how so many people have changed their minds. Those who were once against it are now completely for it! but it appears that once for it there doesn't seem to be anyone swinging the other way.
As it stands now, I would be seriously surprised if it doesn't go ahead. It's quite sad really, not only do I feel let down by my country for robbing me of my vote but if it does go ahead I don't think i'll ever have the same connection with my home if/when I do return seeing as i had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. I also genuinely feel a sense of sadness that there's a chance I won't be able to call myself British any more, meaning i'm also losing my connection with the people i've spent the past two years getting to know & growing close to.
__________________________________
Future State Music
Alert moderator
|
jenks
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,687 posts
Joined: Feb, 2003
19 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2014/09/15 : 23:27:50
Martin Wolf for the FT
A Yes vote will launch Scotland, and to a lesser extent the UK, into years of uncertainty. Among the biggest doubts are those hanging over the currency. Financial businesses that must be regulated and supported by the UK will flee. Scottish deposit insurance would be as worthless as the Reykjavik-run scheme that failed to cover Icelandic banks in 2008. Cautious Scots must already recognise that the pounds in their bank accounts may end up as something else. Far safer to move the money south.
Confronted with currency uncertainty, banks will need to balance their books within Scotland. This will surely force them to shrink the supply of credit to the Scottish economy. The UK government could try to prevent money from leaving Scotland, but this would require draconian controls, which it will not impose. Either Westminster or the Scottish government could offer to indemnify lenders against currency risks. The UK government will not do that. It will let the credit squeeze happen, blaming it on the Scottish decision. It will be Scotland?s choice, if it can meet the cost.
Scotland can promise that the pound will remain the currency of Scotland. It cannot promise a currency union, however. That takes two parties. Even if the government of the remaining UK is prepared to countenance such a union, there should be a referendum. The only satisfactory terms for the residual UK will be ones that impose very tight limits on the fiscal deficits Scotland can run. It must also insist that financial regulation will be run by the Bank of England, which would nonetheless remain accountable to the UK state alone. Scotland can adopt the pound without a currency union, and so without the back-up of the Bank of England. But this, too, is highly problematic. Scotland would need to build a reserve of sterling that can serve as its monetary base ? by attracting capital inflows or exporting more than it sells abroad for many years. And it would need more than that. If the eurozone crisis has taught us anything, it is that countries without central banks cannot, in a crisis, stabilise the markets for their public debt. Scotland?s share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product ? a perilous position for a country whose debt is denominated in a currency it cannot create freely. Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had far lower public debt ratios before the crisis. Scotland will need a substantial reserve cushion . Accumulating it will be costly.
Alex Salmond, Scotland?s first minister and head of the Yes campaign, will say that if the rest of the UK will not grant Scotland a currency union, Scotland will not take on its share of the UK debt. Not so fast: the negotiations launched by that Yes vote will cover everything. The oil, for example, is not Scottish until the UK agrees. If Scotland repudiates its share of the debt, who says it will get ?its? oil? All this ignores the little fact that Scotland wants to be in the EU. If it does enter (which Spain will surely seek to prevent lest it encourage Catalonian separatists), it might be forced to join the exchange rate mechanism from the beginning. It would then need its own currency and central bank. It could not persist with sterling. Any such shift away from sterling raises big questions. In what currency will existing assets and liabilities be denominated? How will any redenomination occur? What will happen to the currency denomination of the pensions and all other state payments due to Scots?
These negotiations will be complex, bitter and prolonged. However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. It is the safest possible bet that when this process is over, the English will resent the people who repudiated them and the Scots will resent the people who did not give them independence on the terms to which they believed they were entitled. A United Kingdom will give way to a deeply divided island.
The Scots will discover the taste of austerity. Scotland cannot sustain higher taxes than the residual UK; that would drive economic activity away. It will pay a higher interest rate on public debt because its government will be unfamiliar and dependent on unstable oil revenues (almost certainly smaller than Mr Salmond imagines). Fiscal fibs will be exposed.* *By then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose ?independence?. And then, enjoy!"
Alert moderator
|
jenks
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,687 posts
Joined: Feb, 2003
19 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2014/09/15 : 23:41:18
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Masters:
As it stands now, I would be seriously surprised if it doesn't go ahead.
There have been 61 polls taken this year on the issue, but only 2 of them have shown the Yes vote in front.
Alert moderator
|
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2014/09/15 : 23:46:01
quote:
Originally posted by jenks:
Martin Wolf for the FT
A Yes vote will launch Scotland, and to a lesser extent the UK, into years of uncertainty. Among the biggest doubts are those hanging over the currency. Financial businesses that must be regulated and supported by the UK will flee. Scottish deposit insurance would be as worthless as the Reykjavik-run scheme that failed to cover Icelandic banks in 2008. Cautious Scots must already recognise that the pounds in their bank accounts may end up as something else. Far safer to move the money south.
Confronted with currency uncertainty, banks will need to balance their books within Scotland. This will surely force them to shrink the supply of credit to the Scottish economy. The UK government could try to prevent money from leaving Scotland, but this would require draconian controls, which it will not impose. Either Westminster or the Scottish government could offer to indemnify lenders against currency risks. The UK government will not do that. It will let the credit squeeze happen, blaming it on the Scottish decision. It will be Scotland?s choice, if it can meet the cost.
Scotland can promise that the pound will remain the currency of Scotland. It cannot promise a currency union, however. That takes two parties. Even if the government of the remaining UK is prepared to countenance such a union, there should be a referendum. The only satisfactory terms for the residual UK will be ones that impose very tight limits on the fiscal deficits Scotland can run. It must also insist that financial regulation will be run by the Bank of England, which would nonetheless remain accountable to the UK state alone. Scotland can adopt the pound without a currency union, and so without the back-up of the Bank of England. But this, too, is highly problematic. Scotland would need to build a reserve of sterling that can serve as its monetary base ? by attracting capital inflows or exporting more than it sells abroad for many years. And it would need more than that. If the eurozone crisis has taught us anything, it is that countries without central banks cannot, in a crisis, stabilise the markets for their public debt. Scotland?s share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product ? a perilous position for a country whose debt is denominated in a currency it cannot create freely. Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had far lower public debt ratios before the crisis. Scotland will need a substantial reserve cushion . Accumulating it will be costly.
Alex Salmond, Scotland?s first minister and head of the Yes campaign, will say that if the rest of the UK will not grant Scotland a currency union, Scotland will not take on its share of the UK debt. Not so fast: the negotiations launched by that Yes vote will cover everything. The oil, for example, is not Scottish until the UK agrees. If Scotland repudiates its share of the debt, who says it will get ?its? oil? All this ignores the little fact that Scotland wants to be in the EU. If it does enter (which Spain will surely seek to prevent lest it encourage Catalonian separatists), it might be forced to join the exchange rate mechanism from the beginning. It would then need its own currency and central bank. It could not persist with sterling. Any such shift away from sterling raises big questions. In what currency will existing assets and liabilities be denominated? How will any redenomination occur? What will happen to the currency denomination of the pensions and all other state payments due to Scots?
These negotiations will be complex, bitter and prolonged. However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. It is the safest possible bet that when this process is over, the English will resent the people who repudiated them and the Scots will resent the people who did not give them independence on the terms to which they believed they were entitled. A United Kingdom will give way to a deeply divided island.
The Scots will discover the taste of austerity. Scotland cannot sustain higher taxes than the residual UK; that would drive economic activity away. It will pay a higher interest rate on public debt because its government will be unfamiliar and dependent on unstable oil revenues (almost certainly smaller than Mr Salmond imagines). Fiscal fibs will be exposed.* *By then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose ?independence?. And then, enjoy!"
Let me give you the standard generic response from Alex Salmond or any single one of his followers to this and any other similar statements..... Scaremongering, we are right you are wrong.
Alert moderator
|
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2014/09/15 : 23:54:10
quote:
Originally posted by jenks:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Masters:
As it stands now, I would be seriously surprised if it doesn't go ahead.
There have been 61 polls taken this year on the issue, but only 2 of them have shown the Yes vote in front.
I wouldn't put too much faith in any of the polls although I do feel they give a rough idea. They show an increase in support for the yes vote and this resonates with my personal experience up here in Edinburgh. They take a sample of roughly 1k - 2k people and give results based on that. We have just over 4m voters registered to vote on Thursday so we will see the true outcome soon enough. One thing is for certain, the yes campaign have been much more vocal than the no campaign, both on the streets and on social media. I'm really relying on the so-called 'silent majority' to cross the no box on Thursday although I have my doubts that they exist.
Alert moderator
Edited by - The drunken scotsman on 2014/09/15 23:56:03 |
Elipton
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,268 posts
Joined: Apr, 2013
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 05:19:47
The Scottish are a very proud people. The question the referendum asks is whether they have more pride than logic. Pretty much every point for and against has been made, so I'm not going to regurgitate facts/opinions.
I hope they stay in the union, for the benefit for all of us. That said, a country escaping the grasp of Junker would be a big middle finger to the EU. I'm jealous of them for that.
Alert moderator
|
rafferty
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
639 posts
Joined: Feb, 2012
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 08:58:17
Is a big decision for Scotland.
America told us to get lost over 200 years ago and even blew Britain away in a war which they celebrate.
Scotland must be thinking if the U.S.A did fine after independence, why can't they.
__________________________________
STREETWEAR, GYMWEAR, SPORTSWEAR, HARDCORE.
Candy & anime was just a faze & a total embarrassment that everyone mocks and laughs at now.
Alert moderator
|
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 10:01:48
quote:
Originally posted by rafferty:
Is a big decision for Scotland.
America told us to get lost over 200 years ago and even blew Britain away in a war which they celebrate.
Scotland must be thinking if the U.S.A did fine after independence, why can't they.
The main difference being that Scotland is not much bigger than most single states in the US. And our population is 5m, which is half of the London population alone.
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,635 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 10:16:04
From the people I've talked to, they're a little peeved that the government are bribing Scotland to stay in the union, by offering them more powers and money..... which the rest of the UK haven't had a chance to say "yes" to. They feel the negotiation should have happened after the referendum in case of a "no" vote and have included the whole of the UK.
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
|
rafferty
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
639 posts
Joined: Feb, 2012
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 10:16:42
quote:
Originally posted by The drunken scotsman:
quote:
Originally posted by rafferty:
Is a big decision for Scotland.
America told us to get lost over 200 years ago and even blew Britain away in a war which they celebrate.
Scotland must be thinking if the U.S.A did fine after independence, why can't they.
The main difference being that Scotland is not much bigger than most single states in the US. And our population is 5m, which is half of the London population alone.
There are small countries in Europe which seem to be doing ok. Denmark and Finland both have populations of about 5 million.
__________________________________
STREETWEAR, GYMWEAR, SPORTSWEAR, HARDCORE.
Candy & anime was just a faze & a total embarrassment that everyone mocks and laughs at now.
Alert moderator
Edited by - rafferty on 2014/09/16 10:26:45 |
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 10:46:58
quote:
Originally posted by rafferty:
quote:
Originally posted by The drunken scotsman:
quote:
Originally posted by rafferty:
Is a big decision for Scotland.
America told us to get lost over 200 years ago and even blew Britain away in a war which they celebrate.
Scotland must be thinking if the U.S.A did fine after independence, why can't they.
The main difference being that Scotland is not much bigger than most single states in the US. And our population is 5m, which is half of the London population alone.
There are small countries in Europe which seem to be doing ok. Denmark and Finland both have populations of about 5 million.
And there are others not doing so well like Greece and Ireland. Point I was making is that I doubt many are drawing comparisons with the US.
It's all a massive gamble.
Alert moderator
|
djDMS
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
10,304 posts
Joined: Feb, 2003
572 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 10:48:08
They shouldn't be offering Scotland shit!
I have no say in what happens there. At this rate, independent or not they'll still end up with too much 'power'
__________________________________
Taking my time to perfect the beat
Alert moderator
|
The drunken scotsman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1,486 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 11:24:25
quote:
Originally posted by djDMS:
They shouldn't be offering Scotland shit!
I have no say in what happens there. At this rate, independent or not they'll still end up with too much 'power'
Don't get me wrong as I'm an avid no supporter, but it's attitudes like this that brought the entire vote about in the first place.
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,635 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2014/09/16 : 11:53:05
I think what Dean means is that if the rest of the country isn't being offered something, then Scotland shouldn't be either?
If I have a chocolate bar I give it out equally to my kids and wife and for myself - I don't just give it all to one child because they threaten me. ;)
They're already talking about "English Parliament" now...not long till Cornwall get's one too! :P
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
Edited by - Triquatra on 2014/09/16 11:54:02 |
|
Printer friendly
