An Independent Scotland?

Several countries have in the past gained independence from the UK, and continued to have a currency union, until such time it was more appropriate to have their own currency.
so why does it have to be different for Scotland?
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Several countries have in the past gained independence from the UK, and continued to have a currency union, until such time it was more appropriate to have their own currency.
so why does it have to be different for Scotland?
Click to expand...
because the no's need to cling into something to try and keep Scotland in the uk up until the oil runs out and we no longer have anything Westminster wants lol
 
Steep said:
gman if you watch the video I posted on Page 44, Ivor McKee makes a good explanation of the finances.

If both countries are in the EU there will be no import duties.
Click to expand...


I watched it when you posted it but it doesn't address my points. Also I thought new EU members had to take the Euro? I'm still hearing no reason as to why we can't have our own currency?

He also doesn't take into consideration that an independent Scotland would no longer be a preferential supplier of oil and we would have to complete with other suppliers including the USA and Norway who could both probably undercut us.
 
StewartR said:
Agreed, but it's a big ask. How many people would be willing to accept a potential worsening of their own circumstances in order to provide a potentially better future for their great-great-grandchildren? Not many, if the debate over global climate change is anything to go by. Unfortunately I don't think your line of argument is going to win you many converts.
Click to expand...
I should point out that I'm not trying to convert anyone, just stating what the reality of the situation is (at least as I see it). I'd have thought it was axiomatic that the first couple of years would not be the most important in a journey of hundreds of years, but perhaps the way we are wired these days we do indeed think only of our own short term needs? Among the debate I imagine going back to the fields of Bannockburn, Culloden, Flodden, and explaining to the men that actually we'll have a chance for independence in the future, and all we have to do is turn up and make a scratch on a piece of paper. But we're scared what picture is going to be on our currency the next day. If they didn't die laughing, they'd surely kill us?

Equally I'd have thought that the drive to leave a better world for the next generation should, by common-sense, be at least one uniting argument - who can disagree with that? The climate change one I won't touch, but a clear argument is our financial ponzu scheme. We're more than happy to build up ever more massive mountains of debt to pay for our today, the entirety of which will have to be serviced (and supposedly repaid) by our grandchildren - on top of making their own way in the world. Indeed independence offers Scotland a once in a lifetime, indeed a once in history, chance to create a currency which is actually backed by the government and the people (as opposed to all other national currencies which are principally created when commercial banks make loans).

It is a stunning, once in a lifetime, once in history opportunity to throw off so much of what is wrong with finance, society, inequality, and build something better. I'm incredulous if we cannot improve upon the vast swathe of things that are wrong today. Truly if our worry is "can we still use the pound" and we act accordingly with that I am genuinely disappointed - if that's the scale of our ambitions and ideas, perhaps our worth is only to be ruled from afar.
 
Moadib said:
I should point out that I'm not trying to convert anyone, just stating what the reality of the situation is (at least as I see it). I'd have thought it was axiomatic that the first couple of years would not be the most important in a journey of hundreds of years, but perhaps the way we are wired these days we do indeed think only of our own short term needs? Among the debate I imagine going back to the fields of Bannockburn, Culloden, Flodden, and explaining to the men that actually we'll have a chance for independence in the future, and all we have to do is turn up and make a scratch on a piece of paper. But we're scared what picture is going to be on our currency the next day. If they didn't die laughing, they'd surely kill us?

Equally I'd have thought that the drive to leave a better world for the next generation should, by common-sense, be at least one uniting argument - who can disagree with that? The climate change one I won't touch, but a clear argument is our financial ponzu scheme. We're more than happy to build up ever more massive mountains of debt to pay for our today, the entirety of which will have to be serviced (and supposedly repaid) by our grandchildren - on top of making their own way in the world. Indeed independence offers Scotland a once in a lifetime, indeed a once in history, chance to create a currency which is actually backed by the government and the people (as opposed to all other national currencies which are principally created when commercial banks make loans).

It is a stunning, once in a lifetime, once in history opportunity to throw off so much of what is wrong with finance, society, inequality, and build something better. I'm incredulous if we cannot improve upon the vast swathe of things that are wrong today. Truly if our worry is "can we still use the pound" and we act accordingly with that I am genuinely disappointed - if that's the scale of our ambitions and ideas, perhaps our worth is only to be ruled from afar.
Click to expand...
Fair points made, but all I'm saying is that what happens in the next year or two could have a massive influence in how our future turns out. I'm not suggesting that in the grand scheme of things it will be the most important period, because as you say, what happens in the following 100+ years will have a significant influence in our overall history, but what happens in the next year or two (or 6 weeks) will determine which route we follow.
It's actually the better together campaign that are turning the currency that we will be using into the be all and end all of independence.
 
Somebody quoted Singapore on the radio, they declared independence from the UK in 1963 and had a few rocky years in the beginning but look at them now. I'm not saying Scotland would be another Singapore but they are an example of a small newly independent country making good on their own merits.

Whatever the problems that may or may not exist on independence we'll deal with them, whatever currency we have we'll make it work.
 
Depending upon which list you take (and how politically sensitive they are!) there are up to 196 countries in the world. 161 of these have become independent during the last "three score and ten" of a human lifetime. What an achievement! It's far from untrodden path, and it's (literally) saddening to imagine that a country of Scots, who have had the imagination to bring the world so many things, would be unable to succeed where 161 countries have before them, or even worse to lack the courage and vision to even try. "Whose face will be on our debt tokens?" is for me a reason to absolutely BE independent, and invent our own currency backed by Scots themselves (rather than by debt and private banks).
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Fair points made, but all I'm saying is that what happens in the next year or two could have a massive influence in how our future turns out. I'm not suggesting that in the grand scheme of things it will be the most important period, because as you say, what happens in the following 100+ years will have a significant influence in our overall history, but what happens in the next year or two (or 6 weeks) will determine which route we follow.
It's actually the better together campaign that are turning the currency that we will be using into the be all and end all of independence.
Click to expand...
You're right, and I guess that's because it's an issue they believe they control, and which can be used to scare voters. Make no mistake, this pre-election time is about either enticing or scaring voters into one camp or the other, facts be damned. Below an interesting description of the debate preparation - unbiased....? I thought that was in the BBC charter? But we shouldn't be naive, the BBC is state funded, and MUST promote what the British state wants.

What is increasingly plain – and I warned before the debate – is that the conduct of the entire “debate” was a part of this co-ordinated plan, pre-determined to allow the media to declare the currency issue is the only one that will decide the referendum. Salmond was grilled on nothing but currency for twelve minutes, and then the chairman picked out members of the public from the IPSOS/Mori selected audiencepre-primed with questions about … currency.

Audience members had had to fill out forms for selection indication if they were Yes or No voters. They were then asked again at the door, and many Yes voters who had been invited were excluded. No voters were seated in a selected central area where the questions were taken from. Better Together staff were present briefing their questioners.
Click to expand...
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/astonishing-coincidence/
 
Moadib said:
You're right, and I guess that's because it's an issue they believe they control, and which can be used to scare voters. Make no mistake, this pre-election time is about either enticing or scaring voters into one camp or the other, facts be damned. Below an interesting description of the debate preparation - unbiased....? I thought that was in the BBC charter? But we shouldn't be naive, the BBC is state funded, and MUST promote what the British state wants.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/astonishing-coincidence/
Click to expand...

It is obvious from this that you did not watch the debate and your attempts to sound like you know what is going on fall flat on there face.
 
Keith W said:
It is obvious from this that you did not watch the debate and your attempts to sound like you know what is going on fall flat on there face.
Click to expand...
"their face".

I should add that ITV must also remain unbiased, by charter obligation. I rarely watch TV (too little information imparted by it), and therefore pay no attention at all to what channel something is on. That you choose to infer knowledge from that IMO says rather more about you than me.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
"their face".

I should add that ITV must also remain unbiased, by charter obligation. I rarely watch TV (too little information imparted by it), and therefore pay no attention at all to what channel something is on. That you choose to infer knowledge from that IMO says rather more about you than me.
Click to expand...

Editing posts after people reply? says it all

Moadib said:
That you choose to infer knowledge from that IMO says rather more about you than me.
Click to expand...

Really? hypocritical much?
 
Come on guys, play the ball not the man. Don't derail the thread with petty personal attacks.
 
You're right. I spent time thinking how to express elements of the debate and the currency, and I took exception to my intelligence and argument being dismissed through not caring what channel it was on. However such exchange adds nothing to the discussion, you're right, let's keep moving on.
 
Onwards and upwards!
 
I can't speak for the complete make up of the audience but there were 'some' yes voters there. It doesn't help make his case believable that he didn't name the Ipsos Mori rep he spoke to. Of course he may have his reasons for that but...
 
dinners said:
Listening to the radio - there seems to be a lot of hard done by yes campaigners getting their stories out just now. Chips / shoulders / handy / agenda / barrel / scraping spring to mind.
Click to expand...

But not honest people telling the truth? It is possible you know.

There's an online petition here with over 14,000 signatures calling for an inquiry into BBC bias, that's a whole lot of shoulders weighed down by chips by your reckoning.
 
Johan Lamont (Scottish Labour Leader) Q&A at a labour for No meeting - First question asked "Can you clarify exactly what extra powers Labour would give a no voting Scotland?" answer - silence. She only answered when the next question was "can you answer the first?" and then just waffled.

 
I don't think anyone is arguing that Scotland can't use the sterling pound, anyone can use it if they wish through the markets. It's a formal currency union that's being argued and also which I believe would be the protection that such a currency union would provide.
 
Steep said:
Johan Lamont (Scottish Labour Leader) Q&A at a labour for No meeting - First question asked "Can you clarify exactly what extra powers Labour would give a no voting Scotland?" answer - silence. She only answered when the next question was "can you answer the first?" and then just waffled.
Click to expand...
But surely you can't be objecting to that when the Yes camp is saying that all the answers will be negotiated after the vote?
 
Steep said:
Somebody quoted Singapore on the radio, they declared independence from the UK in 1963 and had a few rocky years in the beginning but look at them now.
Click to expand...

I would advise some caution before citing Singapore as a model.
 
Not 100% sure but didn't Singapore have a huge advantage at the start by being in such a good location and also an attractive trading post? I also believe there's quite the contrast between rich and poor, but on saying I'm sure that Singapore are also regarded as being one of the most honest places to do business, something which Scotland could possibly achieve also as I do feel we already have quite a good reputation for integrity. I really do think Salmond has to stop promising so much and get more realistic.

I also would not have had a problem if he had said that if a currency union wasn't possible then we'd simply use Sterling bought from the markets or something as a Plan B etc. At least it would come across as more pragmatic. If Scotland goes independent I think we are going to be in for a very tough time for many, many years but eventually I would hope that we would start to grow and improve and if Salmond adopted this sort of prudent attitude then he would probably have gained a lot more respect from the undecided ones as well as the current No people.

I have to admit though, when little reptiles like John Bercow get away with screwing the system all the time then it does make we wonder if we would be better away from that lot, but I suspect that our politicians will probably be no better although I guess we've got more chance of kicking them out.

If Scotland was to adopt Direct Democracy (and scrap fuel duty) then I would probably be happy to take on some future hardship and vote Yes because I believe that under Direct Democracy you have a much better chance of making the country a place that the people want, rather than what a bunch of self serving politicians want who can get away with far too much for far too long before being kicked out.
 
I know we Scots are waking up to politcs but I don't think anyone is ready to vote on every piece of legislation all the time, that would take an awful lot of political nouse from everyone.
 
There's some great information in this thread

Steep is working overtime to convince us why 'yes' makes sense and (without reading back through it) I'm sure there are those championing the 'No' vote but has anybody on TP actually changed their view (in terms of 'yes' or 'no') or been swayed from 'undecided' based on anything they've read here ?

This (the referendum rather than the thread) has been rumbling on for an age now and despite the various campaigns - I'm not aware of anybody who has been persuaded to change their view (the important part) on whether they simply want to be part of the Union or not.
 
Last edited:
Why can`t my two friends who were born and bred in Glasgow, but now reside in Lancashire, not vote in this referendum?

Sorry if this has been answered before,I may have missed it.
 
fracster said:
Why can`t my two friends who were born and bred in Glasgow, but now reside in Lancashire, not vote in this referendum?

Sorry if this has been answered before,I may have missed it.
Click to expand...
Because they are no longer resident in Scotland.
 
fracster said:
Why can`t my two friends who were born and bred in Glasgow, but now reside in Lancashire, not vote in this referendum?

Sorry if this has been answered before,I may have missed it.
Click to expand...

Bobsyeruncle said:
Because they are no longer resident in Scotland.
Click to expand...

Rules is rules.

I was 'born and bred' in England but my family tree is English / Scottish.

I've lived in Scotland for 20 years - my wife is 100% Scottish and whilst born in Scotland - my 4 kids are proud of their Scottish and English roots.

I don't see myself as English and I don't see myself as Scottish. I'm proud to consider myself British.

I get a vote and as I consider being British paramount - the current political side of things is mere tittle-tattle.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
I know we Scots are waking up to politcs but I don't think anyone is ready to vote on every piece of legislation all the time, that would take an awful lot of political nouse from everyone.
Click to expand...

That's not how Direct Democracy has to work and I'm disappointed at your reply. Arguing or disagreeing just for the sake of it or for whatever other debilitated reason effects credibility.
 
dinners said:
... has anybody on TP actually changed their view (in terms of 'yes' or 'no') or been swayed from 'undecided' based on anything they've read here ?
Click to expand...
I might have. But as I'm resident in England, I don't get a vote.

Here's the exchange which affected my thinking - a link to an online opinion piece posted by (of course) @Steep, and my reaction to it:
Steep said:
... have a read of this opinion piece by Peter Arnott.
It's a wee bit nsfw later on with swear words but he absolutely nails it.
peterarnott.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/dinner-with-no-voters-or-what-i-wanted.html
Click to expand...
StewartR said:
I thought this was fascinating.

I've been arguing in this thread that there is no status quo to vote for. Some in the No camp say that the Yes camp don't know what they're voting for, because so many big issues (EU, sterling etc etc) are up in the air. I say the No camp don't know what they're voting for either, because nobody knows how Westminster will react after a No vote. It probably won't be pretty either way.

This guy Arnott makes the same point, but goes further. His observation is that, if Scotland votes No in September, those who vote No - or don't vote - won't be able to blame things on the Westminster government in future. Don't want nuclear weapons? Don't like welfare cuts? Think the UK government is too London-centric and doesn't care about Scotland? Tough. You had your chance and you voted for all those things.

If I had a vote, I think that would make me stop and think for a minute. What would I actually be voting for?
Click to expand...
I'd like to invite 'No' voters to reply to this.
 
gman said:
That's not how Direct Democracy has to work and I'm disappointed at your reply. Arguing or disagreeing just for the sake of it or for whatever other debilitated reason effects credibility.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're disappointed, it's a genuine opinion based on my understanding of direct democracy - that you don't have elected representatives but vote 'directly' on the issues yourself. If that were to be the case (and if it's what you meant) then my point is valid not just for Scots but the whole UK, we'd end up with relatively few unelected activists making the decisions because I'm sure much the same voter apathy that exists now would exist then.
 
The parameters can be set so that you need a certain % of the population to object before it can be taken to a public vote. If it were set at something like 10% then in Scotland it would require 1/2 million people to officially object in order for it to go to a public referendum, which is a huge amount and probably very difficult to deliberately organise. So day-to-day stuff would be unhindered but were it something major and of concern to the majority of the population such as privatising the NHS then you'd get enough protest to go to a vote.

The reason I'm so for it is because it helps protect against bad decisions which are near irreversible. Such as going to war, privatising major institutions, major changes to immigration policies etc and makes the politicians work a lot harder to get their ideas through to execution with the public. The current system allows them to get away with far too much and ultimately the public have to suffer. Blair and Brown would never have been to able to do what they did under Direct Democracy.

I don't think Salmond would like Direct Democracy for obvious reasons, but surprisingly it's something that Nigel Farage is in favour of which surprised me. Whether or not a party like UKIP would keep their word is another matter. I sometimes wonder how different the SNP and UKIP are, both headed up by clearly talented public speakers but as for the rest of the party....
 
We can have written into the the Constitution that major events such as taking us to war must be subject to a referendum. I think that would help calm the fears of folk who like me believe that governments who have too much power (Westminster being a case in point) become corrupted by that power. I think it's a more workable solution than D.D.
Doing that using current methods of ballot box and polling stations would be cumbersome but the technology exists to make it much easier with online/electronic voting.
 
It's certainly the way forward in my eyes, at the end of the day it's the public who provide for the country and not the politicians. Granted the politicians can be privy to more information (classified, access to consultants etc) but I think there are far too many temptations to give them unhindered control for years upon years.

I think writing in specific types of events could become messy with an ever growing list occurring, or it could be circumvented by sneaky politicians for example they could send troops etc to a country but not call it a declaration of war or if privatising they could perhaps leave 5% in Government control and therefore claim it's not fully privatised. You know what they are like, they'll find ways around it and write in tons of small print. By having a simple percentage of population as the trigger point for a referendum then it prevents this and also self governs on whether or not an issue is important enough for a referendum, important enough to the public that is :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top