An Independent Scotland?

Ian D J said:
I'm not at all politically minded but speaking as an Englishman living in Kent, if it does all go ahead, what's going to happen to my Scottish Widows pension since it's headquarters is located in Glasgow?
Click to expand...

We're going to spend it on Rabbie Burns suppers for all our homeless....LOL

You'll find the pension companies will set up HQ outwith Scotland, your funds will be fine...
 
Steep said:
Tell that to the UK government which is busy 'printing' money to pay its bills right now. There's billions of quantitative easing bonds sitting in the treasury.
Click to expand...
Excellent point and very well made. Now remind me how is Scotland going to be able to apply those techniques and safeguard its economy?
 
dejongj said:
Excellent point and very well made. Now remind me how is Scotland going to be able to apply those techniques and safeguard its economy?
Click to expand...

In what way is printing money to pay off debts 'safeguarding' an economy?
 
Steep said:
In what way is printing money to pay off debts 'safeguarding' an economy?
Click to expand...

It isn't - other than creating inflation. The economy needs safegaurded with sensible taxation, industry and civil projects to create jobs and skills. iScotland would need to be able to attract businesses through low corporation tax etc and good banking laws/protection.

Imagine if a company like Toyota wanted to build cars here, thats good jobs. The IBM site at Greenock is perfect. I am sure a Yes vote will happen, not that I am happy with it, but the realities of it happening are real and one has to think what can be done if it happens. I hope they set up an employer friendly state that brings lots of jobs and work to people by attracting companies to build/manufacture here
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So what if the best years are behind us? No one knows exactly how much is left, but one things for sure, it's still a lot, so hardly a busted flush.
Click to expand...

Well firstly it seems everyone who knows anything about the industry is in agreement that the SNP figures on how much oil there is left are at best exaggerated. Sir Ian Wood last month and BP today. Both of whom I would trust to know more than Mr Salmond and have less reasons to lie.

Secondly the predicted revenue that Salmond is using is also based on a fairly high oil price ($100 per barrel). Oil prices do fluctuate a lot and with the current problems in the middle east holding prices high. With the advent of fracking and recovering oil from sand the prediction is that over the long term global oil prices will drop. In short Scotland may be woefully short. Source: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N....5-Trillion-Oil-Gas-Reserves-are-Way-Off.html

Of course North sea oil is a great asset to Scotland but the issue is that Salmond has vastly overstated the true value and pinned a lot, if not all of the economic case on oil. As it stands even with the predicted revenues, the SNP spending plans look pretty ropey. If oil prices do fall then you're up the proverbial creek with no paddle. Ask yourself this. Do you really trust the SNP & Alex Salmond with how much oil he says is left? Or do you think he could be fibbing just a bit??

As Nick Beecroft in the article below says, the loss of Scotland would mean a loss of around 9% of GDP which puts the rUK back to around where it was in 2011. It'd be a shock and not a pleasant one for sure but rUK would soldier on. But the list of problems for Scotland would only just be starting. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-beecroft/scotland-economy_b_5796312.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

I watched the debate on Mumsnet today of all places between Alex Salmond, Alastair Darling and a load of mums. One of the questions was most striking. A lady asked how independence would affect her mortgage. Salmond replied that it wouldn't change because her interest rates would still be set by the BoE. Another poster then asked isn't it a bit strange to want independence but then be perfectly comfortable to have something as important as interest rates set by a foreign government. I didn't see a reply.

Of course the usual yes campaign response to this would be that I'm just being negative, scaremongering and doom & gloom. I don't agree and think that the future of Scotland shouldn't be decided on some nice smiles and assurances that "It'll be ok....don't worry" which is essentially what the yes lot are saying.
 
Steep said:
In what way is printing money to pay off debts 'safeguarding' an economy?
Click to expand...
You keep on avoiding it aren't you. It is a normal technique for those who can control their currency. As Scotland won't unless they have their own currency what is Scotland in a hypothetical independence situation going to do?
 
gadgeteer said:
Well firstly it seems everyone who knows anything about the industry is in agreement that the SNP figures on how much oil there is left are at best exaggerated. Sir Ian Wood last month and BP today. Both of whom I would trust to know more than Mr Salmond and have less reasons to lie.
Click to expand...

At which point is Sir Ian Woods not lying, when he made his statements a couple of weeks back saying 12-16 billion or a few months ago when he presented a report to the UK government when he said there was 20-24 billion barrels left?

You also need to go and do some more research, by no means all industry experts agree with Ian Woods including one of his own ex Wood group directors.

Ian Wood is also on record as saying in December :-
"UK Government itself presents the only real threat to investment in the North Sea. Sir Ian Wood, retiring chairman of Scotland’s most successful offshore support company, The Wood Group, this week said that government – and Whitehall in particular – had consistently failed to acknowledge the importance of North Sea oil and gas to the UK balance of payments."
 
The question i would also like to have answered is IF hypothetically rUK were to agree to a currency union. Given that any new country joining the EU must agree to adopt the Euro as soon as feasible, does that mean you only want a union for a short period of time?

In other words. Are you asking if you can keep spending money from our joint bank account until your new richer German boyfriend can set you up a joint account with him?
 
dejongj said:
You keep on avoiding it aren't you. It is a normal technique for those who can control their currency. As Scotland won't unless they have their own currency what is Scotland in a hypothetical independence situation going to do?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically? I'd wait and see.
 
gadgeteer said:
The question i would also like to have answered is IF hypothetically rUK were to agree to a currency union. Given that any new country joining the EU must agree to adopt the Euro as soon as feasible, does that mean you only want a union for a short period of time?

In other words. Are you asking if you can keep spending money from our joint bank account until your new richer German boyfriend can set you up a joint account with him?
Click to expand...

Again you're in error, it's perfectly possible for a country to join Europe (assuming we do have to rejoin) and not use the Euro Denmark and UK both have opt outs and Sweden has simply refused to join it.
As for your idea of CU for a short time, that would actually be my preferred choice, it would provide stability for the transition period for both countries and allow both to go their own way at a later date.
 
either way it will be sorted out - common sense and "money" will prevail ……. or is that just money?
 
Steep said:
Hypothetically? I'd wait and see.
Click to expand...
Well it hasn't happened has it? And yet another nice evasion of the excellent point made by yourself that despite the desires of independence there won't be control over the currency.....so I ask again, if you don't have that what can you do?
 
Steep said:
At which point is Sir Ian Woods not lying, when he made his statements a couple of weeks back saying 12-16 billion or a few months ago when he presented a report to the UK government when he said there was 20-24 billion barrels left?
Click to expand...

You may want to read/watch the interview with him if you haven't already done so.

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

Hear in his own words explain why he's frustrated at the “wildly inaccurate misquoting” of what he's said. Hear how he explains that the predictions are between 12-24 billion barrels (since no-one truly knows for sure). Salmond of course has used 24 billion but to my layman's eyes, if you don't know for sure betting on the best possible outcome isn't very wise. To me a figure in the middle would be more sensible.


Steep said:
...had consistently failed to acknowledge the importance of North Sea oil and gas to the UK balance of payments."
Click to expand...
I've not read that til your post so don't know what to say. My personal view is that whilst North Sea Oil revenues are fairly important to the UK, they are nowhere near as important as they once were. They're incredibly important to Scotland but then Scotland only makes up around 9-10% of the UK economy. About the same size as the square mile in London (ie. the City).
 
dod said:
Standard life have an article on their website with a very clear indication that pulling out of Scotland is a real option

Edit, just noticed the same thing in previous post
Click to expand...

My oh my, in 1992 they said the same thing over devolution.

Yet they are most certainly still here, 22 years later!
 
gadgeteer said:
You may want to read/watch the interview with him if you haven't already done so.

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

Hear in his own words explain why he's frustrated at the “wildly inaccurate misquoting” of what he's said. Hear how he explains that the predictions are between 12-24 billion barrels (since no-one truly knows for sure). Salmond of course has used 24 billion but to my layman's eyes, if you don't know for sure betting on the best possible outcome isn't very wise. To me a figure in the middle would be more sensible.
Click to expand...

I have seen it, the thing it it's his figures (20-24) they were quoting, from his report as published by the UK Government.
 
Steep said:
Again you're in error, it's perfectly possible for a country to join Europe (assuming we do have to rejoin) and not use the Euro Denmark and UK both have opt outs and Sweden has simply refused to join it.
As for your idea of CU for a short time, that would actually be my preferred choice, it would provide stability for the transition period for both countries and allow both to go their own way at a later date.
Click to expand...

Steep, sorry but you keep saying I am 'in error' which I find mildly patronising considering I personally think you are being overly optimistic but I have refrained until now from saying so.

Firstly even Salmond himself who used to claim that Scotland would automatically join now concedes that Scotland would have to reapply. Now don't get me wrong, personally I am all in favour of that as I suspect rUK would be.

Your examples of Sweden, Denmark & UK not being in the Euro also conveniently ignores the fact we were already members when the Euro was created and as existing members yes opt outs were agreed. Better examples would be the more recent entries like Latvia and err.. Estonia. All new member states have had to promise to change to the Euro and they have done/are doing.

So. Given you need the unanimous support of all 28 member states. Just how will you persuade nations like Latvia, Poland & Estonia to let Scotland opt out when they had to take that rule on the chin themselves?
 
gadgeteer said:
Steep, sorry but you keep saying I am 'in error' which I find mildly patronising considering I personally think you are being overly optimistic but I have refrained until now from saying so.

Firstly even Salmond himself who used to claim that Scotland would automatically join now concedes that Scotland would have to reapply. Now don't get me wrong, personally I am all in favour of that as I suspect rUK would be.

Your examples of Sweden, Denmark & UK not being in the Euro also conveniently ignores the fact we were already members when the Euro was created and as existing members yes opt outs were agreed. Better examples would be the more recent entries like Latvia and err.. Estonia. All new member states have had to promise to change to the Euro and they have done/are doing.

So. Given you need the unanimous support of all 28 member states. Just how will you persuade nations like Latvia, Poland & Estonia to let Scotland opt out when they had to take that rule on the chin themselves?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be patronising, just calling out 'errors' as I see them.

I'm saying that in the event that Scotland did have to reapply to join the EU it's not guaranteed that the country would have to join the Euro. As I said Sweden has simply refused to do it because the Swedish people have twice (I think) voted no to it. The example of Denmark and the UK would be valid in the scenario where Scotland continued as a member which is a real possibility despite it being off the radar for now. I'm not going to go over that again because it's been done already.

All that said, if you're asking my opinion and surprise surprise I do have one, iScotland has a range of options available, I'm ok with being in Europe, I think it's done well for us so far. I'm also happy being out of the EU, there are other options which have also been mentioned before, if we want to be part of a trading alliance EFTA would work for us and I'm sure would accept Scotland without demur. Using Sterling short term I think is good leading on to a separate Scottish pound but I'll spend whatever currency I get paid in.
 
Sweden were already in the EU before the Euro, so using the Euro was optional. iScotland isn't in the EU because it doesn't yet exist as an independent state.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that in the event that Scotland did have to reapply to join the EU it's not guaranteed that the country would have to join the Euro. As I said Sweden has simply refused to do it because the Swedish people have twice (I think) voted no to it. The example of Denmark and the UK would be valid in the scenario where Scotland continued as a member which is a real possibility despite it being off the radar for now. I'm not going to go over that again because it's been done already.
Click to expand...

Hugh, you said a few days ago, that Scotland would be automatically a member of the EU. Are you saying that wasn't correct now?

Also, I think you'll find that the SNP white paper says clearly that you will automatically become a member. That would, if your above comment is correct be untrue as well.

Also, you've said that if a document is flawed in any one part, then the entire document is flawed.

Given all of this, are you now going to admit that the SNP's plans are entirely flawed?

I don't expect an answer, but it is right and proper as you set yourself up as the provider of truth and correction, that you live up to that.

You see, if indeed the SNP's policy is flawed, you are misleading the Scots people, and committing the possibly the greatest act of treachery against your own people in Scotland's history. This is a serious point, if you are providing the Scots with a false picture of the future, then if you win this referendum you will have done so on the basis of deception.
 
Glenn you're right, sorry.
 
dod said:
again, not a banker.


http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/09/fracking-boom-expert-says/
Click to expand...
Some of these articles are pointless. (I don't mean just the one you've posted) again, no one actually knows for certain.
In that article, 2 experts from the same university state 2 completely different opinions.
Who do you believe? Depends on whether you're in the Yes camp or No camp. No real help, so pretty pointless in my opinion.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Sweden were already in the EU before the Euro, so using the Euro was optional. iScotland isn't in the EU because it doesn't yet exist as an independent state.
Click to expand...

From http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro.

Also

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.

Regards...
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Hugh, you said a few days ago, that Scotland would be automatically a member of the EU. Are you saying that wasn't correct now?

Also, I think you'll find that the SNP white paper says clearly that you will automatically become a member. That would, if your above comment is correct be untrue as well.

Also, you've said that if a document is flawed in any one part, then the entire document is flawed.

Given all of this, are you now going to admit that the SNP's plans are entirely flawed?

I don't expect an answer, but it is right and proper as you set yourself up as the provider of truth and correction, that you live up to that.

You see, if indeed the SNP's policy is flawed, you are misleading the Scots people, and committing the possibly the greatest act of treachery against your own people in Scotland's history. This is a serious point, if you are providing the Scots with a false picture of the future, then if you win this referendum you will have done so on the basis of deception.
Click to expand...

Your posts are becoming as bad as you feel Steeps are, in my opinion. It's as if you're just sitting there waiting for him to post, so you can pounce:p At least Steep is standing up for the yes campaign, whereas all you seem to do in relation to the yes camp is slag off, ridicule and call everyone liars and cheats. Why not try and put forward a positive and enthusiastic case for Scotland to remain part of the Union.
If you have already done that, then I apologise, as I have obviously missed it. :D
Ps. You're not the only one:LOL:
 
Last edited:
Anyway, it was nice to see all the main English party leaders up here on a wee freebie!
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
We even arranged for it to be sunny:D
Click to expand...

Speaking of which what we did see today was Cameron and Milliband in closed rooms preaching to the faithful for the cameras.

Yes campaign leaders out on the streets meeting joe public.
 
Your posts are becoming as bad as you feel Steeps are, in my opinion. It's as if you're just sitting there waiting for him to post, so you can pounce At least Steep is standing up for the yes campaign, whereas all you seem to do in relation to the yes camp is slag off, ridicule and call everyone liars and cheats. Why not try and put forward a positive and enthusiastic case for Scotland to remain part of the Union.
If you have already done that, then I apologise, as I have obviously missed it
Click to expand...

No, you missed me saying I think Scotland should go independent, but should do so on the basis of a truthful picture. Something the SNP are not giving you.
It all well and good, those that want it come whatever believing it will all be OK, or that it's worth the pain. But I doubt that category make up, or will make up the majority. The rest are reliant upon the SNP in particular and they are being misled. That I can't agree with.
Hugh is like an automated mouth for the SNP, with his everyone is lying, and everything that does not support his/SNP's position is conspiring against the Yes camapign, would you rather people were had over by him, only to find out in 2 weeks time it's all too late? There's no way you'll get a second chance, even if the result is disputed due to the deception. I accept you will be happy with a yes, but do you really want to get that on the basis of lying to the electorate?
 
Steep said:
Speaking of which what we did see today was Cameron and Milliband in closed rooms preaching to the faithful for the cameras.

Yes campaign leaders out on the streets meeting joe public.
Click to expand...
I know, pretty pointless I think. At least John Prescott was out and about.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Your posts are becoming as bad as you feel Steeps are, in my opinion. It's as if you're just sitting there waiting for him to post, so you can pounce:p At least Steep is standing up for the yes campaign, whereas all you seem to do in relation to the yes camp is slag off, ridicule and call everyone liars and cheats. Why not try and put forward a positive and enthusiastic case for Scotland to remain part of the Union.
If you have already done that, then I apologise, as I have obviously missed it. :D
Ps. You're not the only one:LOL:
Click to expand...

No he is not. He bases his arguments on reality as we know it and what he thinks it will/could be. That's rational and logical.

I blocked Steep some time ago so you can guess my opinion of him.

Edit: That should read "of his arguments"

Regards..
 
Last edited:
Are there any dangers to underwater fracking?
 
Bernie174 said:
No, you missed me saying I think Scotland should go independent, but should do so on the basis of a truthful picture. Something the SNP are not giving you.
It all well and good, those that want it come whatever believing it will all be OK, or that it's worth the pain. But I doubt that category make up, or will make up the majority. The rest are reliant upon the SNP in particular and they are being misled. That I can't agree with.
Hugh is like an automated mouth for the SNP, with his everyone is lying, and everything that does not support his/SNP's position is conspiring against the Yes camapign, would you rather people were had over by him, only to find out in 2 weeks time it's all too late? There's no way you'll get a second chance, even if the result is disputed due to the deception. I accept you will be happy with a yes, but do you really want to get that on the basis of lying to the electorate?
Click to expand...

Bernie, A lot of what I hear is opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. Even Steep has one. Your opinion is that everyone is being misled, lied to, duped etc by SNP. My opinion is different.(I'm not stupid, and don't for one minute believe all is going to be easy or there won't be many many challenges ahead). Independence is not all about the SNP. Other parties support it. Are they all cheating liars? You may think so, but I don't.
A lot of the posts on here just keep going round in pointless circles. Who knows, maybe you will be right, and we'll find out that we've all been duped, and if so, we will deal with it, but maybe you will be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Finste said:
No he is not. He bases his arguments on reality as we know it and what he thinks it will/could be. That's rational and logical.

I blocked Steep some time ago so you can guess my opinion of him.

Edit: That should read "of his arguments"

Regards..
Click to expand...

That's just your opinion. Mines is different.
 
Finste said:
No he is not. He bases his arguments on reality as we know it and what he thinks it will/could be. That's rational and logical.

I blocked Steep some time ago so you can guess my opinion of him.

Edit: That should read "of his arguments"

Regards..
Click to expand...

I would say thank you for the correction (but it would be a bit pointless) at least you are willing to correct yourself when you slag me off (even in error).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top