An Independent Scotland?

[gadgeteer]

Looks like it will amount to moving brass plaques.

On day 1 yes. What about year 2, year 3, year 10? Like him or loathe him (and I'm no fan) of David Cameron, he was right on the money when he said that this is not like an election. You don't get another shot at it in a few years if you change your minds. This is forever.

Do you want to gamble those thousands of jobs don't slowly start to relocate to London over a few years? A few at a time so they're not reported on in the press? I work for one of the biggest companies in the world and I've learned full well what they mean when they say "We've no plans to move work offshore". What they mean is "We've got a spreadsheet detailing how many jobs will move, when by and how much it will cost and how much money we will save. We just haven't assigned a project manager to punch it into Microsoft Project yet"

 

[StewartR]

Yes, I think I have posted that 3 times so far. The joining conditions are clearly stated in bold as being non negotiable. That makes joining the Euro as mandatory and accepting the other mandatory 34 conditions.

Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true, however.

The problem is that Scotland's position would be unique and one which is not explicitly covered by the existing rules. For example it's not clear whether Scotland could "inherit" the UK's membership. Some "experts" say it could, and some "experts" say it couldn't, but there is no definitive legal ruling because (obviously) the EU authorities don't want to give definitive answers to hypothetical questions.

My personal opinion is that a pragmatic solution would be reached. There are 5 million Scots who are currently EU citizens and who do not have to comply with stuff like Schengen and the Euro, and the simplest solution all round would be to let them carry on like that. I personally cannot see why the other EU countries would want to make life harder than necessary in this respect, because there are far bigger fish to fry. It's a solution which is easily sold, and it wouldn't set a precedent for any other countries wishing to join the EU because it would be justified on the grounds that Scotland isn't a new joiner.

Your personal opinion may differ. But it's just an opinion, no matter how many times you state it as a fact.

 

[Laudrup]

On day 1 yes. What about year 2, year 3, year 10? Like him or loathe him (and I'm no fan) of David Cameron, he was right on the money when he said that this is not like an election. You don't get another shot at it in a few years if you change your minds. This is forever.

Do you want to gamble those thousands of jobs don't slowly start to relocate to London over a few years? A few at a time so they're not reported on in the press? I work for one of the biggest companies in the world and I've learned full well what they mean when they say "We've no plans to move work offshore". What they mean is "We've got a spreadsheet detailing how many jobs will move, when by and how much it will cost and how much money we will save. We just haven't assigned a project manager to punch it into Microsoft Project yet"

The jobs could be relocated to London in 10 years anyway regardless of yes or no but there is no talk of job losses from RBS. A lot of Scots are fed up of Westminster rule and the Tories and this is a chance to get rid of them forever. It's a gamble but we like a gamble.

 

[dod]

Bernie

I would prefer to see what the outcome is before I start speculating on how divided we may or may not be.
I can't answer for the no camp, but if it's a no vote, then although I would be disappointed, we would at least come out of it with more powers than we went in with, so a win win situation?

as it is just now some of us see a glimmer of light because there is always a possibility ofa Tory government under the current system.

In the event of a yes that possibility will be seriously damaged, for some considerable time probably.

Voting for independence effectively means voting for a system I don't support and effectively disenfranchises me.

so no, I don't subscribe to win-win.

 

[dod]

The jobs could be relocated to London in 10 years anyway regardless of yes or no but there is no talk of job losses from RBS. A lot of Scots are fed up of Westminster rule and the Tories and this is a chance to get rid of them forever. It's a gamble but we like a gamble.

with a gamble you normally know the potential outcomes and consequences. I don't really think we do here. I'm certainly not convinced by either argument

Of course there's no talk of job losses, for now. You can bet there's a plan sitting there to be implemented though

 

[gadgeteer]

For example it's not clear whether Scotland could "inherit" the UK's membership. Some "experts" say it could, and some "experts" say it couldn't.....

Come on. Seriously? Even Alex Salmond himself now accepts that Scotland will have to reapply as a new member.

I personally cannot see why the other EU countries would want to make life harder

And this is the same attitude of the entire yes camp. You haven't thought about things from the other EU countries points of view. The most obvious reason why Spain for example would want to make life very hard for Scotland is to dissuade Catalonia from trying to declare independence too. You've got a long wishlist of things that would be great for Scotland without any thought as to how realistic those are to achieve.

And how are you going to convince countries to let you "retain" opt outs that they don't enjoy? What's in it for them?

It's a gamble but we like a gamble.

Fair enough if you know it's taking a gamble. Personally I'd not rock up to the roulette table and whack my families future on black but I admit some people are happy to do so.

 

[gman]

Bernie

I would prefer to see what the outcome is before I start speculating on how divided we may or may not be.
I can't answer for the no camp, but if it's a no vote, then although I would be disappointed, we would at least come out of it with more powers than we went in with, so a win win situation?

My worry is that they are being promised tax powers and welfare powers. I've previously heard the SNP promising more welfare so does this mean more tax in order to pay for it? I suspect it's not going to be win, win for the tax payer - it never is! lol

 

[Steep]

On RBS moving to London, yet another scare story debunked.

RBS would move their registered office to London (same as Lloyds), in other words the brass plaque off the wall.

RBS Chief Exec Ross McEwan wrote to RBS staff saying -

"It is my view as chief executive that any decision to move our registered headquarters would have no impact on our everyday banking services used by our customers in Scotland.
"This is a technical procedure regarding the rotation of our registered head office based on our current strategy and business plan. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs".

 

[dejongj]

On RBS moving to London, yet another scare story debunked.

RBS would move their registered office to London (same as Lloyds), in other words the brass plaque off the wall.

RBS Chief Exec Ross McEwan wrote to RBS staff saying -

"It is my view as chief executive that any decision to move our registered headquarters would have no impact on our everyday banking services used by our customers in Scotland.
"This is a technical procedure regarding the rotation of our registered head office based on our current strategy and business plan. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs".

You are missing the point. This was not raised from a perspective of consumers utilising banking services in Scotland

 

[gman]

The timing of the RBS announcement is a little too ironic to not be relevant in some form.

 

[Laudrup]

with a gamble you normally know the potential outcomes and consequences. I don't really think we do here. I'm certainly not convinced by either argument

Of course there's no talk of job losses, for now. You can bet there's a plan sitting there to be implemented though

Only if you are betting on something with fixed odds will you know what you will exactly gain. This isn't one of those cases. These scare stories seem to be coming out thick and fast now the polls are turning and the politicians are realising they might need to plan for a yes vote.

 

[Laudrup]

Fair enough if you know it's taking a gamble. Personally I'd not rock up to the roulette table and whack my families future on black but I admit some people are happy to do so.

A lot of people in Scotland want a government they voted for to have 100% control of what goes on here. It's a fair enough argument to vote yes for that when we have a tory government that Scottish people would never elect.

 

[Byker28i]

Bob, do you think if it's a close No vote win that this isn't going to rumble on?

 

[arclight]

A lot of people in Scotland want a government they voted for to have 100% control of what goes on here. It's a fair enough argument to vote yes for that when we have a tory government that Scottish people would never elect.

100% control and being in the Eu (where you need to surrender control of 35 major items) are two entirely incompatible entities.

 

[Laudrup]

100% control and being in the Eu (where you need to surrender control of 35 major items) are two entirely incompatible entities.

Other independent countries seem to manage independence just fine., so why can't Scotland?

 

[gman]

100% control and being in the Eu (where you need to surrender control of 35 major items) are two entirely incompatible entities.

Plus a currency union either with England or take on the Euro...

 

[dejongj]

A lot of people in Scotland want a government they voted for to have 100% control of what goes on here. It's a fair enough argument to vote yes for that when we have a tory government that Scottish people would never elect.

Fully agree with that. Just a shame that that is not on offer....

 

[gadgeteer]

A lot of people in Scotland want a government they voted for to have 100% control of what goes on here. It's a fair enough argument to vote yes for that when we have a tory government that Scottish people would never elect.

Firstly democracy doesn't work like that. If I voted Labour and got SNP then I didn't get the government I voted for. But I accept the result because the 'majority' of voters decided for me. (Let's not get into the argument of < 50% of not as that's a totally different subject).

Because secondly it strikes me as incredibly odd that you vote for independence to have and I quote "100% control of what goes on here" when the stated plan on record is to join the EU and be bound by all the many European laws. Some of which are let's face it not good.

And that's not mentioning the mandated condition that the yes camp think they can just skip of joining the Euro. So....you'd go independent so you can have 100% control but then join a club where you hand back over a large part of the control you just won and take on a foreign currency be that the pound or Euro. And as we all know when you are using someone else's money you really are not in control of anything. You just think you are.

 

[Laudrup]

Firstly democracy doesn't work like that. If I voted Labour and got SNP then I didn't get the government I voted for. But I accept the result because the 'majority' of voters decided for me. (Let's not get into the argument of < 50% of not as that's a totally different subject).

Because secondly it strikes me as incredibly odd that you vote for independence to have and I quote "100% control of what goes on here" when the stated plan on record is to join the EU and be bound by all the many European laws. Some of which are let's face it not good.

And that's not mentioning the mandated condition that the yes camp think they can just skip of joining the Euro. So....you'd go independent so you can have 100% control but then join a club where you hand back over a large part of the control you just won and take on a foreign currency be that the pound or Euro. And as we all know when you are using someone else's money you really are not in control of anything. You just think you are.

The joke in Scotland is there are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than there are Scottish tory MPs so the chance to never be governed by them again is extremely appealing. This isn't like voting SNP or Labour, it's voting SNP and Labour and then getting Tory which we don't want.

Scottish people want to be in the EU. We don't really buy into this Nigel Farage and Daily Mail hysteria about Brussels hidden hand controlling our every move and being swamped by migrants stealing our jobs. Scottish people want to vote for a government accountable to Scotland that has powers it doesn't have just now.

 

[dejongj]

Other independent countries seem to manage independence just fine., so why can't Scotland?

But they are not 100% in control are they? They are not really independent are they. Frying pan into the fire comes to mind.

 

[StewartR]

I personally cannot see why the other EU countries would want to make life harder than necessary...

And this is the same attitude of the entire yes camp. You haven't thought about things from the other EU countries points of view. The most obvious reason why Spain for example would want to make life very hard for Scotland is to dissuade Catalonia from trying to declare independence too. You've got a long wishlist of things that would be great for Scotland without any thought as to how realistic those are to achieve.

Well, I'm not in the Yes camp. I'm just an interested observer. I call it as I see it, with no axe to grind. Do you?

Personally I don't think it's a precedent for Catalonia because the Spanish government won't let them secede, simple as that. I honestly wonder why the UK government agreed to respect the result of the Scottish referendum when it would have been far more straightforward, and honest, just to tell the SNP to stuff it.

 

[gadgeteer]

OK...let's talk about the Tories for a second.

I always try to look at people's motivations, especially MP's. I can totally see why Salmond is keen on independence. Chances are upon a successful yes campaign he'd be a shoe in for the first first/prime minister in Scotland and the most powerful person in Scotland. What does he lose if Scotland votes no? Nothing really. Scotland will still get Devo-max so he can still claim victory regardless.

I can't see what the Tories are getting out of this. Without Scotland they'd have a much greater chance of winning every election. Especially the next one. As it currently stands there's a good chance of another hung parliament. Yet without Scottish Labour MP's they'd almost certainly get a majority government.

So....why are the Tories so against breakup? Why are they supporting better together when they'd almost certainly win without?

My point is that when someone is going to lose out yet still argues for something. That opinion is probably worth listening to more than someone who has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

 

[gadgeteer]

Well, I'm not in the Yes camp. I'm just an interested observer. I call it as I see it, with no axe to grind. Do you?

Personally I don't think it's a precedent for Catalonia because the Spanish government won't let them secede, simple as that. I honestly wonder why the UK government agreed to respect the result of the Scottish referendum when it would have been far more straightforward, and honest, just to tell the SNP to stuff it.

Hmm, well my own opinion is that Dave isn't as smart as he thinks he is. He probably thought at the time that a No vote was a forgone conclusion so let's get it done then he can claim he gave everyone the choice and kick the question into the long grass. Personally I think it was a naive thought and like I said, I'm no fan of his. He's clearly out of touch and often out of his depth (IMO). I think had he just said no to begin with then there'd have been an outcry but then a few months later the dust would settle and world events would have distracted everyone.

Interestingly enough this has just been published on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29154331

And this is why Spain would want to make life hard for Scotland as their PM has already suggested they may.

 

[Laudrup]

But they are not 100% in control are they? They are not really independent are they. Frying pan into the fire comes to mind.

France and Germany etc. are independent despite being in the EU. Scottish people according to polls fully endorse the EU and want to be part of it so I don't see a problem. It's getting governments like the tories people here don't want, not the EU.

 

[Laudrup]

OK...let's talk about the Tories for a second.

I always try to look at people's motivations, especially MP's. I can totally see why Salmond is keen on independence. Chances are upon a successful yes campaign he'd be a shoe in for the first first/prime minister in Scotland and the most powerful person in Scotland. What does he lose if Scotland votes no? Nothing really. Scotland will still get Devo-max so he can still claim victory regardless.

I can't see what the Tories are getting out of this. Without Scotland they'd have a much greater chance of winning every election. Especially the next one. As it currently stands there's a good chance of another hung parliament. Yet without Scottish Labour MP's they'd almost certainly get a majority government.

So....why are the Tories so against breakup? Why are they supporting better together when they'd almost certainly win without?

My point is that when someone is going to lose out yet still argues for something. That opinion is probably worth listening to more than someone who has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

David Cameron wouldn't like to be the PM who presided over the breaking up of the union. You can tell the better together campaign is a bit desperate with all these negative stories and the 3 leaders dashing up here after a poll showed yes to be leading.

Salmond would be well placed for a chance at PM if we voted yes as he is currently the First Minister but not necessarily a shoo-in. The Labour party could be reinvigorated in Scotland and a lot of Labour voters I've spoken to are voting yes, not for the SNP but to reshape their party which they feel has changed into something they don't like.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Personally I don't think it's a precedent for Catalonia because the Spanish government won't let them secede, simple as that.

Simple as that? Be honest and admit you know nothing about the situation in Catalunya. They have been distancing themselves from Spain for much longer than the Scottish independence movement have been trying to drive a wedge between Scotland and the UK. In many respects Catalunya is already independent. Its government, the Generalitat, is autonomous. School classes are given in Catalan (except for 2 hours a week in Spanish as required by law). Public signing is always in Catalan first. Government debates are in Catalan. The default language for government communication is Catalan. Restaurants must by law publish their menus in Catalan (there is no obligation to publish them in Spanish). Posters advertising sales in stores aren't even in Spanish! They even banned bullfights as a snub to Madrid.
But if the Catalans vote for independence do you really think Rajoy will send the tanks in? Which of Spain's autonomous communities contributes most income to Madrid's coffers? Making glib statements about the situation in Catalunya really demonstrates a lot of ignorance on the subject.

 

[Steep]

Firstly democracy doesn't work like that. If I voted Labour and got SNP then I didn't get the government I voted for. But I accept the result because the 'majority' of voters decided for me. (Let's not get into the argument of < 50% of not as that's a totally different subject).

If proof is needed that the voting system in Scotland is fairer just look at the number of Scottish Tory MSPs compared to the one WM MP. They have 6 directly elected MSPs and 14 list MSPs so the 1/4 of a million Tory voters who didn't get their MSP elected directly at least do have representation by percentage.

 

[dejongj]

France and Germany etc. are independent despite being in the EU. Scottish people according to polls fully endorse the EU and want to be part of it so I don't see a problem. It's getting governments like the tories people here don't want, not the EU.

Ok now you are getting honest. Just another anti Tories and anti Westminster reason.

If you call being in the EU 100% in control, whilst you actually have not such control then I'm confused why you actually added 100% to your point.

You can't refuse the laws, the currency is linked, you imports and exports are regulated. Heck you won't be in control of most of it.

But as long as we get rid of those Tories hey don't you realise what a fantastic job they've done in steering the country in the correct and realistic direction.

 

[Laudrup]

Ok now you are getting honest. Just another anti Tories and anti Westminster reason.

If you call being in the EU 100% in control, whilst you actually have not such control then I'm confused why you actually added 100% to your point.

You can't refuse the laws, the currency is linked, you imports and exports are regulated. Heck you won't be in control of most of it.

But as long as we get rid of those Tories hey don't you realise what a fantastic job they've done in steering the country in the correct and realistic direction.

Scotland is in favour of the EU and doesn't want to be part of the isolationist agenda that seems to have gripped the tories and single-issue pressure groups like UKIP. Nobody here really buys into this notion that the Brussels boogeyman controls us. The EU works for trade and free movement of people and if Scotland voted no this time and there was a referendum in the UK to leave the EU and it was voted yes I could see another Scottish referendum happening relatively quickly.

As for the tories and westminster they aren't exactly liked all over the country. I'd bet if you gave large parts of England the chance to ditch them for good they would bite your hand off.

 

[Yves Geza]

Ok now you are getting honest. Just another anti Tories and anti Westminster reason.

If you call being in the EU 100% in control, whilst you actually have not such control then I'm confused why you actually added 100% to your point.

You can't refuse the laws, the currency is linked, you imports and exports are regulated. Heck you won't be in control of most of it.

But as long as we get rid of those Tories hey don't you realise what a fantastic job they've done in steering the country in the correct and realistic direction.

I don't totally agree on the fantastic value of the Tory-led Coalition but they have attempted to solve our country's major problems! Today's Telegraph carries this article about the new OBR report - for some reason I've searched my Guardian online and can't find it reported there ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-we-got-wrong-about-the-economy-in-2008.html

Equally, a couple of days ago, dear old Simon Heffer sounded off in The Mail -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html

Let me quote from his polemic - we're seeing it in this thread too and stand to see it even more after next Thursday!

"Yet now England and Scotland are not merely two different nations, but two different cultures. The old Scotland was washed away by the tide of post-1945 welfarism even more than England was.
The difference was that England threw off socialism in 1979 and, under Margaret Thatcher, engaged in radical economic reforms.
Those were never accepted by post-industrial Scotland, whose people in too many cases preferred to live off the efforts of others, and came to regard Mrs Thatcher as a symbol of foreign oppression and themselves as her tragic victims."

 

[gadgeteer]

I've not said the EU would control you. I was simply pointing out "errors as I see them" if Hugh doesn't mind me borrowing the phrase from him.

Firstly declaring independence to be "100% in control" then joining the EU are two mutually exclusive notions. You aren't 100% in control at all. At best you'd be a small fish in a big pond which is run by the biggest German & French fish with the awkward UK fish popping up here and there.

Secondly I am in favour of the EU. I think on balance it's a positive thing. Sure I don't like everything about it. Not all the laws I think are great. I also think the EU parliament is a huge stonking waste of money and can/should be trimmed. Wait a minute. I didn't vote for Jean-Claude Juncker to be head of the EC anymore than I voted for David Cameron to be my prime minister. Yet we accept that as the way our current democratic system works. It ain't perfect and we don't always get what we want.

Yet iScotland's entire campaign is predicated on getting a huge list of things they want without any thoughts about how it may all well fall apart if they don't. Of course that's just called negative campaigning and scaremongering. Others may call it sensible contingency planning.

 

[dejongj]

Scotland is in favour of the EU and doesn't want to be part of the isolationist agenda that seems to have gripped the tories and single-issue pressure groups like UKIP. Nobody here really buys into this notion that the Brussels boogeyman controls us. The EU works for trade and free movement of people and if Scotland voted no this time and there was a referendum in the UK to leave the EU and it was voted yes I could see another Scottish referendum happening relatively quickly.

As for the tories and westminster they aren't exactly liked all over the country. I'd bet if you gave large parts of England the chance to ditch them for good they would bite your hand off.

So what about this being 100% in control then? I mean that is what started this discussion and seems to be ignored whilst goal posts are quietly being moved.

 

[Steep]

Yet iScotland's entire campaign is predicated on getting a huge list of things they want without any thoughts about how it may all well fall apart if they don't. Of course that's just called negative campaigning and scaremongering. Others may call it sensible contingency planning.

2 million or more voters, politicians, business people, 'experts' and no-one thought about the possible consequences? shocking!

 

[Steep]

Here's everyone's favourite bad guy (after me that is) giving Nick Robinson a seeing to. Some how I doubt you'll see this live broadcast repeated on the BBC any time soon.

 

[gadgeteer]

As Salmond repeated over and over again in his speech today. He wants people to vote "for something and not against something". A very clever soundbite sure. But what that something is hasn't been properly spelled out by him I'm afraid. The "something" he wants you to vote for is plainly unachievable and in the long run a total gamble. A fact Laudrup agrees it is.

So basically what Salmond actually wants you to do is take a punt.

 

[Steep]

So basically what Salmond actually wants you to do is take a punt.

If so it's the same punt 200 other nations have taken in the last 100 years and not one of them has ever asked to go back.

 

[dod]

Only if you are betting on something with fixed odds will you know what you will exactly gain. This isn't one of those cases. These scare stories seem to be coming out thick and fast now the polls are turning and the politicians are realising they might need to plan for a yes vote.

Are you serious? If you take on a bet of course you know what the odds are.

What we've got right now is a scenario where we bet the house but we've got no idea what the return is, regardless of whether or not we win the bet.

 

[dejongj]

Don't worry it'll be ok in the end. They'll just try this for a bit

Yeah right....

 

[Laudrup]

Are you serious? If you take on a bet of course you know what the odds are.

What we've got right now is a scenario where we bet the house but we've got no idea what the return is, regardless of whether or not we win the bet.

A gamble is taking a risk hoping to achieve an advantage. The white paper is as good a blueprint as you're going to get but if you want to predict the future then nobody can, so it is gamble.

 

[Steep]

Shameless plug for the Yes campaign, short video from Quebec telling us what a no vote meant for them with all the same promises we've had - broken.