Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

mikey_45

its not just me who has to think about there familys future, or gamble there kids and grandkids everyone thats votes yes will be doing that. are you saying we cant vote yes because of our children and grandkids because of what might happen. get a grip, where would the country be if we were worried about things that are not here yet. am not saying its the promised land we are heading for but you make it sound like armageddon. scaremonger

rpc

mikey_45 wrote: »

can it really get any worse

Hopefully not.

Possibly yes.

We don't know.

In all likelihood, there would be a short spell of "worse" possibly even a recession as the new state settles down and has to set up all of the apparatus of a modern state. What happens after that would depend on the agreements that the SNP negotiate and the governments we elect.

am willing to gamble my kids and grandkids futures

Didn't anyone ever teach you not to gamble with anything that you can't afford to lose? Or do I just place more value on my kids future?

incandescent

mikey_45 wrote: »

its not just me who has to think about there familys future, or gamble there kids and grandkids everyone thats votes yes will be doing that. are you saying we cant vote yes because of our children and grandkids because of what might happen. get a grip, where would the country be if we were worried about things that are not here yet. am not saying its the promised land we are heading for but you make it sound like armageddon. scaremonger

scaremonger? For pointing out facts? Trotting out the same insults over and over just highlights your tenuous grasp of facts.

Scotland would definitely have less money to spend on services if it becomes independent, possibly very much less. This is a FACT.

IF we lose the pound then our businesses will instantly face currency costs and risks that will reduce their profitability, put some out of business. This is a fact.

And we have absolutely no idea what the impact would be on our savings and investments, but it certainly wouldn't be good.

Financial institution after financial institution has enumerated the costs and risks, but you're prepared to gamble - your choice of word - with your kids and grandkids futures, when by your own admission, you hadn't even bothered to check the SNP's own figures?

Good grief.

mikey_45

there you go again scaremonger, if we want to keep the pound we will it is ours as well after all. why is england so worried about what we do anyway, they are panicking thats why. they will be losing there grip of the oil. cash cow gone. its england that will be in trouble not bonny scotland

Archi_Bald

mikey_45 wrote: »

there you go again scaremonger, if we want to keep the pound we will it is ours as well after all. why is england so worried about what we do anyway, they are panicking thats why. they will be losing there grip of the oil. cash cow gone. its england that will be in trouble not bonny scotland

Dear oh dear, do you actually understand any of what you are saying? You seem to be just repeating slogans you have heard.

Scotland cannot keep the pound because a currency union without a fiscal union is complete lunacy, and the rest of the UK will not agree to it. You need to remember that we non-Scots do have a say as well, and since we live in a democracy, you'll have to accept that the majority won't agree that Scotland can continue to use the pound after independence. The SNP can perhaps dictate scottish opinion and rules but they most certainly don't dictate what is happening in the rest of the union.

Nobody outside Scotland is panicking, you can be certain of that. A huge number of people can't actually wait until Scotland is independent - so at least that's one point we appear to be agreeing on.

TCA

incandescent wrote: »

scaremonger? For pointing out facts? Trotting out the same insults over and over just highlights your tenuous grasp of facts.

So one mention of the word 'scaremonger' and you resort to insulting someone's intelligence. You need to practice what you're so good at preaching.

Let's have a look at your facts:

incandescent wrote: »

Scotland would definitely have less money to spend on services if it becomes independent, possibly very much less. This is a FACT.

No, it's not a fact. We have absolutely no idea what settlement would be reached with rUK, so you have no way of knowing what Scotland's income (or indebtedness) would be. One fact is that Scotland currently generates more income per person than the rest of the UK.

incandescent wrote: »

IF we lose the pound then our businesses will instantly face currency costs and risks that will reduce their profitability, put some out of business. This is a fact.

You can't put IF in an argument and then call it a fact. And for sake of that argument, if Scotland did adopt a new currency, you have no way of knowing how that currency would perform globally.

incandescent wrote: »

And we have absolutely no idea what the impact would be on our savings and investments, but it certainly wouldn't be good.

If you're talking about savings and investments in Scotland, yes it's the unknown, but you assume the worst.

incandescent wrote: »

Financial institution after financial institution has enumerated the costs and risks.

That is a fact. Businesses regularly review risks on all sorts of things. Including if the building blew up. What Standard Life and others are doing is nothing unusual. They are not saying if Scotland votes for independence we'll shut up shop and move away. You'll notice the vast majority of company statements all refer to the uncertainty that would be created. They don't say or do much more than that. Companies are investing money in Scotland every day.

incandescent wrote: »

The UK is forecast to be the fastest growing advanced economy this year. We're still the 6th largest economy in the world. We have political and financial stability that most of the world can only dream of. Things could be a lot worse.

Not that I believe financial forecasts but it's easy to be a fast growing economy when you're in a right mess to begin with. And this large UK economy endures recessions like every other sized country. You seem to be looking at where we are now and conveniently forgetting how we got there. Do you think successive UK governments have performed admirably? I don't. They've borrowed £1.3 trillion and you think things could be a lot worse. You're right, but they could be a lot better too.

Financial stability? It was the UK government regulators who were asleep at the wheel when the banks fell. Political stability? With a possible in/out EU referendum on the cards? I don't think so.

incandescent wrote: »

And if we do split, we have no idea right now...if we'll remain part of the EU.

And we have no idea if we'll still be in the EU if an in/out referendum happens. If someone is in favour of the EU, I'd say they've a better chance if they lived in Scotland. An independent Scotland will be welcomed into the EU. 100%. I won't trot out the old arguments already from earlier in the thread but I have no doubts.

incandescent wrote: »

our borrowing costs would be higher because we'd have a lower credit rating than the UK.

Again, complete supposition.

rpc wrote: »

Hopefully not. Possibly yes. We don't know.

What happens after that would depend on the agreements that the SNP negotiate and the governments we elect.

rpc calls it correctly. The fear is of the unknown and that's undoubtedly understandable. Why take a risk when things are so OK at the moment right? The answer is that they may be OK for some people, but not necessarily everybody. And believe it or not, some of us actually think we could do better.

Set aside for one moment what you think of the SNP and what you'd call their wishlist. Scotland is in deficit to more or less the same degree as the UK as a whole. If you accept that, why is it so difficult to imagine that Scotland could not continue under its own steam? Plenty smaller countries do so with far less resources. Of course there are costs to setting up new infrastructure but as I love to repeat, savings will made on massive items of expenditure like Trident.

What is also constantly repeated ad nauseum in this thread is that Scotland cannot do it. Nothing is possible and it's all lies. The party line of David Cameron, as I quoted the other day, is that Scotland could of course do it. Just that Scotland would be better off in the Union. That to me is a more reasonable approach. The consistent repetition that Scotland cannot do it, is exactly what is turning more people to vote Yes.

And can we please get away from the posts repeatedly calling Salmond and Sturgeon liars and therefore anyone that believes them is a fool. Independence is not all about the SNP and there is a positive case to be made. Whether you're hearing it or not, reading consistent bleats about nationalists blaming Westminster all the time and telling lies does not lend strength to the No argument and smacks of the same name-calling that you accuse them of. Let's drop it please.

And on that note, time for bed said Zebedee.

islandannie

TCA wrote: »

So one mention of the word 'scaremonger' and you resort to insulting someone's intelligence. You need to practice what you're so good at preaching.

Let's have a look at your facts:



No, it's not a fact. We have absolutely no idea what settlement would be reached with rUK, so you have no way of knowing what Scotland's income (or indebtedness) would be. One fact is that Scotland currently generates more income per person than the rest of the UK.



You can't put IF in an argument and then call it a fact. And for sake of that argument, if Scotland did adopt a new currency, you have no way of knowing how that currency would perform globally.



If you're talking about savings and investments in Scotland, yes it's the unknown, but you assume the worst.



That is a fact. Businesses regularly review risks on all sorts of things. Including if the building blew up. What Standard Life and others are doing is nothing unusual. They are not saying if Scotland votes for independence we'll shut up shop and move away. You'll notice the vast majority of company statements all refer to the uncertainty that would be created. They don't say or do much more than that. Companies are investing money in Scotland every day.



Not that I believe financial forecasts but it's easy to be a fast growing economy when you're in a right mess to begin with. And this large UK economy endures recessions like every other sized country. You seem to be looking at where we are now and conveniently forgetting how we got there. Do you think successive UK governments have performed admirably? I don't. They've borrowed £1.3 trillion and you think things could be a lot worse. You're right, but they could be a lot better too.

Financial stability? It was the UK government regulators who were asleep at the wheel when the banks fell. Political stability? With a possible in/out EU referendum on the cards? I don't think so.



And we have no idea if we'll still be in the EU if an in/out referendum happens. If someone is in favour of the EU, I'd say they've a better chance if they lived in Scotland. An independent Scotland will be welcomed into the EU. 100%. I won't trot out the old arguments already from earlier in the thread but I have no doubts.



Again, complete supposition.




rpc calls it correctly. The fear is of the unknown and that's undoubtedly understandable. Why take a risk when things are so OK at the moment right? The answer is that they may be OK for some people, but not necessarily everybody. And believe it or not, some of us actually think we could do better.

Set aside for one moment what you think of the SNP and what you'd call their wishlist. Scotland is in deficit to more or less the same degree as the UK as a whole. If you accept that, why is it so difficult to imagine that Scotland could not continue under its own steam? Plenty smaller countries do so with far less resources. Of course there are costs to setting up new infrastructure but as I love to repeat, savings will made on massive items of expenditure like Trident.

What is also constantly repeated ad nauseum in this thread is that Scotland cannot do it. Nothing is possible and it's all lies. The party line of David Cameron, as I quoted the other day, is that Scotland could of course do it. Just that Scotland would be better off in the Union. That to me is a more reasonable approach. The consistent repetition that Scotland cannot do it, is exactly what is turning more people to vote Yes.

And can we please get away from the posts repeatedly calling Salmond and Sturgeon liars and therefore anyone that believes them is a fool. Independence is not all about the SNP and there is a positive case to be made. Whether you're hearing it or not, reading consistent bleats about nationalists blaming Westminster all the time and telling lies does not lend strength to the No argument and smacks of the same name-calling that you accuse them of. Let's drop it please.

And on that note, time for bed said Zebedee.

This gets the best bit of guesswork award ever.

zagubov

islandannie wrote: »

This gets the best bit of guesswork award ever.

Nope. Almost every anti-indy "scaremongering" post is a guess TBH.
Being out of the EU? "No", says Spain and the UK but "yes "guesses Barosso who wanted UK''s votes to be NATO chief. Sorry about how that turned out.

Roaming charges going up? "Yes" guess the unionists, "No" says the EU.

Sharing the currency? "No" guess the unionists despite the brilliantly successful examples of "Yes - it works perfectly" in Benelux and the neutral Alpine democracies.

"Can't afford the BBC" guess some, - know "yes, it's available cheaply" say the Irish and Dutch.

It's not warnings, it's ... something else.

rpc

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Scotland cannot keep the pound because a currency union without a fiscal union is complete lunacy, and the rest of the UK will not agree to it.

Scotland can keep the pound whatever - it is the currency union that Yes tell us is up for debate while every major Westminster party and the majority of the rUK electorate say otherwise. There are a fair few African states that officially use the GBP in a Panama arrangement.

Of course, with no currency union there is no national central bank and therefore no EU membership. Oops.

The most logical option is our own free float currency. But only 11% of the Scottish electorate want that so Yes are hardly going to back it.

TCA wrote: »

Financial stability? It was the UK government regulators who were asleep at the wheel when the banks fell.

With calls from the Scottish government for the banks to have even less regulation than they did...

And we have no idea if we'll still be in the EU if an in/out referendum happens. If someone is in favour of the EU, I'd say they've a better chance if they lived in Scotland.

If you really believe that iScotland will want to be in the EU and rUK will leave it, then Scotland is !!!!!!ed.

If (r)UK leaving the EU is perceived as a real risk then the best thing for Scotland would be to vote No in September and then use their voice to try to keep the UK in the EU.

If rUK leaves, we will have international borders at Berwick, significant trade barriers with rUK and much much more.

rUK leaving while iScotland stays in is probably one of the worst possible independence scenarios. If rUK did leave, I think it would probably be in iScotland's best interests to leave as well (I wouldn't really want to, but it would be the lesser of two evils).

incandescent

zagubov wrote: »

Nope. Almost every anti-indy "scaremongering" post is a guess TBH.
Being out of the EU? "No", says Spain and the UK but "yes "guesses Barosso who wanted UK''s votes to be NATO chief. Sorry about how that turned out.

Roaming charges going up? "Yes" guess the unionists, "No" says the EU.

Sharing the currency? "No" guess the unionists despite the brilliantly successful examples of "Yes - it works perfectly" in Benelux and the neutral Alpine democracies.

"Can't afford the BBC" guess some, - know "yes, it's available cheaply" say the Irish and Dutch.

It's not warnings, it's ... something else.

Shared currency? Every UK party leader has said absolutely no. The treasury's top civil servant has said absolutely no. The BoE has expressed severe concerns about it. Polls have repeatedly shown that the electorate of the rest of the UK oppose it.

And how exactly would a currency union constitute independence anyway? It would mean handing control of fiscal policy over to what would then be a foreign country.

Most Yes campaigners are openly admitting that the see currency union as a temporary measure anyway. Quite clearly designed to pull the wool over the Scottish electorate's eyes long enough to get through the referendum.

The SNP's stance on all of this is desperately dishonest.