We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Scottish independence
Comments
-
Business for Scotland are tiny in comparison to the likes that support the Weir Group letter, the Kingfisher letter, etc.
I posted on the Business for Scotland website if it were true that RBS et al moving south would not impact to whom it paid corporation tax then Standard Chartered headquartered in London but doing most of its business in Asia would pay very little tax to UK.
The post was held in moderation for 12 hours before finally... disappearing without explanation
God save the King!
I'll save Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, J. M. W. Turner and Alan Turing.0 -
Can't find the reference at the moment, but over the weekend Alex said that the currency union would, in practice, be that Scotland had a veto over any decisions involving the Bank of England.
The man is delusional at best, Machiavellian at worst. What on earth is going to happen if they actually vote Yes based on these lies and the truth becomes all too clear to them? They can't turn back.Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.0 -
Really odd thought (& I'm not usually this slow), but in everything I've read on this I can't remember seeing what the actual mandate being sought from the referendum is ....
There's a question, but it's not effectively worded as a mandate request, then there's a sketchy outline of possibilities which don't seem to be backed by any obligation to deliver, just a narrative ..... so what's the mandate?, is there one ? ...
For example ... it could be ....- A simple question with no actual mandate sought, effectively clever (/sly) gameplay simply to gain further devolved powers ....
- A mandate request to open negotiations, however, if they don't go well simply decide to remain in the union and heave all blame on 'the others' (rUK, UN, EU, NATO etc, but for simplicity and effect ... 'the English' & 'Westminster' ) ....
- A mandate request for separation whatever the result of negotiations ??
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
What on earth is going to happen if they actually vote Yes based on these lies and the truth becomes all too clear to them? They can't turn back.
The SNP and their followers would go on whining about Westminster and the Tories and blaming them for all things bad in Scotland, until the end of time. Mind you, they'll do that anyway.0 -
The man is delusional at best, Machiavellian at worst. What on earth is going to happen if they actually vote Yes based on these lies and the truth becomes all too clear to them? They can't turn back.
Probably:
The timetable gets thrown out the window and separation is dragged out for long enough to smooth the transition and make it a bit less volatile. Long, painful divorce.
Possibly:
We're all ****ed because King Alex will bash on regardless to get a settlement, any settlement, before the Holyrood majority his party enjoys is threatened by the election in 2016. Short term mess for Scotland's economy, probably a deep recession.
Other possibility:
It drags out beyond 2016 and a unionist majority is put in Holyrood on a platform of seeking a confirmation referendum because of broken promises from Yes. Constitutionally awkward.0 -
Really odd thought (& I'm not usually this slow), but in everything I've read on this I can't remember seeing what the actual mandate being sought from the referendum is ....
No mandate. Just a simple statement of whether the electorate believe that Scotland should be independent or not.
Yes pitch it as a mandate to deliver the [STRIKE]Sh[/STRIKE]White Paper and every else should sign up to what they have promised.
Really, a Yes vote is a vote for independence whatever happens but (in this country) referendums are consultative and not binding*. But heaven help the party that chooses to ignore a referendum result!
*The AV referendum was binding because it was post-legislative. The EC referendum and this one are not binding because primary legislation to enact the outcome has not been passed.0 -
... so, that just leaves .... "But heaven help the party that chooses to ignore a referendum result" .... so, if it comes down to a close 'Yes' referendum result followed by set of 'failed' negotiations, a reasonable conclusion would be that all political parties would agree that there was insufficient reason combined with insufficient risk mitigation to continue the process .... of course, there would be one camp which would (quietly) state 'told you so' and another which would be able to save face through (quietly) blaming the 'unfair, bullying tactics' employed by anyone who doesn't just roll over and concede to all requests, whilst going on to claim that the powers gained as a direct result of the process were both relevant & major concessions which reinforce national identity and provide significant control over expenditure whilst sharing economic risk with a closely aligned neighbouring larger economy ... a win/win scenario, everyone's happy (or confused!) and no particular party goes into the next election with a seriously bruising disadvantage ....No mandate. Just a simple statement of whether the electorate believe that Scotland should be independent or not.
Yes pitch it as a mandate to deliver the [STRIKE]Sh[/STRIKE]White Paper and every else should sign up to what they have promised.
Really, a Yes vote is a vote for independence whatever happens but (in this country) referendums are consultative and not binding*. But heaven help the party that chooses to ignore a referendum result!
*The AV referendum was binding because it was post-legislative. The EC referendum and this one are not binding because primary legislation to enact the outcome has not been passed.
.... alternatively, win the referendum then, through failed negotiation and/or 'real world' economics, fail to deliver (up front) much of what's been 'promised' thus alienating the support base - but still complete the independence process .... then immediately stand for election - I'd guess that would be pretty rough going to say the least!
If we were living in a time where honesty & sanity prevailed the outcome would be almost certain .... however, it's likely that when the level of honesty employed dawns, it may have a serious effect on sanity .... a situation which could become very, very ugly ....."We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-top-economists-spell-4260951#.VBbjLa5tgBo.twitter
Scotland's top economists give us 13 reasons to vote No...
1 - The Scottish Government’s currency plans are unclear at best and fundamentally flawed at worst. They all seem to involve a form of fixed exchange rate which would not facilitate the necessary adjustments needed to address an independent Scotland’s competitiveness.
Such plans are, therefore, doomed to failure. Plan B to use sterling informally would be disastrous because Scottish-based bank deposits would lose the protection provided by the Bank of England and the UK Government in the event of a run on our banks.
2 - As the Governor of the Bank of England has recently stated, the sterlingisation option would require Scotland to accumulate substantial currency reserves.
This would involve government spending cuts or tax increases equivalent, at the very least, to £4000 per head of the Scottish population.
3 - In the event of Plans A and B not happening, an independent Scotland would have to create its own currency. This would be introduced at a time when the economy would most likely have suffered from capital flight.
As Deutsche Bank and other banks have recently said, the subsequent economic recession would lead to the possibility of an economic depression for many years to come.
4 - The creation of an economic (and possibly physical) border between Scotland and the rest of the UK would be damaging for trade and jobs and, by diminishing the productivity of Scottish firms, would lower living standards in this country.
5 - On current trends,the Scottish Government would have to impose an even greater fiscal austerity than has been implemented by the Coalition Government in Westminster. This would be further exacerbated by the inherited debt of around £120billion.
6 - It is also likely, in the event of an independent Scotland reneging on accepting an appropriate share of the UK’s existing debt, that its credit rating would plummet and borrowing from international credit markets would become difficult and costly, if indeed we could borrow at all.
As a result, we may have to borrow from the IMF, which would mean even more austerity for our people. Such austerity is likely to impact most heavily on the less well-off in our country.
7 - The set-up costs for Scotland becoming independent, which on some estimates have been put at £2.5billion, would mean resources would have to be shifted from other hard- pressed areas of public spending such as health and education in the short and long term.
8 - Scotland’s public finances would be more exposed to oil price volatility and the secular decline of oil revenues, with little or no prospect for an oil stabilisation fund.
9 - Interest rates could well rise on Scottish sovereign debt, local authority borrowing, firm and household debt. Families will be impacted severely by rising credit card rates, car loans rates and mortgage rates.
10 - It is possible, as some supermarkets have announced, that food prices could rise. The introduction of an economic border will increase distribution costs in an independent Scotland, raising prices of food and other consumer goods.
11 - The recent announcement by Scottish financial institutions such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Standard Life, that in the event of independence they are likely to move their HQs from Scotland to the rest of the UK, will mean job losses and loss of tax revenue to the Scottish economy. This would also damage Scotland’s balance of payments.
12 - Overseas banks such as Credit Suisse have also warned of dire economic consequences and a recession similar to that which followed the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland.
13 - Demographic trends, notably the ageing population, suggest that spending on those of pensionable age would present a significant challenge for an independent Scotland.
We are Better Together as part of a UK with a combined population of almost 65million people sharing the costs and benefits of a larger pool of tax revenues to fund our pensions, compared to an independent Scotland with a population of almost 5.3million.
The economists who put together the letter:
Simon Clark
Head of Economics department, Edinburgh Universiy
Rod Cross
Emeritus economics professor, Strathclyde University
Roger Sandilands
Emeritus economics professor, Strathclyde University
David Cobham
Professor of economics, Heriot-Watt University
Joe Byrne
Professor of economics, Heriot-Watt University
Rodolphe Desbordes
Reader in economics, Strathclyde University
Christian Ewald
Head of economics dept, Glasgow University
Julia Darby
Economics professor, Strathclyde University
John Struthers
Graduate School head, University of West of Scotland
Tatiana Kirsanova
Macroeconomics professor, Glasgow University
Farhad Noorbakhsh
Ex-head Adam Smith Business School
Ronald MacDonald
Adam Smith economics chair, Glasgow University
Celine Azemar
Senior economics lecturer, Glasgow University“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards