How the Union benefits Scotland and the Scots.

If people are stupid enough to be taken in by SNP propaganda and Scotland gets independence their banks will be charging the interest the British Government controlled Bank of England tell them to charge, they will be setting the base rate.

Another good argument against independence, Scotland has no currency.

 

Why is that a good argument? Is there any good reason we couldn't continue to use Sterling, or adopt the Euro?

(I'm against independence btw, I just don't see why that's a good argument.)

 

They can use Sterling, but can they be independent as well? A bit like claiming you're a virgin when you're pregnant.

It's by no means certain there will be a Euro in two years time, or if Scotland will be a part of Europe.

Of course if Scotland is so certain they are going to be one huge economic success story then the thing they should do is form their own central bank and revive the Groat or something.

However if the plan is to place that oil fund in numbered Swiss accounts and be able to tell the Scots that it was them nasty Englandshire people stole it then Sterling is the way to go. The Scots will believe them BTW, they always do.

 

Not at all. Several countries use the US Dollar, for instance, and although they're linked to the US economically as a result, they are independent countries. Scotland will be heavily tied economically to England anyway, so I don't see a big problem in using the same currency as well.

It's by no means certain that the Euro will collapse either though, and if it doesn't, then it's an option at least.

As much as a Scottish currency intrigues me I don't really see it happening. And I'm under no illusions that the rich in Scotland would be any better than the rich in the UK, but I don't see any reason to believe they would be any worse either.

 

Countries use the dollar because it is a stable currency and their own currency wasn't, the use is mostly unofficial, their economies aren't linked to the United States, they don't use the Federal Reserve as their central bank. Scotland could, if they wished, go down that route but it is far from satisfactory and only normally done as a last resort. If they have full monetary union and keep the Bank of England as their central bank then they do not have independence from the rest of Britain, their economy will always be controlled from London.

No it isn't certain it will collapse but it is a possibility, it's also possible countries will leave, it's possible they would not welcome a country without a strong proven record joining.

Which will always leave the Scottish government room to blame the British government for anything which goes wrong while taking credit themselves for anything which goes right.

In other words, not any different from how things are at the moment.

 

There's a good half dozen or so countries that have the US dollar as official currency, I guess the largest is probably Ecuador. It's hard to understand why their economy would be in no noteable way linked to the country which issues their official currency. (Edit: apologies, it seems I was counting US territories like Puerto Rico. There's actually only four.)

And of course when Ireland gained independence they initially pegged their 'punt' or 'Irish pound' to Sterling. It may not be common practice or even the ideal choice but neither is it, apparently, an actual problem. I still don't see what real problems currency would pose upon independence, other than the costs involved in setting up whatever system we chose. And again I'd like to point out that I'm not a supporter of independence.

You're not wrong there.

 

Actually..no it necessarily won't...but it is a lot less than realistic for anyone, whatever their flawed grasp of reality may be, to think that today Scotland gets independence and tomorrow they have magically set up a fully fledged Central Bank after 305 years without the need for one. But heck..why let reality interrupt your biases, fredc.....that would mean you have nothing to say on any subject appertaining to Scottish Independence.

And do we care over much? Really?

It is a possibility that next week the UK will get their much vaunted triple A rating downgraded..and will that mean the end of the UK as a country? It is also possible that Iran does have nuclear weapons right now, and they will take 45 minutes to nuke the Central Belt of Scotland.....and kill or injure, as at Hiroshima, the majority of the Scottish population....it is even possible that the euro won't collapse(though personally I wouldn't want anything to do with it whether it does or not) but "what ifs" are no reason to go the pessimism route...."what ifs" are the whole point of independence...the ability to make a kirk or a mill 0f our own lives without the dictat of Mother England.....and I say Mother England advisedly, because, with the best will in the world, a UK parliament with, currently, 533 English constituency MPs, and a representation, between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland totaling 117 MPs, does kinda leave England in the driving seat....with no real need to consider the opinions of the 117 MPs who are not English or who do not represent English constituencies.

You are talking as if Scotland intends to spend eternity wedded to the pound. What facts do you have to illustrate that opinion, bearing in mind that, as a Scottish Nationalist who takes an interest in the discussions being undertaken at the moment....I still don't know for sure what will happen in the future.....about anything.

But I do know that there are a couple of years yet to firm up policy...because we don't want to go the UK knee jerk route and react rather than make a considered opinion.

After all,since 1979, the UK government has considered little bar the good of their crony capitalist pals ...a mindset which continues to this day resulting, in 2012, in the disproportionate effects on cut-backs on the poorest among us.

Why would you, or anyone else, expect that the most important raison d'etre of any UK Government was to give a toss about anything other than the Square Mile. Have to say that in my lifetime, that is not something I have ever noticed.....but I am sure you can link to a multitude of sites which illustrate the benefits Scotland has received from the "Union".

So if you can, then maybe you could make a lot of money by setting yourself up as an interpreter of the past and a seer into the future....and earn big bucks.

Good luck with that.

 

Excellent post again Oddquine.

I think Scotland would be mad if it did not get out of this mad fractional reserve banking which completely ruins democracy. Ideally we would go into Independence with a totally new banking system offering debt free banking or very low interest. I realise however this may be difficult. The idea of a new and different banking system may be too scary for some people alongside Independence. In addition it is extremely difficult at the moment to argue against the present government's policy or to argue for changes because such arguments are just swiftly taken and misused by the anti independence crowd.

Because of my desire for the change in Banking I also see it would not be good for us to be part of the EU. We would probably be better to have a situation like Norway - with our fishing rights and other needs re negotiated.

So, it looks like once we have Independence then we can start working for our banking system to be changed to one which will allow us to make decisions which are in the interest of Scotland. Possibly would take a pressure group and people becoming more and more aware. I am not sure but I think I am beginning to think that for real Independence that may be necessary and for the quality of life we can leave for our grandchildren definitely so.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Scotland doesn't have as many MPs as England because Scotland doesn't have as many people as England, that's how democracy works and it is how it would work in an independent Scotland, people in Orkney won't have as many MPs as people on the Mainland.

It doesn't mean they are sitting there in Westminster plotting to get you, Scotland is a part of Britain and the British government see Scotland gets more than their fair share.

BTW we were discussing the collapse of the euro because the economic situation in Europe has made it a real possibility. That is real as in reality.

 

Nope.....it isn't how democracy works..it is how Democracy UK style works...not really the same thing at all. If the UK was really democratic, and MPs reflected the votes of the people, using some version of PR and not just votes for the parties, with the first past the post system....that would be democracy.

Since the war, a third of seats have consistently been held by the same party..and since 1970 that rises to a half of all seats. The FPTP system is producing the modern equivalent of rotten and pocket boroughs, whereby one party "owns" the right to a seat to the extent that the electorate in that constituency vote less and less as they do not see their vote is likely to make a difference.

FPTP may in the future spark a territorial constitutional crisis, where Labour forms a UK government without a majority within England, or the Conservatives do likewise without a mandate outside of England. This is a quote from here...but it seems the territorial constitutional crisis is already upon us.

Who has said they are sitting in Westminster plotting to get us? They are sitting in Westminster treating us like a region of England and not as a partner in a "voluntary" Union.

Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

Which part of real possibility makes it real fact and negates the word possibility altogether? Possibility is something with a capability of happening.......so my examples were just as valid as yours. If you had used the word probability, I would have argued differently, perhaps.

After all it's possible that I will find when I check last week's lottery ticket that I have won big bucks....but it's not probable.

 

First from what I have heard in an Independent Scotland, Orkney would have a great deal of autonomy. Regardless of numbers of MP's obviously an English Parliament turned into a UK Parliament will not have as it's first priority Scotland because it does not have the votes to draw that attention.

We have already dealt with some of the consequences of this

allowing Scotland to go into 'managed decline'
testing out the Poll tax
being saddled with nuclear weapons
Not having a Parliament which is Scotland centric and hence having one of the worst emigration rates in the world - possibly the worst. Scotland needs attention for her people and to create a decent country for future generations.

I accept that the North of England has similar problems but it did not take up Regional Powers largely because they had no power and were not explained properly. If they had and England had taken up regional powers and the below had happened, we would likely be talking a Federal Britain at the moment rather than Independence.

The UK has no written constitution and Thatcher just sent what was left of the unwritten one to the scrap heap. During these decades when Scotland, and the North of England, had no political voice, it became obvious that Democracy was not working in the UK. That resulted in Charter 88 which advocated a written constitution for the UK incorporating human rights and the right to information. You have been told all this before. This never happened. If Scotland goes for Independence she will then be able to have a written constitution incorporating human rights and the right to information. Scotland can live by values incorporated in her written Constitution. The UK at the moment is at the mercy financial markets. Democracy doesn't come into it.

This has all been written before in length with links and ignored by you.

 

In March 2011 the people of Britain were given the chance to ditch the FPTP system, they voted overwhelmingly to keep it, including over 63% of voters in Scotland.

What is undemocratic about that?

 

This has been written before and blown right out of the water by me before.

Saying Britain does not have a written constitution does not mean that Britain does not have a constitution or that the constitution is not written down. It just means it isn't all written down on one piece of paper.

Do you understand now? Britain does have a constitution and it is written down in many places as well as being customary.

This is no detriment, in fact is arguably beneficial, just look at America and their written constitution. Not done them a lot of good has it?

There isn't actually any written statute making murder illegal, it doesn't matter, it doesn't make it any less the law just as the British constitution not being codified makes it any less a constitution.

Did it sink in this time or are you going to keep repeating the same worthless arguments?

 

There's nothing undemocratic about a referendum with just two options. However, that is not what he's talking about. He's talking about elections that leave us with a ruling party or even a coalition who still have a 'mandate' from a minority of the population. What is democratic about that?

 

No you did not and I remember particularly well because I asked you to address several times the issues which I raised. Please provide the link for your above grandiose claim.

That is largely spin. Britain had an unwritten constitution which may have done well enough until we got representative democracy, then struggled on until we got Thatcher and then was finished off by Blair as he sold the UK to Global Corporatism.

Has no one ever taught you manners? Do you yet begin to understand than when Britain moved into a democracy for all her people rather than simply an empire for her elite eventually some changes would need to occur if she were to have representative democracy. One was a written constitution. You fail to understand, wherever you live that during the 80's and 90's the people of Scotland had no democratic voice.

Of course it will be beneficial. It will set the norms for the country and safeguard people's rights.

I am wasting my time. You are simply having temper tantrums and being extremely rude.

 

It's not often you're right but you're wrong again.

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060901044-post252.html

Stalinist Russia had a written constitution, so did Hitler's Germany.

Britain's constitution held up better than either of those.

Or is that what you don't like about it?

 

Nice try but this is the post I was referring to and the one I asked you several times to address the issues in

http://www.politicalforum.com/weste...nce-consultation-paper-13.html#post1060901713

That is the post I was referring to in this post

http://www.politicalforum.com/weste...enefits-scotland-scots-14.html#post1060965553

You have not even touched on the issues.

 

What is democratic about that is that it is how the majority of people want it to be.

There are no perfect voting systems, except perhaps Condorcet and that has the fault nobody understands it. To be democratic you have to use the system the majority of people want.

 

Not my fault you weren't paying attention the first time.

 

Ah, I get it now. You're not saying that the elections are democratic, only that the choice of method for those elections was democratic. That's fair enough.

 

That time you had been denying for about a week there was a Scottish Legal System. You have still ignored the issues. You are still just flaming. You make debate impossible.

 

I have never denied there was a Scottish legal system.

How can anybody take you seriously when you just make it up as you go along?

 

Simple....one man (or woman) one vote!

But then there would be no Tory MSP's, and one elected reprobate.... number one and only tory!

Liberals... two or three!

Labour twelve or thirteen!

Democracy..... no longer curtailed by your degenerates of the past and present 1922 committee!

Regards
Highlander

 

Today's report reveals that we will feel much safer in our beds if we can encourage Independence .
The more North you go , the more animal like and violent life becomes .
It might be a good idea if Scottish people were encouraged to dress in a way which highlights their ethnicity . Something like a bright yellow arm band springs to mind .Probably too novel an idea to catch on .



Sunderland suffers the most deaths linked directly to alcohol in England and Wales, new figures have revealed .
The North-East city was top of the risk list, with alcohol killing 36 people in 2010, a report from the Office for National Statistics showed.
Sunderland Central suffers the most deaths out of all constituencies in England and Wales (Copyright: Reuters)
The figures were split into Parliamentary constituencies. Bootle in Liverpool was second in the list with 35 deaths, followed by St Helens South in Merseyside with 32 deaths.
Devizes, Wiltshire, had the least amount of deaths with two.

Julie Elliot, MP for Sunderland Central, said: “These are extremely frightening statistics and are evident of the economic disadvantages that Sunderland and the North-East are facing.

 

What is the matter with you and Fred? Do you not know where the border is? Have you no knowledge the people of the North belong to England? Fredc gives hearsay that there was racism in the north of england in the 80's and somehow tries to suggest that means it is Scotland and here you are talking about Sunderland and pretending it is Scotland.

My God! If you cannot even show some fellow feeling for the people who reside in England can you be surprised that Scotland wants to be shot of you?