Re: Scottish Referendum : Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:52 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

You have, the "British" gets included so as to not upset the Yanks. They'll probably still call it the British Open on the grounds that it takes place in the British Isles.

But Cameron's probably going to get all pi55y about that too and insist that that it can't be called the British Isles either now, and it's all Scotland's fault.

But I guess the Irish will be pleased about it, seeing as they don't recognise the name anyway.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:43 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

.

I don't believe it is in the UKs interest for Scotland to have to go their own way with a new currency if they split. I think that is a way of trying to force the Scots to stay in the union.

This point has been explained to you by several posters and you still have not grasped the basic and key economic reality. In the event of Scotland voting to leave the UK they will leave behind all the benefits. They cannot cherry pick or demand benefits from what in fact will be another country. The BOE only has authority and responsibility over the UK. It certainly is not in the UK's interests to provide bail out guarantees to a new very very risky venture and one with a track record of needing massive bails outs in the recent past.

The news today that all the Scottish banks and financial institutions have given notice that if Scotland chooses independence then they would all have to relocate their domicile. The reason is crystal clear. They have to protect their business by remaining under the guarantee of the BOE. Even if they leave the majority of employees in Scotland they would lose the tax and lucrative peripheral business that surrounds head offices eg legal work.

Many other big business have hinted also at relocating the domicile among them Baxters and several leading Malt Whiskey brands.

Scotland if it keeps the pound without the BOE back up would be like a banana republic or perhaps it will become known as a haggis state because that is all they will be able to afford to eat.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:48 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But Cameron's probably going to get all pi55y about that too and insist that that it can't be called the British Isles either now, and it's all Scotland's fault.

But I guess the Irish will be pleased about it, seeing as they don't recognise the name anyway.

If you get your wish and Scotland leaves the UK you will be seeing much more Tory government. They always say every cloud has a silver lining!

Re: Scottish Referendum : Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:09 pm  

Salmond has already stated that if the vote is YES, he will reduce corporation tax by 3 points. He is banking on attracting inward investment but all that would realistically happen is (assuming what's left of the Union allow Scotland to remain within Sterling), the less socially responsible English, Welsh & Irish based companies would simply switch head office to take advantage of the tax reduction.

To counter that, we would have to offer a similar reduction in CT and prevent a massive haemmorhaging from the exchequer. That slack would then have to be paid for by either even deeper cuts than we are already experiencing or a massive hike in personal taxation.

Only LGJM seems to see this as a good thing

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:37 am  

An intelligent and insightful dissemination of the potential problems of a YES vote Some commentators are suggesting that the very last thing Salmond was looking for was full independence. His real intention was a 3rd ballot option for Devo-Max. It seems that the government called his bluff by offering only an in-out ballot, hence Salmond's inability to offer any tangible answers to questions about monetary union. I am now tending to agree with those commentators

An intelligent and insightful dissemination of the potential problems of a YES vote Some commentators are suggesting that the very last thing Salmond was looking for was full independence. His real intention was a 3rd ballot option for Devo-Max. It seems that the government called his bluff by offering only an in-out ballot, hence Salmond's inability to offer any tangible answers to questions about monetary union. I am now tending to agree with those commentators

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:59 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

This point has been explained to you by several posters and you still have not grasped the basic and key economic reality. In the event of Scotland voting to leave the UK they will leave behind all the benefits. They cannot cherry pick or demand benefits from what in fact will be another country. The BOE only has authority and responsibility over the UK. It certainly is not in the UK's interests to provide bail out guarantees to a new very very risky venture and one with a track record of needing massive bails outs in the recent past.

The news today that all the Scottish banks and financial institutions have given notice that if Scotland chooses independence then they would all have to relocate their domicile. The reason is crystal clear. They have to protect their business by remaining under the guarantee of the BOE. Even if they leave the majority of employees in Scotland they would lose the tax and lucrative peripheral business that surrounds head offices eg legal work.

Many other big business have hinted also at relocating the domicile among them Baxters and several leading Malt Whiskey brands.

Scotland if it keeps the pound without the BOE back up would be like a banana republic or perhaps it will become known as a haggis state because that is all they will be able to afford to eat.

To be fair the break up of Czechoslovakia was achieved fairly painlessly and Slovakia doesn't seem to have faired too badly since. Although their original intention to share a currency only lasted a couple of months.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:14 am  

The 'Better Together' campaign couldn't put up a Labour representative for the Scotland Decides televised debate last night.

George Galloway was it's chosen representative. They must have given up. To hear a racist, rape apologist trying to defend the Union was quite something. He didn't do a good job at all.

Arrested at & carried away from protests over Trident, but avoided touching on the subject of nuclear weapons removal.

Even his closing speech centred around how Britain seemingly stood alone against the Nazis, nothing to do with the economic case for a No vote. He forgot to say that the decision to go to war came from Westminster alone.

The Scottish Tory was found out with her scare tactics yet again. Not one business has said it would leave Scotland.

Sturgeon missed so many open goals, but still came out with a win on the night.

Fascinating to see what happens next Thursday & what both sides try to do in the next 7 days.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:54 am  

cod'ead wrote: An intelligent and insightful dissemination of the potential problems of a YES vote Some commentators are suggesting that the very last thing Salmond was looking for was full independence. His real intention was a 3rd ballot option for Devo-Max. It seems that the government called his bluff by offering only an in-out ballot, hence Salmond's inability to offer any tangible answers to questions about monetary union. I am now tending to agree with those commentators I've thought the same since it all started. Salmond & the SNP's strongest position is arguing against Westminster. When they can't do that there's very little if anything that seperate them from Labour or the Lib Dems. In the same way as the Israeli govt and Hamas need the conflict to keep their positions, Salmond and the SNP need a Westminster govt to argue against to keep their position.

cod'ead wrote: An intelligent and insightful dissemination of the potential problems of a YES vote Some commentators are suggesting that the very last thing Salmond was looking for was full independence. His real intention was a 3rd ballot option for Devo-Max. It seems that the government called his bluff by offering only an in-out ballot, hence Salmond's inability to offer any tangible answers to questions about monetary union. I am now tending to agree with those commentators I've thought the same since it all started. Salmond & the SNP's strongest position is arguing against Westminster. When they can't do that there's very little if anything that seperate them from Labour or the Lib Dems. In the same way as the Israeli govt and Hamas need the conflict to keep their positions, Salmond and the SNP need a Westminster govt to argue against to keep their position.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:40 am  

Him wrote:

I've thought the same since it all started. Salmond & the SNP's strongest position is arguing against Westminster. When they can't do that there's very little if anything that seperate them from Labour or the Lib Dems.

In the same way as the Israeli govt and Hamas need the conflict to keep their positions, Salmond and the SNP need a Westminster govt to argue against to keep their position.

I think he saw devo max as a stepping stone to full independence, not an end in itself. If its a NO result and they go for devo max he'll still look for every opportunity to argue that they need full independence, that everything that goes wrong in Scotland is due to the continuing Westminster control.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:00 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I think he saw devo max as a stepping stone to full independence, not an end in itself. If its a NO result and they go for devo max he'll still look for every opportunity to argue that they need full independence, that everything that goes wrong in Scotland is due to the continuing Westminster control.

Of course he will. But that's what I mean, he needs that anti-Westminster argument to keep his position and his party's.