Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:01 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote: 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. I had to grind my teeth at finding myself agreeing with Galloway. Almost felt sorry for him - you could hear sections of the crowd of youngsters ridiculing him. The poor man looks like he's on a terminal downward spiral. Unfortunately the 'No' campaign seem to have no-one with the wit and oratory skills to jump on the gaping holes in the argument. I've yet to hear someone deliver a clear and damning explanation of the currency issue that gets across in the cutting manner it should. Instead they limp from argument to argument and fail to convince even when the facts are on their side. One ray of hope from last night is that many of the youngsters clearly see through the lies and sheer gamble of the 'Yes' campaign and weren't afraid to say so. 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. The 'Yes' campaign's stance on currency seems to have devolved to simply shouting "it's our pound too!" Well, yes, it is at present but if you achieve independence it won't be if. It'll be the English (or rUK) pound, entirely controlled by Westminster and the BoE. That's the bizarre hypocrisy of the argument: you want independence but are intent on clinging to a foreign currency which will be entirely controlled by foreign policy, which won't necessarily be geared to your economic circumstances. This despite Westminster and the BoE already stating that a currency union will not happen, which leaves only more precarious options. So perhaps you are correct in your comments re the 3rd ballot. I just hope every Scot waiting to vote next week reads that article and others like it, and manages to see through the sheer lunacy of a 'Yes' vote.

LeagueDweeb wrote: 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. I had to grind my teeth at finding myself agreeing with Galloway. Almost felt sorry for him - you could hear sections of the crowd of youngsters ridiculing him. The poor man looks like he's on a terminal downward spiral. Unfortunately the 'No' campaign seem to have no-one with the wit and oratory skills to jump on the gaping holes in the argument. I've yet to hear someone deliver a clear and damning explanation of the currency issue that gets across in the cutting manner it should. Instead they limp from argument to argument and fail to convince even when the facts are on their side. One ray of hope from last night is that many of the youngsters clearly see through the lies and sheer gamble of the 'Yes' campaign and weren't afraid to say so. 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. The 'Yes' campaign's stance on currency seems to have devolved to simply shouting "it's our pound too!" Well, yes, it is at present but if you achieve independence it won't be if. It'll be the English (or rUK) pound, entirely controlled by Westminster and the BoE. That's the bizarre hypocrisy of the argument: you want independence but are intent on clinging to a foreign currency which will be entirely controlled by foreign policy, which won't necessarily be geared to your economic circumstances. This despite Westminster and the BoE already stating that a currency union will not happen, which leaves only more precarious options. So perhaps you are correct in your comments re the 3rd ballot. I just hope every Scot waiting to vote next week reads that article and others like it, and manages to see through the sheer lunacy of a 'Yes' vote.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:18 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I just hope every Scot waiting to vote next week reads that article and others like it, and manages to see through the sheer lunacy of a 'Yes' vote.

I hope that every Scot weighs up the full pros and cons for themselves before rushing to vote either way. Read as much as you can from either side and think about it. Irvine Welsh (who isn't eligible to vote) wrote a good piece about why it should be yes, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, even though part of me doesn't necessarily want an independent Scotland or think its a good idea. There may be an equally good "no" article somewhere.

I remember a Scottish character on "Absolutely" years ago who blamed everything bad on the "bloody English" and I suspect that there are a few still like that who will vote yes without working out if its actually a good or bad thing. The votes need to be cast on the basis of consideration, not hysteria. Perhaps the Scots could teach the rest of the UK about voting sensibly.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:54 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I hope that every Scot weighs up the full pros and cons for themselves before rushing to vote either way. Read as much as you can from either side and think about it. Irvine Welsh (who isn't eligible to vote) wrote a good piece about why it should be yes, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, even though part of me doesn't necessarily want an independent Scotland or think its a good idea. There may be an equally good "no" article somewhere.

I remember a Scottish character on "Absolutely" years ago who blamed everything bad on the "bloody English" and I suspect that there are a few still like that who will vote yes without working out if its actually a good or bad thing. The votes need to be cast on the basis of consideration, not hysteria. Perhaps the Scots could teach the rest of the UK about voting sensibly.

it will not happen, the idiots will leave the pub after 3 pints of 6 shilling and vote yes, because of the damn English, no more thought will go into it. The majority of Scot's simply will not vote, as, like the English, we find all politicians to be forked tongued liars.

be interesting to see the % of the population that get involved.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:07 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I hope that every Scot weighs up the full pros and cons for themselves before rushing to vote either way. Read as much as you can from either side and think about it. Irvine Welsh (who isn't eligible to vote) wrote a good piece about why it should be yes, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, even though part of me doesn't necessarily want an independent Scotland or think its a good idea. There may be an equally good "no" article somewhere.

You mean that sprawling, self-indulgent essay in the Indy? Doesn't wash for me. Firstly, it requires three cups of coffee to get through. Secondly, three quarters of it talks about nothing but his relatives, his childhood and his experiences meeting with immigrant communities in London as they gradually dominate his increasingly unhappy Aunt's community, who eventually sold up and moved to Edinburgh where she found a wonderful life in a city that 'loved her back'. He makes any number of sweeping generalisations relating to imperialism, class and 'assumed Englishness', all of which are based on little more than personal experience. He then predicts some utopia where Scottish independence somehow results in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland becoming bosom buddies, and even the issue of NI is solved.

I get the point he's trying to make, but he's taken a relatively small range of issues which are by no means unique to England (or rUK) and a personal outlook and in his own mind grown it into the crux of the entire matter, which it isn't.

To weaken his argument further, he calls our noble flag the Union Jack.

Finally - and most importantly - he conveniently ignores any facts, figures or the economic consequences of a vote for independence. He doesn't mention currency once. It's an opinion piece, nothing more. I actually also agree with some of what he says, but as an argument for independence it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:35 pm  

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 Well for some time I have believed that Salmond vainly wants to go down in history as the hero that led the Scots back to independence. However I also have believed for the same period that he does not want the responsibility to make it work or fail. So hence his continual stance regarding the currency. The last thing he wants is to leave the security provided by the BOE and I would not be surprised that, should he win, he would back down in the negotiations and accept the control (budget, interest rates etc) that go with keeping the BOE. This way he can continue to blame Westminster and the English for his likely economic failures. I am English but have a vote next week so have been studying the arguments for some time now. One thing becoming obvious is that after the vote there could be a lot of acrimony which could divide the people for some time to come. The 'Yes' campaign has been much more visible with posters up at most roundabouts and roadsides whereas the 'No' campaign has been very low key due in part to open hostility from 'Yes' rabble-rousers. Voters that have displayed 'No thanks' stickers have had windows broken and well known supporters have received violent threats and are openly challenged for being traitors. The 'Don't knows' have been keeping their heads down too for the same reasons which could indicate wider support to the 'No thanks/Better together side than the polls have indicated

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 Well for some time I have believed that Salmond vainly wants to go down in history as the hero that led the Scots back to independence. However I also have believed for the same period that he does not want the responsibility to make it work or fail. So hence his continual stance regarding the currency. The last thing he wants is to leave the security provided by the BOE and I would not be surprised that, should he win, he would back down in the negotiations and accept the control (budget, interest rates etc) that go with keeping the BOE. This way he can continue to blame Westminster and the English for his likely economic failures. I am English but have a vote next week so have been studying the arguments for some time now. One thing becoming obvious is that after the vote there could be a lot of acrimony which could divide the people for some time to come. The 'Yes' campaign has been much more visible with posters up at most roundabouts and roadsides whereas the 'No' campaign has been very low key due in part to open hostility from 'Yes' rabble-rousers. Voters that have displayed 'No thanks' stickers have had windows broken and well known supporters have received violent threats and are openly challenged for being traitors. The 'Don't knows' have been keeping their heads down too for the same reasons which could indicate wider support to the 'No thanks/Better together side than the polls have indicated

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:47 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

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

But if Scotland is allowed to keep the pound/BOE this would mean accepting the BOE retains control over all Scottish budgets, spending and borrowing (so not independent at all) then it is likely the costs of doing business north of the border would be higher than the rUK thus negating any advantage of a lower rate of corporation tax.

If any UK business were thinking of a new domicile to reduce corporation tax then they would pick Ireland (UK 21% Independent Scotland 18% Ireland 12.5%)

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:49 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

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.

Czech/Slovak was much simpler and will still take 2 decades to resolve everything

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:50 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

But if Scotland is allowed to keep the pound/BOE this would mean accepting the BOE retains control over all Scottish budgets, spending and borrowing (so not independent at all) then it is likely the costs of doing business north of the border would be higher than the rUK thus negating any advantage of a lower rate of corporation tax.

If any UK business were thinking of a new domicile to reduce corporation tax then they would pick Ireland (UK 21% Independent Scotland 18% Ireland 12.5%)

UK isn't 21%

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:51 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

That software is owned by HM Gov?

Yes the HM government of the UK. If an independent Scotland would have to pay to lease the usage rights

Re: Scottish Referendum : Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:55 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Yes the HM government of the UK. If an independent Scotland would have to pay to lease the usage rights

Nope, it is under liscence from many companies, Siemens. Capita to name two.

Crack on peddling myths though.