606v2 Rugby Fans Scottish Independence Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

 v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).
 
If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.
 
It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:
 
1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?
 
2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.
 
If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.
 
What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.
 
Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

[LordDowlais]

So what are we saying then, the Scottish people who are in the British army now, will be ok to stay in the British army, if they want to, still paying their taxes to the UK, so what good is that to the Scottish army and Scotland as a country ?

[PenfroPete]

I think there's more than just a few Saffers and Aussies -

http://www.armyrugbyunion.org.uk/teams/army-7s/army-7s-player-profiles/

[fa0019]

Independence has been his sole goal throughout his whole political career.

when oil prices were low, when oil prices were high,
when the UK had a tory government, when they had a labour government,
when they had devolution, when Westminster had full control.
when they had a Scottish PM, when they had an English PM.

All this chat about a tory government, bedroom tax, pulling oil revenues away from Scotland from $95/bbl oil, privatising the NHS fear mongering is bull... it cannot be trusted because even when it hasn't been the case, he thought independence was vital. No matter what it cost, who paid it.

If someone say from the labour party said I've come to the conclusion that Scotland is better on its own and for these reasons then ok I would understand. But his view is skewed and is so skewed that he has managed to convince near half the adult population that Scotlands streets under him will be paved with gold. The 4th richest country per capita etc... a complete farce.

[fa0019]

I think there's more than just a few Saffers and Aussies -

http://www.armyrugbyunion.org.uk/teams/army-7s/army-7s-player-profiles/

Played them in a 7s tournament years ago. They were all Fijian that day. They literally took us apart even though we thought we were good (were in the KO stages of a national tournament). One of the guys laughed at me throughout a near 80m sprint to the line as he sped up and then slowed down just to keep me going.

[LordDowlais]

Anyway, back on topic, I do not think that Alex Salmond playing straight here, I reckon he is playing with a loaded dice and is just after his own ends, even if it means shafting the rest of his countrymen.

That's the very thing.

To him, a rise in poverty, child mortality, mobility of the young etc is worth it deep down I imagine as I'm sorry.... anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. Anyone can grab the odd academic to state one way or another... but when the tide is so great against you from almost all areas of public life be it business, health, science, defence, academia, politics etc.. they all say contrary to his views.

Salmond is not stupid. He's an intelligent man. Of course he is giving a spin on things and he may not believe in what he's saying in some parts... but to him that doesn't matter as independence is his goal... how he gets there is not a concern and given he won't be the leader of Scotland when it become independent (it will be Scottish Labour 100%) he won't have to make those tough choices.

If he had any salt to him he would acknowledge some issues but he spins this flute like the pied piper of Hamelin telling everyone that Scotland is going to be this 74 virgin paradise. But this is not opinion, its not bluff, its real people's lives and the whole world is up in arms saying Scotland will be far worse off without the UK. If he could say, ok, we'd be worse off but would that really matter, to govern yourself wouldn't you forgive some cash in your pocket.... for that I'd be more likely to vote for him if I had one and I'd respect him for it too.

By any means.... no matter what the cost or whom it hurts, by any means.

I could not agree more, I have been watching a lot of debate's about this on the tele, and one thing that strikes me and I cannot fathom out why the Scottish have not seen it, there are massive holes in his arguments, not just him though the whole YES campaigners as a party, people keep asking questions about currency, they do not answer it, people ask questions about international trade, they do not answer it, they have NO PLAN B, if things go jubblies up, it's the Scottish people who will suffer, and then the like's of Alex Salmond would then probably campaign against the Labour government that will be in charge, promising everything, giving nothing, well I don't know, perhaps it's just us, and perhaps we are not seeing something that is there, but for the life of me I need showing.

[fa0019]

Anyway, back on topic, I do not think that Alex Salmond playing straight here, I reckon he is playing with a loaded dice and is just after his own ends, even if it means shafting the rest of his countrymen.

That's the very thing.

To him, a rise in poverty, child mortality, mobility of the young etc is worth it deep down I imagine as I'm sorry.... anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves. Anyone can grab the odd academic to state one way or another... but when the tide is so great against you from almost all areas of public life be it business, health, science, defence, academia, politics etc.. they all say contrary to his views.

Salmond is not stupid. He's an intelligent man. Of course he is giving a spin on things and he may not believe in what he's saying in some parts... but to him that doesn't matter as independence is his goal... how he gets there is not a concern and given he won't be the leader of Scotland when it become independent (it will be Scottish Labour 100%) he won't have to make those tough choices.

If he had any salt to him he would acknowledge some issues but he spins this flute like the pied piper of Hamelin telling everyone that Scotland is going to be this 74 virgin paradise. But this is not opinion, its not bluff, its real people's lives and the whole world is up in arms saying Scotland will be far worse off without the UK. If he could say, ok, we'd be worse off but would that really matter, to govern yourself wouldn't you forgive some cash in your pocket.... for that I'd be more likely to vote for him if I had one and I'd respect him for it too.

By any means.... no matter what the cost or whom it hurts, by any means.

I could not agree more, I have been watching a lot of debate's about this on the tele, and one thing that strikes me and I cannot fathom out why the Scottish have not seen it, there are massive holes in his arguments, not just him though the whole YES campaigners as a party, people keep asking questions about currency, they do not answer it, people ask questions about international trade, they do not answer it, they have NO PLAN B, if things go jubblies up, it's the Scottish people who will suffer, and then the like's of Alex Salmond would then probably campaign against the Labour government that will be in charge, promising everything, giving nothing, well I don't know, perhaps it's just us, and perhaps we are not seeing something that is there, but for the life of me I need showing.

If Scotland become independent Gordon Brown will almost certainly become PM. He will throw his hat into the ring to negotiate a proper separation even though it won't be easy.

[fa0019]

The bigger the lie... the more people will believe it.

100 years worth of Oil off the west of Scotland. That was first put to me by a cabbie when I was in Glasgow for the commonwealths. When I told him I worked in energy and its bull he was like, well its a rumour I've heard from someone. Hmm, Chinese whispers anyone.

Oil firms often make massive statements like that especially E&P firms. You see the biggest movers daily on the stock exchange are often E&P firms who make out they have found nirvana off the coast off some country. 1 month later they often come back and say, sorry, false alarm and the share price falls back to normal levels again.

[quinsforever]

The "negotiation" in the event of a YES vote is going to be interesting.

I know who i would put my money on coming out on top of that. Westminster may be hated, but they have the experience of running everything and with that comes understanding of where value exists.

And the leverage that Westminster will have is obviously Sterling. Salmond cannot, as he keeps mentioning, walk away from Scotland's share of national debt. If he attempts to do that there will automatically be no independence, because in order to get to independence it has to be legally agreed. Just like Union was back in 1699 or whenever.

[fa0019]

The "negotiation" in the event of a YES vote is going to be interesting.

I know who i would put my money on coming out on top of that. Westminster may be hated, but they have the experience of running everything and with that comes understanding of where value exists.

And the leverage that Westminster will have is obviously Sterling. Salmond cannot, as he keeps mentioning, walk away from Scotland's share of national debt. If he attempts to do that there will automatically be no independence, because in order to get to independence it has to be legally agreed. Just like Union was back in 1699 or whenever.

It will be like David and Goliath but this time David will have no stones to throw.

The sovereign will of the Scottish people - 5MM.

The sovereign will of the rUK - 57MM.

rUK will drive a hard hard bargain and put even if someone like Gordon Brown becomes head of the negotiations, he won't have much to stand on. Even if it made sense I'm sure the rUK would be bitter about the end of our nation as we know it. Destroying one of the greatest nations in history and for what... the bedroom tax and a couple of free pies given as a reason to vote.

We see it in SA all the time.

ANC rolls into town and whenever they find disgruntled locals threatening to vote for another party they come in and throw a huge party. Ply everyone with drink for a weekend, given them food and a party they never forget. Always works a charm.

[fa0019]

I'm sure also rUK could maintain their nuclear fleet either under French or US bases also if push comes to shove. Would be a little humiliating but it would maintain the deterrent and mean Salmond couldn't blackmail them with it whilst they move the base to England.

[Feckless Rogue]

Hi guys, I was just listening to Irish radio yesterday and they were talking about the oil thing. They said the British government and the independence side were in dispute over the amount of oil (in pounds or years left I can't remember), so the British government commissioned a report, which turned out to be be much closer to the Independence sides figure, so the report was quickly buried.

From the outside there is massive bias towards the no campaign in the media as well as obviously the three main political parties, so Lord maybe that's why you're seeing such a dreadful future for Scotland that they're not seeing, because that's what your government your opposition and your media are pushing, and it's not ringing true to the Scots.

I think the people campaigning for no have really shot themselves in the foot here. The fact is Scotland has the tools to be a decent, wealthy country. That much is obvious because countries with similar size resources and population (or even less) are perfectly fine, from Scandanavia to New Zealand.  All the threats of doom from the no side may be having the opposite effect, because you're basically telling the Scots they're incapable of running a decent country which can't be going down well. Does anyone think England are incapable of running a country without Scotland?

It's the most successful political union in the history of the world. It's peace time, there's an economic recovery. This was the no sides to lose and they seem to be making hard work of it. For the record I actually think No and more devolution would be best for everyone, but I really don't like the tone of the No campaign, whereas I'm very attracted by the idealism of the Yes side.

[fa0019]

Hi guys, I was just listening to Irish radio yesterday and they were talking about the oil thing. They said the British government and the independence side were in dispute over the amount of oil (in pounds or years left I can't remember), so the British government commissioned a report, which turned out to be be much closer to the Independence sides figure, so the report was quickly buried.

From the outside there is massive bias towards the no campaign in the media as well as obviously the three main political parties, so Lord maybe that's why you're seeing such a dreadful future for Scotland that they're not seeing, because that's what your government your opposition and your media are pushing, and it's not ringing true to the Scots.

I think the people campaigning for no have really shot themselves in the foot here. The fact is Scotland has the tools to be a decent, wealthy country. That much is obvious because countries with similar size resources and population (or even less) are perfectly fine, from Scandanavia to New Zealand.  All the threats of doom from the no side may be having the opposite effect, because you're basically telling the Scots they're incapable of running a decent country which can't be going down well. Does anyone think England are incapable of running a country without Scotland?

It's the most successful political union in the history of the world. It's peace time, there's an economic recovery. This was the no sides to lose and they seem to be making hard work of it. For the record I actually think No and more devolution would be best for everyone, but I really don't like the tone of the No campaign, whereas I'm very attracted by the idealism of the Yes side.

Sir ian wood said 15bn bbls left, uk govt. said 10bn bbls and salmons said 25bn bbls.

Sir ian wood has been held up by both sides as the world expert on the fields.

Salmons said they have a hundred years of oil left. Sir ian wood says it will be all but gone by 2050 and heavily depleted by 2035.

[fa0019]

Rogue

These are firms which the uk government have zero or no influence in.

Credit Suisse
Deutsche bank
Jpmorgan
Soc gen
Goldman Sachs
The Scotsman newspaper
The daily record
The guardian
The economist
Head of research at the IMF
The heads of Scottish economic departments in all their universities.

I could give dozens more but you could argue the uk could have influence within ie the EU.

The only person the yes campaign can drum up is the Scottish herald and Joseph stiglitz a high profile economist yes... But he's being paid to advise them... Unlike krugman and the dozens of other notable academics who say yes would be exceptionally dangerous.

Stiglitz is being paid by the Scottish government to build a case... That is what he's done and it all relies on a currency union, without the house of cards collapses, and everyone says no at the moment. What are the chances they are all bluffing.

[quinsforever]

at the end of the day its all about money.

all this complete and utter social justice BS flies about as well as a turd with wings.

its all about money.

salmond promises theres more because of the oil.

No campaign points out all his electoral promises rely on more oil, and using sterling and joining the EU and they get criticised for being negative.

its all about the money.

oh yes and an entrenched 25% of YES voters who are pathologically embittered towards all things English. So the NO campaign needs to win more than a 2/3 majority of those willing to be swayed by the economic arguments (two thirds of the remaining non-embittered 75%).

i can see why the vote is so very very close.

[quinsforever]

Something else just occurred to me regarding the OIL.

Given that Scotland turned to England for protection in 1699 (from europeans and from bankruptcy) and that the Union has provided that since then. How can the oil not belong to the Union?

Will Shetland secede from Scotland? there is no real difference in terms of opportunism and geographical/geological accident.

[Sin é]

Thats cowpat FA, all Scotland needs to do is link the currency with Sterling. ROI (who had a very unpleasant divorce with England) issued an Irish pound that was pegged to Sterling. Loads of countries operate like that.

Its also in the interests of the new UK because big business does not care about boundaries or countries. All they care about is making money and the rUK will need Scottish natural resources.

England is not food self-sufficient either, by the way.

[Sin é]

Something else just occurred to me regarding the OIL.

Given that Scotland turned to England for protection in 1699 (from europeans and from bankruptcy) and that the Union has provided that since then. How can the oil not belong to the Union?

Will Shetland secede from Scotland? there is no real difference in terms of opportunism and geographical/geological accident.

Any oil or gas within the territory of Scotland (defined by international law) belong to that country.

Otherwise you would have Ireland claiming North Sea oil considering Ireland was part of the Union back in the day.

[Sin é]

Well Quins and FA, are you proud of this?

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/bbc-reporter-caught-red-handed-manipulating-video-in-scottish-indy-campaign/

[quinsforever]

rubbish sin e. you should know better. there is no greater criminal of selective editing, selective disclosure and selective answering of questions than the two fishes. Salmond and Sturgeon.

BBC do just fine. In the history of modern politics only Bill Clinton gets greater acclaim for avoiding the question than Salmond.

[quinsforever]

Thats cowpat FA, all Scotland needs to do is link the currency with Sterling. ROI (who had a very unpleasant divorce with England) issued an Irish pound that was pegged to Sterling. Loads of countries operate like that.

Its also in the interests of the new UK because big business does not care about boundaries or countries. All they care about is making money and the rUK will need Scottish natural resources.

England is not food self-sufficient either, by the way.

you dont understand whats involved here. Sterlingisation would be an admission that all financial services with any liabilities would leave Scotland. My son's godfather is Panamanian. They shadow the dollar, much quoted by the highly remunerated Stiglitz and others in hock to the SNP. Their banks DO NOT LEND beyond minimal amounts. They take money as an offshore centre, tolerated by the US because of the critical alliance they have regarding the PANAMA CANAL. Any attempts to make comparisons between Panama/US and Scotland/UK are utterly incompetent, ignorant and financially dangerous.

Sterlingisation might be the right long-term course for the Scots, but only as a recognition that their bankers cant be trusted to govern themselves, and need far tighter risk limits that bankers and banks in the rest of the world. HBOS, RBS, etc, etc. Might add the irish banks to that list too. Lack of a credible Irish central bank meant the government had to step in to guarantee deposits and that sank the whole of Ireland. these are not trivial matters unless you are a glib politician.

[quinsforever]

Something else just occurred to me regarding the OIL.

Given that Scotland turned to England for protection in 1699 (from europeans and from bankruptcy) and that the Union has provided that since then. How can the oil not belong to the Union?

Will Shetland secede from Scotland? there is no real difference in terms of opportunism and geographical/geological accident.

Any oil or gas within the territory of Scotland (defined by international law) belong to that country.

Otherwise you would have Ireland claiming North Sea oil considering Ireland was part of the Union back in the day.

Scotland has no legal claim to oil and gas because Scotland does not exist as a legally sovereign entity.

the claim only exists in the event of a YES vote.

But without the Union in 1699, there is no doubt that Scotland would be a part of France. Should France claim the oil given that the Union is being unwound based on the fact that they would have been in charge?

I reckon Shetland should go for independence. And claim their oil. Which is prob 50% of Scotland's oil.

Scotland voting yes should not be about oil it should be about opportunity, optimism and entrepreneurialism. The only thing that an oil-motivated YES will bring is dependence. and then decline.

[quinsforever]

Ha! have just read that Salmond spent 7 years working at RBS. That explains his apparent weakness with numbers and his desire to expand at any expense without due consideration of the risks.

[Sin é]

rubbish sin e. you should know better. there is no greater criminal of selective editing, selective disclosure and selective answering of questions than the two fishes. Salmond and Sturgeon.

BBC do just fine. In the history of modern politics only Bill Clinton gets greater acclaim for avoiding the question than Salmond.

Quins, I asked you are you proud of that piece of work by the BBC? I just want to see where you are coming from.

[quinsforever]

the work by the BBC is perfectly fine. your ability to dig up conspiracy theories from cybernat bloggers is however unrivalled.

[quinsforever]

Salmond and the SNP are apposed to all balance argument and coverage. If you havent noticed that sine e then i pity you.

Salmond has known for 6 weeks that RBS were planning to relocate. Yet when the Treasury confirms it in response to a financial stability question from a journalist, Salmond cries foul? talk about trying to distract from the message by spinning. He is the master of sleight of hand. Unless one can see through the guff. BBC doesnt really do guff, or eat it, or subscribe to it. They have an obligation to 66million viewers to NOT buy into the spin. And for that obviously they get the "bias" and "impoartial" labels. whatever.

[Sin é]

Ha! have just read that Salmond spent 7 years working at RBS. That explains his apparent weakness with numbers and his desire to expand at any expense without due consideration of the risks.

Em, I think RBS was probably doing very well for itself when Salmond was working for them back in the late 70s, early 80s. I see he created a "Royal Bank/BBC oil index" that is still used.

[ME-109]

Interesting breakdown of the non-Scottish feelings on the referendum. Irish more disposed to it (I wonder why!!) and more supportive but obviously leaving it up to the Scots to decide for themselves....on the other hand am sure the others should possibly try reading more than the dailymail headlines...

[Sin é]

Thats cowpat FA, all Scotland needs to do is link the currency with Sterling. ROI (who had a very unpleasant divorce with England) issued an Irish pound that was pegged to Sterling. Loads of countries operate like that.

Its also in the interests of the new UK because big business does not care about boundaries or countries. All they care about is making money and the rUK will need Scottish natural resources.

England is not food self-sufficient either, by the way.

you dont understand whats involved here. Sterlingisation would be an admission that all financial services with any liabilities would leave Scotland. My son's godfather is Panamanian. They shadow the dollar, much quoted by the highly remunerated Stiglitz and others in hock to the SNP. Their banks DO NOT LEND beyond minimal amounts. They take money as an offshore centre, tolerated by the US because of the critical alliance they have regarding the PANAMA CANAL. Any attempts to make comparisons between Panama/US and Scotland/UK are utterly incompetent, ignorant and financially dangerous.

Sterlingisation might be the right long-term course for the Scots, but only as a recognition that their bankers cant be trusted to govern themselves, and need far tighter risk limits that bankers and banks in the rest of the world. HBOS, RBS, etc, etc. Might add the irish banks to that list too. Lack of a credible Irish central bank meant the government had to step in to guarantee deposits and that sank the whole of Ireland. these are not trivial matters unless you are a glib politician.

Would you feck off. You live in the country that has never had a change of currency and know nothing about what it entails. Ireland (ROI) has been pegged to Sterling, then its own Pound and then the Euro. We know a heck of a lot more about it than you do.

You are right about Panama/US in relation to the Scotland/rUK - Scotland is a long way (economically & stability wise) away from Panama.

Ireland's banks were not the only ones that had to be bailed out. We unfortunately had to bail out the Euro. Note, the British were very kean to loan us money to bail 'us' out. Nothing got to do with the amount of UK businesses in Ireland or the fact that Ireland is the UK's biggest trading partner (and UK sell more to the UK than Ireland sells to the UK).

By the way, we are back up on our feet again (helped a bit by Stg exchange rates). Not bad going for a small little country that has no oil.

[Sin é]

rubbish sin e. you should know better. there is no greater criminal of selective editing, selective disclosure and selective answering of questions than the two fishes. Salmond and Sturgeon.

BBC do just fine. In the history of modern politics only Bill Clinton gets greater acclaim for avoiding the question than Salmond.

Do you not think the BBC show contempt for their viewing audience to put out that news story knowing that there were other media there who would know they were lying.

And they did tell some big porkies where were video recorded.

Salmond is making mince meat of the fat cats from Westminster. Mind you, it doesn't take too much to do that. Tripped up by their own arrogance.

[Sin é]

the work by the BBC is perfectly fine. your ability to dig up conspiracy theories from cybernat bloggers is however unrivalled.

We get to see the stuff from both sides on this side of the water.

Economically, it would suit Ireland (republic) if Scotland stayed in the Union - interesting that the Irish posters here want to see both sides of the debate though and do think its up to Scottish people to decide what they should do.

PS - that wasn't a conspiracy theory. The BBC factually distorted an interview with Salmond (claiming he didn't answer the question) when he did and there is video evidence to prove that he did. I wouldn't have posted that except there is evidence that the BBC actually told porkies.

[fa0019]

Thats cowpat FA, all Scotland needs to do is link the currency with Sterling. ROI (who had a very unpleasant divorce with England) issued an Irish pound that was pegged to Sterling. Loads of countries operate like that.

Its also in the interests of the new UK because big business does not care about boundaries or countries. All they care about is making money and the rUK will need Scottish natural resources.

England is not food self-sufficient either, by the way.

That's bull right sin? This is the modern world. That was the world before the creation on OPEC, before genuine global trade.

Which countries have pegged currencies today? Outside of Denmark the rest are tin pot banana republics. Those which maintain it need massive foreign reserves to rebalance their currency on their parents movements. It also requires strong discipline on your budget. Denmark has maintained their peg because they have high taxation and prudent spending policy and it's proved highly costly to their economy of late.

This is something the snp totally lack. They want high public service provision but low taxation. How will they balance the books when oil wealth is less than forecast? In pegged currencies you can't overspend and you need to keep large surpluses in reserve... Something Scotland lacks. You can't simply borrow more and when oil is less fruitful that is what Scotland will need to do to maintain their services.

Their ideology is garbage. They want to be like Norway, like Sweden..... But they won't increase taxes on the people like these nations, they won't have the reserves to build a wealth fund yet they expect to offer high spending commitments on low taxs. It's voodoo economics. Everyone even a kid with basic school economics knows it's loco. You have the heads of Glasgow, Edinburgh and a host of other scottish economic departments calling it A recipe for disaster, nearly every major banks research team saying its recipe for disaster and their only defence is paying a high profile to formulate a plan for them. It's madness

[quinsforever]

You and ME deserve each other. I want a YES vote. Have said so since way back. But I can't abide bullsh1t arguments which deliberately mislead in order to deceive. Hence why I think the SNP and cybernats are a disgrace.

You nuggets should focus on your own economic miracle rather than stick your noses so aggressively into the breakup of a union which I at least am involved in.

When the punt was linked sin e, how much leverage was there in your financial sector? I think if you answer that question and compare to where Eire ended up by 2007 you will have a far greater understanding of the dangers of a genuine currency union where you do not have your own central bank.

[SecretFly]

Ireland sees  50,000 youngsters leaving every year it has a continuous brain drain of the best and brightest. That is Scotland's future.

ONLY since our last hiccup.............which was designed, stoked and rubber stamped by the EU (England knows those guys, don't they - the guys they themselves, many of them, are trying to break free from in a very Scottish way.)  
Before the Fall though - in Ireland only a short few years ago - we had immigration of the nature that was beginning to stifle us and we all know the Celtic tiger bit - which was real and everyone wanted a slice of it.  And there are already signs that we are emerging from our most recent recession, having been poster boys for how to strategically manage yourself out of a deep deep recession.  

So no - the gloom is lifting here.  And even in the gloom of depression, we all still knew we were Irish.  It's not all about accounts, mortgages, loans and oil companies talking tough.  It's about realising who you are - simply.

But we'll see.  However the vote goes it will be the choice of the Scottish people and good luck to them however they vote.

Ah the old celtic tiger years... you mean the one built on debt and land speculation???

Sorry for the delay in the response to this one, 0019 but I felt I had to anyway.

The great old US of A was virtually created on dept and land speculation.  How much in dept is the US of A even today?  If you don't have dept in the Westernised Capitalist ideal of continuous 'Growth' then you're not contributing to the very system of fluid economics that the very system of Capitalism requires for lubrication.  
England/the UK didn't have its periods of debt and speculation?  Thatcherism playboy stockbrokers in the 80s?  The entire city of London (financial district) is based on the false economy of debt and speculation - a Gambling Hall where pretend paper wealth is bought and sold in fractions of seconds by super computers.  I'm not an expert in the field but I'll guess it's still a fine balancing act between gain, loss and speculation on the prospect for either.

[quinsforever]

Punt stopped being pegged to pound in 1978.

What a miserably crappy analogy to compare then to now in economic, monetary, financial or fiscal terms. You really understand nothing beyond how to look up irrelevant cr4p on the internet.

[Notch]

You and ME deserve each other. I want a YES vote. Have said so since way back. But I can't abide bullsh1t arguments which deliberately mislead in order to deceive. Hence why I think the SNP and cybernats are a disgrace.

Let's be fair- there are a lot of bullsh!t promises being made on both sides. Since the ICM poll in the Sunday Times put Yes ahead for the first time the panic button has been hit and now David Cameron is promising 'unprecedented devolution'. I feel that is about as likely to be delivered upon as any of the promises made by the unscrupulous Salmond or, indeed, Cameron and Clegg before the last general election. It'll be English MPs turn to say 'No Thanks' when unprecedented devolution comes up in the commons.

The sad thing is, the more I look at this, the more the escalating levels of bullish!t on both sides look likely to cancel each other out. What'll happen post-Independence is pretty much the same as what will happen after a NO vote. Sooner or later, the house always wins.

[Sin é]

Thats cowpat FA, all Scotland needs to do is link the currency with Sterling. ROI (who had a very unpleasant divorce with England) issued an Irish pound that was pegged to Sterling. Loads of countries operate like that.

Its also in the interests of the new UK because big business does not care about boundaries or countries. All they care about is making money and the rUK will need Scottish natural resources.

England is not food self-sufficient either, by the way.

That's bull right sin? This is the modern world. That was the world before the creation on OPEC, before genuine global trade.

Which countries have pegged currencies today? Outside of Denmark the rest are tin pot banana republics. Those which maintain it need massive foreign reserves to rebalance their currency on their parents movements. It also requires strong discipline on your budget. Denmark has maintained their peg because they have high taxation and prudent spending policy and it's proved highly costly to their economy of late.

This is something the snp totally lack. They want high public service provision but low taxation. How will they balance the books when oil wealth is less than forecast? In pegged currencies you can't overspend and you need to keep large surpluses in reserve... Something Scotland lacks. You can't simply borrow more and when oil is less fruitful that is what Scotland will need to do to maintain their services.

Their ideology is garbage. They want to be like Norway, like Sweden..... But they won't increase taxes on the people like these nations, they won't have the reserves to build a wealth fund yet they expect to offer high spending commitments on low taxs. It's voodoo economics. Everyone even a kid with basic school economics knows it's loco. You have the heads of Glasgow, Edinburgh and a host of other scottish economic departments calling it A recipe for disaster, nearly every major banks research team saying its recipe for disaster and their only defence is paying a high profile to formulate a plan for them. It's madness

No need to be so insulting to a lot of countries in the world who have pegged themselves to either the US Dollar or the EU (I know it used to Stg in the past) like China, Hong Kong and more recently Bulgaria (who have in the past pegged their currency to the US dollar and are now pegged to the Euro).

I'd imagine the Scots (if they say Yes) will sort out how they want to run the country for their people. Most people will be happy to pay taxes if they know they are getting a return on their investment. Its when its wasted, it is a problem.

[quinsforever]

SF that is my world and you are miles away from the truth.

If people worry about someone's ability to pay back a loan, they stop lending them money. That's what keeps people honest or somewhat prudent. The fear of insolvency. It's up to sophisticated lenders to decide creditworthiness. The worst excesses of borrowing and lending ironically happened in Scotland (RBS, hbos) and Ireland (all lenders and many borrowers). Where scrutiny was the least. London has emerged strongest because it is the worlds financial and insurance centre and fresh capital flows to where the investing expertise is. Edinburgh had some credibility
In this regard but it will disappear in the event of a YES because liabilities needs must be guaranteed and hence they will head South

[Sin é]

Punt stopped being pegged to pound in 1978.

What a miserably crappy analogy to compare then to now in economic, monetary, financial  or fiscal terms. You really understand nothing beyond how to look up irrelevant cr4p on the internet.

I know that. It doesn't take from the fact that ROI was pegged to stg from the 20s, despite a war of Independence & an economic war.

There was nothing Westminister could do to prevent it!

PS - it might not do you any harm to look up a few things on tinternet - its as good as reading the Daily Mail headlines at least

[SecretFly]

You nuggets should focus on your own economic miracle rather than stick your noses so aggressively into the breakup of a union which I at least am involved in.

Em...I think Sin already explained that Ireland - the place where most Irish posters work - is one of if not the biggest trade partners to the UK.  Of course the Union and the UK has interest for us.  Of course we're interested in the topic of Scottish Independence or otherwise - we're your (the UK's) closest neighbour - we have a land border with you - the only external state with that proximity - and we're an important market for the UK as the UK is an important market for us... and if Scotland were to become Independent, they'd be a new very near trading partner.

So - again, knee jerk reactions about who comments on this topic of Scottish independence - and who has the 'right' to comment - are misplaced.

The Scottish will be the only ones voting but the rest of us (any of us - from German banks , to American Presidents, to Australian Prime Ministers, to 606 posters) have a right to an opinion.  Plus - both UK as a whole and Scotland as a single entity are at present EU citizens - so.... we share that commonality to, another legitimate reason for an opinion.

[Sin é]

SF that is my world and you are miles away from the truth.

If people worry about someone's ability to pay back a loan, they stop lending them money. That's what keeps people honest or somewhat prudent. The fear of insolvency. It's up to sophisticated lenders to decide creditworthiness. The worst excesses of borrowing and lending ironically happened in Scotland (RBS, hbos) and Ireland (all lenders and many borrowers). Where scrutiny was the least. London has emerged strongest because it is the worlds financial and insurance centre and fresh capital flows to where the investing expertise is. Edinburgh had some credibility
In this regard but it will disappear in the event of a YES because liabilities needs must be guaranteed and hence they will head South

If that is true, why were the British Gov. so anxious to 'bail' out the Irish banks then with a loan. Even the IMF were careful about that and laid out all sorts of conditions. The British were really nice to us

I'd imagine New York might despute that London is the world's financial capital

By the way, what liabilities do Scotland have? Are you planning on giving them a few?

[quinsforever]

I am directly affected. Irish are tangentially affected. Which is why rUk don't like being lumped in the same bucket as Ireland or anyone else in this debate. Everyone can have an opinion. But it p1sses me off to read some tw4t poster saying Irish opinions are as relevant as rUK.

[SecretFly]

SF that is my world and you are miles away from the truth.

If people worry about someone's ability to pay back a loan, they stop lending them money. That's what keeps people honest or somewhat prudent. The fear of insolvency. It's up to sophisticated lenders to decide creditworthiness. The worst excesses of borrowing and lending ironically happened in Scotland (RBS, hbos) and Ireland (all lenders and many borrowers). Where scrutiny was the least. London has emerged strongest because it is the worlds financial and insurance centre and fresh capital flows to where the investing expertise is. Edinburgh had some credibility
In this regard but it will disappear in the event of a YES because liabilities needs must be guaranteed and hence they will head South

Is the UK not in debt?  Debt follows everyone.  My overview remains solid.  The solidity of financial expertise trusts most to sheer, unadulterated 'risk' - if it ain't risky, it ain't earning enough profit.  Risk isn't a qualification you get at University it's an instinct.  And the instinct of the 'experts' in the UK, and elsewhere around these world financial centres of excellence, brought the world to its knees on more than one occasion.  Forgive me my lack of faith in your 'world' - it's ruined too many people I know - and when I say 'ruin' I'm being euphemistic - it's downright and bluntly killed a few.

[Notch]

I am directly affected. Irish are tangentially affected. Which is why rUk don't like being lumped in the same bucket as Ireland or anyone else in this debate. Everyone can have an opinion. But it p1sses me off to read some tw4t poster saying Irish opinions are as relevant as rUK.

Now the mask is slipping a bit. Remember, no personal abuse. Lose your cool- lose the argument.

If you're getting this exercised maybe its time to log off and cool off. Also, you don't know who is and isn't directly affected. You don't know whose family lives and works were. You don't enough about these people to pass judgment on how affected they will be by this.

[quinsforever]

Sin e. The British govt had not previously lent Ireland anything. They were a new creditor, who look to have made a good decision given Ireland's ability to refinance that expensive debt far more cheaply now. Yet another feather in Londons financial astuteness cap.

I lived in NYC for 7 years. It's important financially. But London is indubitably the worlds financial centre.

[SecretFly]

I am directly affected. Irish are tangentially affected. Which is why rUk don't like being lumped in the same bucket as Ireland or anyone else in this debate. Everyone can have an opinion. But it p1sses me off to read some tw4t poster saying Irish opinions are as relevant as rUK.

No opinion is as relevant as what the Scottish people will decide. But however, you didn't I'm sure get peed off by the interference in a distinct UK issue from Presidents, EUers, Aussie Prime Ministers, German Banks???

We are 'tangentially affected and we'll have our opiniuons. But yes, that's all they are - I don't have, and wouldn't want, and it wouldn't obviously be my right to actually vote on my opinions. But our opinions, in an opinion forum, is as legitimate as anyone elses.

[quinsforever]

I'm fine Notch.

As usual its ME trying to offend. Sin e just doesn't understand the difference between ancient history and the present in financial and currency terms.

Re liabilities. Yes Scotland will get their fair share of debt:GDP, though far far less than they deserve for f4ckimg us over with RBS and hbos. But the point is that any companies with liabilities whose interest rate would be linked to Scottish sovereign debt will absolutely not want to take that risk and will 100% relocate their tax base to rUK or another country.

[Notch]

Reminds me of this.:

You guys can all stop arguing anyway. Bob Geldof has weighed in so the debate is pretty much over.

[SecretFly]

Reminds me of this.:

You guys can all stop arguing anyway. Bob Geldof has weighed in so the debate is pretty much over.

I saw his wirey head earlier ok...but the sound was down.

He's with the NO camp it seems?  Well, there you go if so - at least one Irish guy that Quins won't be pi-ssed at for interfering

[Notch]

Reminds me of this.:

You guys can all stop arguing anyway. Bob Geldof has weighed in so the debate is pretty much over.

I saw his wirey head earlier ok...but the sound was down.

He's with the NO camp it seems?  Well, there you go if so - at least one Irish guy that Quins won't be pi-ssed at for interfering

No doubt

Well, I've taken the input of David Beckham and Bob Geldof on board, but I don't feel like I can really make my mind up until Bono weighs in.

[SecretFly]

It seems famous people mostly like the NO camp people better.  And a better class of people they are, sure enough.  
I hear the 'Yes' crowd are mostly hairy dark alley, stone-throwing, threat-making, anti-BBC intimidator kilt types.  We can't be having any of that!!!  It ain't even civilised!!!...................... but we hope they stay with us in the Union anyway

Meanwhile, I'm personally fondest of one famous person's Neutral Opinion actually.  Branson - and his "It won't be the end of the world if the Scots say Yes" yawn.

He's right - and he should know - everything he touches turns to gold.  Infact, he should be UK Prime Minister................ with Michael O'Leary as Taoiseach of Ireland.  They both know how to cut the melodramatic bullcrap out of commonsense profit.

[Sponsored content]