You are reading a single comment by @rw101 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Well as for lack of vision in the 'no' campaign, I can agree with that. The non-Scots and the 'no' Scots have been looking at the prospect of a crippling diminution of just about everything that makes up a country including culture, economy, ability to negotiate for their interests and to defend the country - and they just sat on their arses saying it probably won't happen so let's not worry. It's a bit late to start fighting now. I think independence would be bad for Scotland and I care about that but not greatly, I'm not Scottish. It would surely be a bigger disaster for the rest.
rw101
The RBS employs Scots. Well done. You clearly don't believe in Scottish independence being economically viable, that's your prerogative.
Your argument that Salmond had anything to do with their corporate strategy through the 90's and 2000's does not hold any real scrutiny though, does it?
Take Barclays and replace with Halifax, Lloyds or any other multinational. It still doesn't mean that the Scottish nation is in any way shape or form responsible for the actions of one bank and the individuals working for it, even if their director happened to be Scottish. It just sounds like you're trying to pin the whole economic collapse on the Scots who have suffered just as much through corporate irresponsibility as anyone else in the UK.
Folkerts-Landau is a corporate interest, doing the bidding of Cameron, and what you are describing as 'crazy risks' applies as much to the legality of their actions as it does investments. Nobody is asking him to lead Scotland anywhere, indeed what he says makes a nice headline for a few days but can be rebutted:
"Senior bankers have dismissed claims that independence could trigger a great depression as “preposterous” and “disingenuous”.
Ian Blackford, who formerly ran Deutsche Bank’s operations in Scotland and the Netherlands, and Edward McDowell, a former risk manager for Lloyds Banking Group, have played down the warnings of their former employers of the risks of independence."
Joseph Stiglitz is equally dismissive of the financial risks, and has the ability to see that it's not a purely economic argument:
The former chief economist at the World Bank launched a scathing attack on the No campaign, which he said was trying to get “anxiety levels up” and was spreading “fear” about issues such as Alex Salmond’s plan for an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to share the pound in a formal currency union.
Professor Stiglitz, who serves on Mr Salmond’s council of economic advisers, stated “there is a vision on the Yes side” about a fairer society on key issues such as free university education, as he gave his clearest signal yet of his sympathy for the pro-independence campaign.
• Get the latest referendum news, opinion and analysis from across Scotland and beyond on our new Scottish Independence website
He warned a No vote could lead to “more unemployment” for Scotland with the prospect of Conservative rule from Westminster and of “American-style” inequality.
And he also claimed the row over what currency an independent Scotland would use is “a lot of to do about nothing” as he dismissed the pledge from the main Unionist parties to block such a deal as “bluffs”, at the Edinburgh International Book Festival yesterday.
Prof Stiglitz said: “As an outsider, I’ve looked at the debate, particularly from the No side. I’ve been a little bit shocked how much of it is based on fear, trying to get anxiety levels up and how little of it has been based on vision.
“There is a vision on the Yes side that I see – what would an independent Scotland be like, what could it do that it can’t do now?”
Prof Stiglitz, when asked about the rejection of a currency union by the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, said: “For the most part, these are bluffs.”
He argued currency union could work, saying: “If you look at the statistics for the similarities of Scotland and England, they are sufficiently similar that a currency area could work, that’s what the Fiscal Commission recommended.”
Prof Stiglitz attacked what he claimed was the cuts-driven policy of Westminster governments as he called for more fiscal stimulation to boost the economy after recession.
He said: “The austerity policies in Europe and in England have been an utter disaster. There are risks always in any economic course; there are risks of doing something and risks of not doing something.
“So the risk of staying together is you could have a Conservative government that cuts back on government spending and that would force, inevitably, cutbacks here in areas of health and education.”
However, the cross-party anti-independence Better Together campaign insisted a No vote would mean a package of more devolution for Holyrood irrespective of the result of next year’s general election.
A campaign spokesman said: “We can have the best of both worlds for Scotland. That means the progress we all want for Scotland without taking on all the risks
Meanwhile, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Sir James Mirrlees has backed the Scottish Government’s threat to renege on its proportion of the UK national debt saying that “Britain inherits the debt” if it refuses a currency union.
I'm sure you can trot out Paul Krugman, who again, makes a nice headline, but equally only considers the issue from a very specific viewpoint of non-currency union... I, like many others have no doubt Independence will cost us money in lots of ways, but I still think it's a price worth paying.