-
If anyone wants a balanced overview of the issues (i.e. not the Wee Blue Book), this is a summary of evidence given by politicians, economists and business people from all sides of the debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15202.htm
It dates from March 2013, but the debate hasn't moved on greatly in terms of the policies of either party.
In addition if you want a fair assessment of the currency options, this is a good short article from Professor John Kay, a former advisor to Alex Salmond.
-
I find you saying this troubling, Dan.
If I don't post, who is the voice of dissent? Throughout this thread I'm reading a lot of lazy generalisations and patriarchal nonsense from people who profess sincere interest-why should I not respond, and how, by responding, am I 'shouting people down'?
I'm not going to re-engage with the 'debate' here so you can rest easy, but ask yourself what exactly it is you're seeking in that: a nice, cosseted and homogenously dismissive and reductive thread where all the non-Scots can get together and stroke off over their perceived 'rightness' given to them by Tory-provoked BBC press releases from big business interventions is about all I would anticipate given the tone so far.
Enjoy it.
-
Some of them are. And some of them arent- saying that Salmond has addressed all the economic arguments is laughable. He's been dodging certain bullets since day one. However, its the same on both sides to be fair.
More than anything else - I wish that they would just get the fuck on with it. The longer this goes on the more poisoned the debate becomes.
From a purely selfish point of view; in the last two weeks I've become increasingly pissed off that (especially as a labour voter) i have no say in a decision that will change the political landscape of the country I live in for probably the next 20 years and all the while all I hear is Yes campaigners moaning about being disenfranchised by Westminster - so is everybody! I've lived in London all of my life and I feel the same. Staying together might give us an opportunity to do something about it next year. Voting Yes may very well plunge both countries into the shit for the foreseeable future.
-
@uber_gruber I'm not denying you the right to make the case for the Yes vote and I can see the merit in many of your arguments. Guess what? I agree that the BBC has been biased in favour of No during the campaign; that the no campaign has been conducted horrendously; and that the current political status quo does not serve the interests of the majority of Scottish (and other British) people outside a narrow elite.
What I find frustrating is that you have tried to de-legitimise any disagreement by, 1) branding the person disagreeing as ill informed and 2) denying their right to a view on the basis that they don't live in Scotland.
It isn't 'patriarchal' or 'unsubstantiated nonsense' to say that there is uncertainty over what would happen with currency and EU membership. By all means make the case for why your preferred outcomes will come about, but you can't deny the uncertainty.
-
You misunderstand me Gruber, I'm not saying you shouldn't make the case for Yes at all... but I've been reading this thread without posting since it began and your presence in it has been a little overbearing.
I will say however, that a lot of what you've written has been informative and you have definitely expanded my view of the debate for the better.
-
The fact is that the Union has had a long time to improve the lives of people throughout the UK and have only succeeded in skimming off the top and giving it to the ermine robed cronies in Whitehall (@uber_gruber)
^^^ Totally agree. Its the gradual appearance of this in my thoughts that've pushed me towards a solid Yes (well, if I wasn't living abroad, thats certainly what I'd be voting).
The other thing which struck me the other day was how much I wholeheartedly support the Basque and their stance on being Basque,.. not French, not Spanish,.. Basque. The same rules should apply to my home country.
In a utopian world, there would be no county lines whatsoever. Sadly though, people are dicks. And the more power they're handed the worse they seem to behave.
I truly hope Scotland gets Independence. I think Salmond is a clown who almost certainly is not the guy who's going to be able to navigate the country to the 'healthy place' but maybe the person who succeeds him or the one after that is, and for that reason its a thing worth doing.
-
From a purely selfish point of view
You've already answered your own point there.
Many people in Scotland (as in Catalonia & Basque Country, for example) consider themselves as a separate 'nation' from the one that they're currently in. They have to be given a chance to go their own way. You might not like it that you don't have a say in it, deal with it - many (possibly a majority) of them don't like the current set up.
Would you deny colonies of the old Empire the chance to become independent / republics?
Why is Scotland any different? Just because they're attached via the same landmass? -
In a utopian world, there would be no county lines whatsoever. Sadly though, people are dicks. And the more power they're handed the worse they seem to behave.
Yes. In a perfect world, we'd all get on with each other and there'd be no need for peoples / nations to define their own state borders. But reality is reality. England since Thatcher has been sliding more right wing, and the Scottish are different, they want to go a different path. Personally the dumping of the nuclear base anywhere near me by the government in Westminster would be enough to push me into the arms of any separatists.
-
In a utopian world, there would be no county lines whatsoever
But without county lines, how would decent Sussex* folk keep themselves separate from the inbred yokels in Kent*?
*Reverse entries if you're a Kentish man. Or adjust to suit your prejudice if you're a man of Kent who thinks Kentish men are inbred yokels, or vice versa
-
Londoners would be quite happy of we could cut ourselves off @dan
Ha ha! Couldn't agree more. I live in Sweden where the [Nazi] Party just won 13% of the vote. Not a single person here in Stockholm, however, gave em so much as a nod. Me n the missis have often noted that Capital Cities should really be treated as separate countries. One government categorically does not fit all. It's an outdated model
-
Have been trying to divorce myself from taking any view on the debate as I don't live in Scotland anymore and there are so many imponderables that I don't find it possible to state with any confidence that one outcome would be better than the other. But the No campaign has been by turns so sickeningly patronising, threatening and mendacious that it's difficult not to hope that that the Scots vote Yes just to make queenie and Dave cry, and wish them the best in creating a flourishing petrodemocracy while the roof caves in over those of us down below.
-
Ha. You're too much. De-legitimise your disagreement? You do that yourself by this, your words presented without substantiation or fact:
In addition it will have a weak democracy, as there will be no effective opposition to the SNP. How long will it take for a credible party of opposition to emerge? Without an established constitutional model and with no opposition to hold them to account, do you trust the SNP leadership to tackle the profound challenges of negotiating independence and accession to the EU, founding new state institutions, and guiding the economy in a period of intense uncertainty? A sad but very possible outcome is for Scotland to find itself in need of the Bretton Woods institutions and being force fed neo-liberal policies in return for the loans. Rupert Murdoch is cheer leading independence because he's a cold businessman seeking advantage for News Corp; revenge on the 'establishment' is merely the cherry on the cake.
This is the definition of patriarchal, ill-informed nonsense and speculation, so please spare me the magnanimity. You deliberately quoted two phrases from the WBB to try and debunk it, yet you proceed to cite a report for the House of Lords as 'evidence'. Have you heard of the McCrone report? You'd make a poor historian either way.
There's two arguments, yes-but there's also you citing everything and anything to support your own whilst pronouncing outcomes that I myself, and even the SNP PR machine, have refrained from doing because it's a process, and it's not about the SNP, or Salmond, it's about the people who are voting. Everyone recognises currency uncertainty. Everyone recognises that entry into the EU will be negotiated. You cite an outgoing Spaniard comparing Scotland to Kosovo, I can cite an EU commissioner comparing it to East Germany. You can cite Deutsche Bank, I can cite Commerz bank. Context is everything. One of those banks has a view that supports yours, so you choose it. Fair enough, but I don't think you're putting much effort into considering the alternative viewpoint beyond what it takes to refute it.
At no point have I suggested people not in Scotland have no right to a view. What i have said is that if you're not on the ground here you're not seeing the full picture, as my photos from Saturday reflect, and your accusations of naivity belittle the fact that I do live here and have taken this process very seriously, and the implications directly effect me.
The difference is I've a hint of awareness of my own bias in trying to provide an alternative narrative, where you're seemingly just trying to win an argument that certainly won't be settled here.
-
I see your point, but I'm sure that plenty of Londoners would be quite happy of we could cut ourselves off from the rest of this country and float off somewhere a bit warmer - but that's just not the way it works is it?
No, but I refer to the point I made earlier about 'nations' (not necessarily a state). Or 'peoples', for want of a better term, who come to define themselves in terms of a different language, ethos, history, shared identity and so on. This commonality can sometimes lead people wanting to define their own piece of physical territory (i.e. a state) that is separate and distinct from the larger part of where they are now.
In theory, in time, London could define itself as an independent city state.
But its identity, language, ethos, history and so on, are tied up with England, and unlikely to happen.
Scotland is different, whether you like it or not... -
Ireland in 1918 was a part of the UK. In the 1918 elections, SF won a huge majority and wanted to set up their own parliament. The British Government said no and started a war over it.
If a particular group of people want to go their own way by forming their own state, they should be allowed to do it peacefully, and make their own decisions - and mistakes - along the way.
-
Yes and I'm certain that certain parts of Wales, NI and Cornwall feel the same - the fact of the matter is that nationalism is a curse and has nothing to do with economics. There are good reasons that Welsh people are happy to maintain their cultural identity whilst remaining part of the UK. Devo max is really the solution to all of this, but unfortunately not an option.
I would also say it's naive to argue that somewhere as multicutural as London could ever be 'tied up with England' - but that's aside from the main debate.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152352075769327
Actually better articulated and more factual than any serious UK news coverage.
-
I am aware of the McCrone report and its suppression 40 years ago by successive British governments for political reasons. I don't believe that invalidates the summary of interviews by the House of Lords Economic Affairs committee I linked to. The committee publicly interviewed individuals from all sides of the debate; if you take issue with their presentation of the information you have access to the full transcripts. Is your position that all documents created by any British government, parliament, or state institution are inherently invalid? If so, neither sides has any basis for argument.
We agree there is uncertainty over currency and EU membership. Good.
I never mentioned Deutsche Bank. We agree there is divergence of opinion in the business community.
I agree I'm not on the ground. I spend at most 3 weeks a year in Scotland. From what I understand there is a tense, partisan atmosphere. I know of a Scottish farmer who was verbally assaulted by Yes campaigners in the village where my parents live for displaying a 'No Thanks' sign. I'm sure there are counter examples. How does being on the ground change uncertainty over currency and EU membership?
Sorry if in disputing your version of what will happen in the event of independence I implied you are naive. The reality is that neither of us can predict the future. Whatever the outcome, I profoundly hope my pessimism proves wrong and both states prove successful in the near and long term future.
You accuse me of being unaware of my own bias. I've said from my first post in this thread that I can see the merits and attraction of voting Yes. If any dissension from the Yes narrative is bias, then I'm guilty.
I thought it was going to be decided by the debate in this thread. Your telling me its not? I guess I should stop wasting my time then.
deleted
dan
Clockwise
robertAJB
dubkev
gbj_tester
kl
bothwell-
Post a reply
About
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Posted by
@EB
It strikes me as unfortunate that despite there being perfectly good arguments to be made for both sides that those who have already made up their minds seem incapable of allowing debate without branding people one thing or another.
It's not helped by the fact that the arguments for yes and no are led by two of the most odious politicians in my lifetime (Salmond and Cameron- not Darling).
The 'no' campaign rolling out David Beckham et al is just fucking laughable though - as if Scottish people give a flying toss what they think.