Silly argument. If you buy your wife a sweater or she buys it herself with joint money that doesn't mean you get it back after a divorce.
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Silly argument. If you buy your wife a sweater or she buys it herself with joint money that doesn't mean you get it back after a divorce.
You really think Spain want to open the door for the Basque region? Why would Spain have a position now? It wouldn't cost them anything to say no, and open up a huge issue for them to say yes. It is just pathetic to assume Scotland would gain entry, the yes campaign should assume that they won't have EU membership as a starting point.
So me and every other honest fecker living in the "UK" after independence has to pick up Scotland's tab in the form of tax then?
With that display of great intellect, I'm out.
Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the notion "pathetic". The reality is all current Scots are EU citizens, they can make a very valued argument in European court that they don't have to reapply because leaving the U.K. is not the same as leaving the E.U.. I could easily see the courst ruling in their favor.
As for Spain, and the rest of the weaker E.U. countries, they will do whatever the Germans want, if not they will feel the financial wrath of Merkel. So even if the Scots are forced to reapply, and I really doubt it would come to that, it's more about what the Germans want than anything else.
OK, I rephrase pathetic as extremely optimistic and delusional.
And I imagine most business will prefer to remain primarily based in the EU - which is another thing Salmond cannot come close to guaranteeing for an independant Scotland (not that he doesnt try).
I dont have much more to say on this topic and this thread has really gone down hill following some sensible discussion over the last few days. It seems that @Pink Moon and co. are content to ignore any sort of reasonable argument put forward, pretty symbolic of the YES campaign really.
Regarding EU membership, its not just Spain thats going to potentially block membership but the newer, eastern european countries who have had to go through long and painful assimilation processes. Salmond assumes (this word comes up a lot) that the same opt-outs the UK has had (such as the Euro) will be extended to a new, independant Scotland, and that they will be fast tracked into the EU (whilst potentially having dispute with the UK over national debt). Salmond assumes that Scotland will be able to quickly join NATO whilst simultaneously disarming and trying to do away with the UKs nuclear deterrant.
Salmond assumes that Scotland will keep the pound sterling and have a formal currency Union, despite all UK leaders saying otherwise. When presented with this he claims that "If you dont let us keep the sterling, we arent taking on any national debt" well guess what sonny Jim, if you refuse to take on your share of the national debt there is nothing to stop Cameron or any other UK Prime Minister from simply refusing to grant you independance.
I could go on, but it has all been said before numerous times and this post will likely be ignored much like the previous ones. The YES campaign is based on exaggerations, uncertainties and false assumptions. If it were my country and I was voting on it, then I would be embarrassed by the lack of clear information or planning from the SNP. Instead, you are bent on blaming westminster, corporations or the NO campaign, and passing off any sort of reasonable criticism as scaremongering. Its gotten quite tedious.
This thread is moving too quickly to keep quoting, so a few select rebuttals...
----
This strikes me as a pretty dodgy argument. Surely if there any uncertainties around EU ascension, it makes sense to stay out until they are resolved? The EU doesn't have a particular pressing need for an independent Scotland, and certainly not within the timescales proposed (look at how long it has taken various states in recent years to join the EU).
The EU has a combined GDP of around $16t. An independent Scotland would barely move Europe in terms of stability. "Lots of resources" is also a bad argument because that surely would make Turkey's EU status a no-brainer.
If anything, due to the uncertainties around its economy, a shortcut ascension would make less sense.
Automatically granting seceded states EU membership would set a very bad precedent. Consider a case where a country splits off its debts into a legal entity on a small part of its land, and making it secede. Should this country, a financial basket-case, be allowed to join the EU automatically? Germany certainly wouldn't agree.
The purpose of joining the EU is that a country is able to be run well and contribute meaningfully to the EU, reaping its benefits. But the former posits the latter - an independent Scotland must prove itself first, particularly proving they are closer to Germany than Greece.
Now, I'm sure an independent Scotland will still be able to use its former UK status to its advantage - namely, economic figures published in the past for Scotland may hold weight - but that will not be the bulk of its application.
The only major issues are Scotland's, not any other EU state.
The very fact that Salmond is threatening to do this suggests at least a moral, if perhaps not legal, obligation to take the debt. Not taking on the debt will only be reasonable if an independent Scotland makes similar sacrifices to make up for the fact it hasn't taken on any debt - for example, by not taking any assets and assuring the assets cover the debt. Kind of like paying back a loan by selling your car first. But trust me, while a debt-free Scotland sounds exciting, an asset-free Scotland does not.
I don't agree. See my argument above about splitting bad bits of nations away. It sets a really bad precedent that the EU would be uncomfortable with.
It's likely that Scots will retain UK passports and therefore remain EU citizens. They would just be like EU citizens living in China - they do have EU rights, but it would be fair to state that it would be most beneficial to live in an EU country to get the most out of their rights. As a result, whether or not they are EU citizens doesn't really sway whether the country they live in should be in the EU or not.
This was only in terms of finances, where this is what happens when Germany is your largest debt-holder.
But for EU ascension, any single EU state can veto. Any single one, including the UK. I think Germany won't care too much as long as its finances look OK (and a currency union wouldn't fit into this category). The main veto concern will be the UK, followed by Spain.
----
This strikes me as a pretty dodgy argument. Surely if there any uncertainties around EU ascension, it makes sense to stay out until they are resolved? The EU doesn't have a particular pressing need for an independent Scotland, and certainly not within the timescales proposed (look at how long it has taken various states in recent years to join the EU).
The EU has a combined GDP of around $16t. An independent Scotland would barely move Europe in terms of stability. "Lots of resources" is also a bad argument because that surely would make Turkey's EU status a no-brainer.
If anything, due to the uncertainties around its economy, a shortcut ascension would make less sense.
Automatically granting seceded states EU membership would set a very bad precedent. Consider a case where a country splits off its debts into a legal entity on a small part of its land, and making it secede. Should this country, a financial basket-case, be allowed to join the EU automatically? Germany certainly wouldn't agree.
The purpose of joining the EU is that a country is able to be run well and contribute meaningfully to the EU, reaping its benefits. But the former posits the latter - an independent Scotland must prove itself first, particularly proving they are closer to Germany than Greece.
Now, I'm sure an independent Scotland will still be able to use its former UK status to its advantage - namely, economic figures published in the past for Scotland may hold weight - but that will not be the bulk of its application.
The only major issues are Scotland's, not any other EU state.
The very fact that Salmond is threatening to do this suggests at least a moral, if perhaps not legal, obligation to take the debt. Not taking on the debt will only be reasonable if an independent Scotland makes similar sacrifices to make up for the fact it hasn't taken on any debt - for example, by not taking any assets and assuring the assets cover the debt. Kind of like paying back a loan by selling your car first. But trust me, while a debt-free Scotland sounds exciting, an asset-free Scotland does not.
I don't agree. See my argument above about splitting bad bits of nations away. It sets a really bad precedent that the EU would be uncomfortable with.
It's likely that Scots will retain UK passports and therefore remain EU citizens. They would just be like EU citizens living in China - they do have EU rights, but it would be fair to state that it would be most beneficial to live in an EU country to get the most out of their rights. As a result, whether or not they are EU citizens doesn't really sway whether the country they live in should be in the EU or not.
This was only in terms of finances, where this is what happens when Germany is your largest debt-holder.
But for EU ascension, any single EU state can veto. Any single one, including the UK. I think Germany won't care too much as long as its finances look OK (and a currency union wouldn't fit into this category). The main veto concern will be the UK, followed by Spain.
The next president of the US affects us all too...
Yeah, I'm sure the EU is desperate to backstop that liability in the face of any future financial meltdown.
I'm astonished by the naivety and how oblivious some of the yes voters are to how the markets, lenders and international politics work. They really think that it's as simple as them walking away from their portion of the accrued debt and there being no repercussions? Have they absolutely no idea of how economics works?
They have to be living in a fantasy world. I understand their arguments from a political aspect, but their economic ignorance is staggering. Tying themselves to a foreign currency and having no control (hasn't the Euro, Greece et al taught you anything?), laughing off commercial giants and corporations threatening to relocate south of the border, ignoring domestic and international economists warnings, saying they'll take no part of their debt and expecting lenders to give them fair rates (or lend at all?). It's just fantasy.
I feel for them. This is the best chance they've had in decades with the despised Tories heading the despised Westminster, the political climate is ripe for it. But they haven't got their numbers or plan set out for the most important issue of all: the economy. Utter inadequacy from the yes campaign.
They have to be living in a fantasy world. I understand their arguments from a political aspect, but their economic ignorance is staggering. Tying themselves to a foreign currency and having no control (hasn't the Euro, Greece et al taught you anything?), laughing off commercial giants and corporations threatening to relocate south of the border, ignoring domestic and international economists warnings, saying they'll take no part of their debt and expecting lenders to give them fair rates (or lend at all?). It's just fantasy.
I feel for them. This is the best chance they've had in decades with the despised Tories heading the despised Westminster, the political climate is ripe for it. But they haven't got their numbers or plan set out for the most important issue of all: the economy. Utter inadequacy from the yes campaign.
You think all Canadians should have been asked about Quebec, all Spaniards should vote to decide the Catalan's fate? Should Russians get a vote whether Crimea is theirs or not?
What happens in your insane scenario, if the UK votes yes and Scotland votes no and is forced out?
Last edited:
Kevin McKenna in the Guardian hits the nail for the yes voting lefties.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ting-yes-for-scottish-independence?CMP=twt_gu
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ting-yes-for-scottish-independence?CMP=twt_gu
Only it's not.
Are you Alex Salmond, come on tell the truth
Good post.
Serious question: How bad will it be long term for the UK if Scotland leaves? Obviously the short term uncertainty = recession, the split will incur huge costs and personally it will be a pain to lose the Labour MPs. But longer term? In 50 years would an oil-dry Scotland be a legacy cost the UK is better off without?
UK holds all the cards. We would have no incentive for a currency union and you cannot, despite Salmond's threats, renege on the debt. Scotland runs a higher deficit per capita than the UK. If you refuse to take on your share of the debt your costs of borrowing will rise and public spending will have to fall dramatically. You'll end up with the right wing policies that the Yes campaign so gleefully clams you'll be avoiding. Basically, your fecked.
UK holds all the cards. We would have no incentive for a currency union and you cannot, despite Salmond's threats, renege on the debt. Scotland runs a higher deficit per capita than the UK. If you refuse to take on your share of the debt your costs of borrowing will rise and public spending will have to fall dramatically. You'll end up with the right wing policies that the Yes campaign so gleefully clams you'll be avoiding. Basically, your fecked.
@Untied I think that long term, a lot of the reasoning for wanting Scotland to remain in the Union (from the rUK point of view) is political and emotional, rather than economic.
With all these corporations apparently moving south it would potentially create a lot of jobs and a boost for the UK economy. Furthermore if we have the most likely scenario of commercial deals with Scotland for things like the BBC and other integral public sector service providers (intelligence, maybe even elements of the NHS), this revenue could bring down some costs for UK citizens in the form of tax or TV a licenses.
Regardless of any economic benefit though my preference would be the Union remaining, as the UK in its current form is an important player in global politics. Weakening the UK weakens our position internationally, which in this day and age I think is very important.
With all these corporations apparently moving south it would potentially create a lot of jobs and a boost for the UK economy. Furthermore if we have the most likely scenario of commercial deals with Scotland for things like the BBC and other integral public sector service providers (intelligence, maybe even elements of the NHS), this revenue could bring down some costs for UK citizens in the form of tax or TV a licenses.
Regardless of any economic benefit though my preference would be the Union remaining, as the UK in its current form is an important player in global politics. Weakening the UK weakens our position internationally, which in this day and age I think is very important.
The BBC overlooked the biggest rally yet yesterday, with Buchanan Street, the busiest shopping street in Glasgow, stuffed full of thousands of yes voters. Walking through town I was sure there had to be coverage of this one, I've never in my life seen the place like it. Instead they focused on the orange order march in Edinburgh and referred to Yes voters leafleting, using seriously misleading images to give the impression there was as much grass roots support on either side.
If AS continues to take the line he is selling independence on, into the talks with the rUK then the one thing that is certain is there will be no friendly separation. The Scots will have earned our err and we will have to find a way to make them regret it. Unnecessary but inevitable the way the debate is going.
Yeh it's all getting very tribalistic and unpleasant. Inevitable, I suppose, when nationalism comes into play.
I don't think negotiations would be friendly, but I wouldn't want to see the UK deliberately trying to make things difficult. I hope and expect the negotiations would be fair and just, with rUKs interests being first and foremost (for UK negotiators) - meaning absolutely no concessions or mate rates - if they want the BBC (for example) they can pay for it at a commercially fair rate.
People getting their knickers in twist over 16 year olds voting a few pages back
I try to limit my posting on the matter of Independence but there is more to independence than currency. The key for me is actually getting a government that my country wants.
People getting their knickers in twist over 16 year olds voting a few pages back
I think there's fair criticism for letting 16 year olds vote but then I would say the same about people over 80 voting as well.
The BBC overlooked the biggest rally yet yesterday, with Buchanan Street, the busiest shopping street in Glasgow, stuffed full of thousands of yes voters. Walking through town I was sure there had to be coverage of this one, I've never in my life seen the place like it. Instead they focused on the orange order march in Edinburgh and referred to Yes voters leafleting, using seriously misleading images to give the impression there was as much grass roots support on either side.
BBC is hands down the best at propaganda.
But saying its a slippery slope to having dogs and 9 year olds voting is insulting and stupid.
16 year olds can have sex, get married, leave school (ish). 9 year olds cannot, and thats not a slippery slope either.
Whether the voting age is 16, 17 or 18.. Its hardly a big deal
Yeah I don't really agree with the criticism about 16 years voting either. Although the criticism that it's only been introduced to help the Yes vote(Although I saw a poll showing the No vote to be more popular with 16-24 year olds) is well justified.
But that's really only a small part of the criticism of letting 16 years old's voting the main criticism being that 16 years are a bit thick and can't really be trusted. Which is a pretty shite argument.
I'm not really that bothered about whether they watch the BBC , I am bothered about the attempt to force us into accepting a shared currency against our wishes by threatening to refuse to take their share of the national debt. I don't care how many people north of the border vote for independence we shouldn't grant it on these terms. They are not fair on the rUK and that is 90% of the people who live here and as yet have not spoken about what they want.
So if England decided to leave the Union and started a new currency you wouldn't mind taking on the national debt between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
I agree and I highly doubt that this eventuality would occur, for the simple reason that whilst the UK parties have agreed verbally to honour the results of the referendum (the Edinburgh agreement), there is no legal or contractual obligation to actually grant Scotland independance in the event of a YES vote. This means that if Salmonds demands are seen as unreasonable, the negotiations could become rather protracted until all parties have reached an agreement. Imagine the backlash any UK government would get if they allowed Scotland to walk away without taking on any national debt - it would be political suicide for whoever brokered the deal.
Independance should and will only be granted on fair terms. Something like a currency union needs to be mutually beneficial and agreed upon by both parties - if it is not beneficial for the UK to enter into one, then quite simply we shouldnt.
It is interesting to think "what if the boot was on the other foot" now and then.
It really makes no odds to us if they continue to use sterling. It's the Bank of England that will continue to control interest rates and printing presses for money- the problem is more a Scottish one, as the north typically tends to need lower interest rates than the south does, in part due to property price inflation. Plus Scotland keeping the pound does limit disruption to business etc...
That depends on whether Scotland runs a balanced budget or not. When AS talks about keeping the pound he is saying that Scotland can print money if it wants to.
Behold the bias of the BBC! Biasedly reporting protests against its own coverage and biasedly pointing out that the police estimates are believed to be lower than the real number by observers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196912
Discalimer - Nick Robinson is obviously biased about everything. The Yes campaign hasn't half overstated the BBC's supposed warping of the debate though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196912
Discalimer - Nick Robinson is obviously biased about everything. The Yes campaign hasn't half overstated the BBC's supposed warping of the debate though.
I've not heard about actually printing money- he doesn't have a central bank to be able to do that, albeit the UK is unusual in that we English notes along with the different ones printed by Scottish banks and Northern Irish ones. We'd have to get De La Rue to take their moulds back. There's no way you can have a country that uses another's currency actually printing at willy-nilly. It would cause massive inflationary problems and must be illegal under international law.
The BBC has been censured for biased reporting several times.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200359
Telling people how to think now, who the hell does she think she is?
She obviously wants a no vote but she is right. Hopefully everyone voting either way has thought very carefully about it.