Not a chance.
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.
Will there...? The economic consequences for the rest of Britain won't be pretty. I think a lot of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be furious if we have to go through even more austerity because Scotland chose to leave the Union, only for the Scots to turn around five years later and say 'actually we changed our minds'. If Scotland leaves the UK, I can see the bitterness setting in fast when it becomes clear what it will mean for taxes, interest rates and jobs.
But England,Wales and NI won't have a referendum on whether to readmit Scotland. The government of the day will decide and as it will be in their advantage, they'll let them back in I think.
I'd thought that before but not so convinced that would have to be the case. Salmond says he wouldn't go back to pushing for independence if there's a no vote, while in Quebec, the no vote in 1995 won with just 50.58%, and there hasn't been a great push for another vote since then.
I don't think there'd be another independence vote (approved by the British government) in the next 30 years if we get a No this week.
The government has already said that there is no going back, a yes vote is forever.
Just because a government says something doesn't mean you believe them do you?
I definitely think it would be a long time before the next one but I see it happening at some point. I'm no expert on the Quebec situation, but I gather the difference between the two is that the generation divide was the other way round there, with older people wanting independence and the younger generations not having much interest in it.
I can't see everyone having to go through all this again...the cost alone would prevent it IMO.
Of course not, but it's not as simple as 'ah you silly Scots, we told you it wouldn't work, welcome back' If they vote yes then there is no turning back, otherwise there would be a hell of a lot more people voting yes. If it doesn't work out for Scotland it will mean they will be bringing a lot of baggage back into the Union, not a chance that will be allowed.
@Dans If everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is bitter after seeing their taxes, interest rates and bills go up because of Scotland leaving the UK, no politician will be interested in re-admitting the Scots. Why would they do something that would simply enrage the voters? There are few things that make people change the way they vote, one of these is the economy. If people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland end up poorer because Scotland chooses to leave the UK, they're not going to vote for any politicians who say we should just forgive and forget.
Likewise if it means that we see more jobs, pay less taxes, lower interest rates why would we welcome Scotland back at the risk of those going in the other direction.
It's not going to happen.
But a significant majority will not have voted for independence. It won't be a hard sell, especially if having left the Union people became poorer all around but by readmitting them we are all likely to become a little richer.
I wish I could see this happening. I genuinely think we are better off as the UK. If Scotland breaks up the UK, Friday morning is going to be scary. People forget the UK's national debt is over £1 trillion. Our creditors want to know who is going to pay that back too. If it starts looking a bit iffy on that front, immediately the risk premium on our debt will go up. That will feed through into interest rates on mortgages and loans, this is especially worrying for business loans. A lot of jobs are dependent on relatively cheap credit, even now after the credit crunch. If businesses find they cannot deal with the new rates they will not expand, in fact they might start firing people again.
But why would we become richer? The costs we are facing are to do with risk. Does the risk go down from Scotland re-joining the Union? In this discussion people always say but the North Sea brings in a lot of money. Of course, it does, but that number has been falling and the Treasury uses tax breaks to get people to drill anyway. Who knows what state the Treasury will be in a few years down the line after more cuts, lower tax receipts from a slowing economy and more unemployment? Will it be able to afford the tax breaks anymore? Its not as simple as saying we do it now, we can do it in the future as the situation will have changed.
Last edited:
Think someone's overestimating Scotlands place in the world, Scotland leaving the UK wouldn't even have a dramatic effect on the rUK other than a short storm, Europe wouldn't even feel it.
Part of me actually think we should be letting them cut themselves off from us while they are offering, there's lots of people in England pissed off already with all the benefits Scots get over everyone else such as free Uni/free prescriptions/free care for the elderly and Westminster are offering them more
Had to laugh reading something the other day and it was on about the positives of Scotland staying in the UK and it was just things like the Union Jack and how iconic it is and 'Rangers and Celtic in the Premier League, that would never happen if Scotland left the UK' and other things like 'history' but other than that there was no benefit.
I want them to stay just because of 'history' is that a big enough reason though? I wouldn't be too disappointed if they go their own way though, as said part of me will think 'fantastic'.
Last edited:
Okay. Why was that national pride not reflected in earlier polls? Why was it not until he dismantled Darling in the second debate that Yes came right back into it.
It's win win. Either they make the sensible decision and stay (which I'm sure they will) or they leave and we get Tory majorities for the rest of time.
Betfair already paying out on a win for No :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-early-on-Scottish-independence-No-vote.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-early-on-Scottish-independence-No-vote.html
Maybe in the short term it will have a negative effect, however in the long term I can see it being beneficial to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, considering the size of Scotland our overall population will only drop by 8% but lose a massive 32% land mass, Disposable income per head will increase from its current value of £16,800, In fact, England subsidises Scotland by more than £1,000 per head, per year and Scotland has an unemployment rate of just under 8%. Jobs will increase thanks to redeployment of UK offices currently based in Scotland, Banks as well as the military bases in Scotland will have to be based South of the border. Scotland will also be taking a fair bit of their debt, rumoured to be in the region of £100 billion, the Oil will not be completely left to Scotland no matter what Salmond says.
Obviously it won’t all be Champagne and Caviar for the rest of us but Scotland are the ones taking all the risks. Yes the Union is stronger as a whole and we will most likely be weaker for it, however we will be in a position to recover whatever the outcome of a yes vote.
Part of me actually think we should be letting them cut themselves off from us while they are offering, there's lots of people in England pissed off already with all the benefits Scots get over everyone else such as free Uni/free prescriptions/free care for the elderly and Westminster are offering them more
I may be wrong but don't Wales and NI have free prescriptions, too?
The Scottish government funds the tuition fees in Scotland.
People in England pissed off with those things should be pointing the finger at London instead of saying "the jocks can just feck off".
Yeah, I don't think there's much point getting upset at what the Scottish government chooses to spend its budget on. If you want free higher education you can always elect a Lib Dem majority...
Alex Salmond is very good at his job, his biggest strength is being able to dodge questions and say the right things in order to gain votes. He has been asked time and time again about the usual issues and blames the big bad bullies at Westminster picking on us patriotic Scots and our right to independence.
Or maybe it’s simply the spirit of the time, telling people you’ll set them free with promises that he can’t keep and in truth he probably has no intentions to even try.
Ive said it 100 times now, Salmond has no answers to many of the basic economic questions that voters should have a right to know. His approach is ‘it’ll be alright on the night, trust me’ or if I put my fingers in my ears and shout scaremongering loud enough people will leave me alone seems to be working.
If someone was playing with my future and that of my children, I’d be fecking fuming that he is dismissing serious concerns by the Scottish people as scaremongering and bullying from Westminster instead of answering the questions truthfully. This isn't a protest vote, its a vote that will change the lives of those living in Scotland forever. People have the right to the TRUTH, yet many are willing to risk everthing without knowing, I find it astonishing.
Of course it’s fantastic to think that you’re taking control of your own destiny, becoming your own independent country. But are you really? How can you be when you haven’t been told all the facts by the person who is supposedly telling the voters that everything will be OK when he has no idea if it will be?
It's apt you talk about our children's future in such a way. It implies that Independence will be bad for the kids and staying together will be a step forward when right now the amount of families relying on food banks and children in poverty is ridiculous. We're currently living the No vote and many don't like it.
The only real accusation I've seen people throwing Salmond's way is that he dodges questions on the currency plan B yet when debating with Darling it was Darling who told us we can't be stopped from using the pound therefore any need for a plan B is irrelevant when we can't be stopped from going ahead with plan A.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/joseph-stiglitz-independence-has-costs-and-benefits-1-3541038
There's that word "fear-mongering" again.
That is the kind of reply that Salmond has excelled in giving throughout this whole campaign.
The issue is not being able to use the pound or not as I'm sure you are well aware. The issue is that the UK has stated (all main parties) that Scotland can not be a part of a currency union.
That's where the problem lies and Salmond has not addressed this.
Having said that, if you truly believe that just by choosing to use the pound outside a currency union (and you aren't just trolling) then Salmond is doing his job marvelously. He's telling you half truths and giving you vague visions of a sunny future and you are accepting what he is saying as the gospel.
As long as it's not from evil Westminster or the dastardly BBC eh?
If Scotland use the pound without a currency union it will be disastrous. It will reflect poorly on them on the global stage, it will block EU entrance, and they will have no lender of last resort - Scotland will have to set up a central bank, and somehow build up the huge amounts of capital needed in case of another big company needing a bailout.
The fiscal/monetary policy isn't the half of it.
The fiscal/monetary policy isn't the half of it.
I never said independence will be bad, should a yes vote win on Thursday I hope that it ends up being the correct decision.
That’s my point, by not being given all the answers how is someone supposed to make an informed decision, how is a parent supposed to know what they are doing is going to benefit their children in the long run?
About the £, Of course Scotland can use it, any country can, whats so hard to understand about that. However by doing so they would have no say over borrowing costs or any input that might be not be instep with your current cycle, a dangerous game to play. Further, Labour, The Tories and Lib Dems have all ruled out a currency Union should they get power in the next election.
No the truth is, you will need to join the euro, which I don’t believe you can at the moment or you need your own currency
Last edited:
I'm shocked with the lack of research people have put into this. Kevin Bridges has already proposed a new currency for Scotland - the Smackarooney. whittoxt
So voting for Salmond will end food banks? Riiiight!
You keep missing the point. You CAN keep the £! BUT it comes at a cost...IF the UK agree to you keeping the £ Scotland would lose the ability to set its own interest rate, which would continue to be set by the Bank of England. IF you simply keep the £ but with no agreement of the UK government Scotland continues to use the pound but has no access to or influence over the Bank of England, so it couldn’t control its interest rates. IF you adopt the € it would be costly to changing currency, and could lead to inappropriate interest rates for Scotland, set by European Central Bank.
So the only other option is to have your own currency which would give you the control you crave - sadly Salmond has suggested this is not an option due the costs involved.
The fact you didn't know all this is worrying.
Last edited:
Think someone's overestimating Scotlands place in the world, Scotland leaving the UK wouldn't even have a dramatic effect on the rUK other than a short storm, Europe wouldn't even feel it.
Part of me actually think we should be letting them cut themselves off from us while they are offering, there's lots of people in England pissed off already with all the benefits Scots get over everyone else such as free Uni/free prescriptions/free care for the elderly and Westminster are offering them more
Had to laugh reading something the other day and it was on about the positives of Scotland staying in the UK and it was just things like the Union Jack and how iconic it is and 'Rangers and Celtic in the Premier League, that would never happen if Scotland left the UK' and other things like 'history' but other than that there was no benefit.
I want them to stay just because of 'history' is that a big enough reason though? I wouldn't be too disappointed if they go their own way though, as said part of me will think 'fantastic'.
It's interesting isn't it, I've been trying to see what benefits there are to the rest of us of keep Scotland in the Union vs letting them cut loose, and I'm struggling a bit.
What's interesting is that the 3 main parties have united, but for differing reasons, behind keeping the Union intact which would lead you to suggest that there are sound economic reasons for it, but I'm not sure what they are. Not least, the Tories would remain in power almost unchallenged without Scotland, yet Cameron has made various impassioned pleas not to vote Yes. Maybe it's reverse psychology, or perhaps there is a genuine fear for a complete breakup of the UK. Even that would appear to favour England.
Is it really only all about oil/gas, which is a finite resource in the North Sea anyway?
I've said it before but alongside all the technical issues which have been argued and ignored in equal measure (currency, EU, defence etc), a major sticking point for me is that all yes voters that I speak to, engage with online seem to talk like they are the voice of Scotland. That what ever utopian vision they see for their newly independent country is what will happen.
Why should it?
Because the Scots are different? Because they have hope for something new and they'll pull together to show the world the way forward (that may sound over the top but I have been told pretty much that exact thing)?
I call bullshit on all that. In the Scotsman article that Pink Moon has cut and pasted above there is a quote that goes:
"The fundamental issue facing Scotland is different. It is clear that there is, within Scotland, more of a shared vision and values – a vision of the country, the society, politics, the role of the state"
Absolute drivel.
At the moment they are trying to answer one black and white question (albeit a very complex one when explored) - should we be independent? Guess what? There's a 50/50 split. That is literally the very opposite of a shared vision. Imagine what is going to happen when the real stuff starts happening and they have to put together a new country, and independent Scotland for the modern world. When the political questions can't just be answered yes and no and there is a new ramification for every answer, the masses will not be as engaged as they are now.
There'll be new political parties, there'll be the same old political parties, there'll be lobbying of different points of view on a myriad of issues. There's no shared vision across a whole society anywhere and at some point (maybe not in the first election) there'll be the return of a dedicated right wing party; because there is a massive difference between not wanting The Bullingdon Club running your country and having your own kilt wearing monied wankers grabbing for the reigns with their expensive smiles and promises of tax cuts.
The long and short of it is there has not been an adequate road map presented by those that will oversee the transition from the Yes campaign so how can anyone have bought into a shared vision of any accuracy? I'd say you just need to remember where hope and vague promises got us when we voted in Tony Blair. Ask the man on the street in the US if they feel the 'hope' they had in 2008 was justified?
So much risk, so much upheaval, so much division at home and abroad; and for what? Nobody can truly tell you.
Why should it?
Because the Scots are different? Because they have hope for something new and they'll pull together to show the world the way forward (that may sound over the top but I have been told pretty much that exact thing)?
I call bullshit on all that. In the Scotsman article that Pink Moon has cut and pasted above there is a quote that goes:
"The fundamental issue facing Scotland is different. It is clear that there is, within Scotland, more of a shared vision and values – a vision of the country, the society, politics, the role of the state"
Absolute drivel.
At the moment they are trying to answer one black and white question (albeit a very complex one when explored) - should we be independent? Guess what? There's a 50/50 split. That is literally the very opposite of a shared vision. Imagine what is going to happen when the real stuff starts happening and they have to put together a new country, and independent Scotland for the modern world. When the political questions can't just be answered yes and no and there is a new ramification for every answer, the masses will not be as engaged as they are now.
There'll be new political parties, there'll be the same old political parties, there'll be lobbying of different points of view on a myriad of issues. There's no shared vision across a whole society anywhere and at some point (maybe not in the first election) there'll be the return of a dedicated right wing party; because there is a massive difference between not wanting The Bullingdon Club running your country and having your own kilt wearing monied wankers grabbing for the reigns with their expensive smiles and promises of tax cuts.
The long and short of it is there has not been an adequate road map presented by those that will oversee the transition from the Yes campaign so how can anyone have bought into a shared vision of any accuracy? I'd say you just need to remember where hope and vague promises got us when we voted in Tony Blair. Ask the man on the street in the US if they feel the 'hope' they had in 2008 was justified?
So much risk, so much upheaval, so much division at home and abroad; and for what? Nobody can truly tell you.
The very point I've been making all along. Salmond has had his whole political life to prepare himself for this moment, yet with the moment literally only hours away he has nothing to offer but rhetoric and accusations of scaremongering and bullying. God forbid he ever achieves any position of real power.
Do you believe him to be 100% wrong when making accusations of "scaremongering"? Yes or no, if possible.
Exactly the reason the Yes vote is scary. Asking for a Yes/No answer to a question that does not demand it.
Does it have to be Yes/No or will you accept an alternative % of wrongness?
Is he wrong when he makes accusations of scaremongering? Yes or no?
Now who's dodging questions, by the way?
Is he wrong when he makes accusations of scaremongering? Yes or no?
Now who's dodging questions, by the way?
Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't by the way, so there's a simplistic answer that counts for nothing) in his claims of bullying and scaremongering the scariest thing is still his own lack of answers to serious questions. If he is right and if the vote is Yes, nobody will be scaremongering then and you'll be left with nobody to question him.
What is he actually going to do?
What promises has he actually made?
And 'trust me it'll all be fine' is just not good enough at this stage.
I saw that he was slagging off the UK party leaders for making a pledge on further devolution powers as 'too little, too late'. But surely that is better than nothing, at any time during the campaign?
Mayhem at some of the campaign events - 'Yes' protesters are chanting "fecking liar" and "serial murderer", and crushing Ed Miliband and his team so that he can't meet shop owners. You've got to wonder if the whole thing was pre-planned, knowing that protesters were going to block the whole thing and look like yobs on TV...
I don't have a vote, so whether I believe him to be 100% right or wrong will matter not one jot. More to the point, as (presumably) a voter, do you believe him every time he utters the word "scaremongering" or "bullying"?
My point is that the Yes campaign seems to have degenerated into the use of these two words almost like a yogic chant whenever anyone says anything they don't like.
If you really pushed me I'd be hard put to say anything good about the man, I believe he's trying to perpetrate the biggest-ever con job in the history of UK politics.
As a complete outsider to this it's pretty obvious there's a lot of scare mongering going on that probably won't come to fruition, but its equally obvious that Salmond has turned "Westminster" into a boogeyman for virtually all of Scottish societies ills.
It's a street fight, both sides are mud slinging untruths and exaggerating how bad one another is. I'm sure there's genuine reasons somewhere in there but i'd hate to be a voter trying to find them.
Pre-planned by Salmond more like, in the image of his hero Putin who uses gangs of thugs masquerading as "concerned citizens" to hassle any opposition.