The head of the Commonwealth attending the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. Whatever next.
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.
The head of the Commonwealth attending the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. Whatever next.
Paul McCartney asking every possible contingent in the crowd to sing was hardly a masterpiece. I mean it was well made and that, but still a bit silly nevertheless. This is terrible from us though.
Paul McCartney being cringeworthy shocker.
Who's all watching the debate tonight then?
Got it on now. Salmond should win the debate, but since he's expected to he's going to have to really, really destroy Darling to convince people at all and come out as the debates clear victor.
Sorry, Alex Salmond, but a majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011. It was 45%. 
Sorry, Alex Salmond, but a majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011. It was 45%.
He got the majority of seats though which is ultimately what matters in a democratic election.
What Salmond said was still wrong, though Cheesy you're probably right - that's what he probably meant.
And now Salmond - predictably - fails to answer the currency question.
And now Salmond - predictably - fails to answer the currency question.
What Salmond said was still wrong, though Cheesy you're probably right - that's what he probably meant.
And now Salmond - predictably - fails to answer the currency question.
Well he's giving his answer of the currency union. That's his answer.
He hasn't - he has failed to answer the question. He hasn't answered the "plan b" question, and we all know Salmond is stubborn when he's questioned over currency. Instead, he's attacking Darling. It's boring to watch.
I'd agree he's looked fairly weak in that he doesn't have a plan B for currency, but I'd disagree that he gave no answer at all since he did say we'd use a currency union, as opposed to no answer at all. But Darling's holding his own here, better than expected.
Darling's doing much better than I thought too. Salmond needs to stop with the puerility and ask some serious questions!
I reckon the tide will turn a bit when Salmond does the cross-examining, but for now, BT will be happy with their efforts. If the Yes campaign has made one major mistake, whether you support the currency union or not, then it's not having a solid Plan B in place to convince undecided voters with.
His "answer" isn't a true answer though. Whilst Salmond was able to put forward the currency union as a possible solution, that doesn't mean that it's a viable and realistic option. It's certainly debatable whether Scotland would be allowed to continue to use Sterling currency at all and even if we were to use it, without a central bank, we can't be considered truly independent.
At the end of the day, it's an undecided point - and an important one, at that. As long as Salmond can't come up with definitive answers on issues such as the currency and EU membership, he shouldn't win the referendum.
Darling nailed Salmond on the currency question....Salmond was supposed to convince the Scottish public that his plan for independence is sound, and he failed miserably.
The Yes campaign might as well give up now.
The Yes campaign might as well give up now.
It's irresponsible that he can be asking people to vote yes when he doesn't have credible answers to key questions. He's all piss and wind like a barber's cat.
I still don't know which way I'm voting. I would like to vote yes, but there the campaign still hasn't delivered certainties for what will happen if Scotland does go independent. With just over a month to go, I don't think that's good enough and I think a lot of people are the same. I also think he acted like a total cnut with the stuff on extra terrestrials etc, but it is a vote for independence not a vote against Salmond. I hope there is some definite facts come out or there will be no contest.
The YES campaign must have not expected that. It's worrying that people can be so easily manipulated by Salmond, who is about as accurate and challenging as Braveheart. That's a generic response by me, but he'll have to deal with that until he provides viable answers. Driving on the right, aliens, the whole lot, apart from a solid answer regarding currency. It seemed like he was looking for contrived arguments to make. A waste of time watching what was meant to be a debate.
Salmond is a tit, that is all i have to say on the matter.
As the SNP's new poster girl Tasmin Ahmed-Sheikh said of him years ago when she was a Tory: '... Salmond's comments exposed "the stark truth" about him, that "he is hopelessly out of his depth in the arena of real politics, national, and international'.
In fairness, most people I know who support independence think that he's a pillock.
Every person I know who supports independence thinks he's a pillock. But this is Labour territory, the RIC is more active here than Yes Scotland so about half of the pro-independence support are Labour voters.
I may ask what the people in Scotland would win if they gain independence? I always though Scotland and the rest of Britain are inter-connected by history, language and sharing their culture. If they gain independence then the people of Scotland will have a sour taste when taxes go up, loss of jobs, they can't just cross the border to get a job, out of the Euro, new currency if they really want to be independent, big mess.
There are always reasons which individuals see as more important - desire for getting rid of trident, an unwillingness to accept British foreign policy or the abuse of civil liberties since the Blair years.
However the main argument I hear from those who are voting yes is the desire to be governed a more representative democracy. Its the outdated voting system, adversarial two party politics, unelected second chamber and front benches dominated by politicians from similarly elite backgrounds. The Scottish Parliament has its faults but it has a proportional electoral system, women and minorities are represented more proportionally, it emphasises cross party politics and a modern, pluralist system (which functioned well until the referendum issue) with Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens and the SSP all floating around the left-of-centre. The aims of the Scottish Constitutional Convention were successful in that there is the realistic possibility of those outside the established parties to achieve representation.
A large section of the population on both sides of the debate are seriously discontent with Westminster (not just the current Government). Its important to remember that the only reason this referendum is taking place in the first place is because of the 2011 election in which the SNP gained the mandate with a majority that our parliament was designed to avoid. The result shocked everyone, and was only possible due to an unpopular Labour Party which drifted rightwards during the New Labour period and the toxicity of the Liberal Democrats after entering into a coalition with the Tories. Today the extent of the coalitions cuts are deeply unpopular particular and there is still no trust in the Labour Party.
Whether or not the possibility of a socially just nation with a functioning democracy and a voice of its own in the international community is worth the very real, but very exaggerated economic risks is the choice we have. (I also think its extremely unlikely that we would be unable to negotiate entry into the EU although it will not be immediate).
Salmond's usually a good debater, but I couldn't comprehend his strategy in such a crucial debate. Why not address the substantive points of concern? This was a big, big chance for him to address key issues and convince undecided voters that independence is the best long-term solution for Scotland.
The currency issue is one that has been poorly explained by Salmond and the SNP. He really has no clue, and that is documented well by him thinking the currency is 'Scotland's pound'. A currency union was created thanks to the 1707 Act of Union, and that was based on England's pound. Before this act, Scotland did have its own pound, but that's history. The idea that there should be a currency union with the UK is absolutely ridiculous. Sustaining a monetary union makes no sense - why would you have a foreign country influence Scotland's monetary policy? - and defeats the purpose of independence in maximising control over Scottish affairs.
The Q&A bit was better than the first part although I found the set up to be a little too 'are you sitting comfortably children'
Felt for the lady that raised the issue of dementia care around 1:43:30 mark
The 18th month issue was interesting - beginning 1:47 ish. He said this is not about 'project Salmond' or even the SNP and he would happily step down or abolish the whole SNP in exchange for independence in 2016 because it's all about giving us the opportunity to choose our own government.
Do we not already have that opportunity albeit at a UK level. Some would argue it's more important to have some voting influence within a larger and more influential body.
As we are, some geographical areas (including Scotland) may not end up with the government they want just now but that's true of many places. What next - do we give Skye, Orkney, Tayside, Borders or Western Isles the opportunity to choose their own government if in the future they happen to lean towards a different party than the independent Scottish majority ?
The YES voters claim indepedence isn't about what we can do or how good it will be right now but more about where we could be many many years from now. That works both ways - As a Union we vote in who we vote in and who knows - many years from now we could be sat here, under a UK government that's supported well in Scotland or indeed the North of England.
Do we really? Westminster's electoral system perpetuates the Labour/Tory dominated politics we have seen for the past 60 years. We have a choice of two parties - some seats maybe a third if they are lucky in their constituency. Whenever there is a chance for change - (AV referendum, Scottish Independence) they pool their campaign resources and protect the status quo. In an independent Scotland parties across the spectrum would be represented and therefore the parliament would better reflect the views of the people and not trap the electorate in a situation where they vote establishment or waste their vote.
A no vote is a vote to continue this sham of a contest every five years between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, which merely determines who is the least hated party at that particular time.
You have a choice of a lot more parties but choose to vote for those two parties imo. The same will happen in Scotland if it goes independent, its the same almost everywhere in the west.
Presumably Labour is busting a gut to get Scotland to vote no, given how many safe Westminster seats they would lose.
In the 1997 UK General Elections less than 3,000 people voted for the Green Party in Scotland. In 1999, 84,000 voted Green in the proportional system. Did they gain that many supporters in two years? No, they knew their vote would count on the regional list, even if they were in a marginal seat. You don't have a choice if your vote is restricted to a constituency and does not reflect the wider voting trends.
As for Scotland's parliament, you don't need to speculate - it's already in action but with fewer powers. It has only seen one majority government since its foundation because Labour, SNP and the Liberal Democrats have all been in multiple governments - it is designed for coalition governance and worked that way for 12 years in various forms.
The currency issue is poorly explained because he doesn't have an answer, which at this stage must be worrying many potential yes voters. To act like he can pick and choose which currency Scotland would use is ridiculous, especially as they would be vetoed from joining the EU, and England are hardly likely to bend over backwards to help Scotland out in the event of separation.
The overwhelming consensus is that the Westminster parties are being disingenuous on their no currency union line. If you don't believe that then you believe that they would choose to incur greater costs to their own economy barely out of reccession purely because of a political disagreement. Miliband and Darling have both conceded this would be the result of independence without sterling.
Scotland could keep the pound as their currency, but would have to do it without the support of the UK (there are quite a few countries in the world that don't have their own currency, and aren't part of a currency union), it would be very costly though, and this is the bit that Salmond doesn't admit. Also what is the point of independence in a model when you don't have control of your own economy?
I can answer 'the point', it would obviously be temporary as a start. Interested in the 'very costly' though, I can see how it could be costly, but does it have to be, and for how long? Genuine question, I'm no expert.
The cost to the UK will be in the form of transaction fees, which are a few hundred million pounds per year. This sounds like a lot to the average person, but it is basically a rounding error in the grand scheme of things when you compare it against the UK's GDP (£2.4 trillion). Transaction fees really are not worth talking about because it's such a small issue.
Currency union is more expensive in the long run because it's one country supporting two countries that are competing against each other - which will result in higher borrowing costs for the UK.
Besides, it would be a grossly-unfair union due to the proportional size of the two countries' economies - the rUK could basically do whatever it wants and Scotland couldn't do anything about it (if it could, it would be a disproportionate level of control, and the rUK, still one of the largest economies in the world, would never agree to that). And it could hardly be called independence when monetary policy is controlled by a foreign nation.
Salmond is silent on the currency issue because he knows the true proposal, should Scotland vote Yes, is that an independent Scotland would have their own currency. However, if he were to say that before the referendum, it would torpedo the Yes vote. Would Scottish people exchange British pounds for Scottish pounds, not knowing the true value in advance, without a proven economy and fiscal and monetary policies backing it? What would happen to pensions?
A temporary currency union would be swooped-upon by the financial markets. When Czechoslovakia broke up, the currency union lasted 38 days and there was a run on banks. And the imbalance is greater between the rUK and Scotland, which could make it even worse. The rUK could absorb the hit - but it won't want to. An independent Scotland could really struggle if there was a run on banks.
From the rUK's perspective, a currency union is basically a foreign country having some degree of control over its monetary policy. This will be seen as a political risk and would raise the costs of borrowing money for the rUK. Roughly-speaking, it would be kind of like the UK having borrowing costs similar to, say, Australia - it costs Australia more to issue bonds, so it has less money to do good stuff to the country - so it will have to raise taxes, or cut costs, or something to keep a similar level of internal investment.
If you want a currency union, it has to be a long-term currency union (and if so, it would prevent Scotland from joining the Euro). Kind of like how Belgium and Luxembourg were in a currency union, which had been in place since the 1920s, and was only removed about a decade ago. Such a union was also a union in economic terms. The relative size of Luxembourg also made it easier, because it was never going to be able to challenge Belgium - not the case for an independent Scotland.
Thanks for replying. Is there a difference between currency union and the Scots just pegging their currency to the pound for a couple of years?
I understand that would not be true independence and would hamper any attempt at independent action, but just as an interim measure?
Pegging a currency to another would be a decision independent of the UK. However, it's not as easy as it sounds. To keep a currency to a fixed value, an independent Scotland would have to be capable of buying and selling large amounts of cash to keep the peg fixed. It can be expensive to do so (for example, imagine there's no money in the bank, so they have to borrow from the open market) in the long term. China can do it, for example, because it has huge reserves and a flexible economy - but even China knows it cannot do this forever.
Also, as always, if it is a temporary measure, then an independent Scotland can expect extremely aggressive currency speculation.
Wikipedia goes into more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_exchange-rate_system
Would it work as a temporary measure? Probably, but an independent Scotland would need a lot of reserves to defend the peg, and it's not going to be pretty. If Scotland starts issuing its own currency, I personally expect a temporary peg, within a certain band, would be likely.
I suppose I don't really understand pegging. Was the Irish pound pegged to sterling for 50 years or whatever, it seemed to work?
I understand the borrowing thing, though whether they would have to borrow I don't know.
I understand the borrowing thing, though whether they would have to borrow I don't know.
It was pegged, and it was moderately successful (although an independent Scotland might not want to refer to Ireland during these times as a shining example of a strong economy) - but in the end, Ireland did away with the peg because it was unhealthy for the UK to constantly decide its monetary policy. Ireland even underwent decimalisation at the same time as the UK. 50 years is also a long term to keep a peg - Scotland will probably want to do away with it within a few years.