I don't know, if seeing that is going to convince anyone of their vote it's middle-aged women leaning towards No. Ridiculously stupid from the "concerned citizens".
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.
I believe he's correct when talks about scaremongering and bullying, yes. I posted yesterday (I think) about how there was talk of Westminster lobbying for other governments to come out with negative statements regarding Scottish independence. That, to me, is bullying. feck, Cameron was even asking for Putin's help on the matter!
You just need to look at the way the supermarkets were pushed into this - Cameron's been asking anyone important he can get on the phone to get in his good books by coming out with a press release on how independence would make customers/ employees/ the poor/ the needy suffer. And it's probably worked.
I don't have a side in this debate, but it's obvious how the no campaign's desperation has pushed them to spin whatever scare stories (no matter how truthful) they can find.
I'd like to see a comparison with separate regions, not just rUK as a whole. Take the South East out and the picture for the other regions in the UK is very different.
It's no secret, he's publicly praised him :"His hero Putin"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-aspects-of-Vladimir-Putins-leadership.html
"Praised" him. The press baiting Salmond into answering about Putin and used a headline that made it seem like he said he outright loved him.
I don't even like Wee Eck but the vitriol he gets is astounding.
YES.
Is there any evidence to suggest they're being pushed by No supporters? It's not outlandish that large businesses will want to remain in the UK, with a larger economy, less uncertainty, and less risk. Nor is it that outlandish that prices might have to go up (as is the case in business - doing business in riskier environments costs more).
Just think about it - if a large business prefers a No vote, and it seems Yes is becoming increasingly-likely, should it stay silent?
Why is this relevant? The other parts of the UK aren't trying to break away.
This is simply an illustration that, despite what Salmond has claimed, North Sea oil would not provide the money needed to maintain Scotland's current public spending. Yet Salmond appears to be promising to increase it. A breakaway Scotland would have to borrow on international credit markets, which should be an interesting experience if Salmond continues to refuse to take on any of the UK's debt. With no credit history and a reputation for refusing to honour debt Scotland will face high interest rates, rates that will weigh down the Scottish people. Just remember that all borrowing is just tax deferred, the future of a separated Scotland would be facing increased taxes to pay back money lent to your government at high interest rates. How is that going to make Scots' richer?
Yes. Because a business cannot vote. It can, however, use its privileged position to sway the voting intentions of people in a way that unfairly gives it an advantage.
Or they can help inform the voters, so that, you know, they can make an informed choice.
It was relevant when I didn't know why you were posting it. I wrongly assumed you were trying to make a point about general net contributions.
Why should a business that has no voting rights be allowed to sway the opinions of others based on anecdotal evidence?
We are a capitalist country, these companies have to look after their bottom line and their shareholders, therefore they are going to protect their own positions.
So of course they will use their position to do what ever they can to keep the money rolling in. Why would they risk staying quiet if things are not looking like they are going well for them?
I'm not interested in net contributions, my country is my country. There are richer and poorer parts. What's important to me is not what goes in or what goes out but that we're there for each other. Clearly that's lost on Alex Salmond et al.
We're also a democratic country, in case you forgot.
Eck practically lives in a world of functions and free meals. He probably thinks that everyone gets the same.
How is it unfair? Scots deserve opinions from businesses operating in Scotland so they get information on how their lives will be affected. If a politician makes an outright lie about the business sector, the business sector should be capable of rebutting. Similarly, they should be able to make statements to reflect the practical consequences of their businesses - that affect Scots' lives.
The Yes side has a business lobby too, anyway, and they are not silent.
They're big businesses. It's not based on anecdotal evidence, but number crunching. Any big business has a responsibility to its shareholders and regulators to factor in political risk, and this is precisely that. You can bet that large businesses have been looking over both scenarios for months, if not years, to plan for the future.
Indeed, so these companies are essentially lobbying for their own interests. Just like all the various parties that have an interest in the result.
Have they done anything illegal? Or is it that you just think they shouldn't be making noise because it is not positive messages about independence?
Ok, so Scotland is quite remote, by UK standards. It costs more to get things there. Plus the whole new-state uncertainty area. Businesses don't like uncertainty. Businesses charge a premium for uncertainty. To me, that's logical. Some businesses have said as much. Why shouldn't they?
What's the difference between informing the electorate and swaying opinions anyway?
He praised certain aspects. Hardly his "hero". Just stop.
I AM a No voter, I said that months ago! I just don't believe a faceless entity should be allowed to sway public opinion to suit their own agenda. Maybe you're only defending them because they suit your own agenda for a No vote, or would that be too presumptuous of me to say?
Either way this whole thread has become an argy bargy and I'm off to eat prawn crackers and watch Dexter.
Why though would it cost more money to deliver products to an independent Scotland than it would a Scotland within the UK?
Here's a big pro Salmond hasn't used. If the vote is yes what happens to Spain? Catalonia becomes independent next resulting in Barca leaving La Liga and their players' exodus. Get on it Salmond before Messi is too old.
One nation, one market. Two nations, two markets, two prices.
I don't care who you're voting for, but your problem seems to be with business giving their point of view (and in this case it is a negative one towards the idea of independence).
I don't have a vote (I will say I think the Scots should vote no though), but I'll defend the right for any group to state their position, as you say, in a democracy. As has always been the case on this particular vote, it's complex and if the people are going to make a decision they should be furnished with as much information as possible. That does not only come from politicians, the companies voices are as relevant as any other group or person.
Even praising "certain aspects" is grossly hypocritical, given that Putin is the worst kind of bully you could find. It seems bullying is ok when it's someone you admire.
At present prices in Scotland are subsidised by the companies so that prices are the same nationally. If Scotland were a foreign country there would be no need to do that and prices would reflect actual costs.
I don't live in Wales anymore, but as a Welshman, a serious move for an independent Wales is something that would literally keep me up at night. I mean, Christ on a bike. The Assembly isn't even able to properly manage devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom, so feck knows what would happen if it were to go it alone and have to deal with its own fiscal and monetary policy as well. Wales needs less devolution, not more....and it certainly doesn't need independence. What a ludicrous fantasy land some people are living in .
You brought up logistics though. Something that won't change regardless of the outcome.
Why doesn't that apply to England as well? Surely the "two nations, two markets, two prices" line would see prices rise both sides of the border.
Besides, businesses like Asda can put their prices up all they like, there'll be someone waiting to make huge profits on their losses. It's certainly not the Scottish people who lose in this situation.
What would change is the fact that companies presently ignore the slightly higher costs of operating/selling in Scotland so that they can market a flat price throughout the UK.
It's not hypocritical at all. You can of course praise certain aspects while condemning others. It doesn't make Putin his hero.
Because nothing really changes in the UK. However in Scotland businesses will have to consider ending the practice of subsidising the extra cost of trading in Scotland with money made elsewhere in the UK, meaning that prices would climb.
What are you failing to understand here?
Right, except that under independence the logistics costs needn't be smoothed anymore.
I don't really understand why you take such offence to the notion without trying to understand it first.
I should have thought someone of Salmond's intelligence might have been able to find a better example of someone to admire. Very poor judgment on his part.
I'm failing to understand why Asda would put their prices up in an independent Scotland while a rival chain has said they have no plans to do so.
Edit: the quote from Morrisons isn't the chain who have no plans to do so. That was Tesco I was referring to.
Admiring "certain aspects". Of course you know the difference.
We're currently ruled by a government who admire Thatcher who herself admired Pinochet. Two can play the game you're wanting to play.
There's also the possibility of a different taxation and regulatory regime to deal with. It's just straightforward business, nothing to do with scaremongering, bullying or anything else.