Dear Scottish Fetchies

65 watchers

Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next
Last

McGoohan Feb 2014 1:46pm, 7 Feb 2014 10,667 posts	0 McGoohan Very interesting link that, daviec
jono Feb 2014 1:55pm, 7 Feb 2014 14,686 posts	0 jono I am English well actually I've always called meself British - but anyway having read the aforementioned posts and whilst I can fully understand the natural hatred that Cameron produces - would it not have been better if the Westminister Government had taken the position of heading for a Fedral System, which Devo Max would have delivered. If Devo max (which admittingly no one knows where it might lead, yet) then I think it would have been a landslide in Scotland - P.S. I do agree that it is a question for the Scots Love you xx
daviec Feb 2014 2:54pm, 7 Feb 2014 3,688 posts	0 daviec jono - devo max would have had a landslide victory, but DC wanted it off the table. It will be offered again, but promises were made in 1979 in return for a no vote, but it was jam tomorrow then and it'll be jam tomorrow again. I must slightly disagree that this is a vote for Scots. It's a vote for the people of Scotland. There's a slight difference. "Carney had it the closest last week by pointing out that a nation without its own currency, central bank or interest rate setting authority and with, at the very least, a titular monarch who remains "sovereign" over the whole of the former UK is not really independent at all. This is the fallacy of what Fat Eck is proposing: tub thumping for independence when what he actually wants is nothing of the sort." RB - outside of maybe North Korea do you think there are any countries AT ALL that are entirely independent? Of course we would pass over some sovereignty in return for a currency union (at first). This is just the first step. As it stands Carney didn't say anything of the sort. You may have thought so given the press reaction and mainstream reporting, but I've read the transcript of his report on the BoE site and he did what anyone would do. He pointed out the advantages to a currency union, and also the steps necessary to ensure it worked. These steps were reported as warnings or worse, as statements against independence. He was very careful not to be for or against independence. The jist of his actual speech was that whatever is negotiated between the two countries, the BoE will make it happen. bankofengland.co.uk However the reference to Alex Salmond gives away another lack of understanding. AS has given us a democratic entitlement to have this question asked, and for that he deserves credit. But now it's nothing to do with him. This is not about a political party, nor a politician. it's about the democratic right of Scots to make decisions that affect us rather than have policies implemented on us. I'm always reminded of a quote about great minds talking about ideas, and weak minds talking about people. Wirral Dave - you may also be slightly misinformed about just how close this is going to be. If it's not close it'll be in the favour of independence. All of the polls are showing movement to Yes. Nobody goes from yes to no, because when they get properly informed the argument is a no brainer. Of those who have decided the current state is 45/55 for yes/no. If undecided are pushed to say which way they're likely to vote it's 47/53. That's 7 months out. To say that one or the other is likely or unlikely is to have foresight that everyone else lacks. The reason that DC is giving this speech today is because they know where this is going. The reason that Mark Carney spoke on a currency union is because they know where this is going. The reason the Lords are "debating" this is because they know where this is going.
RedBen Feb 2014 3:28pm, 7 Feb 2014 990 posts	0 RedBen I'm talking about the key ideas of what constitutes statehood, whilst also having a pop at Fat Eck so I'll partially take your jibe there Davie! I do not think, and Carney was saying, that currency union is a strong basis when you are asserting the right to be independent. We want to be independent but don't want to take the key economic decisions ourselves. Whilst the BoE will assist in making the negotiated settlement happen, there is nothing compelling Westminster to accept currency union or the BoE's position as lender of last resort to an independent Scotland. Salmond's assertion that there is, is just plain wrong. So, when he is called on this he has no answer, no other big idea and the flaws therefore easy to spot. You can see this approach throughout the "White Paper" (which is nothing of the sort). For example, on tax collection, the stated position is that HMRC will do this until some undefined point in the future when we'll establish a Scottish version. However, this is not backed up by either positive affirmation from HMRC that they will do or any costings of what we'll have to pay HMRC to get them to do it. Vague, unfounded assertions are not convincing me that we have a thought out plan here. As to whether Fat Eck deserves credit for the referendum taking place: well, I'd give him as much credit as any other politician delivering on a manifesto pledge!
daviec Feb 2014 3:53pm, 7 Feb 2014 3,689 posts	0 daviec And in this age of manifestos being disregarded once power is achieved it is truly something that deserves credit. Not least because the Scottish parliament was designed especially to avoid an SNP majority so that the question could never be asked. Whatever people think of Salmond personally, he outmanoeuvred all of the other parties in the last Scottish elections, and turned a predicted Labour win into an SNP majority. That's where the credit goes, not because he kept his promise afterwards. Currency union is the basis of a fledgling nation. It would be nonsense to go straight for a new currency. Historically newly independent nations either keep using sterling, or peg a new currency to it, which is effectively the same thing. As for arguments that will compel Westminster to agree to a currency union, just because they won't tell you them now doesn't mean they don't exist. Alistair Darling has already stated that it makes logical sense, until he got told to toe the line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKht7X6P0T4 How do you think the balance of payments for sterling is going to look with no returns for oil, etc? How about that £1.4 trillion debt with a GDP reduced by 10%? Both on their own strong enough arguments for the UK to join a currency union. Salmond (and the others, the Yes campaign is not the same as the SNP) does have an answer - he has quite clearly stated that sterling will be used. We don't need a currency union to use the pound, but it would help both sides in the beginning. To look any further down the line is just fanciful, but personally I reckon once our economies diverge enough Scotland can take up it's own currency. In the meantime the debate could be settled easily. Pre negotiate and let the electorate decide on the outcome. Again DC won't do it, because he knows fine well that they'll have admit that a currency union will take place. Creating uncertainty is their game. On the question of whether it is full independence to give away some of your say on economic decisions to be part of union. How can you give away what you don't have? We currently have no say, at all!! A bit of a say is better than what we have, AND we'd get plenty of say in other areas. Again the 'white paper' ( I agree it's not, it's a manifesto) can only be assertions on some things, because the UK government won't negotiate in advance. There'll be time to sort this out. STuff like this is simply an agenda to disrail the real issue here. We can't give up the chance to make our own decisions for the best of our country, just because there might be teething problems. The alternative is to have no say as our country is bled dry to fund the city. It's not about Tory governments, because Labour will do the same and have said so. This is not a system that works for us. Conservatives and Liberals were the 3rd and 4th parties in Scotland, but have formed our government. As per my previous link the vote in Scotland means nothing. The outcome is always the same except for 2 years out of the last 67. There is no reason at all for London based parties to chase the Scottish vote so we get Trident based here, we get poll tax tried out here, we get the bedroom tax when 90%+ of our MPs voted against it. As an idea of what we work against, the Scottish government wanted to avoid the bedroom tax, a tax solely on the poor, but Westminster imposed limits on how much money could be used by councils to do so. Precisely so that we couldn't do it. The SNP budget was drawn up to help mitigate this, and yet we had to ask Westminster if it was OK to spend OUR MONEY in that way. They said no! That is not democracy. That is not the way I want my country to be run. And as people realise this the Yes vote will increase and then we'll deal with matters like currency, civil services, etc. And for a short while it will be a bit chaotic, but we can make decisions on our own to improve things and build a better country. That's all we want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1a7SyMq_GU
jono Feb 2014 4:01pm, 7 Feb 2014 14,690 posts	0 jono I think alot of English people would want that for them selves - so in the future a Scottish Parliament won't implement things that the majority of scottish voters don't want? Thats not the nature of politics of governments.
daviec Feb 2014 4:10pm, 7 Feb 2014 3,690 posts	0 daviec The Scottish parliament is a much fairer place than Westminster. It has a system of PR and, as stated, generally tends not to have a majority government and so there needs to be consensus on issues across at least some of the parties to get anything done. A government of a smaller nation is much more accountable. Again, should we give up the chance of self determination just because our own government may make some choices that we don't want, or do we just accept a government that by definition WON'T implement things that suit us. And I agree many English people would want this too, and so they should. But do they have that option at the moment? No. We do. And I fully intend to take that chance. I personally think that enough people will eventually agree and maybe, once people see what can be done, there'll be democratic change in the rest of the UK as well. Ideal
RedBen Feb 2014 4:17pm, 7 Feb 2014 992 posts	0 RedBen Davie - all good points, and put persuasively, but I'm afraid I'm in the no camp, and lacking the time to reply fully. I totally agree that Salmond's success in the last Scottish Parliament elections was astounding, overhauling Labour in the polls and delivering a majority government in a system that was designed specifically to avoid majority governments of any sort, and not just majority nationalist governments. A real achievement, yes, but greatly contributed to by the weaknesses of the other major parties I feel.
daviec Feb 2014 5:04pm, 7 Feb 2014 3,691 posts	0 daviec The Conservatives and Lib Dems were weak in Scotland anyway. The SNP (not AS) won because Labour haemorrhaged their vote when they allowed the SNP to take up their traditional centre left position. This is solely because there is no such thing as the Scottish Labour party. Only the labour party in Scotland. Which means, once again, policies that are not designed for Scotland being peddled not only by Westminster MPs, but by Labour MSP candidates! That was a huge mistake and hasn't been rectified. An independent Scotland would provide an opportunity for Labour, and the others, to re-establish themselves with values and policies that would give them power in Scotland. I think it may be a long time before the Conservatives and the Lib Dems get significant votes in Scotland, regardless of the outcome.
daviec Feb 2014 5:27pm, 7 Feb 2014 3,692 posts	0 daviec While Sky and BBC report on DC's speech to everyone BUT Scotland, on a Scottish matter I'll bet they don't say a word about this report that shows that not only is Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK (which was already fact despite what they tell us), but that we're in an even better position than was previously thought. businessforscotland.co.uk 6th richest country in the world for GDP per capita, and yet hundreds of thousands of children and born and raised in poverty while we bail out millionaire bankers, find money to pay our share of £100 million to replace our unwanted weapons of mass destruction.