I just love that the CBI, representing people who are wrecked the economy in the first place, seriously think anyone would be influenced by their opinion.

The CBI represent the bankers?

 

EDIT: I've just seen the big banks all fall under the CBI's remit. Still, a tiny fraction of who they do represent. I have big issues with the CBI but I wouldn't necessarily pin that on them!

Why don't we belong in the debate? It affects us too. And most of us would rather our relatives didn't become foreigners (obv in a globalised world it doesn't mean what it used to, but it still sets a divide there). Yeah, self-determination means it's totally fair enough that only you have the vote but that doesn't mean we don't have a place in the debate.

Being lectured at by a bunch of English MPs that we're 'lucky' to be part of the UK because we get more per head for spending than rUK (and contribute more in tax) and many other patronising comments. We know what we have and someone coming here to lecture us about that without engaging in the discussion, caring about the electorate, speaking to the electorate rather than lecturing them, or offering us a future. That, imo, has no place in a debate on the future of this country.

 

The endless stream of people coming up here to lecture us really do not help the No camps cause.

On the CBI, there is some critics who wonder just how many people they represent this side of the border. Some have said it is very few indeed. (in the grand scheme of things)

Well, pretty much every Scottish business owner, big or small.

I meant how many are actually paid up members. :drama: been a loooooooooong day.

Being lectured at by a bunch of English MPs that we're 'lucky' to be part of the UK because we get more per head for spending than rUK (and contribute more in tax) and many other patronising comments. We know what we have and someone coming here to lecture us about that without engaging in the discussion, caring about the electorate, speaking to the electorate rather than lecturing them, or offering us a future. That, imo, has no place in a debate on the future of this country.

 

The endless stream of people coming up here to lecture us really do not help the No camps cause.

Both sides are guilty of that kind of hostility to some extent though - it's completely misleading to say that the Yes campaign has been entirely positive and aspirational, and to say that Better Together haven't made an attempt to engage with voters (however poorly).

Heard on the BBC news channel earlier that more and more people in the UK (Better get THAT right this time, dont wanna get scolded AGAIN! :rolleyes: ) are getting their eyes opened to this situation and are feeling like the whole of the UK should get a say as it could have repercussions on the rest of us if they leave.

 

Also why is Alex Salmond so adamant that they will GET the pound, the BoE and George Osbourne have said no so why is he still promising it?

Edited April 23, 201411 yr by #WilSon

The rest of the UK have a right to be involved in the debate but we shouldn't have a vote on it - basic self-determination.

Also why is Alex Salmond so adamant that they will GET the pound, the BoE and George Osbourne have said no so why is he still promising it?

Because we can still use the pound, no matter what George Osborne says.

 

The English government simply cannot defer a country from using the pound - would he make such an idiotic claim / resort to such a petty scare tactic were it another country not a part of the UK? Most likely not.

There are basically no countries in the world which use the currency of another without prior agreement. Basically all of those countries use the dollar, and have tiny economies compared to the US, hence there's no real risk to the US by allowing them to use it. The Scottish economy makes up a significant chunk of the British economy. It's playing with fire to have two different countries with economies in the same ballpark as each other using the same currency if one plans on taking a dramatically different route from the other in terms of government spending.

 

So yeah, Scotland can literally use the pound. But they can in much the same way as the US can sell all their Euro reserves tomorrow and thereby crash the currency, or in the same way you can sell the TV in your house tomorrow and move out without telling your parents - Scotland are able to if they want to, but it would totally go against every established convention when it comes to this sort of thing for them to do so, especially when the country that they're using the currency of has said they don't want them to use it. It's tinpot banana republic behaviour.

There are basically no countries in the world which use the currency of another without prior agreement. Basically all of those countries use the dollar, and have tiny economies compared to the US, hence there's no real risk to the US by allowing them to use it. The Scottish economy makes up a significant chunk of the British economy. It's playing with fire to have two different countries with economies in the same ballpark as each other using the same currency if one plans on taking a dramatically different route from the other in terms of government spending.

 

So yeah, Scotland can literally use the pound. But they can in much the same way as the US can sell all their Euro reserves tomorrow and thereby crash the currency, or in the same way you can sell the TV in your house tomorrow and move out without telling your parents - Scotland are able to if they want to, but it would totally go against every established convention when it comes to this sort of thing for them to do so, especially when the country that they're using the currency of has said they don't want them to use it. It's tinpot banana republic behaviour.

Basically.

 

The currency dilemma is one issue where the White Paper has fucked up and while joining the Euro does similarly restrict fiscal spending freedom to some extent, the Eurozone's larger GDP and greater number of members means this isn't so much of a big deal. I honestly think it'll be more stable in the long term, too. Oh, and that Scotland would be welcomed into the Eurozone with open arms after fulfilling the criteria is obviously a positive. I don't think a small country with a reliance on a commodity with an unstable price and uncertain revenues (oil) having its own, unpegged currency is a good idea at all, which is exactly why it's not something even considered. Sadly, the referendum has come along at the wrong time for the former to be a popular option.

 

Worse still, the No campaign don't seem to have the credibility for their complaint to be properly listened to and Yes with its many taboid-style blogs have been too busy gleefully shrieking 'conspiracy!!!' at any mainstream media/think-tank/Westminster politician for this important issue to be given any proper treatment from either side.

there's a lot of assumptions about the euro - Spain aren't at all keen as they don't want to encourage Catalonia separatism. So, the only guaranteed currency after a successful Yes vote is the Scottish Pound. Run, by a Bank Of Scotland and headlined by a bankrupt bank or two who would presumably owe money to the new government. Of course they could refuse to accept Scottish debt and leave it with the UK but interest rates would rocket as they would be viewed as unreliable.

 

I think we've discussed this all before, but the issue has not gone away. it's just been ignored by the Yes campaign. Naughty Boy should be the official song of the campaign: La La, la la la la la, la La fingers in ears. This is a negative of course. The problem with people who only listen to positives (most politicians with convictions that they are 100% right in their beliefs) is that they are the ones who cause the greatest amount of damage cos they. just. don't. listen. to. warnings. of. danger.

there's a lot of assumptions about the euro - Spain aren't at all keen as they don't want to encourage Catalonia separatism. So, the only guaranteed currency after a successful Yes vote is the Scottish Pound. Run, by a Bank Of Scotland and headlined by a bankrupt bank or two who would presumably owe money to the new government. Of course they could refuse to accept Scottish debt and leave it with the UK but interest rates would rocket as they would be viewed as unreliable.

 

I think we've discussed this all before, but the issue has not gone away. it's just been ignored by the Yes campaign. Naughty Boy should be the official song of the campaign: La La, la la la la la, la La fingers in ears. This is a negative of course. The problem with people who only listen to positives (most politicians with convictions that they are 100% right in their beliefs) is that they are the ones who cause the greatest amount of damage cos they. just. don't. listen. to. warnings. of. danger.

I think you're conflating this with the issue of EU membership rather than currency. That's something else that's still up in the air. Again, the responses I've read are 'well yeah, we don't know, but it doesn't really matter how long EU membership will take, because at least we'll have our own government and be able to make our own decisions. That means nothing will go wrong!' Maybe I'm reading all the wrong Yes stuff and there are more level-headed commentators than this, because ultimately I'm very sympathetic towards it.

The problem with people who only listen to positives (most politicians with convictions that they are 100% right in their beliefs) is that they are the ones who cause the greatest amount of damage cos they. just. don't. listen. to. warnings. of. danger.

I'd say Nicola Sturgeon's definitely done an excellent job taking the time to address numerous negative responses, and given many answers to the electorate's concerns; probably more-so than Alex Salmond. I really would prefer to see her in power over him should the SNP be elected in an independent Scotland.

should the SNP be elected in an independent Scotland.

I don't think that'll be an issue :lol:

 

Yet another reason that independence would be risky - as it stands Scotland has probably the most complex and interesting party balance/structure in Britain and if Yes wins, the SNP will be shoo-ins for every election for a while. Ironic to be complaining about democracy now.

In practice I think an independent Scotland would be accepted into the Euro. The difference between Scotland and Catalonia is that the UK authorised independence and has recognised Scotland's right to self-determination should they want it. If Scotland did declare independence, it would be with the blessing of the UK. That wouldn't be the case if Catalonia declared independence in November, given Spain have refused to recognise the results of that referendum.

I don't think that'll be an issue :lol:

 

Yet another reason that independence would be risky - as it stands Scotland has probably the most complex and interesting party balance/structure in Britain and if Yes wins, the SNP will be shoo-ins for every election for a while. Ironic to be complaining about democracy now.

They're disbanding if independence happens no? (although a large part of it will of course persist in some shape or form - I don't think they're a particularly splintered party but there is room for dividing off a centre-right)

I don't think that'll be an issue :lol:

 

Yet another reason that independence would be risky - as it stands Scotland has probably the most complex and interesting party balance/structure in Britain and if Yes wins, the SNP will be shoo-ins for every election for a while. Ironic to be complaining about democracy now.

I think they'd do very well in the first election and probably walk it again but after that it's anyone's game. The other parties would have time to adapt to the new reality that the SNP are already planned for and the second post-indie election could be so exciting!

 

That having been said, I would not be opposed to continued SNP domination for the time being. We will eventually return to the minority rule no doubt as Labour and SNP fight for control.

 

In practice I think an independent Scotland would be accepted into the Euro. The difference between Scotland and Catalonia is that the UK authorised independence and has recognised Scotland's right to self-determination should they want it. If Scotland did declare independence, it would be with the blessing of the UK. That wouldn't be the case if Catalonia declared independence in November, given Spain have refused to recognise the results of that referendum.

PREACH.

 

This is why I foresee no issue joining the EU. We're currently a member state, there is no provision for removing EU citizenship from citizens of the EU, and we're not voting to leave the EU, just self-government. Given the EU's fondness for Kosovo it'd be hypocritical for them to say no really. You also can't draw parallels with Kosovo because this referendum has been done with the consent of the UK government and an act of parliament.

 

 

They're disbanding if independence happens no? (although a large part of it will of course persist in some shape or form - I don't think they're a particularly splintered party but there is room for dividing off a centre-right)

Given that the White Paper is their Manifesto for the first post-YES election, I'd say no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scot...litics-27151993

 

Milliband is en route.