PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?



Logun
05-04-2013, 10:01 AM
As above, do you think the UK and Scotland would be better off or worse after a split?

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 10:31 AM
The devil is in the detail. Scotland could be "better off" or "worse off" (depending on what that actually means) outside the UK. Personally I can't see it makes a lot of difference if - as planned - the Scots stay in the currency union of Sterling. Greater autonomy in setting tax rates and laws would be a "good" thing IMHO but this does not require departure from the UK.

Given that both Labour and Tory politicians are opposed to the change I must conclude that it is a positive thing. If it was a bonkers idea then they would all back it. Not a very scientific analysis I know but an accurate one I'm sure :D

Iain Smith
05-04-2013, 10:41 AM
It's a meaningless question without the details of whatever deal might be struck.

The referendum question is, in effect, "Please give us carte blanche to negotiate whatever we can with the residual UK, the EU, NATO, etc, etc, but you'll be stuck with the result, whether or not we manage to achieve a fair settlement."

A far more sensible process would have been a referendum on whether it was worth spending a significant chunk of money investigating and negotiating the deal which could then be put to the public in a "This is deal, yes or no?" referendum.

Iain

IanB
05-04-2013, 10:42 AM
I'd like to see a lot more information before making that choice. If it's standalone and no longer being supported by Westminster, whilst taking on a proportionate share of the current debt then maybe.

londonsean69
05-04-2013, 10:43 AM
Let the Scottish government pay for the free prescriptions and free University places out of their own coffers and see how that goes for a bit.

And all their public services, army etc.

I can't see it happening, what would happen with the nuclear subs? "Faslane is ours, pay rent" - "'koff, we'll take the subs, you defend yourselves"

notdeadyet
05-04-2013, 10:49 AM
I can't see it happening, what would happen with the nuclear subs? "Faslane is ours, pay rent" - "'koff, we'll take the subs, you defend yourselves"

We don't need it. Everyone likes us. Unlike England :D

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

taz
05-04-2013, 10:55 AM
.

Scotland is Scotland and England is England,
If the Scottish people want to be independent
from Britain, who am I to say no?

But If it's Independence they want then it should
be full Independence, Scotland like any Country
should be allowed to stand or fall by it's own decisions.

taz

.

stephensoncj
05-04-2013, 11:20 AM
I think the English should vote as well, I suspect the Scottish will want to stay and the English will want rid.

Ron MacRae
05-04-2013, 11:25 AM
As above, do you think the UK and Scotland would be better off or worse after a split?

As others have said the devil is in the detail. I live in England at the moment but might move back when work/family permits. Some random thoughs-

1) The problem isn't in the good times, it's the bad times. Whenever there is a recession all to companies retreat towards their core base, which is normally in the south of England. Therefore Scotland and the North of England always suffer more in a recession. Even companies that were originally Scottish eventually move the Head Office to London. I used to work in Newcastle 2 days a week and the guys there said if Scotland got independance could Newcastle come with us. Not sure if Independance would help this.

2) I can't see how Scotland can be independant and keep Sterling. There has to be a Scottish pound or we join the Euro, otherwise it's not independance.

3) Anything that reduces the number of politicians I have to pay for is a good thing. I'd object to paying for politicians in Edinburgh, London, and Strasbourg. Anything that reduces the number of levels of government is good. I voted against devolution for that reason alone.

4) Scotland does pay it's own prescription charges and University places. Last time I looked Scotland was still a net contributor to the UK. Although I suspect that might depend on who your accountant is and who owns the oil. On this point I think Scotland have it right and England are wrong. prescriptions and education should be state funded so that lower paid people are not disadvantaged.

5) Apart from the people who actually work there most of Scotland would be happy to se the nuclear subs go. Same with Nuclear power stations. Why so many in Scotland? Move them to where the power is consumed in London and the south. There is a percieved view that anything potentially dangerous gets dumped in Scotland.

My personal preference would be to keep the UK and get rid of the parliament in Edinburgh. Scots would then have legitimate right to influence decisions for the whole UK. My next choice would be a fully independant Scotland that was part of Europe. Hopefully Scotland and England/Wales/NI could still have strong and friendly ties. The current situation of 2 governments and the conflict it causes is IMO the worst option.

Must be a slow day today :)

Ron.

Hickdive
05-04-2013, 11:50 AM
It's a bad idea for Scotland and a bad idea for the remainder of the UK.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be poorer to the extent of Scottish oil income (which is still currently a net gain to those nations once the 'cost' of Scotland has been deducted) but Scotland won't benefit because independent membership of the EU (which is essential for the majority of exports) will come at the cost of joining the Euro. The Germans and French will not welcome another potential basket-case economy without some guarantees therefore membership of the Euro will have to be underwritten by oil money.

The remainder of the UK will also be in a much poorer negotiating position with the rest of the EU, you can wave goodbye to a large chunk of the rebate.

That's just the EU problem, before you even consider any other economic issues, defence, border controls and a million other things.

When I ask people what specific advantages might accrue from Scottish independence I get wishy-washy, hand-waving stuff about a "better, fairer, Scotland" and "self-respect" but never an actual sensible answer that X will happen as a result of independence.

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:03 PM
...
2) I can't see how Scotland can be independant and keep Sterling. There has to be a Scottish pound or we join the Euro, otherwise it's not independance.....

Currency unions between independent countries are possible. The Euro is exactly that. Technically Scotland already has it's own currency; the Scottish pound but it is pegged to the English pound. This was the situation with the Irish Pound or Punt until the two currencies diverged.

Irish pound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound)

Before the Euro a similar situation existed with Luxembourg who tied their money to neighbour Belgium. So as you can see it's not really all that odd.

Scottish money is widely accepted in England but there is a debate from time to time if it is legal tender (mostly in the little shops :)) Scotland can and does produce banknotes and therefore would be able to either float it's pound as an independent currency or (if it preferred) join the Euro and abandon the Scottish pound. What might come of further independence is the refusal to accept Scottish money in the remaining bit of the UK.

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of this development it is clear therefore that Scotland can achieve political independence of the UK and keep it's existing currency with or without the pegging to English money and make up it's own mind on whether or not to pursue Euro membership.

More important IMHO is the point made earlier in the thread about the apportionment of the UK national debt and to what extent the new independent Scotland would be saddled with this phenomenal burden the criminal actions of the banks have left us with. The SNP, I believe, will require the nukes to leave (fair enough) and the idiot English left with the bill for that ridiculous absurdity. However the banks that screwed the UK economy include a Scottish element so that would be messy I fear.

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:07 PM
.... independent membership of the EU (which is essential for the majority of exports) will come at the cost of joining the Euro. ....

No, this is not the case, although the right wing press like to peddle this propaganda. Membership of the Euro remains a target to all member states and the Euro remains the "official" currency of the EU. However no country can be forced to join, particularly if it does not meet the entry criteria.

In reality an Independent Scotland could remain outside the Eurozone for a very, very long time indeed.

londonsean69
05-04-2013, 12:09 PM
The SNP, I believe, will require the nukes to leave (fair enough) and the idiot English left with the bill for that ridiculous absurdity. However the banks that screwed the UK economy include a Scottish element so that would be messy I fear.

I quite like having a nuclear deterrent, it might not be to everybodies taste, but we have it.

Banks - I am sure I read the Scottish banks were bailed out to the tune of 70bn.

As others have said, who owes what will always come down to the bean counters, but there is some scary reading out there...



Taxpayer Scotland, which is linked to the London-based Taxpayers' Alliance organisation, estimates Scotland's debt could be as high as 189bn, even before taking into account its share of the national debt.

Adding in Scotland's 80bn share of the UK's 940bn national debt suggests it might face a 269bn burden, costing more than 10bn in annual interest payments.

The report by Taxpayer Scotland warns that even with annual oil and gas revenues of 6bn, the country spends 9bn more every year than it generates in revenues.

Soggy
05-04-2013, 12:13 PM
Ironic that they want independence but would then join the EU :)

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:21 PM
....Banks - I am sure I read the Scottish banks were bailed out to the tune of 70bn....

It very much depends on what you see as "Scottish" banks. The obvious one is RBS which has Scotland in it's name. However RBS had business interests and accrued bad debt all around the world, it's incompetent and crooked management dabbled in pretty much all the really bad bubble economies. RBS subsidiaries included Sainsburys and so on. It would be (in my view) unscrambling an omelette.

Banks should really be seen as transnational companies. Certainly they act as such. Barclays for example is a UK/US company which is why the Fed bailed it out not the UK government and why it is listed on both the London and New York stock exchanges.

The problem with RBS (other than it is totally shit of course) is it is now pretty much owned by the UK taxpayer. As Scottish people are UK taxpayers they own a bit of this worthless company as well and it's debts. I guess the share of the business could be divided between Scotland and the rest of the UK on a per capita basis or by tax contributions in the year of nationalisation. Whatever is proposed will no doubt piss some rich people off somewhere and there will be a huge row about it and the lawyers raking in millions.

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:23 PM
Ironic that they want independence but would then join the EU :)

They are already in the EU - they want independence from the English. Seems a very reasonable thing to me.

Iain Smith
05-04-2013, 12:26 PM
3) Anything that reduces the number of politicians I have to pay for is a good thing.

Quite



most of Scotland would be happy to see ...Nuclear power stations [go]. Why so many in Scotland? Move them to where the power is consumed in London and the south. There is a percieved view that anything potentially dangerous gets dumped in Scotland.

But is perception correct?
There are two active nuclear plants in Scotland (Hunterston B and Torness) and two shut down (Chapelcross and Hunterston A, both of which were small)
There are six active plants in England, one in Wales and eight retired.

The civilian R&D reactors were at Dounreay (three reactors) in Scotland and Winfrith (nine reactors) and Windscale (three reactors) in England
I think there are two reactors at Vulcan (Naval reactor test site) colocated with Dounreay, only one of which is active.

So we're carring a little more than our share (plants per head of population) but it's not exactly excessive?


I'd like to see a lot more information before making that choice

The ludicrous thing is that we're being asked to choose the future of Scotland on the basis of no definitive information whatsoever.

Given that the SNP's series of pronouncements on the positions which will be agreed by various other major players (rump UK, EU, NATO, etc) which are immediately contradicted by those players and the leaked Cabinet papers showing that their economic policy is driven by ideology, not reality (and they know it) I cannot see why we would want to gamble our future.

Ironically, I think Burns said it best when he wrote (in exactly the opposite context) "Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"

Iain

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:30 PM
.....
The ludicrous thing is that we're being asked to choose the future of Scotland on the basis of no definitive information whatsoever....

Yup. There's an old saying - "if voting changed anything it would be banned". I think one could apply that to this referendum :rolleyes:

AMW
05-04-2013, 12:37 PM
I think it is time to end the Union (England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland) all could then do what is best for there own populations (sink or swim within their own resources). Although I am still fully in favour of EU membership.

Andrew

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 12:44 PM
I think it is time to end the Union (England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland) all could then do what is best for there own populations (sink or swim within their own resources). Although I am still fully in favour of EU membership.

Andrew

That's pretty much my view as well. I think the EU would be a better thing if it were able to facilitate more local government and allow people to group around long standing historical regions. The Basques, the Breton and so on would have a greater voice and be able to celebrate their history and culture but within a powerful and prosperous union of Europe's peoples. There are some pretty powerful vested interests working against this though :(

Finless
05-04-2013, 12:54 PM
Where is the 'don't know option'?

I don't know if it would be a good thing or not.

I do know that I'm feeling slightly hurt that the Scots don't/may not want us and, as a result, may well become sulky and a bit huffy!

I also know that, on the face of it, Alex Salmond(sp?) looks to be a right smarmy git!

If the break up happens will it still be OK for me to laugh at Billy Connolly?

Iain Smith
05-04-2013, 12:56 PM
That's pretty much my view as well. I think the EU would be a better thing if it were able to facilitate more local government and allow people to group around long standing historical regions. The Basques, the Breton and so on would have a greater voice and be able to celebrate their history and culture but within a powerful and prosperous union of Europe's peoples. There are some pretty powerful vested interests working against this though :(

I trust we're not talking about the EU in its current form - the one that has failed to have its spending signed off by accountants for something like seventeen years in a row? And the one where the German economy is the only thing bankrolling the attempt to keep the rest of member states solvent?

I really don't understand the logic of seperating Scotland from Westminster in order to immediately surrender even more power to Brussels.

Iain

Gareth Jones
05-04-2013, 12:56 PM
5) Apart from the people who actually work there most of Scotland would be happy to se the nuclear subs go. Same with Nuclear power stations. Why so many in Scotland? Move them to where the power is consumed in London and the south. There is a percieved view that anything potentially dangerous gets dumped in Scotland.


Fact check: Scotland has 2 nuclear stations, Torness and Hunterston. England has 7 nukes, Hartlepool, Heysham 1 & 2, Sizewell, Dungeness, Hinkley point and Oldbury, Wales has 1 only, Wylfa.

Heysham 1, Hartlepool, Wylfa and Oldbury are scheduled to close within a few years so most will still be south of the wall and generally well spread throughout the UK. 10 sites have identified as possible locations for new reactors, none of which are in Scotland, I'm afraid you guys are just too unreliable :)

Finless
05-04-2013, 01:01 PM
EU a good thing?

Lobbocks say I.

Lets start dredging the Channel and other coastal seas and make our moat even deeper and safer!
:)

In fact, somebody pass me the boat pole so I can push us a bit further out to sea!

Bytor
05-04-2013, 01:08 PM
Would it mean having to re-instate Hadrians Wall?

smudger
05-04-2013, 01:12 PM
I am sure the truth about it is Scotland cant afford to go independant the oil isn't exactly scottish anymore and though landed in Scotland it that becomes a problem with taxation or reduced profit margins then it will land else where. Then the are the rig workers could an independant Scotland stop low paid overseas workers being brought in to do the job at half the cost.
As for Nuclear argument The bases are already up for closure and a move to Devonport and nobody seams to be thinking about Job losses if this happens.
The debt would probably be split proportionally and with no armed forces would be a fast affair you can argue politically as much as you can but in the end the big stick would probably be waived, the EU already seems not to want to get involved.
For a few reasons I would like to see an independant Scotland but in reality it is still dependant on London gets given a bit of pocket money to spend as they wish.
I think as a nation we do under estimate the political sway of Westminster typically British really.

notdeadyet
05-04-2013, 01:38 PM
Would it mean having to re-instate Hadrians Wall?

Let's hope so. If it's run anything like how London has built Crossrail it'll be paradise for generations.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

hippytyre
05-04-2013, 01:39 PM
I don't see why not, things can't get much worse than they are now.

Plus I get to scream FREEDOM! when it happens :-)

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 01:48 PM
I trust we're not talking about the EU in its current form - the one that has failed to have its spending signed off by accountants for something like seventeen years in a row? And the one where the German economy is the only thing bankrolling the attempt to keep the rest of member states solvent?

I really don't understand the logic of seperating Scotland from Westminster in order to immediately surrender even more power to Brussels.

Iain

No not the EU of mythical failure. The EU I would like to see is the original idea of a co-operating group of countries working together for the greater good. You are correct that the administration of the EU is chaotic and that the finances are also chaotic such that there is no agreement on putting them to bed. However this is to take a very negative view of the EU and to look only for failure. Germany most certainly is not bankrolling anything. The German government likes to pretend this is true and that Germany is not (like all the other countries) bankrupt, but this is simply to placate the German voters. German banks lent money to Greece and Cyprus to name but two and the banks of Germany are just as much in shit creek as the other member states.

Scotland's separation from the UK would not surrender any powers to Brussels. Like all EU members Scotland - in or out the UK - is a sovereign power and cedes power to the "club" to which it belongs as a voluntary part of it's membership. Both the UK and any future independent Scotland can withdraw it's membership altogether or influence and change the rules of the club. However, much like being a BSAC branch member states have to abide by a certain amount of rules or be kicked out. BSAC clubs cannot override the diver training program or ignore the safe diving practices. EU members cannot decide unilaterally they will not admit people from another member state because of a vile racist domestic press.

A quick look round the EU and you can see the unpleasant rise of right wing groups, of ignorant nationalism and of outright racism. Whether it is Golden Dawn or the BNP doesn't matter, it is part of a wider attempt by those that stand to gain to deflect attention away from the mega shafting the banks have perpetrated on us and focus on the right's favourite scapegoat - foreigners. The EU nicely fits this target group - look at how it is described as "Brussels" as if somehow the UK is not a part of the EU machinery and as such a part of the problem.

I think it is defeatism of the highest order to quit something simply because it is a bit difficult. I hope very much that this does not apply to Scotland's membership of the UK any more than it applies to either parties membership of the EU.

gordyp
05-04-2013, 01:51 PM
It's a bad idea for Scotland and a bad idea for the remainder of the UK.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be poorer to the extent of Scottish oil income (which is still currently a net gain to those nations once the 'cost' of Scotland has been deducted) but Scotland won't benefit because independent membership of the EU (which is essential for the majority of exports) will come at the cost of joining the Euro. The Germans and French will not welcome another potential basket-case economy without some guarantees therefore membership of the Euro will have to be underwritten by oil money.

The remainder of the UK will also be in a much poorer negotiating position with the rest of the EU, you can wave goodbye to a large chunk of the rebate.

That's just the EU problem, before you even consider any other economic issues, defence, border controls and a million other things.

When I ask people what specific advantages might accrue from Scottish independence I get wishy-washy, hand-waving stuff about a "better, fairer, Scotland" and "self-respect" but never an actual sensible answer that X will happen as a result of independence.

What he said, I hope the referendum is a big fat 'no'. I'm slightly worried that morons will believe the pish that's written in the red tops, that goes for south of the border as well!

I'm Scottish, I'm also very proud to be British. I think it's a poor idea for everyone if there's a split.

Chrisch
05-04-2013, 02:04 PM
....I'm Scottish, I'm also very proud to be British. I think it's a poor idea for everyone if there's a split.

I don't think there is a plan to split Scotland from Great Britain. It would be a political independence not a physical one :whew:

londonsean69
05-04-2013, 02:19 PM
I don't think there is a plan to split Scotland from Great Britain. It would be a political independence not a physical one :whew:

We could get rid of the nukes, and split the Jocks off all at the same time :)

Ron MacRae
05-04-2013, 02:46 PM
Where is the 'don't know option'?

I don't know if it would be a good thing or not.

I do know that I'm feeling slightly hurt that the Scots don't/may not want us and, as a result, may well become sulky and a bit huffy!

I also know that, on the face of it, Alex Salmond(sp?) looks to be a right smarmy git!

If the break up happens will it still be OK for me to laugh at Billy Connolly?

Sulky and huffy are not pleasant traits in a person :)
Divorce doesn't mean we can't be friends. Possibly better friends than we are now once we agree on who owns what.

That's the nicest opinion I've heard of Alex Salmond in a long time. He's a sleekit wee shit.

If you can understand Connolly you can laugh. Personally I think he's living on his reputation. He used to be very funny.
Billy Connolly -The Crucifixion - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5F64F760B29247B7)

Ron.

Iain Smith
05-04-2013, 02:55 PM
That's the nicest opinion I've heard of Alex Salmond in a long time. He's a sleekit wee shit.

And that's the best description I've seen of him in a long time! :giggle:

...though his waistline isn't all that wee..

Iain

Hickdive
05-04-2013, 04:36 PM
No, this is not the case, although the right wing press like to peddle this propaganda. Membership of the Euro remains a target to all member states and the Euro remains the "official" currency of the EU. However no country can be forced to join, particularly if it does not meet the entry criteria.

In reality an Independent Scotland could remain outside the Eurozone for a very, very long time indeed.

Although Eurozone membership is not part of the acquis, it is a de facto requirement of joining the EU. See the European Commission's views after the Swedish referendum of 2003.

Even if we assume that Eurozone membership is not required that leaves us with two alternatives; remain with the pound sterling (the fact that Scottish banks issue notes does not mean we have a separate currency currently) or have our own currency.

The former presents us with the problem that although the BoE infamously will tolerate high interest rates and the consequent unemployment in the UK regions (including Scotland) in order to preserve low inflation and to feed the banking sector of London and the South East there is an element of political pressure from the Treasury to not take that too far (BoE independent? Aye right). There would be absolutely no political will to take into account Scottish economic conditions when setting interest rates if Scotland was independent but still using sterling. Current conditions, with a base rate of 0.5%, are exceptional and cannot be used as a basis for future planning.

That leaves us with a new independent Scottish currency (presumably Groats and Bawbees; 100 Bawbees to the Groat) which would inevitably be seen by currency markets as, at best, tied to the price of oil and to our reserve levels. OPEC decides to increase production and the Groat falls through the floor. OPEC decides to cut production and our exports become very expensive; remember that a huge part of our export wealth is actually whisky, a very vulnerable product. A more precarious position to be in is hard to imagine; Zimbabwean Dollars would be a better investment.

As an aside, I would not class the issue of Scottish Independence as a right wing/left wing issue. The 'Yes' camp consists basically of the the Tartan Tories (i.e. the SNP) whilst the 'No' campaign encompasses the spectrum of Scottish Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems. Characterising the "No" campaign as being pushed by the right-wing press is basically an attempt to hijack the traditional Scottish Labour vote into thinking that if "No" equals right-wing then "Yes" must be left-wing thereby lifelong Labour voters may be convinced to vote for independence. Currently, they might think the opposite because that self-propelled wart, Alistair Darling, is the public face of the Better Together campaign.

Finless
05-04-2013, 04:42 PM
That's the nicest opinion I've heard of Alex Salmond in a long time. He's a sleekit wee shit.That sounds much better than what I said ...... even though I've no idea what a 'sleekit' is. :)


If you can understand Connolly you can laugh. Personally I think he's living on his reputation. He used to be very funny.
Billy Connolly -The Crucifixion - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5F64F760B29247B7)

Ron.

I was watching an old clip (I think it was "an audience with Billy" because all the audience were celebs) on TV the other night and I was in tears at times. Particularly when he got to the 'incontinence pants'.

I've also seen the 'world tours' where gig footage (very good) was mixed up with him out and about. One was in NZ and one was in Scotland and, I think, one was in Canada/North America? Oh, I'm sure there was one in Australia too? My memory isn't what it

Allan Carr
05-04-2013, 04:47 PM
Would it mean having to re-instate Hadrians Wall?

That would move The Farnes into Scotland!

Ken Hawk
05-04-2013, 04:54 PM
That would move The Farnes into Scotland!

You better get up there with ye laser level Allan, and make sure they build it in the right place ;)

Allan Carr
05-04-2013, 05:00 PM
To hear Alex Salmond talk, the EU would be so desperate to have Scotland as a member that he would be able to dictate his terms - in spite of all sorts of EU officials saying that Scotland would not get automatic membership and would have to apply as a new entrant and the existing UK opt-outs would not apply. The rules for new entrants include adopting the Euro and implementation of Schengen so they would have to be border posts between England and Scotland and a passport would be required to cross the border.

In terms of finances, Alex Salmond says that Scotland is sick and tired of subsidising the rest of the UK. However, detailed analysis of the finances shows that this is based on what Scotland pays in taxes (including oil) and what it gets back. It carefully excludes all sorts of central UK costs such as the diplomatic service, much of the defence spending, EU costs etc.

CROOKY
05-04-2013, 05:08 PM
I would just like to point out that its king Alex. I am a Scot and i would vote for it but think it would be a.mistake. But you need to try new things occasionally and the system surely doesn't work as it is so why not.

Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2

Ron MacRae
05-04-2013, 05:48 PM
That sounds much better than what I said ...... even though I've no idea what a 'sleekit' is. :)


From the Oxford dictionary - Definition of sleekit - adjective

1Scottish, artfully flattering or ingratiating, sly or cunning.

2 literary having a glossy skin or surface.

Decosnapper
05-04-2013, 05:51 PM
There is a paradox at work when it comes to Scottish independence;

Would I rather see Alex Salmond out of the UK political scene and into a Ruritanian style backwater with a 'Yes' vote?

Or would I rather see Alex Salmond with a very unhappy face and being marked down as a loser as a result of a 'No' vote?

I'm not sure which is best.

But one thing I would like to see regardless of a referendum outcome is an end to the practice of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster voting on matters that have already been devolved to MSPs...

jamesp
05-04-2013, 07:43 PM
What worries me is the thought that some of the jumped up sudo commie tw*ts in cardiff might decide to jump on the bandwagon with thoughts of grandeur of their own.

The Scots might stand a chance on their own, so could London; but the SE has sucked the wealth out of the rest of the country for so long, the majority of the regions are only still standing through force of habit.

Depressingly I seem to know far more really bright Scots than I do Welsh.

Hickdive
05-04-2013, 08:58 PM
But one thing I would like to see regardless of a referendum outcome is an end to the practice of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster voting on matters that have already been devolved to MSPs...

I doubt you'll find many Scots who would disagree with that although Wee Eck undoubtedly thinks wistfully of the days when he was drawing an MP's salary and expenses alongside his MSP ones. The resettlement money when he did eventually leave Westminster would only have softened the blow slightly. Perhaps he thinks will be more suitably recompensed when he is Maximum Dear Leader for Life of the Nationalist Republic of Scotia?

Unfortunately for the English, both Labour and the Conservatives are obsessed with regional assemblies for different parts of England when clearly there is no appetite for them (as witnessed by Prescott's farce a few years ago). The simple and obvious solution of excluding Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from voting at Westminster on topics that have been devolved seems to escape them.

Chrisch
06-04-2013, 09:21 AM
....
Even if we assume that Eurozone membership is not required that leaves us with two alternatives; remain with the pound sterling (the fact that Scottish banks issue notes does not mean we have a separate currency currently) or have our own currency......

Scotland's money is fascinating. Did you know that Scottish money is not legal tender? Neither is English money in Scotland - Scotland doesn't have money :D

Scottish Banknotes Legal Position - The Committee of Scottish Bankers (CSCB) (http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php)

An independent Scottish parliament could grant legal tender to Scottish money and thus Scotland would have it's own currency overnight at no cost whatsoever. Of course the UK government could then refuse to accept the Scottish money and so in one fell swoop Scotland would have it's own separate currency and a legal currency.

Actually therefore Scottish independence does raise some currency issues, but breaking from/staying is Sterling is not one of them (or at least the practical issues thereof).

DaveBarber
06-04-2013, 10:54 AM
Be carefull what you wish for!

In the old way the scots MPs had a good influence on national government punching well above their weight and gaining special favours.

Take the scottish MPs out of westminster and the balance of power shifts to the English Tories

Going it alone might be a bit bleak.

Hickdive
06-04-2013, 01:05 PM
Scotland's money is fascinating. Did you know that Scottish money is not legal tender? Neither is English money in Scotland - Scotland doesn't have money :D

Scottish Banknotes Legal Position - The Committee of Scottish Bankers (CSCB) (http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php)

An independent Scottish parliament could grant legal tender to Scottish money and thus Scotland would have it's own currency overnight at no cost whatsoever. Of course the UK government could then refuse to accept the Scottish money and so in one fell swoop Scotland would have it's own separate currency and a legal currency.

Actually therefore Scottish independence does raise some currency issues, but breaking from/staying is Sterling is not one of them (or at least the practical issues thereof).

The issue of currency has nothing to do with the matter of what is or isn't legal tender.

A banknote is a promise, backed up by a state's central bank and, ultimately, the state itself. Scotland could indeed declare notes issued by Scottish banks to be 'legal tender' and the official currency of Scotland but that would have no bearing at all on whether or not an independent Scottish state could meet the promise of that banknote.

Think of a banknote as the certificate for share in a company and the state that issued the banknote as the company. Unless the company has an actual value then that share certificate is worthless. Remember the dot.com bubble of the late nineties? All those internet start-ups that were suddenly worth billions and then, equally suddenly, worth nothing when people realised there was no actual value to the companies? Those internet firms had performed the economic equivalent of flying by pulling on their own bootlaces. An independent Scotland with an independent Scottish Central Bank and currency would be trying to perform a very similar feat. "Ah but we have oil and whisky, so there is a value to Scotland" is the normal secessionist response but this ignores the problems of vulnerability to oil-price volatility and protectionist tariffs.

The alternatives are to remain in monetary union with the rump of the UK, which would just leave us with no political say in the economic policies that control the value of Sterling; or join the Eurozone at whatever cost France and Germany extract and leave us with with effectively no political say in Eurozone policy. You only have to look at Cyprus to see that the tail does NOT wag the dog in the Eurozone any more.

Chrisch
06-04-2013, 03:00 PM
....Think of a banknote as the certificate for share in a company and the state that issued the banknote as the company. Unless the company has an actual value then that share certificate is worthless. ....

Correct. The banknotes of all developed countries are all totally worthless. Money - as people understand it - is government debt. Scotland's "assets" are far greater than, for example, Cyprus - a country who's currency is internationally traded and respected. or another bankrupt and worthless shit hole - the United States of America. It's mickey mouse currency is worthless as the Fed are printing truck loads of them every week to try to keep up with the bad debt the banks plus Freddie and Fanny have dumped on the hapless US taxpayer. Or if you prefer Japan, who have agreed this week to double the money supply in a last desperate attempt to inject life into their zombie economy. This despite already having government debt of 200% of GDP.

Notwithstanding the total failure of these economies you will find many a willing buyer for Euro, US Dollar and Yen.

Personally I think that Scottish money, if they were to issue it, would be a better reserve currency than Sterling with its debts of 500% or more of GDP. That is unless the crushing bank debts of RBS, HBOS et all are apportioned out in some measure to the unfortunate Scots. In which case they will be in the same shit creek as the English begging the IMF for a paddle.

Government Debt To GDP | Country List (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp)

Soggy
06-04-2013, 03:03 PM
The alternatives are to remain in monetary union with the rump of the UK, which would just leave us with no political say in the economic policies that control the value of Sterling; or join the Eurozone at whatever cost France and Germany extract and leave us with with effectively no political say in Eurozone policy. You only have to look at Cyprus to see that the tail does NOT wag the dog in the Eurozone any more.

I would wonder in times ahead whether Germany would want any more basket or prospective basket cases to join the Euro/EU project. Scotland has no history as an independant country and only whiskey and a small amount of oil to satisfy the money markets and Brusells that they are able to meet the demands of EU membership. I would hazard a guess Scotland would be politlely told to go away and prove they can manage their budgets before applying again or they be another vassel state beholden to the demands of Germany and barely in control of their budget.

I see an independant Scotland to be no better off than Greece or Cyprus are now.

Not that this means i would be against them becoming independant. I too believe in "be cafeful of what you wish for, lest it come true".

IanB
06-04-2013, 03:46 PM
Scotland has no history as an independant country and only whiskey and a small amount of oil to satisfy the money marketsDon't forget the shortbread, haggis & scotch pies.

Ron MacRae
06-04-2013, 04:05 PM
Don't forget the shortbread, haggis & scotch pies.

And deep fried Mars bars!!

Soggy
06-04-2013, 04:12 PM
those stalwarts of a good industrial base.

Finless
06-04-2013, 05:46 PM
Don't forget the shortbread, haggis & scotch pies.

Scapa Flow!

Tourism? Must be worth a groat or two?

Hickdive
06-04-2013, 07:06 PM
I'll respond in more detail later but to describe the US economy as "shithole" or "Mickey
Mouse" is sadly mistaken.

To pick just one sector; the value of agriculture to the Californian economy in 2010 was $37.5 billion, the value of agriculture to the UK economy in 2011 was 5.69 billion.

That's just one state in the US in comparison with the entire UK. The robustness of the US Dollar reflects the vast reserves of mineral, agricultural and manufacturing wealth in the country and consequently the ability of the nation to keep the promise of a dollar bill.

Craig107
06-04-2013, 09:39 PM
Im not sure and frankly not bothered. I've always concidered myself English and not British. Whilst working in Scotland they called me English and theirselves Scotish and never as British.
British is now a term to refer to the people who recieve a passport after immigrating from foriegn lands.

jamesp
06-04-2013, 10:04 PM
Im not sure and frankly not bothered. I've always concidered myself English and not British. Whilst working in Scotland they called me English and theirselves Scotish and never as British.
British is now a term to refer to the people who recieve a passport after immigrating from foriegn lands.

I think of myself as British first and Welsh second, after all its a British passport.

Maybe because I get sick of the jingoistic BS and petty small minded shite that passes as "nationalisim".

There again as a country, we cant even make our mind up what we are called; UK, United kingdom and Northern Ireland, Britain, Great Britain or GB. We are that stuffed up that in the rest of the world if you fly a flag its patriotic, in this country(or collection of) its a sign of rascisim.

Craig107
06-04-2013, 10:32 PM
Holding a British passport means jack shit. your welsh. If I held a European passport would that make me European.
No I didn't think so.

taz
07-04-2013, 12:31 AM
I think of myself as British first and Welsh second, after all its a British passport.

Maybe because I get sick of the jingoistic BS and petty small minded shite that passes as "nationalisim".

There again as a country, we cant even make our mind up what we are called; UK, United kingdom and Northern Ireland, Britain, Great Britain or GB. We are that stuffed up that in the rest of the world if you fly a flag its patriotic, in this country(or collection of) its a sign of rascisim.


If your Welsh whats Scotland got to do with you?

You don't even have a border with the Country :grin:


taz

.

Nitnab Nhoj
07-04-2013, 07:01 AM
...only if all the Scots get sent home. Independence for England! No, better... Independence for London!

jamesp
07-04-2013, 09:08 AM
If your Welsh whats Scotland got to do with you?

You don't even have a border with the Country :grin:


taz

.

Actually we do.

Wales is at best a principality, and was actually absorbed into England a few hundred years ago.

So about as much as it does for the rest of you, and more in that some half wit will try and push the idea in Cardiff.

Chrisch
07-04-2013, 09:17 AM
.... The robustness of the US Dollar reflects the vast reserves of mineral, agricultural and manufacturing wealth in the country and consequently the ability of the nation to keep the promise of a dollar bill.

The US dollar is a reserve currency because oil is priced in dollars. Bush fought a war over that. If the dollars "robustness" (if it can in any way be considered robust) reflects the military might of the US and it's ability to blow up the planet (and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn for good measure) with it's obscene nuclear arsenal.

You really are totally wrong in your assertion that there is a promise behind fiat currency. All fiat currencies only have an implied value (hence the name) simply because other people somewhere will swap one worthless bit of paper for another. The USA (and the UK) have economies that are many many times bigger than anything that exists in the real world. These economies are totally based in financial slight of hand, things like derivatives and so on. The USA is and has been completely bankrupt for nigh on a generation. It's currency - if it were to have to back it up with tangible assets - is worth somewhat less than the scrap value of the paper, the coinage would be worth many many many times its face value for scrap metal. However it will not, indeed cannot happen as there simply isn't enough paper on the planet to print enough bank notes to have physical money to cover the mickey mouse money that exists on computers.

The real economy you describe - farming, manufacturing etc. - is inconsequential to the financial economy. You are totally correct in that the real economy of the USA is robust and strong. However it has nothing to do with money. That is the confidence trick of fiat currency. The real economy of Scotland is robust. The real economy of the UK (with or without Scotland) is robust. The depression through which we are living is a financial construction whereby the real economy is trying to prop up a failed banking system. However the banking system is many many times bigger than the real economy and so the recovery is impossible. The solution (which the rich don't want to face up to) is to write off the debts and live within the ability of the real economy. This solution is not possible when many rich people want (and currently have) more individual wealth than many a small country.

Thus - back to the thread - Scotland has a fiat currency ready and waiting should it wish to break from the current agreement to "share" a fiat currency with England, Wales and NI. Provided independence gives Scotland a central bank to "print" more or less fiat money as it sees fit then the Scottish pound could float or join the ERM and ultimately the Euro. Or Scotland could peg it's pound to the Mexican Peso if it wanted - just for the hell of it.

Soggy
07-04-2013, 10:49 AM
I get the feeling that salmond would adopt the Ed balls method of economics, borrowing massively, if Scotland was independent just to keep the illusion if wealth going while he held power. It would be 5-10 years before the hens came home to roost and he'd be long gone.

MikeF
07-04-2013, 11:30 AM
alex is on an ego trip and just wants his place in history and a statue of himself to reflect his greatness. The rest of the SNP are political nobodies at best and raving loonies, yes you nicola. apart from the those two name me another off the top your head. For me Salmond and the SNP lost a lot of credibility in their dodgy dealings with Trump. If they can't be trusted to uphold due process and call in planning decisions when they don't like the outcome, and allow development on a SSSI, for the sake of political expediency I want nothing to do with them.

I really fear that in the run up to the referendum, coincidentally chosen to be the same year as the 600th anniversary of bannockburn, they are going to stir up a hornets nest of ra ra jingoistic patriotism about a medieval battle (celebrating old battles always seems to smooth relations with the neighbours just look at orangemans day parades), run Braveheart on a constant loop, give the vote to kids and promise the earth to the majority of this country that don't pay tax. That'll help informed debate.

They want their moment in the sun and sod the consequences for the rest of us and our children that will have to deal with the fallout for years to come. 300 years of political and trading union and they want to break it up to go back to having the voice of a tiny nation in a big EU. I look fwd to us having the all the political clout of Ireland in EU negotiations and changing euro's to sterling whenever I buy anything south of the border.

Hickdive
07-04-2013, 06:17 PM
The US dollar is a reserve currency because oil is priced in dollars. Bush fought a war over that...

Ok, you've got yourself thoroughly confused, clearly the concept of a banknote as a sort of share certificate was a little too complex and let you use to red herrings like "fiat money" so let's take it to the lowest denominator and see if that helps you.

Forget currency, forget notes and coins; instead imagine a world that runs on barter. Banknotes, bonds, shares, futures, gilts, you name it, are based on the basic premise of bartering goods so let's leave them to one side.

The US has lots of things that other countries want to swap their things for. Those things are everything from peaches to pontiacs. What does Scotland have to barter? Scotland simply does not produce agricultural or manufactured goods on a broad enough basis to barter successfully. Our principle exports are oil and whisky - both extremely vulnerable.

THAT is the basic problem for an independent Scotland and THAT is why the US economy is not what you think it is. To hark back to my earlier analogy of bank notes as shares, you may want to find out which country holds the greatest number of shares in the US and ask yourself why they would invest in a "mickey mouse economy?

Chrisch
08-04-2013, 09:29 AM
....THAT is the basic problem for an independent Scotland and THAT is why the US economy is not what you think it is. To hark back to my earlier analogy of bank notes as shares, you may want to find out which country holds the greatest number of shares in the US and ask yourself why they would invest in a "mickey mouse economy?

Sorry mate you really don't get it at all. Shares in companies represent a part - a "share" - of an entity. Money is a fiction and can be created and destroyed at will. The US dollar has nothing whatsoever to do with the total amount of physical assets in the US. Fiat currency is not a red herring it is the total and absolute basis of global capitalism. Your constant argument that somehow Scotland is or would be any different to any other country due to it's (in your view) lack of something or another is mistaken.

People who hold US dollars are not investors. You don't get a dividend every year based on the number of dollars you hold. There is no board of shareholders debating the proportion of profit to be given to the owners of the business. The US doesn't make a profit, it makes a huge and eye watering loss. No one with a brain would buy a share in a company that makes a loss every single trading year and is bankrupt.

I am hard pressed to think of a worse analogy than corporate shares as an explanation for money.

Money is government debt. It's an IOU. And, much as if the IOU was from me it is not worth a great deal :) So far the US government owes a fair bit. US$16.7Tr as I type but it will have gone up by this afternoon. That is $148,000 per US taxpayer.

If my company issued share as fast as the US economy gained debt I would spend my entire day issuing share certificates.

Understanding fiat money is the cornerstone of understanding the modern capitalist economy. Red herrings - to choose a random example - are tangible goods, lovely smoked fish that can be exported in exchange for something that you might want from a hot country - bananas maybe. The Phoenicians (I think it was them anyway) were the first international traders to use a recognisable coinage or currency as an exchange mechanism for these sorts of transactions. Fiat money can be created by a computer at the flick of a switch. Once created it can join the mickey mouse economy of derivatives and exotic financial products. Like a virus it will reproduce itself allowing the creator to "repay" the original fictitious money and keep the "interest".

Let me try an analogy. Mortgages. You borrow - for example - 100 grand to buy a property. The bank creates the money out of thin air. You pay it back and the capital returns to non-existence. However you also pay (over the lifetime of the mortgage) another 100 grand interest. That is the bank's "profit". That's why banks lost trillions and trillions - they go so carried away with this scam then lent money to homeless drunks to buy houses because you "can't lose" and property "only ever goes up". Sadly houses that once were bought for $250,000 have been sold on ebay for $1000. In the US - the source of the crash - the banks take the hit not the mug punter. The mickey mouse products like RMBS that had been sold and resold to all and sundry became toxic and impossible to value. Hence the 2008 crash.

Now, all these huge losses are measured in something - currency, money if you prefer. To cover the banks' loses the Fed creates money out of thin air - quantitative easing if you prefer. But the accountants demand that this mickey mouse money shows up on the books somewhere. So it shows up as more debt and the taxpayer must stump it up. So the real economy must pay the mickey mouse one. Unfortunately the mickey mouse economy is many many times larger than the real one so the real one is bust as well.

The UK is doing the same, for the same reason. So is France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Greece, Japan, UEA and pretty much anywhere you can think of.

It's a big club. Scotland can join if they like. No one will mind.

smudger
08-04-2013, 10:17 AM
The poll I think shows there are too many intelligent Scottish persons on here what we need if a few brave heart ( its historically accurate) watching unemployed, buckfast dringing, vest wearing scots persons to vote!!:giggle::party:

Hickdive
08-04-2013, 02:25 PM
Chris,

The more complex your explanations for "money" the further you get from the essential point. You don't understand barter so I can't really make it any simpler for you but maybe it'll help some other readers to cut through the Swinney-esque "bullshit baffles brains".

In any economic system you must have something that someone else wants. What does Scotland have that the rest of the world wants?

gordyp
08-04-2013, 02:56 PM
Chris,

The more complex your explanations for "money" the further you get from the essential point. You don't understand barter so I can't really make it any simpler for you but maybe it'll help some other readers to cut through the Swinney-esque "bullshit baffles brains".

In any economic system you must have something that someone else wants. What does Scotland have that the rest of the world wants?


More than its fair share of Gingers?

Hickdive
08-04-2013, 03:05 PM
More than its fair share of Gingers?

Does the rest of the world want them?

Ron MacRae
08-04-2013, 03:35 PM
Does the rest of the world want them?

Could we export them?
As well as red hair they seem to have a 'let's all get pissed' gene.
The ones I know seem to have a desire to kill me off by forcing me to drink copious ammounts of alcohol.
If we could export them then the export of scotch would rocket too, this solving all Scotland's problems.
Or at least we wouldn't care about them any more, until the morning.

Chrisch
08-04-2013, 03:37 PM
Chris,

The more complex your explanations for "money" the further you get from the essential point. You don't understand barter so I can't really make it any simpler for you but maybe it'll help some other readers to cut through the Swinney-esque "bullshit baffles brains".

In any economic system you must have something that someone else wants. What does Scotland have that the rest of the world wants?

I'm sorry if the complexity of modern capitalism is clearly too much for you to take in. Barter died with Braveheart. The economic system of the Bahamas does very very well indeed but I am not sure what it has that other people want? Coconuts maybe?

As to Scotland it has many things that make it a viable country in it's own right. However it can work without such things provided it doesn't need to buy much from other countries on the open market. But we are going a long way away from your original crap about Scotland not being able to have a currency even though it already has one.

Like, I suspect, 99% of people in England, I personally don't really care whether or not Scotland chooses to part from the UK or not. I cannot see any logical reason why it shouldn't if it wants to. It's people must chose for themselves - that is a democracy. If it's people are so pessimistic, defeatist and gloomy that they think the country cannot survive without it's massive handout from Westminster then I might change my opinion and think we (the English taxpayers) are better off without it and we should invite it to leave forthwith, whether it wants to or not. I hope your view is not representative of the majority of Scots.

Edward3c
08-04-2013, 03:56 PM
Until the Scottish White Paper is issued in September/October 2013 by the Scottish Parliament no one knows what is actually meant by 'Independence'.

Kind regards

Hickdive
08-04-2013, 04:52 PM
I'm sorry if the complexity of modern capitalism is clearly too much for you to take in. Barter died with Braveheart. The economic system of the Bahamas does very very well indeed but I am not sure what it has that other people want? Coconuts maybe?

As to Scotland it has many things that make it a viable country in it's own right. However it can work without such things provided it doesn't need to buy much from other countries on the open market. But we are going a long way away from your original crap about Scotland not being able to have a currency even though it already has one.

Like, I suspect, 99% of people in England, I personally don't really care whether or not Scotland chooses to part from the UK or not. I cannot see any logical reason why it shouldn't if it wants to. It's people must chose for themselves - that is a democracy. If it's people are so pessimistic, defeatist and gloomy that they think the country cannot survive without it's massive handout from Westminster then I might change my opinion and think we (the English taxpayers) are better off without it and we should invite it to leave forthwith, whether it wants to or not. I hope your view is not representative of the majority of Scots.

A long-winded way of saying you actually have not the slightest clue as to how Scotland would fund its way in the world if independent nor the slightest clue as to how it is currently funded within the UK. "Massive handout from Westminster?" I thought that Daily Mail argument had been so thoroughly debunked that no-one would be daft enough to use it, evidently I was wrong.

I've tried explaining using different and increasingly simplistic, analogies and either you are being deliberately obtuse in pretending to not understand them (because they expose your argument for the red herring it is) or you are, in fact, incapable of understanding. Seriously, do you genuinely think that my reference to the barter system was because I think an independent Scotland would be reduced to exchanging neeps? Mind you, you still seem to think my argument revolves around currency (where, exactly, did I say we couldn't have one?) so you might actually be incapable.

Instead of asinine ad homs about "pessimism" and "gloom" how about you give us examples of the "many things" that Scotland can pay its own way with? How about instead of displaying ignorance with your "as long as it doesn't have to buy to much from abroad" you go off and research the simple fact that the UK as a whole doesn't even feed itself and how Scotland will manage to avoid the same problem?

Iain Smith
08-04-2013, 05:13 PM
Until the Scottish White Paper is issued in September/October 2013 by the Scottish Parliament no one knows what is actually meant by 'Independence'.

Kind regards

Are we actually expecting to have definitive positions on what Independence will mean on, say, EU membership, NATO membership, currency, who-owns-what-oil, what share of the UK national debt would be taken, to mention but a few?

By "definitive", I mean, "binding agreements with the other parties who have an interest".

Or is it going to more of what King Alec and the Red Queen have decided that other organisations will agree to, whether it's actually been discussed with them or not?

Iain

Edward3c
08-04-2013, 06:46 PM
Are we actually expecting to have definitive positions on what Independence will mean on, say, EU membership, NATO membership, currency, who-owns-what-oil, what share of the UK national debt would be taken, to mention but a few?

By "definitive", I mean, "binding agreements with the other parties who have an interest".

Or is it going to more of what King Alec and the Red Queen have decided that other organisations will agree to, whether it's actually been discussed with them or not?

Iain

According to the SNP representative at an open meeting in Helensburgh, yes. He stated that the issues on currency, NATO membership, EU membership etc would be in the White Paper.

Do I believe it, No. It will be written in political speak and say absolutely nothing. But then the guy just want's to go down in history as the one who made Scotland independent - he's got no interest in what happens to the country after that.

Goggles and Flippers
08-04-2013, 09:19 PM
[QUOTE=Logun;55519]As above, do you think the UK and Scotland would be better off or worse after a split?[/QUOT

........................

Chrisch
09-04-2013, 09:00 AM
A long-winded way of saying you actually have not the slightest clue as to how Scotland would fund its way in the world if independent nor the slightest clue as to how it is currently funded within the UK. "Massive handout from Westminster?" I thought that Daily Mail argument had been so thoroughly debunked that no-one would be daft enough to use it, evidently I was wrong.

I've tried explaining using different and increasingly simplistic, analogies and either you are being deliberately obtuse in pretending to not understand them (because they expose your argument for the red herring it is) or you are, in fact, incapable of understanding. Seriously, do you genuinely think that my reference to the barter system was because I think an independent Scotland would be reduced to exchanging neeps? Mind you, you still seem to think my argument revolves around currency (where, exactly, did I say we couldn't have one?) so you might actually be incapable.

Instead of asinine ad homs about "pessimism" and "gloom" how about you give us examples of the "many things" that Scotland can pay its own way with? How about instead of displaying ignorance with your "as long as it doesn't have to buy to much from abroad" you go off and research the simple fact that the UK as a whole doesn't even feed itself and how Scotland will manage to avoid the same problem?

I am genuinely confused now. You appear to be saying Scotland cannot pay it's own way whilst at the same time denying it gets money from England. One or the other must be wrong. As to food Scotland exports beef, fish and other products all around the world. You have, I will admit, reached the limit of my knowledge in respect of whether deep fried Mars bars are imported or not.

Ron MacRae
09-04-2013, 09:07 AM
You have, I will admit, reached the limit of my knowledge in respect of whether deep fried Mars bars are imported or not.

Some of the raw materials, i.e. Mars Bars, are imported but the main fabrication and the intellectual property are both proudly Scottish.

N.b. There was at one time diversification into deep fried Curly Whurlys. However this ended with the closure of the Curly Whurly manufacturing facilities in England. :(

Rupert Bear
17-04-2013, 09:13 PM
Wheres the "not decided" choice?

Basically I don't believe anyone genuinely knows whether its a good thing and practicable financially or not, politics and viewpoint are both tied up too much and skew the info.
A lot of the financial arguments will really be up to how the resources are divided up and there is no solid agreement on this yet. I have said before that although the jury is out on whether Scotland will be better off or not after a split it is certain England will be.
Be interesting to see how it all pans out next year.