Just to check, you know that Empire 2.0 isn’t something I made up?

I wish it was but google it if you don’t believe me.

brucewee,
First, I wholeheartedly reject the implication that being against independence means I have good feelings about the tories.

But brexit is a lesson in political promises. Brexit at heart is a “solution” to a series of problems that at best are unrelated to europe and will mostly become worse with brexit.

I see scottish independence in the same way.

The indy campaign wrote the book (quite literally) on economic lies and obfuscation and sloganising to avoid facing facts that has now been taken on and improved by boris and co.

Brexit is also about to become an object lesson in the fact that reality doesn’t change based on the power of your positive thinking.

So, I don’t trust people who offer “sunlit uplands” based on no evidence and wishful thinking, and neither should you.

The idea that you are prepared for yourself and others to experience hardship in order to achieve
your political aims should worry you (and make you evaluate whether your idea of hardship is real or romanticised).

I’ve visited countries, in old e. europe and africa, where the fabric of society is right on the edge of collapse and seen the conditions endured by the poor, sick and mentally ill when things go wrong and the money runs out. Good intentions count for nothing.

(To be clear, I am not claiming that an indy scotland would be a second/third world country, just pointing out that intentions are not a negotiable currency.)

So political intentions about the nhs and social care and the environment have zero value if the plan assumes that somehow they will get paid for (and be better) with less cash than we have now.

All that indy can offer at the moment is being out of europe _and_ out of the UK PLUS (for 25 years only) more austerity than you can shake a stick at.

Having said all that. If the UK does lurch very far to the right and the economic damage looks severe enough that independent scotland looks like a genuinely better economic prospect, maybe I could be convinced (if I genuinely thought that it could realistically improve the lot of the average person in scotland).

But we’re a long way from that (I hope).

I’m already looking at having to pass through customs to visit my parents (in NI), possibly being a different nationality to them (if ireland unifies), and possibly being a different nationality (again) to the one I was born if scotland gets independence.

Interesting times.

Civil society is a thin veneer that is easily scratched away. I don’t doubt the aims, intentions and sincerity of many independence supporters, but until their aims are even vaguely achievable, they are just more “sunlit uplands”.

“sunlit uplands”.

Full of pesky biting midges mind.

Civil society is a thin veneer that is easily scratched away. I don’t doubt the aims, intentions and sincerity of many independence supporters, but until their aims are even vaguely achievable.

lets see your understanding of the sums?

But apart from that it got everything else right?

I doubt it, most of it relates to cherry picked articles and data which in most cases is quite old and relates to a period after 13+ years of labour government or it’s immediate aftermath. There are real issues for the UK, but portraying Europe as the utopia he does undermines his case

and as I asked above why he wasn’t living in Scotland rather than the hell he portrays in the SE of England?

Lets play the stats game, I can pick really important one randomly: youth unemployment

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

could do better for the UK, we should be aiming at being at the head of the table, impacts of 3m+ EU nationals (you know, the “net contributors because they tend to be in employment) on the UK jobs market need to be understood (but not over egged, as with anything there will be pro’s and con’s)

but I’m sure you can turn it into a horror story to support your case

Epicyclo

Ah, if you set this theme to rhyme, it could be the chorus to the that well sung song “You can’t be independent because…”

You see, the problem you have, and the problem the snp has, is like it or not I’m exactly the type of person you need to get on board if you ever want to see independence.

It’s all very well and good the hard-core marching down the road with their yes banners..but if you want a majority you need to convince the unconvinced.

I voted no last time round, I voted remain in the brexit poll, I’m totally against everything the Tories stand for, and I’m not entirely against independence and would vote for it if the argument is there. I’m exactly the type of person the snp need to be targeting.

Yet your response, slightly patronising, full of distain for my views, and completely lacking in any kind of relevant evidence to
Alleviate my concerns is exactly the type of response that puts me off voting for the cause you seem so passionate about.

Stating ‘it worked for other countries’ doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. Not for me or many others like me. Either you and the Snp are too stupid to see that, or the economic argument just isn’t there.

Either way all your posts on the subject, and there are many, only serve to hinder the independence effort. Keep it up and you will lose again.

Just to check, you know that Empire 2.0 isn’t something I made up?

but only you seem to be making something of a phrase used which seems to have escalated from a throwaway civil servant catchphrase for a trade strategy into some organic national movement that threatens world peace (if you read the left wing press hyperbole)

I hadn’t heard it used, had to google it, so much for it’s traction

more sensibly

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lloyd-brexit-commentary/commentary-no-brexit-britain-doesnt-want-its-empire-back-idUSKCN1P521N

First, I wholeheartedly reject the implication that being against independence means I have good feelings about the tories.

I didn’t mean to imply that you like the Tories. If it came across that way I’m sorry.

But brexit is a lesson in political promises. Brexit at heart is a “solution” to a series of problems that at best are unrelated to europe and will mostly become worse with brexit.

I agree.

I see scottish independence in the same way.

I agree that the roots are the same. I keep going on about the democratic deficit because I believe the UK is fundamentally undemocratic. People’s frustrations at this led to the first referendum and then to Brexit.

The key difference is that Scottish independence will address this democratic deficit directly. Brexit won’t.

I don’t see any sign at all that the UK is going to fix it’s system, do you?

So political intentions about the nhs and social care and the environment have zero value if the plan assumes that somehow they will get paid for (and be better) with less cash than we have now.

I think we agree that things are going to get worse under the Tories though, don’t we?

All that indy can offer at the moment is being out of europe _and_ out of the UK PLUS (for 25 years only) more austerity than you can shake a stick at.

I don’t believe this is a given. There have been a lot of positive noises coming from the EU about Scotland remaining or rejoining.

Having said all that. If the UK does lurch very far to the right and the economic damage looks severe enough that independent scotland looks like a genuinely better economic prospect, maybe I could be convinced (if I genuinely thought that it could realistically improve the lot of the average person in scotland).

I guess the problem is that no one can prove to anyone else that they will be worse off in one scenario or the other. All we’re doing is taking our best guess.

The democratic deficit is definitely not going away by staying in the union though.

Its not all guesswork and supposition. The economic argument is against it right now.

The Democratic deficit matters a lot less with the scottish parliament (and is better solution, used wisely, than the alternative, in my opinion).

The economic prospects under brexit are bad, but still not as bad as indy in the current situation (this may be controversial, but shouldn’t be based on the best information we have).

European “noises” and positive thinking are exactly what they sound like. There are a lot of politicians in the EU at many different levels. Equating the views of e.g. bob, MEP from hannover, with the president of the EU is a mistake (not that it hasn’t happened before 😉

I suppose the question is, can I see a time when scotland, maybe wales and a united ireland as members of the EU surround an independent brexited england?

Well maybe. But can supporters of indy see themselves selling the prospect of a time when travelling to Newcastle to see your gran would involve crossing a border?

(I’m facing that prospect right now with my folks in NI, and just thinking about what someone elses political wet dream has done (and could do) to my family hollows me out more than you can probably imagine, it really shouldn’t matter so much but it really does.)

Theres a lot of stuff happening, and my guiding light is people before politics.

I suppose the question is, can I see a time when scotland, maybe wales and a united ireland as members of the EU surround an independent brexited england?

Wales voted for brexit in the same proportions as the English. Not to mention the big swing to Tories at the election (40% Tory vs 39% Labour).

(I’m facing that prospect right now with my folks in NI, and just thinking about what someone elses political wet dream has done (and could do) to my family hollows me out more than you can probably imagine, it really shouldn’t matter so much but it really does.)

Well, I’m not in exactly the same boat as you but my girlfriend and my kids are Italian. I’m not really looking forward to seeing what a hard Brexit is going to do to my family and the choices we might have to make about where to live.

I think we can at least agree it’s a shitty situation for everyone right now.

eat_the_pudding

Member
Its not all guesswork and supposition. The economic argument is against it right now.

Lets see your understanding of the sums?

What is your picture of how IS will look on day 1?

Genuinely curious to see how you interpret things?

The point about economics is that the information we have now is a snapshot in the past. Following different policy will produce different results

UK wide austerity has badly damaged the economy. Investment in infrastructure will produce growth. Stopping tax avoidance will put more money into the economy.

Also the poor performance of Scotlands economy is Westminsters fault

tjagain

Member
The point about economics is that the information we have now is a snapshot in the past. Following different policy will produce different results

UK wide austerity has badly damaged the economy. Investment in infrastructure will produce growth. Stopping tax avoidance will put more money into the economy.

Also the poor performance of Scotlands economy is Westminsters fault

Same question goes to you, lets see your projections and understanding.

Wales voted for brexit in the same proportions as the English. Not to mention the big swing to Tories at the election (40% Tory vs 39% Labour).

If Wales were ever to become independent it would have to campaign to join the EU or at least gain some kind of relationship purely from a pragmatic point of view. Also this from July 2016:

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/14598239.wales-has-changed-its-mind-about-brexit-poll-suggests/

Where did we get the notion that it will take iScotland 25 years to rejoin the EU?

That seems like utter nonsense given Romania managed to go from a communist state to an EU member in 17 years.

richmtb

Subscriber

Where did we get the notion that it will take iScotland 25 years to rejoin the EU?

That seems like utter nonsense given Romania managed to go from a communist state to an EU member in 17 years.

Same place as the “queue” and “you will have to adopt the euro”- people who either know nothing or know they’re lying.

Romania you say,

Money
Romania is increasingly a card economy. While a growing number of businesses do accept credit cards, it may be safer to use cash due to the risk of credit card fraud. There is now a large network of ATMs that accept standard international credit and debit cards. Check with your card provider whether you will be able to use these machines.

US dollars and sterling are not always easy to exchange for local currency, especially outside Bucharest. You may have difficulties using travellers’ cheques. Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes may not be accepted in banks and bureaux de change.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/romania/money

but Scotland isn’t Romania, importantly it has a Central Bank and controls it’s own interest rates

I agree it’s not in Euro and a recent EU member

but in 2024
https://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-pm-euro-adoption-deadline

There isn’t an EU state that uses a currency with a third party Central Bank, so the rUK£ precludes EU membership, iS therefore would need to have the iS “Merks and Bawbees” or similar or the Euro

big_n_daft

Member

There isn’t an EU state that uses a currency with a third party Central Bank, so the rUK£ precludes EU membership, iS therefore would need to have the iS “Merks and Bawbees” or similar or the Euro

The first doesn’t lead us to the last… Do you have anything to support the idea that an EU state <can’t> use a currency with a 3rd party central bank? I’ve looked but every time you find that assertion it only ever seems to be “backed” with the observation that nobody’s done it before.

Do you have anything to support the idea that an EU state <can’t> use a currency with a 3rd party central bank? I’ve looked but every time you find that assertion it only ever seems to be “backed” with the observation that nobody’s done it before

So do you agree it would make sense to establish whether we can or can’t do that before bashing ahead with a vote?

Because that’s the kind of thing, along with many other things, we surely deserve to know?

A majority of Scottish voters have voted for pro-union parties in every single election the UK has ever had. The majority is smaller now but still a majority. Scotland is free to vote anyway it likes, and so far has chosen to remain part of the UK.

That may change in the future, but we aren’t being held against our will, or “imprisoned” as the SNP said the other day.

I agree with this

You see, the problem you have, and the problem the snp has, is like it or not I’m exactly the type of person you need to get on board if you ever want to see independence.

It’s all very well and good the hard-core marching down the road with their yes banners..but if you want a majority you need to convince the unconvinced.

I voted no last time round, I voted remain in the brexit poll, I’m totally against everything the Tories stand for, and I’m not entirely against independence and would vote for it if the argument is there. I’m exactly the type of person the snp need to be targeting.

Yet your response, slightly patronising, full of distain for my views, and completely lacking in any kind of relevant evidence to
Alleviate my concerns is exactly the type of response that puts me off voting for the cause you seem so passionate about.

Stating ‘it worked for other countries’ doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. Not for me or many others like me. Either you and the Snp are too stupid to see that, or the economic argument just isn’t there.

Either way all your posts on the subject, and there are many, only serve to hinder the independence effort. Keep it up and you will lose again.

I also agree and identify with this.

As much as I hate watching the tories run the country into the ground I am equally put off the Yes movement for the same reasons, people going on about what happened hundreds of years ago, the numerous anti-english comments on facebook posts about independence, even if they are shot down by many others. The last indy ref was pretty much the original ‘fake news’ political campaign, the fake stories about Cameron’s secret trips to an oil rig west of Shetland and secret drilling rigs hiding untold riches on things like the yes caithness page were just ridiculous to anyone with half a clue of reality.

I was born and lived in Scotland my whole life but now live in a wonderful country about the same population as Scotland which is often used as a claim for what for an independent Scotland would be like, which I agree would be fantastic, but it would take hundreds and hundreds of years if not more of immense effort to achieve anything remotely like it, if at all. But maybe not impossible.

Drop the alba gu brath and project fear soundbites in response to any challenging question, drop the references to events of hundreds of years ago, drop the obsession with oil wealth lost, drop the Trumpian like idolisation and they can do no wrong defense of the SNP and a lot more people could be swung towards independence.

Yes we look to countries like Denmark and say – why can’t we do it? there is no answer to this. One major difference when we look to those small countries with much higher standards of living is we see countries that are much less unequal in income distribution and much higher taxed.

What is unique about Scotland that it could not be a viable prosperous country? ~Especially given the advantages we have in energy reserves?

but it would take hundreds and hundreds of years if not more of immense effort to achieve anything remotely like it

Unless you live on a colony on Mars I think it should be manageable in less time.

How long did it take Germany and Japan to rebuild after the war? How long did it take China to become the world’s factory after they decided to open up to the world?

I’m not saying these are models that Scotland should emulate but they do show how quickly things can change when a population has a common purpose and drive to achieve it.

big_n_daft

but Scotland isn’t Romania, importantly it has a Central Bank and controls it’s own interest rates

What makes it impossible for Scotland to set up a central bank?

tpbiker

On the performance of the scottish government – you have to remember that the have very little control over total budget ie tax raising powers are relatively new and very limited.;

So to increase spending in one area they have to reduce it in another while in the UK

Take halthcare – a subject very close to my heart. The SNP government took two big political decisions. first to remove the fake market – that saved approx 10% of the budget compared to england that is put into healthcare. Secondly they decided not to ringfence or separate out helathcare from other spending – so tory cuts to government spending meant a smaller over all budget ( in real terms) leaving the SNP with no choice but to not increase spending in real terms. If they had protected helthcare 100% it would have meant massive cuts elsewhere because healthcare spending is such a large part of the budget.

yes the SNP government has made errors but few huge blunders and IMO have sueed the very limited powers wisely to ameliorate the worst of the tory cuts. With no borrowing powers they simply can only spend the amount given to them by Westminster – if that means cuts then they have to cut.

You may think there are issues with healthcare in Scotand and with the welfare system in general – but they are much less than the issues in England

Also relevant to the banking conversation:

The Bank of England has revealed details of the emergency plan it would have put in place had Scotland voted ‘Yes’ for independence in last month’s referendum.

The Bank was ready to pump millions of pounds into the financial system to ensure liquidity and had issued extra notes to cope with additional demand from Scottish deposit holders.

It was also prepared to stand by notes issued by Scottish banks in an attempt to reassure the public there would no immediate changes in an effort to prevent a potential deposit flight.

Unlike England and Wales, where all bank notes are issued by Threadneedle Street, Scotland has different types of bank notes issued by Scottish banks. These are guaranteed by deposits at the Bank of England.

“Under current arrangements, Scottish banknotes are backed fully by their issuers’ holdings of Bank of England notes, UK coin and deposits at the Bank of England. This would have been a key public message in the event of a Yes vote,” the BoE said.

Had Scotland voted in favour of independence, the Bank said it would have issued a statement “reaffirming its responsibilities for financial stability, prudential regulation, banknotes and monetary policy in the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland” until independence came into force.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/scottish-referendum-this-is-what-bank-of-england-would-have-done-had-scotland-voted-yes-to-9787866.html

I’d have a guess that this is the case becasue the BoE knows would would have to back the Scottish Pound or it would need to buy Scotland out of the BoE.

The bank of England is the UK’s bank, not Englands.

So initially, we could use the pound, the bank of England would continue backing it. But the longer term goal would be to get bought out and set up a central bank of scotland.

Going to take a wee break from this thread for a while. I just got offered a job on a secret semi-sub that is going to be drilling on Loch Lomond.

Edit: I may have said too much.

😆

tpbiker

Member

So do you agree it would make sense to establish whether we can or can’t do that before bashing ahead with a vote?

Absolutely- but tbh the absence of any evidence presented, and the fact that it didn’t come up at all in 2014, is pretty indicative. Considering all the imaginary arguments about EU membership it’d be bizarre for the No campaign to not use a factual one.

Onus is on the person making the claims of course but that’s a bit of a lawyer’s response so I’ve had a decent look and like I say, every time it comes up the only supporting facts are “nobody does it at the moment”. So I went to the source and I can’t find a single word about central banks other than the ECB in TEU or in Article 49. The economic requirement is essentially that you must be a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with the pressures and demands of being part of the EU economy, and this would be no barrier to any of that. I’m not going to claim to be an authority, of course, but if this rule does exist it’s well hidden- and why would it be?

It definitely would be an issue for euro convergence, but then that’s why there’s a convergence process and why it’s separate from accession.

Is it not possible to come up with some sort of staged independence plan? Starting up the institutions bit by bit?

molgrips

Subscriber
Is it not possible to come up with some sort of staged independence plan? Starting up the institutions bit by bit?

Completely sensible, and would have the majority support in Scotland. And it would probably happen that way post an indy yes vote. Problem is until after the yes vote the No argument is nup, we’re no playing, it’s oor baw.

I’d also suggest that independence doesn’t and won’t mean isolation, so it would be perfectly feasible to have cross border initiatives if to the benefit of all.

Thanks northwind. If it’s possible then great, let’s get that confirmed and the SNP can then stick it in the manifesto saying it’s been confirmed and tick that one off the list. If they want me to vote for independence then the emphasis is well and truly on them to evidence these kind of things ..not on the person asking the question to prove otherwise

Tj- I’m not saying scotland couldn’t be successful. It could well be, it could also be a total disaster. At the moment I’ve not been given enough detail and evidence to sway me from the status quo. All im hearing is things are bad at the moment but they’ll be better if we were independent.. more money for benefits, social reform, better health care etc etc

This seems to fly in face of what all the impartial economic experts told us in 2014. Im not expecting you or anyone else on here to provide evidence or justify it btw. What I want to see is the SNP document their economic argument, tell us how it’ll work, and exactly how we’ll be so much better off independent. And then I want the impartial experts to confirm it’s logical, not pie in sky thinking, the numbers add up, and that scotland could be more prosperous under their proposals.

I don’t think that’s all that much to ask. If they can do that I’d vote for independence. If not I won’t.

Anyone else think that maybe it’d be a good idea to have a quick, simple, non-binding inyrefref?

“Should there be a second Scottish Independence Referendum in the next westminster parliamentary term”

No need for months of debates or campaigning and the ensuing division and fatigue, no risk of it becoming a proxy for a real ref due to the difference in intent- because there’s plenty of people that don’t believe in independence but do believe it’s a democratic right to ask the question… Not to mention No campaigners and voters who have confidence in winning and would like to properly settle the question just as with brexit. And of course there’s Yes voters who don’t agree with an accelerated re-ref, or who’re afraid it’ll fail if it’s this soon… SNP voters who don’t want a referendum, tactical voters for other parties.

When people say “this is/isn’t the will of the people”, well that’s not something we have to guess, so why guess?

tpbiker

Member

Thanks northwind. If it’s possible then great, let’s get that confirmed and the SNP can then stick it in the manifesto saying it’s been confirmed and tick that one off the list. If they want me to vote for independence then the emphasis is well and truly on them to evidence these kind of things ..not on the person asking the question to prove otherwise

That’s just unrealistic. With real, known challenges and concerns, sure, it’s sensible to cover those and basically overcome objections before they arise, and as you say it’ll help win them support. And in fact, they do that already. It’s like costing your own manifesto.

But you can’t do that for every possible challenge, least of all completely unevidenced ones like this. You can’t even predict them all, let alone refute them all, and if you try, you’ll end up with a million page manifesto and when someone comes up with one daft question that you didn’t see coming the response will be “why didn’t you answer THAT one in your manifesto with its supposedly exhaustive list of questions and answers eh? Hiding something?”

And would anyone accept it if they did? “well of course you’d say that”

So yes, the responsibility for substantiating a claim falls on the person making it. That’s just the only way it works. And it does work- it helps stop spurious claims and makes people take responsibility for false and vexatious ones, and it means that the legwork gets done by someone who has a vested interest in proving the point rather than an interest in not.

In this case, if this claim has any substance then it would be straightforward to show it. It’s not just that there’s no evidence, it’s also that any evidence would be easy to find- if it’s an EU rule, they are all enshrined in treaty and in policy. I’ve looked in the places it should be and it’s not there. You can do the same. But would you accept that answer? Like, if the Scottish Government case for independence says

Q) Would Scotland be able to join the EU without its own central bank
A) Yes- the requirements for a new member state to join the EU are set out in the Treaty On European Union 2012. There is no requirement or expectation that any new member should have its own central bank.

How would you respond?

Tpbiker – remember with economics its voodoo by and large. Ask half a dozen economists the same question you will not get two answers the same. Impartial economists actually were split but those whose conclusions favoured the yes side were sidelined

What I have done is looked at all the data for Scotland, the UK and comparable countries and come to a judgement., My judgement is that an independent Scotland would be a better place to live than a Scotland remaining in the UK. Yes taxes would be higher. But to me that is a price worth paying for a country that looks after the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable

there can be no certainty

Also remember an independent scotland would not be necessarily have an SNP government – indeed in the time post independence I would expect a realignment of scottish politics with the SNP splitting as it is a broader church than most parties and the glue holding it together would be gone

so not wanting to vote for independence because you do not like the snp is like not buying a house because you do not like the curtains

Northwind

Subscriber
Anyone else think that maybe it’d be a good idea to have a quick, simple, non-binding inyrefref?

Would probly be a very low turnout and most likely skewed to one side or the other I’d think, and it’d likel have zero effect of the uk govs stance..

tjagain
But to me that is a price worth paying for a country that looks after the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable

You should chill out on the bleeding heart propaganda. 😆 It’s irritating, and an IS isn’t going to be a welfare state nirvana.

Thats my view. I look to countries like Holland and sweden and see no reason why we cannot emulate them. I mean FFS holland is a swamp in the mouth of two huge rivers – It doesn’t even have any rocks to play with let along oil!

Yet somehow ( higher taxation) it manages to have a decent welfare system. People do not have to resort to foodbanks, the old the sick and the vulnerable are well looked after. The government does not let tens of thousands die preventable deaths from austerity

seosamh77

Subscriber

Would probly be a very low turnout and most likely skewed to one side or the other I’d think,

Why would that be?

Northwind

Subscriber
seosamh77

Why would that be?

If you are advertising it as non-binding. Likely to only be the indy side that particularly care about it. The no side will be safe in the knowledge that boris will just dingy it.

Best letting the scottish elections mount pressure for it.