Forum menu
Pie monster there is some info on Curtice's blog at whatscotlandthinks
Cheers Gordi/Junkyard, I'll have a mooch.
Of the various currency options available to an iS, the latest one is the one that the fiscal commission rejected almost immediately. One small paragraph in their report explaining why serious consideration need only be given to the other options. So the DO is even ignoring his own advice now. Amazing.
I did point that out to Ben a couple of pages ago but that didn't seem to matter.
Somebody in a village near me put up one of those big white Yes signs on their property next to the road. Local wag has already drawn pubic hair on the Y. This could get entertaining....
Vietnam already owns the dong
STOP TELLING SCOTLAND IT CAN'T USE THE DONG!
Typical "Better Together" scaremongering propaganda.
The Ding Dong is still available. It has a certain ring to it too.
Excellent !
I will try and get a pic - was driving and didn't have time to stop. Will take a can of spray paint just in case.
The Ding Dong is still available. It has a certain ring to it too.
The notes will need Prince Albert then?
Although in reflection, for maximum amusement he should really put up a series of Yes signs, as in Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh Yes, Yes etc.
Given how humorless most of the Yes folk are, I won't knock on the door and suggest it.
Just received this guff in the post:
"We believe that we can have the best of both worlds in Scotland as part of the UK. We can have a strong Scottish Parliament, with more powers guaranteed, and we can have the strength, security and stability that comes from being part of the bigger UK. We don't need to choose between the two.
Voting for separation would be a huge leap into the unknown. If we leave then we lose the strength of the pound. This would mean that we would pay more for our mortgages, credit cards and loans. If we leave we are putting our pensions at risk. If we leave we are risking big companies being forced to move south and Scottish jobs being lost.
If we leave the UK there would be no going back. In September we face a choice about our future. Let's say no thanks to all of the risks and uncertainties of independence. Lets say loud and clear that we want the best of both worlds for Scotland."
If we have more powers guaranteed why are the being kept secret until after the referendum? My reckoning is that the will be minimal at most - if they were anything to write home about Better Together would be singing them from the roof tops.
The UK doesn't strike me as being all that strong or secure and is about as stable as a wobble board.
The pound is weak. I like that they have a crystal ball which say that we will all pay more for debt products. I wonder if we might have fewer debt products in a prosperous independent Scotland.
Our pensions are not at risk - there is no pension pot for state pensions, they are paid for by current taxes, more prosperous Scotland equals more tax income which equals safer pensions.
As for big companies being forced to leave - most of our big companies were massive liabilities during the financial crash. Might well be a good thing for them to leave.
I'll be saying No to the risks and uncertainties of staying as part of the UK.
If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.
If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.
I do hope you're not holding your breath.
It'd be nice if folk stop "playing the man" too.
That goes for both sides, Boris is popping up quite a bit. And yesterday I listened to someone state "I was unsure but after listening to the (STV) debate I'm voting No" Not because of the case made by either side but because Salmond is "smarmy"
@wanman - "the pound is weak" so why is AS proposing you use it ? The counter to your argument is that an independent Scotland is much weaker and almost certainly less prosperous due to higher per capita overheads and the fact it lacks the scale to compete.
Anyway I respect the fact it's your choice and wish you the best in it.
"the fact it lacks the scale to compete"
do expand on this please.
Our pensions are not at risk - there is no pension pot for state pensions, they are paid for by current taxes, more prosperous Scotland equals more tax income which equals safer pensions.
I might well be confused on this (as on most things). Wasn't the argument about pensions that Scotland has a population that is aging more than the UK, so *because* they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased?
they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased
Life expectancy in Scotland is less that other parts of the UK. So per person there is on average less spent on pensions.
An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.
Plus we'd have the opportunity to explore the Atlantic coast for oil and gas....
It'd be nice if folk stop "playing the man" too
Yes it would indeed both on here and in the wider debate
I dont know quite what AS does to engender so much ill feeling tbh.
he is the same as any other politician ie no one should believe what they say though it is just possible he might
As he notes scotlands master plan on pensions is to let everyone die young - about 2 weeks after stopping work would be ideal.
FWIW it will be a mess to sort out the burden for say someone who is now 55 and has "paid into " the UK
I might well be confused on this (as on most things). Wasn't the argument about pensions that Scotland has a population that is aging more than the UK, so *because* they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased?
Yes we have an aging population. One of the arguments from Better Together is that due to this we need the support from rest of UK to keep pensions secure.
My argument would be that we need our own policy on immigration and stop sending away non-EU graduates after university so they can live and work here, pay taxes etc which would help.
We need to address the aging population, our young people are leaving to go down south in droves for work. Better Together have put out nothing to suggest a fix for this if we vote No, they seem to be happy with the current situation.
Yes campaign could be doing more to promote what they would be doing.
Of course the £ is weak, it a deliberate policy choice.
Anyone would think there was a pension pot to talk about. If only....
An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.
how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?
do expand on this please.
@wanman - it's been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
Plus we'd have the opportunity to explore the Atlantic coast for oil and gas....
❓ 28th licensing round this year had hundreds of Atlantic frontier blocks
I dont know quite what AS does to engender so much ill feeling tbh.
@Junkyard - are you serious, he's the most objectionable SOB ? I do my up most to try and see beyond individuals in politics but he is right up there with GWB in my book. Perhaps you think he's standing up for Scotland but to me he's a massive PITA for no great benefit to anyone other than himself, a huge ego, obstinate and someone who cannot back up his grand proclamations with any substance.
The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
This might very well be correct, but for me, it would be easier to be worried about this (if I even lived in Scotland) if there was any evidence for it.
It's certainly true that Westminster has a quite staggering ability to lose money on vast IT projects. I'd like to think though that canny Scotspeople in this day and age of computerification could achieve something just as good without having to splurge hundreds of millions of pounds on Capita and Accenture.
I might offer my services actually.
EDIT: putting my cynic's hat on though, AS might just pay vast amounts to those same consultants out of sheer laziness.
So is Tolkein's "Silmarillion". That has no basis in reality either.
Okay, which bits are incorrect? Please provide sources.
It's an interesting read
I clicked on the link and my enthusiasm waned almost immediately, I don;t have the strength
Ben - the summary is 5 opinion pieces which have been done to death on here already. It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.
If that's the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.
C'mon Ben. Find something sensible to read. If yS is based in this and the BoD then you really are doomed. The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook. Misrepresentation at best, and God knows what at worst.
Still as said before, brilliant to see who know loves the Adam Smith Insitute's stuff!!!
[quote=The Flying Ox said]So is Tolkein's "Silmarillion". That has no basis in reality either.
its shit FACT
It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.If that's the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.
The debate would hardly be worth it if we all gave a galic shrug admitted we did not know and said it would all come out in the wash [ negotiations]
FWIW if they promised x, y amd z i get the feelign you would object somewhat to the fanciful flights of fancy
The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook
many of struggle with economics but it is science and therefore complicated 😉
FWIW i understood it we can use the pound whatever westminster says. that would be best described as use rather than keep though.
It is amusing to see the lengths folk will go to drag out tenuous quotes to support their positions and ignore everything that contradicts it
there is no balance to this debate at all.
It always makes me giggle to see Stu Campbell's name outside of anything to do with Amiga Power.
it's been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.
Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list....
"Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world."
I think you've got it completely backward, actually. Scale (esp for an EU country) has never been less important. it's not the 19th century any more. think of the savings resulting from not engaging in grand neoimperial military adventures, for a start...
Just wondered why "the pound is weak" given its position at present, anybody?
Need to know as we are now writing our Freeeeeedoooom for Yorkshire wish list or white paper as I believe it's called in some shires. Anyway if pounds weak it'll be no good as currency in "gods country" (I quote Christian Prudhomme there), so have decided that Ben Shaws bottle tops would be currency of choice. If tha needs more money exchange your weak pounds for a Bottle of Ben Shaw dandelion and burdock, a bottle top comes free.
I notice the future president were commentating on cricket. Gone all that way to Lancashire just for radio 4. Now that's a proper future leader, can be trusted to commentate without staying anything controversial.
You nut jobs in the YLA (Yorkshire Liberation Army) don't need to worry about the strength of the pound.
Currency is irrelevant if you're all to tight to spend any on owt.
And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list....
That is rather missing the point. None of those countries have gained their independence [i]in today's world[/i]. And none of the countries that have gained their independence [i]in today's world[/i] even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58. Massive GDP growth rate, you may argue, but that is a statistical quirk caused by the recovery of their consumption-led economy from a colossal GDP contraction in 2009, and the shoring up of their finances by a number of bailouts. Is this the company you want Scotland to keep and emulate?
The small countries at the top of the GDP list have been around for many years, and their state instruments either built with the riches of exploration (back when that was a lucrative undertaking), or provided in return for assistance in some war or other, or even by plain and simple slave labour. To compare their success in the GDP per capita stakes with the potential of Scotland's is to ignore some very salient facts.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and [i]in today's world[/i] that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
Why in today's world? I don't understand - bureaucracies were pretty big 100 years ago too. Why is it so much more expensive to start up a new country now?
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you struggling to see the difference between the cost of things in the past and the cost of things now?
For example, how much did a house cost 25 years ago. How much was that figure as a percentage of a person's wages? How much does a house cost [i]in today's world[/i]? Do you think governments are somehow immune from the effects of inflation?
I'm not deliberately obtuse, it just comes naturally.
House prices as a factor of wages have gone up, yes. Home computer prices as a factor of wages have come down a lot. If you're going to be more general, the cost of most things has come down quite a bit, but we buy more stuff.
What has this got to do with the startup costs of a new country? Is a new country going to be buying houses or new IT systems?
Yes, it cost only £2M to build the Houses of Parliament (3x over budget though) but back then £2M was a much larger amount of money. That's how inflation works.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?