Forum menu
Indeed. Take the central issue of the currency. So the Givernment is clear there will be no CU (as proposed) and if there was the required conditions relating to fiscal policy are incompatible with the objectives of independence. Very clear and backed by history and theory together. The response? Childlike behaviour and deliberate manipulation of currency, debt etc to distort and muddy the debate. And these are people you want to give greater levels of power too?
They can't even get the basics right - but they can secretly implement Tory (?) policies in Scotland while attacking them in rUK!!! Indeed some of the policies are much further right wing than anything the Tories every propose. The SNP in bed with the Adam Smith Institute is a surreal example.
Stop it THM - these rabid No campaigners like yourself are always drumming on about currency, its like a stuck record, currency, currency, currency
Its not like its an important issue, like EU membership
oh.... 😆
It's hard to plan when the people you'll be negotiating with refuse to consider the idea.
@ben to the contrary. The UK has considered the idea and rejected it. So Scotland has clarity and can plan for an alternative. The currency issue should also give Scotland an inkling as to how discussions on other topics on which they pronounce not least the EU are going to go. Scotland needs to plan for a challenging EU discussion including a contingency period where they are potentially not a full member. Scotland should also plan for a central bank and Treasury and how it would intend to fund itself (assuming it runs a budget deficit).
Scotland should wake up to the fact that a country of 5m people doesn't have a lot of negotiating clout (I personally believe the UK with 60m people doesn't have that much clout). Scotland will need to get used to the reality that just because they proclaim something is in their counterparties interest doesn't mean the other side will agree.
The currency "negotiation" with the UK is absolutely a preview of upcoming attractions for an independent Scotland on a global basis.
jambalaya - Member
...Scotland should wake up to the fact that a country of 5m people doesn't have a lot of negotiating clout...
We won't be clouting anyone. Proper negotiating involves trading not thumping.
Edit: oops, forgot the 🙂
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something? 😆
I'm worried, yes. I'm worried that romantic nationalism will win over common sense and pragmatism, and as a side effect completely fk the rest of us poor bastards in the UK over.
seosamh77 - MemberThe no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something
whereas the Yes side have been sneering all along 😆
seosamh77 - Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something?
It's very similar in tone to the lead up to the last Scottish election when the SNP got into government. 🙂
It's as if we are not smart enough to know what's good for our country.
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing.
Funnier still is that most of them don't have a vote
richmtb - Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing.
Funnier still is that most of them don't have a vote
Nor smart enough to understand that the "facts" they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.epicyclo - MemberIt's as if we are not smart enough to know what's good for our country.
Sneering...piss poor.....irony!!! 😉
They may not have the vote but they will control the strings - the ultimate irony. A Yes vote puts Scotland in a weaker position than now. Size wise this has to be an African not an Indian elephant in the room.
He who laughs last......
It's as if we are not smart enough to know what's good for our country.
Lol.. of course you're not. No-one is.
Nor smart enough to understand that the "facts" they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.
That goes for both sides!
richmtb - Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it's quite amusing.
Funnier still is that most of them don't have a vote
Yes, because electoral manipulation to ensure Scots (like myself) who don't live in Scotland but for whom the result of the vote will still potentially have some huge ramifications are not allowed a say.
But then I guess Salmond is worried we will vote No so wants to prevent that.
It's as if we are not smart enough to know what's good for our country.Nor to understand that the "facts" they are spouting are indeed, just opinions and speculation.
Like the fact that you won't have a currency union and if you keep using the pound will have no control over monetary policy for your currency? Is that just opinion and speculation, or is it something which you are smart enough to think is irrelevant?
Thanks for admitting that!molgrips - Member
Nor smart enough to understand that the "facts" they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.
That goes for both sides!
"Facts" such as a currency is an asset etc......in that case, facts is spelt F I C T I O N. Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.
teamhurtmore - Member
"Facts" such as a currency is an asset etc......in that case, facts is spelt F I C T I O N. Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.
and around and around you go.
Currency in itself may not be an asset, but the assets backing it up most certainly are, for one, the 150 billion in gold that the bank of england holds.
Yes, because electoral manipulation to ensure Scots (like myself) who don't live in Scotland but for whom the result of the vote will still potentially have some huge ramifications are not allowed a say.
Electoral manipulation? It's simple, every country in the world does it - people who live in that country get to vote in the elections. The result of the US election has huge ramifications for the rest of the world, should the rest of the world be able to vote in US elections?
And how would you administer it? How Scottish are you? If you're only half Scottish, do you only get half a vote? Or does anybody with a vaguely Scottish name get to vote?
It's not only impossible to administer, it's unfair - why should people who don't live in Scotland get to decide what happens to Scotland? That's what this whole thing is about.
Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.
Would you like to examine exactly how that money is spent? Maybe elaborate on the the different approaches being taken by the Scottish government and the UK one? Then may explain which one is more likely to lead to further privatisation and a US style system? (hint, it's not the Scottish NHS)
Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.
In this case, that fact is spelled "pulled it out of your arse" 😀
Scottish spending on private-sector healthcare is 1/6th of that in rUK, and that's only if you fudge the figures to include locums and suchlike. The more fundamental difference is that in rUK private companies are bidding on healthcare contracts against the NHS, in Scotland they're occasionally hired by the NHS to perform a specific job.
It's simple, every country in the world does it - people who live in that country get to vote in the elections. The result of the US election has huge ramifications for the rest of the world, should the rest of the world be able to vote in US elections?
It seems they can and the rules of administration are fairly straightforward:
http://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside
Meanwhile in this morning's amusing Better Together gaffe, they're at the Tennent's brewery to tell us how Scottish jobs are dependent on UK companies.
Tennent's is owned by an Irish company 😀
It seems they can:
http://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside
Yes, well done - that list includes me, by the way. I'm a US citizen but never lived in the US.
However note that important point - I'm a US citizen. How do you define a Scottish citizen?
How do they define US citizens?
Yes, well done - that list includes me, by the way. I'm a US citizen but never lived in the US.
Strange that you're apparently unaware that people who don't live in the US (and have never lived in the US) get to vote in their elections then, and that limiting the franchise to people who currently reside in a country is far from a universal policy.
How do they define US citizens?
I'm sure you can google it - in my case I have an American parent so I inherited citizenship. That only works down one level, by the way, my daughter won't inherit US citizenship because I haven't lived in the US.
We may go around and around - but the DO still can't get it straight. Not can you - gold is good, nothing to do with the pound.
The Scottish NHS outsources services to private companies. It's simple. As the IFS show, the real threat to the NHS in Scotland is the funding cuts that will HAVE to happen post independence. These contrast with the SNPs own admission that under the current system health spending has risen. No wonder the BMJ show that a bigger majority of Scottish doctors want No than the general public. Odd that?
Oh, I assumed from your assertions about the difficulty for Scotland that it was rather more complicated than that. Presumably Scottish citizens could be defined in much the same way, or aren't they smart enough?
We may go around and around - but the DO still can't get it straight.
Ah, good old THM, yet again you turn someone pointing out you're completely wrong into an attack on Alex Salmond 😀
Ben, it's a bit like yS not acknowledging who own most of the oil and whiskey production, isn't it!?!
Oh, I assumed from your assertions about the difficulty for Scotland that it was rather more complicated than that. Presumably Scottish citizens could be defined in much the same way, or aren't they smart enough?
Problem is, there's no sensible way to define "Scottish citizen". Is it anyone with a Scottish parent? If so, how do you track they were resident in Scotland for 10 years as the US requires? How do you even accurately track where someone's parents lived or were born when at the moment we're all UK citizens?
What about people born abroad who have lived in Scotland for a decade or two? What about my mother, US-born, lived here for 35 years before finally acquiring UK citizenship a few years ago? Is she Scottish?
There is no sensible, fair way to do it other than to do it by the people who live in Scotland.
Including people born in Scotland (and maybe even their children) would be too complicated then? You do have birth certificates up there?
How do you plan to define citizenship after independence?
Including people born in Scotland (and maybe even their children) would be too complicated then? You do have birth certificates up there?
This isn't about where you're born, it's about where you choose to live. Don't forget this was all agreed with the UK government.
How do you plan to define citizenship after independence?
http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future
Problem is, there's no sensible way to define "Scottish citizen".
http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future
So it's not really that difficult after all.
As shown above, people who don't live in the US get to vote on what happens there, and this vote clearly does affect people who don't currently live in Scotland.
What is your point btw?aracer - Member
Problem is, there's no sensible way to define "Scottish citizen".
> http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future
br />
So it's not really that difficult after all.
Point? That Ben's first post on this subject is kind of wrong.
so we'll just take our 9% of the gold reserves and bank of England assets. Lets see what that does to the value of the pound eh? 😆teamhurtmore - Member
We may go around and around - but the DO still can't get it straight. Not can you - gold is good, nothing to do with the pound.
You think there is electoral manipulation going on?aracer - Member
Point? That Ben's first post on this subject is kind of wrong.
Why was this not brought up before the polls got so close? 😆
Residency is the correct way to go about it imo, most people I know agree(bar a few frothing bigots). I'm quite happy for people living in Scotland to vote for it's future, regardless of nationality. I don't think people not living here should get a say.
As shown above, people who don't live in the US get to vote on what happens there, and this vote clearly does affect people who don't currently live in Scotland.
A very small number of US citizens abroad get to vote in US elections. No-one seems to keep track, but estimates are that around 2-7M US citizens live abroad. So that's about 1 in 1000 people outside the US who have a vote in the US elections. The number of those who weren't born in the US isn't measured, but is bound to be quite a bit lower.
So, for the sake of simplicity, I didn't mention that maybe 1 in 10,000 people born overseas could vote in the US elections. I think my general point still stands.
seosamh77 - Memberso we'll just take our 9% of the gold reserves and bank of England assets. Lets see what that does to the value of the pound eh?
And we'll deduct your 9% of UK debit from that 9% of the Gold Reserves. I wonder who will owe who......?
"Aye" is perfectly normal speech, my Geordie friends use it all the time
okay, we'll share the word with you, but we want our full 9%!!!
Residency is the correct way to go about it imo, most people I know agree(bar a few frothing bigots). I'm quite happy for people living in Scotland to vote for it's future, regardless of nationality. I don't think people not living here should get a say.
I'm surprised that property prices didn't go through the roof with all the returning diaspora coming home to register to vote so they could ensure a "yes" for a new independent homeland
bencooper - Member
Electoral manipulation? It's simple, every country in the world does it - people who live in that country get to vote in the elections. The result of the US election has huge ramifications for the rest of the world, should the rest of the world be able to vote in US elections?And how would you administer it? How Scottish are you? If you're only half Scottish, do you only get half a vote? Or does anybody with a vaguely Scottish name get to vote?
It's not only impossible to administer, it's unfair - why should people who don't live in Scotland get to decide what happens to Scotland? That's what this whole thing is about.
The fact is isn't normal has already been pointed out, as for people who don't live in Scotland deciding what happens to Scotland, what happens in Scotland is only part of the equation.
As the situation regarding EU membership has yet to be resolved can I ask what happens to my fellow Scots who also don't live in Scotland when we are no longer members of the EU?
I currently have a British Passport, if Scotland is no longer part of Britain, then I can't have a British passport, I will need a Scottish one (although I believe I can hold onto my British one until it expires).
Assuming Scotland has to wait a number of years before becoming a member state of the EU, which I believe is a likely scenario, then technically I can't work in the EU without a work permit, are the many thousands of Scots in throughout Europe (including England) going to have to get work permits?
The Scottish vote for independence has the potential to affect the day to day life of many thousands of Scots living outside Scotlands and as such they should have a say in what happens.
Scots (like myself) who don't live in Scotland but for whom the result of the vote will still potentially have some huge ramifications are not allowed a say.
pfft, whatever. obviously not huge enough to actually bother living there.
it's an outrage that nonresidents are allowed to vote in general elections, let alone suggesting they should be able to vote in referenda.
Not sure what the numbers involved has to do with anything - surely it's the principle which is important here, and you appeared to claim that the franchise was the same as every country in the world including the US when that's quite clearly not the case. Or did you not actually mean that when you wrote:
It's simple, every country in the world does it - people who live in that country get to vote in the elections.