[Closed] Salmond on Newsnight

The interesting question is however, what happens to that debt should Scotland become independent? As you say, they are companies based in Scotland - surely therefore the Scottish taxpayer should be picking up that tab. I can guarantee that if they ever rake in the profits again that Scotland would take much more interest in the banks' financial interests. Cake and eat it, I believe.

The desirability of it is an entirely different question.

Jota - that was a previous administration when the situation was different.

You don't have any say in the matter?

Yep thats right, in much the same way as the Scottish ex pat community in Corby/London/Bristol/Birmingham/every flipping town in the country don't.

apart from it would either have been a multinational and thus the failure would have needed multinational solutions as happened with other banks across europe. Or it would have been remodelled into a central scottish bank without the casino part run from London where the losses were made.

I don't even know where to begin with this piffle. and finishes with a pearl

you cannot have it both ways

you cannot have it both ways

Genius! Truly brilliant! Someone want to tell Alex that. I can see him hearing that phrase an awful lot from this point in.

Jota - that was a previous administration when the situation was different.

That'll been when the unionists were preventing a referendum would it?
and now they're not, so why aren't they having the referendum tomorrow?
Have they discovered something that they never realised 18 months ago?

or were you just swallowing the SNP guff hook, line and sinker?

you really don't know your arse from your elbow do you?

DJ why the sensitivity all of a sudden? CJ asks a perfectly acceptable question about the performance of one of our leading politicians discussing a matter that is of national importance to everyone in the UK.

And it wasn't a good performance nor a good interview as several have stated above. But just as Scotland justifiably delights in pricking the often arrogant English rugby team's bubble at Murrayfield and may well do so again soon, so will other nationalities delight in exposing a so-called Scottish big-hitter when and if appropriate. As Private Eye demonstrates mild ribbing can be particularly effective.

mcboo - its the truth tho.

Just because it does not fit your agenda does not change that. European banks that had operations spread over several countries had multinational solutions. why would Scotland have been liable for loss making parts of he bank based in England?

I assume they would reimburse Westminster?

You can deduct it from what you owe us in stolen oil revenues. 😆

How long have the SNP been in existance? As with UKIP you'd think that they'd have given at least some thought as to how they'd achieve their goals. Why isn't there a big black book of a draft plan for independance?

why would Scotland have been liable for loss making parts of he bank based in England?

Well, for example, if until recently (pre-crash) they'd been laying claim to said banks profits. What was the phrase you just used again? Oh yes.....

you cannot have it both ways

Anyone know who ran RBS' casino during the period?

I don't even know where to begin with this piffle

If you're going to keep asking people to speculate answers to alternate reality questions - the question was piffle to begin with...

To be honest, you come across as someone looking for reasons to be pissed off about this issue.

This really makes me laugh - all you guys who claim not to give a stuff about Scottish independence using desperate arguments to show its a bad idea economically when the key thing is its about he right to self determination of a people.

Once again actually being openminded and listening might allow you to understand a bit more.

You're brilliant TJ 🙂

Unlike many of you here I want to be rid of the scots.

Unlike many of you here I want to be rid of the scots.

you wont be getting "rid" of anyone. its about devolution, not ethnic cleansing.

and thanks so much for carrying us all these years, i really dont know what we'd have done without you.

I don't think many people south of the border would be remotely bothered about Scottish independence, but for the nagging suspicion that we're going to be left picking up the tab when (not 'if) it all goes pear shaped.

the key thing is its about he right to self determination of a people.

I have no particular opinion either way - I find the mechanics of what would need to be done for the separation WAAAAAYYYYYY more interesting than the philosophy and the politics of it.

I completely agree with the setniment of self determination, but surely there should be a clear, detailed and costed proposal on the table so that the separation is at least initially clearly 'neutral' to both parties (past performance is no guide to the future etc) and not obviously self destructive for the sake of the ideal.

Yes, there is still time to make that case, but as a casual observer it hasn't been made yet and I still don't see how it can be made such that anyone will know EXACTLY what they are voting for/getting in to. The tag line will read 'Independance - we've talked about for ages, shall we roll the dice or not then?'

right to self determination of a people.

Like the Falklands, then?

TandemJeremy - Member
La malvinas son argentinas

Oh.... 🙄

VERY relevant point zokes.

DJ why the sensitivity all of a sudden?

Because I'm getting weary of people posting inane drivel trying to score points and distracting from what should be a serious conversation. I can appreciate people are worried about the possible consequences on both sides of the border - this would be a far easier process to undertake in a time of economic prosperity, but we are where we are, and to be fair, it's not the SNP who are trying to hurry the pace on this.

This is exactly the same tactic that was used in 1979 - rush the debate, tailor the referendum criteria to make a "yes" vote almost impossible to obtain, deliberately hide information about the economic prospects for Scotland (McCrone Report). After the "no" vote in 1979, the SNP got hammered at the ensuing election, and it's taken nearly 30 years to get to where we should have been in the 80s. That's why this constant sniping is irritating.

Zokes, TJ will be along soon to tell you why that is [b]not[/b] a good point and that you are very misguided.

RBS was and is headquartered St Andrew's Square, Edinburgh. The mad dash for growth was dreamed up and driven by Sir George Mathewson, Sir Tom McKillop and Sir Fred Goodwin, with the investment bank run by Johnny Cameron. The clues are in the names.

TJ and Salmond want to waltz off with 92% of the oil but only 8% of the UK national debt and 8% of the liabilities of RBS. Most of us south of the border are pretty indifferent to Scottish independence but you can think again if you think England is going to be stuffed in the process.

And a vote for devo max means you are staying in the Union on our terms, England will have a say, and a vote.

This is exactly the same tactic that was used in 1979 - rush the debate, tailor the referendum criteria to make a "yes" vote almost impossible to obtain, deliberately hide information about the economic prospects for Scotland (McCrone Report). After the "no" vote in 1979, the SNP got hammered at the ensuing election, and it's taken nearly 30 years to get to where we should have been in the 80s. That's why this constant sniping is irritating.

Well, from my understanding, Camoron (Sic) wants a referendum quickly as the SNP seem so dead set on it, as they have been going on about it for quite a while now. He also wants a very simple referendum: It's a question with only two answers, so he favours the options of [b]yes[/b] or [b]no[/b].

For some inexplicable reason, the SNP want to wait a few years, temporarily let 16 year olds have a say in democratic process, and have three answers to a very simple question.

zokes / wrecker - apart from that point was widely debated on that thread and I said then as I do now I accept the principles of a peoples right to self determination.

so actually completely irrelevant

mcboo

TJ and Salmond want to waltz off with 92% of the oil but only 8% of the UK national debt and 8% of the liabilities of RBS. Most of us south of the border are pretty indifferent to Scottish independence but you can think again if you think England is going to be stuffed in the process.

Teh oil is in Scottish territorial waters. Clear in international law. and already delineated.

8% of the population, 8% of gdp, 8% of the jointly owned assets and 8% of the liabilities seems fair.

I can appreciate people are worried about the possible consequences on both sides of the border

exactly, which is why all this posturing about "wanting rid" of either side is pointless and not constructive. From what I've read of the interview last night it served no real purpose either.

surely there should be a clear, detailed and costed proposal on the table

yeah i'm sure their will be, which is why CmD attempting to rush the referendum is ludicrous. I think it would be foolish to suggest a referendum without all the facts unless you are asking people to vote purely on an idea.

zokes - Member
For some inexplicable reason, the SNP want to wait a few years, temporarily let 16 year olds have a say in democratic process

And as regards HBOS, the heid bummer was Andy Hornby, an Englishman and despite the fancy office on the Mound in Edinburgh it was controlled from Halifax, West Yorkshire.

so actually completely irrelevant

No, not really. Call it a record of your character, if you will...

Reducing the voting age - for all elections - has been LibDem and SNP policy for years.

And this bit???

and have three answers to a very simple question.

Seeing as that's the important part.

Teh oil is in Scottish territorial waters

Again, a genuine question - proved (currently) commercial off-shore reserves are limited to a generation or two. What happens then? Is there a massive shale gas reserve waiting to be found under Aviemore? If the GDP of a newly independant Scotland is almost entirely based on the off-shore oil sector, is basing the numbers on this not a touch short-sighted?

Scotland may be 8% of the population, but its institutions have made a hugely disproportionate impact on the national debt

So... we bail out Scottish banks, then Scotland walks away. No doubt to then lay claim to the profits if they ever recover? Get a grip Uncle Jezza. Nobody in Westminster is ever going to agree to that. As well as 90% of the other demands/assumptions Salmond is making

Teh oil is in Scottish territorial waters. Clear in international law. and already delineated.

And RBS is Scottish. So, there's going to be some negotiating, but there's no chance Scotland takes all the oil without taking a big chunk of RBS too.

What kind of independence would be sitting in isolation with your economy dependant on the international oil price? You want to leave Sterling and join your beloved Euro right? Now you say you want to stay in Sterling, where the Bank of England will set interest rates for the benefit of England, Wales and NI with no reference to the state of Scotland's economy? That is EXACTLY the thing that has destroyed the economies of Southern Europe, where rates are set for the benefit of Berlin and Paris, not Athens or Madrid.

What independence?

Except the regions decided it was a ridiculous idea a couple of years ago and quite rightly threw a bag over it.

Oh and I'm a former lancastrian holed up in Scotland FWIW

I wish Scotland would take the north of England when they go Independent. Otherwise I'll be moving north of the border too. It might be daft for the regions to have their own parliament in some ways but they are losing out on money and influence compared to Scotland.

Teh oil is in Scottish territorial waters. Clear in international law. and already delineated.

Not according to the News Night report, which said that the law covering this is not clear cut. Plus the investment for extraction has come from the UK not Scotland, so maybe they can lay claim to the oil but not the assets in place.

Besides the oil revenues seem to be only about £4bn a year; hardly the stuff that economies are made from.

TJ one other thing in the spirit of debate. You make several references to the concept of a 'peoples right to self determination'.

Can you define the word 'peoples' in that sentence please as it relates to this debate.

it was controlled from Halifax, West Yorkshire

The Ridings of Yorkshire are a republic and nothing to do with the UK

zokes - Member

And this bit???

and have three answers to a very simple question.
Seeing as that's the important part.

SNP policy is to campaign for independence. However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Scotland in favour of a more federal UK. The argument is that, if you're going to have a referendum, it would be churlish to ignore what currently appears to be the most popular option.

However..... I don't see how you can put the federal option to only one nation of the UK, given the complexities it would then impose on the other nations (like would there have to be an English parliament?)

As I've pointed out in the past, the Czechs and Slovaks opted for federalism but it got so acrimonious that they ended up with a full split.

So, for me, it's all only heading in one direction and any intervening discussion is just delaying the inevitable.

Scotland may be 8% of the population, but its institutions have made a hugely disproportionate impact on the national debt

so taking that point 92% of the population are liable for less debt because 1 or more "Scottish" banks wen't belly up? Remember Scots taxpayers bailed everyone out too. what a silly argument.

Whoever owns/owned/will own the RBS, the small little ordinary people who hold the accounts would have suffered in the extreme if it had not been bailed out. All those savings wiped out. Nobody with a mortgage owns their house any more. No access to your bank accounts. A run on all the other banks as a result. Northern Rock times lots and lots.

These little people live all over the United Kingdom. It's a spurious and factually incorrect argument to say that England bailed out Scotland in the matter of RBS.

But don't let actual verifiable facts get in the way of a good emotive rammy over "the right of a people to self-determination" where did you steal that from Metternich or Hitler ?? Sounds awfy familiar.

Scotland has the best of both worlds at the moment (I stole that from Voltaire) we have the advantage of being in the United Kingdom, together with excellent international awareness Scotland as a nation, and a good outlook as a tourist destination.

Next time you meet an American/Chinese/Israeli ask them what they know about Scotland. Then ask them what they know about Wales.

I think Independence is absolute madness and will not vote for it, I may even help campaign against it.

McBoo - seriously, do you have some kind of cognitive impairment that prevents you from processing the information that is presented to you time and time again? RBS currently has UK government as its majority shareholder as a consequence of the 'bailout' - The money borrowed to buy the shares, and the shares themselves are part of the overall assets and liabilities of the UK as a whole, and the SNP independence proposals accept that Scotland should shoulder a proportion of the liabilities as part of the arrangements.

Conflating the RBS and oil revenues just adds to the obfuscation, whether it's being done deliberately to cause mischief or because people simply can't think clearly.

SNP policy is to campaign for independence. However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Scotland in favour of a more federal UK. The argument is that, if you're going to have a referendum, it would be churlish to ignore what currently appears to be the most popular option.

So Druidh, from the options you lay out, the only two that are viable are either independence, or not.

Popular or otherwise, the idea of federalism isn't something the 50m or so 'little englanders' are probably that fussed about, so it's always going to be a non-starter, as any vote for it would have to involve the rest of the UK.

As an aside, I don't see the point in federalism at all. We have it here in Oz, and it's just an almighty mess of inconsistencies and constant wrangling interstate and between the state and commonwealth governments.

European banks that had operations spread over several countries had multinational solutions. why would Scotland have been liable for loss making parts of he bank based in England?

Is that a serious question?

Once again actually being openminded and listening might allow you to understand a bit more.

Indeed both are very important. An open minded person would recognise that it is possible to be pro-self determination, persuaded by arguments on the merits of economic and political independence and yet still want (pompous) politicians to be held properly to account. One of the few sensible points made by Paxman last night was that this was an issue for all the Scots not just the SNP and indeed important for all of the UK population.

Salmond is now under intense scrutiny as he should be when proposing such an important issue. People can differ on whether or not he is doing a good job, but he should not (nor should any politician) be given an easy ride on this important issue.

Hels

But don't let actual verifiable facts get in the way of a good emotive rammy over "the right of a people to self-determination" where did you steal that from Metternich or Hitler ?? Sounds awfy familiar.

* Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of [b]the UN Charter[/b] is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[13]
* Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[14] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[15] Both read: "[b]All peoples have the right of self-determination[/b]. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
* The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.