So let’s feed the “uneducated” or “ill-informed” lies and claptrap as it doesn’t matter….hmmmm

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

Institutions hold assets – both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

The problem is that there’s a narrow economist’s definition of an “asset”, and there’s a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

The problem is that there’s a narrow economist’s definition of an “asset”, and there’s a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

This is what I was getting at. You can argue all day about what is/isnt an asset or a liability and what should happen to the institutions and what they hold, but that’s best left to the lawyers. As there’s no set international laws that cover exactly what should happen a lot will be left up to negotiation, which obviously isnt happening at the moment. What the population want to know is, not what narrow legal terms and laws define what might happen, but what the negotiating positions are. Arguing semantics doesnt help anyone.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters. Just because the concept may seem or may be difficult to understand (it isn’t) doesn’t meant that people should be allowed to deliberately mis-use them to lie and to deceive. That is what AS is doing. In the end, you cannot escape the truth as politicians and those who vote for them find out in the end.

You would not expect a doctor or a lawyer for example to misuse terms just to make a difficult story more palatable to swallow. Doctors don’t say, that dark shadows on the x-Ray are just an optical illusion. They say what it is, so that you can make an informed decision. AS is deliberately misusing terms with the explicit intention to confuse and mislead. That is unbecoming of any politician at any time, let alone when you are debating major constitutional change.

It’s a sad state of affairs it we are going to say it doesn’t matter what our politicians say because folk either don’t understand, are to lazy to read what they say or they simply ignore them. So it’s ok if they just spout BS….kind of sums up a lot of the BoD though.

Deciding what currency option to use and how much autonomy you want on government spending, tax, interest rates, supply of money etc are hardly semantics. They are FUNDAMENTALS.

Institutions hold assets – both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

Institutions can also bear liabilities!

A new institution’s reputation probably wouldn’t be an asset as it hasn’t had time to build up a track record of delivery. A new institution’s reputation would probably be a liability and bear higher risk.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.

You seem to know better than all of the expert opinion I’ve read then. As far as I can see there are various precedents for division of assets, liabilities and institutions and how actually happens will likely be a mix of all of them based on the what can be negotiated and what makes sense to both parties.

To the man on the street though, it doesn’t matter. It captures how a lot of people feel about the whole situation and tactics being used to try and swing the vote to the No side.

True. However, it only comments on the lies being peddled by the no camp not those of the yes camp. I think we can agree that most politicians are liars.

The author’s main point is to go for independence to be independent. A fair enough point but that’s not who the yes campaign is set up to reach i.e. the people who want to know the risks/rewards before deciding.

konabunny – Member
Institutions can also bear liabilities!

Not in la la land.

WNB, I simply bother to understand how a central banks balance sheet work and how the pros and cons of different currency regimes stack up. The FC and the HM Treasury do the same thing, that’s why they are less prone to BS. The information is readily available for all rather than hiding behind an acceptance of false definitions, half truths and lies.

I have been consistent in my criticism of the BoD from the day it was published (when I read it) and the BOE, HM Treasury, the FC and even economists on different sides have agreed with the factual stuff on which I base my criticism*.The debate between the pros and cons will of course lead to different answers, but AS doesn’t do that. He pretends that the cons don’t exist and to point them out is bullying and bluster. On the contrary, it (telling the truth) is not patronising the population of Scotland by pretending that they will swallow untruths and deceit.

I do seem to be a bit isolated in suggesting that the proposed “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to nuclear defence is deceit as well. But if not knowing that nukes are in Scottish waters is the same as them not being there, then so be it! La, la, la………

THM, I was talking generally, not just about the currency situation. Your disdain for AS is clear and you’re not the only one with problems with the white paper. Mixing party policy for post independence with their stated positions on independence negotiations was a mistake. As too was stating the position as facts rather than things to be negotiated.

I’d suggest that getting into the in depth nitty gritty of economics and fiscal policy when making press conferences isnt a sensible decision, so stuff is skirted around and presented in a fashion more easily understandable to most people, even if it misses the point in some areas.
Your criticism of AS being economical with the truth, or lying as you bluntly put it, is no different from any other politician generally or in a referendum build up. You only have to look at the way the voting reform referendum went to see that.

The referendum in about so much more than just AS, he’s the face of it (for better or worse) and he probably should of done a better job on some fronts, but thats just the way it is. Politicians talking shite, whats new.

This thread now needs a sticky at the top of each page listing out the various Acronyms and Abbreviations so that late joiners can get up to speed.

thm has to be the one to write it. 🙂

Largely true WNB, I am just unforgiving of any politician that spouts BS. In his case, I feel that one is doing far more than the others 😉 and with harmful consequences.

Apparently VisitScotland chiefs are being hauled over hot coals by MSP’s keen to know why ticket sales for ‘Bannockburn Live’, an event organised to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the battle are a bit sluggish. Worries of financial difficulties, a reduction from 3 days to 2, expensive tickets, and a clash with a free event to mark Armed Forces Day nearby.

More importantly, will the newS cottish equivalent of the Royal Mail allow shocks to be posted without destoying them?

Apparently VisitScotland chiefs are being hauled over hot coals by MSP’s keen to know why ticket sales for ‘Bannockburn Live’, an event organised to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the battle are a bit sluggish.

Interesting, but what’s the relevance to a discussion about independence?

Tourism income.

So one event isn’t doing as well as predicted – so what?

About 8 Months ago, before the campaigns got going, I was on a course with work and one of the other attendees was a (Quite Gobby TBH) younger Scots fella… At the meal after, the topic drifted round to Scottish independence, He was wholeheartedly in favour (Even as a London Resident)…

Of course various people chipped in with different points about how the two theoretically separated countries would have to disentangle their respective institutions, economies, resources and relationship with the EU…

While He was fielding each of these, mostly reasonable, points with equally reasonable counter points it struck me that nobody in either camp (then or indeed now) has, or can really definitively addressed these technical points, and I suppose they won’t until a final decision is made either way, and that perhaps that isn’t really the point of the vote anyway, its about National Identity, not the details, but neither party is campaigning based on that basic question, they’ve both descended into smart-arse, hypothetical, technicalities and its all cobblers, they simply don’t know how it might play out.

Have the vote, if scotland says “Yes” to independence then everyone can calmly sit down and start looking at the timetable and details of any separation… Trying to frame the debate based on unknown details and hypothetical future policies doesn’t actually serve either campaign very well…

This thread now needs a sticky at the top of each page listing out the various Acronyms and Abbreviations so that late joiners can get up to speed.

Let me start:

BS = Alex Salmond’s speech

its about National Identity, not the details, but neither party is campaigning based on that basic question, they’ve both descended into smart-arse, hypothetical, technicalities and its all cobblers, they simply don’t know how it might play out.

Very well put.

I do wonder if the Yes strategy is the best one sometimes – like the Lamont vs Sturgeon debate last night, Sturgeon could have played it very well by just sitting back and letting Lamont rant angrily to herself.

This is the thing that I think winds people up about Alex Salmond – he often seems to be enjoying himself. Smug, perhaps, but that’s better than whining and angry.

Anyhow, an interesting article about independence from a business point of view:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/answers-for-a-no-minded-businessperson/

Smug, perhaps, but that’s better than whining and angry.

Salmond doesn’t do whining and angry? 😕

Anyhow, an interesting article about independence from a business point of view:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/answers-for-a-no-minded-businessperson/

From the point of view of someone who’s just graduated from university with a politics degree.

Scotland already pays 9.9% of total UK taxation towards total civil service costs and all regulatory bodies.

The UK employs 448,835 civil servants as of March 2013.

74,240 civil servants are based in London and 45,470 civil servants are based in Scotland at the time of the figures. (Source)

Even on a simple calculation, Scotland’s financial contribution is paying for more civil servants per head in London than in Scotland.

Clearly I struggle with simple calculations, as London has a significantly higher population than Scotland, and the simple calculation I can see is that Scotland pays <10% of the civil service cost, yet gets >10% of the civil servants. That also doesn’t appear to answer the question of whether Scotland will need more civil servants post independence.

For sure this is more nit-picking, but in an article which picks the nits it seems you should get the detail right.

Re Service is part of that reason not that they moved out the CS to the provinces – DVLA in swansea, Tax in Newcastle – not sure what Scotland has – in an effort to help poorer areas? Not saying that is true and explains it but it may well be a factor worthy of consideration

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

If they are not then rUK would give them all away that will never happen as they wish to keep and not share the valueless things.

Why would they argue about valueless stuff and not just go yeah have it?
Is it because it has value?

Amusing as this points probably makes the economists put their head in their hands and shake as it does the non economists with your view.

Can I have a definition you are using as it seems really narrow – I do not understand, and did not get a reply, as to why its reputation, trustworthiness or prestige is not an intangible asset.

It may be very difficult to put the reputation on a balance sheet but it still exists or companies would not care about it

Amusing as this points probably makes the economists put their head in their hands and shake as it does the non economists with your view.

😀

One benefit of independence would be the end of British summer time, there would simply not be enough justification to keep it in place. No more changing the clocks means lighter evenings. People would get out and exercise more in the winter so the UK would be a healthier place. It would mean that Scotland and the UK would be starting and finishing work at different times so trade would be affected, although Scotland trades more with the UK so it would hit them harder. When Scotland ends up with a new currency this would affect trade with the UK even further. Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

Not changing the clocks is the clincher – goodbye Scotland! 😆

Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

I could say exactly the same about the UK and Europe.

Not changing the clocks is the clincher – goodbye Scotland!

It means every time you phone someone in Scotland, they’ll be able to say “och, what time do you call this? We’ve been up for hours!”

(Or maybe the other way around, can’t be bothered working it out)

Lots of reasons . For me it is partly a matter of national identity, also because we would like to be governed by a government we elected. However I also think it is important that independence is not just an end but a means with which to build a fairer more socially just society and to manage theScottish economy more appropriately.It is up to us after we vote yes to make sure that we continue to bring real power closer to the ordinary people.
I believe that Westminster is much too strongly enmeshed with a political and economic clique who’s policies have served the majority of people all over the UK very poorly for many years.

Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

We don’t, why do you think AS has been arguing for a currency union when it will mean a loss of power to any new Scottish government? We want to be independent of Westminster, but no isolationist. What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

Whatnobeer said it better than me. It is alo important to say that a yes vote is not necessarily a vote for the SNP as there are other groups in the yes campaign.

Oh, no no no – we’re not allowed to reap any benefits of the rUK, didn’t you get the memo?

What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.

still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

Oh, no no no – we’re not allowed to reap any benefits of the rUK, didn’t you get the memo?

You guys still don’t seem to get this independence idea, do you?

What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc
A currency union is just not on the cards. We don’t have one with the Republic of Ireland so why would we want one with an independent Scotland. Scotland’s loss in trade could be to the benefit of the UK as people stop trading with Scotland and instead trade with companies in the UK. If Scotland chooses independence there will be no benefits of being part of the UK any more. Why favour one foreign country over another?

Youre implying we want something for nothing Grum but I think what we want is to make a fair deal which suits both iScotland and rUK.

Youre implying we want something for nothing Grum but I think what we want is to make a fair deal which suits both iScotland and rUK.

The trouble is, since devolution you’ve already pretty much got this:

a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc

And the way to get more control over taxes/spending while still keeping the benefits of the EU and UK would be Devo Max. You can’t have independence while keeping everything that you like about the UK, and none of the bits you don’t like.

grum – Member

You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.

It’s our cake too. We just want to stop you eating our share…

Well I dont support devo max, nor do I support a currency union without a compromise on relevant policies. I would see a currency union or Scottish use of sterling as a short term policy until Scotland joins the euro, and then we would hopefully both be in the EU. Until then why not continue to trade with each other and to have strong social ties?

We just want to stop you eating our share…

You see this kind of bollocks really winds me up. ‘I’ am ‘eating ‘your’ share’? Really? 🙄

Well I dont support devo max

Interested to know why not? Is it just an emotional thing about wanting to be separate?

Until then why not continue to trade with each other and to have strong social ties?

Not sure anyone is arguing against that though are they? Even the No campaign aren’t really suggesting that.