Independence - how would you vote?

[Davi3j]

Really? You're absolutely sure about that?

**yawn**

Deary me, are people not allowed ask questions now? No wonder this thread is an abomination at times.

How could we possibly have more representation and how can you be sure of this?

Monetary union without fiscal union or political representation sounds a recipe for disaster to me.

Would still prefer us to use our own currency, although I understand the need for the softly softly approach.

of course you are...are people not allowed to give an answer?

As the final details wont be settled till independence negotiations, heres some info on it clicky & clicky

as for you point 2) currently we have no representation as monetary policy is decided by the independent central bank (BoE), therefor anything else, such as a permanent Scottish rep on the BoE Monetary Policy Committee would give us more representation

[T_S_A_R]

Context is an amazing thing, isn't it:

Wings were right though. Anyone who claims that Scotland is too wee and too poor doesn't deserve to be listened to.

so they are right that debating whether a fiscal union is optimal (or even desirable) is scaremongering?

brian quinn is a p***k but i think he is correct about this.

[Swampy]

By no means should you ever suppose your opponents might argue in good faith. Better instead to presume their motives are base. What else would you expect? What’s the point of engaging?

Just to be clear, the Spectator writer thinks that this is a problem on the Yes side?!

[renton]

Incidentally, I assume none of that impartial spectator blog applies to Unionists, right? Open to all, willing to talk, not holding meetings in undisclosed locations?

Well aye, the irony is that you could substitute ' nationalist' for any side of any political debate in history. Every side has its zealots and the fact that the author elects to differentiate says something about their own bias. Still, at least BT are willing to alaays debate with anyone in public. Right?

[T_S_A_R]

Just to be clear, the Spectator writer thinks that this is a problem on the Yes side?!

there are more than a few regular posters on this thread who seem unable to comprehend that many people have valid reasons for intending to vote no and supporting the union.

[Swampy]

there are more than a few regular posters on this thread who seem unable to comprehend that many people have valid reasons for intending to vote no and supporting the union.

"The poll on this thread doesn't matter because the voters aren't indicative of the wider public!"

"'More than a few' regular posters on this thread matter because ___________"

Fill in the blank in your own time.

[Baxter Parp]

 

so they are right that debating whether a fiscal union is optimal (or even desirable) is scaremongering?

 

brian quinn is a p***k but i think he is correct about this.

Correct about what in particular?

[Swampy]

Well aye, the irony is that you could substitute ' nationalist' for any side of any political debate in history. Every side has its zealots and the fact that the author elects to differentiate says something about their own bias. Still, at least BT are willing to alaays debate with anyone in public. Right?

Yeah, pretty much this. Only someone completely separated from the Scottish independence debate could have written that article with a straight face. Either that or, y'know, a zealot from the No side.

[renton]

there are more than a few regular posters on this thread who seem unable to comprehend that many people have valid reasons for intending to vote no and supporting the union.

Cool, what are they? This thread tends to bog down around the same topics and modes of conversatiom precisely because only Yes voters tend to put down on screen why they think its a good idea. Ive comitted my own ideas and reasoning several times. I'd love to hear why the union is so good and have asked several times of No voters in good faith. I'm still waiting

[T_S_A_R]

Correct about what in particular?

that a currency (and likely fiscal) union with rUK where we are the weaker partner and at the mercy of the whims of c***s like cameron and osbourne is sub optimal.

to me that is a big reason not to vote yes. it is obviously difficult to debate with any certainty but this is the weakest area for the yes campaign.

[Swampy]

Cool, what are they? This thread tends to bog down around the same topics and modes of conversatiom precisely because only Yes voters tend to put down on screen why they think its a good idea. Ive comitted my own ideas and reasoning several times. I'd love to hear why the union is so good and have asked several times of No voters in good faith. I'm still waiting

T_S_A_R gamely addressed this a few pages back, and the argument ran something like 'People are happy with the union because they're happy with the status quo because they're happy with the union.' Stunning analysis, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Swampy]

that a currency (and likely fiscal) union with rUK where we are the weaker partner and at the mercy of the whims of c***s like cameron and osbourne is sub optimal.

to me that is a big reason not to vote yes. it is obviously difficult to debate with any certainty but this is the weakest area for the yes campaign.

Yep, good thing fiscal policy isn't in the hands of Cameron and Osborne right now. Otherwise we'd really be in trouble!

I'm going to go ahead and file this alongside "we'd need to be in the EU" and "we'd lose our AAA credit rating" and "the man with the red shirt".

[T_S_A_R]

Cool, what are they? This thread tends to bog down around the same topics and modes of conversatiom precisely because only Yes voters tend to put down on screen why they think its a good idea. Ive comitted my own ideas and reasoning several times. I'd love to hear why the union is so good and have asked several times of No voters in good faith. I'm still waiting

i'm undecided.

but as i have said before the main reason is that people like the status quo. scotland at the moment is a perfectly good country to live in, it could be better but it could also be worse.

most people are risk averse and if there is a chance that independence will bring down living standards (and there obviously is due to the amount of uncertainty about fiscal matters post independence) then they will turn against it. people live quite happily with the current flaws of the uk. accepting that they continue living with those known flaws is much easier than risking unknown problems down the road.

[T_S_A_R]

Yep, good thing fiscal policy isn't in the hands of Cameron and Osborne right now. Otherwise we'd really be in trouble!

I'm going to go ahead and file this alongside "we'd need to be in the EU" and "we'd lose our AAA credit rating" and "the man with the red shirt".

but c***s as they are right now they could be much worse if a farage type and their base were pressuring them to crack down on scotland.

i don't think they care much about scotland but they aren't actively trying to harm us which is a possible outcome of being the little spoon in a fiscal union.

[Colkitto]

The reason the BoE and George Osborne won't rule out a currency union right now is because in the event of a Yes vote there will be one.

Brian Quinn like many on the Celtic board are Labour Unionists.

[T_S_A_R]

T_S_A_R gamely addressed this a few pages back, and the argument ran something like 'People are happy with the union because they're happy with the status quo because they're happy with the union.' Stunning analysis, I'm sure you'll agree.

that is the nationalist problem surely?

very few people are actively unhappy about being part of the united kingdom. selling something that is entirely hypothetical (an independent scotland) is much more difficult than convincing people to stick with something that they are extremely comfortable with.

[Swampy]

that is the nationalist problem surely?

very few people are actively unhappy about being part of the united kingdom. selling something that is entirely hypothetical (an independent scotland) is much more difficult than convincing people to stick with something that they are extremely comfortable with.

Of course it's the problem. But you said this was indicative of 'supporting the union', which is the part I'm questioning. Voting for the status quo is not the same thing as supporting the union. There is a world of difference between gnashing, bitey unionists (maybe, generously, 20% of the population) and people who are happy just to go with the flow.

edit: this, incidentally, is why I think the Yes side should be making a bigger deal of the fact that things are going to change in the event of a No vote as well as a Yes vote. The UK is about to enter very, very uncertain waters as far as its EU membership is concerned, for example.

[Swampy]

but c***s as they are right now they could be much worse if a farage type and their base were pressuring them to crack down on scotland.

i don't think they care much about scotland but they aren't actively trying to harm us which is a possible outcome of being the little spoon in a fiscal union.

While I agree with you that Farage and his ilk, and a depressingly large portion of the English electorate, would doubtless like to see Scotland take a fiscal kicking, 1) I think this is already the case, and 2) I don't think there's much possibility of its actually happening, partially because once things reach a certain level in government pragmatism will outweigh spite as a motivator and also because I don't see how 'cracking down' on Scotland would be in any way advantageous to the greater partner in raw financial terms.

[Swampy]

Fair play to the No side, though. They've done a very good job of somehow convincing people that absolutely nothing is going to change after 2014. Still, No voters can't say they weren't warned.

[Ad Lib]

Just to be clear, the Spectator writer thinks that this is a problem on the Yes side?!

It's a problem for any side in any debate when they're trailing persistently and significantly in the polls. Inertia wins the day.