Scots Independence Referendum

[Swampy]

As an aside, anybody got any figures for the %age of Whisky production that's sold to the rest of the UK?

Didn't you get at LordHawHaw for such rhetorical flourishes?

[The Old Northerner]

Really, is it? Independent Scotland, existing on it's public sector and it's oil. Independence has to be about the economy first and foremost,

Does it?

it we end up worse off out of the Union, exactly what do we achieve?

Independence

[The Old Northerner]

Didn't you get at LordHawHaw for such rhetorical flourishes?

Quite possibly. Mere laziness on my part, this time around

[Swampy]

Does it?

To be popular, I'd imagine that yes, it does.

If Scotland was being oppressed by the union then of course liberation would be the main driving force. As it isn't most people will - quite understandably - fail to see a benefit unless it impacts their wallet.

Curiously the already-underway recession has probably done the Unionist cause far, far, far greater good than a period of modest growth would have, as many people are - again, quite understandably, given the circumstances - utterly paralysed with fear at the moment.

In any case if independence is to be won by a vote in Scotland - not that I think it will be, for several reasons - the economic argument will be the dominant one. Quite understandably.

[Swampy]

Quite possibly. Mere laziness on my part, this time around

OK, well, my knowledge of the whisky industry is very low, as I don't drink it. I think it tastes a bit like earwax. Maybe it's an acquired taste but there are other tastes I'd rather acquire ahead of whisky, namely cheaper ones.

[renton]

Yes. That stuff about 'survival' was absolute nonsense that I don't think even you believe.

Source for this projection?

Of course - first and foremost. But not entirely.

I have already answered this in post #127.

Virtually any written, codified constitution suitable for a developed nation would be 'new and brilliant' when compared to our current unwritten one.

I don't think that Scots - or in fact ANY people or ethnic group or race - are so bereft of intelligence or wisdom that they cannot put together a document outlining the limits on government power. Why do you feel otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. Are Scots culturally inferior to the rest of the world? Racially?

the survival thing was possibly a bit austere, what I mean is that the economy has to thrive or the whole enterprise is doomed form the start, as we both seem to agree that is at least the first thing that has to happen I'll move on.

It's a projection based on all that anyone has, conjecture and I think, a measure of common sense (no doubt you'll disagree and call me a psycho again ) but anyway, the industry we have just now, is what we'd have to steer through with independence, and it's not a long list. And as I've previously pointed out a fickle one at that.

A new independent economy really ahs to have some kind of manufacturing base, and we don't. Outside of government contracts anyway.... even Silicon Glen could go up in smoke within a couple of years - and will never employ enough people to sustain the economy anyway. We need something new, and something established before we could think aobut independence.

You want us to trade within EFTA, be isolationist etc. Fine, doesn't prove a damn thing though does it. Trading with scotland will be dependent upon what Scotland has to trade, and at the moment it's not a lot.

And this is not about me believing we are culturally inferior. This is simply me looking at a Scottish government that will undoubtely behave in the same old way as westminster. We are hamstrung by that lack of political talent. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't continue with an unwritten constitution, perhaps even less so if we retain at least the regal link with England.

[Disco Duck]

Actually, the economic case for independence is quite sound. In oil and whisky we enjoy exclusive access to two of the UK's most profitable commoditites. Tourism would probably be boosted by independence and we have our call centres and Silicon Glen to generate jobs for the masses. We also enjoy a thriving public sector. Credit crunch nonwithstanding, the outlook for a free Scotland is good.

Vote SNP - you know it makes sense.

So when oil runs out in the middle of the next decade, what then?

Tourism is a very fickle industry and isn't of sufficient scale to generate reasonable income. Who wants to visit Ayr and Cowdenbeath (as random examples)?

"Silicon Glen" has been dying on its arse for years and this recession will see the last remnants of it disappear to the South East Asia.

Call centres - f**k me, is that the best we can do? Call centres for who? Why would "British" companies place their call centres here?

A thriving public sector - jesus, I really don't have time to go into how stupid a comment that is, but how do you think the public sector gets paid for? Magic beans?

The last great home-grown industry in Scotland was the banks. RBS is now owned 57% by the UK government - a stake which we would have to buy out on independence if we wanted any of the tax revenue from them - and HBoS will be owned by Lloyds and move it's head office south of the border. The only Scottish-based large companies now are Standard Life and SSE, and we'll even struggle for power supply by 2020 once we have to turn off the larger power stations thanks to EU legislation. Wind and tidal power doesn't give baseload and Mr Salmond won't have new nuclear in Scotland (oh, but can we have the British Energy jobs preserved in Scotland please).

Salmond is a classic opposition politician, very good at saying what to do but never having to come up with the goods. And it will always be the same whilst we are in the Union, which is why he'll never push too hard to be apart from it.

Typical example - smaller class sizes for P1-3. Whilst in opposition, this was policy. It would happen. Would cost (iirc) £40m. In "Government", costed up at £80m. Well, ok. Then someone points out "that's only for the new teachers. You need to build new classrooms as well" Total cost £400m. Oh, well, we'll quietly drop that one will we?

What happens if we vote "no"? Will there be another referendum in 5 years? Probably.

What happens if we vote "yes" and become independent? Can we change our minds then? Unlikely. Aside from the economics (and without getting into the moral arguments around it), this is why it should be approached with huge caution - you are unlikely to be able to go back if it doesn't work.

[Mak]

Against, bringing it to 38-38.

[xbl]

the survival thing was possibly a bit austere, what I mean is that the economy has to thrive or the whole enterprise is doomed form the start, as we both seem to agree that is at least the first thing that has to happen I'll move on.

.....

A new independent economy really ahs to have some kind of manufacturing base, and we don't. Outside of government contracts anyway.... even Silicon Glen could go up in smoke within a couple of years - and will never employ enough people to sustain the economy anyway. We need something new, and something established before we could think aobut independence.

........

Salmond is a classic opposition politician, very good at saying what to do but never having to come up with the goods. And it will always be the same whilst we are in the Union, which is why he'll never push too hard to be apart from it.

.....

Oh the hypocrisy!

So when oil runs out in the middle of the next decade, what then?

Tourism is a very fickle industry and isn't of sufficient scale to generate reasonable income. Who wants to visit Ayr and Cowdenbeath (as random examples)?

"Silicon Glen" has been dying on its arse for years and this recession will see the last remnants of it disappear to the South East Asia.

Call centres - f**k me, is that the best we can do? Call centres for who? Why would "British" companies place their call centres here?

........

Unlikely. Aside from the economics (and without getting into the moral arguments around it), this is why it should be approached with huge caution - you are unlikely to be able to go back if it doesn't work.

Now, I am going to give the same answer I always give...the oil is going to fucking run out anyway! If Silicon Glen is dying anyway, it is going to die within or without of the union. We need a solution whether or not we are in the Union.

Of course, Unionists don't like to think like that. They like to think that if they cuddle in close, then we can suck on the English teat. If the industry goes tits up, we suffer, whether or not we are in the union. What does being in the Union offer us? Are unionist politicians brimming with ideas about how to save our country, how to take us forward, how to prosper within the union?

No. They stick to "laalalalala status quo, SNP bad, lalalala". Come up with something. "Industry is doomed" works both ways. If its doomed in an independent Scotland, its doomed in the Union. What are you going to do about it?

[Swampy]

the survival thing was possibly a bit austere, what I mean is that the economy has to thrive or the whole enterprise is doomed form the start, as we both seem to agree that is at least the first thing that has to happen I'll move on.

You can move on, in which case I'll take the last word by pointing out that what you originally mooted and twice attempted to defend was classical Unionist scaremongering.

It's a projection based on all that anyone has, conjecture and I think, a measure of common sense (no doubt you'll disagree and call me a psycho again ) but anyway, the industry we have just now, is what we'd have to steer through with independence, and it's not a long list. And as I've previously pointed out a fickle one at that.

I am the first to admit that the public sector is a disgrace that needs to be examined root and branch. An end to Labour clientelism would make a different straight off the bat.

Beyond that I don't think that the wealth generation of Scotland is really in that bad a way, and I think that "oil and the public sector" is a gross oversimplification.

A new independent economy really ahs to have some kind of manufacturing base, and we don't.

Scotland has an educated workforce and a brilliant infrastructure. To take the literal meaning of base, our base is among the finest in Europe.

Outside of government contracts anyway....

And whose fault is that?

even Silicon Glen could go up in smoke within a couple of years - and will never employ enough people to sustain the economy anyway. We need something new, and something established before we could think aobut independence.

Lots of things could go up in smoke within a couple of weeks in our current polity and many will. I'm not of the opinion that our current system is more stable than our future one.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but I think the idea that such a move would jeopardise stability is a terrible one. Yes, it may cause instability - but we already have instability!

You want us to trade within EFTA, be isolationist etc. Fine, doesn't prove a damn thing though does it. Trading with scotland will be dependent upon what Scotland has to trade, and at the moment it's not a lot.

Or we could stick with the current economic success story... oh, wait... I don't really need to remind you that we're in the early stages of a protracted recession, do I?

And this is not about me believing we are culturally inferior. This is simply me looking at a scottish government that will undoubtely behave in the same old way as westminster. We are hamstrung by that lack of political talent.

Where does the lack of political talent stem from? What countries possess greater political talent and why?

Ther eis no reason to believe that we wwouldn't continue with an unwritten constitution,

Other than the fact that only three states do not possess such documents, and that Scotland (and England, at that) have a lengthy tradition of codifying rights as well as following precedent, and that there would be massive public demand for one.

perhaps even less so if we retain at least the regal link with England.

Other than codified law - something your modern-day Unionist struggles to understand, granted.

I am a member of 'Republic' and I will not defend the monarchy.

[renton]

Oh the hypocrisy!

Now, I am going to give the same answer I always give...the oil is going to fucking run out anyway! If Silicon Glen is dying anyway, it is going to die within or without of the union. We need a solution whether or not we are in the Union.

Of course, Unionists don't like to think like that. They like to think that if they cuddle in close, then we can suck on the English teat. If the industry goes tits up, we suffer, whether or not we are in the union. What does being in the Union offer us? Are unionist politicians brimming with ideas about how to save our country, how to take us forward, how to prosper within the union?

No. They stick to "laalalalala status quo, SNP bad, lalalala". Come up with something. "Industry is doomed" works both ways. If its doomed in an independent Scotland, its doomed in the Union. What are you going to do about it?

Correct, the oil is going to fucking run out. Unfortunatley the SNP have made this a corner stone of their economic poilicy, which doesn't help.

As for the rest of it, there is safety in numbers. and the UK has that advantage over a newly independent Scotland, trying to build apparatus of state while trying to trim off it's public sector. In the UK, problems can be handled centrally and if that means living a bit off of the wealth of the south east, so be it.

[lzreid]

I am going to give the same answer I always give...the oil is going to fucking run out anyway! If Silicon Glen is dying anyway, it is going to die within or without of the union. We need a solution whether or not we are in the Union.

Of course, Unionists don't like to think like that. They like to think that if they cuddle in close, then we can suck on the English teat. If the industry goes tits up, we suffer, whether or not we are in the union. What does being in the Union offer us? Are unionist politicians brimming with ideas about how to save our country, how to take us forward, how to prosper within the union?

Hello, I feel I'm going to regret this one.

Your facts are of course correct, oil and industry will die out whether we are in the union or not. But tell me, why do you think its a good idea to be massively reforming our economy whilst we also undergo massive transformation of civil society? To me, this soundls liek a recipe for massive instability.

Now, I'm happy to admit that this is merely a reason to delay indepndence but I'd like your opinion on this before we discuss the rest.

[Swampy]

Correct, the oil is going to fucking run out. Unfortunatley the SNP have made this a corner stone of their economic poilicy, which doesn't help.

You are correct in that they "have made" it in the sense that they did so in the 1970s.

At the moment a lowered corporation tax and business rates are actually the "cornerstone" with oil being a supporting act.

Of course now that there is no need for the British government to cover up the possibilities of oil revenues as was the case in the 1970s - because it's now going to run out (which it wasn't back then, apparently) - it is convenient to play the oil card.

As for the rest of it, there is safety in numbers.

I highly doubt that me and mine are safer in the UK than I would be in an independent Scotland.

and the UK has that advantage over a newly independent Scotland, trying to build apparatus of state while trying to trim off it's public sector. In the UK, problems can be handled centrally and if that means living a bit off of the wealth of the south east, so be it.

It is true that for political reasons it would be easier for a UK polity to cut the fat off the public sector in Scotland than it would be in an independent Scotland. However just because it's easier doesn't mean that it is going to happen, because at present it suits everyone except the taxpayer to have a bloated state in Scotland.

[Swampy]

Hello, I feel I'm going to regret this one.

Your facts are of course correct, oil and industry will die out whether we are in the union or not. But tell me, why do you think its a good idea to be massively reforming our economy whilst we also undergo massive transformation of civil society? To me, this soundls liek a recipe for massive instability.

Now, I'm happy to admit that this is merely a reason to delay indepndence but I'd like your opinion on this before we discuss the rest.

...

We are in a receding economy. We are fighting one ill-advised war and one just war. We are beset by terror threats. If this is your "stability" you can fucking ram it, to be frank, because not for at least two decades has the country been in a worse state than it is now.

[Disco Duck]

Now, I am going to give the same answer I always give...the oil is going to fucking run out anyway! If Silicon Glen is dying anyway, it is going to die within or without of the union. We need a solution whether or not we are in the Union.

Of course, Unionists don't like to think like that. They like to think that if they cuddle in close, then we can suck on the English teat. If the industry goes tits up, we suffer, whether or not we are in the union. What does being in the Union offer us? Are unionist politicians brimming with ideas about how to save our country, how to take us forward, how to prosper within the union?

No. They stick to "laalalalala status quo, SNP bad, lalalala". Come up with something. "Industry is doomed" works both ways. If its doomed in an independent Scotland, its doomed in the Union. What are you going to do about it?

But indepdendent Scotland is to be based on oil, whilst there is very little of the rest of the UK economy (proportionately) dependent on it. Have you ever been in Aberdeen when the oil price has been low for a prelonged spell? It dies on its arse.

The UK has a broader economic base than Scotland. It is also less dependent on "handouts" from the government, whether that's in the form of state funding or public sector jobs or whatever. It would be economically very difficult for us to match the quality of life that Scots have in the UK, as an independent country.

I also struggle to see what part of your argument is an argument for independence?

"Suck on the English teat" - see that's the problem right there. You adopt language and rhetoric as it you've just written the Braveheart script. How about, "rely on help from the rest of the UK, as we have contributed to the UK in the past"?

[renton]

You can move on, in which case I'll take the last word by pointing out that what you originally mooted and twice attempted to defend was classical Unionist scaremongering.

No I didn't, I originally mooted the point that amoral profiteering had to be the central theme.

I am the first to admit that the public sector is a disgrace that needs to be examined root and branch. An end to Labour clientelism would make a different straight off the bat.

Beyond that I don't think that the wealth generation of Scotland is really in that bad a way, and I think that "oil and the public sector" is a gross oversimplification.

We might have high quality but not nearly enough of it. We can't get the manufacturing jobs because of living standards, which means the design jobs exist in smaller firms which inevitably migrate to closer to manufacturing companies anyway. It's a piss poor state of affairs, pretty much all the large UK wide engineering firms survive on public contracts...

Scotland has an educated workforce and a brilliant infrastructure. To take the literal meaning of base, our base is among the finest in Europe.

We might have an educated workforce but I'm struggling for infrastructure....we're certainly worse off than say, Norway or Germany, whom would be our main competitors for something like light manufacturing and electronics....

And whose fault is that?

30 years of union squabbling and petty governments. Basically, everyone involved.

Lots of things could go up in smoke within a couple of weeks in our current polity and many will. I'm not of the opinion that our current system is more stable than our future one.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but I think the idea that such a move would jeopardise stability is a terrible one. Yes, it may cause instability - but we already have instability!

Or we could stick with the current economic success story... oh, wait... I don't really need to remind you that we're in the early stages of a protracted recession, do I?

Surely the UK system is a better platform to regain stability at best all you can say is we'd be no worse off but that's not enough to make the jump worth it. Especially in a situation where the entire civil stucture is being reformed in the wake of independence.

Where does the lack of political talent stem from? What countries possess greater political talent and why?

Well it's pretty universal. The majority of scottish MPs are hardly loved and the mSPs no better than local councillers.

Other than the fact that only three states do not possess such documents, and that Scotland (and England, at that) have a lengthy tradition of codifying rights as well as following precedent, and that there would be massive public demand for one.

There hasn't been yet, you'd think that the English would want one just as much as us...

Other than codified law - something your modern-day Unionist struggles to understand, granted.

I am a member of 'Republic' and I will not defend the monarchy.

Well, it's one option, but not necessarily the one the SNP would pick.

[lzreid]

...

We are in a receding economy. We are fighting one ill-advised war and one just war. We are beset by terror threats. If this is your "stability" you can fucking ram it, to be frank, because not for at least two decades has the country been in a worse state than it is now.

You are correct, the United Kingdom is in a frankly shocking condition. However, stability is stability and it is fucking stupid to argue that we should reform all areas of society at once and hope it all comes out well.

[vikingTON]

The UK has a broader economic base than Scotland. It is also less dependent on "handouts" from the government, whether that's in the form of state funding or public sector jobs or whatever. It would be economically very difficult for us to match the quality of life that Scots have in the UK, as an independent country.

Quality of life that sees parts of Glasgow having the same male life expectancy as a typical Bangladeshi?

The case that Scotland is currently dominated by public sector employment is correct, but that is a fundamental problem regardless of union or not. Independence would provide the fatal solvent to that, as public spending would be rendered uneconomical. In that case, we could restructure our economy away from the public sector. To me, that is not in any way a negative consequence.

Having full fiscal responsibility will stimulate greater political responsibility. There is little reason to suspect that Scotland would be in any way inherently doomed to relative poverty post-independence.

[capybara]

There is a thread about eating mince at lunch time guys.

Enjoying this though. Socialist republic,you know it makes sense.

[xbl]

...

We are in a receding economy. We are fighting one ill-advised war and one just war. We are beset by terror threats. If this is your "stability" you can fucking ram it, to be frank, because not for at least two decades has the country been in a worse state than it is now.

That'll do nicely, Ill have that as my answer as well.

Unionists can't win the economic argument. They say we don't have a "base", that we can't support ourselves, but they never think to ask themselves why this is so? Why are we so apparently weak? Surely a strong Scotland, within or without the union is in the interest of everyone, not just those of us who want independence. So we need massive reform whether or not we stay in the Union. And guess what, not a single Unionist seems to be proposing such a thing. They are all too busy demonising Salmond and the SNP.