|
Post by desman2 on Sept 8, 2014 12:21:04 GMT
They would, as an independant entity need extremely large amounts to maintain welfare, health, education, defence, and all the trappings of government and I can't imagine anyone in England, Wales or Northern Ireland being told theyv'e got to put up with helping them get started.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 8, 2014 12:21:48 GMT
The UK will do what's best for the UK. I guess the general population will not be in particular forgiving mood to the Jocks. Agreed. You can't have a currency union unless both parties agree on things like interest rates and the amount of currency in circulation. Whether Scotland's economy does better or worse than the UK's after independence the chances of it performing exactly the same as the UK's are NIL. It will have its ups and downs and so will we - but those ups and downs will rarely coincide. No way is the UK going to allow its decisions on interest rates or the amount of currency in circulation to be determined by a country whose economy was not in synch with our own. It isn't a question of like or dislike or revenge - it is simple economics - our pound is managed by the Bank of England and it makes no economic sense to give a newly independent Bank of Scotland a say in how the BOE runs it. I'm not so sure - it might not be as strong as revenge or dislike but it won't be pretty. 'Our' population will be mightly pissed if we incur costs as a result of a yes vote and will not want our government to cave in on anything that would harm ourselves even if it meant hurting the Jocks. It will be a case of 'you made your bed.....' I can imagine the Mail's headlines now.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2014 12:31:47 GMT
Agreed. You can't have a currency union unless both parties agree on things like interest rates and the amount of currency in circulation. Whether Scotland's economy does better or worse than the UK's after independence the chances of it performing exactly the same as the UK's are NIL. It will have its ups and downs and so will we - but those ups and downs will rarely coincide. No way is the UK going to allow its decisions on interest rates or the amount of currency in circulation to be determined by a country whose economy was not in synch with our own. It isn't a question of like or dislike or revenge - it is simple economics - our pound is managed by the Bank of England and it makes no economic sense to give a newly independent Bank of Scotland a say in how the BOE runs it. I'm not so sure - it might not be as strong as revenge or dislike but it won't be pretty. 'Our' population will be mightly pissed if we incur costs as a result of a yes vote and will not want our government to cave in on anything that would harm ourselves even if it meant hurting the Jocks. It will be a case of 'you made your bed.....' I can imagine the Mail's headlines now. Yes, people as individuals will have their dislikes and will be out for revenge - but the Treasury and the Bank of England will, hopefully, be making their decisions based on what is best for the economy of the (reduced) UK and not on revenge. I like a bit of revenge as much as the next man - but it is interest rates, the size of my pension(s) and the inflation rate in goods and services which matters much more to me!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 8, 2014 12:42:07 GMT
I'm not so sure - it might not be as strong as revenge or dislike but it won't be pretty. 'Our' population will be mightly pissed if we incur costs as a result of a yes vote and will not want our government to cave in on anything that would harm ourselves even if it meant hurting the Jocks. It will be a case of 'you made your bed.....' I can imagine the Mail's headlines now. Yes, people as individuals will have their dislikes and will be out for revenge - but the Treasury and the Bank of England will, hopefully, be making their decisions based on what is best for the economy of the (reduced) UK and not on revenge. I like a bit of revenge as much as the next man - but it is interest rates, the size of my pension(s) and the inflation rate in goods and services which matters much more to me! Yep, but Scotland will become a competitor rather than a responsibility...actions that need to be taken could be quite different.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2014 12:43:43 GMT
Yes, people as individuals will have their dislikes and will be out for revenge - but the Treasury and the Bank of England will, hopefully, be making their decisions based on what is best for the economy of the (reduced) UK and not on revenge. I like a bit of revenge as much as the next man - but it is interest rates, the size of my pension(s) and the inflation rate in goods and services which matters much more to me! Yep, but Scotland will become a competitor rather than a responsibility...actions that need to be taken could be quite different. Yes, I agree - my remarks were purely related to the inadvisability of a currency union.
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Sept 8, 2014 12:49:55 GMT
I just think its unsustainable to be honest. Theres no real financial clout up there, some places are imbedded in poverty and there are just so many unemployed who would be claiming benefits and I cant see how they are going to foot the benefits bill, never mind finding the money to pay for health, transport, tourism, education etc.
I know they go on about oil reserves and the like but 1) will there be the money to set up the equipment, pay the people to bring it up and ensure its safe to use and 2) the supply will run out pretty quickly if they sell it just to sustain the economy. Basically, if the jocks vote Yes (which is now a distinct possibility, but I still think the No vote will just edge it), it will all go tits up before too long and they'll either have to adhere to EU bailout policies or they'll start beggig to rejoin the rest of the UK, who might have them back, but might also tell them to shove their single-mindedness up their arse. Sideways.
(political) Rant Over.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2014 13:02:29 GMT
I just think its unsustainable to be honest. Theres no real financial clout up there, some places are imbedded in poverty and there are just so many unemployed who would be claiming benefits and I cant see how they are going to foot the benefits bill, never mind finding the money to pay for health, transport, tourism, education etc. I know they go on about oil reserves and the like but 1) will there be the money to set up the equipment, pay the people to bring it up and ensure its safe to use and 2) the supply will run out pretty quickly if they sell it just to sustain the economy. Basically, if the jocks vote Yes (which is now a distinct possibility, but I still think the No vote will just edge it), it will all go tits up before too long and they'll either have to adhere to EU bailout policies or they'll start beggig to rejoin the rest of the UK, who might have them back, but might also tell them to shove their single-mindedness up their arse. Sideways. (political) Rant Over. A point of information - the Scottish government won't extract the oil themselves - just as the UK doesn't do so at present. Just like the UK government, an independent Scottish government involvement will consist of the selling of licences to explore and to drill - and the taxation of the profits of the Oil companies.
|
|
|
Post by slash on Sept 8, 2014 13:44:00 GMT
If Scotland joins the Euro, they can expect everything to be dictated by Brussels instead of Westminster and expect to get fucked up the arse by the Euro. They may think they might have it bad now, but they're about to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 14:20:37 GMT
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Every UK government uses other peoples' money to pay for things, that's why we've had a national debt since 1692. That's why your beloved current government is borrowing more than ever to pay for things. That's why all governments tax people unless they're oil rich states who don't need to. Wake up and try to understand economics. Don't tell daft lies. There are years when we didn't borrow money and we aren't borrowing more than ever now. Oh really? In which years did UK governments not borrow money then?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 8, 2014 15:10:05 GMT
In the years we made a surplus...like the ones New Labour had from following Major's spending plans.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 8, 2014 15:28:49 GMT
Salmond and his side kick Sturgeon really are a pair of prize dickheads who are leading their country into oblivion on the back of nationalism, the current state of the UK economy and their own inflated egos. The union is based on 300 years of cooperation, friendship and loyalty to each other. Salmond is asking kids to vote, kids who are, for the most, either desperate for work or about to embark on free university courses, of course most will vote yes. He is not allowing ex pat Scots a vote but will allow foreigners living in Scotland a say on independence. How fucking crazy is that. The latest poles are just smoke and mirrors. For example the YouGov pole puts the yes camp at 51% and the no camp at 49%. Strange how nearly 9% are still undecided. I still don't believe that the Scots will vote for independence, but if they do David Cameron must take some of the blame for allowing Salmond to dictate the terms of the referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 15:55:33 GMT
In all seriousness the jocks would be nuts to vote yes IMO. Salmond has plucked all his predictions and policies of oil revenue, EU membership, currency out if thin air. The latest prediction from the oil industry is that North Sea oil will fall to about one sixth of its current level by 2050. Spain have said they will veto any application for them to join the EU. Although Salmond naively states that they are already in the EU and do not have to negotiate entry. Similarly with the currency arguement he naively states that they will adopt sterling even though Westminster say they will not allow them to do this. The UK is in the Eu , Scotland is in as part of the UK, if they leave the UK they leave the EU .....it's quite simple and they also leave the pound .....Salmond is in Cuckoo land they're just hoping that people ignore the facts and just get behind the Braveheart spirit........it's not just Spain that have said they would reject an application; the foreign minister and PM of Latvia, Slovakia, Portugal and Spain have all said they would vote against them joining, the current VP of the EU has said so, the chairman of the Council of Europe has also said so. under EU rules you can only become a memberr state if you have your own central bank which leaves them 2 options a) adopt their own currency (which they can't afford to do and have no mechanism currently in place to set up their own currency) b) desperately hope that we allow them to remain a part of our financial system (which we've already told them they can't) simply taking up the sterlinisation idea won't allow them entry. it really is that simple but the "Vote Yes" people just scream that it's all "Propaganda" from Westminster despite it actually not even coming from Westminster but coming from the people that actually decide who is/isn't admitted. burying their heads in the sands and hoping the electorate don't notice in other words!
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2014 18:09:02 GMT
the EU have already stated they will not be a member state , they will not be allowed to keep the £ as their currency , i would be very surprised if the jocks decided to go it alone No one can stop the Scots using the £ as their currency. However, the remainder of the UK have said they would not allow Scotland to have a "currency union". In other words the Scots would have to go along with whatever interest rates the UK decided to set to suit the economic conditions IN THE UK and if that did not suit Scotland - tough! The same would apply to the amount of money in circulation - that would be set by the UK and not Scotland. One of the few countries which uses another country's currency without having any say on interest rates etc. is Panama who use the US dolloar but have no say in how the US sets interest rates or the amount of dollars in circulation. Sctoland could become the European version of Panama! i hear we are setting up border controls in cumbria lakeland , will you be coming out of retirement mate , or just walking your dobermans along the border
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2014 18:11:39 GMT
No one can stop the Scots using the £ as their currency. However, the remainder of the UK have said they would not allow Scotland to have a "currency union". In other words the Scots would have to go along with whatever interest rates the UK decided to set to suit the economic conditions IN THE UK and if that did not suit Scotland - tough! The same would apply to the amount of money in circulation - that would be set by the UK and not Scotland. One of the few countries which uses another country's currency without having any say on interest rates etc. is Panama who use the US dolloar but have no say in how the US sets interest rates or the amount of dollars in circulation. Sctoland could become the European version of Panama! i hear we are setting up border controls in cumbria lakeland , will you be coming out of retirement mate , or just walking your dobermans along the border ps when i worked in the Bahamas we had the bahamian dollar and the us dollar in joint circulation , same value i had 2 bank accounts for the different currency . i was paid 50% in each
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2014 18:38:29 GMT
i hear we are setting up border controls in cumbria lakeland , will you be coming out of retirement mate , or just walking your dobermans along the border ps when i worked in the Bahamas we had the bahamian dollar and the us dollar in joint circulation , same value i had 2 bank accounts for the different currency . i was paid 50% in each Yes, I think using another country's currency if you are a tiny (and relatively rich) country yourself works fine. Very different for Scotland to try to adopt the £ without currency union though. I don't think Salmond actually realises the currency problem. If he simply adopts the currency with no control over its value - he risks big problems as Scotland's economy starts to diverge from that of the UK as he will have no influence over the value of the £ which will soon become too high or too low for Scotland's needs. He seems to think that the UK will just give in and allow Scotland into a currency union. But I can't see any reason why we would want to. If we did enter into a currency union, international speculators would soon bring chaos to the value of the £. That's what international speculators do if they get the chance because currency chaos is an opportunity for big profits. That's why international currency speculators exist.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2014 18:42:57 GMT
No one can stop the Scots using the £ as their currency. However, the remainder of the UK have said they would not allow Scotland to have a "currency union". In other words the Scots would have to go along with whatever interest rates the UK decided to set to suit the economic conditions IN THE UK and if that did not suit Scotland - tough! The same would apply to the amount of money in circulation - that would be set by the UK and not Scotland. One of the few countries which uses another country's currency without having any say on interest rates etc. is Panama who use the US dolloar but have no say in how the US sets interest rates or the amount of dollars in circulation. Sctoland could become the European version of Panama! i hear we are setting up border controls in cumbria lakeland , will you be coming out of retirement mate , or just walking your dobermans along the border No, I've been retired too long (10 years) to have any intention of going back! But there are a lot of worried businesses on both sides of the border plus a lot of private individuals who are worried about the future as they currently flit from one side to the other on their daily business with very little problem. All that could soon change in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2014 19:07:00 GMT
ps when i worked in the Bahamas we had the bahamian dollar and the us dollar in joint circulation , same value i had 2 bank accounts for the different currency . i was paid 50% in each Yes, I think using another country's currency if you are a tiny (and relatively rich) country yourself works fine. Very different for Scotland to try to adopt the £ without currency union though. I don't think Salmond actually realises the currency problem. If he simply adopts the currency with no control over its value - he risks big problems as Scotland's economy starts to diverge from that of the UK as he will have no influence over the value of the £ which will soon become too high or too low for Scotland's needs. He seems to think that the UK will just give in and allow Scotland into a currency union. But I can't see any reason why we would want to. If we did enter into a currency union, international speculators would soon bring chaos to the value of the £. That's what international speculators do if they get the chance because currency chaos is an opportunity for big profits. That's why international currency speculators exist. there was some selling of the pound today because of the way the opinion polls have shifted recently , making the yes vote a reality
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 19:21:54 GMT
In the years we made a surplus...like the ones New Labour had from following Major's spending plans. No, you'll find we were still borrowing money then just like we are now. What you're referring to is the difference between tax revenue and spending. Governments still borrow even during times of budget surplus for things like investment programmes. Like I said, all UK governments borrow even when the simplistic see a budget surplus and assume they aren't. It really would help if you understood economics a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 8, 2014 19:46:38 GMT
The Tories correctly made labour tale in the no campaign
If ed can't do that right how can he expect to govern
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Sept 8, 2014 20:06:44 GMT
If I thought it would cost me nothing as an English tax payer the Scots could clear off right now for me. However, I suspect that England will still continue to subsidise them and give them the best of both worlds and this will really wind me up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 20:22:59 GMT
It's all a diversionary tactic aimed at diluting the impact of mass immigration at a time when there are now more Muslims in the country than Scots .
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 9, 2014 6:44:11 GMT
Discussing up the pub last night the legitimacy of only allowing the Scots to vote on the break up of the UK. Because that is effectively what they are voting for .....Scots independence and thus the break up of the Union. Now I, and millions of other UK residents, don't want the UK broken up so the arguement is why hasn't all the UK residents been allowed to vote.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 9, 2014 6:55:14 GMT
In the years we made a surplus...like the ones New Labour had from following Major's spending plans. No, you'll find we were still borrowing money then just like we are now. What you're referring to is the difference between tax revenue and spending. Governments still borrow even during times of budget surplus for things like investment programmes. Like I said, all UK governments borrow even when the simplistic see a budget surplus and assume they aren't. It really would help if you understood economics a bit better. I think you are being a dick about this - most commentators look at net borrowing as the deficit figure, since it includes investment spending. So whether its simplistic or not, it's the way it's done. Surely an economics expert like yourself knows this.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 9, 2014 6:57:45 GMT
This won't be over when the votes are counted, cause the result will be contested if it's so close & the conspiracy theorists will run with it. Scotland divided for the sake of egos. Get ready for meltdown...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 9, 2014 7:37:28 GMT
If Scotland do vote yes, Cameron is finished..for good.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Sept 9, 2014 7:43:30 GMT
The Tories correctly made labour tale in the no campaign If ed can't do that right how can he expect to govern Right about Ed but wrong about the Tories. If the current British Government is not prepared to stand up for the Union (however unpopular they are in Scotland), the only reasonable assumption is that they don't care.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2014 8:26:19 GMT
The Tories correctly made labour tale in the no campaign If ed can't do that right how can he expect to govern Right about Ed but wrong about the Tories. If the current British Government is not prepared to stand up for the Union (however unpopular they are in Scotland), the only reasonable assumption is that they don't care. They have stood up to it. But they left the campaign to labour
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2014 8:31:24 GMT
If Scotland do vote yes, Cameron is finished..for good. How can you say that. If Scotland vote yes it's democracy in action. Without the Scottish seats labour could very likely fail to get a majority. Independence has more serious consequences for labour and ed. And if you are predicting failure for Dave he will be very happy. It's like the chairmans vote of confidence in reverse
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 8:48:17 GMT
No, you'll find we were still borrowing money then just like we are now. What you're referring to is the difference between tax revenue and spending. Governments still borrow even during times of budget surplus for things like investment programmes. Like I said, all UK governments borrow even when the simplistic see a budget surplus and assume they aren't. It really would help if you understood economics a bit better. I think you are being a dick about this - most commentators look at net borrowing as the deficit figure, since it includes investment spending. So whether its simplistic or not, it's the way it's done. Surely an economics expert like yourself knows this. No, you said it's easy to have socially progressive policies when you're spending other people's money. I replied saying every government borrows and spends other people's money which, according to you, was "daft lies". You assumed that a budget surplus meant no borrowing. It doesn't. I've just shown you that even when a budget surplus is in place, governments still borrow money from other people to spend. They all do (in the UK at least). If you don't understand basics like this I'm not surprised you think the way you do. That is the fundamental problem here, a big lack of genuine understanding. It's really not as simplistic as you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 9, 2014 8:50:54 GMT
It may finish off Cameron but I don't think it should.
Like salop says, it's democracy in action. If the Scottish people think they can do better on their own then so be it.
Sadly, I don't think we will be able to wish them luck as we will have our own issues and concerns.
|
|