Independence.

[tut]

Date set for 18th September.

I will keep an open mind until then, but I want to see everything laid out as to how it will affect me. As I have said before, if it is not beneficial for myself and my family, then it is a no. Too late in life to be altruistic.

tut

ps:- would also like to see a pull out clause if it all goes tits up, but that would be too much to hope for.

[flyingscot68]

I think I will find it impossible to decide on this, mainly for one reason.

The YES camp won't tell us the whole truth, they'll cherry pick the good bits.
The NO camp also won't tell us the whole truth, again they'll cherry pick the best bits but they've probably got it easier than the YES camp when it comes convincing people of their argument.

So that means I'll need to read between the lines and try and figure it out for myself. TBH, I can't be bothered, my life is busy enough and I doubt that independence will make my life that much different from now.

So probably a NO from me but quite happy to be convinced otherwise. Problem is I don't really trust either camp so it'll take alot to get me to believe any of them.

Think I'll move to Norway...........

[tut]

When we bought TT, CH oil was 8p/litre. It is now 65p, an 800% rise.

In the meantime electricity and gas have just about doubled.

Bring that into line Alex, and I will be up there with you like a ferret up a drainpipe.

tut

[flyingscot68]

When we bought TT, CH oil was 8p/litre. It is now 65p, an 800% rise.

In the meantime electricity and gas have just about doubled.

Bring that into line Alex, and I will be up there with you like a ferret up a drainpipe.

tut

Must've more than doubled? We bought our place in 99' and it was £40 per month for gas and elec, it's just gone up to £139

[woody]

When we bought TT, CH oil was 8p/litre. It is now 65p, an 800% rise.

In the meantime electricity and gas have just about doubled.

Bring that into line Alex, and I will be up there with you like a ferret up a drainpipe.

tut

But that's just a reflection on the wider world. Are you looking for Salmond to be Scotland's Chavez?

[tut]

Chavez, Venezuela, cheapest petrol in the world at 2p/litre.

Bloody right.

tut

[BiggestNizzy]

Chavez, Venezuela, cheapest petrol in the world at 2p/litre.

Bloody right.

tut

That's been hit with inflation too as it's 8p now

Although Wikipedia has it at $0.015/l

[Peter]

I'm with Craig, right now I see no credible arguments or facts that I can trust and cannot invest the time to try and understand this. So from an early stage, my thoughts have been, vote no..

But I have a niggle, its not all about being better off financially, its about being part of a nation that has the ability to approach things differently. I would pay more for a better, more efficient, more transparent government who are willing to take decisions towards the greater good (subjective). I don't see that happening under the recent UK governments, I'm not sure it would happen under an independent Scotland but perhaps the possibility is greater..

I have 18 months to be persuaded..

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Lazydonkey]

Surely we'd already see elements of that with devolution if that were the case?

Edit : clearly not all powers are devolved but we have everything in place to allow independents to come in, be transparent etc etc.

[Andy G]

Am I the only one who can't face much longer with that total muppet Salmond as the "First Minister".

If his ego trip , sorry independence campaign fails, I wonder what he'll do then.

Robin great read btw.

Can't understand why in this day and age we need more barriers let alone politicians !!

[robin]

Interesting point, Pete - if I had to choose between an independent Scotland OR a federal Europe ...

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the new Scotland would still be part of the EU along the lines of current UK membership.

Hmm. Independent Scotland it must be, I think.

You are right (and I was wrong) - independence probably does not substantially increase the size of the Scottish Government or the UK Government. If it was a vote between independence and a return to UK central (well, southerly) government then it would reduce the size, but that's not the vote we are faced with, so irrelevant.

Cheers,
Robin

[robin]

See this article. You can skim the econo babble ... it's the last two paragraphs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22580074

Speaking for the Scottish government, Mr Swinney said the Treasury document was a "feeble attempt to undermine confidence in Scotland's ability to be a successful independent country".

Mr Swinney added: "The Treasury, true to form, will outline what is in its own best interests, not what is in the best economic interests of the people of Scotland."

So is this a case of the BBC siding with UK and trimming Mr Swinney's comments on the matter, or is that all he had to say?

Surely the numbers in this very narrow section of the overall debate are pretty straightforward - ignoring the significant state ownership of these banks for a moment - if RBS, LloydsTSBXBOX plus the other smaller Scottish banks and building societies are to be considered as Scottish banks post independence, will the Scottish government/economy be able to carry them in the event of further banking disasters? Or will they be "too big to save"?

By the way, I have no opinion on whether or not we would want to save them in such an event, but in this very narrow context it must be easy to demonstrate the facts one way or the other. Mr Swinney appears to have avoided doing that in this case. I wonder why?

What would happen to the deposit guarantee scheme post independence - presumably it would still exist - but would there need to be a migration of deposits between the banks so that people had their savings in banks in their own countries (or more likely, move them into the "English" ones ).

Cheers,
Robin

[pete]

See this article. You can skim the econo babble ... it's the last two paragraphs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22580074

Speaking for the Scottish government, Mr Swinney said the Treasury document was a "feeble attempt to undermine confidence in Scotland's ability to be a successful independent country".

Mr Swinney added: "The Treasury, true to form, will outline what is in its own best interests, not what is in the best economic interests of the people of Scotland."

So is this a case of the BBC siding with UK and trimming Mr Swinney's comments on the matter, or is that all he had to say?

Surely the numbers in this very narrow section of the overall debate are pretty straightforward - ignoring the significant state ownership of these banks for a moment - if RBS, LloydsTSBXBOX plus the other smaller Scottish banks and building societies are to be considered as Scottish banks post independence, will the Scottish government/economy be able to carry them in the event of further banking disasters? Or will they be "too big to save"?

By the way, I have no opinion on whether or not we would want to save them in such an event, but in this very narrow context it must be easy to demonstrate the facts one way or the other. Mr Swinney appears to have avoided doing that in this case. I wonder why?

What would happen to the deposit guarantee scheme post independence - presumably it would still exist - but would there need to be a migration of deposits between the banks so that people had their savings in banks in their own countries (or more likely, move them into the "English" ones ).

Cheers,
Robin

Someone had put together a list of BBC stories about the referendum that all start with "worries about Scotland post referendum". ie they are all negative, nothing positive. JUst an editorial decision I guess.

I think that Iceland may have come out of the banking crisis OK (ish) because it's banks were too big to save, they had no choice but to let them go bankrupt and deal with the consequences. Consequences which weren't perhaps as bad as ours have been. But Iceland is a sh*t example to compare to the UK, they have the population of Wakefield, just an utter outlier.

Scotland claim that they wouldn't have been responsible for all the debt (of RBS) and that some would have been the responsibility of the government in the country in which is was trading. I don't know if this is true. They also claim that had this happened post independence it's unrealistic to claim that we might not have had a version of Glass-Steagall or something similar. ie You can't cherry pick, if it was post independence there's nothing that says we would have allowed it to happen in the first place. I think that's a bogus argument but you can't help but have some sympathy with it.

Imagine I wanted to drive your car, and you said you wouldn't let me because last time you drove it you got caught for speeding and fined, and if I got caught I wouldn't be able to afford the fine.
But I won't speed, I protest, and anyway the car is half mine!
Better we don't risk it, you reply, and refuse to let me drive.

Finally, and the bit that makes me understand why the nats get really angry, is that this is a report prepared by the UK treasury to effectively undermine a part of the UK. They aren't preparing this with an open mind but to show why separation of the union is a bad idea. If the Scottish treasury prepared a similar report it would be reported as "SNP say independence financially sound".
Should they not be preparing something that says how it could be made to work?

I still don't know if independence is a good idea but I have quite a lot of gardening to do and writing rambling ill informed nonsense on the internet was infinitely preferable...

[H8OAG]

Not really following your Bank conspiracy theory Robin

Santander, Clydesdale...................Bank Of Ireland (really!) are all under foreign ownership

Like others on this thread, I would like to see/hear a wider debate on the issue rather than the tit for tat points scoring


Andy

I lent Mr Salmond a mobile phone way back in 1987 when he worked in the office above me as an Economist for a certain bank...........and off he went electioneering

[robin]

Not really following your Bank conspiracy theory Robin
Santander, Clydesdale...................Bank Of Ireland (really!) are all under foreign ownership

Sure, but those all hold a UK banking license and are protected by UK depositor guarantee scheme whatever it's called. They are (supposedly) immune from disasters that happen to the parent bank - even if the Banco Santander in Spain collapses the UK bank of the same name should be able to continue as well as any other UK bank might be expected to. They also pay taxes on profits in the UK to HMRC (subject to some funny business, no doubt).

For RBS operating in England post independence one would expect the same to be true.

So somehow or other some division will need to exist in all the banks operating in both countries post independence.

Anyway, I really don't know what will happen - it will surely depend on how Scottish banks are to be regulated post independence - surely something Mr Swinney has more of an idea about than I do and hence I was surprised by the brief and dismissive nature of his comment (though maybe he said more that wasn't reported?).

Given some insight I might have commented along the lines that Scotland would only have to bail out the Scottish part of the bank(s) and that we could afford to do that, but that begs the obvious question - what *is* the Scottish part of the bank, and do we get taxation revenues from the parent or just the Scottish part.

Cheers,
Robin