The Org Scottish Referendum

[flymo]

I haven't met a single person who is willing to be persuaded that the 'other' option is better, no matter what their current preference. Which leads me to think that this isn't worth me arguing the point over.

Personally, I believe that no matter who ends up in charge and no matter where the borders lie, there will be some greedy politician(s) and party trying to milk it. Better the devil you know in my view.

Many of my family are Scots and I really hope that we remain as a single union.

[Bibio]

it's all politics nothing more nothing less and until the vote is cast then nobody can say for sure the future of Scotland. nobody has a crystal ball to see whats going to happen in 20 years from now and for all scotland knows Westminster might just drag them into one of the biggest financial breakdowns in history or not. the cost of living at the moment in the UK is ridiculous and if it continues going the way its going it's not going to be a nice place to stay. domestic fuel bills are sky high, the cost of a basket of shopping is going up each week, the housing market prices are starting to rise again but peoples wages are not being raised to cover the extra costs so what does out smart Government do... give people free cash out of the public purse in the form of working tax credits. where do these working tax credits come from... the public purse so to be able to pay these tax credits then other things such as services and so fourth have been cut.

someone mentioned that the banks that are in public hands are making a profit so why not keep them when the debt is paid to raise revenue for the UK purse instead of allowing private enterprise making the profit.

why are the UK's basic utility companies in foreign hands that allow escalating domestic fuel pricing?

what happens when the revenue from the North Sea runs out are Westminster going to cut the Scottish budget?

most of the population is thinking of the NOW and not the future. an independent Scotland might work it might not and its up to the residents of Scotland to vote how they vote be it yes or no on the FUTURE of Scotland as an independent nation.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by flymo

I haven't met a single person who is willing to be persuaded that the 'other' option is better, no matter what their current preference. Which leads me to think that this isn't worth me arguing the point over.

It's true in general but never more true than in this debate.

I think we all probably have a tendency to take any new information and adapt it to reinforce the view of the world that we've already formed.

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by SvNewbie

Island allowed its national banks to fail, as in go bankrupt. The savers who put their money in these banks were covered under a guarantee scheme much the same as in we have in the UK. The receivers of the bank were then forced to sell off the assets of these banks to repay the government for the money which it paid out.

We chose a different path where by we partially nationalised the big banks at a cost of £123bn, giving them a big cash injection allowing them to continue to function as banks and saving us from having to pay out for the money for people's savings. For the UK this was a better deal given that so much of our economy is driven by the financial sector.

Try to keep in mind that we haven't given them the money for free, we took ownership of large fractions of these banks, as the economy continues to recover then we will be able to re-privatise our holding in these banks, by all accounts we are expected to make a reasonable profit from the deal. Also, the banks are paying fee's and interest which as to now has covered the interest on this debt.

Thank you for taking the time to type out this response,

my turn...

You have used the term "we" a few times, I don't remember ever being offered a choice to bail the banks, please correct me if I am wrong, I don't know of anyone being offered a choice. Therefore this was done without my approval. Had I been given the choice, I would have written my own terms and conditions. When "we" make a reasonable profit, how will I be able to claim my reward?, and how long must I be expected to contribute to a failing business model?

@ Spank, Thanks for your response, you have provided clarity regarding the banking collapse, however If I am not mistaken, the IMF have injected bailout payments equalling the loan repayments which are due (without austerity measures or profit making), which in essences means that The IMF are actually paying the deficit not Iceland?

Great Thread!!!

P

Originally Posted by pegasus

You have used the term "we" a few times, I don't remember ever being offered a choice to bail the banks, please correct me if I am wrong, I don't know of anyone being offered a choice. Therefore this was done without my approval. Had I been given the choice, I would have written my own terms and conditions. When "we" make a reasonable profit, how will I be able to claim my reward?, and how long must I be expected to contribute to a failing business model?

I'm all for a system that allows us to have near instantaneous referendums on a wide variety of issues. However, it would be an unmitigated disaster given the average Britain's apathy and wilful ignorance on political and economic issues. Anything that can't be distilled into a 500 word doomsday article by the DailyMail isn't worth thinking about.

Therefore we elect representatives to make these kind of decisions.

Honestly, other than getting worked up over the way the banks have been run, I'm not sure what you want. Had 'they' allowed the banks to fail we'd still have had a bill to pickup in the form of the government guarantees on savings, on top of that we'd have thousands of unemployed who worked for these banks, and possibly a run on the pound which could have taken the entire British economy down with it. Forcing us to accept money from the IMF as it did in the 1970s.

Originally Posted by pegasus

@ Spank, Thanks for your response, you have provided clarity regarding the banking collapse, however If I am not mistaken, the IMF have injected bailout payments equalling the loan repayments which are due (without austerity measures or profit making), which in essences means that The IMF are actually paying the deficit not Iceland?

Great Thread!!!

P

Your not mistaken in thinking the IMF have injected money to Iceland however the injected money is intended to be loans which should be paid back by the government, the idea is simply to give them time to pay and not to take more money out of a country already on the verge of bankruptcy in the middle of a financial meltdown but instead to take it out of a future stronger country. In actual fact using the current Icelandic method the majority of the money is being paid out of the assets of the collapsed banks as they're wound up instead of straight out of government or public money.

The reason we don't keep hold of the nationalised and part nationalised banks is that they were bought (or saved) with loaned money and the government needs to pay that money back, current trends mean we're quite likely to break even or make a profit on that as well so In the end no government or people should be out of pocket due to the rescues.




Whether these IMF bail outs do eventually get paid back remains to be seen but since the UK still has Napoleonic war debts outstanding I wouldn't hold your breath if the interest rates on them are low, I certainly think it's unlikely they'll be written off unless they're simply taken over and disposed of by a much more centralised EU in the future.

[SIII]

Scotland is a country. It is not part of England. It should not be governed by another country. Decisions should be made in that country for the best outcome for the people of that country by a government chosen by that country. The country should not be subsidising major building works in a neighbouring country. The taxes raised in that country should stay in that country and not pay for the the debts of their neighbours.


Scotland was forced into a union 300 years ago by a very corrupt English government (Made it illegal to trade with Scotland until a union was formed). It is time that this unhappy couple should divorce and make a better life for both. Unfortunately the No side are telling us that without them we will be failures !!! We cannot possibly make it on our own.


They are using all of their powers to undermine and discredit Scotland and inform us we will fail. The printed media and even worse the BBC are so biased it is disgraceful. I am sorry to say but, if NO win there will be a bitter taste left over. It is shameful how London use all of its power to discredit our wee country and tell us we are going to fail.


Most countries get independence by picking up guns and bombs, Ireland gained independence by this method. Is this what it takes ??? I really hope not. I can't believe we are being offered this chance in many lifetimes but the government of the UK, the 'english' owned media and every dirty trick is being used to undermind this supposedly democratic decision.


People of Scotland - open your eyes and don't let this scaremongering and bullying turn you against independence. We will be better of as an independent nation. Might take a generation to see it, but it will happen.


If it were reversed and we were voting to join rUk. Would we vote to give all our taxes, powers and our right to an elected government away ??? You can argue about pounds, banks, pensions etc all you like. but at the end of the day, Scotland is a separate country and we have the right to decide our future and have decisions on our future made by Scottish politicians in Scotland

Originally Posted by SIII

Scotland was forced into a union 300 years ago by a very corrupt English government (Made it illegal to trade with Scotland until a union was formed). It is time that this unhappy couple should divorce and make a better life for both. Unfortunately the No side are telling us that without them we will be failures !!! We cannot possibly make it on our own.

The English Government MAY have been corrupt, but it was the Scottish one that bankrupt their own country and then cried for help.

[carelesschucca]

Don't worry I'm sure Salmond has plans to build bigger and better canals, and this time it'll work.

[SIII]

Originally Posted by Spank86

The English Government MAY have been corrupt, but it was the Scottish one that bankrupt their own country and then cried for help.

The Alien Act was a law passed by the Parliament of England in 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland's Act of Security of 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701.
The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property,[1] making inheritance much less certain. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies – about half of Scotland's trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal.[2]
The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme, the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

I would say forced than than cried for help !!!