Not had time to sit and write a full reply :laugh: i think i'll just condense it and trim down the replies to more direct points :laugh:
Harper said:
Some of the countries who gained their independence from a Sovereign State are still struggling despite having years to get things right.
Yet not one has even attempted to re-join a union and not one country as wealthy as us has "failed", yes, failure IS possible, but it's also possible in the union, as we saw recently.
we are voting on Thursday without a clear idea of what will happen in the event of a Yes vote.
We also have no clear idea on what will happen after a no vote, they can't even make up their mind what powers we will get and there is rebellion backstage about the Barnett formula continuing, it will likely not go through! what happens if it doesn't? no answers.
You do realise that will mean Johann Lamont running things?
In an independent Scotland? no. If a yes vote goes through, her position is totally untenable. The only real option for Labour (and the tories, up to a point) is to re-brand to become more desirable to voters. I also believe in a Yes vote, the SNP will somewhat disband having achieved their aim. I could see a few new parties forming.
We are better together because we are a stronger country. Much of our export business goes to the rest of the UK - do we really want to place that in a precarious position.
Scare tactics. Do you really believe that just because we're independent politically, the UK will stop trading with us? Do you really think they trade with us now because of a political union or is it out of pity? I'm liable to believe it's more because the products are good and relatively local, neither of which will change if we run our own affairs.
We already control our education system, our NHS, we have our own law system. What else do you want?
Ability to control tax revenues, set our own rates of vat, laws on wages etc would be a start.
I've heard a lot of promises of what independence will achieve but the idea that breaking away from the UK will mean the Glaswegians will start to eat healthily so that they'll live longer is one of the more impressive ones :laugh:
I don't think anybody has claimed that. The problem is not just healthy eating as such, it runs deeper than that in more deprived areas. Just saying they will eat healthier because we are independent or will still just eat **** because we're not is skimming over the real problems and actually borderline insulting to those who live in such areas.
Seriously though, our benefit system is one of the best in the world so why do we still have child poverty? Something else is broken there and it's not money. Independence is not going to sort that one out only the people can.
And there in lies the problem. I've highlighted one phrase in particular. Something else is indeed broken... and partly it is money. The cost of living does not match what benefits give but that is (almost) another matter and we could go on all night about work and getting people off of benefits (some are in such a rut it is not always a quick process). Independence will not sort it? neither will staying in the system that has lead to this. People can sort it? well maybe if we had a government that had the tools to give to the people, they could.....
If the oil industry is as important as everyone says it is then that makes the hub of it i.e. Aberdeen important in the grand scheme of things. And yet we've had to fight tooth, nail and William Walden to get our bypass and everyone who has driven in the city admits the infrastructure isn't fit for purpose. We're up north so we get forgotten about - out of sight, out of mind and I can't see that changing with Holyrood running things
But that's the problem.... Aberdeen is just a glorified depot for Westminster. It's getting the money in, so why bother putting money into it? As a percentage of the economy, iScotland it will be much greater than UK at present, so to say nothing would change is pretty bleak.. if i were you i'd leave! sounds like those up there have accepted their fate! must be all the grey..... :laugh:
Sterlingisation is most definitely an option and yet currency union is what they're insisting on. Why? If things are so rosy then lets have our own currency. Let's have proper independence and not have the Bank of England decide our interest rates.
It's not that simple... Firstly, why? security and ease of trade. Particularly in the first few years of iScotland. This is not a position we are fixed to... we could theoretically have CU for 5-10 years then change currency. There is a school of thought that Sterlingisation may be better long term however if we get it right, which is more of a risk to start off with, basically it is risk management.
Well they should do as not all of us believe they know what they are doing. I want independence but not at the cost of my country going to the dogs.
Why would it?
I want to know there are solutions in hand should the worst happen and we're shunned economically by the rest of the world.
Why would we be? People will go for the products they want at the price they are willing to pay. They aren't going to say "oh, they have their own government now? **** that". In fact, most foreign countries are supportive of this, not that it will create more trade either, they equally aren't going to go "oh, they have their own government now? great, i'll buy more" (at least not long term, the interest in the indy ref may increase exposure for scottish products worldwide for a while).
Touched on it and then walked away insisting they will get their own way regardless of what Westminster thinks.
Maybe they assume (rightly or wrongly) Westminster will then do what is best for their country too?
I don't think the "no currency union" is a bluff at all and if the oil industry is the saver we all think it is why do we still need to tie ourselves to a currency union.
what do they gain by saying no? people go on about banking security "should the worst happen", they'd need to bail us out...but seeing as the banks are already located there (and some say they may move their plaques), they would have to anyway in the event of a yes or a no vote! Meanwhile, if they say yes, their currency gains some security of value.
why not go down the route of sterlingisation and use our oil to establish ourselves as credit-worthy to the rest of the world?
Doing so would see us walking away from uk debt. As said, if we get it right, that is desirable (as AAM have already stated). However it harms our security and credit rating and given that we will need to borrow to set this up, that is not desirable at this time.
We're either independent or we're not
We would be regardless.... unless you're suggesting the UK would commit financial suicide in order to try and hurt Scotland.
Or we could find ourselves on our own, struggling and businesses leaving because it's not worth staying in a country which has politicians making a mess of things.
or we could also thrive, the Scottish government as a whole has an ok record, what makes people think they will instantly ruin us through incompetence?
Meanwhile at Westminster, they've never ever, ever ****ed up.....
Unfortunately we're also seeking independence when the oil boom is already established rather than the other way round and that is going to cost us.
Agree. But it is still a case of better late than never i guess. However, also it is worth noting that oil is scarcer and we could well have huge reserves to the west (i say could, we've not been allowed to explore due to trident however on the initial survey that was allowed, a significant amount of oil was found, which has been covered up post haste).
there's nothing to stop us from trying for independence again in 20 years time if we don't get it this time.
If Westminster agree to it... the only reason they did now was because they were so confident it'd be no! hell, devolution itself was an attempt to stave off full independence!!
If they want us to stay so badly and we are of such huge importance to the rest of the UK's stability then they won't **** us off.
Or now with the threat of leaving gone, they could do what they want.
That site was interesting but I noticed it's typical pro-indie either making assumptions about matters that still need to be confirmed or worse, stating it as fact. I was especially amused by the part on embassies. Naturally we won't be able to use UK embassies although some of the wealth from them will be passed on as part of the asset share. However as we aren't guaranteed to be part of Europe how can they state as fact we'll be able to use European embassies?
Ermm..... we will still techincally be part of the UK until May 2016 regardless..... so we will be able to use these mean time. There will be a long period of transition but according to no, the sky will fall in on Friday in the event of a Yes vote! it all falls apart in one day, it won't no matter what happens!.
As for the EU, the UK are refusing to ask the process (yup we even need to go through them to find out what would happen with US!!), if people are seriously suggesting the EU wouldn't want a "rich" oil producing, resource heavy nation to join at all, that's crazy talk. The only negative voice has been from Spain trying to stave off their own indyref from the Basques. But some have alos come out and said there will be no problem, the talk of being forced to join the Euro is a red-herring, recent member states to have joined have no timetable to sign up to it.
