RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !

[gerarddwatts]

Well foolishly I watched the clip. Toddy should do so properly. Its all the same partisan twaddle. We will join the EU automatically. We will share sterling. Etc etc etc. A worthless interview with an indynat campaigner, failing to answer the questions put to him, adding nothing to the lies we have already heard from eck and his acolytes. Nothing at all added to the debate.

 

[Gav]

George Mathewson, Chairman, Toscafund; former chief executive and chairman, Royal Bank of Scotland, Angus Tulloch, Senior Edinburgh fund manager, James Scott, former executive director, Scottish Financial Enterprise, Frank McKirgan, founding partner, MLI Partners, Prof David Simpson, former senior economic adviser, Standard Life and Jim Spowart, founder, Standard Life Bank, Direct Line Financial Services, Intelligent Finance have just written to the Financial Times pointing out that suggestions that the finance sector is opposed to a Yes vote are unfounded.

In it they write “these views do not reflect the balance of opinion in the Scottish financial sector, nor provide an objective analysis of the opportunities and risks involved – whether a Yes or a No vote is recorded.”

“In the case of Scotland after a No vote, there is no clear plan for or certainty around taxation, regulation or the wider business operating environment, and no guarantee of continued European Union membership.”

“There are certainly opportunities to attract more jobs and investment to Scotland with the powers of independence and significant opportunities in an independent Scotland for financial services.”

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

George Mathewson, Chairman, Toscafund; former chief executive and chairman, Royal Bank of Scotland, Angus Tulloch, Senior Edinburgh fund manager, James Scott, former executive director, Scottish Financial Enterprise, Frank McKirgan, founding partner, MLI Partners, Prof David Simpson, former senior economic adviser, Standard Life and Jim Spowart, founder, Standard Life Bank, Direct Line Financial Services, Intelligent Finance have just written to the Financial Times pointing out that suggestions that the finance sector is opposed to a Yes vote are unfounded.

In it they write “these views do not reflect the balance of opinion in the Scottish financial sector, nor provide an objective analysis of the opportunities and risks involved – whether a Yes or a No vote is recorded.”

“In the case of Scotland after a No vote, there is no clear plan for or certainty around taxation, regulation or the wider business operating environment, and no guarantee of continued European Union membership.”

“There are certainly opportunities to attract more jobs and investment to Scotland with the powers of independence and significant opportunities in an independent Scotland for financial services.”

In the case of an independent Scotland there is no guarantee of continued european union membership. That so far is the only plus side I see to independence but I doubt these bankers would see it that way.

 

[gerarddwatts]

James Scott, FORMER Executive Director Of Scottish Financial Enterprise....would that be the same Scottish Financial Enterprise quoted in the FT on Feb 3rd:
'The public intervention by Scottish Financial Enterprise underlines growing concern in a crucial sector of the economy about the implications of Scotland breaking away from the rest of Britain. “A yes vote would require the creation of an additional financial regulator with hundreds of staff. The cost would run into millions and have to be paid for by the industry in Scotland,” said Owen Kelly, chief executive of the trade body.'

Professor David Simpson, FORMER senior economics advisor, Standard Life,......would that be the same Standard Life quoted today;
'Standard Life is poised to warn that Scottish independence poses a significant risk to its business in yet another blow to Alex Salmond and the SNP.'
or:
'Standard Life could quit Scotland if voters back independence
Edinburgh-based insurance firm says it will take 'whatever action necessary' to protect business in event of yes vote'

Lets get some consistency in your propoganda shall we. If I can find these gaping holes in it in a few seconds on the internet, who knows what other flaws it has?

There no 'clear plan' for what cash I put in my wallet, let alone 'taxation'.

 

[Gav]

This is not propaganda. This is a quote from what they have written to the Financial Times. There is no lack of consistency or any gaping holes in what I have written despite your protestations.
As for your plan regarding you and your wallet, I don't know to what you are alluding.

 

[gerarddwatts]

The propaganda letter infers that they speak for businesses, and that those businesses support independence. It shows them as being FORMER employees of large respected financial institutions, giving them some sort of credential, adding weight to their argument and suggesting the Scottish voters should listen to what they say. Why else would they write such a letter if not to influence?

Reality is that they do no such thing; the very organizations paraded in their letter to the FT actually say the very opposite; that independence as proposed will harm Scottish business to the degree that some will move out. These people speak for no-one but themselves and their cat, and their personal independence agenda.

It is important that voters know that the majority of businesses in Scotland, the financial lifeblood of the nation, regard independence as a folly, a personal adventure by the nats, and will do long term harm to Scottish jobs and employment. This letter to the FT attempts to portray itself as something we should all sit up and listen to, countering the fears expressed by the CBI; it is not, it is the personal view of a handful of nat/SNP supporters.

I was quoting one of the points in their letter;
' “In the case of Scotland after a No vote, there is no clear plan for or certainty around taxation,....' and pointing out that there is still no credible nat plan for what currency an independent Scotland will use after a 'Yes' vote, let alone plans for taxing us on it.

 

[Gav]

In your previous response, you inferred that I had applied propaganda in what I was writing- "your propoganda" (sic). I was quoting a letter, that's all and so taking part in what I thought was a debate on independence. Now you are backtracking and referring to the letter as propaganda.

I and the letter did not say anything other than these individuals were expressing their view and in so doing attempting to redress a one-sided view which had been portrayed in the media. However, I won't pass it off as YOUR propaganda.

Again you are using the emotive term "nat". Can you tell me what this means? It seems it is just a term you bandy about when you are trying to lay into a large portion of the population.

"In the case of Scotland after a No vote, there is no clear plan for or certainty around taxation". Yes, I think this is a very valid and relevant point. It's good that you saw the relevance and thought it worth quoting. However, what you write after it isn't clear. Again, the use of "nat" does not help. We don't know to whom you are referring. Perhaps you don't either.

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

The latest news from the EU about cross border pension schemes having to be fully funded is yet another indication of the extra costs that will follow on from a vote for independence. However we need not worry according to the leader of the Nats (Nationalists) because there is a new commission due to take office one month after we are asked to decide Yes or No and the nats are going to continue make the case for a change in the rules. Just like they are going to keep trying to get the UK government to agree to a currency union.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to sort these things out and then ask us to vote rather than asking us to vote then hoping for the rest of the world to fall in behind the Scottish government's plans. I think this sums up how the socialists want us to think.

 

[gerarddwatts]

In your previous response, you inferred that I had applied propaganda in what I was writing- "your propoganda" (sic). I was quoting a letter, that's all and so taking part in what I thought was a debate on independence. Now you are backtracking and referring to the letter as propaganda.

I and the letter did not say anything other than these individuals were expressing their view and in so doing attempting to redress a one-sided view which had been portrayed in the media. However, I won't pass it off as YOUR propaganda.

Again you are using the emotive term "nat". Can you tell me what this means? It seems it is just a term you bandy about when you are trying to lay into a large portion of the population.

"In the case of Scotland after a No vote, there is no clear plan for or certainty around taxation". Yes, I think this is a very valid and relevant point. It's good that you saw the relevance and thought it worth quoting. However, what you write after it isn't clear. Again, the use of "nat" does not help. We don't know to whom you are referring. Perhaps you don't either.

Ah semantics!

From Wikipedia;

'Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.'

You posted a reference to a letter from a group of bods, giving positions they hold/have held, clearly inferring that these people and their institutions had views counter to those expressed by the CBI, ie the propaganda I drew attention to in my post.

Your propaganda in some way carried more weight, or at least went some way to nullifying my propoganda. You thought.

Ownership of the propaganda is not really the issue....you may assume joint ownership of your propaganda if you wish....you posted it after all.

Luckily my researches exposed the subterfuge behind the propaganda you brought to our attention, in that it carried little weight other than the expression of personal opinion of the signatories, and in fact flies expressly in the face of the sentiment of those institutions they were pretending to represent.

In other words your propaganda did nothing to counter my propaganda, the view of the CBI is still extant....and very worrying for the economic future of Scotland.

It is important that voters recognise the fears and apprehensions of a body such as the CBI, and are not distracted from reality by some bods masquerading as authorities in the institutions they may have worked for in the past. Sadly this sort of misrepresentation has become a feature of the nats campaign.

Nats, by the way, is short for nationalists and is a term of affection used to describe the proponents of independence....luckily a minority in Scotland. But I'm sure you had worked that out on your own.

 

[gerarddwatts]

http://mail.aol.com/38466-111/aol-6...ent.aspx?uid=31725831&folder=NewMail&partId=3

tee hee

 

[Gav]

You call it semantics. I call it backtracking. Obviously we differ.

Subterfuge? Institutions they were pretending to represent? You sound a bit desperate. This was a group of individuals. I thought I had made that clear and I'm pretty sure those who received the letter would have realised that. Bods masquerading? As I said, I'm sure the Financial Times would be aware of who had written to them and there would be no point in them pretending to be anything other than who they are. You've just made this up.

It seems very reasonable for these people to write to the Financial Times in this way to counteract the scarmongering propaganda. This is not misrepresentation.

If you're using the emotive term "Nats" to mean nationalists and therefore as you say proponents of national independence, then this is a very large number of peole throughout the country.
And as for it being a term of affection, we both know it is the very opposite. I was unaware of any affection in your tone. As for no credible plan once we have our political freedom, well that's not true. And it's certainly preferable to the frightening alternative of of staying in the British state and what that entails.

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

As for no credible plan once we have our political freedom, well that's not true.

OK I am listening tell me the credible plan to deal with the currency we will use if there is no currency union on offer? Tell me the credible plan to deal with the pensions black hole in cross border pensions? As far as I can see the (in)credible plan is to do nothing, stick your fingers in your ears and say Lalalalalalala.

 

[gerarddwatts]

This is turning into a silly 'he said I said' session.

Best to leave your post to speak for itself. It does so eloquently.

 

[Gav]

Bennysdad, there are several options for when we are independent.

The Scottish National Party government proposes continuing the use of the pound, entering into a currency union. In adopting this policy, they accepted the recommendations of a group of independent economists from the Fiscal Commision that a formal currency union is the best option.

The Scottish Green Party believe we should move to a new currency in due course. Patrick Harvie: “I recognise that the SNP’s preference is for continued use of Sterling but given the likelihood of the Scottish and UK economies diverging we should stand ready to exert full economic independence using our own currency.” There is support for this from outside the Green Party, including leading economists.

The Scottish Socialist Party believe an independent currency, voluntarily linked to the English pound initially is the best option.

I believe Dennis Canavan is also an advocate of our own currency.

There are those in Labour for Independence who support the S.N.P. stance of using the pound within a monetary union but I’m not sure if this is an official line.

Wealthy Nation, “Conservatives don’t need to be unionists”, the right wing, pro-independence organisation want to see us adopt a free market approach with lower tax but I am not aware of their stance on currency.

As for the other political parties, I have yet to hear their proposals.

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

Bennysdad, there are several options for when we are independent.

The Scottish National Party government proposes continuing the use of the pound, entering into a currency union. In adopting this policy, they accepted the recommendations of a group of independent economists from the Fiscal Commision that a formal currency union is the best option.

The Scottish Green Party believe we should move to a new currency in due course. Patrick Harvie: “I recognise that the SNP’s preference is for continued use of Sterling but given the likelihood of the Scottish and UK economies diverging we should stand ready to exert full economic independence using our own currency.” There is support for this from outside the Green Party, including leading economists.

The Scottish Socialist Party believe an independent currency, voluntarily linked to the English pound initially is the best option.

I believe Dennis Canavan is also an advocate of our own currency.

There are those in Labour for Independence who support the S.N.P. stance of using the pound within a monetary union but I’m not sure if this is an official line.

Wealthy Nation, “Conservatives don’t need to be unionists”, the right wing, pro-independence organisation want to see us adopt a free market approach with lower tax but I am not aware of their stance on currency.

As for the other political parties, I have yet to hear their proposals.

The currency union has been ruled out by the other parties who would have to agree it so that only leaves an independent currency. If Scotland then wants to apply for membership of the EU they might be permitted entry with an established currency such as the UK pound but I cannot see them being allowed to opt out of the Euro and set up a new currency unless it was linked to the Euro. My savings are currently in UK pounds so any change in currency to either an independent Scottish currency or the Euro leaves my savings at the mercy of whatever exchange rate is on offer at the time. There remains the question of where businesses are to get the cash to fully fund cross border pension funds that are currently able to operate in deficit so long as they can continue to pay out to existing pensioners.

The bottom line is that Independence comes at a cost. It may be that some are so keen on separation from the rest of the UK that they are willing to pay that cost and they are to be admired for their commitment to their beliefs. There are others however that are supporting separation because they know that it will not cost them anything and they don't give a dam for what it costs others so long as they can stick two fingers up to the English. I fear the latter are in the majority and they have no real commitment to make an independent Scotland work for anything other than their own narrow interests.

 

[Gav]

The currency union has been ruled out by the other parties who would have to agree it so that only leaves an independent currency. If Scotland then wants to apply for membership of the EU they might be permitted entry with an established currency such as the UK pound but I cannot see them being allowed to opt out of the Euro and set up a new currency unless it was linked to the Euro. My savings are currently in UK pounds so any change in currency to either an independent Scottish currency or the Euro leaves my savings at the mercy of whatever exchange rate is on offer at the time. There remains the question of where businesses are to get the cash to fully fund cross border pension funds that are currently able to operate in deficit so long as they can continue to pay out to existing pensioners.

The bottom line is that Independence comes at a cost. It may be that some are so keen on separation from the rest of the UK that they are willing to pay that cost and they are to be admired for their commitment to their beliefs. There are others however that are supporting separation because they know that it will not cost them anything and they don't give a dam for what it costs others so long as they can stick two fingers up to the English. I fear the latter are in the majority and they have no real commitment to make an independent Scotland work for anything other than their own narrow interests.

You say that the other parties rule out a currency union. That may be what they claim just now but obviously this might be different in practice.

I have listed some of the options proposed by political parties once we are independent. You have mentioned one option which the other (unionist) parties have said they have ruled out. We have not heard what they would do.

I don’t believe that independence comes at a cost. However, staying in the British state comes at a massive cost. Obviously we are going to disagree on this. When you mention cost, I feel that you are talking about financial cost. If independence did mean there would be negative implications financially, I would still support it. I would rather be slightly worse off financially and live in an independent country which governed itself and controlled its own affairs rather than be dictated to by a government in another country which the majority of its population did not vote for.

However, I believe we would be much better off, including financially and I believe more people are beginning to realise this. The view that the majority of independence supporters just want to stick two fingers up to the English is definitely not true. I have been a supporter of independence for over thirty years and I am not anti-English and I have not come across any anti-English sentiment in the movement. The independence movement, whether you agree with it or not, is about Scotland and a positive drive to what we believe is best for our country. It’s nothing to do with putting anyone else down. I have lived in England and come across English who agree with me and think too that we deserve to run our own country.

 

[The Stimulator]

Bennysdad, there are several options for when we are independent.

The Scottish National Party government proposes continuing the use of the pound, entering into a currency union. In adopting this policy, they accepted the recommendations of a group of independent economists from the Fiscal Commision that a formal currency union is the best option.

The Scottish Green Party believe we should move to a new currency in due course. Patrick Harvie: “I recognise that the SNP’s preference is for continued use of Sterling but given the likelihood of the Scottish and UK economies diverging we should stand ready to exert full economic independence using our own currency.” There is support for this from outside the Green Party, including leading economists.

The Scottish Socialist Party believe an independent currency, voluntarily linked to the English pound initially is the best option.

I believe Dennis Canavan is also an advocate of our own currency.

There are those in Labour for Independence who support the S.N.P. stance of using the pound within a monetary union but I’m not sure if this is an official line.

Wealthy Nation, “Conservatives don’t need to be unionists”, the right wing, pro-independence organisation want to see us adopt a free market approach with lower tax but I am not aware of their stance on currency.

As for the other political parties, I have yet to hear their proposals.

Gav, I am often told I am a pedant, but none of these are "plans". Why won't the SNP say what they will do if a currency union doesn't materialise? I don't feel that they have another clear option, and if they do, they are making a mistake in my opinion not disclosing it to us.

 

[Wreford Miles]

What's the one fundamental reason behind wanting a yes vote?

Is it economic because Scotland feels it can creat a better economy for its population ?

If that's correct then they will need their own currency and expect to take on the pain and period of associated economic hardship in making that happen because this is for the long game right?

A vote in Sept is not about this generation it's about where it will take Scotland for future generations

 

[gerarddwatts]

I cannot believe that you can say 'I don't believe independence comes at a cost' and expect to be taken seriously.

We have already explained that there are massive costs involved in setting up all the offices of state required by a new country. From a DVLA to an HMRC to an MOD etc etc etc

Add to this the growing ranks of businesses who have indicated they will take their businesses ..and jobs...away. Include all the jobs lost for example in defence production..shipbuilding..that will go.

Consider the declining value of oil production.

Look at the uncosted promises made by eck and the accolytes.

The consequences of there being no plan for a credible currency, no central bank, no reserve funds, are that the international credit rating will be apalling, therefore no state borrowing.

'I don't believe independence comes at a cost'!!! Sorry, I'm afraid you need to get real!

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

You say that the other parties rule out a currency union. That may be what they claim just now but obviously this might be different in practice.

I have listed some of the options proposed by political parties once we are independent. You have mentioned one option which the other (unionist) parties have said they have ruled out. We have not heard what they would do.

I don’t believe that independence comes at a cost. However, staying in the British state comes at a massive cost. Obviously we are going to disagree on this. When you mention cost, I feel that you are talking about financial cost. If independence did mean there would be negative implications financially, I would still support it. I would rather be slightly worse off financially and live in an independent country which governed itself and controlled its own affairs rather than be dictated to by a government in another country which the majority of its population did not vote for.

However, I believe we would be much better off, including financially and I believe more people are beginning to realise this. The view that the majority of independence supporters just want to stick two fingers up to the English is definitely not true. I have been a supporter of independence for over thirty years and I am not anti-English and I have not come across any anti-English sentiment in the movement. The independence movement, whether you agree with it or not, is about Scotland and a positive drive to what we believe is best for our country. It’s nothing to do with putting anyone else down. I have lived in England and come across English who agree with me and think too that we deserve to run our own country.

You are quite right that when I mention cost I mean financial cost and if you are prepared to take a hit on that front for your beliefs that is admirable but I am not prepared to follow you into financial suicide. As my grandmother used to say "money can't buy you happiness ..... but at least you can be miserable in comfort." I fear you have underestimated the costs of the independence process but they will be relatively short term and with a centre right government with sound fiscal management Scotland could overcome the initial hit in about 10 years. But we all know that we are going to end up with a socialist government of some hue in Scotland and it is only a matter of how far to the looney left they will be. To be honest at the moment the SNP present the least worse option compared to Scottish labour but I fear that they would end up having to form a coalition with some of uber socialists like the greens or the Scottish socialists to keep labour out and any hope of fiscal prudence will evaporate. Then there is no chance of overcoming the costs of independence and I have to say even if your very optimistic belief that we would be financially better off was true it would be squandered big time by the socialists with crazy doctrine driven schemes like re-nationalisation of royal mail.