Good evening Folks, As an English Guy, having lived up in Scotland for 13+ years, I have read the previous posts with interest and thought I could join in with a few valid points. There are a few things that spring to mind that are noticeable, the first one being is cost ... 'If' Independence happened, who would pay for all of the masses of change ... Small put plentiful things such as passports, driving licences, NHS, internet domains etc etc etc ... When the question gets asked to any SNP MP, they always avoid answering or go on about Oil .... In fact when Salmond gets asked anything, he has that same smug look on his face and usually replies with some dismissive answer. Again, such things as the many UK laws such as the Road Traffic Act which cover the whole of the UK, Scotland does have some of its own laws., all the relevant legislation is going to have to be re-written .. Again, that's not something that can easily be done in a few weeks. I have always thought that Scotland is very much a Labour controlled country and the reason the SNP got in was as a bit of a protest vote against the last UK Labour Government. It will not be in the interest of the UK Labour party if Scotland gets independence as they wont have a hope in forming a government at Westminster. Another factor is if Independence happens and the SNP are voted out at the next Scotland Election, Scotland will be in the unfortunate position of maybe having a Government who didn't want Independence ... What happens then ? I also have a fear is of a bit of civil disorder throughout Scotland around September ... I am hearing of families falling out over the vote and as happens in society a lot nowadays, there are folk about who thrive on stirring things up ... I have not been subject to any anti-English sentiment yet ... I have heard it said on many occasions that Salmond is an egoistical individual who wants to go down in the history books as the Scot who broke up the Union ... I hope this is not the case ... H654
I find the idea that the Scots are a caring sharing nationality (I do not use the term race as I adopt the old fashioned view that race does not mean nationality- thus the Scots and English are of the same race) and the English a hard nosed bunch of bastards who are only interested in our own selves rather amusing. It's the way that all politicians use to try to promote their views, generalise and try and paint whole nations with the same brush and easily churned out. So Scotland is full of jolly sorts who would give their last penny to anybody less fortunate, whilst England (or more correctly London and the SE) is full of craven capitalists who would strangle their own mothers for their last penny - highly amusing... Perhaps an example, well OK 2 examples where maybe the reality is not as some from the political elite would have us believe. Look at 2 of the biggest banking failures in the UK:- HBOS BOS They have 2 things in common:- both banks and both Scottish. Despite the image of being prudent organisations, these 2 exhibited just about the worst excesses to be found after the financial crash. Don't forget that Sir Fred was one of Gordon Clowns closet advisors...no wonder he has disappeared from the public gaze whilst still collecting his wedge. BB - to answer your question regarding the EU. Personally I would leave that nest of vipers tomorrow if I could. I see absolutely no advantage of staying connected to that mess. That is why I also believe the Scots should have their indepenence, but it should be based on a measured advantage, not because of a perceived moral high ground. How will they be able to spend that when the SNP has spent everything and run out of people to borrow against? Remember Greece and interest rates will only be going one way! Great debate, but I wish it stayed at debate and not trading insults.
I think you meant RBS, not BOS - but, regardless, here's an alternative point of view as to the 'Scottishness' of both - from the business community and not the SNP I might add... http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/why-did-the-banks-only-become-scottish-after-they-failed/
Unless you prefer to keep it secret H654 - where are you situated in God's own second favourite playground?
http://www.channel4.com/news/david-bowie-brit-awards-2014-wins-scotland-independence Hmmm "Stay with us, Scotland" - says the man who lives in New York. Somewhat ironic...
I am enjoying this debate. Is it typical of what is going on in the UK at the moment? I can imagine this in Scotland and amongst politicians in England, but do the English really care? This is a genuine question as I have no real way of knowing.
And I forget to include in that - didn't HBOS became part of Lloyds after the crash, not really Scottish?
Quite happy to admit i'm in favour of remaining in the EU. As with most things I think the negative influences in the press and parliament always seem to have the loudest voice so all you hear about is the downside and never the many benefits we get. I also think that as a country we have develioped a deserved tag of stting on the sidleines moaning whilst everyone else is getting on with achieivng things. It's really frustrating as UK is actually very well respected within the Union despite what others may tell you. Of course there are things that could be done far better within the EU and i think a lot more autonomy for member states to do their own things is much needed but we're not the only ones arguing that and i suspect that in the enxt few years those calls will gro greater and the Commision will have to do something. In terms of what i think will happen - well I doubt very much that the referendum will be "leave or stay" as the consequences would be catastrophic in the short term. I haven't seen one overseas business leader say they'll up sticks and move here if we leave but plenty already based here who say they'll be off the day after we pull out.
Your problem is that your form of capitalism has failed so often as well - look at Lloyds and RBS which had to be brought back into public ownership to be sorted out by those apparently "poor managers". If the true sense of capitalism were allowed to take control of the public sectors needed for most to survive then they will have to be let go when they fail. The problem with that is it would leave the public without the services they need at a cost they can't afford and politicians on the dole queue. The debate about public and private is at a stalemate and will bounce backwards and forwards until someone in power realises the only way is to redistribute wealth to start the economy again. If this doesn't happen capitalism is doomed to failure as the rich keep hold of their wealth whilst the rest of us stop buying as we don't have the money. You can see how it is going now as the middle classes fail to purchase despite being told the recession is over. Why, cos they don't have the resources any more or feel safe enough to start purchasing. No doubt at some point the government will step in again to bail out the economy and no doubt all will seem well again for a short while - until another recession and another and so on. It just isn't working in the long run - not whilst most wealth is held by a small number of people. House prices too are well beyond the means of most now and this adds to the false economy. As HarryHorneyt says "There is so much there that can be torn apart I could not begin".
I have been in favour of the EU since I first read about it in The Eagle as a kid - ha - now some of you younger element are having to google The Eagle to find out what I am on about . However some of its craziness does beggar belief and it is not very well organised now. I would certainly vote against pulling out as I think a United Europe is a good thing for political and economic reasons. However I would like to see a total reform along lines making it more like the United States so that only policies that need to be continent wide were part of the Federal Law of Europe. Individual countries - states should be left free and given a great deal of autonomy to reflect their own individuality. An example may help - in the US there are States with the death penalty and others without - they decide for themselves. Yet here the EU has tried to prevent us giving the most serious murderers "whole life" sentences without any parole - why? - that does not need to be centralised EU law.
Welcome Hornet654 - if this thread has achieved nothing else it has encouraged a new and very welcome voice here
I have not been able to open that web site, it has errors. Yes, my mistake I did mean RBS....they who swallowed up Nat West, was all set to re-brand them as RBS when the crash happend, now they are all Nat West again. Lloyds TSB is interesting, they were "requested" by Government (NL at it's best) to pick up the ruins of HBOS and when the full force of the the financial meltdown hit, the Government had to come in and buy a 43% stake. BUt since it has flourished and after selling off branches (EU enforced) they are in much better shape and the TSB brand is back. The Gov will soon be selling off it's stake and Lloyds will be back in good health. But compare that to the disaster of HBOS, after buying a solid Bank (Halifax) with a huge solid mortgage portfolio, BOS spunked it all away. RBS and BOS were really the worst excesses of greed and risk taking this country has ever seen. So that is why I doubt this whole moral crusade.
This rather asks the question - who are the English ? Many English people have ancestry from either Scotland, Ireland or Wales. In my case my Mother was from Kirriemuir on the borders to the Highlands and my father from Scunthorpe. So in that sense I am half Scottish and half English, and my sadness about a possible separation arises maybe from that. From talking to my mother about this issue (in earlier years) I always had the feeling that themes were being crossed in an irrational way. By that I mean the first theme was the emotional aspect of 'Scottishness', and a former Kingdom being subdued under English domination. This always struck me as problematic because in 1707 (the time of Union) Scotland was a country in name only. The 'border' then meaning not that with England - but rather the highland line. Scotland then was a bilingual country with a Gaelic speaking, clan based population, north of this line, which lived mostly from exacting protection money and from cattle theft. South of this line was an industrious, mostly Presbyterian, population who spoke Scots English and were ethnically more distanced from the highlander than from the English. The present day symbols of Scotland, such as the kilt and the bagpipes, were seen by the lowland population , for the most part, with fear and loathing. Scotland has come together as one country only really within the Union. The second theme was always that of England and Scotland having grown apart. As long as heavy industry had a major place in British society then the trade unions of Strathclyde etc. had as much interest and solidarity with their 'brothers' in Liverpool, Manchester etc. as with the abstract idea of separation. All this has changed however and England's move towards the dominance of bankers and stockbrokers, the growing political hegemony of London, a general move towards uncritical blind acceptance of ' the forces of the market' by vast swathes of the English population together with a foreign policy which sees Britain as little more than a cats paw of the U.S.A. - all of this has contributed to a growing apart of the two countries. If you add to this the fact that most Scots feel more pro European than the English do - whereas most of the English somehow believe that they are closer to America - then yes, the two countries have grown apart. The third theme, that of economics, I am not convinced by (although I would like to be). I would like to hear more talk of wind energy or of hydro electric power and less about oil, because I do not believe Scotland has the money to invest in this industry and also because I feel sceptical about a young country basing it's future around an industry which, if carbon emissions are seriously to be reduced, has a limited future. The other problem here is that Scotland has a demographic problem - too many old people,and too much emigration and too little compensatory immigration has led to the population dropping under 5 million. For Scotland to succeed it would need an immigration policy markedly different to England's and perhaps even a repatriation progamme for some of the 60 million, or so, people of Scottish origins living abroad. Something broadly equivalent to that practised by Ireland.
A precis of the site for you - Why did the banks only become Scottish – after they failed? This joke reminds me though, of the one of the rallying calls of the ‘No’ campaign. The accusation that independent Scotland’s banks were bailed out by the UK specifically Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBoS). Let’s ignore for now that an independent Scotland might have regulated its banks like Sweden and not had a collapse. Let’s also ignore the probability that we would almost certainly have regulated lenders differently to those with a London centric Westminster view, given that our economy would probably be more balanced between energy and manufacturing and finance and not so finance led, had we become independent in the 1970s. Instead let us concentrate on the questions: were the banks exclusively Scottish companies, and if they were, whose responsibility would the bailouts have been? Some relevant facts *The banks were wholly regulated from London. They were only allowed to change the way they lend money by the Westminster Parliament who were following the neo-classical economic strategy of little or seemingly no regulation, and a no limits on lending strategy as long as the loan is secured against an asset. The joint architect of this economic strategy that helped to collapse the global economy was Alistair Darling now the leader of the ‘No’ campaign. *90% of RBS and HBoS UK employees were based outwith Scotland so 90% of employers income tax was paid to Westminster, and not counted as Scottish or Scottish Government revenue. *Likewise 90% of the banks national insurance contributions were paid to Westminster and not counted as Scottish. *80% of the losses of RBS for example were generated from the banks' London based operations. *As with all companies corporation tax is not considered regional and therefore the corporation tax paid by the banks is not considered to be a Scottish Government revenue, it is all paid directly to Westminster. Note: RBS paid £16 billion in corporate taxes from 1998 to 2007, NONE of this was counted as Scottish Government revenue. So if all the Government revenues associated with the banking operations in the ‘boom years’ were added to the UK balance sheet, why should all the losses in the ‘bust years’ only be added to Scotland’s balance sheet? In other words why did the banks only become Scottish when they failed, when they were quite clearly British when they were successful?
Does anyone in Scotland really intend to vote for or against independence based on a few pounds in their pockets or who were most responsible for the banking crisis. If so they deserve whatever they get. This is not an issue for the next 12 months or five years or even twenty five. This is a game changer - it is forever. Please if you have a vote in this do so for dramatic reasons - vote for independence because you think Scotland can be a country that adds to the richness of the world - because its people are proud and want to have an identity of their own not subsumed in the mire of Britain. Please do not vote for independence because your tax will go up or down by a penny or two or because some nasty posh Englishman was mean to your parents on holiday in Ibiza - or because David Cameron who epitomises the Eton English is actually Scottish
