A Question For No Voters

[strichener]

I know we are now back to the levels we were pre-crash. No idea about the others.

Tried and failed with this before. "We" are not back to the levels pre-crash since the number of "we" is now significantly larger than before the crash.

[Confidemus]

I think someone needs to get H_B a bib.

Olympian levels of slever.

[The_Kincardine]

This is a question I've asked the few people I know who are No voters, but haven't (by their own admission) received a reasonable response. I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely interested in the answer. I'm going to lift my question almost word-for-word from a post I made the other day.

I can fully understand that people are concerned, however rationally / irrationally you want to look at it, about finances after independence if the Yes movement wins - pensions, savings accounts, interest rates, welfare, etc.. I can fully understand that people believe finances in an independent Scotland will be a risk.

My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union, which is currently one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year) and has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators and the London property market, and an upcoming pensions crisis caused by a refusal to admit that immigration is the solution? What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

As I've said, not having a go - I just haven't had a No voter give me a satisfactory (again, by their own admission) answer.

Over to you.

I'll avoid the shit-stirring between your first post and now and try and give a sensible response.

The points you raised were as follows:

1. UK is one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year).

iScotland will have a proportionate level of debt and rising at the same rate. Our economies are intertwined.

2. UK has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators.

iScotland has a similar exposure and Scottish banks were as culpable in financial speculation as any in rUK. To say anything like, "Aye but it all happened in England" is disingenuous if you have any grasp on the term, 'corporate governance'.

3. The London property market

Clearly property in London is bonkers. There is also an social issue about affordable homes. The crisis, though, is a social one rather than a financial one. There is just no evidence of 'bad loans' or suchlike causing a financial problem.

4. An upcoming pensions crisis

This is as much a problem for iScotland as it is for rUK.

5. A refusal to admit that immigration is the solution?

There is no refusal to admit that, "immigration is the solution" in praxis but politicians keep tight-lipped about it.

There was an interesting article in today's FT about jobs and immigration which you can view here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c11ffcb0-338f-11e4-85f1-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3CNpgt5pE

The salient 'bits' are:

The UK has seen more net employment growth over the past four years than the rest of the EU put together, according to official data that highlight the wide disparities within the region.

Yet the claim, surprising though it may be, is borne out by official figures showing that while the rest of the EU, when considered as a single bloc, has lost 770,000 people from the workforce, the UK has seen 1.6m extra people find a job. Of the other EU members, only Germany added more, with 1.7m.

Mr Cameron is set to claim that the strength in the jobs market is one of the reasons why his promise to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands” is now in tatters.

That policy has been derailed by a surge in workers from the EU, which has pushed net migration up to nearly a quarter of a million, the highest in three years.

6. What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

The UK economy is known, stable and respected. Yes, there are risks and, sure, there are vicissitudes, but, again, they are understood and those risks are factored in to such metrics as share prices, interest rates.and currency rate.

Now your question was, "What is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union?"

Anyone who thinks that setting up a new country is less risky than existing in an established and stable economy is a fool. This doesn't mean that iScotland won't prosper but to regard it as risk-free or even less risky than staying in The Union is, at the best, idiotic.

Sorry to make my longest post ever on P&B but I wated to give you, "a reasonable response"

Oh and 'too long didn't read" is fine.

Edited to add: Team Rangers and look at his avator is normal

[strichener]

I'll avoid the shit-stirring between your first post and now and try and give a sensible response.

The points you raised were as follows:

1. UK is one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year).

iScotland will have a proportionate level of debt and rising at the same rate. Our economies are intertwined.

2. UK has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators.

iScotland has a similar exposure and Scottish banks were as culpable in financial speculation as any in rUK. To say anything like, "Aye but it all happened in England" is disingenuous if you have any grasp on the term, 'corporate governance'.

3. The London property market

Clearly property in London is bonkers. There is also an social issue about affordable homes. The crisis, though, is a social one rather than a financial one. There is just no evidence of 'bad loans' or suchlike causing a financial problem.

4. An upcoming pensions crisis

This is as much a problem for iScotland as it is for rUK.

5. A refusal to admit that immigration is the solution?

There is no refusal to admit that, "immigration is the solution" in praxis but politicians keep tight-lipped about it.

There was an interesting article in today's FT about jobs and immigration which you can view here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c11ffcb0-338f-11e4-85f1-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3CNpgt5pE

The salient 'bits' are:

The UK has seen more net employment growth over the past four years than the rest of the EU put together, according to official data that highlight the wide disparities within the region.

Yet the claim, surprising though it may be, is borne out by official figures showing that while the rest of the EU, when considered as a single bloc, has lost 770,000 people from the workforce, the UK has seen 1.6m extra people find a job. Of the other EU members, only Germany added more, with 1.7m.

Mr Cameron is set to claim that the strength in the jobs market is one of the reasons why his promise to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands” is now in tatters.

That policy has been derailed by a surge in workers from the EU, which has pushed net migration up to nearly a quarter of a million, the highest in three years.

6. What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

The UK economy is known, stable and respected. Yes, there are risks and, sure, there are vicissitudes, but, again, they are understood and those risks are factored in to such metrics as share prices, interest rates.and currency rate.

Now your question was, "What is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union?"

Anyone who thinks that setting up a new country is less risky than existing in an established and stable economy is a fool. This doesn't mean that iScotland won't prosper but to regard it as risk-free or even less risky than staying in The Union is, at the best, idiotic.

Sorry to make my longest post ever on P&B but I wated to give you, "a reasonable response"

Oh and 'too long didn't read" is fine.

Edited to add: Team Rangers and look at his avator is normal

I await your linking to a factually incorrect Forbes article to back all this up.

[Well Well]

"iScotland will have a proportionate level of debt and rising at the same rate. Our economies are intertwined."

No debt without currency union. Happy to go ahead without the debt. Plenty of countries around the world survive quite well without a Central Bank and never got into the Financial mess of the USA and Europe. That may be naive and simplistic but we are trying to not make the same mistakes or as many as WM

[The_Kincardine]

I await your linking to a factually incorrect Forbes article to back all this up.

I linked to a perfectly reasonable Forbes article before which said that it may be sensible for iScotland to establish its own currency and to use its reasonable share of BoE's reserves to help establish it. There is not one jot about that article which is at all objectionable.

I shall link to it again:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/08/11/of-course-scotland-can-use-the-scottish-pound/

" Let Scotland determine its own monetary policy, including pegging to sterling or some other currency if it wants to. And let it take the consequences of getting it wrong. That’s what independence means."

What the f**k is wrong with that?

"iScotland will have a proportionate level of debt and rising at the same rate. Our economies are intertwined."

No debt without currency union.

That is idiotic.

[strichener]

I linked to a perfectly reasonable Forbes article before which said that it may be sensible for iScotland to establish its own currency and to use its reasonable share of BoE's reserves to help establish it. There is not one jot about that article which is at all objectionable.

I shall link to it again:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/08/11/of-course-scotland-can-use-the-scottish-pound/

" Let Scotland determine its own monetary policy, including pegging to sterling or some other currency if it wants to. And let it take the consequences of getting it wrong. That’s what independence means."

What the f**k is wrong with that?

I explained it at the time, but you conveniently ignored it. The article states

And let its initial capital be Scotland’s share of the Bank of England’s gold and FX reserves.

Why would this be equitable or do Forbes not know what the UK reserves consist of?

I find this objectionable to be honest. The fact that you don't highlights your own ignorance.

[The_Kincardine]

I explained it at the time, but you conveniently ignored it. The article states

Why would this be equitable or do Forbes not know what the UK reserves consist of?

I find this objectionable to be honest. The fact that you don't highlights your own ignorance.

OK you are doing some sort of "I know a secret you don't know" sort of bollocks here and rather than being Mystery Man why not come out and say it?

It is perfectly reasonable to divide UK assets/exposure inc BoE debts and liabilities at around 92/8% and for IScotland to use that 8% of assets as reserves to establish a Scottish currency.

[strichener]

OK you are doing some sort of "I know a secret you don't know" sort of bollocks here and rather than being Mystery Man why not come out and say it?

It is perfectly reasonable to divide UK assets/exposure inc BoE debts and liabilities at around 92/8% and for IScotland to use that 8% of assets as reserves to establish a Scottish currency.

No I am not, I have already posted why your article is wrong the first time you posted it.

I wouldn't want it to be a secret though, so to save you the trouble of searching for it again. Here is the response.

OK. To find fault with your post:

Forbes do not understand the composition of assets in the UK. The BOE do not hold the UK FX reserves, they have their own and act as agents on behalf of the treasury.

FX reserves comprise of the UK Official Reserve and the Bank's reserves. Two entirely different things.

http://www.bankofeng...es/default.aspx

[The_Kincardine]

No I am not, I have already posted why your article is wrong the first time you posted it.

I wouldn't want it to be a secret though, so to save you the trouble of searching for it again. Here is the response.

Two responses here.

1. You have an unnecessary bee in yer bunnet about that Forbes article. In general terms it is right: In the event of Aye then UK assets and liabilities should be shared equitably between both countries and IScotland can use such reserves as attributed to establish a central iScotland bank and currency. This is super-sensible and a much more coherent strategy than that proposed by Eck.

2. I posted here because Gaz said, "My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union"

I tried to give him a point-by-point reply because I thought this was a serious thread. Now either respond to what I said or carry on wanking yourself over an item I posted some days ago that clearly gives you a stiffie.

[strichener]

Two responses here.

1. You have an unnecessary bee in yer bunnet about that Forbes article. In general terms it is right: In the event of Aye then UK assets and liabilities should be shared equitably between both countries and IScotland can use such reserves as attributed to establish a central iScotland bank and currency. This is super-sensible and a much more coherent strategy than that proposed by Eck.

2. I posted here because Gaz said, "My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union"

I tried to give him a point-by-point reply because I thought this was a serious thread. Now either respond to what I said or carry on wanking yourself over an item I posted some days ago that clearly gives you a stiffie.

SO you are OK to engage with me when you think you have a plausible argument. When you have the inaccuracies pointed out to you its all about wanking and stiffies. Quality.

[The_Kincardine]

SO you are OK to engage with me when you think you have a plausible argument. When you have the inaccuracies pointed out to you its all about wanking and stiffies. Quality.

Not at all and don't be so precious. I have discussed that article both here and 'over there' and given you more time than you deserved for diverting the thread. Now have you something to say about my reply to the OP or do you want to continue with your pathetic, "But how do you think my arse looks in this frock" attention-seeking?

[strichener]

Not at all and don't be so precious. I have discussed that article both here and 'over there' and given you more time than you deserved for diverting the thread. Now have you something to say about my reply to the OP or do you want to continue with your pathetic, "But how do you think my arse looks in this frock" attention-seeking?

You have a choice: 1. Regard everything as a confrontation or 2. Try and get along with folk but stand your ground on important matters, rather than trivia.

If you're losing an argument then just go to the cricket thread!

I would suggest that you adorn the cricket thread.

[The_Kincardine]

I would suggest that you adorn the cricket thread.

This is a new depth of idiocy even for the diddies. What do you suggest that I adorn the cricket thread with? Orange lilies?

[Taza]

In what way is the UK a "basket-case" economy?

How many "basket-case" economies are there in the EU then, out of interest?

Eh...one

[Taza]

This is a new depth of idiocy even for the diddies. What do you suggest that I adorn the cricket thread with? Orange lilies?

I just find it ridiculous that you have managed to attain a degree of debate from anyone on here. You have a vote, I take it?

[the jambo-rocker]

I haven't read the thread, but I did find myself asking how this £6 billion figure that was being thrown around by the No side on the Monday is supposed to out-weigh permanent austerity.

[Scary Bear]

I haven't read the thread, but I did find myself asking how this £6 billion figure that was being thrown around by the No side on the Monday is supposed to out-weigh permanent austerity.

When I see the £6billion figure mentioned, I think it's a bit rich of BT to be going with this, given the massive debt in the UK and the borrowing they are doing.

[ayrmad]

When I see the £6billion figure mentioned, I think it's a bit rich of BT to be going with this, given the massive debt in the UK and the borrowing they are doing.

They just fail to tell us that our share of the UK blackhole is £9 billion.

[H_B]

Tried and failed with this before. "We" are not back to the levels pre-crash since the number of "we" is now significantly larger than before the crash.

lolwut?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bad33d56-13d5-11e4-8485-00144feabdc0.html

Oh dear.