[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too

That one? Yeah, I'd be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.

That one? Yeah, I'd be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.

The Darién scheme was idealistic and foolish, but Paterson lost his wife and child in that pestilential swamp - it's a sad story all round.

However, I wasn't making a serious point about him.

If the majority say "yeah **** it lets give it a go" then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.

One of the more sensible posts I've seen for a while.

So it seems according to Jambalaya one set of UK taxpayers own the institutions funded through their taxes while another set of UK taxpayers lease the same institutions played for through their taxes....

hey piemonster careful with those insults. Us Yorkshires are not nutters and not English. Thanks for the "to tight to spend out" compliment. We see ourselves as not to different the Scottish on the tightness scale, mind we don't have the sense of humour given the evidence on this thread.

Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.

What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes.

Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?

And none of the countries that have gained their independence in today's world even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58

Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 😯 . The fail is strong in that post.
No prosperous western european democracy has been independent so it is not surprising to see that eastern europe is still poorer than western europe. I am not sure what you want that fact to prove tbh.

Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.

Scotland's fare[sic] share of assets. I don't see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.

Everything is ours, we are keeping it , now take your share of the debt will you in return for **** all. Ps thanks for the oil revenue.

Its a somewhat strange attitude and few will agree with this strong a stance.

Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?

It would be more accurate to say we're (all) still repaying the loans taken out to buy them, hence a 1.3 trillion national debt.

Alex's impression seems to be that if you decide to walk away and stop making repayments you still get to keep the keys...

Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods

now take your share of the debt will you in return for * all

Hmm, I don't think anyone i suggesting Scotland would get * all, nobody has suggested for one second that we go in and repossess the hospitals, schools, forests, trams etc - they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn't.

Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods

Same as above - everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share - thing is that you seem to think that means 'we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK' - well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

Yes, that's going to take a bit of unpicking. Physical buildings etc get divided up on a geographic basis of course. Other assets get divided up somehow - by value? Obviously some things won't work that way - we don't want an aircraft carrier, for example, let alone two. Things like embassies? Perhaps some payment in lieu of sharing or something.

Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 . The fail is strong in that post.

The point remains the same though. Comparisons are made between small countries with high GDP per capita and Scotland. Those countries are long, long established, and differ from Scotland vastly in their economic makeup and social rights structure. It's a comparison of apples and oranges. There is little chance of finding an exact parallel of Scotland's bid for independence to use as an example, or I'm pretty sure we'd have heard of it by now, so the closest we can do is look at countries of a similar size that have become independent in "today's world". I arbitrarily decided that 1990 was the beginning of "today's world" (as # of declarations of independence since 1990 is was what came up when I Googled), and if you look at those countries none seem to be faring anywhere near as well as the ones at the top of the list. This is the point jambalaya was making and the one I'm trying to add weight to.

they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn't.

So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom. That is the fair way and logical way to work it out.

The oil is Scottish, the naval base on the Clyde is British. Houses of Parliament are also British, as in the Bank of England - you get the picture?

konabunny - Member
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
that's a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?

I said to "meet our needs". That's all we need, and it was in response to

ninfan - Member
..how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?

ie, if the access from other hubs is inadequate or deliberately restricted by ninfanites, then there is no longer any restraint on an independent Scotland providing our own hub to meet our own needs.

Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.

So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

Same as above - everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share - thing is that you seem to think that means 'we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK' - well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

And several RAF bases. And the contract for two aircraft carriers (I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships).

You can have RBS back though. 😉

So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.

well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)

My bad

I'm pretty sure the Scottish DVLA offices have all been closed down.

Turns out that you are correct, which means that we will take a financial share of the DVLA and develop our own system. Welcome to the Yes camp.

The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom.

Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
...I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships.

Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?

If they can't afford planes for the carriers, it doesn't sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc...

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

You can have RBS back though

I've got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.

In the case of independence, won't the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I've seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.

Exactly. Except you fail to realise that as part of the Union, nothing is English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish. It's all British.

Well that's no strictly true now is it...

Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?

Is the Scottish Government British?

Most banks and other related industries (e.g. insurance companies) who are 'based' in Scotland, have said that they are making provisions to relocate to the UK in the case of a Yes vote. Whether they do so is another point entirely. But there is a possibility where they could all move.

Well that's no strictly true now is it...

Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?

Is the Scottish Government British?

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

Can an iScotland afford to build ships? After all if we reach the conclusion that the UK can builds it's Navel warships in Scotland (as per the briefing for the yS campaign - why should Scotland build it's ships there? Remember that shipbuilding in the UK has virtually died out, because it is cheaper to build them overseas.

If Scotland does vote Yes then why should the UK build it's navel vessels in Scotland? After it would be a foreign country and it could choose another foreign country to do the work. At the moment the UK has committed to building the remaining carrier (Prince of Wales) and it is supposed to announce today the building of three other navel ships to be built on the Clyde. But that is all.

Yup, I think I've read that somewhere too, but I also read something that mentioned that they may not have a choice in the matter, due to a law around having to be headquartered in the country where the majority of your business takes place. That works now, with headquarters in Edinburgh, and the bulk of business taking place in London, but would have to change post-independence surely?

Well the Bank of England is clearly a British institution as are the Houses of Parliament, so we'll be having a bit of those thank you.

As for RBS, they have more employees in London than they do in Scotland, so maybe it's best if they move their HQ south.

And how exactly do you propose to take "your bit" of the BoE/HoP?

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

Quid pro quo and by haggling/negotiating

I do not think anyone is literally saying they will take a %of the Parliament ot iS

It is a strange one as some assets belong to the member country where as the rest has to be divided up like a divorce.

you get the house I get the pension
You get the car I have the yacht etc

i dont think you can go itis physically in my country therefore it is mine with things that belong to the UK as they have to be split

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

Actually the HoP needs just over a billion quids worth of repairs. SO in real terms it is not worth that much!

Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.

Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?

If they can't afford planes for the carriers, it doesn't sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc...

Good question that I don't know the answer to. I believe there are plans to replace the older elements of the fleet with the new class (who's name escapes me). Where's the money coming from? No idea.

TBF the entire carrier project is a shambles, and was under both Labour and the coalition. Scrapping the Harrier was a masterstroke of utmost stupidity, but then I'm sure there were financial reasons (keeping an ageing fleet airborne can't be cheap). Maybe they should just bin HS2...

Anyhoo, that's a separate conversation.

My understanding is (living near Portsmouth) that the shipyards are being 'kept warm' in case there's a yes vote. An arsh if you're a southern ship builder, but a great contingency if you're overseeing the construction of state-of-the-art battleships and could be 'losing' your shipyard because it's becoming Jonny Foreign.

I've got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.

In the case of independence, won't the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I've seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.

As a layman that's not adding up here either.

But that is as a layman, with no particular interest in the city.

By putting a value on it and adding that to the negotiations.

The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis, and this basis might be easiest to acheive but could have significant disadvantages for everyone,there are Uk govt offices all over the Uk including Scotland and their roles often cross the various borders within the Uk for example I dealt with HMRC in Newcastle, DWP in both Dundee and Blackburn etc. There would be costs all around in changing the roles of all these offices no doubt there would be redundancies in some locations and possibly recruitment in others. Alternatively some horse trading could take place to ensure that both an independent Scotland and rUK have all the capacity needed to ensure the smoothest possible transition

I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships

Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it'll be happening. The contracts for the carriers are signed, BAE are building them in Rosyth, and BAE and the MoD have stated that that will be the case whether or not there's independence. Even if BAE wanted to, there's not a facility in the rUK that could build the second carrier.

So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.

The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis

What wanmankylung seems to be suggesting is a Scotland keeps 100% of everything within its border and then gets to cherry-pick from the rest of the UK, without thinking that if that's how everything goes down then the UK might want to do some cherry-picking of its own.

There would be costs...

Of that there is no doubt! 😆

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/i-have-completely-changed-my-mind-about-scottish-independence-2014080789366

Comparisons of GDP, GVA etc are difficult, as the value of the financial services industry is pretty significant (15% of Scotland's GDP). Once the headquarters move, and inevitably oil and gas declines to the point of insignificance (albeit in 20-30 years), it looks to me as though there would be very little value creation in Scotland, unless new industries move in.

I'm genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I've read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don't then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.

Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it'll be happening.... So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.

@wanman I have no doubt AS will try this on. He will get precisely nowhere with it. Just like the currency union nonsense. AS needs to focus his negotiating energy on the EU in the unlikely event he wins. It will be the renegotiation of the Scottish membership of the EU which will be the defining factor in the Scots future.

Why would it be trying it on? I find that stance offensive. We paid for our percentage share of it therefore that exact percentage share is ours. That bit is not open to negotiation.

You keep mentioning Alex Salmond - your repeated reference to him says to me that you don't have a clue what the referendum is about. The question is this "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Where is Alex Salmond's name in that question?

So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.

I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who's to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland? Contract would only need amending, rather than ripping up. There's a shipyard with wounded pride and skilled staff on the south coast, gagging for work. If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?

That bit is not open to negotiation.

AS seems to say that a lot about stuff that blatantly is. 😉

If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?

Erm - let me see - the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).

Where is Alex Salmond's name in that question?

However loud you shout that it isn't about Alex Salmond, Alex Salmond's ego shouts louder.

A brief interlude for a spot of light relief: http://eveningharold.com/2014/08/08/alex-salmond-insists-were-keeping-the-paul-mccartney/

We paid for our percentage share of it

In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.

In practical terms there will be some balancing done and agreements made to cover a ten year period after Independence to ensure that both governments function. But jobs in Scotland will be relocated in time to the UK. Some assets will "move" to Scotland and some to the UK.

However the UK government will be trying to get the best deal for the UK, in the same manner as the Scottish government trying to get the best deal. It is not going to happen in the 18 month time period outlined by the Yes camp.

I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who's to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland?

The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of "we don't let foreigners build our warships" will no longer work.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.

In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.

And that is my exact point. The word that I keep hearing from the Yes side is "fair", the word I keep hearing from the No side is "can't". Remember when you were a kid and someone said that you couldn't do something...

Erm - let me see - the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).

Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London - that's significantly more than the population of Scotland right there), next to the base where most of the crew that pilot the ships will be posted at some point?

It will be about finances undoubtedly, but there is a lot more at stake.

Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London - that's significantly more than the population of Scotland right there)

And that's precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.

I'm genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I've read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don't then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.

I've been trying to find a good graphic which shows it, can't find the one I was thinking of so here's another one:

[img] [/img]

Basically, the oil is a nice bonus to have, it doesn't underpin the whole economy. Neither does financial services. We have a pretty decent mix of industries.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.

They'll be built where ever politics decide. Short to mid term practicalities means that BAE will probably continue for a while to build in Scotland.

Long term, an expensive decision will be made by an unpopular government trying to win some votes.

Don't mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don't mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.

BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.

Or wherever the customer wants it to be built. If it was the most economic we would not be building them in Scotland. The contract from the Government is with BAE, it is not with Scotland. BAE has said that they will be built on the Clyde, but like all contracts I suspect that there are enough get out clauses to allow BAE to move the work.

What I suspect BAE want in the case of Independence is for the UK Government to commission them to re-establish the dockyards on the South Coast. Given that there would be no Scottish MPs, the UK Parliament may see this as a good long term move.

I think that this is one of the points that yS needs to understand. Trying to tell the UK what would be good for the UK in the event of Independence will be ignored. An iScotland would not have a voice (after the Independence discussions had been completed). The UK would do what they want and if that affects Scotland - well tough. (See also interest rates if Scotland shares the Pound)

The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of "we don't let foreigners build our warships" will no longer work.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it's most economic to do so.

I don't buy that.

The second carrier is being used for spares for a start.

BAE is a European company, but - as said above - unless the shipyards can get constant trade it's unlikely to be commercially viable in a country of 5 million, unless it's significantly cheaper to do so (hard to comment on that as the currency of an iS is still very open to discussion).

That and the PR coup of 'returning work' to the UK and 'British ships being made in Britain' will be very tempting for whoever is in government.

Edit: Seems my point is made far more eloquently above.

[img] [/img]

Apart from that trivial error, it's a fair representation of Scotland's yearly economic output.

Don't mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don't mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.

BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments. But it's apolitical when it comes to making money - it already employs more people outside of the UK than in.

In sure if a future contract for warships specified that they had to be built at Devonport, then BAE would happily add the costs onto the bill, and the MoD would happily pay it - the MoD have a record of spending astronomical sums on stupid ideas for political reasons.

But that would be the rUK government deciding it, not BAE - BAE are only out to make money.

Not that it really matters - an independent Scotland will have a requirement for 20-25 patrol vessels and a £2.5bn defense budget, enough to keep the Clyde yards busy for years. Then there's the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding - Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.

And that's precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.

I understand and am not arguing with that, just as I'm not arguing against a referendum. Scotland should be free to do as it pleases, as a country.

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of 'sovereign rights' (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.

Got it in one, Pimpmaster. That's my exact feeling.

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of 'sovereign rights' (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.

Based on what?

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction.

There are flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric on both sides. The trick is to look beyond the personalities, beyond one narrative, to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.

BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments.

Then there's the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding - Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.

So what is stopping the creation of shipyards now? After all it would be almost certain to gain UK (and possibly EU) money to set up and run. Interest rates are at an historic low, the world is slowly coming out of recession. So why wait to see if Independence is gained before starting the creation of new shipyards.

I have seen this 'fact' and others - improved productivity, new jobs - but for some reason it is implied that it cannot happen until after a vote - WHY?

Is it because to make the figures stack up, in reducing tax rates, dropping retirement ages, greater spending on social policies add so much cost that we need to find someways of offsetting this. So let's add some shipyards, add some new jobs and improve productivity to show how it can all be paid for.

(Must stop doing this and do some real work!!)

to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.

In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.

I'm not sure how much "blame" you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.

There has been (in my circles at least) an increase in emotions on the referendum recently. Most notably from No voters who assume I'm voting the same. I guess the guard gets let down, Salmond certainly does irritate, but would anybody else in his place be any less irritating? The main gripe is a movement attempting to lead Scotland in a direction that many are against, and increasingly passionately against.

Incidentally I have encountered more, barely hidden near hostility from Yes voters. I'd guess after making assumptions about my voting intention.

Both account for a small minority, but it is certainly something that has increased.

A Scotland united by a vision of it's future it is not.

I've heard some disturbing stories about how mobile telephone licences in Asia are awarded.

As piemonster hits on the real cost of the referendum. I avoid the subject with some friends, as I would quite like to stay friends.

athgray - Member
...Between building ships for our own needs, and only providing enough renewable energy for our own needs, perhaps you are an isolationist epicyclo.

I see nothing wrong in a country being self-sufficient as far as is possible.

In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.

What are better sources to look at?

What are better sources to look at?

The news? Or is that too English-centric? 😉

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

Have you got the source for the graphic above? I'd seen in a Yes leaflet a few weeks ago, and thought it was optimistic, but can't find the leaflet now. By optimistic, I mean that after you remove oil/gas, financial services and chunks of others that are spin offs of oil/gas (chemical), there is quite a drop in GDP.

Pretty much anything....

Actually it is interesting (genuinely) to take the formal documentation from both sides and to read the main text (not the selective summaries) and compare and contrast.

Joking (and knocking AS) apart it is very interesting how, in the case of currency options, both sides base their analysis on the concept of an optimum currency area first and then the well-documented pros and cons of each option (nb you have to read beyond the exec summary to get this). It's a bit dry (the theory) and largely well documented up until the point of the summaries (again).

You can make your own judgment on how they get to the conclusion and on what basis (ie no one goes for AS latest punt, yes no one) but you should also think why do both sides start with OCA theory? Simple because the UK fits and guess where that leads to - union not independence. Hence AS finds it so hard to squirm around this simple fact. The central economic argument (not nec the pol one) is staggeringly clear which is why BT stick to it and why AS is floundering.

Based on what?

Google "Alex Salmond half truths".

My top hit: http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/444095/Comment-Facts-expose-the-financial-fantasies-of-Alex-Salmond

Admittedly I don't like the Express as I'm a closet leftie, but the same facts have been peddled out by most nationals, albeit surrounded by different opinion.

A bit further down: http://www.cityam.com/article/1392616119/salmond-keeps-contradicting-himself-scottish-independence

London-centric, but same story.

So let's go to Scotland: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-fm-stands-firm-on-currency-1-3504622

Don't know about you, but a decision on what money you're going to spend seems pretty important to me.

As for nationalistic posturing: "In an open letter published yesterday, Salmond said he would not consider a Plan B because he would not settle for second best for Scotland."

Personally I'd be gunning for the euro, but I'm not Salmond.

Like I said: My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond's use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it's even had a chance to prove what it can do.

If he had concrete arguments and plans that seemed feasible I would personally take him more seriously. But to me, working in marketing, all it looks like is he's trying to stir up emotion, putting heart before head, and getting the blood rich with nationalistic fervour by those not smart enough to look beyond the Saltire and tory MPs in 'the south'.

Compare GDP with GNI to take into account how much output (GDP) comes from foreign based countries who repatriate part of the profits (in GNI) and the story doesn't look as rosy. Oddly, some yS folk seem irrationally against foreign ownership so not sure how they square that circle.

piemonster - Member
I'm not sure how much "blame" you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.

A lot. He is the face of the independence campaign and has taken deceit and lies to an unparalleled height. His retreat this week into it's our currency and we will walk away from the debt makes the extent of his deceit 100% clear. He is a political bully who flip flops with the wind - a chancer and an opportunist is how he was described in one paper this week. He has had a political lifetime to prepare for 18/9 but instead of doing this properly he has blagged it. Simple, basic questions left unanswered. For that he shouldn't be forgiven by either side.

The whole thing has turned out to be an expensive vanity project. The UK deserves so much better.

Foreign based "countries" THM?