Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[mainiac]

Yeah, it is a gamble. One that many, many countries have taken before. Some have not gone so well.
Others have (*cough* United States *cough*). At least Scotland won't have to fight an eight-year war for theirs.

Actually, it's not a gamble.  A gamble implies that we have some degree of uncertainty about the future.  The Scottish future would be pretty damn clear:

1) Political independence.  More left wing as a result.
2) Poorer nation.  Basically you are putting all of economic theory on the side of poorer nation and on the other side you have BUT SO MUCH OIL IN NORTH SEAS GUYS.

What about the thing with the three banks threatening to move to London if Scotland goes independent? That's not the government.

It may just be empty threats on their part. I highly doubt a bank would do a move that resulted in a loss of profits for them. A Yes win is bad for them, but I believe that leaving scotland if Yes wins would be even worse for the banks.

No it's not an empty threat, it's common sense.  Scotland keeping those banks would be a disaster waiting to happen.  Look at Iceland and Ireland and Spain recently.  Look at the Latin American debt crisis.  Look at the East Asian debt crisis.  Thankfully the bankers are showing some foresight for once... well that and the fact that it would hurt their own servicing operations if all their counterparties knew that they were a disaster waiting to happen.

For the longest time everyone was ignoring this because they assumed that independence was unlikely and if it happened Scotland would have a plan that wasn't underpants on the head stupid.  Now it turns out that maybe it will happen with the underpants plan and adjustments are needed.

[RedKing]

Poorer in the short-term perhaps. But disentangled from future disastrous economic decisions made in London. Oil isn't the future of Scotland's economy, but it's enough to sustain the country while it diversifies.

More importantly, it's about standard-of-living and median per-capita GDP, not overall wealth. If a Scottish government can more equitably spread the wealth from oil revenues, then the Scottish people benefit, even if Scotland the nation-state as an abstract is somewhat diminished economically.

I didn't realize you had such a dog in this fight, mainiac. And a Unionist one at that.
Maybe it's because I'm descended from filthy Confederates, but I'm pulling for the Yes camp. If North Carolina had a chance to secede under a left-leaning government, I'd be the first in line to vote yes.

[Sergarr]

mainiac, the Scotland want to get out of UK because UK is a fucked up state with fucked up laws and fucked up politicians who do not care about prosperity of Scotland and its people.

[Loud Whispers]

mainiac, the Scotland want to get out of UK because UK is a fucked up state with fucked up laws and fucked up politicians who do not care about prosperity of Scotland and its people.

Fucked up state:        [Not up to Brit standards, not fucked either]
Fucked up politicians: [                          Milipede                       ]
Uncaring politicians:   [ They do not stop pleading with Scotland  ]
Scotland's prosperity: [   Future is not bright with independence  ]

[LordSlowpoke]

you need more [co­de] tags in your life lw

that or [t­t] or summit

carry on

[Sergarr]

mainiac, the Scotland want to get out of UK because UK is a fucked up state with fucked up laws and fucked up politicians who do not care about prosperity of Scotland and its people.

Fucked up state:        [Not up to Brit standards, not fucked either]
Fucked up politicians: [                          Milipede                       ]
Uncaring politicians:   [ They do not stop pleading with Scotland  ]
Scotland's prosperity: [   Future is not bright with independence  ]

Politicians are pleading only because of the polls.

If Scotland votes No they're going to conveniently forget all the promises they've made to the Scotland in about a month or two. I know how that system works. It's always the same.

[smjjames]

mainiac, the Scotland want to get out of UK because UK is a fucked up state with fucked up laws and fucked up politicians who do not care about prosperity of Scotland and its people.

Fucked up state:        [Not up to Brit standards, not fucked either]
Fucked up politicians: [                          Milipede                       ]
Uncaring politicians:   [ They do not stop pleading with Scotland  ]
Scotland's prosperity: [   Future is not bright with independence  ]

I've also heard the other side of the coin with the prosperity. As for fucked up politicians, who doesn't have some.

[Loud Whispers]

Politicians are pleading only because of the polls.
If Scotland votes No they're going to conveniently forget all the promises they've made to the Scotland in about a month or two. I know how that system works. It's always the same.

Except where labour've been devolutionising powers all over the place for the past four decades and all three big parties promised more powers to the point where it's honestly embarrassing and there's no turning back.
This is kind of a historic crossroads here Sergarr, not just a cas election.

[smjjames]

Politicians are pleading only because of the polls.
If Scotland votes No they're going to conveniently forget all the promises they've made to the Scotland in about a month or two. I know how that system works. It's always the same.

Except where labour've been devolutionising powers all over the place for the past four decades and all three big parties promised more powers to the point where it's honestly embarrassing and there's no turning back.
This is kind of a historic crossroads here Sergarr, not just a cas election.

cas election? casual?

[Loud Whispers]

Yep

[mainiac]

I didn't realize you had such a dog in this fight, mainiac. And a Unionist one at that.

I didn't either until I saw that they they could have independence and THEN try to figure out how to run an economy instead of the other way around.

Poorer in the short-term perhaps. But disentangled from future disastrous economic decisions made in London. Oil isn't the future of Scotland's economy, but it's enough to sustain the country while it diversifies.

Sure they're doing tons of harm from day 1 but I'm sure they'll prove really great stewards down the line! [/sarcasm]

More importantly, it's about standard-of-living and median per-capita GDP, not overall wealth. If a Scottish government can more equitably spread the wealth from oil revenues, then the Scottish people benefit, even if Scotland the nation-state as an abstract is somewhat diminished economically.

Standard of living and median GDP per capita are very important!  That's why it's going to really suck that the Scottish are going to be hurting their labor market, lowering output, increasing debt service costs on government debt and making themselves suffer bigger losses in financial crisis.

[smjjames]

I think you guys forget how many problems the US had to work out, especially money wise, after independence. Sure you guys will have problems, but you get the benefit of deciding for yourselves how to fix it rather than those in London telling you how to solve it.

[Descan]

Also, preeetty sure the NHS part of the issue in Scotland is because they get less if the English get less too, so while the English don't have control over what Scotland spends money on directly, they can basically starve them out after England privatizes like geniuses.

Not anything to do with Scotland spending NHS money on non-health stuff, that's the first time I've ever heard of that. :v

[Helgoland]

So this is kinda relevant to the whole Ukraine business.

[Sheb]

(also I'm sorry Sheb but by "we" I meant Russia...)

My point was that NATO's huge armed force didn't prevent Russia from using salami tactics, so it's not clear Russia's armed force would protect her against such tactics either.

Guardian G.I.: You obviously didn't understand salami tactics. The point is to do something bite by bite so as to avoid the full reaction, because no single action is important enough to justify the whole response. An example is Russia's actions in Ukraine: Sending "rebels" into Crimea, then supporting the rebels, then sending them more and more weapons, then sending in troops. Had Russia invaded Ukraine directly, the West would have responded much more forcefully, but right now we only have some mild sanctions.

The expanding of NATO cannot be described as salami tactics, since expanding NATO at once would not have elicited strong reactions from Russia anyway.