Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UK to Scotland: Walk away, lose the pound


questionmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.ukuk-scotland-scotland-business-2100370456869/David-Cameron-to-boost-North-Sea-revenues-by-200bn-to-persuade-Scots-to-vote-no-to-independencehtml

There you go that was a week ago, do you not even watch the news?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21003704

2nd north sea oil,boom, from that bastion of Scottish nationalism the UK govt owned bbc. From,January this year. You really have no clue at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've just been informed they struck oil in the north sea today, a new field, and large new build contract was awarded by the UK govt to an English company. Watch it not be in the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be a second refferendum, in which only the English, Welsh and NI are allowed to vote.

The refferendum would be....

"Shall we permit Scotland to remain in our union" ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they should, as long as they're honest and say Scotland subsidises you, the UK will be significantly poorer if scotland leaves, do you want Scotland to leave? Then at least arrogant English voters will know where they really stand. You're in the Midlands jesus we REALLY subsidise you. We are also going to be subsidising your high speed rail link to London, which studies show will negatively impact Scottish cities and not benefit us at all, but we're still being asked to pay for it. Better together.

What that means is YOU'RE better off if we stay together, doesn't say anythIng for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I wanted to expos your lies in YOUR rants as they are massively offensive

Currency? The pound is plan b, though a plan b won't be required as there will be a currency union. Why would the UK govt impose transaction fees of half a billion pounds on English businesses? Why do you ignore that? They are bluffing and hoping the electorate buy it

So the Government of the United Kingdom have clearly stated they WILL NOT enter into a currency union with an Independent Scotland. this includes all first ministers from Wales and North Ireland and further backed by all political parties which can form a future government. that if elected they also would not enter into a currency union with a independent Scotland. your response is to simply ignore that fact, and you base this on the fact you think they are lying and bluffing.

stating the reason they are lying and bluffing is 500million in transaction fees for business south of the border. well If you take that figure as correct, according to Holyrood’s Financial Scrutiny Unit, that works out at £1,229 per firm in Scotland. yet only £109 per firm in the rUK. You would be taking on a country 10 times the size of Scotland. the figure you have quoted would simply be absorbed in rUK. with the rUK having a economy ten times that of Scotland. do you honestly think, 500 million makes a difference when were talking Trillions.

So under the SNP's and your Plan B Scotland will be left using the pound sterling as a trade currency only, you'll have no control over the currency whatsoever, unable to set your own currency rates / interest rates. no guarantor, no lender of last resort, (Bank of England) at the mercy of a foreign country.

Its worth reminding readers it was the same Alex Salmond SNP, who and i quote 'the pound sterling is the millstone around the neck of Scotland' this was when his plan A was to (wrongly) assume Scotland would retain its EU membership, and they'd simply adopt the Euro currency. then Alex Salmond and the SNP sort legal advice from the EU commission over membership and currency adoption. this legal advice was not made public and the SNP still today refuse to disclose the advice given. but it is clear after receiving the advice, Alex Salmond SNP all of a sudden, ditched the Euro idea and their grand plan was to continue to use the pound sterling, you know that millstone around the neck of Scotland. you couldn't make it up. heres link to his speech back in 1999. http://www.heraldsco...-pound-1.263204

George Osborne spelling out for you once again. the United Kingdom will not enter a currency union with an independent country.

New EU members DO NOT have to join the euro you just don't have a clue what you're talking about, van rompuy and barroso don't actually get a vote and no countries at all have expressed any objections whatsoever to immediate entry for scotland, despite your lies to the contrary in this thread. Half the Spanish fleet fishes Scottish waters for example, their entire fishing industry is bankrupt overnight if we don't get in and they have already said they would have zero objections. Scotland's laws are already harmonised with EU regulations as we have been a member for 40 years. Here is some perspective on barrosos comments. http://www.bbc.co.uk...itics-26278237.

Staying in the UK, however, is a risk to our EU membership status as Cameron has promised a referendum on UK EU membership in the next parliament, and England is a very xenophobic, insular country which decides the outcome of all UK elections so may well decide we're leaving without us getting a say as always. You don't hear that side so often though and I note you haven't mentioned it.

It has clearly been stated by both leaders of the European Union. Scotland would face difficulties in joining. Barroso even saying it would be near impossible. they have made it clear Scottish application for membership would not receive special treatment, no fast tracking. and then comes the business of getting all 28 members to agree, you might brush this off as immaterial. but if you put your political Degree into first gear you'd fully understand the political problems Scotland would face. obviously you dont need me to explain it. you'd have learned it in year one.

Barroso on Scotland application of EU membership.

[media=]

Your last 'point' is pathetic, nothing under Intl law says you have to be reimbursed at all, will you be reimbursing us for the decades of tax revenue you have stolen from us? Didn't think so, and you don't have a clue anyway as exploration was and is funded largely by oil,companies not the UK govt, anything London spent has been repaid many times over with tax revenues on Scottish oil anyway.

So its okay for you to cherry pick what Scotland can keep, 10% of this, that and the other but when it comes to the rest of the UK, we just get nothing, because as you put it, the rUK have been stealing all your taxes. even though official figures from the treasury show we've been subsidising Scotland since day one. Yet the facts are such the region of Scotland as a disproportionate number of its population reliant on government jobs and welfare. one in three jobs in Scotland are directly and indirectly taxpayer funded, The Scottish government raised £43.7 Billion but spent £60 Billion, meaning the rUK susidised Scotland to the tune of £16.3Billion. exposure to pensions alone in Scotland is £15Billion, But lets forget these incoveinent truths;

look at big Private businesses and employers in the last few days, LLoyds Banking Group, Barclays Banks, RBS Banks, and Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Energy generation giant Aggreko, Standard Life insure, BAE systems All raising concerns about Scottish independence. and all making plans to move south of the border. with some already registering new entities in England.

UK government jobs would also move south of the border in the event of a YES vote. Two thirds of the civil servants working in Scotland are employed by the UK Government. There are almost twice as many UK Government civil servants working in Scotland as there are of those who work for the Scottish Government. The two largest civil service employers in Scotland are Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Job Centre Plus with 9,860 and 9,020 staff respectively. There are 48,830 civil servants working in Scotland and 31,690 (65% of the total) work for parts of the UK Government such as the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The part i rub my hands at most is the fact Shetland and Orkeny islands whose representitives were back in Parliment on tuesday gone, yet holding further discussion on opting out of Scottish independence in the event of a YES vote and remaining part of the rUnited Kingdom. If this happens the SNP and Salmond have a problem. because a significant number of oil and gas fields would be considered within their waters and so retained within the rUnited Kingdom. dont take my word for it. Angus MacNeil, the SNP’s rural affairs spokesman as even admitted it.

The SNP and Alex Salmond are not even lame ducks anymore, they are dead ducks. it matters not we write because the foundation the base to which to build from is not even in place. and thats that of the Economy and currency. but a part of me would love to see the little faces of the Scottish if they voted YES, when the reality hits them and a 12% rise in taxes and/or 12% cuts to services. the entertainement value would be worth it alone.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/408

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered with this right now but see your last line, the 12% is our structural deficit. You are neglecting the fact our tax revenues would go up due to oil, gas and whisky which wipes that out instantly leaving us in surplus. Yours is 21% BTW, except you don't get the oil, gas or whisky, only austerity. We are in a much better position than you any way you look at it, that's why you're desperate to keep us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't be bothered with this right now but see your last line, the 12% is our structural deficit. You are neglecting the fact our tax revenues would go up due to oil, gas and whisky which wipes that out instantly leaving us in surplus. Yours is 21% BTW, except you don't get the oil, gas or whisky, only austerity. We are in a much better position than you any way you look at it, that's why you're desperate to keep us.

Im not surprised you cannot be bothered, it sums you up perfectly. you have nothing of substance, not one ounce, you keep telling yourself Gas and oil is the answer to all questions raised. its your population and public spending thats the problem, Oil and Gas alone is not even enough to cover it. its a complete fact that cannot be overstated, after a YES vote a Scottish government would have to raise tax & income by 12% or make 12% cuts in public spending or another option would be to somehow balance it IE, 6% tax rise and a 6% cut in public service spending. there is no way around it. well there is, you could borrow money, oh yes thats right, with no access to the bank of england, and with no currency union, and no sovereign currency you'll have to borrow money on the international markets at 6.2% interest rate. its a shame you wasn't part of the bank of England you could have borrowed at 0.5%. but never mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand, Scotland's budget deficit right now, you're actually wrong anyway its 13% not 12, but is 13% of what we spend. We spend 113% of the block grant. This is our position right now as part of the uk, however independent we get 100% of whisky and 90% of oil and gas, compared to 10% of each right now. The rUK spends 121% of what it takes in right now, your deficit is larger, and you would lose the 90% of oil, gas and whisky you get just now, increasing your deficit massively. In the UK scotland is in a slightly better position, out of the UK scotland position improves and the UK's deteriorates. Those are the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand, Scotland's budget deficit right now, you're actually wrong anyway its 13% not 12, but is 13% of what we spend. We spend 113% of the block grant. This is our position right now as part of the uk, however independent we get 100% of whisky and 90% of oil and gas, compared to 10% of each right now. The rUK spends 121% of what it takes in right now, your deficit is larger, and you would lose the 90% of oil, gas and whisky you get just now, increasing your deficit massively. In the UK scotland is in a slightly better position, out of the UK scotland position improves and the UK's deteriorates. Those are the facts.

Listen, this is the biggest vote your country has faced in 307 years, and you dont even have the understanding of the basics. i just wish before you put that X in the box you get a grip between now and September 18th. because its damn frightening. Oil,Gas, Whisky **** oil Gas Whisky its the damn real issues you need to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such as? You listen to me Nigel, you don't know anything about any of this and you would be best zipping it and effin off to clean your maypole or whatever. This is an issue for the people of scotland not little Englanders with a chip on their shoulder and as head full of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such as? You listen to me Nigel, you don't know anything about any of this and you would be best zipping it and effin off to clean your maypole or whatever. This is an issue for the people of scotland not little Englanders with a chip on their shoulder and as head full of nonsense.

such as?, exactly you've made my point for me. how are you going to control, inflation/deflation? how are you going to control interest rates? if you need to borrow money who will you borrow from? if the worst was to happen and you needed bailing out who would that fall to? oh, yes i know oil, gas, whisky. You face at least 10 years of using the pound as a trading currency. these are fundamental questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bank of England is actually a private bank, which scotland is a part owner of, and given there will be a currency union none of these are issues. We can also borrown from the EU or IMF. Why do you care so much anywqy, English people desperate to convince us why we couldn't be independent always puzzle me what is it to you either way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its just something to gets people focus on. I dont believe scotland would go independent, as EU already said they wont qualify to be apart of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bank of England is actually a private bank, which scotland is a part owner of, and given there will be a currency union none of these are issues. We can also borrown from the EU or IMF. Why do you care so much anywqy, English people desperate to convince us why we couldn't be independent always puzzle me what is it to you either way?

The Bank of England was Nationalised in 1946. It is NOT a private institution.... where are you getting this rubbish from???

There will NOT be a currency Union, you do not meet the criteria to join the Euro, and you will have to join the queue when it comes to EU Membership.

Simple, clear, straightforward. I dont think anybody here wants to stand in the way of Independence, but you need to be told the truth in terms of consequences.

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're part right,

The Bank was privately owned[clarification needed (Privately owned by whom? See talk page.)] from its foundation in 1694 until nationalised in 1946.[3][4]

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy

So it basically has the status of a quango or NGO, its independence is the reason it and not the UK govt sets interest rates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're part right,

The Bank was privately owned[clarification needed (Privately owned by whom? See talk page.)] from its foundation in 1694 until nationalised in 1946.[3][4]

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy

So it basically has the status of a quango or NGO, its independence is the reason it and not the UK govt sets interest rates

No, wrong again. The Blair govt. actually gave them the right to set interest rates to ensure that Market forces could correctly set interest rates to tackle such Economic dynamics as inflation and deflation. The Govt can just as easily remove the rights from the Bank of England. This is why it is NOT a PLC.

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have no idea if I should vote for or against it.

I live in Glasgow and I haven't heard much about what will happen if Scotland becomes independent. I saw on the news a while back that there is a book which details all the changes that will be made but why didn't the government send a copy out to each household? I'd sure like to know what I'm signing up for before I make any sort of decision.

If you can get this online what happens to the people who don't know how to work a computer or don't have access to one?

Anyway I'm rambling on now. To be honest I don't really care about Scottish Independence, I'm not even sure we'd be able to survive without the rest of the UK but that's just my opinion and like I said, I have no idea what to do due to the fact that the information hasn't been issued clearly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea if I should vote for or against it.

I live in Glasgow and I haven't heard much about what will happen if Scotland becomes independent. I saw on the news a while back that there is a book which details all the changes that will be made but why didn't the government send a copy out to each household? I'd sure like to know what I'm signing up for before I make any sort of decision.

If you can get this online what happens to the people who don't know how to work a computer or don't have access to one?

Anyway I'm rambling on now. To be honest I don't really care about Scottish Independence, I'm not even sure we'd be able to survive without the rest of the UK but that's just my opinion and like I said, I have no idea what to do due to the fact that the information hasn't been issued clearly

307 years of history and tradition. if the union was so bad why last so long, in our Island nation we are better together. im sure you've read from page one of this thread. but to be honest how does any government set out in a pamphlet 307 years of togetherness. just dont fall into the trap that Harry on here as fallen into, were he's only believing one set of politicians. (SNP)

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.