Scotland Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

Independent Scotland won't pay back debt, Alex Salmond says
'Yes' vote in the bag?

A word of caution, though: when George Soros says 'An independent Scotland would be financially unstable', it's a threat you shouldn't take lightly. Just ask Malaysia.

So, should the 'yes' campaign prevail, can we expect Mr. Soros to be funding a more 'open' and 'democratic' Scotland - if he's not already?

Yes, George Soros should not be dismissed lightly.

And as for Alex Salmond's "threat", it's pure idiocy, like everything else that wafts, fart-like, out of his mouth. Reneging on Scotland's share of the UK debt would lead to the entire English political establishment and wider population, despising Scotland. Does a newly independent Scotland really want to majorly piss off its nearest neighbour and biggest trading partner? Nope, but that would be the least of Scotland's problems if it tried a stunt like this. Scotland would be in a position where it was either using sterling outside of a currency union, or a new currency. Either way, it would need to borrow money on the international credit markets to meet the costs of setting Scotland up as an independent country. But who in their right mind lends money to a country that has just defaulted on its debt in an act of anti-English malice because it was refused a currency union that England would be insane to have agreed to?

Alex Salmond is a moron. It's that simple.

It's really not about Mr Salmond, but as you mention him, yet again, here's what went on today......


'Alex Salmond treats the BBC's Nick Robinson with the precise level of respect he deserves at a press conference'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM#t=293

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question, I can't really conclude anything from that. Salmond repeating "I answered that question already" certainly doesn't indicate that he'd given an adequate answer: he has a long track record of claiming to have answered questions he hasn't actually answered. You usually don't have to dig down very far to establish that he's bullshitting.

And while Scottish independence does not sink or swim based on the personality of one person, Salmon does have a primary responsibility to provide decent arguments and the answers to important questions like "What currency will we use." And if his arguments and answers are lacking, then it is reasonable for his opponents to point this out, and not reasonable for nationalists to dismiss the whole thing with "It's not about Alex Salmond."

You can only argue with what's put in front of you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nobody said "Scotland can't have a currency".

Billionaire investor George Soros has said he does not think it would be possible for an independent Scotland to keep the pound.

How dare the Scots consider not voting in line with the interests of a billionaire financier!

OK, so maybe George Soros said Scotland can't use sterling outside of a currency union. If so, if I was Scottish then I'd be taking this threat seriously.

[Mr. Fox]

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question

Rewind to the beginning of the clip:

Two, if I may. One specifically on RBS that you raised: Are you suggesting that the decision of RBS has no consequence? or do you you accept that by moving their base to London tax revenues would move to London in other words Scottish taxpayers would have to make up the money they would lose from RBS moving to London - and on a more general point John Lewis's boss says prices could go up, Standard Life's boss says money will move out of Scotland, BP's boss says oil will run out - why should a Scottish voter believe you a politician against men who were responsible billions of pounds profits?

Yeah, why should Scottish voters believe a democratically elected representative over financial interests?

[peaceful_life]

Yes, George Soros should not be dismissed lightly.

And as for Alex Salmond's "threat", it's pure idiocy, like everything else that wafts, fart-like, out of his mouth. Reneging on Scotland's share of the UK debt would lead to the entire English political establishment and wider population, despising Scotland. Does a newly independent Scotland really want to majorly piss off its nearest neighbour and biggest trading partner? Nope, but that would be the least of Scotland's problems if it tried a stunt like this. Scotland would be in a position where it was either using sterling outside of a currency union, or a new currency. Either way, it would need to borrow money on the international credit markets to meet the costs of setting Scotland up as an independent country. But who in their right mind lends money to a country that has just defaulted on its debt in an act of anti-English malice because it was refused a currency union that England would be insane to have agreed to?

Alex Salmond is a moron. It's that simple.

It's really not about Mr Salmond, but as you mention him, yet again, here's what went on today......


'Alex Salmond treats the BBC's Nick Robinson with the precise level of respect he deserves at a press conference'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM#t=293

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question, I can't really conclude anything from that. Salmond repeating "I answered that question already" certainly doesn't indicate that he'd given an adequate answer: he has a long track record of claiming to have answered questions he hasn't actually answered. You usually don't have to dig down very far to establish that he's bullshitting.

And while Scottish independence does not sink or swim based on the personality of one person, Salmon does have a primary responsibility to provide decent arguments and the answers to important questions like "What currency will we use." And if his arguments and answers are lacking, then it is reasonable for his opponents to point this out, and not reasonable for nationalists to dismiss the whole thing with "It's not about Alex Salmond."

You can only argue with what's put in front of you.

Bullshitting, about what?....an answer about the content of the clip in specific would be preferable to conflation of the currency question btw.

What you call 'nationalists', is other folks democrat.


Some other reasons (which still don't quite grasp the essence) for you to philosophically ponder....

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubli ... chers.aspx

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question

Rewind to the beginning of the clip:

Two, if I may. One specifically on RBS that you raised: Are you suggesting that the decision of RBS has no consequence? or do you you accept that by moving their base to London tax revenues would move to London in other words Scottish taxpayers would have to make up the money they would lose from RBS moving to London - and on a more general point John Lewis's boss says prices could go up, Standard Life's boss says money will move out of Scotland, BP's boss says oil will run out - why should a Scottish voter believe you a politician against men who were responsible billions of pounds profits?

Yeah, why should Scottish voters believe a democratically elected representative over financial interests?

Why should anyone ever believe anything your average politician says?

OK, I am watching the clip from the beginning.

0:32 Robinson hasn't finished asking the question, and the "Salmond Smirk" has started. This is his first line of defence: never look like you're listening to a difficult question, always look as if the question is so easy to answer that the questioner is a bit of a twit: smirk.

0:43 Smirk+1: Question still not finished, Salmond laughs.

1:03 Promises to answer, but also says he's going to ask a "reverse question", "questioning the BBC's role in these matters." In other words, he's trying to undermine the credibility of the questioner - playing the man (or in this case the organisation he works for) instead of the ball.

1:40 Claims that the rules of corporation tax are thus: "Corporation tax is not allocated where your registered office is, but according to economic activity." As usual with Salmond, this sounds good to the uneducated ear, but on closer inspection it is actually incomprehensible gibberish. Funds from governments are "allocated". We "allocate" funds to the NHS, to defence, etc... Corporation tax is collected, not allocated.

I am no expert on corporation tax. So, ask Mr Google...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... x-purposes

A corporate inversion occurs when a multinational group moves its notional head office, often for tax purposes, from its home jurisdiction to an overseas territory. The impact on operations is often minimal, with manufacturing activities and the markets in which it operates remaining unchanged.

However, combined with a web of crossborder transactions between companies owned by the same group, such inversions can play an important role in shifting profits within an international business to low-tax jurisdictions, boosting returns for shareholders.

Ah. So Salmond is talking nonsense, yet again. Words come out of his mouth that succeed in fooling the people who've already decided to vote yes, but turn out to be worthless when you try to apply them to reality.

2:02: Generalised rejection of the argument: "this is scaremongering, and the Scottish people have moved beyond it." So having failed to address the actual question, he now moves on to claiming all this stuff is just scaremongering and congratulating Scots for being able to see through it. A load of empty posturing, in other words.

3:24 Regarding RBS, and quoting their statement: "It's not a matter of operations or jobs, it's just a technical matter."

This is again misleading, because the question Nick Robinson asked was about TAX. Salmond responds with "It's not about operations/jobs". Well, erm, did Robinson say anything about jobs moving to England? Nope. The question he asked was about tax revenues. The "technical matter" that Salmond is glossing over is this: RBS would become an rUK company rather than a Scottish company, which would presumably mean its tax payments would go to the rUK exchequer, and that it had access to the Bank of England.

Salmond then attacks Robinson and the BBC, and tries to move on to another question, at which point Robinson heckles with "Would you like to answer the question". Which is perfectly reasonable, given that Salmond didn't answer the question. He did not acknowledge or respond to the fact that the tax on the profits of RBS would go to the UK instead of Scotland, and he's trying to move on to another question because he can't answer the original one.

And you, Peaceful Life, think that is "the ultimate smackdown"????

It isn't. It's just Alex Salmond failing to answer a simple question, as usual.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's really not about Mr Salmond, but as you mention him, yet again, here's what went on today......


'Alex Salmond treats the BBC's Nick Robinson with the precise level of respect he deserves at a press conference'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM#t=293

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question, I can't really conclude anything from that. Salmond repeating "I answered that question already" certainly doesn't indicate that he'd given an adequate answer: he has a long track record of claiming to have answered questions he hasn't actually answered. You usually don't have to dig down very far to establish that he's bullshitting.

And while Scottish independence does not sink or swim based on the personality of one person, Salmon does have a primary responsibility to provide decent arguments and the answers to important questions like "What currency will we use." And if his arguments and answers are lacking, then it is reasonable for his opponents to point this out, and not reasonable for nationalists to dismiss the whole thing with "It's not about Alex Salmond."

You can only argue with what's put in front of you.

Bullshitting, about what?....an answer about the content of the clip in specific would be preferable to conflation of the currency question btw.

Just answered in the post above. He failed to answer the question about RBS' corporation tax being paid to the rUK instead of Scotland. This is about whether Scotland would be able to retain its financial services industry if it became independent, and the answer is "partly", but Salmond is trying to present the answer as "yes". Jobs and operations may well stay in Scotland, but tax revenues would move to London. He was asked specifically about tax revenues and he answered specifically about jobs and operations. Typical Salmond: lies, lies and more lies.

[peaceful_life]

Well, since I couldn't hear Nick Robinson's question

Rewind to the beginning of the clip:

Two, if I may. One specifically on RBS that you raised: Are you suggesting that the decision of RBS has no consequence? or do you you accept that by moving their base to London tax revenues would move to London in other words Scottish taxpayers would have to make up the money they would lose from RBS moving to London - and on a more general point John Lewis's boss says prices could go up, Standard Life's boss says money will move out of Scotland, BP's boss says oil will run out - why should a Scottish voter believe you a politician against men who were responsible billions of pounds profits?

Yeah, why should Scottish voters believe a democratically elected representative over financial interests?

Why should anyone ever believe anything your average politician says?

OK, I am watching the clip from the beginning.

0:32 Robinson hasn't finished asking the question, and the "Salmond Smirk" has started. This is his first line of defence: never look like you're listening to a difficult question, always look as if the question is so easy to answer that the questioner is a bit of a twit: smirk.

0:43 Smirk+1: Question still not finished, Salmond laughs.

1:03 Promises to answer, but also says he's going to ask a "reverse question", "questioning the BBC's role in these matters." In other words, he's trying to undermine the credibility of the questioner - playing the man (or in this case the organisation he works for) instead of the ball.

1:40 Claims that the rules of corporation tax are thus: "Corporation tax is not allocated where your registered office is, but according to economic activity." As usual with Salmond, this sounds good to the uneducated ear, but on closer inspection it is actually incomprehensible gibberish. Funds from governments are "allocated". We "allocate" funds to the NHS, to defence, etc... Corporation tax is collected, not allocated.

I am no expert on corporation tax. So, ask Mr Google...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... x-purposes

A corporate inversion occurs when a multinational group moves its notional head office, often for tax purposes, from its home jurisdiction to an overseas territory. The impact on operations is often minimal, with manufacturing activities and the markets in which it operates remaining unchanged.

However, combined with a web of crossborder transactions between companies owned by the same group, such inversions can play an important role in shifting profits within an international business to low-tax jurisdictions, boosting returns for shareholders.

Ah. So Salmond is talking nonsense, yet again. Words come out of his mouth that succeed in fooling the people who've already decided to vote yes, but turn out to be worthless when you try to apply them to reality.

2:02: Generalised rejection of the argument: "this is scaremongering, and the Scottish people have moved beyond it." So having failed to address the actual question, he now moves on to claiming all this stuff is just scaremongering and congratulating Scots for being able to see through it. A load of empty posturing, in other words.

3:24 Regarding RBS, and quoting their statement: "It's not a matter of operations or jobs, it's just a technical matter."

This is again misleading, because the question Nick Robinson asked was about TAX. Salmond responds with "It's not about operations/jobs". Well, erm, did Robinson say anything about jobs moving to England? Nope. The question he asked was about tax revenues. The "technical matter" that Salmond is glossing over is this: RBS would become an rUK company rather than a Scottish company, which would presumably mean its tax payments would go to the rUK exchequer, and that it had access to the Bank of England.

Salmond then attacks Robinson and the BBC, and tries to move on to another question, at which point Robinson heckles with "Would you like to answer the question". Which is perfectly reasonable, given that Salmond didn't answer the question. He did not acknowledge or respond to the fact that the profits of RBS would go to the UK instead of Scotland, and he's trying to move on to another question because he can't answer the original one.

And you, Peaceful Life, think that is "the ultimate smackdown"????

It isn't. It's just Alex Salmond failing to answer a simple question, as usual.

Maybe another viewing of the clip for a second opinion might help you.

It's not my video, or my title btw.

[UndercoverElephant]

Some other reasons (which still don't quite grasp the essence) for you to philosophically ponder....

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubli ... chers.aspx

All spoke about how badly run they considered the No campaign to have been and, in particular, how it has “been unable to put forward a positive vision for the UK” and that the information provided by it has been “scaremongering”.

“They believe they will be financially better off in most cases of people I know who have changed their minds”.

That says it all. They've been fooled by the likes of Alex Salmond into believing that the macro-economic and political risks highlighted by the no campaign are "scaremongering", and consequently they believe they'll be better off if Scotland becomes independent. I don't doubt that some people are indeed switching because of this, but that doesn't mean that the so-called scaremongering is actually scaremongering or that they'd actually be better off.

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe another viewing of the clip for a second opinion might help you.

I don't see how. Watching Salmond failing to answer the question a second time is not going to change anything.

[RenewableCandy]

Whatever else anybody may think of the actual merits of Yes or No, it is nevertheless an observable fact that the gist of the "No" campaign has been uninspiring (mostly consisting of "vote for us OR ELSE..."), and its attitude condescending. It has not presented life in the UK as attractive for the majority of Scots (probably because it cannot).

People vote for a vision, if there is one, not just for personal financial gain. If that weren't true, Chamberlin would have been PM at the crucial time and we'd probably all be speaking German.

The reason people start to vote for financial gain alone is, not being presented with a vision.

[peaceful_life]

Some other reasons (which still don't quite grasp the essence) for you to philosophically ponder....

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubli ... chers.aspx

All spoke about how badly run they considered the No campaign to have been and, in particular, how it has “been unable to put forward a positive vision for the UK” and that the information provided by it has been “scaremongering”.

“They believe they will be financially better off in most cases of people I know who have changed their minds”.

That says it all. They've been fooled by the likes of Alex Salmond into believing that the macro-economic and political risks highlighted by the no campaign are "scaremongering", and consequently they believe they'll be better off if Scotland becomes independent. I don't doubt that some people are indeed switching because of this, but that doesn't mean that the so-called scaremongering is actually scaremongering or that they'd actually be better off.

That one reason says it 'all'?.........as I said, it doesn't grasp the essence, I just hoped it might stop the Salmond tourette, at least temporarily.

[Tarrel]

The comments from the supermarkets today are ludicrous.

Quote, from Andy Clarke at Asda:

"It will be no surprise to voters that if Scotland votes for independence, it would be imperative to establish a separate Scottish business," he said,
"Currently, our systems are set up for one single UK market, we use the same currency and we operate under the same rates of VAT. By operating in a market serving 63 million customers we achieve major efficiencies and economies of scale.
"If we were no longer to operate in one state with one market and - broadly - one set of rules, our business model would inevitably become more complex. We would have to reflect our cost to operate here."

Total BS. Yes, the company may well incur additional costs, but to suggest that these will be born by Scottish shoppers in the form of higher prices is ridiculous. If Tesco sell their milk for £1.00, you can bet Asda will sell theirs for 99p, independence or no independence. And I don't hear Lidl making a fuss.

And as for John Lewis Partnership talking about higher costs for Scottish shoppers, including in their Waitrose stores; Waitrose has the grand total of...wait for it..SIX stores in Scotland. There are only three John Lewis stores in the whole country; in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. The nearest one to us, FWIW, is a three hour drive.

One of the best things to come out of independence would be the rise of an indigenous Scottish food retailer which could challenge the hegemony of the big supermarkets who are saddled with their "excessive costs".

[Mr. Fox]

I don't see how. Watching Salmond failing to answer the question a second time is not going to change anything.

His point:

The First Minister and SNP leader said the alleged BBC briefing by a "Treasury source" was "a matter of extraordinary gravity", and urged the BBC to co-operate with the probe that must follow.

Speaking at a press conference for international journalists in Edinburgh, Mr Salmond said: "A Treasury source told the BBC that it had discussed the plans with RBS.

"The Treasury, officials or ministers, are not allowed to brief market-sensitive information.

"Market-sensitive information, and it's a basic rule, cannot be released prior to the market announcement at 7am this morning.

"RBS share price changed overnight. This is a matter of extraordinary gravity.

"I've always respected, and I will continue to respect, the journalistic right to maintain and protect sources.

"But I know that the BBC will want to co-operate with the inevitable investigation by the Cabinet Secretary to the briefing of this information, given that the briefing of information - even if we weren't in a referendum campaign, even if there weren't purdah rules which are meant to apply to government - the briefing of market information is as serious a matter as you can possibly get."

Herald Scotland

[Mr. Fox]

The comments from the supermarkets today are ludicrous.

Quote, from Andy Clarke at Asda:

We would have to reflect our cost to operate here."

Nobody likes a bully, whether its hegemonic retailers, billionaire financiers or Etonian twats.

Do they really not realise that scare tactics like these are likely to be counter-productive?

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, all I can say is that I am genuinely hoping for a yes vote.

When the rUK says "no currency union" it is not some empty "threat". It would be economically insane to agree to a currency union with Scotland under these circumstances (after political separation). I get the distinct impression that not only a lot of Scots but also a lot of people involved in this discussion think this is "bullying" or bluffing. A yes vote will involve a lot of bluffs being called, but it is not the no campaign that has been bluffing.

And what is "we will walk away from our share of the UK's debt if you don't agree to a currency union" if it is not an attempted threat? That is your bluff. That is your attempted "bully boy" tactic. Unfortunately for the bully in question, the locker is actually empty.