Seil Chat

jimcee wrote: This is a defence of both the EU and the UK. and it would be interesting to hear of (historically) any country/state which has opted out of an alliance and prospered, more than the former allaince, as a result.

The only valid example for our situation is Ireland.

Ireland left the UK 1922. She was thereafter plagued by poverty and emigration becoming known in the 1980s as "the sick man of Europe".

The late 1990s EU structural grants and a deliberate inflating of a property bubble saw a decade of remarkable economic growth such that Ireland was seen (along with Iceland) with envious eyes by some as part of some kind of "arc of prosperity".

In 2008 the bubble burst and today it is back to mass emigration, its toxic banks are state owned, tens of thousand of homes lie empty and Ireland is shunned by the capital markets.

Paddy Shanks (to be sure by choice)

I would guess that, of the many tens of countries created by leaving so-called alliances/empires, none has rejoined or has ever wanted to! Freedom from exploitation and external rule certainly provides a great stimulus. Think of the independent countries created by leaving these multinational groupings, whether British, French, Soviet etc.. Most folk would agree that USA, Canada, India etc have all prospered after splitting from London control. More recently, the various former Yugoslav states, plus Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia have each enjoyed the stimulus of making its own decisions. As have the good folks of Eire, whose interpretation of their condition might differ slightly from that expressed by Longshanks (at least those whom I know don't agree). Whatever, they will not be applying to rejoin the UK any time soon! Given the extreme levels of debt to which the UK has sunk and the gravity of that financial condition, people in Scotland have a simple choice - whether or not to make their own decisions, handle their own affairs, probably improve their wealth per capita and have a representative political balance in government - and free themselves from the exploitative financial basket case that is the UK.

Well that's a catalogue of every country who has achieved independance from an oppressor.
And there is no proof that the inhabitants have benefitted financially or in tems of happiness, from the change.
And what proof is there that the inhabitants of these countries are happy with the new regime now imposed on them by their own choice ? Are their decision makers (politicians) any more capable?, and are probably more corrupt than the originals.
If you are citing former colonies of a previous empire - then yes, they do have independance to make their own mistakes, but that does not neccessarily make them any happier or financially better off.
If we had a Scottish Government calling the shots, then it is a fairly safe bet that we would have as much dis-satisfaction with it as we have with Westminster and Brussels at the moment - even closer to home Argyll and Bute (why does Bute, an insignificant small island, get so much kudos?) is not regarded in very high esteem by it's inhabitants.
Just because you have a different authority in charge of decision making does not mean that your life will be a bed of roses.

Yes, Jim, but there's a good chance that there would be less dissatisfaction if Scotland was independent because the elected representatives would much more fairly reflect the political balance within the country. The makeup of the UK parliament bears absolutely no resemblance to the voting pattern in Scotland and rarely has, hardly the basis for popular satisfaction. The same argument applies to all independent countries who have broken away from alliances or empires. In addition to which, the fact that these countries can make their own decisions, whether good or bad, is of basic significance.

.
Jim McColl, one of the country’s leading business figures, has warned that a No vote in next year’s independence referendum would deal Scotland’s prospects a major blow, making it less likely that he and fellow entrepreneurs would want to locate north of the Border.

In an interview with The Scotsman today the Clyde Blowers Capital chief executive said that if Scotland opted to stay part of the United Kingdom next year, it would be “looking into a very sad future”.

McColl makes some very interesting points near the bottom of the article re. banks, tax and welfare.

He's a comedian, taking the p---! He's living in Monaco to avoid taxes and suggesting that if Scotland has low taxes he will move there. The only type of independence he is interested in is for him, him, HIM! He plays one country off against the other in exactly the same way he has made a fortune playing one business off against another. He's a capitalist, not a socialist, and whilst he would like to domicile in Scotland, the land of his birth, he will only do that if they have low taxes. Well, we know that isn't going to happen, so shut up Mr McColl.

Ah yes Jim McColl !

A rabid Nationalist all his life; so no bias there !

A resident of Monaco who pays no taxes in Scotland yet seeks to influence our future !

Three planks to his argument:

1. Business would move to England because they can. Yup. Yes or No they can move to England.
2. Scotland has no banks (!!!!!!)
3. Best to quote directly:

He said that after a Yes vote, those economic levers could include a reversal of former prime minister Gordon Brown’s “pensions raid”, which removed tax credits on fund earnings, a 3 per cent cut to corporation tax, plus the complete abolition of capital gains tax.

......so;

a) How is the massive shortfall in tax revenue to be made up. Cuts ? Not oil surely; that's been spent ten times over already in the pronouncements of Sturgeon in particular.
b) Cut in Corporation Tax. What ! While Brussels is firmly moving towards harmonising that tax across the EU. No chance whatsoever.
c) Abolish CGT ? Whoopeee.....I and many others could rearrange our investment portfolios and pay no tax whatsoever.

My main point is, though, that I am with the SNP in that the future of Scotland should be decided by those of us who live here. Tax exile billionaires sunning it and qwaffing champagne in Monaco like this character can butt out.

......and he's a Rangers supporter !

Pentlandpirate wrote:He's a capitalist, not a socialist.

Funny, I thought you were against socialism and pro capitalism. Now it seems you have had some sort of Damascene moment.

Not at all. The point I'm trying to make is no one should take his view on independence because it sounds like he is suggesting he supports the Yes Campaign but only if there is something in it for him. And that isn't a very socialist way of thinking. If an Independent Scotland is to have a fairer, more equal society, is he suggesting he'll change his spots?

So, Citing some fellow McColl as an authority in the Yes/No debate has some bearing in what we should think ?
I think not. For everyone who has an opinion - one way or another, there are bound to be just as many with opposing views.
Speaking for the middle ground (undecided) who on earth is there from either side who is unbiased and can give an honest opinion.
The more the slanging match goes on between the opposing factions decrying pundits who do not share their view, the more the whole thing becomes an irrrelevance to everyday living, and just a media circus.
Why do we have to wait so long for ballot day ? The undecideds who will make the decision will probably vacillate one way or another for the next 450? days, if they do not die of boredom in the interim.