A few months ago, a Scotsman CyberNat called Jay Kay (previously featured here) wrote:If countries like Iceland and Switzerland can govern themselves succesfully [sic] then why should we at least give it a try.I replied:
Switzerland is doing very well.And today, we see the sad reality:
Iceland is a much more mixed picture. It has less than the population of Fife but has roughly 30% more land area than Scotland and well over double the fishing waters.
So with such vast natural resources per person it’s hardly surprising that per capita GDP in Iceland is high, but the current account deficit is running at around 25-30% of GDP and their economy will barely grow at all in 2008.
Gross foreign debt now stands at over five times GDP. Short-term interest rates are almost 15%. Inflation ran close to 9% in 2006. Standard & Poor’s rates Iceland only A+/Stable. The UK has the highest rating: AAA/Stable.
Iceland isn’t a diversified economy - not by any stretch of the imagination. 76% of the workforce is employed in the service sector. The fishing industry provides 70% of export income. It’s as vulnerable to bust as it is to boom.
• New Zealand Herald: “Boom goes bust as credit crunch spoils the party”
• Aftenbladet: “Iceland can go bust”
• Telegraph: “Iceland nationalises bank and asks Russia for £3bn”
• Banking Times: “Iceland reaches out to Russia as banks collapse”
• Wall Street Journal: “Iceland Risks Bankruptcy, Leader Says”
SU
I think a better comparison would be Denmark.
5,500,000 population, with it's main industries energy and food.
Iceland has a tiny population where diversification can't take place on a big enough scale. Switzerland is way too rich!
It's a logical fallacy anyway: I doubt many unionists believe Scotland can't become independent; that doesn't mean it should. If we should 'give it a try' why shouldn't anywhere? How about the Kingdom of Fife? How about Strathclyde? I doubt the Nats would be too chuffed with that.
I doubt the Cybernats would care a jot if it was demonstrated fairly conclusively that an independent Scotland would be financially worse off. They don't care about economics, they care about their silly identity crusade.
Andrew
During the decade 1994-2004 (latest comparable figures) average annual per capita GDP growth (PPP$) for Denmark was 4.1% and for Scotland was 4.9%.
No doubt you could come back at me with another statistic which shows Denmark to be in better shape in some respect.
But it's an inane argument. If there's a lesson to be learned here in respect of our own constitutional future, it's not really about the relative merits of large or small countries.
It's actually about the SNP's opportunism in citing boom times in small countries as examples of what Scotland could be, but then ignoring the fact that their economies tend to bust far more violently than ours.
It's about the SNP's lack of credibility in presenting an honest case for separation.
'As we can see from our near neighbours in the "arc of prosperity" - Ireland to our west, Norway to our east, and Iceland to our north - independence works in the modern world. All of these nations have become independent in the last century - it is the natural state for the most successful nations.'
-Alex Salmond.
NOt just their bloggers and commenters that made the Icelandic connection. I've been through various ministerial pronouncements where Iceland is held up as a model to follow in my most recent post (I didn't go back before May 2007 and chose only statements made in an official capacity by SNP ministers) . The post is at http://loveandgarbage.livejournal.com/298368.html
SU
I don't dispute your figures and the growth rate is not too much different. My idea was to give a comparison with a similar-type country, and I think Denmark is a much fairer example than Iceland or Switzerland.
One big difference with Denmark and Scotland is that the former has a much more competitive economy with a lot less reliance on the public sector. This is something I think that Scotland must try to replicate if it is to become successful. Whether in the UK or Independent.
You're quite right that a small country could be more vulnerable, but the key is in how the economy can be diversified. My understanding is that Iceland peddled too much in financial services with unstable assets in larger European countries. This was like riding the crest of a wave then falling falling off when the wave hit shore.
Independence does work in the modern world. Indeed, independence is the modern world. You can make the case against Scotland being independent all you like but you are going against tbe tide - you are arguing that Scotland should be different to almost every other country of its size in not having control of its own destiny in the way that other countries do.
We can have this argument forever and still not come to a conclusion however because the reality is that you guys do not think of Scotland as a country, like any other, but as a region of a country, the UK.
Logically you should be against devolution. It is the attempt to support what you would no doubt see as 'regional' rather than national autonomy within the Union that undermines your case. Becaise once a country has a parliament and a government it becomes logical that its parliament and government should be able to do what other parliaments and governments can do. Be independent.
Salmond clearly hasn't heard of the EU. Kosova must be a different case.
Here's another example of his prescience and financial savvy.
(Apologies if this is being posted repeatedly. I appreciate you have moderation, but I am seeing no indication that my comments have been so sent.)
Indy
You said: “Independence does work in the modern world. Indeed, independence is the modern world.”
That’s essentially meaningless rhetoric. Britain is “independent” only insofar as EU law, UN treaties, NATO commitments and the like permit – and rightly so. But now set “independence” against influence, because for small countries the two are often set in opposition.
The Republic of Ireland, for example. They have greater “independence” than Scotland in terms of foreign policy, but notably less influence worldwide. Being part of the United Kingdom has an amplifying effect. And on fiscal policy, Scotland has much greater influence on the course set by the UK’s central bank in London than Ireland has on the European Central Bank in Frankfurt.
You said: “You can make the case against Scotland being independent all you like but you are going against tbe tide - you are arguing that Scotland should be different to almost every other country of its size in not having control of its own destiny in the way that other countries do.”
Yes, that’s exactly what we’re arguing, because Scotland’s status is enhanced, our overall economic prospects improved and our sense of national identity enriched by being part of the United Kingdom. So being part of a sub-state Union isn’t “going against the tide” just because most such unions exist only at the supra-state level. There is no tide.
You said: “We can have this argument forever and still not come to a conclusion however because the reality is that you guys do not think of Scotland as a country, like any other, but as a region of a country, the UK.”
That’s simply not true. Scotland is of course a country, in just as real a sense as any “independent” country you could name. The degree of what you think of as “independence” doesn’t define whether or not a part of the world can be considered to be a country. That’s down to how the people who live there self-define.
Where you seem to be missing our point is that presumably you don’t acknowledge the fact that one country can legitimately exist within another, creating a two-tiered national identity, part of which is shared with those outside the sub-state nation. You see that as bizarre and injurious to the sub-state country, whereas I see it as indicative of much that is good in people: their willingness to set aside differences and work together for mutual benefit. The argument that Scotland should separate from the rest of Britain simply because “we” are Scots and “they” shouldn’t interfere in “our” affairs is, to my mind, very narrow indeed.
You said: “Logically you should be against devolution. It is the attempt to support what you would no doubt see as 'regional' rather than national autonomy within the Union that undermines your case. Becaise once a country has a parliament and a government it becomes logical that its parliament and government should be able to do what other parliaments and governments can do. Be independent.”
That’s only “logical” when filtered through your nationalistic mindset. But I don’t really see devolution in those terms. I support it largely because of my natural predisposition towards decentralised decision-making, within the obvious limits of efficient use of the proceeds of taxation. There are, I think, ways in which devolution is helping Scotland to enjoy something of a cultural renaissance, and I don’t see that as in any way threatening to our appreciation of our relationship with the English, Welsh and Northern Irish within the broader nation.
Here's another relevant article in the Telegraph.
Excerpt:
“Mr Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, ought to be well placed to respond to the crisis as a former economist with the RBS.
However, he was ridiculed over his explanation for the collapse of HBOS after blaming "spivs and speculators" indulging in short-selling, while it is generally accepted that the bank's exposure to the wholesale markets was the source of its problems.
His critics have also been quick to remind him of his ambitions to emulate the "Celtic Tiger" economy, which he has been praising for many years, now that Ireland is in the grip of recession and facing spiralling unemployment.
Mr Salmond has also talked of an independent Scotland joining other small countries, including Iceland, in an "arc of prosperity".
But with Iceland suffering more than most from the financial turmoil, the SNP's critics have coined a new term for Mr Salmond's club - the arc of insolvency.
David Lonsdale, assistant director of CBI Scotland, said the latest developments raised serious questions about the SNP's ambitions for independence and emphasised the value to Scotland of being part of the UK and a larger economy.
He added: "As we have seen, small independent countries are far from immune from these pressures and there are strengths in being part of the wider UK economy."”
One of the nuttier nats wrote this on the Scotsman today - "Norway is the country with whom Scotland shares more in common than any other country in the world."
That'll include the common language, the land border, the 50% of Scots with Norwegian family connections, the shared history etc.
I mentioned this business a few months ago about how the nats cherry pick what they like about other countries and ignore what they don't. Thus they suggest Scotland can have Irish business tax rates but Norwegian social services. never the other way round. The truth is if you want Irish business rates then you have to accept what comes with it - 50% of Irish having to take out their own health insurance, the poor road and rail connections and now the first country in the EU to officially go into recession.
Similarly, if you want Norwegian social services then you've got to take their tax rates, their high prices - including the highest petrol prices in Europe, so much for the oil reserves. Norway also has one of the fastest rising far right parties in Europe, their growth aided in large part by a strident nationalism.
As for Iceland I don't think even Wee Eck would have the brass to cite that country as a role model anymore.
But this whole business of comparisons that the Nats love so much is a sign of their underlying lack of faith in their own country. They run so fast from those we have shared so much with for so long in the rest of the UK that they feel they have to invent spurious connections with other countries, including non-existent borders with the Arc of Bankruptcy.
Why can't they have faith in Scotland? Why do we need to copy anybody? Could it be that the SNP lack faith in the people of Scotland?
SU yes the UK is independent. It is completely independent in that Westminster can decide what relationships it wants to enter into. It can decide to be a member of the EU. It can decide whether or not to join the euro. It can decide whether to hitch its wagon to US foreign policy. It can decide pretty much everything because it has decision making powers because it is independent.
The Scottish Parliament on the other hand can decide how to allocate the budget given to it by Westminster in areas which are defined by Westminster.
That is why it is such a nonsense to say that Scotland is a country in just as real a sense as any “independent” country you could name.
It is not.
"I think a better comparison would be Denmark."
The Republic of Ireland was the second EU state to hit official recession, the first was Denmark.
Iceland is being bankrupted by its disproportionate banking sector. Alex Salmond wished to build an independent Scotland on financial services based prosperity. Scotland's bank are being propped up by the UK tax payer.
It's like a dot to dot puzzle!
That'll include the common language, the land border, the 50% of Scots with Norwegian family connections, the shared history etc.
Maybe he was thinking of the Shetland Isles.
Chekov. I thought the unionist line was that the SNP was depending on oil to finance independence. Now you are saying it is the financial sector.
In fact Alex Salmond wants to build an independent Scotland on the talent and ingenuity of the people who live here and the ability of the Scots Parliament to take decisions which will be in Scotland's interests.
You think we are better off having Westminster taking important decisions for us. That's OK - that is the unionist case in a nutshell. But make that case.
Why is Westminster better placed to govern Scotland and make strategic decisions on our behalf than the Scottish Parliament is?
Somehow or other unionists never seem to get round to explaining that.
Indy
“At each and every election we have the ability to vote ourselves into independence. And if we choose not to do that, then that is my fault for not arguing the case well enough, our fault as a party for not campaigning hard enough, our fault as a country for not having the guts or the gumptions for freedom.” – Alex Salmond (1998)
Now, while – as I’ve said before – I disagree both with Salmond’s rather insulting view that we lack “guts and gumption” and his characterisation of independence as “freedom”, I can’t fault him for correctly observing that each election presents an opportunity for the people of Scotland to vote for independence, but that on every such occasion we choose not to do so.
So Scotland is entirely free to leave the United Kingdom, and thereafter to leave the EU, NATO or whatever else might conceivably be seen as limiting our “freedom”.
Re: “Somehow or other unionists never seem to get round to explaining that.”
Not so. We explain but you don’t acknowledge the argument in the same terms.
The best example of that might be the discussion of how membership of unions amplifies members’ influence beyond the borders of that union.
To me that’s a perfectly reasonable foreign policy debate. But to many nationalists, to seek to exert influence on world affairs is akin to some form of colonialism.
Ha, Indy! Defenders of the SNP economic model cannot open their mouths without contradiction!
I thought the unionist line was that the SNP was depending on oil to finance independence.
Unionists hail from a broad spectrum of political persuasions, so cannot be said to have a "line". Unlike the SNP, which as a single party can most certainly. Please learn to distinguish between the two.
Now you are saying it is the financial sector.
Chekov said no such thing. Re-read the comment. S/he said that Salmond, not a blink ago, was demonstrating a grasp on the prognosis for the international finance situation rivalled only in stupidity by British strategic sense in Kabul 1842.
There was no stipulation that it would *only* be the financial sector. However, you know as well as I do that Salmond has been promoting a chauvinistic wish that "our oil" [help] finance independence, regardless of the proportion that would remain in internationally recognized English waters and assuming that the Shetlanders wouldn't declare their own UDI.
Please do not insult our intelligence in the age of easily retrievable web-based missives and Party statements by denying their existence. 1968 is long gone.
Scottish Unionist, what is Salmond's precise position on NATO? He certainly opposed the bombing of Serbia, which saved tens of thousands of Muslims (and other Kosovars) from the same fate as the Bosniaks. He talks out similar iniquities being inflicted upon Afghanistan (by ISAF et al., not the Taleban who're causing the lion's share of mayhem).
This is a man now presenting himself as a friend of Muslims.
They've euphemistically described it as a "phased withdrawal", but the upshot is clear. From the SNP's website: "An independent SNP government will not be part of a nuclear-based commitment such as NATO."
Far better to leave the Afghans to Mullah Omar's lot, while we eat pies at home.
Creeps.
chekov
Make sure your figures are up to date.
Denmark, during quarter 2, moved back into economic growth. The UK is about to fall into at least six months of recession, and will fare WORST amongst the G7 group of countries, according to OECD. China and France recently overtook the UK in economy size.
The economy that Gordon Brown helped grow was largely based on the financial sector, the housing market and foreign investment. A house of cards or what?
And then in today's Scotsman, he says..
"Bankers and financiers who take irresponsible risks should be punished for their actions".
Quite an incredible statement when you consider it was him who deregulated the industry to make conditions ripe for such individuals to prosper.
Andrew, did Brown do the same with the Icelandic banks? Sorry to be a stickler for etiquette, but that is the subject!
g-simonardottir
My response was to chekov who broke the etiquette code earlier in the thread.
However, the point is that a small country like Denmark may end up being more resilient and less damaged than the UK.
Iceland and the UK do have one thing in common: over-reliance on financial services. Iceland seems to have acknowledged this failing, Brown has not. Denial seems to be a key Labour trait.
Andrew, Chekov broke no rules of etiquette. He did, however, make a statement you believe to be spurious. It's not the same thing.
However, the point is that a small country like Denmark may end up being more resilient and less damaged than the UK.
Haha, hilarious. Still mays and coulds and why nots. Bare weeks ago a prevalent meme was that the Scottish financial sector was rock-solid or that the Icelandic or Irish economies were to positive role models, now with all the same of one of those monkeys which openly masturbate at zoos, it's been side-stepped!
We should take this latest assurance on face value? After it proved to be so stunning wrong on t'others? I'd sooner have listened to the French Generals' battle-plan in 1939! I doubt very much Denmark will belly-flop in the same way Iceland has, but what will you do when the party slows down there? Find another analogy? I hear the Faroe Islands are doing okay.
(Add to that that there is a sense of self-depreciation and sanguineness in contemporary Denmark which is absolutely lacking in the sense of entitlement and avaricious nationalism encouraged by Salmond, the analogy slips further and further away.)
What you forget is that such quotes are available in easily retrievable ASCII format in this thread, or a few clicks of the mouse or riffles of newspapers away. As I've said to Indy, desist insulting our intelligence by denying them.
Iceland and the UK do have one thing in common: over-reliance on financial services.
What's the next step in this thousand journey step of complete abrogation of responsibility, and sectarian hatred of anything 'English'? Claiming outright that they forced Scotland to concentrate on financial sector or removed the safe-guards?
Iceland seems to have acknowledged this failing
Talk Icelanders, you will find *intense* resentment at the seizure of Kaupthing and sounds by the Netherlands to do similar. One Icelandic economist said they'd had a wonderful party, and were now having a terrible hangover. *Now* it's the line that it was something they ate, or were fed, nothing to do with the 15 pints of beer they drunk.
Brown has not. Denial seems to be a key Labour trait.
Denial is a human trait. Brown is attempting to protect his constituency's interests, just as the Dutch may try, just as the Icelanders are saying they ain't really all the culpable and others are bringing them down. Just as Salmond, in the link I provided above, showed an absolute blindness and, as per usual, a preening satisfaction at his own achievements less than half a year ago.
Care to comment? Or will you deny it?
g-simonardottir
You seem to have fallen into the trap of predictable stereotype.
I didn't make the initial analogy with Iceland, and certainly don't agree with it. And my analogy with Denmark is certainly not blind. Reference to this is made on an earlier post in response to SU.
And who is "our" and "us"? Is this a club of like-minded people who cannot speak as individuals. I apologise if indy and I have spoiled your party, but I trust SU to allow freedom of speech (without abuse) on his own website.
I don't follow Salmond blindly and care even less for the "avaricious nationalism" you describe, or the "sectarian hatred of anything English" you typecast me with: my best friend happens to be English.
What is true, is that the UK has been over-reliant on financial services to create wealth. That's a fact when you look at the size of the sector.
What is true, is that Labour WERE in denial about the Nationalist victory in Scotland last year. Some still are. Others have moved on.
Will you move on?
Sorry to be a bore, Andrew, but please start answering my specific questions instead of diverting the thread down your chosen direction.
Someone on this blog suggested that the consistent citing of third parties for Scotland to ape points to a lack of trust in Scottish smeddum. In you, it's something else. It's a post-modern hypocrisy in which as one example is thoroughly rubbished, you get to cite another and another without any need to explain yourself to the lesser mortals.
Carry on Lenin.
You seem to have fallen into the trap of predictable stereotype.
Compared to assuming that I am a Labour Party member or will be struck dumb by criticism of it?
I invite you to re-read my comments. The subject has been from the beginning the meme, promulgated by party apparatchiks, and right up to and including Salmond as you well know, that the Icelandic model was to be emulated or that the Scottish financial sector was in good steed. Once again, have you any thoughts on the link I provided?
Your position is not that there is something better than the Union. It's that anything is better than the Union. This is the difference between hopeful exuberance, and plain bigotry.
Will you move on?
I bet that's what Gamelin said to the persisting doubters after he appointed Weygand as a better example.
g-simonardottir
Your are indeed being a bore. Where are your questions? I've already addressed your most poisonous accusations. You quote a few selective statements from my post and follow it up with mildly insulting assumptions, many unsubstantiated.
(Again) Iceland seems to have acknowledged this failing...
"I think," said Asbjorn Jonsson, a third-generation fisherman, "that people have learned that money is not made in banks. It is made by real people working hard at real jobs. Actually, deep down we knew that all along. We just have to learn it again." (from your link)
"What's the next step in this thousand journey step of complete abrogation of responsibility, and sectarian hatred of anything 'English'?"
I made no such reference. Complete fabrication.
"Haha, hilarious. Still mays and coulds and why nots..."
Can you say for certain what will happen in the next two years? Complete stock market crash? Depression? End of the Union?
"..assuming that I am a Labour Party member.."
No such accusation. Making things up again.
Now answer some of mine.
- You use the collective "us" or "our". Why?
- Has the UK been over-reliant on the financial sector?
- Were Labour in denial after ruling Scotland for so long?
- Is the UK in any better position than Denmark to ride this financial storm without taxing our kids and grandkids to the hilt?
You seem to assume that I support Salmond in everything he does, or can't get your head round why I don't, and then give me a hard time for that. I understand you like this 'club' thing, but I've not signed up for any quite yet. As I've seen from your comments, that could be very dangerous.
To stop even more incorrect assumptions, I want what is best for Scotland and it's people. That covers everything from constitutional issues to health, sport, defence, etc...
I want Government that is closer to the people both in Scotland and in local regions. I want more accountability in Government, more talent, and more consensus. As you and I have seen, much time can be wasted in partisan argument.
If these things come through independence or through constitutional change within the Union, I don't care. But things must change one way or another.
Your are indeed being a bore.
In my experience directing a criticism back at one's questioner is a sign of not being able to answer the criticism.
Can you say for certain what will happen in the next two years?
Same goes for answering questions with questions. You will not be allowed to set the parameters of this discussion. I am making no claims of prescience or offering a silver bullet for curing Scotland’s woes.
Once more, the subject is about the previous meme that Iceland was working and that we should be confident in following it, contrasted with, as if turning on a sixpence, the position that this was secondary to a main point or that more pertinent examples exist. Your (and the) first comment in this thread was that Denmark is the example de jure. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to assume you are arguing for separation.
In any Internet thread, differing points will be raised and tangential questions arise. Fair enough. It’s just that declaring the actual subject irrelevant and going off on a spiel of one’s own does raise questions. As you’re demonstrating quite well.
Where are your questions?
The ones followed by question marks.
I made no such reference. Complete fabrication.
I did not specifically accuse you of it.
No such accusation. Making things up again.
Dishonest. Quote the entire sentence and another meaning becomes apparent.
I understand you like this 'club' thing, but I've not signed up for any quite yet.
I have no idea what that means.
Has the UK been over-reliant on the financial sector?
You’re doing it again! Dodging the actual subject, and trying to make everyone think that questions you’ve set are on-topic. But, once again, I have addressed that in the affirmative. And had little truck for either Brown or Salmond.
Were Labour in denial after ruling Scotland for so long?
Ditto.
You use the collective "us" or "our". Why?
Where I have spoken of Scottish and UK-wide affairs, I have used the passive tense. I’ve used neither the words you specify in that context, except in speech marks which indicates speaking in another voice. Where I have used personal pronouns, I’ve been explicitly including myself in the statement or responding to your or Indy’s assumed taking of the responsibility of Scotland on your shoulders. Such as:
I want [...] I want [...] I want [...]
Are you Fiona Hyslop? I want to learn to tap dance like Fred Astair, find a cure for cancer and win the lottery. I doubt any of it’s going to happen.
To stop even more incorrect assumptions, I want what is best for Scotland and it's people.
No, I understand everything you’ve said perfectly. There are tens of millions of other people in the UK, who have worked with Scottish just as the Scottish have worked with them, who have gone through thick and thin and made one of the two most successful political unions over the past 300 years, and you cannot even bring yourself to mention their names (like Salmond eliding an English town from HBoS).
Your stated concern is for inhabitants of Scotland and no more. Fair enough, but in the absence of a reasonably defined disparity in economic and political opportunities (which Scotland suffers neither within the UK or on the world-stage), such separatism is, by default, reactionary and divisive.
You seem to assume that I support Salmond in everything he does, or can't get your head round why I don't, and then give me a hard time for that.
What you are having a hard-time getting through your head is the difference between Salmond and Brown. Salmond is the First Minister and leader of a single political party which is setting the agenda for independence. Brown and New Labour are not Unionism. Support for independence indicates a strong degree of consanguinity with Salmond and the SNP (even then, you have criticised neither of them, just used the cop-out that you don't always support them; but presented me with never-ending hurdles of verification over Brown). Support for Unionism does not indicate any causal relationship with Brown and/or New Labour.
Capisce?
g-simonardottir
Simon, where do I start? Is this the way we are to continue? Trading accusations and arguing technicalities forever?
I have no desire to do so, but what I really want is to find some commonality that might help to shape how our political representatives engage one another in future. If they engage each other positively, and find consensus more often, effective bills will be passed that will help improve our lot in Scotland (and the UK.)
On Brown and UK Labour, I would say he has taken the correct financial measures to help our ailing economy. But I believe (within degrees) this was the only thing he could have done. Furthermore, he helped create and promote the conditions that were ripe for such a financial catastrophe, which seem to be worse in the UK than in other large European nations.
On Salmond, I believe he is a strong leader and able politician who has given people in the country of Scotland a sense of pride. Some people have taken that pride a bit too far, and Salmond himself has not been slow to criticise opponents, in spite of the fact that he needs consensus to pass bills. Policies such as LIT and SFT seem to be ill-thought out. Getting back to the main point, I completely disagree with him using Iceland as an analogy for a future Scottish independent nation.
On that last point, yes I used Denmark as a better analogy. But that doesn't mean I'm entirely convinced about independence. What I do believe is that Scotland could easily become a successful independent nation, and I think SU would probably agree with me on that. What I'm unsure of is whether that's really the best thing for Scotland and the UK.
Tell me what you think.
Simon was my father. I'm called Gudda!
For the umpteenth time, the subject is the previous use of Iceland as a role-model and its appropriateness now. From the very first post, you revealed your intention of ignoring this and diverting the discussion down another route. And you still wonder why I’m accusing you of feet of clay!
Your insistence that you don’t carry a brief for Salmond and the SNP is loose-loose situation for you. If it were acceptable, your attempting to extract a position statement from me on Brown and New Labour would be contradictory. However, as I’ve outlined, voting/supporting SNP is not an auto-da-fey. They have an education policy, a (ever-changing) financial policy, a (communalist) race-relation policy, a (desired) foreign and defence policy (just how close is it to the Khomenists?).
Scotland gets her independence, she gets the SNP. Unionism is not defined by Brown or New Labour. Pays your money, Andrew, takes you choice. Loose or loose.
Not expressing a position on this is, at best, abject moral cowardice. At worst, an attempt at control. Thus far,you have:
i) Quoted a half-sentence of mine to ascribe a position to me which was not justified by the whole sentence;
ii) Whilst steadfastly declining to discuss the *actual* subject, set your own questions and inferred dishonesty in me for not answering them;
iii) Apparently not noticed that I *had* addressed these questions, mostly in concordance with you;
iv) Seized upon idiosyncratic turns of phrase of mine as representing inner thought processes, and generally ascribed copper-plated truth to your statements whilst requiring unassailable levels of verification from mine;
v) Behaved as a Great Iam, who does not realize just how ugly repeated “I wants” is. The paradox of this and Salmond’s self-referential remarks and general cult of personality (or believing that simply saying you do not necessarily support him on every point covers your back), is that he is more like Tony Blair than he’ll ever know and you a Blairite!;
vi) Accused me of wanting some sort of club (I still don't know what this means) whilst setting yourself aloof from nutters like Jim Kay. They write like nutters, they say things which nutters say, they are nutters encouraged by the rhetoric swilling around in this national debate;
vii) Managed to turn water in whine by conceding that Scotland, included in the UK, had been over-reliant on the financial sector, but *still* blamed Brown and not touched upon Scottish voices, in general, and Salmond, in particular, who were quite happy with this until it went pear-shaped. Similar to Brown on the economy; when the going’s good, it’s Scottish smeddum; when there’s recriminations, it’s the UK dragging us down! Thus far, Salmond has been the tallest person in Lilliput. Nothing more. (Hint, look at my equating his 29 May speech to Brown‘s welcoming of Lehman Brothers if you insist on still associating me with Brown.);
viii) Made utter non-statements, such as “I want what is best for Scotland and it's people. That covers everything from constitutional issues to health, sport, defence, etc.“. Yeah, so? Brown says the same thing. Only the likes of the EDP don’t;
ix) Portrayed yourself as progressive and inclusive by speaking only of desires for Scotland, and not the workers and lower-classes across the UK. Should the Tories get into power, they’re likely to opt for some degree of federalization such as Quebec in Canada. That way, Salmond gets his fiefdom and baubles of independence, and the electorate gets to vote down full separation (and raising of an army, creating currency, maintaining embassies) whenever asked. And the Tories consolidate their majority down South, all for a bit of Danegeld. Hooray for Scotland, to hell with Left-wing governance in England!;
But, okay, let me once again indulge you and comment on the Denmark example. Yes, I agree it’s a better example than Iceland. But, by no means a good example (which is sort of the point). For a start, the Danish are not carrying memories of grandeur in an Empire which their administrators and educators and financiers and missionaries and soldiers disproportionately served in, whilst trying to prove black is white by pinning all the negativity of this on the “English”. Also, if we pursue the Empire analogy, modern Denmark was the administrative centre, not the Scotland of her Empire: Norway, *Iceland*, Greenland, the Faroes, the Virgin Islands.
All said and done, Scotland wants her independence? Very well. Let her keep any oil revenue which is left after repaying the establishment of the NHS and welfare-state here (and that which the Shetlanders agree to), and take on responsibility for Northern Ireland. It’s only fair.
Gudda
Still at it I see. You write with a tone that is persistently tinged with sardonic anger. Whether right or wrong you believe you are always right. The selective nature with which you pick off my arguments is admirable, but nevertheless inconsistent. And you end on a paragraph that is as far from the subject matter as Blair and Salmond's views on Scottish Independence.
It seems that there is no common ground to be had unless I convert to your 'club'...
"WE should take this latest assurance on face value?"
and..
"..desist insulting OUR intelligence by denying them. "
(Your previous explanation was hogwash. You could've used "I" or "ME".)
And then we have:
"Scotland gets her independence, she gets the SNP"
Will it be a one-party state?
"Hooray for Scotland, to hell with Left-wing governance in England!"
Implies Scotland is relied upon to ensure a left-wing UK government.
" the Danish are not carrying memories of grandeur in an Empire .., whilst trying to prove black is white by pinning all the negativity of this on the “English”.
Ah, the Empire. Don't know if I feel pride in the empire or not. Probably a kind of numbness. Some good things and some terrible things came out of the empire, and Scots were very much complicit in the whole thing. There's no denying.
"Managed to turn water in whine by conceding that Scotland, included in the UK, had been over-reliant on the financial sector, but *still* blamed Brown"
The economy and it's levers, operated most famously by Brown, is a reserved matter. But yes, if Scotland had been independent, would Halifax and BoS merged, with an HQ in Edinburgh? Would RBS have grown with such speed? Probably not.
"Not expressing a position on this (independence) is, at best, abject moral cowardice. At worst, an attempt at control."
Here's a position: Federalism or Independence. However, I believe the former will be much harder to come by, and I don't believe Cameron will rock the foundations of the establishment to that end.
Going back to your (off subject) summation. Scotland has already contributed to the establishment of the NHS and welfare state, and has bankrolled the UK's longest serving government when oil revenues were at their peak and the early eighties an economic disaster. And the Northern Irish would want to be consulted, I'm sure, on which remaining country takes 'responsibility' for them. They are not part of the glorious empire, are they?
Back on subject.
"If countries like Iceland and Switzerland can govern themselves succesfully [sic] then why should we at least give it a try."
Poor analogy, lacking any real thought, as is the "at least give it a try" bit. And that in essence, is what I said originally.
Reply if you must, but I think this has been done to death. It's been interesting while it lasted.