I’m pushed for time today, but don’t want to ignore the comments of Professor John Kay, or indeed the various ways in which they’ve been reported.• Sunday Times: “Split would leave Scots £1bn in red”
• Herald: “Expert claims independent Scotland "financially viable"”
• Scotland on Sunday: “Salmond's adviser warns on going solo”
• Telegraph: “Adviser warns of "dire" consequences of separation”
• Sunday Times: “Is Scottish independence stone dead?”
Key quotes:
“It’s much easier for small countries to mess up in times of economic instability. Take Iceland ... it is the best poster-child for small countries that can’t go it alone.”
“If Scotland was independent at the moment, its finances would look pretty awful, but basically the UK's public finances now look terrible, and if you do boil down to the Scottish element of it, that looks worse.”
“Scotland as an independent monetary entity probably wouldn’t have been big enough to bail out either HBOS, RBS or both. If Scotland declared itself an independent country tomorrow its finances would look pretty dire.”
“It's perfectly clear to me that Scottish independence is financially viable. That isn't necessarily the same thing as being in favour of it. I'm not in the position of taking political positions - that is for the Scottish people to determine.”
“We can argue about what share of the oil revenue Scotland should get, but oil prices have fallen and I would expect that to continue.”
Truth be told, it's not the mere idea of independence I object to. I could adapt. What pains me is, as the Private Eye put it, the ease with which grubby sectarianism has been encouraged. The abrogation of responsibility for decisions and policies which no-one *forced* us to follow; a First Minister who jeers political opponents on the floor of the legislature, and uses non-politic language as "spivs and speculators"; the assumption that we deserve financial and material comfort simply for being Scottish; the... yes... fascistic presentation of Union as wholly negative with the sense of Scottishness and independence only as permitted by one vision; the currying of favour with reactionary religious and political forces with the completely amoral claim that it will only be far off places which feel the pain.
This leads me, much as I may not want to, to suspect large sections of Scottish society simply do not have the emotional maturity for independence.
An excellent presentation of what most people in the valley's of Wales feel, my I quote you .... as a visitor to morgans court ?
Well, it’s not much of an “open thread”. Has this all been done to death?
Me or SU, Stonemason?
If me, be my guest. If SU, maybe if you ask nicely.
As the question of Scottish Independence tomorrow is hypothetical, it wouldn't be wrong of me to extend that hypothesis to an independent Scotland being part of the EU. And even further, to suggest that Scotland could adopt the Euro. Under these circumstances, in the current economic downturn/recession(?), would Scotland have received the necessary capital/liquidity to bail out HBOS and RBS from the ECB?
Furthermore, isn't it refreshing for economic advisors apparently allied to the SNP, to have a slightly different view of the world than that of the party line? Does that not strengthen the case for such advisors to be giving sound, impartial advice in the future? Isn't that a good thing?
(Open questions on an Open thread.)
Stonemason:
If you read this, please feel free!
Andrew:
ECB liquidity generally comes in the form of loans. Is Holyrood in hock to Westminster over HBOS and RBS?
But I would broadly agree with your second paragraph. It is healthy. Andrew Hughes Hallet also showed that he wasn't tied to the script when he said of independence: "It’s difficult to argue that you can work more effectively when so much has suddenly been sucked southwards".
An open question of my own, what guarantee would an independent Scotland of not having attempts to join (shurely current membership is held by Westminster) the EU confounded by the French or Spanish or Italians with eyes on their revolting regions?
And with the EU now much larger even than when Ireland was hopping on the gravy train, what of any unspoken assumption that we'd subsist off EU grants?
It's good to see a bit of honesty creeping into this debate such as the suggestion that 'large sections of Scottish society simply do not have the emotional maturity for independence.'
I cannot believe (well, yes I can), Indy, that you have the sheer nerve to accuse others of compartmentalising population groups when: a) they weren't; b) your persistent construction of a baleful threat called 'the English' or 'Unionism' which is holding back your Chosen People, the Scottish; c) your using Scottish Muslims as a hypocritical battering ram, and jettisoning English Muslims.
Will you actually present a rational? You know, like I did. Or, will you simply revert to form and issue passive aggressive threats? I'm going for Option B, on account of your being a post-modern hypocrite who makes words mean whatever he wants them to.
Dish it. Take it. Cannot.
Your tactic of denying your own words is a little bit confused simon.
Either think more carefully before you say things or stand by what you said.
Any chance this could be just a little less personal?
The issue is whether or not an independent Holyrood would be better or worse placed to respond to a crisis like this than the Westminster government.
An independent Scottish Government would be better placed to respond and, I suggest, to anticipate.
The idea that a small independent country would be helpless in the face of a crisis is daft. Norway and Sweden both went through banking crises in the past, both came through it, both are now in a better position than the UK is.
Who said anything about "helpless"? We can't have a meaningful debate if you're try to put words into your opponents' mouths.
I would dispute that Sweden is in an overall better shape than the UK. Norway probably is, but with double the UK's proven oil and gas reserves, about 75% higher production and over double the government revenues that's hardly surprising. Wishful thinking aside, there's nothing we can do about having comparatively fewer such natural resources.
With respect, SU, please point to any personal insults I've delivered. The closest I've come is the accusation of hypocrisy, which is integral to my criticism of Indy's *argument*. Just as disagreeing with another Internet user is not necessarily a rant, calling one a purveyor of bad and duplicitous argument is not name-calling. Even an hominem is not prohibited: unless two robots are arguing against each other, one will always be used. Suggesting we are engaged in personal bickering is, itself, an hominem.
This confusion is, to be honest, what posters such as Indy rely on (by no means limited to 'Cybernats'). You are consistently polite and courteous, to the point of - hissssssss! - relativism in which everyone must have their opinions respected.
Indy, however, takes and only takes. Observe how he appeared in this thread, as with others which threaten him, with an empty accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice. No substantiation. No proffered rationale. Just an assertion that Indy Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est. Now he's scuttled off and is making another supposed self-evident truth ("I suggest").
My initial post could only be construed as anti-Scottish if and only if one construes criticism of a specific political mentality - which represents the controlling party at Holyrood and which is leading the independence debate - to be an assault against an entire population group, of which I am proud members.
Step forward Indy.
G-S
I just asked if it could be a little less personal. Perhaps it can't, which would be regrettable. I just don't see acrimony as a useful platform for debate. I take your point on the other thread about "poisoning political debate in Scotland", but although I don't agree or even respect some of Indy's views, I will endeavour to accord him some basic respect even if his views make that difficult or if my attempt to debate from a reasonably civil platform isn't always reciprocated.
And so your point about relativism probably contains some truth. Obviously I'm as opinionated as the next person. I'm not shy to set out my own stall, but by the same token I want the various opposing voices to be heard, even if I find aspects of their message unpalatable.
As always, SU, your blog, your choice. However, I am not advocating the silencing of any poster (as you've been by a Scotsman site user) or informing you that "you'd be wise" to do what I say (as Indy has done) or issuing you with "a warning from your own side". Instead, I'm examining individual arguments on their merits (or lack).
I'm all for wholesale rope supply.
I realise you're not. Quite the contrary. Point taken.