tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3323167987164959411.post6724683346240330155..comments2024-02-11T08:44:50.489+00:00Comments on Peter A Bell: Reasons for voting YES - 2Peter A Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14204261467942498747noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3323167987164959411.post-4494937749086581362013-05-26T18:15:10.152+01:002013-05-26T18:15:10.152+01:00Peter,
I don’t disagree with your premise about t...Peter,<br /><br />I don’t disagree with your premise about the default status of a nation. I suspect about 30% of the electorate agree with you too. And with a lot of hard work that might rise to 40%,<br /><br />But the reality is there is no point being right if you don’t win. And the problem is the ‘swing voters’ (the 40% in the middle) are tuned -out largely because they don’t think an Independent Scotland will be economically viable. They don’t get as far as considering the self-determination argument because they think it’s just the fantasy of some narrow nationalists that don’t have the money to pay for it.<br /><br />I don’t think winning the economic arguments is a sufficient condition, but I do think it is a necessary condition.<br /><br />I state again (and you don’t disagree with me) the economic case is irrefutable. <br /><br />Now we might not get to everyone with that message, and we might not be able to refute every scare story that comes from the Unionists. But you cannot begin to refute the scare stories without recourse to the data that shows the strength of the Scottish economy. And we do have the ammunition to shoot down all of the economic scare stories if we chose to deploy it.<br /><br />We need to be on the front foot in this space, going on the offensive and challenging the No campaign to justify why the people of Scotland should fork-out significant amounts of wealth for the privilege of staying in the Union. Rather than wait for another treasury carpet bombing like we got a few weeks back on currency and pensions, we need to pre-empt that and make the positive economic case for Indy Scotland.<br /><br />Scotland generates £10,700 per head in Tax compared to a UK average of £9,000: ‘The Price of the Union’ – is it worth it?<br /><br />An Indy Scotland is in much better financial shape to protect your pension than a bankrupt UK government with £1.6trillion of debt.<br /><br />That is the kind of ammunition we need to be firing day in and day to win this thing.<br /><br />"Please may I have that! If I can justify my claim to it to your satisfaction!"<br /><br />"That's mine! You justify withholding it from me! Tell me why I should forfeit it!"<br /><br />The problem is that if people think that the ‘that’’ to which you refer is a poisoned chalice that’s going to cost them dear then they might decide they don’t want ‘that’.<br /><br />You have to make it clear to them that ‘that’ is worth getting out of bed and going to the polling booth for.<br /><br />Anyway, we may have to agree to disagree on this for now.<br /><br />At least we're all agreed on the destination, even if we have different views on the best route to take.<br /><br />I'm going back onto some neutral forums now to try and convince more undecideds.<br /><br />IvanIvan McKeehttp://www.businessforscotland.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3323167987164959411.post-34393694493178560682013-05-26T17:33:36.759+01:002013-05-26T17:33:36.759+01:00I do not now, nor did I ever, deny that the econom...I do not now, nor did I ever, deny that the economic case is "solid and irrefutable". What I reject is the contention that it is both necessary and sufficient. Scotland's claim to independence stands without any other argument. It is not critically dependent on the nation and it's people passing any kind of test.<br /><br />Persuading people to vote Yes on 18 September 2014 is a separate matter altogether. In order to do that, all manner of arguments will have to be advanced. My point is that independence is the default status of all nations and that the starting point for debate about Scotland's constitutional status must be an assumption that Scotland is as entitled to this default status as any other nation.<br /><br />To put it another way, it is not that we must prove Scotland's viability as an independent nation. Such proof is not, and cannot be a pre-condition of normal constitutional status. What we will be required to do is refute arguments that Scotland fails a test that nobody has a right to impose.<br /><br />I'll be voting Yes, not because independence satisfies some economic calculation, but because it is right.<br /><br />Accept the the idea that economic viability must be proved to some kind of scientific standard and you accept defeat. Because economics is not a precise science founded on a basis of universal laws, no such proof can ever be possible.<br /><br />The ONLY requirement for the restoration of Scotland's rightful constitutional status is the expressed will of its people. We DO NOT have to make an economic case. We only have to prevent unionists using scare stories about economic disaster to frighten people away from asserting a claim to what is already theirs by right.<br /><br />This may seem like a subtle distinction. But it is far from inconsequential. It is question of attitude. It is the difference between saying two very different things.<br /><br />"Please may I have that! If I can justify my claim to it to your satisfaction!"<br /><br />"That's mine! You justify withholding it from me! Tell me why I should forfeit it!"Peter A Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14204261467942498747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3323167987164959411.post-67814682802175273152013-05-26T17:29:46.716+01:002013-05-26T17:29:46.716+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter A Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14204261467942498747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3323167987164959411.post-18413524466718899082013-05-26T16:42:25.016+01:002013-05-26T16:42:25.016+01:00Peter,
You write some great stuff, but on this on...Peter,<br /><br />You write some great stuff, but on this one I beg to differ.<br /><br />The economic case for Indy Scotland is solid and irrefutable.<br /><br />The perceived wisdom is correct – it is “all about the economy..”<br /><br />If we ignore that fact then the YES vote will max out at about 40% IMHO. We will congratulate ourselves on presenting a great case for self-determination, but we will lose the vote.<br /><br />There are a substantial number of people who know in their hearts that the ‘self-determination’ argument makes sense, but they will not vote for it because they think we can’t afford it. These are not the committed YES people we talk to every day who ‘get’ the self-determination thing. These are the ‘swing voters’ who need something more than that to make them vote YES.<br /><br />But all of the economics arguments are in favour of YES. Whether its currency, pensions, GDP, financial services, revenue vs spending, tax take, foreign investment, oil-volatility, you name it there is solid data and clear arguments that show how economically successful an Indy Scotland would be.<br /><br />If we stick to the comfortable ground of simply pushing the ‘self-determination’ argument, if we are too lazy to understand and deploy the economic arguments, then we will not win the vote.<br /><br />In fact we are playing into the NO campaign strategy to make people think we are too wee and too poor. By not tackling their misinformation head-on we are also creating the impression that we have something to hide.<br /><br />Scotland IS the 8th wealthiest country in the world, our GDP IS 17% higher than the UK average. Oil volatility is an opportunity, not a problem. We ARE a rich country. We should not tire of making that a central part of our argument for YES<br /><br />Believe me, once people understand that then getting them to vote for self-determination will be a walk in the park.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ivan McKeehttp://www.businessforscotland.co.uknoreply@blogger.com