So currently Alex Salmond is debating Alistair Darling over the merits of Independence versus staying in the Union.
Salmond is on the rocks in my opinion, he's consistently failing to answer basic questions. I'm for Independence but I don't want this fat clown leading us there.
He hasn't thought this through at all. Scotland is not ready for independence. We need a better man, a better party, to lead us there.
I'm posting this up as you'll all be able to watch this once it's finished and I'll post it up.
Not sure if any other fellow Scots or Brits are watching this at the moment?
Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
A lot of English people aren't even able to view it, nevermind the rest of the world. It's only been shown on STV - Only available either in Scotland, or by massively messing around with your tuning settings on your satellite boxes. - And even then, only if you know the right code for the channel...
Was on a call with a Scottish CEO, and English COO. After 30 minutes i just wanted pelt everyone with office supplies. The rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr's were murderizing my ears.
So I vote no, and being a Texan that means the issue is settled.
I caught the tail end of it (playing with toy soldiers tonight was more important than watching a debate), but stopped watching it after a few minutes of having to listen to Darling. Meh, I already know how I'll be voting, hearing some more propaganda won't change or strengthen my position. The last debate was a shambles, though I'd put that one down to the participants rather than the actual topic. This one, from the BBC highlights looks like it amounted to the same (ie neither side could pin down a straight answer most of the time, though Darling wound up getting himself in a Limmy style "Yes or No" moment which was funny). So yeah, if you're going to have a debate I won't be watching it if one of the debaters is someone I hate hearing no matter what topic they're on about.
Oh, and BBC Alex Salmond isn't the "Leader" of the Yes campaign. ¬¬
Whatever, everyone's already decided how theyre voting by now for the most part. Vote how you like, but just do it for the right reasons. Working at the Commonwealth Games the past few weeks I've heard so much misinformation on the subject. The Better Together supporters have come out with some pretty crazy fear mongering twaddle at times. The people wanting to discuss the matter were a bit horrible in the first place, so perhaps I was a bit biassed against their point, but politics isn't a topic that aught to be discussed in casual conversation in any case. As ever though I'll say that it isn't a party or a man that's being voted for, its a country. For some reason people try and keep pinning this down to whether you support the SNP and Alex Salmond, but its not as if either will be in power for very long after independence. Meh, more bollocks on the media I suppose. The debates don't change people's minds, its people discussing things amongst themselves (and well if you aren't up for talking politics for fun then you're going to lose some friends that way).
Hi guys. I'm quite annoyed that it's not been as easy to view as STV claimed.
The debate was a joke to be honest.
On the one hand you had Alistair Darling asking fairly easy questions and Salmond kept dodging them.
I think regardless of your views on Independence you probably would want to see the guy that's leading it know what he's talking about.
We need to get some fresh blood that knows what they're talking about and with a solid framework of separation.
Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
I'll keep checking and post it up when it appears.
Medium of Death wrote: Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
Medium of Death wrote: Hi guys. I'm quite annoyed that it's not been as easy to view as STV claimed.
The debate was a joke to be honest.
On the one hand you had Alistair Darling asking fairly easy questions and Salmond kept dodging them.
I think regardless of your views on Independence you probably would want to see the guy that's leading it know what he's talking about.
We need to get some fresh blood that knows what they're talking about and with a solid framework of separation.
Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
I'll keep checking and post it up when it appears.
Sorry but that would be an Act of War (an attack on our ears).
I'll take the Scotch though....
You will know true fear when the Haggiskreig is upon you, Frazzled.
I'm not bothered about how it's spelled, Dread, everybody knows the Scots do it better.
I'm not wanting to come across as being for Darling I just think Salmond was a smirking shambles. I not happy to give the go ahead for separation to a man without a solid plan.
Team Wienie is looking forward to the attack of haggis. If any nation is prepared for the horrors of haggis, its a nation protected by voracious 4 legged eating machines.
They eat and eat and eat. Its what they do. ITS ALL THEY DO!!!
I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
whembly wrote: Question for the Scotland Independence advocates:
What is your biggest current gripe with British rule?
prima noctra
Prima noctra was a custom in parts of dark age Europe, but it wasnt used by the english at any point in our history. Something rather overlooked in your linked film.
Braveheart is not only unhistorical, it's deeply racist and intentionally divisive, don't take you history from it unless you want to be spoon fed propaganda.
The problem is I don't know who the film's meant to appeal to. Its offensive to both the Scots and English. Then again, its Hollywood History, so any topic covered by that's going to hack off the people that're related to those involved. Meh, a statue of "William Wallace" in the style of Braveheart was made, but IIRC it was sent back to the artist who made it pretty sharpish. =P
Eugh, the amount of times I've been abroad and had that bloody film quoted at me. ¬¬
Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
I think Scotland probably would be better off independent in the long run if everything went perfectly, but it would suck for 10 or so years whilst the set up took place. I don't know if I'm selfless enough to take the hit.
Zond wrote: Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
Which means that any debate could only possibly be represented by Sir Ian McKellan (for England) and Sean Connery (for Scotland)
If there were secretly some political system with the ideals of the Swiss and motivation of the Norwegians being suppressed by West Minster, then maybe I'd vote for independence.
But there's not.
It's the same bunch of useless louts who govern the rest of the UK but with different accents. Nothing will change if Holyrood starts running the show, just like nothing has changed since Salmond has been First Minister. I like being part of the United Kingdom's legacy and history and I don't want that to change.
Well, as a serving police officer with the Police Service of Scotland I am not allowed to express any opinion on the Scottish independence debate, on or off duty, via any form of communication. That includes over the internet, via the press, or apparently by even speaking to friends and family.
Whilst I appreciate that we have to keep policing seperate from politics, it's interesting to note that this instruction came a few weeks ago after several stories in the media about police officers and staff making various allegations about how the new single Police Service of Scotland was performing. In particular various criticisms were leveled against the new service regarding new procedures, their legality, and the impact on public safety and performance.
For those not in the know the Scottish National Party were the driving party behind the amalgamation of the regional police forces into one national service (somewhat ironically with an Englishman as the Chief Constable) with a view to 'increased efficiency', which has also coincidentally resulted in cuts to the numbers of police staff.
I'm sure there is no connection between this ban on police officers expressing their opinions and the allegations made against the new service. And I hope everyone notices I've not expressed any such opinions myself
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
Assuming you two are serious and not just Poe's Lawing the risible "NAW SURRENDAR" Loyalist flag-wavery that we have to deal with up here from a depressing minority, and of which only perhaps the Northern Irish could justifiably be sicker of;
Oh well then, if we all got sent off to be slaughtered together by the toffs in years past, that's that then. Best call Australia, New Zealand, India, and all the other former colonies of Britain and tell them that since we fought together in the War, they should just give up all that independence malarkey and put themselves back under the benevolent auspices of Westminster
Nevermind the food banks, the neoliberal austerity economics(subscribed to by all the main parties), the victimisation of the disabled and unemployed by the press and politicians(of all main parties), the estimated 50,000-100,000 additional children in Scotland who will be in poverty by 2020, the fact the UK's nuclear arsenal is located less than thirty miles from the centre of our largest city, the fact we can't address our demographics issues because Westminster controls immigration and are completely in the grip of UKIP-driven hysteria; can't prevent the entire central belt in which the majority of the country's population lives being fracked to hell and back because Westminster controls energy policy; can't prevent our young people being sent off to die in unnecessary wars perpetrated to fuel the arms trade, cut back our military spending to fund necessary social programmes, or formulate our armed forces in a way that actually makes sense for Scotland(like getting back the maritime patrol aircraft the UK government scrapped, or stationing more than a couple of bloody rowboats in Scottish ports for coastal patrol and oil field protection rather than having to wait 20 hours for the RN to chug up the coast from Portsmouth) because Westminster controls defence policy; can't invest in our burgeoning renewables industry to drive job and revenue growth because any additional monies that would accrue would do so to the UK Treasury, there to be frittered away propping up their failed policies just as they did with the oil revenues; can't defend the interests of our farmers(who get some of the lowest CAP payments in Europe and, when the EU gives the UK a top-up specifically for Scottish farmers, find that money dispersed on a population basis meaning 90%+ of it goes to farmers in the rest of the UK) or our fishermen(which were considered "expendable" in pursuit of the UK's meaningless Euro opt-out) because we have no direct voice in Europe and Westminster often refuses to allow Scottish Government reps to even sit in on negotiations nevermind actually speak out; or any of the dozens of other major and minor issues that arise out of living in a UK controlled by a corrupt, cronyist political and media establishment focused almost entirely on their own needs, the needs of London & the SE of England, and their international "clout" in that order.
There're a lot of folk up here, a lot, who would vote No in an instant if there was any real prospect of addressing those issues and concerns, or even just of reforming the UK establishment in a short enough timescale to see them addressed at some point in our own lifetimes, but that's a fantasy. The Tories are the Tories, Labour have been fully captured by the establishment(with a very few exceptions like Tom Watson) and thanks to the Blair years and their pathological terror of actually having a principle rather than a focus-grouped soundbite are committed to neoliberalism and austerity for years to come(indeed the shadow Work & Pensions secretary has vowed to be tougher on the disabled and unemployed and cut social security harder than the Tories), and the Lib Dems have proven themselves to be the most spineless and dishonest kind of careerist scum. Who else is on offer, UKIP? UKIP who want to eradicate human rights law, demolish what remains of the welfare state, eliminate protection for workers from employment law not just in terms of pay/pensions etc but also laws that ensure safe working conditions, even further deregulate the financial services sector, and that's setting aside their incoherent, often disturbing views on immigration and Europe. On which subject, no matter who we vote for in the next UK general election, we'll be getting an in-out referendum on EU membership which, current polling suggests, would see Scotland vote to stay in the EU but be taken out along with the rest of the UK regardless because England would narrowly vote to leave and, simply by virtue of the massive disparity in population, their votes would trump ours.
That, if there is one, is the rarely seen "positive case for the Union"; vote No, vote Labour and hope the rest of the UK agrees with you, vote to stay in the EU and hope the rest of the UK agrees with you, and maybe possibly things will be a little bit less gak than they will be if they disagree on either or both.
Independence isn't a magic bullet, it won't solve our problems in and of itself, but it provides us with opportunities we simply won't get within the UK: our parliament uses a system of proportional representation so the views of the electorate are more fairly and accurately represented, we'll have the chance to write a constitution that befits a modern developed nation, to reprioritise government spending in ways that make sense for our economy and resources, to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons, and for those of us who want such things, to fight for much more radical policies with a far higher chance of success.
And lastly, for the OP and anyone else who'll base their vote on whether or not they like or trust Alex Salmond, a few things to consider; rejecting independence because you dislike or distrust Salmond or the SNP would be like refusing to buy your dream home because you didn't like the wallpaper - do what a fair whack of us plan to, vote Yes, then vote for someone else in 2016. If you're concerned over the idea of Salmond or the SNP negotiating our exit from the UK, relax, because they won't be, there's already been a public commitment that the negotiations will be undertaken by an all-party team with access to independent academic and legal advice. Finally on this point, bear in mind,if you base your vote on the politicians and parties of the day(I'm adding so much emphasis to attempt, likely in vain, to reinforce that I'm only arguing that the following statement is true if the preceding statement is; voting No or Yes for any number of other reasons are perfectly valid and don't have the same connotations), then a No vote is an endorsement of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, and Milliband every bit as much as it's a rejection of Salmond and the SNP.
All that said, ugh, that debate was atrocious. Salmond was acting like he was in an everyday points-scoring session at First Minister's Questions, far too much time spent whinging about "Project Fear"(a valid point to make at one time, but in year two-and-a-bit of the campaign, completely played out) and playing semantic games with what Darling said, not nearly enough actually discussing the issues. The currency issue was a pain in the arse as always, but frankly there's not much he can do with that subject; the Fiscal Commission Working Group already examined all the options, they're all there for anyone to see if they're actually interested in the issue rather than using the it to score points off a political opponent, and no matter what answer he gives he will be attacked for it, so despite the fact I disagree with the SNP's position on currency(we'd be better served with a distinct currency pegged, in the short to medium term, to the value of Sterling in my view) there's not much he can do other than stick to the "this is my preferred option, I believe it will happen because of these reasons, I won't be drawn on a hypothetical that I think is incredibly unlikely" line and hope that A; genuinely undecided folk will look up the info themselves and make their own judgements and B; the polling which suggests that currency is actually fairly low on most people's list of priorities is accurate.
Darling, well he's Darling, he only has one setting; angry ranting, rabid blinking, false incredulity, and the rampant dishonesty that seems inherent in all politicians. He often came across as more focused than Salmond, but that's not difficult when your job is essentially to regurgitate Better Together press releases over and over again(seriously, watch this debate, or any Darling or Lamont appearance for that matter, and take a shot of whisky whenever they repeat "better together", "best of both worlds", "strength and security", or "pool and share risk" - you'll be reekin' drunk within twenty minutes. The press will declare him the victor, but that's been the intent since the debate was announced; have a read through the papers for the last week or two and notice how many columnists and editors who previously dismissed Salmond as some jumped-up regional politico with a Stalin complex are suddenly ebullient with praise for his oratory skill and cunning - a strategy popularised in America, "expectation management"; build up one guy, talk down the other, when both have an average performance as was always likely, declare the latter the winner because they "exceeded expectations" by not collapsing into a heap of incoherent goo.
Overall a complete waste of time; likely nobody was better informed at the end, both Salmond and Darling just went over the same tired talking points they have been for months in other mediums, and a format with two opposing speakers, an audience split evenly between supporters of each, and discussion often curtailed because of time-limits or off-topicness which is already set up much more to provide fuel for the evening news and the papers than it is to inform the public was made even worse by STV cutting out the middleman and just cramming chunks of "analysis" from their "Spin Room" right into the debate itself.
Zond wrote: Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
I think Scotland probably would be better off independent in the long run if everything went perfectly, but it would suck for 10 or so years whilst the set up took place. I don't know if I'm selfless enough to take the hit.
Vote yes, move to England for 10 years, then move back when the dust has settled.
Orlanth wrote: Prima noctra was a custom in parts of dark age Europe, but it wasnt used by the english at any point in our history.
The ius primae noctis (not "prima noctra", that's just gibberish) never existed at all as far as we know. It's another myth from the "Age of Enlightenment" to shock and thrill (then) modern audiences.
If you already correct somebody who made a joke, at least get it right.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
Not for the first time, I'm disagreeing with you but from a logical perspective, that comment doesn't make sense. Tons of New Zealanders, Aussies, Americans, etc etc died fighting with Britain during the wars, as you know, but none of those countries have ever wanted to rejoin Britain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Well, as a serving police officer with the Police Service of Scotland I am not allowed to express any opinion on the Scottish independence debate, on or off duty, via any form of communication. That includes over the internet, via the press, or apparently by even speaking to friends and family.
Whilst I appreciate that we have to keep policing seperate from politics, it's interesting to note that this instruction came a few weeks ago after several stories in the media about police officers and staff making various allegations about how the new single Police Service of Scotland was performing. In particular various criticisms were leveled against the new service regarding new procedures, their legality, and the impact on public safety and performance.
For those not in the know the Scottish National Party were the driving party behind the amalgamation of the regional police forces into one national service (somewhat ironically with an Englishman as the Chief Constable) with a view to 'increased efficiency', which has also coincidentally resulted in cuts to the numbers of police staff.
I'm sure there is no connection between this ban on police officers expressing their opinions and the allegations made against the new service. And I hope everyone notices I've not expressed any such opinions myself
Generally, in England and Wales, Police officers are encouraged to be non-political. It's why you're not allowed to strike!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Well it's up and should be available for International audiences.
Watched bits of it. I would call it a draw. Salmond tried to project a positive case, and Darling hung on for dear life. My view anyway. Still can't believe that the labour are acting as human shields for the Conservatives.
Whatever happens the Scots win. If you vote Yes, you go your own way, with no more interference from London. If you vote No, ok it means you are fully independence, but Westminster will be bending over backwards to give you whatever powers you want to keep you sweet. It will be close enough to independent for all but the hard core voters to be happy with.
The only concern I would have is if the Yes vote % is low, say 20 % -30%. It may mean Westminster thinks they don't have to give away as many powers as they thought they would. It would be a left off for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
...
Oh granted, it is a most disturbing thing.
I was just saying that not being Scottish I do not have the feelings of resentment towards the English that apparently are fairly widespread and contribute to the pro-independence movement.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
Not for the first time, I'm disagreeing with you but from a logical perspective, that comment doesn't make sense. Tons of New Zealanders, Aussies, Americans, etc etc died fighting with Britain during the wars, as you know, but none of those countries have ever wanted to rejoin Britain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Well, as a serving police officer with the Police Service of Scotland I am not allowed to express any opinion on the Scottish independence debate, on or off duty, via any form of communication. That includes over the internet, via the press, or apparently by even speaking to friends and family.
Whilst I appreciate that we have to keep policing seperate from politics, it's interesting to note that this instruction came a few weeks ago after several stories in the media about police officers and staff making various allegations about how the new single Police Service of Scotland was performing. In particular various criticisms were leveled against the new service regarding new procedures, their legality, and the impact on public safety and performance.
For those not in the know the Scottish National Party were the driving party behind the amalgamation of the regional police forces into one national service (somewhat ironically with an Englishman as the Chief Constable) with a view to 'increased efficiency', which has also coincidentally resulted in cuts to the numbers of police staff.
I'm sure there is no connection between this ban on police officers expressing their opinions and the allegations made against the new service. And I hope everyone notices I've not expressed any such opinions myself
Generally, in England and Wales, Police officers are encouraged to be non-political. It's why you're not allowed to strike!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Well it's up and should be available for International audiences.
Watched bits of it. I would call it a draw. Salmond tried to project a positive case, and Darling hung on for dear life. My view anyway. Still can't believe that the labour are acting as human shields for the Conservatives.
I would be fully supportive of Texas annexing Scotland, if we get the oil and the redhaired lasses.
You can keep the redhaired guys.
First Scotland, then the Isle of Man! Ultimate victory shall be ours!
Cheers for that post Yodhrin. I am aware that i'm not voting for Alex Salmond in the long run, but at the end of the day it is his party that will negotiate the terms of the agreement. He will invite people he wants to the table to draft the foundations of our new nation.
The Scottish Government will invite representatives of other parties and wider Scottish civic society to negotiate for Scotland.
One positive thing that I imagine will hopefully be getting more people involved in the political process. Hopefully we can get rid of the toxic ones, which is most of them.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Are you kidding? My grandpappy and his pappy were chased out of Ireland by agents of the crown after the Rising. They'd both rise from the dead and end me if I didn't properly support and cheer on any one who wants to shatter the English collar. I took an English girl over on an exchange program out on a date once and my grandpappy's tombstone cracked the very same day. I figured that was enough of that and decided to not tempt fate further.
Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Dakka exhibit labelled 'KalashnikovMarine' is very likely a specimen what is known as a 'plastic paddy', more Irish than the Irish, but normally without a clue of what actually goers on there by being seperated by several thousand miles of Atlantic and a generation or two.
Plastic paddies are often filled with the sort of hate that only comes from a deep ignorance based on a cocktail of superstition and old wives tales. Long on shamrocks, short on Irish history.
Its telling that the term Plastic Paddy is of Irish origin, not British per se. They are seen as an embarrassment,
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Are you kidding? My grandpappy and his pappy were chased out of Ireland by agents of the crown after the Rising. They'd both rise from the dead and end me if I didn't properly support and cheer on any one who wants to shatter the English collar. I took an English girl over on an exchange program out on a date once and my grandpappy's tombstone cracked the very same day. I figured that was enough of that and decided to not tempt fate further.
See you should have done like mine and shot at them while wearing blue uniforms, and later chased them out of New Orleans.
Orlanth wrote: Dakka exhibit labelled 'KalashnikovMarine' is very likely a specimen what is known as a 'plastic paddy', more Irish than the Irish, but normally without a clue of what actually goers on there by being seperated by several thousand miles of Atlantic and a generation or two.
Plastic paddies are often filled with the sort of hate that only comes from a deep ignorance based on a cocktail of superstition and old wives tales. Long on shamrocks, short on Irish history.
Its telling that the term Plastic Paddy is of Irish origin, not British per se. They are seen as an embarrassment,
I don't hate the English. Well. I hate some Brits, but not for being British. We haven't been in the States long enough to get the good superstition. Just the general facts. WW2 was more Granpa's prefered story time. Thanks for being your usual self though Orlanth, whenever I need someone to fulfill negative British stereotypes it always reassures me to know you're there. That said I do support breaking up the old empires. Colonialism was a terrible thing and it's good to see it end. Preferably with the remnants of any form of monarchy being pushed into the dust bin with them. Now to continue with my grand master plan, total independence for Canada!
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Are you kidding? My grandpappy and his pappy were chased out of Ireland by agents of the crown after the Rising. They'd both rise from the dead and end me if I didn't properly support and cheer on any one who wants to shatter the English collar. I took an English girl over on an exchange program out on a date once and my grandpappy's tombstone cracked the very same day. I figured that was enough of that and decided to not tempt fate further.
See you should have done like mine and shot at them while wearing blue uniforms, and later chased them out of New Orleans.
Great Grandpa was at best a random hooligan with a shotgun, but if I ever meet up with the leaders of 16 on the other side I'll be sure to tell them that was the flaw in their strategy.
Orlanth wrote: Dakka exhibit labelled 'KalashnikovMarine' is very likely a specimen what is known as a 'plastic paddy', more Irish than the Irish, but normally without a clue of what actually goers on there by being seperated by several thousand miles of Atlantic and a generation or two.
Plastic paddies are often filled with the sort of hate that only comes from a deep ignorance based on a cocktail of superstition and old wives tales. Long on shamrocks, short on Irish history.
Its telling that the term Plastic Paddy is of Irish origin, not British per se. They are seen as an embarrassment,
Plastic Paddy sounds remarkably like an English insult. You might watch that nonsense, especially when he's clearly being humorous (the whole girlfriend casuing the headstone to break thing is kind of an indicator) Steenking English Ah break wind yur genral direction! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Which brings up an interesting issue. What if Joan of Ark had had an M48 Patton tank?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Nope, just 'the Other Guys'. There are two sides to every story. It's worth pointing out that your grandfather 'fled' to country where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
Oh, but I forgot, the Americans are the good guys.
Shhh Frazz, let him enjoy his self righteousness, it's really all he has in this life. Sides, it's kinda funny watching him from up here while he's shaking his fists down in the dirt with the rest of the "Couldn't Get A Joke If They Payed For It" peasant types.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Nope, just 'the Other Guys'. There are two sides to every story. It's worth pointing out that your grandfather 'fled' to country where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
Oh, but I forgot, the Americans are the good guys.
No gak sherlock? Hell I wrote a paper about Irish discrimination in the States during my brief college career. You're right about being treated like second class citizens. The old line about the transcontinental railroads in this country being built with an Irishman buried under every tie aren't exactly jokes. I suppose with the discrimination and oppression it just felt like home. Albeit without an occupying military power holding imprisonment and execution over their heads for wanting the right of self determination.
I also never implied the Americans were better then the Brits. At everything except food. British "cuisine" ye gods no wonder you all have to keep a stiff upper lip.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Nope, just 'the Other Guys'. There are two sides to every story. It's worth pointing out that your grandfather 'fled' to country where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
Oh, but I forgot, the Americans are the good guys.
Several whole groups of people actually. Don't forget there were massive Irish riots in NY and other locations due to the implementation of draft laws - even to guys just getting off the ship.
"Rich Man's War Poor Man's Fight"
Of course, we are the good guys because we had a war over that issue.
Admit it, you're just jealous of our fine finger foods and Tennessee whiskey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I've heard of Plastic Padding. It is a polymerizing styrene putty useful in wargaming for filling hollow bases and other such bulk cavities.
However this is all off the topic.
Thats styrene you barbarian! Plastic molecules are way more engineered. Its just this sort of lack of knowledge of hydrocarbons that why you lost the Empire.
You ever see a Scot trying to pronounce 'methyl methacrylate'? Its almost a religious experience.
Your relatives lived in more or less completely different nations to how they function now. So while you're ramblings are great for family discussion in your home, try to keep them out of our modern political problems.
Americans claiming ridiculous British Isle ties aside...
Plastic Paddy sounds remarkably like an English insult. You might watch that nonsense, especially when he's clearly being humorous (the whole girlfriend casuing the headstone to break thing is kind of an indicator)
Steenking English Ah break wind yur genral direction! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
KalashnikovMarine's first comments were ignorant enough, but its the follow up hysterical BS about Dublin being shelled and people lined up for execution that prompted a response.
If that is a joke then there is something wrong with his sense of 'humour'. It doesn't help that plastic paddies often are that ignorant.
Its a common enough ploy, teach kids that the other side are baby eaters or equivalent. Only that its very rare outside the developing world, the sort of blind hatred you see amongst impoverished ghetto communities in the middle east.
In case you still think the Troubles is a joke watch this video:
This is the consequence in 2001 of what happens when children going to school travel along a certain road.
Yes, walking kids to school is excuse enough for a riot.
Both sides are as bad as each other in Northern Ireland, but I chose an example of loyalist extremism for fairness, its now better than it was. The root however is ethnic divisions, and the root of those divisions lies in what people are told by their own faction.
It gets so bad that even the simplest of things is an affront to one side or other.
Now with plastic paddies the problems are magnified, you get all the hated, all the propaganda, but none of the grounding of actually being there. People in Ireland generally dont believe the BS spouted about the other side, they just see them as ugly stories, and some hate purely on proximity and old vendettas, normally its a minority. Yet the stories are proliferated, and those further away are often actually stupid enough to believe them wholecloth. That is how you get plastic paddies and they are a larger percentage as a whole.
Plastic Paddy sounds remarkably like an English insult. You might watch that nonsense, especially when he's clearly being humorous (the whole girlfriend casuing the headstone to break thing is kind of an indicator)
Steenking English Ah break wind yur genral direction! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
KalashnikovMarine's first comments were ignorant enough, but its the follow up hysterical BS about Dublin being shelled and people lined up for execution that prompted a response.
Now who doesn't know their history? Dublin was shelled during the Easter Rising WHICH I WAS SPECIFICALLY talking about, and depending on how you do your time line can be considered part of the Irish Revolution vs. the Troubles, and Gen. Maxwell sentenced 90 Irishmen and women to death shortly thereafter. I believe 15 of those were confirmed and executed via firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol. Never mind the casualties during the Rising itself wherein plenty of civilians, not just Rebels were shot and bayoneted by Crown officers and troops, along with the usual casualties from turning artillery and machinegun fire on urban areas. A further 1480 Irish citizens were placed in internment camps in England and Wales around this same time.
This is all historical fact. Now we're still off topic, you are as always wrong. Can we move on?
Yep plastic paddies sounds like an insult, like when someone calls Brits limeys.
Yep, it very much is an insult, referring to someone who has, at best, tenuous links to Ireland and who bangs on at every opportunity about how Irish they are, how awful the English are etc.
It's irritating and a little pathetic. I stay indoors on St Patrick's Day.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Nope, just 'the Other Guys'. There are two sides to every story. It's worth pointing out that your grandfather 'fled' to country where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
Oh, but I forgot, the Americans are the good guys.
No gak sherlock? Hell I wrote a paper about Irish discrimination in the States during my brief college career. You're right about being treated like second class citizens. The old line about the transcontinental railroads in this country being built with an Irishman buried under every tie aren't exactly jokes. I suppose with the discrimination and oppression it just felt like home. Albeit without an occupying military power holding imprisonment and execution over their heads for wanting the right of self determination.
Plastic Paddy sounds remarkably like an English insult. You might watch that nonsense, especially when he's clearly being humorous (the whole girlfriend casuing the headstone to break thing is kind of an indicator)
Steenking English Ah break wind yur genral direction! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
KalashnikovMarine's first comments were ignorant enough, but its the follow up hysterical BS about Dublin being shelled and people lined up for execution that prompted a response.
Now who doesn't know their history? Dublin was shelled during the Easter Rising WHICH I WAS SPECIFICALLY talking about, and depending on how you do your time line can be considered part of the Irish Revolution vs. the Troubles, and Gen. Maxwell sentenced 90 Irishmen and women to death shortly thereafter. I believe 15 of those were confirmed and executed via firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol. Never mind the casualties during the Rising itself wherein plenty of civilians, not just Rebels were shot and bayoneted by Crown officers and troops, along with the usual casualties from turning artillery and machinegun fire on urban areas. A further 1480 Irish citizens were placed in internment camps in England and Wales around this same time.
This is all historical fact. Now we're still off topic, you are as always wrong. Can we move on?
This was back when people were shot for "Cowardice" when suffering shell shock. Not a very proud time.
People in the UK generally know that there have been monstrous things done over the years, but considering we now live in "Modern" Britain, post 1950's?, it hardly seems relevant. Certainly worth remembering for historical accuracy, but hardly pertinent to current affairs.
Personally I cringe at the National anthem when it refers to past glories, like the Scottish one when it's banging on about sending "Proud Edward's Army" home "to think again". Pish. Irrelevant Pish. It just fosters hate for hate's sake.
I'd like to see a change to "Scotland the Brave", as it's much more jovial and doesn't talk about any of that gak. It's National without being detrimental.
Also Frazzled, I can't be arsed writing the points out, but these are the most frequently raised issues from the Wiki article I've bolded the first sentences of the so you get a general jist.
Reasons that have been cited in favour of independence are: Democracy and national self-determination: Scotland's population will possess full decision-making power in regard to the political affairs of its nation. First Minister Salmond stated in a May 2012 launch that "the people who live in Scotland are best placed to make the decisions that affect Scotland."[74]
Nuclear disarmament: with control over defence and foreign policy, an independent Scotland could address the removal of Trident nuclear weapons, an issue long-associated with the campaign for an independent Scotland, as outlined in the House of Commons Defence Committee's white paper "The future of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent: the White Paper" of 2006-2007.[75][76] In a July 2013 Huffington Post UK article, the writer suggested that the £25 billion spent on a "like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent" could instead be diverted to education, healthcare and housing.[77] Additionally, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament supports independence on this basis.[78]
"It's Scotland's oil": since being used as a highly effective slogan by the SNP in the 1970s,[79] this phrase has encapsulated the argument that only an independent Scotland be able to fully utilise and exploit the financial benefits of its national resources, including North Sea oil and gas, for the benefit of the population.[80] According to the Scottish Government, 64% of the EU's oil reserves exist in Scottish waters,[81] while the David Hume Institute stated: "Scotland is sitting on oil and gas reserves worth up to £4 trillion".[82]
Renewable energy: if independence is attained, supporters of the new political structure seek to fully harness Scotland's natural renewable energy resources: 25 per cent of Europe’s wind energy potential; 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal energy potential; and 10 per cent of Europe’s wave energy potential.[83] Salmond claims that this could lead to the "re-industrialisation" of Scotland.[84]
Frazzled wrote: Youtube is worked blocked for me. But on the subject of babies mmm the other other white meat...
Yep plastic paddies sounds like an insult, like when someone calls Brits limeys. Maybe you're just jealous of their superior tenors?
Back to topic.
Again can someone list in bullet points what the actual Scottish issues are, and more importantly, who gets the oil?
Frazz, the biggest issue in Scotland is the democratic deficit, which is a major problem, because one part of the UK (England) has 60 million people, and Scotland only has 5 million people.
In America, this is not a problem. To use an example (which you're probably aware of) the state of Maine has a smaller population than your home state of Texas. But this is not a problem because Maine has 2 senators and 2 congressmen (or women) and Texas has likewise. It's more balanced.
The UK political system is a mess and has no federalism or balances. 59 Scottish MPs have to compete with 400+ English MPs.
This is offset slightly by the Scottish Parliament (a devolved assembly) and has limited powers in health and education, but these powers can be removed at any time, because there is no guarantee in the constitution, because there is no constitution! Added to that, we have 800 unelected peers that also pass laws. In short, the UK is a constitutional mess.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Are you kidding? My grandpappy and his pappy were chased out of Ireland by agents of the crown after the Rising. They'd both rise from the dead and end me if I didn't properly support and cheer on any one who wants to shatter the English collar. I took an English girl over on an exchange program out on a date once and my grandpappy's tombstone cracked the very same day. I figured that was enough of that and decided to not tempt fate further.
You misunderstand me. I was praising you for being one of the few Americans that does support countries breaking away from the UK. I demanded honour be satisfied! Apologise at once!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally I cringe at the National anthem when it refers to past glories, like the Scottish one when it's banging on about sending "Proud Edward's Army" home "to think again".
With all due respect Medium of Death, the better together side have constantly used the examples of both world wars as a reason why the UK is better united. Both sides are responsible for using the past in this way.
As an American, I'm obviously not super familiar with all the issues at hand, and I'm all for people's self-determination, but I'm not seeing major advantages to Scotland removing itself from the UK.
I can get the representation issues, but I imagine those could be addressed and changed within the context of the existing relationship, while Scotland can effectively harness the power of their much larger neighbor to reap benefits that Scotland on its (much smaller) own would be unable to obtain.
Yep plastic paddies sounds like an insult, like when someone calls Brits limeys.
Yep, it very much is an insult, referring to someone who has, at best, tenuous links to Ireland and who bangs on at every opportunity about how Irish they are, how awful the English are etc.
It's irritating and a little pathetic. I stay indoors on St Patrick's Day.
I'm not Catholic so I don't celebrate St. Patrick's day. I can see American college students make fools of themselves whenever I want so I suppose there's just not a pressing need for me to be out and about if I don't have to be. If I need an excuse to drink for heritage's sake, Luan Cásca (Easter Monday) is probably best to sit back with a pint and sing Amhrán na bhFiann.
Thought: Outside of it being a Saint Day I wasn't really raised with St. Patrick's day, when the hell did that get to be a thing and why? Barely makes sense as it is.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Leaving's better then internment camps, or being executed lined up for an execution for that matter. From what I understand Dublin was still freshly shelled when they were on their way out. Oh but I forgot, the English are the good guys.
Nope, just 'the Other Guys'. There are two sides to every story. It's worth pointing out that your grandfather 'fled' to country where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
Oh, but I forgot, the Americans are the good guys.
No gak sherlock? Hell I wrote a paper about Irish discrimination in the States during my brief college career. You're right about being treated like second class citizens. The old line about the transcontinental railroads in this country being built with an Irishman buried under every tie aren't exactly jokes. I suppose with the discrimination and oppression it just felt like home. Albeit without an occupying military power holding imprisonment and execution over their heads for wanting the right of self determination.
Um, I was talking about African-Americans.
Whoops. But why limit it to one race? You're missing on out on the bulk of American racial and cultural intolerance that way! Now I totally missed "skin colour" cause I haven't slept in 48 hours, but I take issue here, and this may also be where I was confused:
where one whole group of people were de facto treated as second class citizens based on their skin colour.
This being the early 20th century, Irish, Italians, Chinese, and a few other groups were absolutely second class citizens and treated as such. The black man in America however was barely 40 years removed from being treated not as a second class citizens, but as livestock and aside from the lack of chains, things weren't that much better. My Great Grandfather and Grandfather came to the United States and were treated like a lesser for their race, nationality and religion, a Black man of their age was far more likely to be treated like an animal then any sort of man at all, and Jim Crow laws sure as hell sought to keep it that way.
This was back when people were shot for "Cowardice" when suffering shell shock. Not a very proud time.
Right, and please let me clarify, I'm not bring any of that up for Brit Bashing, I did bring it up as anecdotal story telling about why my family had to flee our homeland and why I am very tongue in cheekly supporting the overthrow of the British Oppressors (TM) by our Scottish cousins upthread. The only reason I even went into this in detail is because an ignorant tosser accused me of not knowing my blood's history.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Are you kidding? My grandpappy and his pappy were chased out of Ireland by agents of the crown after the Rising. They'd both rise from the dead and end me if I didn't properly support and cheer on any one who wants to shatter the English collar. I took an English girl over on an exchange program out on a date once and my grandpappy's tombstone cracked the very same day. I figured that was enough of that and decided to not tempt fate further.
You misunderstand me. I was praising you for being one of the few Americans that does support countries breaking away from the UK. I demanded honour be satisfied! Apologise at once!
And I was saying why I do so. Threat of spiritual vengeance from beyond the grave. Also a belief in the right of peoples to secure and steer their own destiny but that is entirely besides the point here.
Also I'm not into guys so you're probably in the wrong place to have "honour" or whatever other creative nickname you have for it "satisfied"
Vaktathi wrote: As an American, I'm obviously not super familiar with all the issues at hand, and I'm all for people's self-determination, but I'm not seeing major advantages to Scotland removing itself from the UK.
I can get the representation issues, but I imagine those could be addressed and changed within the context of the existing relationship, while Scotland can effectively harness the power of their much larger neighbor to reap benefits that Scotland on its (much smaller) own would be unable to obtain.
No major advantages in removing itself from the UK? You dare call yourself an American?
George Washington must be spinning in his grave!
He was buried and not cremated right? Could an American confirm this?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: George Washington was placed in a form of suspended animation via Free Mason magic till he is truly needed by his country once again.
(he was buried)
Will George Washington return on Ragna-rock - the final battle in American mythology, when Canada, Vietnam, and the UN join forces and invade America, and the only thing that can stop the forces of darkness is George Washington, weiner dogs, and Nancy Reagan's handbag!
Personally I cringe at the National anthem when it refers to past glories, like the Scottish one when it's banging on about sending "Proud Edward's Army" home "to think again".
With all due respect Medium of Death, the better together side have constantly used the examples of both world wars as a reason why the UK is better united. Both sides are responsible for using the past in this way.
I'm not sure where you got I was bashing the Yes vote in my post. I was more speaking generally about themes of nationalism reflecting events before the inception of "modern" Britain, which I see as irrelevant for our immediate political problems.
Vaktathi wrote: As an American, I'm obviously not super familiar with all the issues at hand, and I'm all for people's self-determination, but I'm not seeing major advantages to Scotland removing itself from the UK.
I can get the representation issues, but I imagine those could be addressed and changed within the context of the existing relationship, while Scotland can effectively harness the power of their much larger neighbour to reap benefits that Scotland on its (much smaller) own would be unable to obtain.
The advantages is that Scotland would be able to spend the money it raises on policies it actually supports and the government would actually be representing the people of Scotland.
Examples of this are the Bedroom tax which the Scottish Government is currently paying to offset the affect of it and Trident which costs an inordinate amount of money for something we will never use unless we're up for destroying to world. As for representation the current UK ruling party is the Conservatives who have just one elected mp from Scotland and Westminster policies are generally seen as sliding towards the right with rises in popularity for UKIP and labour shifting to a much more centralist policy not giving the UK a major left wing party
Vaktathi wrote: As an American, I'm obviously not super familiar with all the issues at hand, and I'm all for people's self-determination, but I'm not seeing major advantages to Scotland removing itself from the UK.
I can get the representation issues, but I imagine those could be addressed and changed within the context of the existing relationship, while Scotland can effectively harness the power of their much larger neighbor to reap benefits that Scotland on its (much smaller) own would be unable to obtain.
No major advantages in removing itself from the UK? You dare call yourself an American?
George Washington must be spinning in his grave!
He was buried and not cremated right? Could an American confirm this?
To be fair, we're not sharing a very tiny island, and never had representation on the level of Scotland, even if Scotland's representation is less than it may like.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
The advantages is that Scotland would be able to spend the money it raises on policies it actually supports and the government would actually be representing the people of Scotland.
As I'm not aware of the specifics, does Scotland raise more tax revenue than is spent on it? I can understand this argument, but if Scotland is gaining more in public spending than it collects, it would seem to be beneficial to remain in the UK. It may also be worthwhile to look at indirect spending, given the small geographic area and spending in England could still be a net positive for Scotland depending on what that infrastructure provides the island as a whole. That said, I don't know the specifics of that and Scotland could be totally getting screwed for all I know
Examples of this are the Bedroom tax which the Scottish Government is currently paying to offset the affect of it and Trident which costs an inordinate amount of money for something we will never use unless we're up for destroying to world.
Wouldn't that effectively be part of joint defense? I mean that seems to be a defense policy rather than something specific to just Scotland right? Those missiles aren't specifically English are they? I'd say that'd be more a question of changing defense policy than a Scottish sovereignty issue, at least to me. That said, I'm also not aware of how the costs and all that work for that.
As for representation the current UK ruling party is the Conservatives who have just one elected mp from Scotland and Westminster policies are generally seen as sliding towards the right with rises in popularity for UKIP and labour shifting to a much more centralist policy not giving the UK a major left wing party
Is that a sovereignty issue or just one of party politics?
Orlanth wrote: Prima noctra was a custom in parts of dark age Europe, but it wasnt used by the english at any point in our history.
The ius primae noctis (not "prima noctra", that's just gibberish) never existed at all as far as we know. It's another myth from the "Age of Enlightenment" to shock and thrill (then) modern audiences.
If you already correct somebody who made a joke, at least get it right.
Vakathi wrote:As I'm not aware of the specifics, does Scotland raise more tax revenue than is spent on it? I can understand this argument, but if Scotland is gaining more in public spending than it collects, it would seem to be beneficial to remain in the UK. It may also be worthwhile to look at indirect spending, given the small geographic area and spending in England could still be a net positive for Scotland depending on what that infrastructure provides the island as a whole. That said, I don't know the specifics of that and Scotland could be totally getting screwed for all I know
From the last set of Treasury figures Scotland raised 9.9% of UK Tax Revenues and received 9.6% in funding. There's also some larger corporations put all their earnings via their headquarters (Which are almost invariably in London) and that's where they're taxed instead of where they're earned (This is a UK wide issue not just Scotland)
Wouldn't that effectively be part of joint defense? I mean that seems to be a defense policy rather than something specific to just Scotland right? Those missiles aren't specifically English are they? I'd say that'd be more a question of changing defense policy than a Scottish sovereignty issue, at least to me. That said, I'm also not aware of how the costs and all that work for that.
While they are part of the UK's defence they're currently based not too far from Scotland's largest city (Glasgow). and the current UK government is currently funding them but and independent Scotland wouldn't need them as being a smaller nation they don't need to do all the world power macho stuff the UK does currently
Is that a sovereignty issue or just one of party politics?
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
...
Oh granted, it is a most disturbing thing.
I was just saying that not being Scottish I do not have the feelings of resentment towards the English that apparently are fairly widespread and contribute to the pro-independence movement.
Not that widespread honestly. There's a hardcore within the traditional SNP support who really do buy into the whole "English Oppressors" bollocks, but Salmond and Sturgeon have had reasonable success shoving them back into the margins as they pursued the more gradualist inclusive narrative that's brought us to this point, and in the wider Yes Campaign there are no more anti-English nutters than there are Orange Order-style Loyalists on the No side - in short there's a nasty fringe to both, but for both it's far less pronounced than either the other side or the media claim. What you will find is a lot of resentment towards Westminster, and the UK's political system in general, which when combined with simply factual statements about the relative size of the English population or the proportion of spending and political effort devoted to London & the SE, is often twisted by the more dishonest supporters of the Union both within BT and the press into being atavistic anti-Englishness.
And yes, like everyone, I've read and myself seen anecdotes about some berk in a pub or child in a school being mean spirited or even outright bigoted against an English person, but it's not a common sentiment any more than it would be fair to lambast English people for the occasional crass and offensive crap that's said about Scots by a tiny tiny minority of English people; you know, the "drunk, miserly, deep fried heroin & haggis eating beggar-Scot" stereotype.
Frazzled wrote: Youtube is worked blocked for me. But on the subject of babies mmm the other other white meat...
Yep plastic paddies sounds like an insult, like when someone calls Brits limeys. Maybe you're just jealous of their superior tenors?
Back to topic.
Again can someone list in bullet points what the actual Scottish issues are, and more importantly, who gets the oil?
I pointed out a few in my previous post, others have since, but it's largely summed up within the self-determination argument; Scotland consistently votes left of centre, but since we're only 8.4% of the UK population and Wales/Northern Ireland are even smaller, in practice UK general elections are decided by English voters, so we only actually get left of centre governments and policies if they agree with us. Scotland has voted Labour at every UK general election since WW2, yet for more than half that time we've had Tory right-wing governments, and in all but three cases(all of which were knife-edge anyway) removing Scottish votes from the process entirely wouldn't have meaningfully impacted the outcome. This issue is compounded by the fact the UK still uses First Past the Post voting, which focuses down election-deciding votes into a handful of marginal seats(because any seat with a sufficient majority support for any one party essentially makes voting for any other party in that seat a waste of time), so even within England there's a huge inequality of effort and resources. Since the reestablishment of the Scottish Parliament in '99, we've had control over certain areas like Local Government, Healthcare and Education, but most economic powers, all defence and foreign affairs powers, all energy powers(we did have some authority over renewables, but that was recently stripped away by the unelected House of Lords), and employment law are "reserved" to Westminster, meaning our only say in them is limited to our 59 elected MPs going against nearly 400 other elected MPs and almost the same number of unelected Lords, ie functionally no say at all.
As for the oil, it's not actually that important. Without oil, Scotland's GDP per-capita is 99% of the UK average, so while in the short term oil revenues will be important to the Scottish Government's finances, in the medium to long term a combination of rapid expansion of the renewables industry(Scotland has 25% of Europe's offshore wind potential, 25% of its Tidal potential, 10% of its Wave potential, so we can become a substantial green-energy exporter to the rest of the UK & the Continent) and a careful reindustrialisation programme focused on a mix of modern and traditional industries should make our finances more than sustainable. Opinion is divided at that point on what to do, many support the SNP's proposals to establish a Norway-style oil fund, but there's reasonably significant backing for the position of the Greens that we should begin winding the oil industry down to a smaller sector dedicated to petrochemicals rather than fuel production.
Who gets it? Scotland, most of it anyway, somewhere between 90-96% of the oil and around 10-15% of the natural gas, depending on whether or not the UK accepts the internationally recognised process for establishing maritime borders, or if it tries to maintain Tony Blair's seabed-grab from a few years ago in which the "internal"(ie nonexistent except for tax purposes) border between England's territorial waters and Scotland's was turned into a straight line and pointed several degrees further North in order to filch a few oil & gas fields.
Vaktathi wrote: As an American, I'm obviously not super familiar with all the issues at hand, and I'm all for people's self-determination, but I'm not seeing major advantages to Scotland removing itself from the UK.
I can get the representation issues, but I imagine those could be addressed and changed within the context of the existing relationship, while Scotland can effectively harness the power of their much larger neighbor to reap benefits that Scotland on its (much smaller) own would be unable to obtain.
The thing is, they won't be addressed and changed within the existing relationship, because going any further than is already the case would dramatically impact the power of the Westminster establishment. That's why all the "further devolution" offers being presented by the main parties as sweeteners to vote No are either unworkable(Labour want to devolve power over *only* Housing Benefits, but they cannot explain how they plan to do that in the context of the UK's new Universal Credit system, which rolls *all* benefits into a single system with a single payment) or not actually "powers" at all but responsibilities for raising revenue, which are meaningless given that the funding system for the Scottish Government is a block grant; all revenues from Scotland go to the UK Treasury, who use a formula to determine a lump-sum which is then handed back to the Scottish Government to spend here. Every penny the Scottish Government would raise would result in an exactly equivalent reduction in the size of the block grant, meaning new tax "powers" are a poison pill; we'll have to fund the bureaucratic apparatus necessary to raise the revenue, but the Scottish Government wouldn't actually have any extra to spend(indeed it would have less because of aforementioned additional bureaucracy).
There is already substantial resentment among rUK MPs towards the "freebies" Scots get(which are all paid for out the block grant, a sum which is itself only a portion of the taxes raised here, so in fact are not "free" at all, merely different policy choices) like no tuition fees for higher education and no prescription charges, and post a No vote we will have thrown away our most powerful bargaining chip; the threat of independence. Where is the incentive for Westminster to offer us meaningful further powers if we vote No? We can't threaten to leave, we'll have just voted to stay. We don't make up a big enough part of the UK's population to be a threat to the establishment in elections - our MPs can sometimes influence direction, but they can't steer. Most of the UK establishment didn't even want to have this debate, so after two+ years of it, in which their influence and prestige will have been tarnished in the eyes of many Scots, with an increasingly hostile attitude towards the "perks" we get out of devolution, and no necessity to offer more to stymie the SNP and the threat of independence, what, will they just give us more powers out of the goodness of their hearts? I seriously doubt it.
As a wee update, some interesting details in the tabulated breakdown of ICM's polling data gathered during and after the debate. As expected, those who had declared what their intention to vote was largely thought "their man" did best in the debate, although from what I've been reading on Twitter from both Yes and No voters I think that's less "our guy was amazeballs, their's was terribad" and more "our guy was gak, but theirs was a bit worse".
Among "undecided" voters who'd still to make up their mind after the debate however, it seems despite the opinions of myself and a fair whack of other declared Yes voters that he did pretty poorly, the break was 3:1 in favour of Alex Salmond. That may be an indication that some of the polling from late last year that put currency a fair way down most people's list of concerns was accurate and Darling made a tactical error in focusing so much of his time on that line of attack.
Or, as one Guardian journo suggested on Twitter, maybe people just really liked that Alex came around the podium to answer their questions in a more "personal" way(at which point my eyes begin rolling so hard and continually that I get motion sickness).
I mean after looking in to the currency thing more I'm not as bothered about it. I had just hoped Salmond would have been able to argue coherently. I know, not voting for him etc etc, but he's got the reigns for at least 18 months. Presumably he'd get the first term too, unless everybody votes Green. One party state!
Hopefully the next debate, if there is one, will be on the BBC and take a more Question Time style approach with the question format.
Medium of Death wrote: I mean after looking in to the currency thing more I'm not as bothered about it. I had just hoped Salmond would have been able to argue coherently. I know, not voting for him etc etc, but he's got the reigns for at least 18 months. Presumably he'd get the first term too, unless everybody votes Green. One party state!
Hopefully the next debate, if there is one, will be on the BBC and take a more Question Time style approach with the question format.
That would improve things somewhat, but it needs three things to make them really worthwhile IMO; no audience(questions from the public yes, but a live audience just encourages playing to the crowd), a moderator that's willing to step right in and forcefully direct proceedings, and a less fragmented format - taking breaks constantly to get "live reactions" from a bunch of talking heads just limits the potential for the politicians to give coherent, in-depth answers. EDIT: If you've not, check out the Sturgeon v Carmichael debate that was on STV a couple of months back, it wasn't perfect by any means, but the lack of audience and fairly coherent moderation meant it was a bit less shouty-sneery and a bit more informative than this more recent offering.
Who'll be running the show in 2016 is actually one of the most interesting and IMO exciting "uncertainties" of the whole affair. First, I suspect Alex may well have got the FM job again, but will he go for it? Consider; if he is concerned with his "legacy"(and being a politician he likely is, to a degree, even if he's not the mad obsessive he's cast as by some elements in the press), the man's 59, so he'll be almost 63 by the time we have our first independent elections, he'll just have achieved his life's work, he'll get to be "the man who led Scotland into independence" yadda yadda whatever - I'd say there's a better than even chance he cashes out on that high note and takes retirement a couple of years early, leaving Sturgeon likely to take over leadership of the SNP.
Beyond that, while I think Salmond almost certainly and Sturgeon very probably both have the force of personality required to keep the SNP solid, despite them having achieved their main reason for existing and cooperating for, at least a couple of terms of the parliament, it's still not a certainty. The SNP is a pretty broad church; Alex's membership of the '79 group gave him clout with the left-wing of the party, as did his support of Sturgeon who comes from that perspective, but his oil economist background and emphasis on a more "social democratic" rather than socialist policy direction, emphasising economic growth could be a tool to support social justice if properly managed, that gave him leverage over the smaller but still influential pro-business centre/centre-right elements who would otherwise back Swinney to the hilt. Even if the FM stays in for the first term as party leader, they'll likely lose a few fringe members on the left to the Greens, and a few fringe on the right to the Lib Dems or Tories - if the FM does step down and Sturgeon takes over the party will probably still mostly hold together but would lose a few more from the centre/centre-right wing. So they will probably continue, but with slightly less support, maybe enough to tip them back over the line and out of a majority, in which case we may well see them in coalition with the Greens depending on how big the erosion is, and whether Patrick Harvie is as sensible as he seems or turns out to be yet another environmentalist hard-liner who'd rather make no progress at all than not get absolutely everything he wants.
But there's still a few genuine wildcards. The Common Weal project is splitting off from the Jimmy Reid Foundation, and support for their ideas could have a serious impact on the results. CW or their supporters could form a new party, which would be a completely unknown quantity; they could offer support to any existing party candidates willing to endorse their policy programme, or we could see a raft of Independent non-party candidates campaigning informally under their banner. Another is, surprisingly, the Labour party, because we just don't know what they'll do. Labour seem to still have never forgiven people for electing the SNP in '07 and '11 into what they see as their "rightful place" in Scotland, so how they react to a Yes, whether they can organise and endure a change in leadership, rediscover their principles, and reenergise their campaign base among the voters could have a huge impact. Even the Tories or the Lib Dems might pull something really astonishing out of their hats, although that's pretty unlikely right off the bat as I suspect both will require a bit of distance in time between them and their past incarnation as local branches of not-very-popular UK parties.
But yeah, try and remember the last time there were so many factors and potential choices to make and ideas to debate when the UK elections came around. Right now the only genuine possible wildcard at the UK level is the chance we might see a Boris Johnson-led Tory party in coalition with a Farrage-led UKIP, and that's not so much exciting as it is genuinely horrifying
Scotland has its own parliament that has already decided to provide free university education and free old age care in Scotland, which are not available in England. What does this say about the democratic deficit between socialist Scotland and conservative UK?
What positives does Scotland have leaving the union? Very little if not none.
I've got many family members in Scotland (Glasgow to be exact) they think it would be absolutely tragic if they left Great Britian, AND THEY ARE CELTIC FANS and are very Catholic and they still want to stay.
The Economy would crash faster then you could say haggis. And no, North Sea oil would not hold it together, the yanks would get involved so fast and would probably look at it like this "Wait... North Sea no longer in British hands.... mhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Poppabear wrote: What positives does Scotland have leaving the union? Very little if not none.
I've got many family members in Scotland (Glasgow to be exact) they think it would be absolutely tragic if they left Great Britian, AND THEY ARE CELTIC FANS and are very Catholic and they still want to stay.
The Economy would crash faster then you could say haggis. And no, North Sea oil would not hold it together, the yanks would get involved so fast and would probably look at it like this "Wait... North Sea no longer in British hands.... mhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Religion and football has nothing to do with the independence debate.
And also when the No campaign has said Scotland would be successful as an independent nation it's pretty obvious that Scotland wouldn't "crash and burn"
And are you insinuating that the US would invade the oil fields?
Poppabear wrote: What positives does Scotland have leaving the union? Very little if not none.
I've got many family members in Scotland (Glasgow to be exact) they think it would be absolutely tragic if they left Great Britian, AND THEY ARE CELTIC FANS and are very Catholic and they still want to stay.
The Economy would crash faster then you could say haggis. And no, North Sea oil would not hold it together, the yanks would get involved so fast and would probably look at it like this "Wait... North Sea no longer in British hands.... mhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
What is this I don't even.
First, what religion you happen to follow(or not) nor which bloody sports team you support should have, and in the mast majority of cases does not have, anything to do with which way people vote on something this important. We have enough issues with Sectarian neanderthals without bringing it into mainstream political debate.
Second, me and a few others have spent the last few pages spelling out multiple benefits we'd get from leaving the union, and a fair whack of negatives we'd be able to avoid.
Finally, I would suggest you spend a bit of time looking into the facts of Scotland's economy before making such...entertaining pronouncements on its health, you may find yourself a bit surprised. For example, oil would make up approx 15% of the economy of an independent Scotland - that's substantially less than Norway, yet they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves even these days.
Kilkrazy wrote: Scotland has its own parliament that has already decided to provide free university education and free old age care in Scotland, which are not available in England. What does this say about the democratic deficit between socialist Scotland and conservative UK?
To me? It says that when we do have control over our own affairs, we enact policy much more in line with the wishes of the Scottish electorate, and that since we've done a decent enough job of running health, education, and local governance, there's no reason I can see we shouldn't have the chance to do the same with economic & tax policy, defence policy, foreign relations, and all the other things currently controlled by Westminster.
And Scotland isn't "socialist", our political consensus is just to the left of centre, likely because we're not weighed down by FPTP(it even hurts the Tories, under FPTP they have one Scottish seat, they'd have three or four based on share of the vote). The issue isn't that Scotland is some borderline Trotskyite paradise-in-waiting, the issue is that the electoral system of the UK combined with the incestuous relationships between politics, corporations, and the media has resulted the consensus at Westminster shifting ever further rightwards despite there not being a huge amount of difference between the Scottish and UK electorates when you drill down past party affiliation and ask opinions on policy options(excepting perhaps a less pronounced level of Euroskepticism up here). Like I said before, if a lot of people up here actually believed there was a chance of reforming the UK's broken political system from within, we'd be voting No in an instant, but we've been convinced, not by Alex Salmond or the SNP but by the actions and rhetoric of the British establishment itself, that it isn't going to happen.
Also, I'd note that there's no guarantee we'll get to keep our different policy choices if we vote No; we have control over those specific policy areas, but Westminster decides our budget. The latest Tory appointee to the Treasury has long been a proponent of cutting Scotland's budget to eliminate the "extra" £1200approx per-capita spend here(ignoring that we more than pay for that extra with on average £1700approx per-capita taxes over the UK average), many English and Welsh MPs have advocated replacing the Barnett Formula which currently dictates the size of the budget with a new "needs based formula" that would knock £4billion off our budget in one fell swoop, and even if Barnett remains in place, under that existing system our total budget is determined by allocating an amount of money for each devolved policy area that is a proportion of the total spend in the rest of the UK; the English NHS is being steadily privatised, meaning less public money is "officially" going to healthcare, so our budget gets reduced. The same thing is happening with higher education(tuition fees) and soon perhaps even primary and secondary education(for-profit Academies are likely coming in the next Parliament if the Tories get back in). Westminster cuts English council budgets, our finances are reduced as well. We don't have the powers(nor will we get them even under the barely-coherent "note No for more powers even though we specifically refused to put devo-max on the ballot paper we're on the level this time guv honest" proposals being made during the campaign) to raise additional revenue -any extra we bring in results in an exactly equivalent reduction in the block grant- so the Scottish Government has to balance the books; we've already had to make compromises in local government services, tertiary college education, and policing to fit in the things we consider important on-principle(education and healthcare free at the point of use for all), but given the limited policy areas we have control over, if our budget is reduced any more we're going to have to drop some of those to keep the others affordable.
Poppabear wrote: What positives does Scotland have leaving the union? Very little if not none.
I've got many family members in Scotland (Glasgow to be exact) they think it would be absolutely tragic if they left Great Britian, AND THEY ARE CELTIC FANS and are very Catholic and they still want to stay.
The Economy would crash faster then you could say haggis. And no, North Sea oil would not hold it together, the yanks would get involved so fast and would probably look at it like this "Wait... North Sea no longer in British hands.... mhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Religion and football has nothing to do with the independence debate. And also when the No campaign has said Scotland would be successful as an independent nation it's pretty obvious that Scotland wouldn't "crash and burn"
And are you insinuating that the US would invade the oil fields?
If we had half a brain we'd have three carriers sitting over it within 24 hours. At the same time launch Operation Girl Scout and unleach the 10th Girl Scout legion to take western Canada. But alas and alack we no longer have manly Presidents. Where's Jackson when you need him?
Poppabear wrote: What positives does Scotland have leaving the union? Very little if not none.
I've got many family members in Scotland (Glasgow to be exact) they think it would be absolutely tragic if they left Great Britian, AND THEY ARE CELTIC FANS and are very Catholic and they still want to stay.
The Economy would crash faster then you could say haggis. And no, North Sea oil would not hold it together, the yanks would get involved so fast and would probably look at it like this "Wait... North Sea no longer in British hands.... mhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Religion and football has nothing to do with the independence debate.
And also when the No campaign has said Scotland would be successful as an independent nation it's pretty obvious that Scotland wouldn't "crash and burn"
And are you insinuating that the US would invade the oil fields?
If we had half a brain we'd have three carriers sitting over it within 24 hours. At the same time launch Operation Girl Scout and unleach the 10th Girl Scout legion to take western Canada. But alas and alack we no longer have manly Presidents. Where's Jackson when you need him?
Beating Angels with a cane most likely.
But yeah I don't see why we would want the Scotland oil fields, I mean considering they've been discovering new ones in our area of ocean and land alone..
Though I don't know much about the Scotland issue aside from the vast rhetoric we keep hearing from the world news over there.
The most compelling arguments I've seen for independence are political ones - that England's right wing influence on the parliament drowns out the predominantly left wing voice of scotland. That seems a fair argument to me. On economic matters, I'm not as sure, but I also believe that not every decision made by a polity has to boil down to economics.
I'm following the debate out of a bit of self interest though- if Scotland gets independence, I wonder what it will do to the Unionist movement in Northern Ireland, which traditionally has pretty strong ties to Scotland (as does the Republican movement, but to different demographics).
We're looking at the centenary of the 1916 rising in a couple of years here, and reflecting on it, Independence didn't really do much for the republic. We became almost a catholic theocracy, mired in idealism about how Ireland should be, and controlled by a political elite who were no better, and perhaps worse, than the English we'd had before. The state education system and general narrative became extremely nationalistic, something you'll still get echoes from to this day. If Scotland gains independence, I hope they manage it better than we did, as I consider our bid for independence mostly failed at this point. Compare the health systems of the north and south, or the education systems, or the state of the civil service, and you will see the Northern example outshining the southern on almost all fronts, even with the added challenge of sectarian tensions.
I will watch with interest how this might influence Sinn Féin's push for a vote on the Border.
I'm off that week so going to stay up and see what happens overnight.
I'm a no voter and pretty much have been since day 1, for the simple fact Salmond is my local MP and through some work things and family members I have met him and spoken with him a few times and he is, if anything, a fantastic political salesman.
However the whole independence thing was basically the SNP's way to power, selling it as an opion of giving a referendum if they came to power, so that got them a lot of the anti-uk politico establishment straight off, and a wave of 'anyone but labour' after the Brown fiasco years, the SNP were basically the ONLY party worth voting for, for many, at the last Scottish election. This landslide victory gave the SNP a bighead, thinking they could do no wrong and the will of the Scottish people was that they wanted nationalist Scottish polcies and independence.
This basically became the SNP's sole policy, and now we are at the end of these labours, with many major political decisions not being made in healthcare, education and economically, with mainly fiddling at the edges policies (at the last manifesto, the biggest thing was making air rifles require a licence.
Recent bi-elections (specifically in Aberdeen) has seen the SNP vote collapse from a 3000 majority to just over 1000, and while many state that 'there are more panda's in Scotland than Tory MP's' the percentage of votes tell a very different story, with the tory vote in Scotland being something like 11% with 1 MP yet the SNP vote is closer to 16% of the vote, however due to proportional representation and skewed council boundaries lines (a legacy of labour ensuring the voting system is more likely to give them a majority) the SNP has less supporters than it thinks.
Biling it all down, my biggest fear is the fact we are less than 6 weeks till the vote and we still have no real plan for fiscal authority, currency or things like taxation and infrastructure, if these issues had been discussed in a less 'ach it'll be alreet' attitude I may even be a maybe at this time, but the total lack of reasoned debate on the 'what if's' and not simply calling it scaremongering beggars belief.
I think it will be a no vote with a 60/40 split or near enough to that, as many I speak to feel that the post Yes negotiations will involve the current SNP government, and many don't trust or believe sturgeon and salmond have the political neutrality to do whats best for Scotland, rather whats best for them and the snp, of which many businesses in Scotland are diametrically opposed to, especially in the north east.
I don't hold any negativity towards the Yes voters, apart from a few extreme idiots, but I do hate how this whole thing has created huge resentment, ill feeling and plain anger within the country and between England and Scotland.
I don't like how what was a fringe party some 5 years ago with what was seen as more extreme political promises built on the belief that they would never see power, suddenly deciding the future of the nation.
Speaking with friends the other night, many believe that our grandkids may have a better future under independence, however for us and our children it will be an unpleasant scary time, and things like pensions and pay may stagnate, meaning I cant provide things for my family like I could under the union, so my family has less opportunities leading into the future.
yes its all conjecture, but I don't see the good sense in voting for something that is so poorly explained and ill defined. It makes no sense.
If they had spent the last 2 years actually looking into this properly, then I may have gotten behind it, but as the white paper showed, they are basically wish listing and believeing that anyone who doesn't hate the tories and want to give half their salary away to make it 'fairer' should leave the country for England.
I look forward to it all dying a death come the 19th and we can not be bombarded by it for at least a generation.
Maybe a bit extreme but at the end of the day, the economics don't stack up to the slightest scrutiny, and that, in the end is why many are voting No.
Sorry Rick, but I'm struggling a bit with your characterisation of the White Paper, given it touches on virtually every aspect of governance and society and the sections on economics are drawn pretty much directly from the work of the Fiscal Commission Working Group, a team of renowned independent academic economists and business leaders. You might disagree with some of the policy choices it advocates(I certainly do in many regards), but to call it insubstantial or nothing more than a vague wishlist is unfair I think, and has not a few echos of when I sat watching the news as the WP was released and Alastair Darling came on to dismiss it as "fantasy and wishes", he apparently having read and digested the entire 600+ page document and its citations in the less than thirty minutes since the release.
Further, it's hardly the only vision on offer. Radical Independence, Common Weal, Business for Scotland, Wealthy Nation, Labour for Independence - there are perspectives from across the political spectrum, some of which like Common Weal, a summation of 50 academic papers on over a dozen subjects, are even more comprehensive than the WP. There have been debates hosted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh(available on YouTube) bringing together renowned experts to discuss the issues you list amongst others, there have been assessments from think tanks of all persuasions, the most recent being the Adam Smith Institute, a Libertarian group, advocating that an independent Scotland shouldn't pursue a currency union at all but rather go for "sterlingisation". Preliminary assessments by several international ratings agencies have pronounced us economically sound. There are public meetings taking place up and down the country practically every night of the week discussing exactly these kinds of questions.
There is an ocean of information and ideas out there at the moment, some of it speculative, much of it solidly grounded in research and experience, to the point I just can't recognise the view a few No voters seems to have that this whole thing is just a few notes Big Eck scrawled on the back of a napkin.
I'm also struggling a bit with your characterisation of the SNP. Certainly their overarching objective is and always has been independence, but to say they've done nothing while in office is patently false whether you agree with what they've done or not; PFI deals were ended, the whole NHS including hospitals and ancillary services were taken back into public ownership, council tax was frozen, they restored free higher education, the police forces were reorganised into the new national force in response to budget pressures, they've undertaken substantial infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, I can keep going but I think I've made my point. The "Scotland on Pause" routine might be a favoured tactic to deploy at FMQs, but it's a fiction.
When it comes to your prediction of the result, honestly it's entirely plausible, I may be a Yes voter but I'm also a cynical bastert so I don't buy into the whole "oh we're totes gonna win dudes!" enthusiasm and positive thinking bollocks, but it's by no means a certainty. There's a lot of folk who'll be voting in this referendum who've not even been on the electoral roll since the days of the poll tax, folk who've never voted before in their lives even, and given the turnout is expected to be in the 80%+ range and the fact none of the polling companies can seem to agree, there's still everything to play for.
As the rUK has already said it will block such a move, and they would have the right and reason to do so, the only thing Salmond could mean is piggybacking.
Otherwise known aas Panamaisation.
Also Salmond threatened a default on sharing the national debt if currency union is rejected. So Scotland's first acts as a sovereign independent state could be a debt default.
I wonder if this should be called Zimbabweisation?
I didn't vote UKIP or Conservative... Can I shout and scream until I am my own country?
It will be interesting to see how regional differences are dealt with in "any aiaaiaiaai aiaaiaiaa" (my touch screen is not letting me delete or cut that bit for some reason! Just keeps adding words whenever I try...) The voting.... vTvT
What if a region has, say a 90%no and 10% yes within and overall yes vote? Is there grounds to use the same be "you don't represent me!" As the SNP are foisting on the UK to remain within the union and not join the SNP in getting a few people people's names in the history books and damn the consequences?
Sorry for weird typos - not sure what the hell this tablet is doing!
It is worth remembering that a Yes vote does not create an independent nation overnight, it merely grants the Scottish parliament a democratic mandate to negotiate with the UK parliament regarding how to arrange a separation.
Obviously things like currency and the share of national debt would come into such negotiations, and they would get resolved one way or another.
Salmond would not be in a position to enforce a currency union though. He would do better to apply to join the Euro. However Salmond might not be in power to do these negotiations anyway.
While Salmond couldn't force a currency union it would devalue the pound not to do so considering without Scotland's income.
And Orlanth Westminster stated everything would be up for negotiation along with an unnamed tory minister saying it would happen and even Alastair Darling stating it was the logical option,
The GBP is perhaps a little too strong at the moment anyway. A destabilisation would occur regardless in the event of a yes vote, no matter whether concrete plans were in place to dictate what was actually going to happen (rather than the wishy washy grandstanding wish list "grass will be greener") paper the SNP actually produced....
From my understanding of the situation, Scotland applying to join the Euro would be complicated because Spain would be politically motivated to block any such move because they do not want to encourage separatist thinking.
And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU, wouldn't it obligated to hoi the Eurozone? I thought adopting the Euro is a pre condition for all future New entrants to the EU.
Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
Medium of Death wrote: Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
Unlikely event? Sources please.
Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.
Medium of Death wrote: Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
Unlikely event? Sources please.
Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.
Medium of Death wrote: Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
It only needs one to veto. Any nation can veto the move. Spain has gone on record to say it probably would
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
France and Italy. Italy for the same reasons as Spain, France because they don't want another sick economy in the Eurozone. Neither have stated their desire to veto,. just their discomfort.
France insisted that Scotland would have to apply as a new applicant, which was a shock to Salmond as he hoped the French would be old allies not understanding the French view of Scotland, historically and now.
Italy has problems with seperatist movements also but are largely quiet because it only takes one to veto and they would rather Spain did so.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
After some reflection, I've come to the conclusion that there isn't a wrong answer here. People get very wrapped up in the economic pros and cons, but realistically the UK can't afford Scotland to go belly-up right on its doorstep, and the Scottish economy will almost certainly end up being heavily dependent on the UK (probably very similar to the Irish economy). So either way, I can't see a great deal will be allowed to change. Scotland might get a bit of short term rejuvenation out of independence (assuming their new economy doesn't scare off foreign investors).
I think the issue is more of a cultural one. I would personally like to see the British Isles (including Ireland, and perhaps Normandy) being as united as possible. But it should be a unity based on mutual benefit, not English domination.
Culturally I think Scotland really need their independence. It would do the world of good for their national pride and identity. And if Scotland is going to have a good relationship with England in the future, then they need to be able to do it on their own terms as a proud independent nation.
SilverMK2 wrote: I didn't vote UKIP or Conservative... Can I shout and scream until I am my own country?
It will be interesting to see how regional differences are dealt with in "any aiaaiaiaai aiaaiaiaa" (my touch screen is not letting me delete or cut that bit for some reason! Just keeps adding words whenever I try...) The voting.... vTvT
What if a region has, say a 90%no and 10% yes within and overall yes vote? Is there grounds to use the same be "you don't represent me!" As the SNP are foisting on the UK to remain within the union and not join the SNP in getting a few people people's names in the history books and damn the consequences?
Sorry for weird typos - not sure what the hell this tablet is doing!
I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.
Respectfully, I think it is a bit more grey than you're making out. The UK is for all intents and purposes 'a country', which (like most countries) is composed of smaller countries (or really former countries). Scotland has retained some of its national identity, but it has also been heavily integrated into Britain, and I think if we're honest it has probably been straddling the boundaries between nation and region for some time. Which in fairness also applies to England.
Scotland is a country just like the states that make up the USA are countries.
Personally I am not fussed either way. I would love to see Scotland go its own way and either succeed or fail (in which case I am sure we can dust off the same union documents as last time ) or we could just invade and take the place over properly this time and put all this "I'm a real country" stuff to bed for good
I am more interested in what a "government that truly represents the people of Scotland" would do for areas of Scotland that very strongly do not agree with the referendum results should the answer be for independence.
Plus obviously I am interested in getting answers to some of the questions that have been raised time and again about money, joining the EU, etc etc that have equally endlessly been dodged or ignored by the SNP (and I do not feel there is significant difference between the yes camp and the SNP party).
Europe is a continent that contains a large number of nations including some that have only been formed fairly recently (e.g. Slovenia).
Despite this, the modern arrangements with the Schengen Area, the Euro and EU business regulations, are making it much easier to move from one country to another whether temporarily or permanently.
In some ways the exit of Scotland from the Union, and entry to the EU, would result in a situation similar to what exists at the moment.
Mr. Burning wrote: Say independence comes. How long does Scotland Tolerate Alex Salmond?
Next general election? The SNP should splinter post-independence as that's the key issue for the party and afterwards all their future goals would be covered by different parties (At least in theory)
I wonder if this should be called Zimbabweisation?
In light of current events I'd vote East Argentinaland (remember to roll that RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Scotland is a country just like the states that make up the USA are countries.
Personally I am not fussed either way. I would love to see Scotland go its own way and either succeed or fail (in which case I am sure we can dust off the same union documents as last time ) or we could just invade and take the place over properly this time and put all this "I'm a real country" stuff to bed for good
I am more interested in what a "government that truly represents the people of Scotland" would do for areas of Scotland that very strongly do not agree with the referendum results should the answer be for independence.
Plus obviously I am interested in getting answers to some of the questions that have been raised time and again about money, joining the EU, etc etc that have equally endlessly been dodged or ignored by the SNP (and I do not feel there is significant difference between the yes camp and the SNP party).
Frankly I think you guys are missing out on a golden opportunity. You need to get ten thousand SCA guys out there in armor and weapons and have it out. Winner picks.
Scotland can have a viable economy. Scotland under Salmond very likely cannot. A lot of people can see that.
Salmond has offered Scots the moon, and failed to say how he will get them there.
Salmond has stated Scotland will get fast track EU status - he has provmosed to close international waters to EU shipping if he doesnt get his way.
Salmond has stated Scotland will keep the Pound - he has promised a debt default if he doesnt get his way.
Salmond has promised Scots re-industrialisation, and extra spending on pretty much everything apart from nuclear weapons - yet not stated how he will pay for this.
The end result is that it is generally felt that if Scots vote Yes, Salmond will be the first national leader of a nation state which is more centralised than any other in Europe, and would have full opportunity to advance disasterous economic and European policies. And when (thats not if)the economy of iScotland goes belly up, Europe will have to pay the bill.
If Salmond was not in charge a lot of iScotlands problems might disappear.
I'm not sure why Scotland separating from the UK has anything to do with regions separating from a Country. The UK is a Union of Countries. Scotland is not a region of England. It's a separate nation exercising its right to leave a union of nations.
Possibly exercising its right, you talk as if its done and dusted already.
Mr. Burning wrote: Say independence comes. How long does Scotland Tolerate Alex Salmond?
Next general election? The SNP should splinter post-independence as that's the key issue for the party and afterwards all their future goals would be covered by different parties (At least in theory)
If Scotland voters YES, Salmond will be in power for at least two terms.
Leaders that secure independence normally have a popularity boost that gives them a cult following. Salmond could be replaced, but I don't see him stepping down as SNP leader, not when he is just about to get what he wants.
President Salmond will get two terms because he will have a 'fresh' economy and thus can borrow to put in place his schemes, it will take that long for reality to catch up.
Yodhrin wrote: Sorry Rick, Much Text that I didn't want to repeat just to quote..
The bit I didn't like about the white paper was more about the main economical points such as currency, debt (the belief Scotland wouldn't have any from the banking crisis) and the idea that scotlands wealth would be better distributed and the idea that renationalisation of things like the NHS and royal mail would be sustainable in a taxable economy of some 4 million people, without increasing taxation quite a bit or lowering public spending dramatically, he white paper seemed to suggest we could both increase spending but lower taxes....this stumped me straight off.
The main issue with it all is it is all so massively vague, the white paper was more of a very detailed manifesto of pledges, or things the SNP would like to do, it is not a detailed explanation of planning how an economy could work or an idea of how we would create the infrastructure for much that we take for granted that is currently housed in England, things like HMRC, DVLA, the MOD etc, these are very important and very little has been made mention of how these will be operated in Scotland.
Also the line that the SNP wont be the govt after the vote as there will be an election, while true, doesn't make the point that the negotiations over independace will be started and carried out largly by the incumbent SNP government, i.e salmond, sturgeon and sweeny, 3 people who I have yet to see talk any clear and basic facts about what they plan to do if their main ideas about the economy prove to be incorrect, which many analysts and third parties have proven to be the very likely case.
I know Scptland could work as an independent country, but this whole affair has been carried out to the tune of the belief that Scotland has been given the shaft by England for 300 years, when infact it has been a very succesfull partnership and the Tories hadn't been in power for over 14 years prior to the last government so Salmond and co decrying the Tories and 'the bankers' at every minute as the reason for Scotland ills is a bit daft given that the global recession was mostly due to collapsing hedge funds and mortgage arrears in the USA and 10 years of labour excessive public spending.
The fact the UK is now the fastest growing post recession economy makes me want to stay part of it, instead of stepping of the ledge into economic uncertainty with a small GDP and sizeable debt that the rUK would hand to us as the bill for buying out the Scottish debt earlier this year in the event of a Yes vote, the markets needed the confidence of that debt being covered, we will still have to pay that back, and if that is in the Euro or a new currency, it will be a lot more costly to a start up nation.
However I hold no ill will to you or anything Yodhrin, in case you thought I was having a personal attack
Medium of Death wrote: Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
Unlikely event? Sources please.
Sources? All the European governments that have already stated their intentions to block an independent Scotland's membership.
Medium of Death wrote: Silver, Scotland is actually recognised as a Country, so that's why we can split. To suddenly pretend that this is a part of England breaking away is ridiculous.
Spain is only one nation, surely their personal gripe about Catalans won't have a massive effect on Scotland's application to join the EU/adopt the Euro. Surely there clout is minimal when compared to say Germany or France?
It only needs one to veto. Any nation can veto the move. Spain has gone on record to say it probably would
There are 28 Countries in the EU, 27 if we go on the idea that Spain is guaranteed to block Scotland's entry. What other countries have expressed resistance to Scotland joining? I know a fair few have said that Scotland would need to reapply when Salmond insisted that we wouldn't.
France and Italy. Italy for the same reasons as Spain, France because they don't want another sick economy in the Eurozone. Neither have stated their desire to veto,. just their discomfort.
France insisted that Scotland would have to apply as a new applicant, which was a shock to Salmond as he hoped the French would be old allies not understanding the French view of Scotland, historically and now.
Italy has problems with seperatist movements also but are largely quiet because it only takes one to veto and they would rather Spain did so.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm aware, NO country in the EU has threatened to veto Scotland's inclusion into the Union. I'd love to see some sources to the contrary.
There are differing legal opinions on whether Scotland would "automatically" be a member or, for formal reasons, has to apply for membership. As Scotland IS part of the EU right now, virtually all the membership chapters could be closed right after opening them, IF this step is going to be deemed to be required, so this is not exactly a big deal.
Finally, there is no legal reason or obligation for Scotland to join the Eurozone. Who claims gak like that?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/alex-salmond-fisheries-eu-scotland - Salmond threatens the EU, while in Brussels wirth shipping restrictions in Scottish waters.
While cybernats would like to tell us this is 'Project Fear' the scare story came straight from the mouth of Alex Salmond and those hearing it were EU representatives in Brussels.
Why the feth should the EU trust a single thing Salmond says if he makes threats like this, the threats were illegal by the way, sort of thing a rogue state would try to pull off.
If Scots think that the EU will roll over and let Salmond have his way in Europe then they should think again (or think at all). Salmond has made it perfectly clear that he is the sort of loose cannon who is consequently a very poor credit risk. Even with seperatism out of the equation, and from Spain's point of view it cannot be; there is good reason for European governments and Brussels to be concerned with allowing a Salmond led Scotland in to the EU club.
The Yes campaign/SNP White paper is full of hairbrained schemes, and vague economic promises, Holyrood is exceptionally centralised (I did not know until this thread Holyrood had also centralised the police), this gives a Scottish government very few checks and balances and therefore can try and implement said hairbrained schemes and the first the Scottish people will be able to do anything about it is when they wake up and smell the insolvency.
Sorry, the French and Germans are not stupid enough to want to guarantee bankroll all that. The rUk has already confirmed it is not.
Equating Scotland's unique situation with Turkey's makes this particular article look rather satirical in nature. Even Iceland doesn't make for a good comparison, because frankly, there is none. Literally the ONLY thing that could stop Scotland's swift membership IF it is not ruled that it simply remains being a member, is the veto of another member state. That such a thing happens is entirely possible, but since we have no evidence either way, painting bleak pictures of everyone and their dog vetoing Scotland is just propaganda and/or baseless guesswork.
While not terribly diplomatic, this highlights rather well why, among other reasons, I do not think that vetos will be thrown around left and right.
I really don't have a horse in this race, because I am in no position to judge what would be better for Scotland. But I know a thing or two about the legal ramifications of this possible independence process on a European level, and I still get a fair amount of inside views on European (Parliament) politics, so when I look at this single issue where I feel qualified to form an opinion, I begin to understand how "Better Together" has gotten its "Project Fear" moniker.
So, no source for anything concrete whatsoever. Thought so.
So you are incapable of political analysis?
The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.
Equating Scotland's unique situation with Turkey's makes this particular article look rather satirical in nature. Even Iceland doesn't make for a good comparison, because frankly, there is none. Literally the ONLY thing that could stop Scotland's swift membership IF it is not ruled that it simply remains being a member, is the veto of another member state. That such a thing happens is entirely possible, but since we have no evidence either way, painting bleak pictures of everyone and their dog vetoing Scotland is just propaganda and/or baseless guesswork.
That is laughably ignorant.
To joun the EU you have to go through the joining procedures, notably Article 48.
If you dont believe this accept that by officials at the highest level have confirmed such.
Juncker is favourable to wards Scottish admission, but Article 48 still has to be observed
While not terribly diplomatic, this highlights rather well why, among other reasons, I do not think that vetos will be thrown around left and right.
They don't need to be, only one veto is required to set back Scottish membership. The UK itself experienced this because De Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the EEC, De Gaulles motives were thinly disguised anglophobia.
Spain is really worried about Catalonia seceding and wants to make secessions fail as an example of non productivity in the issue. This can be achieved by vetoing Scotland's membership.
I really don't have a horse in this race, because I am in no position to judge what would be better for Scotland. But I know a thing or two about the legal ramifications of this possible independence process on a European level, and I still get a fair amount of inside views on European (Parliament) politics, so when I look at this single issue where I feel qualified to form an opinion, I begin to understand how "Better Together" has gotten its "Project Fear" moniker.
'Project Fear' comes from a propaganda ploy in the pro-independence press, which mad bogus claims that the Better Together campaign used the term. Its a totally discredited story, but the Yes campaign keep on using it anyway. There was no 'Project Fear' agenda, it's a myth.
Wikipaedia wrote:On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear".[25] The name "Project Fear" subsequently appeared in other news outlets[26][27] and was co-opted by pro-independence campaigners.[28] The following line of the Sunday Herald's article said that "[Blair] McDougall is unrepentant about the tactics", but on the following day's edition of Scotland Tonight McDougall denied ever hearing anyone use the term "Project Fear".[29]
Project Fear is rolled out whenever the Yes campaigns implausible claims are scrutinised.
Scotland might not be able to keep pound - Tell the people it must be 'project fear', even though the reasons not to share the Uk currency is sound and well explained.
Scotland's EU entry might be vetoed by Spain - Tell the people it must be 'project fear', even though Spain's reasons are sound and they don't get on with the UK over Gibraltar so they have no reason to do the UK any favours.
Companies concerned about the post independence economy under Salmond - Must be project fear, even though large companies are generally led by people who can think for themselves.
SNP claims to improve services and keep tax low scritinised. - Tell the people it must be 'project fear', of course the SNP has doneall the maths, we have other reasons not to give actual figures than that they don't add up.
The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.
European politics are highly volatile at best or, as our American friends bemoan correctly, "completely unpredictable", to put it more bluntly. The interests of European nations vs each other and the Union as a whole are so incredibly multi-faceted that the whole system is best described as byzantine, and outside their colleagues in the European Council and the inner circles of their respective native parties no one, absolutely no one, knows what our prime ministers think or plan to do on questions of European dimension.
Spain has interests that touch the question of devolution and independence, but it also has interests in fishery, there are diplomatic "who's friends with whom" questions, opinions of NATO partners, considerations of future power balance in the Council regarding various Spanish fields of interest and so forth. A political "analysis" based on the issue of Catalonia alone is, to borrow your phrasing, "laughably ignorant".
To joun the EU you have to go through the joining procedures, notably Article 48.
If you dont believe this accept that by officials at the highest level have confirmed such.
Juncker is favourable to wards Scottish admission, but Article 48 still has to be observed
Spoken like a true dilettante.
I don't need to believe anything, because unlike you I know what I'm talking about here. WE ARE NOT EVEN SURE THAT Art. 49 TEU (which is the one you mean, Art. 48 is the one the SNP plans to use for its "fast track") IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE. There is dissent among experts about this question, which will have to be settled in court or by diplomatic means.
I can go into the details if you wish, but to keep it really short, questions of legal succession of states, the legal possibility of an amendment to Art. 49 TEU by treaty using Art. 48 TEU, the effect of the citizenship provisions of the Treaties on the de facto and de iure status of Scottish nationals as EU citizens, whether Algeria has to be treated as precedent, and what the intentions of the original drafters of the Treaties, especially Art. 48, 49, 52 TEU, were by means of historical interpretation all come into play here.
That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.
Regarding your officials: Everybody with legal training is entitled to a qualified opinion on these matters, but that doesn't mean they're RIGHT until the case, should it arise, has been settled, no matter how much of an expert they are, because chances are, the other side has just as many legal experts with just as many accolades and just as convincing arguments.
We just don't know what exactly will be deemed the correct process or if it even comes to that. Everybody who claims he does know is either lying through his teeth or deluded.
They don't need to be, only one veto is required to set back Scottish membership. The UK itself experienced this because De Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the EEC, De Gaulles motives were thinly disguised anglophobia.
Last I read here Spain, Italy, Germany and France were all eager to kick those evil, unruly Scots out.
A few points about Scottish independence: I will provide sources if asked, but I'm short on time right now. It's pub time
Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.
The Spanish foreign minister is quoted as saying that Spain respects the outcome of the referendum because it's legal under UK law. Comparisons to Catalonia are stupid, because the Spanish government refuses to allow Catalonia a referendum and would consider any breakaway illegal a la Kosovo.
The EU have compromised in the past with regards to exceptional circumstances. German re-unification springs to mind. The EU gave that the green light.
Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.
The President of the EU commission is quoted off-record as being sympathetic to Scotland's unique situation, and also, is very annoyed at David Cameron's attempts to stop him from getting the Presidential post. I'm sure dakka members know how the world of politics works
The EU was built on freedom and democratic principals. To ban people from gaining membership, because they voted for independence in a democratic referendum, would be like the NRA saying to Frazz that he couldn't be a member because he likes guns
Scotland can use the pound if it wants upon gaining independence and nobody can stop them. It's an international currency. The North Koreans could use it if they wanted to.
A currency union is another matter. But given that Scotland has the nuclear weapons, and the rest of the UK does not have a decent base for them. then it stands to reason that after a yes vote, reality would kick in, and the UK would get down to serious diplomacy. A compromise is more than likely. For example, Scotland gets the currency union, and the UK gets a lease for 30 years on the trident base. This is just one example of a likely scenario.
Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.
As much as I agree with the rest of your post, this bit, unfortunately, is untrue. Where did you get this idea?
The reasons Spain want to veto are evident, their intentions are evidenced, it is not in their interest to make comments now because it will harm diplomatic relations.
If you insist on 'concrete evidence' to be consisting on confessions and not motive and plausibility then there would be few convictions in courts and little global analysis.
European politics are highly volatile at best or, as our American friends bemoan correctly, "completely unpredictable", to put it more bluntly. The interests of European nations vs each other and the Union as a whole are so incredibly multi-faceted that the whole system is best described as byzantine, and outside their colleagues in the European Council and the inner circles of their respective native parties no one, absolutely no one, knows what our prime ministers think or plan to do on questions of European dimension.
Spain has interests that touch the question of devolution and independence, but it also has interests in fishery, there are diplomatic "who's friends with whom" questions, opinions of NATO partners, considerations of future power balance in the Council regarding various Spanish fields of interest and so forth. A political "analysis" based on the issue of Catalonia alone is, to borrow your phrasing, "laughably ignorant".
Well Allod, I gave quotes from senior Spanish government officials reported by the press. I didn't make them up.
I wonder who has more insight as to how Spanish govermnent foreign and European policy operates, Allod or the Spain's Prime Minster Mariano Rajoy?
Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."
However we all are supposed to know that Allod has policy making rights in Spain, he was super-elected there you know.
To joun the EU you have to go through the joining procedures, notably Article 48.
If you dont believe this accept that by officials at the highest level have confirmed such.
Juncker is favourable to wards Scottish admission, but Article 48 still has to be observed
Spoken like a true dilettante.
I don't need to believe anything, because unlike you I know what I'm talking about here.
Well I can give you points for confidence, you know more about Spanish policy than the Spanish government apparently.
WE ARE NOT EVEN SURE THAT Art. 49 TEU (which is the one you mean, Art. 48 is the one the SNP plans to use for its "fast track") IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE. There is dissent among experts about this question, which will have to be settled in court or by diplomatic means.
Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process. If Article 49 is used Scotland requires years of waiting.
However under Article 48 still goes through the European Parlaimanet requiring a majority decision and the european Council requirinf a unanimous vote (i.e any no is a veto)
So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.
For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.
Scottish application (under optimum conditions) involves a modification of the UK's entry treaty, and thus requires unanimity in the European Council vote. This assumes that the application process goes the SNP's way at all, which is n0t a given. it is possible a full applicatiuon under article 49 is required.
That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.
The UK doesnt have to do anything of the sort. The UK can remain neutral in the proceedings which is the most ethical option as to do otherwise is Westminster interference which would by the ballot be unwanted.
However the majority European Parlaiment vote followed by the unanimous vote in the European Council must occur if Article 49 entry is to be achieved. Spanish representatives can block it there. This assumes that the actual vote in the European parliament goes Scotland's way.
While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it. It may come to pass that the Spanish veto isn't even necessary.
However you cut it, Wee Eck's insistence that Scotland will get fasttracked into Europe have a large number of 'if's' attached. In case you haven't realised the EU doesn't have to follow Salmonds orders, or Salmonds timetable.
We just don't know what exactly will be deemed the correct process or if it even comes to that. Everybody who claims he does know is either lying through his teeth or deluded.
Which is why I went with the Article 48 analogy, even the best case scenario is not promising.
i cannot give guarantees, but I can take Spanish sovereign government statements at face value as they come from very high officials, Spain has motive and an EU vote/veto.
However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?
They don't need to be, only one veto is required to set back Scottish membership. The UK itself experienced this because De Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the EEC, De Gaulles motives were thinly disguised anglophobia.
Last I read here Spain, Italy, Germany and France were all eager to kick those evil, unruly Scots out.
In the case of Spain, not let the Scots in is more accurate, for clear reasons of their own.
France has confirmed at high level that Scotland will need to apply. Germany is quiet but doesnt want another failing EU economy as Germans have to pay for them. Whether Scotland is a failing economy depends very much on how much SNP government it gets post independence and whether they have intention to follow their White Paper economic policies.
Anyway, the point was made. De Gaulle blocked UK entry into the EEC, he did so for as long as he held onto power and did so via veto. The UK could only join after he died in the 70's but could have joined much earlier.
If France could block UK entry for no better reason than anglophobia, could Spain block Scottish entry because of Catalonia. Spain at least has an excuse and it has nothing to do with 'evil, unruly Scots'.
Spain and the UK couldn't block Scotland's entry into the EU, even if they wanted to - it's a majority vote between the 28 members. Nobody gets a veto, otherwise, the UK would have stopped Bulgaria and Romania getting in.
The Spanish foreign minister is quoted as saying that Spain respects the outcome of the referendum because it's legal under UK law.
Spain has said it will respect the referendum and not interfere with it because its happens in the UK.
This is very different from accepting Scotland's EU application.
Comparisons to Catalonia are stupid, because the Spanish government refuses to allow Catalonia a referendum and would consider any breakaway illegal a la Kosovo.
Comparisons to Catalonia are valid because the Spanish Foregin minsitry has aleady made the comparisons.
It is relevant because iof Scotland secedes other provinces in Euriope with sepratist leasnings will also want referenda., and it will be harder to stop the clamour for them.
The last thing Spain wants is for Catalans to say, Scotland got independence and EU membership, sho why dont we?
The EU have compromised in the past with regards to exceptional circumstances. German re-unification springs to mind. The EU gave that the green light.
German reunifaction required the four powers agreement. The UK and US were quick to agree, Russia took a little longer, the real sticking point was acrtually France. It took a while for France to agree. Yes this was also a veto situation.
Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.
This has not been confiormed, if so Article 48 applies, if it doesn't Article 49 applies. An EU ruling will be required, this will occur on the timing of the EU, not Scotland or the UK.
The President of the EU commission is quoted off-record as being sympathetic to Scotland's unique situation, and also, is very annoyed at David Cameron's attempts to stop him from getting the Presidential post. I'm sure dakka members know how the world of politics works
I do think there is a connection. At least you can think and read between the lines. You should apply the reading between the lines to what France and Spain have commented on the Scottish application to the EU.
The EU was built on freedom and democratic principals. To ban people from gaining membership, because they voted for independence in a democratic referendum, would be like the NRA saying to Frazz that he couldn't be a member because he likes guns
The EU is built on gravy training and anything but democratic principles. Many of the real decisions take place behind closed doors with no accountability. This is why Cameron opposed Juncker.
In any event the method of Scottish entry will need to be properly debated and agreed upon by lawyers. If they agree too soon they don't get bonuses for the hours they put in. I am sure you know how politics works.
Most EU applications could be handled in months, but take many years. AS we dont even know under which track Scotland will have to apply, that alone could take a while to iron out.
Scotland can use the pound if it wants upon gaining independence and nobody can stop them. It's an international currency. The North Koreans could use it if they wanted to.
Yes they can, its known as the Panama option. But it means that Scotland has no guarantor, no right to fix interest rates, print money or wset its exchange rates and the rUK will be right to insist the Bank of England adjusts its policies and figures solely for the benefit of the UK, not Scotland.
Sturgeon wants a Scottish currency, Scotland should go with that option.
A currency union is another matter. But given that Scotland has the nuclear weapons, and the rest of the UK does not have a decent base for them. then it stands to reason that after a yes vote, reality would kick in, and the UK would get down to serious diplomacy. A compromise is more than likely. For example, Scotland gets the currency union, and the UK gets a lease for 30 years on the trident base. This is just one example of a likely scenario.
Scotland doesn't have nuclear weapons, the UK has nuclear weapons in Scotland, big difference. Even if Scotland didn't have an anti-nuclear agenda one would be forced upon them via non-proliferation. Scotland could get away with dodging that but its a moot point anyway. Also Trident can be moved, and AFAIK from MoD contacts there are contingencies already in place.
Scotland will NOTget currency union though. If it does Salmond will be able to borrow massively to fund his projects and leave the rUK to foot the bill when Scotland defaults on the debt. All three main Westminster parties and HM Treasury are eye to eye on that one.
Orlanth, I apologise for replying like this, and not using the quotes (like you did) because even after years of being a member of dakka, I'm still struggling to get the hang of certain features!
Anyway, a few points in reply to your posts:
1) Scotland can not default on its debt. It would be a brand new nation - it has no debt. The UK treasury confirmed this back in February, when it guaranteed the UK's debt. Scotland could agree to take on a share of 10% of the UK's debt, but has no legal obligation to do so. Like trident, the debt issue could be a useful bargaining chip for Scotland to get a CU
2) If Scotland were booted out of the EU, it would cause massive upheaval. Thousand of EU citizens from other countries would be in limbo, the bulk of the North Sea fishing areas would be up in smoke because of uncertainty, and a massive hole would be carved into NATO's northern zone. Politics is compromise, it is not unlikely that the EU and NATO would make exceptions for Scotland.
3) Where are the options for re-housing Trident in another part of the UK? I'm pretty sure that Portsmouth is unsuitable due to a lack of facilities, and also because the people down there don't want nuclear weapons near major population centres (although Westminster is happy to have them next to Scotland's largest city!)
4) If Scotland breaks away, would the UK exist any more? I'm pretty sure that the union is only between Scotland and England (Wales and NI don't count ) so wouldn't England, Wales, and NI, be in a very strange, pre 1707 situation?
Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."
In what reality does this translate to "I hereby vow to block any required unanimous decision to let Scotland accede to the EU"? Wait, scratch that, I'd rather not know.
Orlanth wrote: Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process.
Because of Juncker? Huh?
How about because Art. 48 TEU would indeed allow to skip the whole accession procedure, if a certain legal viewpoint prevails, which has absolutely nothing to do with Juncker? But I gathered you don't even want to know what the debate is about, because you already heard the opinion you like, read Art. 48, 49 TEU on a Wiki and have now cemented your own personal truth.
So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.
Apart from you having not the slightest idea what the optimum conditions are, if you read my posts, you would have noted that I repeatedly said that a veto is a possibility. But don't let that get into the way of a good rant.
That said, virtually all of the Chapters of the Acquis that are the most crucial part of the accession procedure, which is made out to be such a looong and arduous task for Scotland, would be fulfilled by Scotland by default, since the UK, from which Scotland would inherit all its relevant laws, needs to adhere to those right now, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith would prevent almost all shenanigans by other member states at this stage of the procedure. Which leaves those member states with the "veto" as the only means of preventing a swift Scottish accession, which is what I said before.
The UK doesnt have to do anything of the sort.
The UK doesn't have to do what? Negotiate in good faith after *not* vetoing the opening of the Chapters of the Acquis, which is the prerequisite of getting to this stage? I don't follow, but since your idea of political procedures seems to be lifted straight from the Victorian era, I won't bother.
Orlanth wrote: While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it.
I'll not even ask you to provide sources on this anymore.
However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?
No idea, you're the Brit, you tell me. I already stated I don't have a horse in the race, and Salmond is probably talking out of his ass most of the time, like most politicians.
Anyway, since you aren't interested in anything that might challenge your opinion, we're done here, aren't we?
The UK will only cease to exist if Scotland holds a referendum to depose the Queen as monarch.
As for the UK as a nation, obviously the nation of England Wales and Northern Ireland would continue to exist in international affairs, in the same way that it continued after the independence of the USA, Canada, Australia, Eire, India, Pakistan, Burma, Uganda, Malaya, South Africa, etc, etc. The status of the Queen as monarch of Scotland would not affect that.
Scotland is a similar case - it is fully compliant with all EU laws/directives, and no mechanism exists for denying EU citizens their membership, simply because they voted for independence away from an existing member state.
This has not been confiormed, if so Article 48 applies, if it doesn't Article 49 applies. An EU ruling will be required, this will occur on the timing of the EU, not Scotland or the UK.
No, whether Art. 48 applies does not depend on Scotland being compliant with the Chapters of the Acquis or EU citizenship rights, but thanks for playing.
I can't believe there would be any serious difficulty in Scotland joining the EU. It might take a few years and some behind the scenes diplomatic havering, but it would happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't believe there would be any serious difficulty in Scotland joining the EU. It might take a few years and some behind the scenes diplomatic havering, but it would happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK will only cease to exist if Scotland holds a referendum to depose the Queen as monarch.
Evidence suggests this will happen. The SNP manifesto says the monarchy will remain as long as the people want to to remain, this is jargon for, 'we will canvass this opinion and force and abolition if the vote goes our way'.
The SNP also has a very vocal republican movement within it, which has been silent even after Salmond 'insisted' the monarchy will remain. RThe complete lack of dissent on this issue leads me (and others) to believe that Salmond's promises to keep the crown are just telling people what he wants them to hear with the actual policy appearing after separation. The republican movement in the SNP might not get their way but I so not consdier rthe monarchy secure in a post independence Scotland.
In any case a Scottish republic would not end the UK so long as the monarchy persistsd elsewhere.
As for the UK as a nation, obviously the nation of England Wales and Northern Ireland would continue to exist in international affairs, in the same way that it continued after the independence of the USA, Canada, Australia, Eire, India, Pakistan, Burma, Uganda, Malaya, South Africa, etc, etc. The status of the Queen as monarch of Scotland would not affect that.
Agreed. Though if Scotland goes Wales will kick off as will Northern Ireland. Also the word Scotland appears in the name of the UK with regards to its important assets in particular the seat on the UN Security council, there are strong indications the UK may be replaced if this occurs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Orlanth, I apologise for replying like this, and not using the quotes (like you did) because even after years of being a member of dakka, I'm still struggling to get the hang of certain features!
Find some posts, quote them and look at what appears in the text box you type in.
1) Scotland can not default on its debt. It would be a brand new nation - it has no debt. The UK treasury confirmed this back in February, when it guaranteed the UK's debt. Scotland could agree to take on a share of 10% of the UK's debt, but has no legal obligation to do so. Like trident, the debt issue could be a useful bargaining chip for Scotland to get a CU
Currency Union will not happen. As for the UK's debt yes the Bank of England underwrites that, but Scotland is part of ther Uk, if it leaves it leaves with a portion of the debt. If Scotland refuses the UK can sell assets that Scotland would otherwise inherit while still part of the UK.
2) If Scotland were booted out of the EU, it would cause massive upheaval. Thousand of EU citizens from other countries would be in limbo, the bulk of the North Sea fishing areas would be up in smoke because of uncertainty, and a massive hole would be carved into NATO's northern zone. Politics is compromise, it is not unlikely that the EU and NATO would make exceptions for Scotland.
EUY membership and NATO membership are not the same thing. So one doent efect the other, however some NATO partners are not happy with Scotland seceeding from a NATO point of view.
3) Where are the options for re-housing Trident in another part of the UK? I'm pretty sure that Portsmouth is unsuitable due to a lack of facilities, and also because the people down there don't want nuclear weapons near major population centres (although Westminster is happy to have them next to Scotland's largest city!)
I am sure the government doesn't tell Dakka where is intends to store its nukes.
For all the rhetoric about bases in Scotland, Salmond complained at every cut because it meant less jobs in the local community. Faslane helps Scotland's economy.
Also remember that the UK used to have the worlds largest navy, naval facilities are underused , there are a large number of candidate sites to send the boomer fleet, all would need extensive work, but m ostly it will just entail a shift of existing infrastructure which can be done in the transition period.
The government may the slow to adopt new rail links, but they can cut through the red tape very quickly when it comes to nukes. Understandable really.
As some SNP politicians have made it clear they want to use Faslane as an opportunity to force the UK (not just Scotland) to abandon the nuclear arsenal there is an incentive to move quickly.
4) If Scotland breaks away, would the UK exist any more? I'm pretty sure that the union is only between Scotland and England (Wales and NI don't count ) so wouldn't England, Wales, and NI, be in a very strange, pre 1707 situation?
Yes it would. AFAIK the nation would just be renamed the United Kingdom and not specify component territories. Even the flag will remain the same, this is agreed to happen within the UK, even though St Andrews cross is part of the flag. There are several historical precedents for this. While the Treaty of Union would be disbanded in the Scottish parliament, the 1706 treaty in Westminster may remain, and lie dormant. The Scottish parliament has claimed it would be 'appropriate' to repeal it, but Westminster is likely to just ignore that and carry on as normal. Thus leaving the door open for Scotland to apply to rejoin the UK at a later date.
Hmmm. The counter arguments here (on the EU and currency issues) are pretty strong. My mind is changed.
In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.
Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."
In what reality does this translate to "I hereby vow to block any required unanimous decision to let Scotland accede to the EU"? Wait, scratch that, I'd rather not know.
Orlanth wrote: Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process.
Because of Juncker? Huh?
On what terms Scotland has to apply is undecided. Either as an inrternal process via artcle 48 or a full external provcess article 49. Juncker is AFAIK pro-Scotland and can influence this.
How about because Art. 48 TEU would indeed allow to skip the whole accession procedure, if a certain legal viewpoint prevails, which has absolutely nothing to do with Juncker? But I gathered you don't even want to know what the debate is about, because you already heard the opinion you like, read Art. 48, 49 TEU on a Wiki and have now cemented your own personal truth.
You should try reading.
Spain and France have already categorically stated from high level sources that Scotland would have to apply, you even quoted the quote from the Spanish Prime Minister saying as much. it is moronic to assume that Scotland would bypass the entire application process, you make it sound like the EU members have no choice.
So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.
Apart from you having not the slightest idea what the optimum conditions are, if you read my posts, you would have noted that I repeatedly said that a veto is a possibility. But don't let that get into the way of a good rant.
As your posts contradict open statements from very senior EU officials it is little surprise I don't actually put a lot of store by your input, and your optimum conditions are 'skip the whole accession procedure'under Article 48, which nevertheless on reading the article includes a parliament vote and a council unanimity/veto opportunity.
The UK doesn't have to do what? Negotiate in good faith after *not* vetoing the opening of the Chapters of the Acquis, which is the prerequisite of getting to this stage? I don't follow, but since your idea of political procedures seems to be lifted straight from the Victorian era, I won't bother.
The Uk need not have any input into the Scottish EU bid, there is no 'negitiation' needed, Scotland secedes, Uk accepts the referenda and says nothing on ther grounds that it would be interference. UK then doesnt vote on the EU admission neither preventing Scottish membership nor hindering it.
there are historical precedents fro this also. During the 1948 UN resoltion on the foundation of Israel the UK formally abstained because it had held the Palestine Mandate.
In the same way as Scotland was part of thUK the UK can choose to abstain in Scotlands EU admission as a point of non-interference.
That cant be read as anything other than what it is.
Orlanth wrote: While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it.
I'll not even ask you to provide sources on this anymore.
I wonder if you are semi-literate. Try reading the comment, go on, try.
I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it. means there are no sources found, so it stands to reason that I wont provide any.
i have provided sources already of Spain, and in other threads France stating that Scotland would have to apply as a fresh member state. This was a blow as Salmond was hoping France would back the ideology that Scotland need not apply and can inherit membership of the EU. You can find these sources yourself also.
However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?
No idea, you're the Brit, you tell me. I already stated I don't have a horse in the race, and Salmond is probably talking out of his ass most of the time, like most politicians./quote]
The former. Salmond is saying a lot of things which he knows are patently untrue, all he needs is the Yes vote. The consequences don't matter, if Scots are hoodwinked into voting Yes then when they realise Salmond lies it will be too late. Thankfully enough people see through this.
If Salmond was not SNP leader the changes of a Yes vote would be much higher IMHO. Yes other politicians lie, but most stick to some sort of truth for tactical reasons if nothing else. Salmond has told a pack of lies from start to finish, in fact he is using the 'big lie' technique, which is surprisingly effective: lie so much and so often people believe you.
This goes both ways. I hear it said that people vote No because of Salmond and Yes because of Westminster and those are the two main issues.
Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.
However, there may be issues regards the stability of the newly independent country politically and financially. Membership may be delayed until such point that the dust from the split settles and Scotland has shown what direction it is heading in.
Ok, so this is probably a dumb question, but what time is this expected to happen? Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Or do I have a while to go
I am happy to have my opinion challenged by facts and reasoned arguments.
Trouble is you are yet to provide anything substantial of either.
Oh really? Funny you would say that.
You don't know under what circumstances Art. 49 or Art. 48 would apply, you don't know the full picture of legal questions that extends far, far beyond these two Articles, you don't know what can be changed by diplomatical accord and what can't (at least practically speaking), you don't understand where "negotiation" comes in or what precisely it means in regards to the accession procedure, you fail to understand the fundamental differences between TEU and U.N. vote processes, and you appear to have little concept of the relevance of officials' legal opinions because you are unsure which parts of the accession procedure are diplomatical in nature and which legal, not to mention who decides these things and how.
Yet, when confronted with a differing opinion from somebody in his own field of expertise, you not only didn't ask about the basis for these views (not to be expected on the internet), but continued to produce half-understood bits and pieces you read somewhere with the authority of absolute truth and deflect everything that didn't fit towards those again.
Should I ever voice my opinion on something I have absolutely no clue about, like, say, military tactics and hardware, and Seaward or Jihadin call me out on it, I will shut up and listen. Not because they are some kind of internet authority, but because from two sentences they write I can see that they are far more knowledgable in this field than me, so I can only benefit from upgrading "stuff I read somewhere" to "things that were personally explained to me by a professional".
But go on claiming that Allod thinks "Allod knows Spanish policy better than its PM", although I specifically said practically no one knows what Rajoy's policy decisions will be, and this includes you, who thinks to know what he will veto, because these types of people have to juggle more issues at once in their decisions than we as citizens even know to exist; go on claiming Allod's categorically ruling out a veto and go on suspecting Allod's just a pimply nerd in his mother's basement instead of somebody who worked with these very matters for five years during his legal career. Your loss.
You don't know under what circumstances Art. 49 or Art. 48 would apply, you don't know the full picture of legal questions that extends far, far beyond these two Articles, you don't know what can be changed by diplomatical accord and what can't (at least practically speaking), you don't understand where "negotiation" comes in or what precisely it means in regards to the accession procedure, you fail to understand the fundamental differences between TEU and U.N. vote processes, and you appear to have little concept of the relevance of officials' legal opinions because you are unsure which parts of the accession procedure are diplomatical in nature and which legal, not to mention who decides these things and how.
No we dont know which exact articles will apply as the lawyers havwent decided.
However the Yes campaign has been insistinct through Salmond that Scotland will get an easy road into the EU, on Scotlands timetable. This doesnt match up with evidence of how the EU admissions work.
Furthermore there is strong evidence that some EUn countries dont want Scotland in for reasons of their own, those reasons were given.
Now the art of political analysis takes all these things into account. Spain has every reason and opportunity to put a spanner in the works, and has made comments to that effect from the highest level. I see no reason not to take their word for it.
Yet, when confronted with a differing opinion from somebody in his own field of expertise, you not only didn't ask about the basis for these views (not to be expected on the internet), but continued to produce half-understood bits and pieces you read somewhere with the authority of absolute truth and deflect everything that didn't fit towards those again.
The differeing of legal opinion matter relatively little, it could be significant as it shows what track the application goes under, but as we explore the path through Article 48 or Article 49, and even if we take a best case scenario for iscotland and take ther Article 48 route it still comes down to veto opportunities.
Should I ever voice my opinion on something I have absolutely no clue about, like, say, military tactics and hardware, and Seaward or Jihadin call me out on it, I will shut up and listen.
You have already voiced opinion on something you know nothing about, quotes were given to you, from multiple sources where necessary. Quotes from the EU law and quotes form senior politicians with the power and motive to put a stop to the application.
It was even given to you historical examples of how easy it was for a veto on application to occur, against a country more powerful than iScotland, from a source that had little reason except spite.
Not because they are some kind of internet authority, but because from two sentences they write I can see that they are far more knowledgable in this field than me, so I can only benefit from upgrading "stuff I read somewhere" to "things that were personally explained to me by a professional".
Why assume I just made it up, unless you go to the stretch that I just made up the links also.
But go on claiming that Allod thinks "Allod knows Spanish policy better than its PM", although I specifically said practically no one knows what Rajoy's policy decisions will be, and this includes you, who thinks to know what he will veto, because these types of people have to juggle more issues at once in their decisions than we as citizens even know to exist; go on claiming Allod's categorically ruling out a veto and go on suspecting Allod's just a pimply nerd in his mother's basement instead of somebody who worked with these very matters for five years during his legal career. Your loss.
If you are a professional, contribute like one. There is no evidence of quality in your thinking on this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.
De Gaulles motive for blocking the UK admission to the EEC twice. He hated Les Anglais. The UK had to wait until he was dead and gone.
Those who want to block Scotland have stronger motives than that, no less selfish, but important to them. Secession is a disease that spreads, best if it fails.
Just as the Arab Spring toppled many regimes, both those that needed to go and others, but generally the stirring made things worse.
Scottish independence is expected to set of grumblings across Europe. Spain and Italy need this like a hole in the head.
The UK will have it worse, as enough Welsh will want iWales next to demand a referndum there and the Troubles might kick off again in Northern Ireland.
The sooner this is over the better.
motyak wrote: Ok, so this is probably a dumb question, but what time is this expected to happen? Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Or do I have a while to go
but what time is this expected to happen? It isnt. On the balance the vote is most likely to be No.
Or do I have a while to go. If there is a yes vote there will be a UK until 2016 at least. There will likely be an open border also.
Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Go ahead, travel and see the world. You dont need to wait for this circus to stop. Be in Scotland for the vote though, whichever way you feel it should go, this is likely the most important ballot of your life.
In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.
I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.
Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.
This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetlands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.
In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.
I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.
Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.
This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.
intelligent analysis deserving a close look.
The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) - Scotland would probably eventually gain EU membership, France couldn't keep the UK out forever, but it would shatter the short term dreams of iScotland, as the policies are entirely short termist this is a big problem.
There is a second ancillary problem attached to that. There is a movement in the EU to downsize ansd kick out weaker economies, how serious it is I do not klnow, but its plausible and the major players have good reason for the downsize. The idea is to knock the EU to stronger economies only. France Germany UK (or rUK), Benelux and and Scandinavian economy that wants to join. Weaker economies can have associate status, but wont be guaranteed by the EU anymore. The Germans are big behind this as they end up bankrolling 'club med' economies and are sick of it.
As the crunch happens, see below, it may be necessary to hack off diseased limbs and rebuild from the core.
In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. - Here is the first bugbear, the Uk in general, and that includes Holyrood is trapped in a very short term thinking mindset. Everyone says long term, but that means at most 'next election' sometimes it means 'next quarter' or even 'next week'. This is not just Scotland's problem though.
You need to compound this with Salmonds agenda of borrow now spend and squander, he is in it for the moment of history and a time with the toys as first leader of iScotland. The future be damned.
Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term. - Depending on which oil figures you read Scotland either has massive reserves or very few. The reality is both are true, almost all the easily accessible oil is gone, there are large reserves but they are not easily accessible and may not be profitable to extract. As for the other long term prospects they are not Scotlands fault, they are the fault of the entire system which has long overlooked the long term consequences of policy. Basically we are all fethed long term.
That being said the UK has enough infrastructure that it may rise phoenixlike from the ashes, as can the other core European economies, others will likely just burn. Europe as a whole has been living well beyond its means for too long, and the world is changing.
Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span. - This is actually getting more likely, though more like two decades, and will happen to all parts of what is currently UK regardless of which split off. The question is how much can be put together again after the collapse.
This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. - The current referendum was Scottish parlaiment orchestrated, as a result no speration deal is possible, Salmond will not allow it. By most accounts the Orkneys and Shetlands would want to stay in the UK, and will drag the oil with them, so Salmond wants independence choice for some, but not for all. In a way there is a fairness to it.
One of the advantages of letting the Scottish parlaiment entirely run the referendum campaign is that they cant blame anyone else when Scotland votes No. As parts of Scotland now has a taste for referenda on this issue the SNP will clamour for another vote if a No result occurs. While technically the result on 18 Sept will last for a 'generation', I do not see the SNP accepting that. Most contacts I speak to beleive the SNP may demand a referendum every parliament, at least until successful.
So the answer will be to allow a new referendum, but not allow the Scottish parliament full control. So Sheltands and Orkneys will have the denocratic right to remain in the UK. SNP wont want that, but they had their one referendum and they had it their way, if they want to disavow the binding result and demand another one they can have one our way.
This gives SNP two options, a referendum for an iScotland in all likelihood without much of the oil, or keeping to the results of 18 September 2014.
It's a gamble, but it looks like it may pay off.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes, there are reasons why the Westminster government has given Holyrood free rein to run the referendum, and there is a reason why the UK government itself has kept out of it.
As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.
SilverMK2 wrote: As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.
Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.
In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.
I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.
Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.
This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.
This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
intelligent analysis deserving a close look.
The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) - Scotland would probably eventually gain EU membership, France couldn't keep the UK out forever, but it would shatter the short term dreams of iScotland, as the policies are entirely short termist this is a big problem.
There is a second ancillary problem attached to that. There is a movement in the EU to downsize ansd kick out weaker economies, how serious it is I do not klnow, but its plausible and the major players have good reason for the downsize. The idea is to knock the EU to stronger economies only. France Germany UK (or rUK), Benelux and and Scandinavian economy that wants to join. Weaker economies can have associate status, but wont be guaranteed by the EU anymore. The Germans are big behind this as they end up bankrolling 'club med' economies and are sick of it.
As the crunch happens, see below, it may be necessary to hack off diseased limbs and rebuild from the core.
In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. - Here is the first bugbear, the Uk in general, and that includes Holyrood is trapped in a very short term thinking mindset. Everyone says long term, but that means at most 'next election' sometimes it means 'next quarter' or even 'next week'. This is not just Scotland's problem though.
You need to compound this with Salmonds agenda of borrow now spend and squander, he is in it for the moment of history and a time with the toys as first leader of iScotland. The future be damned.
Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term. - Depending on which oil figures you read Scotland either has massive reserves or very few. The reality is both are true, almost all the easily accessible oil is gone, there are large reserves but they are not easily accessible and may not be profitable to extract. As for the other long term prospects they are not Scotlands fault, they are the fault of the entire system which has long overlooked the long term consequences of policy. Basically we are all fethed long term.
That being said the UK has enough infrastructure that it may rise phoenixlike from the ashes, as can the other core European economies, others will likely just burn. Europe as a whole has been living well beyond its means for too long, and the world is changing.
Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span. - This is actually getting more likely, though more like two decades, and will happen to all parts of what is currently UK regardless of which split off. The question is how much can be put together again after the collapse.
This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. - The current referendum was Scottish parlaiment orchestrated, as a result no speration deal is possible, Salmond will not allow it. By most accounts the Orkneys and Shetlands would want to stay in the UK, and will drag the oil with them, so Salmond wants independence choice for some, but not for all. In a way there is a fairness to it.
One of the advantages of letting the Scottish parlaiment entirely run the referendum campaign is that they cant blame anyone else when Scotland votes No. As parts of Scotland now has a taste for referenda on this issue the SNP will clamour for another vote if a No result occurs. While technically the result on 18 Sept will last for a 'generation', I do not see the SNP accepting that. Most contacts I speak to beleive the SNP may demand a referendum every parliament, at least until successful.
So the answer will be to allow a new referendum, but not allow the Scottish parliament full control. So Sheltands and Orkneys will have the denocratic right to remain in the UK. SNP wont want that, but they had their one referendum and they had it their way, if they want to disavow the binding result and demand another one they can have one our way.
This gives SNP two options, a referendum for an iScotland in all likelihood without much of the oil, or keeping to the results of 18 September 2014.
It's a gamble, but it looks like it may pay off.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes, there are reasons why the Westminster government has given Holyrood free rein to run the referendum, and there is a reason why the UK government itself has kept out of it.
This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
Cheers for the clarity. I don't want it so much for travel (done all that) as in case I need to work/live there for a while with no visa hassles etc if family get sick, that sort of stuff. And then eventually retiring to somewhere outside Edinburgh or something like that with one of every book I've ever missed out on reading.
This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
The moral case for Scotland staying in the Union is the same as the moral case for England staying in the Union. Ultimately, it doesn't benefit/disable either of the two disproportionately. Both bring in roughly what they spend, both were initially sovereign countries, but now are part of a greater Union, and both are democratically represented roughly in line with the population based in both.
The arguments from economics are really quite peripheral when you get down to it. Neither side is likely to be worse or better off in the mid-term, and the long term is too far away to predict. What the question really is, is whether or not a short term period of economic pain, and a substantial amount of hassle/effort is worth a quite frankly minimal shift in the level of democratic representation. I spoke to a chap from the highlands yesterday, who wove me a tale of how the only reason they get any funding at all is because Edinburgh is compelled by the UK Government to spread funding evenly across the regions.
Whilst I have no idea whether or not that is currently the case, I'm of the opinion that all that independence would bring would be a shift in the majority of funding from one other capital to another (as wealth focuses on the capital in every country), a Lab/Lib coalition (which may actually happen here next election anyway), and a majorly decreased role in defence spending/world relevance (which is a good or bad thing depending on your political perspective).
To quote the words of someone I can't quite recall at the moment, 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'. Instead of fatcat out of touch English politicians running the islands, you'll have fatcat out of touch Scottish politicians running one section of the islands. Hardly seems worth the bother.
SilverMK2 wrote: As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.
Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.
Erm... You might want to check in with the people who actually live there then. There is a reasonable amount of debate surrounding how the islands will react in the event of a yes vote, or even if they will want to break away on their own in the event of a no vote.
This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
The moral case for Scotland staying in the Union is the same as the moral case for England staying in the Union. Ultimately, it doesn't benefit/disable either of the two disproportionately. Both bring in roughly what they spend, both were initially sovereign countries, but now are part of a greater Union, and both are democratically represented roughly in line with the population based in both.
The arguments from economics are really quite peripheral when you get down to it. Neither side is likely to be worse or better off in the mid-term, and the long term is too far away to predict. What the question really is, is whether or not a short term period of economic pain, and a substantial amount of hassle/effort is worth a quite frankly minimal shift in the level of democratic representation. I spoke to a chap from the highlands yesterday, who wove me a tale of how the only reason they get any funding at all is because Edinburgh is compelled by the UK Government to spread funding evenly across the regions.
Whilst I have no idea whether or not that is currently the case, I'm of the opinion that all that independence would bring would be a shift in the majority of funding from one other capital to another (as wealth focuses on the capital in every country), a Lab/Lib coalition (which may actually happen here next election anyway), and a majorly decreased role in defence spending/world relevance (which is a good or bad thing depending on your political perspective).
To quote the words of someone I can't quite recall at the moment, 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'. Instead of fatcat out of touch English politicians running the islands, you'll have fatcat out of touch Scottish politicians running one section of the islands. Hardly seems worth the bother.
A federal solution along the lines of Canada/Australia/USA or even Switzerland, and a written constitution (which is long overdue for UK citizens) would probably have killed Scottish independence stone dead. Another solution would have been full fiscal responsibility for Scotland, with a separate English parliament, and everybody coming together for defence/foreign affairs.
Unfortunately, Westminster will never relinquish power of that magnitude, which is a shame, because believe a federal solution would have saved the UK
SilverMK2 wrote: As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.
Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.
Erm... You might want to check in with the people who actually live there then. There is a reasonable amount of debate surrounding how the islands will react in the event of a yes vote, or even if they will want to break away on their own in the event of a no vote.
It's my understanding that the debate has been instigated by lib dems seeking to stir up a distraction. I could be wrong (I usually am ) but seeing as they are wedded to the conservatives, I'm suspicious of this.
If I was a left wing scottish person, I'd definitely want to cut myself off from England. It's a pretty right wing place by EU standards, especially the South East.
This would be more about self determination than economics though.
Perhaps I'm just getting fatigued at every bloody thing boiling down to economics since 2008. Seems like there's no room for any other form of analysis of complex issues any more, in the media at least.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
Laughable bollocks.
Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.
Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.
Da Boss wrote: If I was a left wing scottish person, I'd definitely want to cut myself off from England. It's a pretty right wing place by EU standards, especially the South East.
This would be more about self determination than economics though.
Perhaps I'm just getting fatigued at every bloody thing boiling down to economics since 2008. Seems like there's no room for any other form of analysis of complex issues any more, in the media at least.
I think that's because the vast majority of people are actually generally content with the status quo. All the average person wants is for tomorrow to go on more or less like today. No wars, no unexpected taxes, a fair shot at carving out a living, and the ability to have a drink and bitch about the government/celebrities/youth of today/whatever else takes your fancy.
Because of that, scoring a 'Yes' vote is actually quite difficult. You're pushing against the voting populations natural apathy, and so one way of getting them into the polling booth is to promise them that everything will be golden gravy after independence, and they'll have a few more grand a year in their pockets. It's all complete tosh of course, but if you can harness enough greed you might be able to convince the average apathetic voter to vote for independence.
The result being that the primary line of attack is on economics, the primary line of the opposition is economics, and all the pundits talk about is economics. They all throw technically true but misleadingly worded financial statements at each other, and the crux of the issue (do you want this batch of fatcat politicians who were born slightly closer to you in charge instead of this other batch who were born forty miles further south?) gets more or less pushed to the sideline.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
Laughable bollocks.
Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.
Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.
Whats more, we had a Scottish Prime Minister, and a government with strong Scottish representation not too long ago.
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
Laughable bollocks.
Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.
Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.
In an earlier post, I asked: where is the moral case for the union? I think you just proved my point - there is no moral or positive case, otherwise it would have been made ages ago.
You miss a major fundamental point about US states - they have more rights within the USA than Scotland does within the UK.
You are aware of the major democratic defieciet that exists within the UK? Scottish votes have only made a difference in general elections since 1945. Like I said, a federal system is what the UK really needs, but Westminster will never consider it. Shame...
Speaking of colonies, has any former colony ever expressed an interest in re-joining the UK? Do Americans yearn for the days of London rule? Australians? New Zealanders?
Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.
It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.
Laughable bollocks.
Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.
Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.
Whats more, we had a Scottish Prime Minister, and a government with strong Scottish representation not too long ago.
And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?
Maybe the SNP should start campaigning south of the border then. There are more than enough Scottish people living and working here for them to have a firm base of support I am sure...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?
Maybe the SNP should start campaigning south of the border then. There are more than enough Scottish people living and working here for them to have a firm base of support I am sure...
A federal system would nip this kind of thing in the bud.
For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.
I've just checked my clock and it is not the 1980's anymore... And you have SMP's as well as MP's down in London who, I would imagine, were voted in by the will of the local people and who represent them both within Scotland and the UK as a whole. Kind of like you have MEP's to represent Scoland in Europe - hell you have 6 of them!
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.
An independent Scotland won't be entering the EU at least for 6 or more years. Spain must and will veto. The current Catalonian regional government has lost control of their bluff for a more autonomous fiscal system, so the republican secessionist party ERC is expected to reach power come the next regional elections, and ERC truly believes in breaking away from Spain. If the Spanish government were to allow Scotland to immediately join the EU, Spain as a nation would be finished and at worst go into another civil war as not only the Catalans are playing the independence game, the Basque separatists are into the game waiting to see where the wind blows before making their move.
And that it's the reason why Spain won't be "bought" or appeased on the short term with some fisheries in the North Sea or some other economical bangles as some posters in this thread seem to think. Due to the severity of the economical crisis Spanish politics are bursting at the seams and new radical parties are gathering more and more votes. The old scratch my back and I'll scratch yours while we do as if we were fighting between the main parties is gone for now. An independent EU bound Scotland kicking the wasp nest is the last thing those traditional parties want currently. Spain is on the verge of a big political change and nobody knows how it's going to end.
After the dust has settled and if an independent extra-EU Scotland is still around and has not imploded negotiations to join might be feasible but it will depend on the relative balance of power inside Spain. If secessionist parties are still strong, Scotland might join the union just before Kosovo country btw that Spain refuses to recognize and will not for the foreseeable future for the same reasons above no matter the official pro-Kosovo position of the EU as a whole.
Judge yourself if Spain's veto would be willy-nilly then.
Orlanth wrote: Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.
He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!
Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!
As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.
Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.
I've just checked my clock and it is not the 1980's anymore... And you have SMP's as well as MP's down in London who, I would imagine, were voted in by the will of the local people and who represent them both within Scotland and the UK as a whole. Kind of like you have MEP's to represent Scoland in Europe - hell you have 6 of them!
Orlanth wrote: Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.
He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!
Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!
As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.
Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.
Yeah I didn't explain anything at all, not even the unimportant fact that a truly seccessionist party is expected to rule the Catalonian regional government in lieu of the current "we want independece but not really as long as you give us more money" one. (/sarcasm)
As independence of any part of Spain is ilegal under the Spanish Constitution that would end in an unilateral declaration of independence if ERC fulfills their promise. I didn't feel the need to point out what happens when a part of a country breaks away without the agreement of the rest but will link this for those that have not given it a thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
So another civil war would be the worse end possible but still within the realm of possibility, the economy is still very weak and there is over 24% unemployment currently. The situation is ripe for populist movements to turn the country in a copy of the one 70 years ago that ended in yet another civil war. (BTW in the period 1833-1936 we had 6 civil wars and major rebellions in mainland Spain and that's not counting the military coups or the wars we had in the Americas)
I do agree that the Scottish case is different to Yugoslavia because the London government agreed to have a vote for it but in Spain that vote would be imposible without an overhaul of the whole Constitution with the vote given to the entire population of 47 million not just to the 7.5 million living in Catalonia as the nationalist and separatists parties want. (Independent movements have about 49.12 of the catalonian popular vote currently, so about 3million)
So if Spain's central government wants to deal with the catalonian situation without it getting out of hand, they will have to veto an independent Scotland joining the EU for the next 6 to 10 years at least, enough time for a general economic improvement of the country and the EU to defuse the break away parties influence. Otherwise they will end the country as we know it right now.
Orlanth wrote: Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.
He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!
Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!
As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.
Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.
Yeah I didn't explain anything at all, not even the unimportant fact that a truly seccessionist party is expected to rule the Catalonian regional government in lieu of the current "we want independece but not really as long as you give us more money" one. (/sarcasm)
As independence of any part of Spain is ilegal under the Spanish Constitution that would end in an unilateral declaration of independence if ERC fulfills their promise. I didn't feel the need to point out what happens when a part of a country breaks away without the agreement of the rest but will link this for those that have not given it a thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
So another civil war would be the worse end possible but still within the realm of possibility, the economy is still very weak and there is over 24% unemployment currently. The situation is ripe for populist movements to turn the country in a copy of the one 70 years ago that ended in yet another civil war. (BTW in the period 1833-1936 we had 6 civil wars and major rebellions in mainland Spain and that's not counting the military coups or the wars we had in the Americas)
I do agree that the Scottish case is different to Yugoslavia because the London government agreed to have a vote for it but in Spain that vote would be imposible without an overhaul of the whole Constitution with the vote given to the entire population of 47 million not just to the 7.5 million living in Catalonia as the nationalist and separatists parties want. (Independent movements have about 49.12 of the catalonian popular vote currently, so about 3million)
So if Spain's central government wants to deal with the catalonian situation without it getting out of hand, they will have to veto an independent Scotland joining the EU for the next 6 to 10 years at least, enough time for a general economic improvement of the country and the EU to defuse the break away parties influence. Otherwise they will end the country as we know it right now.
M.
Apologies for using an inappropriate phrase, and I don't mean to belittle your knowledge of Spanish politics (which is considerably greater than mine) but...
The problems in Spain are obviously an internal matter for the Spanish people, and I still fail to see how this is going to affect Scotland's EU membership.
You say Spain will wield the veto, but this would cause massive problems with other EU countries. After all, why should Scotland (which meets every aspect of EU criteria) be subjected to Spanish internal matters. The President of the EU commission is very sympathetic to Scotland, and Poland (which has strong cultural links with Scotland) have said they would welcome Scotland into the EU. Other countries are likely to back Scotland.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And even in the unlikely event that an independent Scotland is permitted to enter the EU, wouldn't it obligated to hoi the Eurozone? I thought adopting the Euro is a pre condition for all future New entrants to the EU.
The idea that Scotland won't be in the EU is fantastical. We meet all the entry requirements already, access to our territorial waters under the terms of EU fisheries policy is necessary to sustain the fishing industries of a few EU countries including Spain, we have almost a quarter of all renewable energy resources in the EU and 60% of the fossil fuel reserves, and there is no mechanism in EU law to handle 5.3 million EU Citizens being denied the rights and privileges granted by that citizenship because they exercised their right to democratic self-determination(and yes, Scots would remain EU citizens after a Yes vote for the rest of our lives by virtue of our status as subjects of the UK, which the Home Secretary has confirmed will remain in place exactly as it does for someone born here who chooses to move abroad). We may end up with different terms of membership right away after negotiation, or the settlement might be for both Scotland and rUK to remain as members on the current terms until the already scheduled renegotiations for all EU countries in 2021.
And no, adopting the Euro is not a precondition of membership, a statement of intent that you will, at some unspecified future time, enter into the Eurozone is required, but in practice fulfilling that pledge is entirely voluntary since joining the Eurozone requires that you first have your own currency, and that you then peg that currency to the Exchange Rate Mechanism where it must perform at a specific standard for a minimum of two years, and no method exists within EU law or treaties to compel a member state to enter into the ERM. That's why it's particularly galling that the UK was willing to sacrifice the Scottish fishing industry(and many other "regional" interests in the rest of the UK) in pursuit of a completely meaningless "Euro opt-out".
SilverMK2 wrote: I didn't vote UKIP or Conservative... Can I shout and scream until I am my own country?
It will be interesting to see how regional differences are dealt with in "any aiaaiaiaai aiaaiaiaa" (my touch screen is not letting me delete or cut that bit for some reason! Just keeps adding words whenever I try...) The voting.... vTvT
What if a region has, say a 90%no and 10% yes within and overall yes vote? Is there grounds to use the same be "you don't represent me!" As the SNP are foisting on the UK to remain within the union and not join the SNP in getting a few people people's names in the history books and damn the consequences?
Sorry for weird typos - not sure what the hell this tablet is doing!
I really wish that if people are going to discuss this issue, they'd at least make an attempt to do it seriously rather than throwing around grotesquely simplistic strawmen they can easily knock down. Alastair Darling tried this exact same line during the debate that was the thread's original subject with his "*sputter blink blink blink* Well I didn't vote for Alex! Hardeeharhar" routine.
Every vote in a Scottish election has worth, value, meaning, because we have proportional representation(not an ideal form of it IMO, but better than not having it at all). Whether you or anyone else voted for the SNP is irrelevant to the argument, because your vote counted for something, it contributed to the number of seats that your chosen party received regardless of whether you cast the vote in a seat where that party won by a landslide or was totally buried by another. The makeup of the parliament, therefore, is a reasonably accurate representation of Scottish public opinion, and so it can be said to represent that polity.
That is not true of the UK. Even if we set aside the fact that a large part of the lawmaking process is undertaken by an ever-growing upper house of unelected appointed or hereditary peers and focus exclusively on the House of Commons, the fact that the UK uses the First Past the Post electoral system renders the votes of millions of British people worthless; I now own and live in the flat in which I grew up. It had a Labour MP when I was born in 1986, it has had a Labour MP in every year since then, and it will likely have a Labour MP for the foreseeable future because a combination of tradition among some voters("Ma faither wis a Labour man, as wis his faither, I'll be nae different!") and years of gerrymandering(which all the Westminster parties have been guilty of, I'm not singling Labour out here) has created a built-in majority for that party here which would require the number of "swing" voters to quadruple before there was even a chance of the seat changing hands. My vote, then, is pointless. Even if I cast it for Labour as I did for a fair few years it is pointless because Labour would win this seat regardless, but it is doubly pointless if I cast it for another party since voting for the "loser" under FPTP means nothing at all. That's a pattern that is repeated up and down the country in hundreds of Westminster seats, and taken in aggregate that becomes a problem, because more and more over the years elections are decided by the ever-shrinking handful of seats that contain enough "swing" voters to actually give them a chance of changing hands at each election. The political parties know that, politicians are generally self-serving and occasionally malicious, but rarely genuinely stupid, and so manifestos and policy direction are more and more determined by what will appeal to the handful of voters in the handful of seats which can actually change a general election result. Such a system cannot, by definition, be representative of its polity. Consider; polls consistently show around 70% support across the UK(and across the political spectrum, but marginally higher among the left and among Scots) for renationalisation of public transport and utilities. Not a three year price freeze, not tighter terms and conditions of contracts with private companies, wholesale renationalisation. Can you name one Westminster party that will even talk about renationalisation, nevermind actually support a policy that nearly 3/4 of the population wants? But what the population wants is irrelevant, because the population as a whole doesn't decide elections.
That is the argument, not that the UK is uniquely unrepresentative of Scotland(although it is around 5-10% more unrepresentative of Scots given polls tend to show us as around that much more "radical" than the rUK populace), but that it is inherently unrepresentative of the whole UK, and that in the referendum we have a chance to change that and be rid of that system.
And as a wee aside, I know this comes as a fair shock to some people who favour a No vote when they toss out the "Well what if Shetland or Dumfries wants to secede from Scotland then, what about that eh eh?", but I would say yes, they absolutely have the right to pursue that if they wish. They can do exactly what Scotland has done; elect representatives who stand on an independence platform, and either seek ever-increasing levels of autonomy eventually culminating in independence(as we have), or if they have the required support negotiate to hold a referendum immediately. Scotland has this opportunity now because our historical status as a "nation" gave those campaigning for independence a head start, but I have no objections at all to any group of any reasonable(ie capable of being economically self-supporting if they want full independence and statehood) size seeking whatever degree of self-governance they want, and incidentally one of the big reasons I and many others support independence is that once Holyrood has the powers of Westminster, we can begin taking them off Holyrood as well so we can have more European levels of local governance that allow regional variations in opinion on policy to be adequately expressed. Of course, polling suggests that the result won't get anywhere near a 90-10 split unless you break it down to the level of individual streets and neighbourhoods, and outside of the loony-fringes of Libertarian micro-nations you're not likely to find that many individual streets that seek total autonomy.
Yodhrin wrote: Sorry Rick, Much Text that I didn't want to repeat just to quote..
(1)The bit I didn't like about the white paper was more about the main economical points such as currency, debt (the belief Scotland wouldn't have any from the banking crisis) and the idea that scotlands wealth would be better distributed and the idea that renationalisation of things like the NHS and royal mail would be sustainable in a taxable economy of some 4 million people, without increasing taxation quite a bit or lowering public spending dramatically, he white paper seemed to suggest we could both increase spending but lower taxes....this stumped me straight off.
(2)The main issue with it all is it is all so massively vague, the white paper was more of a very detailed manifesto of pledges, or things the SNP would like to do, it is not a detailed explanation of planning how an economy could work or an idea of how we would create the infrastructure for much that we take for granted that is currently housed in England, things like HMRC, DVLA, the MOD etc, these are very important and very little has been made mention of how these will be operated in Scotland.
(3)Also the line that the SNP wont be the govt after the vote as there will be an election, while true, doesn't make the point that the negotiations over independace will be started and carried out largly by the incumbent SNP government, i.e salmond, sturgeon and sweeny, 3 people who I have yet to see talk any clear and basic facts about what they plan to do if their main ideas about the economy prove to be incorrect, which many analysts and third parties have proven to be the very likely case.
(4)I know Scptland could work as an independent country, but this whole affair has been carried out to the tune of the belief that Scotland has been given the shaft by England for 300 years, when infact it has been a very succesfull partnership and the Tories hadn't been in power for over 14 years prior to the last government so Salmond and co decrying the Tories and 'the bankers' at every minute as the reason for Scotland ills is a bit daft given that the global recession was mostly due to collapsing hedge funds and mortgage arrears in the USA and 10 years of labour excessive public spending.
(5)The fact the UK is now the fastest growing post recession economy makes me want to stay part of it, instead of stepping of the ledge into economic uncertainty with a small GDP and sizeable debt that the rUK would hand to us as the bill for buying out the Scottish debt earlier this year in the event of a Yes vote, the markets needed the confidence of that debt being covered, we will still have to pay that back, and if that is in the Euro or a new currency, it will be a lot more costly to a start up nation.
However I hold no ill will to you or anything Yodhrin, in case you thought I was having a personal attack
Hey it's cool man, I'm a total anorak for this kind of thing so I love discussing it, it's just weird how often I find myself having to defend the SNP from people considering I'm non-party affiliated and my Political Compass result is Scottish Greens A few comments though, numbered for easy reading(ahahahaha, yeah; sorry for ye olde wall o' text);
(1) The currency issue is much discussed, but the policy is hardly vague, the Fiscal Commission(who remember are a group of pretty well regarded academics independent from the Scottish Government) considered a currency union, sterlingisation(using the actual pound without formal agreement), a Scottish currency pegged to sterling via currency board or similar mechanism, a free-floating tradeable Scottish currency backed by oil, and the Euro. The researched each option in relation to Scotland's economy present and projected, detailed the pros and cons of each arrangement, and made a final recommendation that a currency union is the best option on balance for both parties. Personally I disagree and would favour a pegged independent currency, but that's because my political views mean that a small short-term economic contraction is a price worth paying for the additional autonomy of our own central bank and control over interest rates, not because I disagree with their assessments of each option.
The debt issue is actually two distinct issues. In relation to the banking crisis, debt from bank bailouts is often used by Better Together to imply that an independent Scotland would have suffered a total Greece-style collapse in 2008, but the point being made in the White Paper and elsewhere by the Yes campaign is that the figures Better Together are using are dramatically oversimplified and fail to take account of the actual process by which international financial institutions are bailed out on paper and were bailed out in practice. The liability of a nation to the losses of banks is limited to a proportion of their losses equivalent to the proportion of their business which took place within that nation. RBS for example may be a "Scottish" bank, but around 90% of its losses were incurred by their investments and stock trading arm, who's activities took place in the City and abroad. Since the vast majority of the liabilities were generated by economic activity in London, the benefits of which prior to the crash accrued to London's economy first and, if Scotland had been independent at the time, England's second, the rUK government would still have been liable for that proportion of the RBS bailout. That's why, for example, the largest single bailout of a UK bank was Barclays by the US Federal Reserve, to the tune of over £600billion, and the USFR also contributed over £100billion each to the RBS and Lloyds/HBOS bailouts. So yes, an independent Scotland would have faced a higher liability from the banking crisis, but only around an additional 1% of the total(assuming 10% total activities in Scotland, and our usual slightly-over-population-share of around 9% was our actual contribution in '08 and the years after), not 100% of the whole banks' liabilities as Better Together imply. The second debt issue is essentially just a negotiating tactic, "give us what we want or we won't take the debt", the reality is that by far the most likely scenario is some form of currency arrangement is made(probably called something other than a "currency union" to allow Westminster to save face), and Scotland will take on a negotiated share of the debt roughly equivalent to a per-capita sum, plus or minus a few percent depending on offsets from negotiations over the assets.
The tax&spend issue is more a policy issue, and it's a huuuuge mess to get into, so forgive me if I skip over some things, but essentially the argument is that through a combination of spending reductions in areas we don't currently control(like defence), reform of the tax system including lowering APD and corporation tax to stimulate business alongside reductions in loopholes and exemptions to reduce evasion and avoidance, and various pokes and prods at the economic levers like long-term low-interest borrowing to fund infrastructure that will pay for itself like social housing, the Scottish government could achieve the balance of spending reductions and revenue increases to fund their policies, without having to increase direct taxation on the individual through income tax or VAT. It's a fairly standard centrist economic plan, and it may or may not work, but it's not completely unreasonable and the SNP's planned expenditures are actually pretty modest compared to what a lot of folk in the Yes campaign will be advocating and voting for post-independence, which could mean personal taxation will go up depending on who's elected, but that's true regardless of independence - the Tories swore blind they wouldn't increase VAT, yet they did. In '97 Labour swore blind they were still the party of the workers, then they cut corporation tax twice and planned to do it a third time. Essentially when it comes to the various economic arguments, the only point actually relevant to the referendum question itself is "Can Scotland's economy, as it stands or with a few very minor and predictable tweaks, support the same standards of living and access to services we have right now?" - the numbers suggest it can, and everything beyond that is straying into the more everyday political choices that will be made in elections post-independence.
(2) The infrastructure thing doesn't seem to be a huge problem to my eyes - as it stands a lot of taxation infrastructure, for example, already exists in Scotland, same for the benefits system, indeed we provide service to some parts of England in those areas. There is infrastructure in Scotland that services us and England, and some in England that services us as well as them. The only rational expectation is that there will be a negotiated transitional arrangement that allows Scotland and rUK to disentangle such services in the way that will cause the least disruption, and we're actually quite lucky in that regard since there's already a planned UK-wide IT systems upgrade due to take place over the course of the next parliament so, according to Professor Dunleavy of LSE, the actual "cost"(ie additional money over what we would have paid into that infrastructure upgrade as part of the UK through our taxes) of setting up the necessary infrastructure in an independent Scotland would only be around 200-600 million(in his view towards the lower end of the estimate), which as well we have to remember will be partially offset by the economic benefits of the government injecting that much money into the private sector and the additional public sector jobs created.
(3) I think I've addressed the economics/policy point above, so I'll stick to the negotiations/elections point here. While it's true that the SNP will play a big role in negotiations - Alex Salmond will still be first minister and they'll still be the elected government - they're savvy enough to recognise that the results of the negotiations have to be perceived as legitimate by the electorate, which is why there's already been a commitment that the actual negotiating team that will enter into talks with Westminster will be a cross-party, all-party affair with advisory input from charities and other civic bodies as well as independent non-partisan academic and legal support. Doubtless the SNP will attempt to portray the resulting deal as being largely their responsibility after the fact, they won't have a disproportionate influence over the actual forging of the deal.
(4) While there's certainly an element of the whole "parcel o' rogues" narrative, down at the actual campaigning level among the grassroots, the vast majority of people recognise that the Union has by no means always been a bad deal for Scotland as an entity, however there is a sentiment that the mismanagement began a little further back than Blair and the '08 crash, indeed I'd argue those things merely cemented an already-present resentment generated by Thatcher, and that it goes wider than just economics - I meet a lot of folk who wouldn't have voted Yes for a million quid ten years ago, but between Iraq and the fact that, when analysed in retrospect, since Thatcher the policies and attitudes of both Labour and the Tories have been too close for comfort, are willing to set aside their positive views of the rest of the people of the UK and any negative views they have of the SNP in order to take a stand against and hopefully change direction away from the Westminster system itself.
(5) The UK economy may be growing, but a lot of people are not seeing the benefit of that. A large portion of the growth is being generated by yet another housing bubble in London & the SE, and for a lot of people on low or even middle incomes things are tougher now than they were during the recession itself. Scotland's GDP is hardly small either, on a per-capita basis we'd be 14th in the world(UK 16th), and the majority of the countries in the top 10 are similarly-sized European states with far less natural resources than we have access to - Scotland's economic future is no more uncertain under independence than it is as part of the UK really - will the UK be in Europe come the by-2017 in-out referendum? Will the new housing bubble collapse again? Will the NHS be driven fully into the private sector if we sign up to TTIP and Cameron continues to refuse to negotiate an exemption? There are always challenges, for me it comes down to a question of whether or not you think Scotland is capable of self-governance, because if we are capable then solutions will be found, policies will be formulated, elections will be won, and we'll deal with them, just as other countries do.
One final point, the debt issue has already been clarified for the sake of the markets; the UK Treasury issued a statement acknowledging that, as the signatory, they bear sole responsibility for all debt accrued by the UK prior to September 18th 2014, by virtue of the fact that they will claim the status of "continuing state" in the event of a Yes vote. It is not functionally possible for the nation of Scotland, which will not have existed prior to our independence day in 2016 according to the UK's own policy, to default on debt it did not generate. Now of course, functionally, we were part of the UK when the debt was generated and so the "threat" to walk away from the debt is a negotiating tactic and political posturing, just as the "No pound for you, Jockos!" line is from the UK government, but it is at least a logically sound point to make; fair share of the debt, the liabilities, must be compensated for with a fair share of the assets, and while it's technically possible that the markets could choose to treat Scotland as having defaulted in effect if we were to walk away from our share of the debt, even though factually and legally we'd have done no such thing, that would require the markets to make a moral judgement of this hypothetical set of events, and given the choice between taking a principled ethical stance, or lending at generally favourable rates to a new customer with no debt weighing them down and access to substantial natural resources, do we really think the Great Googly Moogly in the sky of Capitalism is going to say "thanks, but no thanks, you were meanies to the UK"? Again though, it's not going to happen, because I genuinely don't think it's likely that the negotiations will be acrimonious enough to generate sufficient public support for such a move, we'll take a bit of the debt, UK will give us a bit of a deal on currency and a reasonable share of other non-physical assets, both sides will end up with the usual mix of wins and losses that happen in every negotiated compromise.
If you right now want a passport that will generally speaking let you go abroad without difficulty get a UK one. If there is a yes vote in September it still will take several years for an independent Scotland to be fully set up.
I don't know if the SNP has worked out how to allocate Scottish citizenship to people or what happens if they refuse it.
So you are complaining now that Scotland doesnt have enough control over the EU. Are you on drugs?
First the six SNP MEP's are not all Scotlands quota, second there are not 2k MEP's, there are 751 and they are broadly apportioned according to population.
Anyhow weren't you mumbling something about wanting out of the UK for 'democratic self determination', along the deluded grounds that Scots don't currently have self determination as equal partners of the UK, and in the same breath worrying about not getting into the EU.
Could you at least show some sort of consistency; by that I mean logical consistency, your 'input' has been quite consistent in its own way.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you right now want a passport that will generally speaking let you go abroad without difficulty get a UK one. If there is a yes vote in September it still will take several years for an independent Scotland to be fully set up.
I don't know if the SNP has worked out how to allocate Scottish citizenship to people or what happens if they refuse it.
There's still discussion over that, and that's one area in which I'd agree the White Paper wasn't as clear as it could have been, but I believe(and forgive me if I make a mistake I'm going from memory) it's since been clarified that anyone who presently resides in Scotland and was either born here or has "leave to remain" status with the UK will be offered citizenship automatically, anyone born in Scotland going forward will have Scottish citizenship automatically, and anyone currently residing abroad who was born in Scotland or who has a parent who was born in Scotland will be entitled to apply for citizenship(but will not be granted it automatically).
If someone were to refuse Scottish citizenship, they'd still be entitled to reside, work, or study here if they had a UK passport by virtue of EU laws, providing rUK remains within the EU of course, if they were to vote to leave in 2017 people would have to choose whether to then take Scottish citizenship as well, or to remain solely citizens of the UK in which case their status would be subject to whatever negotiations happened thereafter(although considering how things work with RoI right now, there shouldn't be too many issues with non-EU-UK people wanting to stay in Scotland).
Can't help but roll my eyes at all this "Scotland is a special snowflake! We'll,get our own way on everything! No other European country would reject our membership of the EU they'll all welcome us with open arms!" bollocks...
The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
The idea that Scotland won't be in the EU is fantastical. We meet all the entry requirements already, <snip>
Scotland failing to get into the EU is not fantastical, its just a probably reality the Yes campaign is refusing to face, because honesty is bad for their case.
access to our territorial waters under the terms of EU fisheries policy is necessary to sustain the fishing industries of a few EU countries including Spain,
If you know anything about Spanish fishing is that they don't stick to boundaries or quotas. There have been tussles with Spanish trawlers right outside UK ports (and I don't mean Gibraltar) where nobody is supposed to fish due to nevigational safety.
The Spanish will fish in Scottish waters no matter what happens. It may affect other nations though.
Just ask a fisherman about Spanish trawlers, go ahead.
we have almost a quarter of all renewable energy resources in the EU and 60% of the fossil fuel reserves,
Even your glorious leader Wee Eck hasnt found a way to export waves, though in a North Koreanesque way he might get to invent one for Scots to marvel at.
As for the fossil fuel reserves the 60% figure is a myth.
The real fgiure you are bending is that Scotland currently produces 60% of the EU's oil, and thats production, not reserves. Nice try on the spin job.
As England has most of the coal and the gas, indeed Englands coal reserves are the densest and richest in the world, (its our unions not our mines that are unviable).
Meanwhile the oil fields are shared with Norway, and Norway is worried that Salmond will have to overpump to pay for his glorious new Scotland and will demand a renegotiation of the North Sea treaties. As Salmond has already threatened to block EU shipping from Scottish waters, thus actually cutting off Norwegian trade routes they are not exactly happy with you.
What oil Scotland does genuinely have is mostly in deep fields that are not profitable to extract from, however its easier to spin the whole figures rather than the practical figures as the true picture doesnt klook good for iScotland and the Yes camapign are reluctant for Scots to realise this.
Oh by the way, in case you start off on one, it's not called 'Project Fear' if much of the oil Salmond claims in his figures are in reality too deep to viably drill, its called geology.
Yodhrin wrote: and there is no mechanism in EU law to handle 5.3 million EU Citizens being denied the rights and privileges granted by that citizenship because they exercised their right to democratic self-determination(and yes, Scots would remain EU citizens after a Yes vote for the rest of our lives by virtue of our status as subjects of the UK, which the Home Secretary has confirmed will remain in place exactly as it does for someone born here who chooses to move abroad). We may end up with different terms of membership right away after negotiation, or the settlement might be for both Scotland and rUK to remain as members on the current terms until the already scheduled renegotiations for all EU countries in 2021.
This admittedly is a problem, which is why the French and the Spanish have carefully worded their warning, it was presented in the links earlier. If Scotland leaves the EU its leaves the EU by choice. A Yes vote voluntarily gives up EU citizenship on a national level, noone is stripping Scots of EU status, Scots do it themselves.
Scots are not forced however to give up their EU citizenship. They could decide to move elsewhere in the EU while they still can, they could also of course choose to vote No.
And no, adopting the Euro is not a precondition of membership, a statement of intent that you will,
It is for new member nations, especailly for ones that as you put it fulfil entry requirements. The only way out would be to share the pound. However the rUK is not stupid enough to agree to this. It would mean trusting Salmond with what is essentially a joint bank account for overdraft purposes. This may actually be in Scotlands interest, Salmond can borrow and borrow and an economy nine times larger guarantees the debt, but from our perspective it would be like handing out open credit cards to a hostile spouse on a shopping frenzy.
at some unspecified future time, enter into the Eurozone is required, but in practice fulfilling that pledge is entirely voluntary since joining the Eurozone requires that you first have your own currency, and that you then peg that currency to the Exchange Rate Mechanism where it must perform at a specific standard for a minimum of two years, and no method exists within EU law or treaties to compel a member state to enter into the ERM. That's why it's particularly galling that the UK was willing to sacrifice the Scottish fishing industry(and many other "regional" interests in the rest of the UK) in pursuit of a completely meaningless "Euro opt-out".
Amazing how the rules dont work in your favour, you have four choices. Try and bully the Uk into accepting the joint pound (which will NOT happen), Panamaisation, form your own currnecy and have to join the Euro, or make your own currency and not renter the EU. You could instead vote No, it looks like even more Scots are seeing that as the safest option, especially thanks to your glorious leaders refusal to even have a Plan B.
I really wish that if people are going to discuss this issue, they'd at least make an attempt to do it seriously rather than throwing around grotesquely simplistic strawmen they can easily knock down. Alastair Darling tried this exact same line during the debate that was the thread's original subject with his "*sputter blink blink blink* Well I didn't vote for Alex! Hardeeharhar" routine.
Actually Salmond was trying the propaganda routine of, we didn't vote half the Westminster governments. This is not valid because as part of the UK everyone got one vote and if Scotland did get half the Westminster governments it wanted then as 5% of the population they are getting a good deal on an individual level. There are many people in the UK who would want a 50% achievement rate, c10 million Lib Dems for a start.
In any event Darlings response about the Scots who are stuck with Salmond having not voted for him was favourably received, he got the first laugh of the evening and it was a good parry. It was equally valid and goes to show that in a democracy, you dont always get what you want, its why we have ballots by majority consent you see.
And as a wee aside, I know this comes as a fair shock to some people who favour a No vote when they toss out the "Well what if Shetland or Dumfries wants to secede from Scotland then, what about that eh eh?", but I would say yes, they absolutely have the right to pursue that if they wish.
Salmond however said a flat no to it. He cant have a proper gravy train with only have the gravy. Shetlands would take a way a lot of the oil with them, so no self determination for them.
In a way this is fair, the Scottish parliament is allowed to run the referendum and its rules and has chosen one vote yes or no for all that is currently Scotland.
Should the bid fail and the SNP renege on the agreement that the vote is final, both outcomes are increasingly likely, then there is a position to claim that any future referendum can be made on the UK's terms, not Holyroods.
They can do exactly what Scotland has done; elect representatives who stand on an independence platform, and either seek ever-increasing levels of autonomy eventually culminating in independence(as we have), or if they have the required support negotiate to hold a referendum immediately. Scotland has this opportunity now because our historical status as a "nation" gave those campaigning for independence a head start, but I have no objections at all to any group of any reasonable(ie capable of being economically self-supporting if they want full independence and statehood) size seeking whatever degree of self-governance they want,
You just be smoking the strong stuff. iScotland would be the most centralised state in Europe ratyher than the most relaxed as your idyllic picture paints.
That is some serious propaganda you are spouting, real Big Lie stuff, where people get to believe the complete opposite to what is happening. Do you actually believe it or did you just swallow it because it came from the Yes camp.
Multiple sources from two think tanks, a press article and an eye on the ground (which in fairness the last is a partisan 'forum' opinion and is only included for flavour, not evidence)
I can imagine that the Yers camp is going to try and convince Scotls that power is being develoved to Scots, but in reality the only devolution been seen has been to Holyrood, not from Holyrood.
Frankly I dont beleive your honeyed words about parts of Scotland getting more autonomy, because the facts show the complete opposite. Indeed the police has now been completely centralised, which is worrisome frankly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
Pity that would cause problems with Span and Italy then.
Also Salmond is the special snowflake, not Scotland, half the problems would disappear if he did. Threats against the EU do not endear, not when you are trying to join.
Also the is a process and the EU moves slowly, you need to grease the wheels liberally with cash and gravy, and that cant be sped up because the ker-ching only lasts as long as the process.
That isnt Scotlands problem its the problem dealing with the EU full stop.
I do not in any way contest, and never have that Scotland doesn't meet all the indexes, it does, very clearly; but the is always another angle.
If you dont/wont or cant beleive that remember what happened when the UK tried to join in 63 and 67, blocked both times by France alone, and for very trivial reasons brought forwards basically due to the racism of one man.
It is extremely naive to think that just because a nation is ready for EU membership in terms of infrastructure and indexing that it will just get in. WE DIDNT and that is the hard reality. Miguelsan has already explained by Scotland wont, and Salmond cannot bypass the Spanish veto right, no matter how much porridge he throws about the EU chamber. We know this is true, because Wilson and Heath could not bypass DeGaulls right to say 'Non' even if it was for bogus reasons and every other EU member was in agreement with the UKs application.
Sorry time to wake up. Killkrazy, life isn't fair, just because Scotland has the credentials doesn't mean it gets to join the club, there are other factors.
I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".
Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;
Michael Blackley @Mike_Blackley 3h
There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.
Apologies for using an inappropriate phrase, and I don't mean to belittle your knowledge of Spanish politics (which is considerably greater than mine) but...
The problems in Spain are obviously an internal matter for the Spanish people, and I still fail to see how this is going to affect Scotland's EU membership.
You say Spain will wield the veto, but this would cause massive problems with other EU countries. After all, why should Scotland (which meets every aspect of EU criteria) be subjected to Spanish internal matters. The President of the EU commission is very sympathetic to Scotland, and Poland (which has strong cultural links with Scotland) have said they would welcome Scotland into the EU. Other countries are likely to back Scotland.
I'm sorry to say that it's because the system was designed for one country to veto certain things and it has never been changed.
I do agree that internal matters of one country affecting other countries joining or not the EU might seems unfair but it's the bread and butter of the Union. As Orlanth said the French have a story of it for petty reasons and not only blocked the UK access twice but the French president Giscard d'Estaing is on the record saying in 1980 that Spain would enter the then EEC when the internal matters of the Comunity were resolved (meaning never) it took a new French president and 5 more years of negotiations before Spain joined. With the political situation in Spain as is I expect a long road for an independent Scotland before joining.
Knowing the Union and the amount of backroom deals is entirely possible that a face saving compromise worthy of You Make da Call could be arranged to keep Scotland in but I don't see the Cameron government working on that. If the letter of the teatries is followed Scotland will be out of the Union as it is not expelling a country from the club but a new one that wants to enter and that from the moment of independence will have to sign its own treaties with others and will not be able to piggyback those already signed by the UK.
Yodhrin wrote: I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".
If you want to convince people to vote Yes, as your icon sugsts, choose honest methods.
There are honest reasons to vote Yes, its means that there is no Westminster involvement, it means Scotland can have a completely separate foreign, defence and economic policy. It will allow Holyrood to repeal laws Scots don't want.
All are honest rrasons for voting Yes, there are of course opposite opinions to each of those issues, and some people will vote No on account of them.
Whwen those are the arguments forwarded here on Dakka, I offer a differing point of view politely and move on.
But we see cybernats promising the moon to Scots: promising a kept pound, early entry into Europe, more democracy and localisation while the SNP completes a stranglehold of centalisation, and of course boundless oil revenue, low taxes and high spending/
If you are going to vote yes for any reason, thats up to you. But when you try to convince others that Yes is the correct choice for the aforementioned bogus reasons then it is fair for me and others to point them out.
Yes I am a tough opponent, but I only get tough when people talk crap.
This is important, the referendum is the most important vote in living memory in Scotland, and probably in the whole of the UK, and there are people out there who will say anything to sway the vote, even damaging lies. That is contemptable.
And when the lies are exposed the first call is to claim its 'Project Fear'. There is no Project Fear, that was a lie made up by a Yes camp journalist in the Herald Scotland, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, but its jumped on as a de facto truth by Salmond at every opportunity. Just as there was no minister proposing monetary union between rUK and iScotland, again this was just a vacuous claim by another journalist with a vested interest in not telling the truth. We know this because every single minister publically claimed the complete opposite.
We can mitigate problems by pointing out bogus arguments as and when they are spouted. Such as:
Joint pound - no chance, with reasons given
Early EU membership - extremely unlikely, again with reasons offered
Massive energy reserves - the oil is there but the Yes camp figures do not add up
Low tax and high spending - only if Scotland borrows itself into outrageous debt.
As for your refusal to try to counter my comments, it is evidently because you cannot. All of thr above and more have independent quotes and links to verify them, and I always back up with quotes and facts you see, and thus the more you challenge them there more it is clear your arguments are not honestly represented.
I cannot say why this is, perhaps you are one of the cybernats who will say anything, tell people anything, to hoodwink them into voting Yes; or perhaps you met one or more such people who took you for a neep and filled your head with vacuous Yes camp twaddle which you in turn bring here innocently but ignorantly. Frankly it doesnt matter which.
However when you come to Dakka and spout it, as you have every right to do so, I and others will be waiting to shine a spotlight on your claims and expose them to some scrutiny.
I didn't even bother going past your first quoted comment in my last post, frankly I hadn't read the rest yet, there was enough misinformation to correct already.
Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;
Michael Blackley @Mike_Blackley 3h
There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.
I agree with Boris, instead the promise to devolve should bypass Holyrood and give more power to Scottish councils, (and those elsewhere). This would be more practical more fair and fully keep the promise to the Scottish people of more devolution.
Yodhrin wrote: I knew clicking that "show post" button was a mistake, one I won't be repeating since you're still evidently incapable of discussing anything politely, feel free to keep ranting away Orlanth, I'll leave it up to others to judge if my posts are "big lie propaganda".
If you want to convince people to vote Yes, as your icon sugsts, choose honest methods.
There are honest reasons to vote Yes, its means that there is no Westminster involvement, it means Scotland can have a completely separate foreign, defence and economic policy. It will allow Holyrood to repeal laws Scots don't want.
All are honest rrasons for voting Yes, there are of course opposite opinions to each of those issues, and some people will vote No on account of them.
Whwen those are the arguments forwarded here on Dakka, I offer a differing point of view politely and move on.
But we see cybernats promising the moon to Scots: promising a kept pound, early entry into Europe, more democracy and localisation while the SNP completes a stranglehold of centalisation, and of course boundless oil revenue, low taxes and high spending/
If you are going to vote yes for any reason, thats up to you. But when you try to convince others that Yes is the correct choice for the aforementioned bogus reasons then it is fair for me and others to point them out.
Yes I am a tough opponent, but I only get tough when people talk crap.
This is important, the referendum is the most important vote in living memory in Scotland, and probably in the whole of the UK, and there are people out there who will say anything to sway the vote, even damaging lies. That is contemptable.
And when the lies are exposed the first call is to claim its 'Project Fear'. There is no Project Fear, that was a lie made up by a Yes camp journalist in the Herald Scotland, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, but its jumped on as a de facto truth by Salmond at every opportunity. Just as there was no minister proposing monetary union between rUK and iScotland, again this was just a vacuous claim by another journalist with a vested interest in not telling the truth. We know this because every single minister publically claimed the complete opposite.
We can mitigate problems by pointing out bogus arguments as and when they are spouted. Such as:
Joint pound - no chance, with reasons given
Early EU membership - extremely unlikely, again with reasons offered
Massive energy reserves - the oil is there but the Yes camp figures do not add up
Low tax and high spending - only if Scotland borrows itself into outrageous debt.
As for your refusal to try to counter my comments, it is evidently because you cannot. All of thr above and more have independent quotes and links to verify them, and I always back up with quotes and facts you see, and thus the more you challenge them there more it is clear your arguments are not honestly represented.
I cannot say why this is, perhaps you are one of the cybernats who will say anything, tell people anything, to hoodwink them into voting Yes; or perhaps you met one or more such people who took you for a neep and filled your head with vacuous Yes camp twaddle which you in turn bring here innocently but ignorantly. Frankly it doesnt matter which.
However when you come to Dakka and spout it, as you have every right to do so, I and others will be waiting to shine a spotlight on your claims and expose them to some scrutiny.
I didn't even bother going past your first quoted comment in my last post, frankly I hadn't read the rest yet, there was enough misinformation to correct already.
Anyway, looks like Boris has gone a bit off-script, Dave will not be pleased;
Michael Blackley @Mike_Blackley 3h
There is "no reason" to give the Scottish Parliament more power after a No vote, says London mayor Boris Johnson.
I agree with Boris, instead the promise to devolve should bypass Holyrood and give more power to Scottish councils, (and those elsewhere). This would be more practical more fair and fully keep the promise to the Scottish people of more devolution.
Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.
From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc
There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.
Where is the moral case for the UK?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: The one thing I still find odd is why all Scottish born nationals are not getting a vote in this if they don't currently reside in Scotland.
Surely that just leaves the option for lengthy courtroom drama if the yes vote was successful, especially if its by a very small margin.
Because it would have been a logistical nightmare and both sides agreed to limit the vote to the people who live and work in Scotland.
There have been many examples of people born in Scotland, leaving for Australia/Canada etc in their 20s, and saying they should have the vote, even though they've lived in their new countries for 50+ years!
Because it would have been a logistical nightmare and both sides agreed to limit the vote to the people who live and work in Scotland.
There have been many examples of people born in Scotland, leaving for Australia/Canada etc in their 20s, and saying they should have the vote, even though they've lived in their new countries for 50+ years!
A logistical nightmare.. it'd be the same as postal votes, folks need to apply, check the Scottish register to make sure they where born in Scotland.. and yeah.. not seeing it. The fact it is feared, rightly or wrongly by the Yes campaign that many of them would vote No has nothing to do with it of course.
As to the fifty years comment, so what... folks who move into Scotland in the next month and aren't even born there if a GB or EU citizen and apply by 2nd of sep are good to go, so why not those who actually where. Goes back to the concern they'll vote no.. seems dodgy to me.
So will be interesting to see if a yes vote happens, if court cases will follow.
The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.
Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.
From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc
There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.
Where is the moral case for the UK?
I believe I already answered that one?
I mean, I suppose I could throw about 'what is the moral case for England being a part of the UK', when England was subjected to New Labour (Scottish votes influenced their majority and political makeup). But you can't stop there, it then becomes, 'what is the moral case for Wessex being part of England?' And then, 'What is the moral case for this street here being aligned with that street over there'.
Ultimately, I think you have to stop and accept that in a democracy, you get a direct proportion of the results in line with the population count examined. As Yodhrin posted earlier (I believe him and me thrashed out with the figures in the past), there's something along the lines of a 5-10% political split between the rest of the UK and Scotland politically. You could point to that as evidencing the political differences between the two nations, but logically, you could then use that argument to justify splitting up all of the Uk safe seats into three different countries called 'Labourville', Conservativedom', and 'Liberalston'. Just because certain areas are more inclined politically in a specific direction doesn't mean they should be split up into independent fiefdoms.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.
I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.
Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: The one thing I still find odd is why all Scottish born nationals are not getting a vote in this if they don't currently reside in Scotland.
Surely that just leaves the option for lengthy courtroom drama if the yes vote was successful, especially if its by a very small margin.
Actually it was handled fairly.
Only those resident in Scotland get to vote, this means Scots whio live elsewhere dont and non Scots who live in Scotland do.
This is fair because it accounts for immigration.
While Scots living in Scotland get to vote and that is logical.
What about English living in Scotland. If you block them then people may cry race discrimination.
After all if Black and Asian immigrants are allowed to vote and English are not there would be discrimination, if Black and Asians were disallowed a vote there would be howling.
As for Scots not living in Scotland, who are the scots? Does it include people of non white origin who,lived in Scotland for a while, if not why not. As far as citizenship they are as much Scottish as someone who can claim ancestry, that is the way our society works.
Eventually the only way it can work is on residency. Do you live in Scotland, yes/No, if yes you vote, unless underage or in prison, otherwise you do not get to vote.
There is also a poetic justice that well known Scots that don't live in Scotland for tax purposes forfeit their opportunity to vote, Sean Connery for example . I would be saying this even if he was an avid No supporter. If they are really Scottish they can live in Scotland and pay Scottish tax.
Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.
Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.
Ok in turn.
Tell me that the foodbanks, - These occur because we had a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who really put us in a debt position that is difficult to recover from.
the poor being demonised, - Which poor are being demonised? cuts are hurting yes, but cuts were neceessary. iScotland will need cuts also, some analysts think Scotland will need more savings and cuts because they will have to create an administrative infrastructure from scratch. Setting up all the departments for a modern country gets less efficient the smaller the population. iScotland may need an administrative core of a department like the Ministry of Transport about the same size as the UK, but has less tax to make it out of.
billions spent on nuclear weapons, - More like millions in the anual costs, billions over time yes. Nukes give the UK status as one of the five powers, with UN veto etc. It's important.
the assault on the NHS, - What assault on the NHS? That is New Labour standard spin, trolled out year in year out: "NHS not safe under tories blah blah". The NHS is safe. However like other departments you need a lot of tax to cover it, iScotland will struggle to achieve this.
the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West - Unequality reinforced by New Labour, byy taking the voting ground of the left and then pissing on the left. Salmond is Scotlands Blair, he is doing the same to a large extent. iScotland will largely emulate New Labour, the Uk is heading back in the opposite direction.
the rise of child poverty in a rich country - If you want to see child poverty check out Glasgow. It will only get worse without a UK tax to help out. As fro general child poverty, its a side effect of the Gordon Brown's catastrophic 'leadership'.
and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, - Farage will not get his way. Britain may indeed renogotiate its EU terms, just like thatcher did, but that is because the Uk is strong. One of the things Salmond promised Scotland is the same breaks the Uk gets. This is not going to happen, the Uk gets to negotiate its position on favourable grounds because it is a major part of the EU and a major contributor, Scotland will be a lot smaller and will have to do as its told. Salmond probably realises this, but wont admit it, its not his way.
is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits. - You are free to consider it is not, and as far as reasons go they arent basd ones. What you said above is not false. however iScotland is no better, and probably will be a whole lot worse. It wont be a fairer society, that is certain because of th extreme centralisation and the bully boy mentality of the SNP leadership.
From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc
You have posted a picture of doom and gloom about statying in the UK.
If the Bt case sounds even doomier and gloomier it is because the message is bad news. We frosee iScotland being a financial disaster at least in the short term You cant blame Better Together for a 'negative' campaign, the negativities shown are frankly valid, and are stark warnings because they happen to be true.
Currency union wont happen, bad news for anyone who wants to vote Yes, but the reasons are not to cause doom, but to oprevent a greater doom that will occur if iScotland gets to have a joint account with the rUK, and borrows heavily leaving the rUK to foot the bill.
However the real 'negativity' comes from having to rebute the number of false positives of the Yes campaign. It may seem like Salmonds message on Europe is 'optimistic' wheras the Better Together view is 'pessimistic', that is only because one is saying 'we can' the other saying 'we cant'. But the message that 'we can' is frankly spurious, its a matter of truth and falsehood.
As for Doctor Who, it will be syndicated. Scottish version of the BBC will buy it in just as BBC America does.
There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.
There are lots of things positive about the Union. its one nation from Land's End to John O Groats that has lived in peace for centuries.
We have a lot of shared history and culture. Built the largest Empire the world has ever known together, brought humanity into the Industrial age together, defeated Hitler and Napoleon together. Great Brtiain is a lage island, but a smallcountry, yetv has had more influnce, much of it positive on human development than any other nation state with the possible exception of Ancient Rome and the Middle Kingdom.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it, and while all nations have broken bits, this one is still working in spite of poor governance, because it is inherently strong. UK is a small nation but a G8 economy, that has to count for something.
I ask in turn, whats the moral case for the USA?
If you believe the US has the moral right to exist then you can also apply that to the Union, even more so because the 'natives' got to join in rather than be wiped out and has lasted over seventy years longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.
An aberration. The vote eligibility could not have been justly handled any other way.
Put it this way the results of the referendum will have huge impact south of the border. Yet I dont get to vote. I would have liked to vote (No) but cant. I do not consider this in any way unfair and dont lament the lack of opportunity to vote for myself. I am English and i live in England, while I have a vested interest (family north of the border) and national concerns (rUk may lose its UN security council seat) I don't actually have a problem with the vote being exclusive for Scottish residents only. Its just and fair that it is that way, and I dont consider myself hard done by in any way because I am not being balloted.
Yes the referendum affects England too, in a big waty, but I would comment against proposals to give the English the vote on this issue, it would not be justifiable. If I lived with my family members who live in Aberdeen, or with my mates in Paisley though, I would expect to have a voting slip and a voting opportunity, even though I don't consider myself Scottish, because it would be fair for me to be balloted as I lived there.
As one of those affected by the voting, I have reservations about the process. As you can see by the flag I'm not currently resident in Scotland, yet I am a registered voter, I own property. Yet I cant vote on something that will have an affect on just about everything of material value that I have.
I have to watch this entire process with trepidation down here not knowing what I'm coming back to.
If you own property there can't you just go up to register for voting and to vote? However if things go the "wrong" way you don't have to go back.
Anyone residing in Scotland who does not like the result of a "Yes" vote will be able to keep their current citizenship and refuse Scottish citizenship when it eventually is created. For that matter, the UK allows dual citizenship so technically everyone who became "Scottish" would retain their UK citizenship unless they voluntarily gave it up. Their children would also qualify for UK passports on the basis of the nationality of their parents.
Presumably there will be a mechanism for people residing south of the border to claim Scottish passports if they want to. Meanwhile they still will be UK citizens too, and can stay in the UK.
Furthermore if the newly created Scotland wishes to join the EU it will no doubt extend the legal rights of EU citizens to any EU citizens wishing to enter Scotland immediately.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.
The biggest problems here are:
The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.
Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.
Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.
Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.
Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.
I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.
Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.
What about those people who's parent's were resident in Scotland, were born in an English hospital (Due to being away from home, or being close to the border) and lived in Scotland for most of their life and then moved somewhere else? Under your plan those people would not be able to vote, but someone born in Scotland in the 1920's who moved at a young age and never went back would be able to (like my grandmother. Born in Glasgow, left aged 16 and has lived all over the world, and at the age of 93 has never lived in Scotland again).
Much better to give the vote to people it effects, i.e. those who live in Scotland right now. People living on the boarders have far more at stake than someone living in London for 20 years, yet they don't get a vote.
Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.
From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc
There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.
Where is the moral case for the UK?
I believe I already answered that one?
I mean, I suppose I could throw about 'what is the moral case for England being a part of the UK', when England was subjected to New Labour (Scottish votes influenced their majority and political makeup). But you can't stop there, it then becomes, 'what is the moral case for Wessex being part of England?' And then, 'What is the moral case for this street here being aligned with that street over there'.
Ultimately, I think you have to stop and accept that in a democracy, you get a direct proportion of the results in line with the population count examined. As Yodhrin posted earlier (I believe him and me thrashed out with the figures in the past), there's something along the lines of a 5-10% political split between the rest of the UK and Scotland politically. You could point to that as evidencing the political differences between the two nations, but logically, you could then use that argument to justify splitting up all of the Uk safe seats into three different countries called 'Labourville', Conservativedom', and 'Liberalston'. Just because certain areas are more inclined politically in a specific direction doesn't mean they should be split up into independent fiefdoms.
I agree to an extent that in a democracy that you have to put up with decisions you don't like, but there is such a huge imbalance between 5 million scots, 3 million Welsh, and 1 million Northern Irish Vs 60 million English men and women.
A federal system, would nip this in the bud. Replacing the house of lords with an elected chamber made up of senators from Scotland/Wales/NI and England divided into regions, could have addressed this problem, but Westminster will never agree to this, hence the unhappiness in Scotland.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.
The biggest problems here are:
The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.
Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.
Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.
Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.
Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact is there is not a current definition of a citizen of Scotland so the course they have adopted, to allow everyone resident in Scotland over 16 years old, is the only workable one apart from using the Electoral Roll for Scotland which would have excluded foreigners and under 18-year olds.
I get that, but there have to be records for everyone born in Scotland, that would be relatively easy to track down. Of course what you do is have an opt in system to save on some admin time, as it would be chaotic to expect them to go and check every record and then send out letters. So instead just note, that anyone born in Scotland can apply for a postal vote, which is then checked case by case before they are given the thumbs up to vote.
Seems for such an important game changing decision a little extra effort would hardly hurt.
What about those people who's parent's were resident in Scotland, were born in an English hospital (Due to being away from home, or being close to the border) and lived in Scotland for most of their life and then moved somewhere else? Under your plan those people would not be able to vote, but someone born in Scotland in the 1920's who moved at a young age and never went back would be able to (like my grandmother. Born in Glasgow, left aged 16 and has lived all over the world, and at the age of 93 has never lived in Scotland again).
Much better to give the vote to people it effects, i.e. those who live in Scotland right now. People living on the boarders have far more at stake than someone living in London for 20 years, yet they don't get a vote.
Not true about the Euro. You can agree in principal to adopt it, but there is no time limit for adoption. Sweden have been stalling on the euro for years, even though they agreed to adopt it.
Convince me. What is the positive case for Scotland in the UK? I've yet to hear it from the BT side. Tell me that the foodbanks, the poor being demonised, billions spent on nuclear weapons, the warmongering, the assault on the NHS, the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West, the rise of child poverty in a rich country, and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits.
Ok in turn.
Tell me that the foodbanks, - These occur because we had a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who really put us in a debt position that is difficult to recover from.
the poor being demonised, - Which poor are being demonised? cuts are hurting yes, but cuts were neceessary. iScotland will need cuts also, some analysts think Scotland will need more savings and cuts because they will have to create an administrative infrastructure from scratch. Setting up all the departments for a modern country gets less efficient the smaller the population. iScotland may need an administrative core of a department like the Ministry of Transport about the same size as the UK, but has less tax to make it out of.
billions spent on nuclear weapons, - More like millions in the anual costs, billions over time yes. Nukes give the UK status as one of the five powers, with UN veto etc. It's important.
the assault on the NHS, - What assault on the NHS? That is New Labour standard spin, trolled out year in year out: "NHS not safe under tories blah blah". The NHS is safe. However like other departments you need a lot of tax to cover it, iScotland will struggle to achieve this.
the UK being one of the most unequal countries in the West - Unequality reinforced by New Labour, byy taking the voting ground of the left and then pissing on the left. Salmond is Scotlands Blair, he is doing the same to a large extent. iScotland will largely emulate New Labour, the Uk is heading back in the opposite direction.
the rise of child poverty in a rich country - If you want to see child poverty check out Glasgow. It will only get worse without a UK tax to help out. As fro general child poverty, its a side effect of the Gordon Brown's catastrophic 'leadership'.
and Britain on the brink of an EU exit, - Farage will not get his way. Britain may indeed renogotiate its EU terms, just like thatcher did, but that is because the Uk is strong. One of the things Salmond promised Scotland is the same breaks the Uk gets. This is not going to happen, the Uk gets to negotiate its position on favourable grounds because it is a major part of the EU and a major contributor, Scotland will be a lot smaller and will have to do as its told. Salmond probably realises this, but wont admit it, its not his way.
is a price worth paying for staying in the UK. Because I don't see any of these things as benefits. - You are free to consider it is not, and as far as reasons go they arent basd ones. What you said above is not false. however iScotland is no better, and probably will be a whole lot worse. It wont be a fairer society, that is certain because of th extreme centralisation and the bully boy mentality of the SNP leadership.
From the beginning, there has been a constant stream of doom and gloom from BT about border posts, currency, the EU, Doctor Who not being shown in an independent Scotland, Scottish patients being denied heart transplants etc etc
You have posted a picture of doom and gloom about statying in the UK.
If the Bt case sounds even doomier and gloomier it is because the message is bad news. We frosee iScotland being a financial disaster at least in the short term You cant blame Better Together for a 'negative' campaign, the negativities shown are frankly valid, and are stark warnings because they happen to be true.
Currency union wont happen, bad news for anyone who wants to vote Yes, but the reasons are not to cause doom, but to oprevent a greater doom that will occur if iScotland gets to have a joint account with the rUK, and borrows heavily leaving the rUK to foot the bill.
However the real 'negativity' comes from having to rebute the number of false positives of the Yes campaign. It may seem like Salmonds message on Europe is 'optimistic' wheras the Better Together view is 'pessimistic', that is only because one is saying 'we can' the other saying 'we cant'. But the message that 'we can' is frankly spurious, its a matter of truth and falsehood.
As for Doctor Who, it will be syndicated. Scottish version of the BBC will buy it in just as BBC America does.
There has been not one positive case IMO. The nearest we got was that Britain fought a war 100 years ago, so we should all stay together.
There are lots of things positive about the Union. its one nation from Land's End to John O Groats that has lived in peace for centuries.
We have a lot of shared history and culture. Built the largest Empire the world has ever known together, brought humanity into the Industrial age together, defeated Hitler and Napoleon together. Great Brtiain is a lage island, but a smallcountry, yetv has had more influnce, much of it positive on human development than any other nation state with the possible exception of Ancient Rome and the Middle Kingdom.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it, and while all nations have broken bits, this one is still working in spite of poor governance, because it is inherently strong. UK is a small nation but a G8 economy, that has to count for something.
I ask in turn, whats the moral case for the USA?
If you believe the US has the moral right to exist then you can also apply that to the Union, even more so because the 'natives' got to join in rather than be wiped out and has lasted over seventy years longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently there are about 800,000 non-"Scottish" people resident in Scotland and about 900,000 "Scottish" people resident in the rest of the UK outside Scotland.
An aberration. The vote eligibility could not have been justly handled any other way.
Put it this way the results of the referendum will have huge impact south of the border. Yet I dont get to vote. I would have liked to vote (No) but cant. I do not consider this in any way unfair and dont lament the lack of opportunity to vote for myself. I am English and i live in England, while I have a vested interest (family north of the border) and national concerns (rUk may lose its UN security council seat) I don't actually have a problem with the vote being exclusive for Scottish residents only. Its just and fair that it is that way, and I dont consider myself hard done by in any way because I am not being balloted.
Yes the referendum affects England too, in a big waty, but I would comment against proposals to give the English the vote on this issue, it would not be justifiable. If I lived with my family members who live in Aberdeen, or with my mates in Paisley though, I would expect to have a voting slip and a voting opportunity, even though I don't consider myself Scottish, because it would be fair for me to be balloted as I lived there.
The NHS is not safe in Scotland. The creeping privatization in England (which is the fault of New Labour and the Conservatives) will result in the money the government allocates to the English NHS being cut. Scottish NHS funding reflects English NHS funding, so a cut in England = a cut in Scotland, even though they are separate. £30 billion of NHS funding in England has been put out to private tender. If there is a NO vote, there is no way Westminster will allow two separate systems in the same country. The result will be privatization in Scotland.
Given how brilliant and wonderful privatization of energy companies and the trains has been, I'm sure Scots will look forward to paying for prescription charges and fees to see their GP.
Regarding the NHS and the issue of things like trident and wasteful spending, remember that Trident system costs circa £22billion over the 10 year upgrade, the NHS in the UK costs annually some £700billion, the welfare bill is somewhere in the £1.7Billion annually region also.
Scotland has a higher percentage of welfare dependants that the rest of the UK, with a lower tax take, this will becaome a greater issue in an independent Scotland, the SNP keep talking about a fairer society, which basically means the richer will pay higher taxes. Many go, "fine, they have lots to spare", well this is true, but higher earners already pay far more in tax than lower earners, they pay their fair share already, its the reason for a percentage based system, 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 10.
However this doesn't simply mean the millionaires will pay a little more each year, it means people earning over £30k a year will suddenly find themselves £150 a month worse off, with no real noticeable benefit as it just goes into the black hole that is the welfare budget.
Regarding the NHS, privatisation isn't necessarily going to appen, though many decry the privatisation of the trains as a terrible thing, many forget that the public state owned rail system was falling apart and was never getting any money spent on it, and the cost of travel today is still massively subsidised by the state, if it wasn't the cost of trains would be massively higher, many assume the train operators juist suck up all the cash and laugh, they do actually put a lot back in to replace the system, east coast being a good example.
The NHS also needs massive restructuring, it is far too wasteful, a few trusts have taken on the idea of running as a partnership, a bit like John lewis, and have started to make a 'profit' from their budget which is put back into the hospital, this should be done on a national level, therefore it is state run and funded, but pays for itself at each hospital.
privatisation doesn't just mean making it a PLC to make money.
I would much rather be part of a country with a stronger financial foundation that can work through economic issues (as we are doing) than start a new nation up that is already going to have massive start up costs (even the SNP admit it will be close to some 1.5 billion, not the £200 million originally claimed) and we will be on a knife edge economically for many years, it could all go wrong and be almost impossible to fix, why do all that for the chance to self determine that we get the same bunch of politicians 150 miles away rather than 500?
I get the idea behind it all, but its been so badly sold and set-up by salmond and the SNP as a vote winner 5 years ago rather than an actual planned process in hand with the rUK that could have worked so much better.
It all seems a bit slap dash to be honest, and with it being so important I cannot fathom any other vote than No.
Kill, I live 8,500 miles away it's not as if I can jump on a train.
To be honest I have no problem paying for attending GPs, Dentists or Prescription fees, as long as the money goes back into the NHS and not Govt coffers. It might have the side effect of reducing missed appointments.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are not prescription charges in Scotland.
I know, but the fear is, they could make a comeback. Scottish Labour have already rallied against them, and seem strongly in favour of scrapping them.
The thing is, it shouldn't be a fear that they make a comeback, free prescriptions for all is basically unaffordable, it means we lose out of public spending elsewhere and was done as a bit of political point scoring with labour voters when disillusioned labours supporters wanted someone else to vote for after the Blair\Brown years.
There is no reason why say someone like me should get free prescriptions, I am 32, working and earn enough that I shouldn't get free prescriptions, and having Cronhs I need vitamin b12, azathioprine tablets and iron tablets every couple of months, but I would just have to pay it.
However those on medical disability benefits or under say £18k PA wage SHOULD get free prescriptions, however Govt's are worried that this would lose them votes with many middle class labour voters so everyone got it in Scotland.
there is nothing wrong with being asked to pay a fair amount, however when certain Medical professionals spout crap such as people should pay £200 for a GP appointment to stop folk wasting time, they should be shouted down.
There is private healthcare in the UK, if you want to use it, do so, but the NHS is supposed to be free at point of use, however if they are struggling that much, add a % increase to national insurance contributions and then do some proper restructuring and reduce the massive waste in the NHS first.
Not true about the Euro. You can agree in principal to adopt it, but there is no time limit for adoption. Sweden have been stalling on the euro for years, even though they agreed to adopt it.
I don't think that will be possible, due to being another reason for some countries to vote against Scotland's entry, but assuming that it is not a barrier, not adopting the Euro leaves Scotland without a currency or a central bank. Yes, Scotland to unilaterally adopt sterling, but that leaves them without a central bank, little scope for borrowing internationally, no way to manage sovereign debt and no lender of last resort. Personaly I think that would be very damaging for Scotland. What Scotland is going to do about currency is a big question that needs to be answered, and (despite what Alex Salmond thinks) sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalala we will use the pound lalala" is not a plan.
Given how brilliant and wonderful privatization of energy companies and the trains has been, I'm sure Scots will look forward to paying for prescription charges and fees to see their GP.
Because British Rail was the paragon of high quality low cost rail travel... I don't agree about energy companies being worse than the public companies, but anyway, equally you could point to telephone, QinetiQ, or the British automotive industry. It is not a simple matter of Private = Bad, Public = Good, or the other way round. It is a much more nuanced question. Fees for GP's and prescription charges had nothing to do with privatization. Fees was something suggested by a think tank and quickly dismissed. Talk of privatization is just scare mongering.
There is just too many unanswered questions, and too much hand waiving from the Yes side IMO. I think as a larger county, with more people, more resources and greater stability we are stronger as one nation, and divided we will all be damaged. IMO Scotland will be more damaged than the rest of the UK, mostly because so much is just "It'll be ok". If the questions of currency, EU membership, student funding, pension funding and what to do if oil does not reach the rather optimistic projections of the Yes campaign, were answered, then I would be more positive, but as it stands there are too many questions.
I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Scotland would have a relatively easy entry into the EU is because it isn't a "special snowflake" but a liberal western democracy with the rule of law equality and human rights like every other member if the EU.
But they have fundamental problems on two front's. They are not insurmountable, but there is no guarantee. Firstly there is the EU accession chapters.
The biggest problems here are:
The adoption of the Euro. Scotland would have to accept the Euro or agree an opt out. The agreement of an opt out could be very difficult at this time, both from Scotlands side as Alex Salmond has already said they will not adopt the Euro, but many countries may insist on it.
I've already gone over this in a previous post; a commitment in principle is a requirement to join the EU, and that is what the UK have an "opt-out" of, actually joining the Eurozone and adopting the Euro as currency is voluntary as the first step is to have your own currency and use ERM2 to peg that currency to the Eurozone for two years minimum, and joining ERM2 is entirely at the discretion of the member state, indeed no mechanism exists in any EU law or treaty to force a member state to join it. The UK's "opt-out" is meaningless posturing designed to placate the Europhobic elements in Parliament and the media, it has zero practical value.
Adoption of the schengen area. There is no problem with Scotland adopting this, but it would lead either to defacto adoption of schengen area protocols for the rest of the UK or some form of border control between Scotland and England. both of which are not ideal.
The UK shares its only land border with the Republic of Ireland, with whom we share the Common Travel Area and a joint Schengen opt-out. If the rUK choose to maintain their opposition to joining Schengen, which they doubtless will, the same situation will be negotiated for Scotland, since exactly the same rationales which apply to Ireland(an EU nation which would have no land-border with anyone except the UK, both nations on an island rather than the EU mainland - forcing Scotland to adopt Schengen has no utility for the EU since it would result in the imposition of new barriers to freedom of movement, ie the exact opposite of what Schengen is supposed to achieve, and no utility for the rUK since its interests lie in minimising the potential economic impact of Scottish independence and the easiest way to do that is to "expand" the Common Travel Area to include Scotland).
Changes to working time directive. A relatively minor one, but still needs either opt out or changes to Scottish employment law. The changes to law would probably be relatively easy and uncontroversial, but still takes time.
Could you clarify this one? As far as I was aware the UK adopted the WTDs into law in 1998 and as such they have been part of Scots Law since the inception of the Parliament since compliance with EU acquis are part of its founding charter.
Secondly there is the possibility that several countries with separatists movements could veto Scotland's entry to the EU. Whilst I don't think this would be permanent, it could leave Scotland out for months or years.
There are two issues with that, the first is that vetoing or delaying Scotland's membership is not without consequences for the EU and its constituent nations, that's not a threat it's just a fact - without transitional arrangements which would have to amount to full albeit unofficial membership regardless, there would be substantial issues around EU citizens studying and working in Scotland and vice versa, with the Scottish portion of the UK's contributions, with Scotland's imports from and exports to the continent etc etc. That has to be weighed against any desire they might have to "send a message". The second is a drum Spain have been banging continually since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed - the Agreement itself. Scotland has no inherent legal right to hold a referendum under EU or international law(something I believe is wrong as it's completely incompatible with the principles of self-determination enshrined in both the EU and UN, but factually that is the case), our referendum is an agreed process between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it derives all of its legal validity from that agreement. Spain(and other EU nations with "separatist movements") argues, therefore, that the result of the Scottish referendum can have no bearing on the situation of the Catalans or Basques, since Spain's constitution forbids their government to enter into such an agreement, and without one the EU has no obligation to respect the result of any independence referendum or universal declaration of independence. Now in practice Scotland's successful independence would likely "embolden" other EU independence movements, but at that point the damage is essentially already done, and in combination with the first issue I highlighted real politik would make it pretty difficult to obstruct Scottish membership out of what would look very much like spite.
Non of these are insurmountable, but Scotlands entry to the EU is far from easy.
"Easy" is a relative term, but it will almost certainly not be the insurmountable obstacle Better Together claim.
In 2012 before the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Graham Avery(Honourary Director-General of the EU Commission, senior policy adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK and several other nations' EU accessions) stated;
“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.”
And in 2014 before the Scottish Parliament's European Committee he stated;
“A situation where Scotland was outside the European Union and not applying European rules would be a legal nightmare for the people in the rest of the United Kingdom and the British Government has to take account of that. I think it would be very, very unfortunate for the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland was not a member from day one of independence.”
The current European Commission president is reportedly "sympathetic" to the case for an independent Scotland's membership. Nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty "Scotland will be a member of the EU on independence day in 2016 on the same terms as today within the UK", but it's hardly unlikely, and by the same token nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty that a Scotland that had voted No and was still part of the UK would be a member of the EU come 2017 when the UK government holds the promised in-out referendum on EU membership, and in that case the preponderance of polling evidence combined with simple demographics analysis would suggest we wouldn't be.
Rick_1138 wrote: Regarding the NHS and the issue of things like trident and wasteful spending, remember that Trident system costs circa £22billion over the 10 year upgrade, the NHS in the UK costs annually some £700billion, the welfare bill is somewhere in the £1.7Billion annually region also.
Scotland has a higher percentage of welfare dependants that the rest of the UK, with a lower tax take, this will becaome a greater issue in an independent Scotland, the SNP keep talking about a fairer society, which basically means the richer will pay higher taxes. Many go, "fine, they have lots to spare", well this is true, but higher earners already pay far more in tax than lower earners, they pay their fair share already, its the reason for a percentage based system, 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 10.
However this doesn't simply mean the millionaires will pay a little more each year, it means people earning over £30k a year will suddenly find themselves £150 a month worse off, with no real noticeable benefit as it just goes into the black hole that is the welfare budget.
Regarding the NHS, privatisation isn't necessarily going to appen, though many decry the privatisation of the trains as a terrible thing, many forget that the public state owned rail system was falling apart and was never getting any money spent on it, and the cost of travel today is still massively subsidised by the state, if it wasn't the cost of trains would be massively higher, many assume the train operators juist suck up all the cash and laugh, they do actually put a lot back in to replace the system, east coast being a good example.
The NHS also needs massive restructuring, it is far too wasteful, a few trusts have taken on the idea of running as a partnership, a bit like John lewis, and have started to make a 'profit' from their budget which is put back into the hospital, this should be done on a national level, therefore it is state run and funded, but pays for itself at each hospital.
privatisation doesn't just mean making it a PLC to make money.
I would much rather be part of a country with a stronger financial foundation that can work through economic issues (as we are doing) than start a new nation up that is already going to have massive start up costs (even the SNP admit it will be close to some 1.5 billion, not the £200 million originally claimed) and we will be on a knife edge economically for many years, it could all go wrong and be almost impossible to fix, why do all that for the chance to self determine that we get the same bunch of politicians 150 miles away rather than 500?
I get the idea behind it all, but its been so badly sold and set-up by salmond and the SNP as a vote winner 5 years ago rather than an actual planned process in hand with the rUK that could have worked so much better.
It all seems a bit slap dash to be honest, and with it being so important I cannot fathom any other vote than No.
I'm going to want a few sources for these claims please. First, where is the claim that Scotland will have a lower tax rate come from? The SNP have proposed lowering corporation tax and air passenger duty, not personal taxation on income or capital gains, and that those cuts be accompanied by changes to the tax code to make avoidance much more difficult. They argue this will result in increased revenues in the medium to long term due to increased business activity. Now, personally I disagree as I don't subscribe to neoliberal economics, but since that is essentially the same policy espoused by both the previous Labour and current Coalition governments, it can hardly be held up as an example of why Scotland in particular would be in a weaker economic position.
Scotland has a higher "proportion" of welfare dependents than the UK, but as a percentage of GDP the welfare system is a lower burden on Scotland's economy than is the case for the whole UK, and that is forecast to remain the case for at least two decades, only after that becoming worse than the UK if you assume current demographic trends of working age population to retirees continue uninterrupted. Given that obtaining the powers to begin changing that demographic trend is one of the core arguments in favour of independence, and that the UK has no specific plans to address those trends in Scotland if we remain part of it, again how can this be used as an example that Scotland is economically weaker than rUK?
While you may have an ideological preference for privatisation, your view is not shared by the majority of the British or Scottish populace, and your example in the trains is hardly a shining one given that that East Coast Mainline is run by Directly Operated Railways, a publicly-owned institution which was put in place when not one but two previous private operators failed, and which is the best performing rail line in the entire network; it receives the lowest levels of direct subsidy, it returns more money to the Treasury than any of the privately operated lines by a substantial margin, and it consistently gets the highest customer satisfaction ratings. The NHS's "restructuring" in England has already resulted in whole specialisms disappearing from some hospitals as "unprofitable" treatments are abandoned, leaving many people with serious illnesses having to travel further and further to receive treatment. Prescription charges in England have left many poor and vulnerable people having to choose between their prescribed medications because they cannot afford to fill all of them. Government-favoured think tanks are proposing the introduction of fees to visit GPs, and the fact that the NHS England(they are distinct entities remember) reforms have created a "marketplace" means that if the UK government don't seek a specific exemption(which they have no plans to), when the UK becomes a signatory of TTIP the private sector will be able to use the courts to force their way into any aspect of healthcare provision by having them declare government provision as "unfair competition", and further the case has been made that this would also apply to a devolved Scotland still within the UK since despite the SG having control over Health and Social Care, as a "region" of the UK TTIPs provisions would apply here as well.
I'll also want a source on your claim that the SNP have "admitted" setup costs of £1.5bil, considering that figure is derived from a UK Government report which has been discredited and disavowed by BOTH the academics on whos figures the government claimed it was based.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are not prescription charges in Scotland.
I know, but the fear is, they could make a comeback. Scottish Labour have already rallied against them, and seem strongly in favour of scrapping them.
The thing is, it shouldn't be a fear that they make a comeback, free prescriptions for all is basically unaffordable,
Factually incorrect. Free prescriptions "costs" the Scottish Government £60million per year, and considering the exemptions which were in place before(only around 2 in 5 people paid for a prescription before they were made free) and the cost of the administrative apparatus necessary to means-test them, at best reverting to the old system would save a few million a year, and that's before you consider any additional cost burdens placed on the rest of the NHS by situations like those mentioned above where people on multiple medications cannot afford to fill all their scripts and so aggravate their existing conditions to the point they need much more expensive treatments in the long-term.
At this point, we're getting on for another monsterpost, so I'm going to step back and suggest that people who have questions or objections go to the link in my signature and download a copy of the Wee Blue Book. It's far better written than my own posts will be, it deals with all the issues being raised here, and it includes citations for the sources on which every claim and argument is based.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I got the sense that the vote is expected to be a "No". Like what is actually the predicted outcome of the referendum? Or is it really to close to call like with Quebec 20 years ago?
Polling results bump up and down of course but in general the vote seems likely to be a No.
There is actually a huge range in the figures being brought in by the different polling companies. They're all using their own methodologies, and while one end of the spectrum(Ipsos MORI and the company in that link, YouGov) typically shows a higher No lead, other companies(Panelbase, Survation, ICM) have come out with polls showing a gap of five points, and in a few cases less than three points on the unrounded figures, which is within the standard margin of error. YouGov in particular have been a source of some controversy, given that high level employees at the company have made pro-Union statements in the media, they use a mechanism called "the Kellner Correction" which artificially upweights No voters in their samples because the head of the company believes "shy No syndrome" makes No voters less likely to express their preference(on the basis of anecdotal evidence which nobody but him has seen), and until their most recent poll they didn't even survey the 16-17 year old bracket despite them having a vote. To be fair, Panelbase have come in for their fair share of flack from the Unionists for ostensibly being "biased" towards the SNP and Yes, but unlike in the case of YouGov no actual questions have been raised regarding Panelbase's conduct, it's merely an accusation levelled at them because they typically show a higher projected Yes vote than No-friendly pollsters like YouGov and MORI do(and in the minds of Unionists that is evidence enough to damn them).
For starters, start up costs. yes the start up costs stated by the SNP was £200m as stated by Dunleavy, however he then went on to say that that was only initial start up, and would probably cost a further £700-900m following that, so in actual fact the £1billion stated by better together in the first place.:
I don't have an 'ideaological' preference for privatisation, what I do have is the ability to understand simple economical reality, the NHS cannot continue in its current funding form, I have 5 close relatives all based in healthcare (mother and aunt are nurses, Cousin is a doctor) and have a lot of experience of the NHS having a chronic Illness, and I have seen them talk time and again that the system simply cannot continue, it will collapse under its own weight unless drastic funding changes happen, namely the streamlining of services or a huge increase in national insurance contributions, which I cant see the public just accepting tbh.
Some elements of the NHS can and will be privatisedm things like non emergency medical issues, such as cosmetic surgeries or non required caesarean births (i.e. too posh to push), these should not be getting paid for via public purse. Also a huge amount of hospitals have massive waste issues spending great amounts on overpriced equipment from a single centralised suppler, private supply firms will encourage competition and lower prices, this is simple supply and demand.
regarding the East coast main line, yes it is publicly ran as an intermediary since 2009, but it was the private owner that put cash into it and upgraded the carriages and equipment, however it ran into financial difficulties and the reason no new owner has been stated yet is because Virgin trains who ran a large part of the service were outbid by First, however it was proven that First couldn't possibly run the service for the lower bid\budget they claimed, so its now on hold until a new tendering process can happen, I personally hope its virgin trains as they are really good, as I use the line a lot.
I never said Scotland would have a lower tax rate, I said a lower tax TAKE, i.e. we are going from a pool of some 45million tax payers to a pool of 4.5 million taxpayers. Yes this does mean the smaller pot has to cover less people, but many forget the HUGE imbalance that the London mile creates in the banking sector to cover the tax take used to pay for a large amount of services across the UK, Scotland being third behind Northern Island and the North east of England in Tax given from the pot (this was in agraphic in the newspaper the other day, I was surprised how tax was split after many decry that Scotland (incorrectly) takes more than anywhere else!
Scotlands higher level of welfare dependants wont magically change under an independent state, there will still be a higher level of welfare dependants, they just wont be getting their benefits (be that disability, job seekers, child fund etc) so Scotland will have to foot the bill, this isn't insurmountable but it will be an issue.
Regarding the belief that lowering business rates and flight tax but not increasing the income tax levels will cover an increase in public spending is quite simply laughable, especially considering we don't know what currency we will be using, that's an awful big gamble to claim how taxation will work when we don't know what we will be getting paid in. You CANNOT claim we will use the pound as all members of the govt, opposition and bank of England have said no Currency union will happen, so that leaves a Scottish poind (which will be worth little to start with), which will not be backed by the bank of England, yes Alex Salmond is correct, England cant stop us using the pound, much as Panam use the US dollar, it isn't backed up by the Federal reserve so is basically not worth the money its printed on in trade economics, I don't fancy that as my pay tbh. or the Euro which as Greece and Ireland, Spain etc have proven, it works for Germany and France, but for small weaker powers that need a strong currency or options to devalue their currency to entice trade, you cannot do that with a monetary union such as the Euro, which caused Greeces economy to spectacularly collapse, there is no reason why Scotland under the euro couldn't have the same issue, no strength behind its currency.
Regarding free prescriptions, I didn't mean a govt couldn't afford it, what I meant was, there is no reason people who can afford them without issue, should have them subsidised, but those who cannot afford treatment should of course have it paid for them.
As a final point, and I know I keep coming back to economics, but in my view it is the single most important reason why we should vote No, the whole thing has been badly thought out, poorly explained and in some cases downright lies about how Scotland will operate as an independent nation. The reason the BT camp keep banging on about what the SNP will do if Plan A isn't available (a currency union) what they plan to do afterwards, here we are 4 weeks till the vote and the Yes camp still keep bleating on that we will use the pound and be in a union with the bank of England, this simply wont happen, its too dangerous for the UK treasury to basically give Scotland its credit card and watch the debt rack up, because it will, its a start up nation with a socialist govt who will increase public spending (this is the SNP's big thing, lower taxes and higher public spending, this has to be paid for with public money borrowed against the BoE.
A final thinking point, if we change to the Euro or say the Scottish pound, what happens to everyone with mortgages taken out in English banks, those mortgages are in pounds but Scottish borrowers will have to pay back those loans from whatever currency we have after independence which will be weaker than the pound, (due to the simple nature an emerging economy will be weaker than the established ones, AND the pound Sterling is going from strength to strength, the IMF has basically said it was wrong about Osbornes plans and even labour\Ed Balls has stopped banging the drum about Osborne doing it all wrong, yet John Swinney carries on the same broken record). As a result of our loans\mortgages being based in the stringer pound, this means paying back mortgages will be more expensive and could lead to forclosures and people losing their homes, this is basic economics and happened in Greecem Spain, Ireland and Italy when the Euro collapsed and inflation skyrocketed and as a result people couldn't pay their debts.
This is fear mongering or trying to scare undecided voters, this is what happens when you sell an economy on lies and hopes.
Come the 18th I look forward to a No vote and going to bed hoping all the bile and rubbish I have seen in the past year from the Nats vanishes.
but hey ho. this is only a wargaming forum...and I am going home.
My mother works as a senior adminstrator in an NHS PCT, among other roles. She complains daily about waste, inefficiency and the nightmare of NHS bureaucracy.
The founding principles of the NHS are all fine and honourable, but like all other things that politicians get their hands on, it's now well and truly F.U.B.A.R.
Rick, I appreciate that while you're disagreeing with me, you're doing so (mostly)politely and laying out your position thoroughly. I hope you won't consider my continuing to argue the points you raise as an attack on yourself.
In order then;
Startup costs - if you pop over to Prof Dunleavy's blog on the LSE site(I'll try and dig out the link but I never BM'd it), you'll note that he specifies those "additional" costs are in fact not additional, they relate to the expenditure necessary to create new IT and other administrative systems required to run presently reserved matters, which as I mentioned in a previous post Scotland would have to pay regardless because the UK government is planning to upgrade those same systems UK-wide over the course of the next parliament, which we would contribute to at our usual 1-or-2%-above-per-capita share. He is explicit that by his estimation the "cost of independence", ie spending which would have to be undertaken in an independent Scotland which we would not otherwise have had to make/contribute to as part of the UK, is the £200-600million estimate he gave(and in his view the lower end of that scale). An additional point of fact on this matter; Better Together's initial claim was not £1billion, it was £3billion based, they claimed, on Prof Dunleavy's work. After he publicly disavowed their interpretation(manipulation, if we're being uncharitable) of his work, Better Together/the Treasury then made a second claim of £1.5billion, based on the work of a Canadian academic who then also publicly disavowed their interpretation on the basis that his study related to Quebec and couldn't be directly compared to the Scotland/UK situation. They have as yet, to my knowledge, not backed down from the £1.5bil claim.
Regarding the NHS - I disagree with your fundamental premise. Waste is an inherent quality of any bureaucracy, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately run, or whether it is on a large or a small scale. Large organisations generate waste through inability to quickly respond to circumstances and, depending on how well they are run, in over-provision of middle management, but that waste is offset by economies of scale which smaller groups are incapable of. Smaller organisations generate waste through an inability to leverage those economies of scale, and through duplication of effort when multiple small groups attempt to function as a whole without adequate oversight, but their ability to react to circumstance without moving through multiple layers of management makes them more responsive. If we want to have public services, we much accept the inherent additional cost of operating the bureaucratic apparatus. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector, and even in cases where it does demonstrate greater efficiency that does not necessarily mean it would cost less, since some or all of the resources saved due to increased efficiency will be repurposed as profits rather than savings.
Regarding welfare/dependency ratios - I don't believe I argued that the ratios would "magically" change under an independent state, my contention is that A; given social security is a smaller percentage of an independent's Scotland's GDP than the UK and will remain so for at least 20 years, it will not be an immediate problem and B; given that the issue largely related to the ratio of pensioners to working age employed adults, having powers over our economy and immigration system will allow us to take positive action to address the issue before it does become a problem.
Regarding tax base - you also have to take into account that Scotland generates more revenue for the Treasury than anywhere else in the country except London and the SE(and just London if you include geographic oil revenues, which an independent Scotland would). We spend more, but we also pay in more.
Free prescriptions - The point though is that the system to means-test the prescription system to ensure only the "deserving" get theirs for free costs almost as much as just giving them to everyone free - universalism is important to benefits being accepted by society, the more heavily you means test benefits, the more people who're not eligible see themselves as being unfairly victimised to pay for the "lazy & feckless". So in situations when there's almost no benefit to the public purse of means testing(such as free scripts), why cut off our nose to spite our face?
Currency and economics in general - I genuinely don't get where you're coming from on this aspect. I don't get how someone can look at a Scottish Government led by a former oil economist, making economic propositions on the advice of a panel of renowned international academic economists, who're part of a campaign that includes groups like Business for Scotland who's sole role in the campaign has been analysing the economics of independence, who're advocating the independence of a country that has received preliminary ratings from two different ratings agencies at their highest levels of assessment, a country about which the Financial Times said;
“An independent Scotland could expect to start
with healthier state finances than the rest of the
UK.”
...I don't get how someone can look at all that and think that the economic case is badly thought out.
And we know what currency we will use immediately; the Pound. Ideally within a currency agreement, but if not then using it without agreement is perfectly possible and according to some(like the Adam Smith Institute) preferable. It would have disadvantages compared to an agreed use, but would be advantageous in other ways. Again, I don't get how someone can look at the Scottish Government's position on currency, one based entirely on the work of aforementioned internationally renowned academics which lays out every single option available and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and think it anything other than the most thorough analysis it's possible to make before negotiations take place.
Yodhrin wrote: The second is a drum Spain have been banging continually since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed - the Agreement itself. Scotland has no inherent legal right to hold a referendum under EU or international law(something I believe is wrong as it's completely incompatible with the principles of self-determination enshrined in both the EU and UN, but factually that is the case), our referendum is an agreed process between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and it derives all of its legal validity from that agreement.
Its good to see that Yes campers are no longer completely ignoring the Spai9nsh threat of veto as project fear but actual Spanish policy.
However it would help if they told the truth.
Spain has no opinion on the referendum, there is no referendum drum they have been 'banging on'. The Spanish Prime Minster has even gone as far as to say there would be no Spanish intereference in the referendum, which was something the Yes camp were previously spinning into the lie that there was no veto threat. Quotes for this have been twice linked on this thread already.
Spain(and other EU nations with "separatist movements") argues, therefore, that the result of the Scottish referendum can have no bearing on the situation of the Catalans or Basques, since Spain's constitution forbids their government to enter into such an agreement,
That comment is bollocks because the Scottish referndum, if the outcome is a Yes vote, will have an emboldening affect on the Basque and Catalan movements and possibly movements in Italy also. The fact that Spanish constitution forbids a referendum only makes matters worse as it could be a catalyst for unrest or terrorism.
Now in practice Scotland's successful independence would likely "embolden" other EU independence movements, but at that point the damage is essentially already done, and in combination with the first issue I highlighted real politik would make it pretty difficult to obstruct Scottish membership out of what would look very much like spite.
You admit the above but miss the point, not all the damage is done. The damage to the Uk and Scotlands futire is done but the damage to Spain is only beginning. Things can get a qwholwe lot worse if Scottish idependence is successful. If however Scottish independence fails, on account of internal policy or inability to join the EU then the seperatist agenda in Spain will have a lot less appeal.
Its as simple as:
Scotland gets independence and gets EU entry = If we Basques/Catalans make enough of a ruckus we will get our own nation also.
Scotland gets independence and fails to get EU entry = If we Basques/Catalans make enough of a ruckus we will get our own nation also, but a lot of our fellows don't think its worth it because we will lose a lot of what we have got.
"Easy" is a relative term, but it will almost certainly not be the insurmountable obstacle Better Together claim.
a Veto is insurmountable. So long as Spain has the political will to keep saying no. Its insurmountable in the short term, possibly the medioum term, probably not the long term, but by then it will be too late.
“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.”
Interesting quote, but far more senior people including those speaking on behalf of the French and Spanish governments at the highest level have already cartegorically stated Scotland will have to apply to join.
The hard reality is that the UK is part of the EU, if Scotland votes yes and volunteers to leave the Uk it also volunteers to leave the EU as the UK is the member of the EU, not Scotland, which has no direct presence there. Scottish MEPs are UK MEPs. The same act that gives up UK citizenship also gives up EU citizenship. Nobody is stripping Scots of EU citizenship, they do that themselves by voting Yes.
And in 2014 before the Scottish Parliament's European Committee he stated;
“A situation where Scotland was outside the European Union and not applying European rules would be a legal nightmare for the people in the rest of the United Kingdom and the British Government has to take account of that. I think it would be very, very unfortunate for the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland was not a member from day one of independence.”
The EU mioves at its own pace, not Salmonds. Applications to join normally take many years, that is the reality.
Take thwe Uk entry for instance, this was as stated in earlier posts blocked by De Gaulle for rerasons of personal bile. The UK was ready to join the EEC in 1969 when the treaty was signed allowing the Uk to join, the Uk still did not actually get to join until 1974. It is interesting to note that in 1969-72 the Uk was booming, but had a financial meltdown due to a lengthy battle with the unions in 73-74, the Uk joined when its economic strength was low and was out while it was high. This was because entry was determined by the nurauyvcratic procedures of the EEC, not actually viability of joining.
When Scotland applies wit will have to grease the joining wheels of the EU, and those controlling the application process will not be hurried as the process soaks up power and revenue.
The current European Commission president is reportedly "sympathetic" to the case for an independent Scotland's membership. Nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty "Scotland will be a member of the EU on independence day in 2016 on the same terms as today within the UK", but it's hardly unlikely,
Juncker is sympathetic as an offshoot of not liking Cameron, I dont know if he is actually pro-Scottish or just wants his oqwn back against the UK. This doesnt matter, I agree that Juncker will try and help, but he can sympathise as much as he likes, is Spain vetoes sympathy is all you get.
and by the same token nobody can say with utter and absolute certainty that a Scotland that had voted No and was still part of the UK would be a member of the EU come 2017 when the UK government holds the promised in-out referendum on EU membership, and in that case the preponderance of polling evidence combined with simple demographics analysis would suggest we wouldn't be.
I grant you this one, however a withdrawal form the EU is very unlikely. UKIP is popular for reasons other than its stance on Europe.
I'll also want a source on your claim that the SNP have "admitted" setup costs of £1.5bil, considering that figure is derived from a UK Government report which has been discredited and disavowed by BOTH the academics on whos figures the government claimed it was based.
Patrick Dunleavy has also said it costs £15 million to set up a new department. Both figures are widely optimisitic. The Scottish parliament buildings cost more than the entire set up for iScotland is projected to cost, sorry its just not realistic.
I can see Dunleavy's point, the actual cost of itself would be about 200m, but by the time you have had bureaucracy and inefficiency it will cost a whole lot more. The Treasury figures are more grounded, Scotland also has its gravy trains, if you disbelieve that look at Salmond's wild expenses.
Startup costs - They (the Treasury) have as yet, to my knowledge, not backed down from the £1.5bil claim.
Nor should they, they are realistic. The Scottish parliament has not been efficient or gravy train free, so its vapid to think iScotland will be.
In fairness this just means more of the same, iScotland will not be any worse, though it will have to include departments that the Scottish parliament doesnt need to consider.
Lets take one for example, a foreign ministry. a top ambassador has a salary of over £100k, say that iScotland was to halve that to £50k, doable, but unpopular with those who want some gravy. Assume that you want to send embassies in only 120 of the 196 sovereign states that still comes up to 6 million, in salaries a year just for the 120 cut price ambassadors. These are without premises and without staff. Median civil service pay is about £19k, management pay is about £30k. Assuming you want a bare bones embassy staff of only one manager and two staff this means, this is an extra £8 milion rounded down. You havent added a foreign ministry of any kind, no embassies purchased and no representation at all in a third of nation states (this of itself is not unusual for smaller European countries). We have already clocked up £14 million on salaries alone for a bare bones salaries without any infrastructure whatsoever. Lets carry on with the salaries for a minute though. How much will it cost to pay the people to pay the embassy staff for the bare bones 120 embassies. Payroll department of 20 with a median salary of 19k as most are just clerks, thats 380k, a legal department, that will cost buts lets be generous and say you start with a legal department of a further thirty at 'manager' salaries, thats 900k, ten bigwigs on 100k each average (this unreasonably assumes that Salmond cronies don't get slush funding) thats another million, plus another fifty of so general workers averaging at the median civil service salary of 19K again. another 950k. Lets total this up (£3.28milion) and round it extra generously down to £3
No0w these figures are admittedly from the top of my head, but they are also woeful underestimates for rthe salary costs of a working foreign office for a small country, actual costs would be orders of magnitude larger, and these costs do not include recruiting the civil servants, vetting them or paying for a single paper clip or square yard of office space. Yet we have already clocked up £17million for our bare bones foreign ministry, 1/11th of the entire iScotland setup for all departments and all infrastructure.
I dont buy the £200 million figure, and neither does the treasury.
And we know what currency we will use immediately; the Pound. Ideally within a currency agreement, but if not then using it without agreement is perfectly possible and according to some(like the Adam Smith Institute) preferable.
Scotland can do this, but it cannot print any new currency and would have to use Bank of England notes as Bank of Scotland notes end circulation. Those in circulation would remain legal tender.
It would be preferable as you can offset the cost of setting up a new Bank of iScotland, that alone would cost way more that £200 million.
It would have disadvantages compared to an agreed use, but would be advantageous in other ways. Again, I don't get how someone can look at the Scottish Government's position on currency, one based entirely on the work of aforementioned internationally renowned academics which lays out every single option available and the advantages and disadvantages of each, and think it anything other than the most thorough analysis it's possible to make before negotiations take place.
Other equally or more reknowned academics and economists however think iScotland will be such a disaster companies and people will flee with their money.
Who is right?
A lot of the experts have opinions that are paid for not academically held, this goes both ways. You have to look at the numbers and at case studies of former examples. Panamaisation is a nightmare for anyone wanting to paint a picture of a rose tinted bright future.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!
We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!
What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
Perfect illustration of what I was saying above. The problem with the referendum is there's no direct precedent, so there's no way to tell which polling company is using the "right" methodology and weighting system until after we're done. Some weight by recalled 2010 Westminster vote, some by recalled 2011 Holyrood vote, some have started using a Frankenweight of 2011 combined with the recent EU elections; some weight by country of origin while others don't; Panelbase, Survation, and YouGov use preselected online panels, while Ipsos MORI exclusively poll landline telephones and ICM exclusively use face-to-face interviews; some companies use additional "anecdote-based" weightings like the aforementioned "Kellner Correction"(YouGov) or upweighting/downweighting by party affiliation(Labour and SNP supporters respectively, Ipsos MORI). When you also factor in that all of the pollsters appear to be failing to reach the "missing million"(the ordinarily unregistered and non-voting who it seems may well play a big role) and that a fair few of them had some pretty entertainingly wrong results in the last couple of Holyrood elections, at this point the polls are more about trying to guide opinion rather than measure it, ie political points scoring by either campaign("Blow for Salmond! etc", "Momentum with Yes! etc" *sigh*).
As for Abbott, if voting Yes means being on the opposite side than someone who thinks those voting one way in an entirely peaceful democratic process in a negotiated referendum are "enemies of freedom and democracy" or whatever, someone who thinks women are physiologically incapable of being leaders, who thinks climate change is a global conspiracy among scientists to cheat the world out of extra funding, and is so homophobic his own sister had to leave his country just to marry her partner - I'm entirely comfortable with that.
Scottish pro-independence movement are 'underdogs', says Alex Salmond
First minister says yes campaign 'has work to do' as polls show support stalling after TV debate with Alistair Darling
Alex Salmond has moved to dampen hopes of victory for the yes campaign in September's referendum on Scottish independence by describing the pro-independence movement as "underdogs".
As a further poll showed the yes vote stalling following his televised debate with Alistair Darling, the first minister admitted the yes campaign had "still got work to do" to close the gap with less than 40 days before the referendum.
The Scottish national party leader insisted that being behind in the polls suited his campaign, signalling he wanted independence activists to step up their campaigning dramatically in the final weeks.
"I relish the position of being the underdog," he told the BBC. "I think that's the best position to be in, in a campaign. I have been there before in other campaigns, Scotland has been there before many times. The trick is not to be ahead today, it's to be ahead on September 18."
The YouGov poll for the Sun on Monday put the no vote at 55% and yes at 35% – the same level it detected in June, and at 61% to no and 39% to yes after taking out undecideds.
On Saturday the polling organisation Survation told the Daily Mail that, after the STV debate, the no vote was up to 50%, its highest figure for the anti-independence vote, with support for setting up a new state falling four points to 37%.
Those findings were echoed by the latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey, funded by a UK government research council, which put the yes vote at 39% – three points up on the same survey last year, and the no vote at 61% after undecideds were excluded.
The gap in yes support between men and women had doubled since last year to 12%, the largest gap found by the survey, with only 27% of women backing independence. But it also found that support for independence is more evenly spread through Scotland's social classes and by age than before.
Its face-to-face questionnaire of 1339 voters was carried out between May and July, so it did not capture any effect from the Glasgow Commonwealth games or the STV debate.
But the study, widely seen as the most authoritative of its kind, found voters are increasingly seeing themselves as both British and Scottish, as attitudes changed during the campaign. The number seeing themselves as Scottish as opposed to British fell to 65% – the lowest level found by the SSA since 1979, when it stood at 56%.
Asked to define their identity further, 32% said they were equally Scottish and British – the highest number since 1992. Those describing themselves as Scottish-only fell to 23%, the joint lowest figure since 1997 and the number seeing themselves as more Scottish than British stood at 26% – the lowest the SSA has recorded.
Professor John Curtice, who oversaw the SSA study for the Scottish Centre for Social Research, said his best guess was that, as voters were now being faced with a choice of leaving the UK, some voters felt their identification with being British was strengthening.
Those voters could equally want greater power for Scotland, he added, although the study found support for devolution had dropped to 50% from a high of 61% in 2010. "They don't quite want to leave the UK, therefore the question of 'do I acknowledge some sense of Britishness' is coming to some people's minds," Curtice said
I'm starting to think this independence referendum is going to fizzle out like a damp squib. If the general political mood is statistically in favour of union, I also begin to wonder why we even need the referendum at all. I suppose it'll put the issue to bed for another thirty years until the SNP can push for another one though.
I'm not sure why when asked about Scotland's Energy Policy nobody is bringing up the vote from December last year in which Renewable Energy powers were handed back to Westminster by Unionist MP's?
It's always struck me that if it could happen in such a manner like that once, it could happen again.
Scottish pro-independence movement are 'underdogs', says Alex Salmond
First minister says yes campaign 'has work to do' as polls show support stalling after TV debate with Alistair Darling
Alex Salmond has moved to dampen hopes of victory for the yes campaign in September's referendum on Scottish independence by describing the pro-independence movement as "underdogs".
As a further poll showed the yes vote stalling following his televised debate with Alistair Darling, the first minister admitted the yes campaign had "still got work to do" to close the gap with less than 40 days before the referendum.
The Scottish national party leader insisted that being behind in the polls suited his campaign, signalling he wanted independence activists to step up their campaigning dramatically in the final weeks.
"I relish the position of being the underdog," he told the BBC. "I think that's the best position to be in, in a campaign. I have been there before in other campaigns, Scotland has been there before many times. The trick is not to be ahead today, it's to be ahead on September 18."
The YouGov poll for the Sun on Monday put the no vote at 55% and yes at 35% – the same level it detected in June, and at 61% to no and 39% to yes after taking out undecideds.
On Saturday the polling organisation Survation told the Daily Mail that, after the STV debate, the no vote was up to 50%, its highest figure for the anti-independence vote, with support for setting up a new state falling four points to 37%.
Those findings were echoed by the latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey, funded by a UK government research council, which put the yes vote at 39% – three points up on the same survey last year, and the no vote at 61% after undecideds were excluded.
The gap in yes support between men and women had doubled since last year to 12%, the largest gap found by the survey, with only 27% of women backing independence. But it also found that support for independence is more evenly spread through Scotland's social classes and by age than before.
Its face-to-face questionnaire of 1339 voters was carried out between May and July, so it did not capture any effect from the Glasgow Commonwealth games or the STV debate.
But the study, widely seen as the most authoritative of its kind, found voters are increasingly seeing themselves as both British and Scottish, as attitudes changed during the campaign. The number seeing themselves as Scottish as opposed to British fell to 65% – the lowest level found by the SSA since 1979, when it stood at 56%.
Asked to define their identity further, 32% said they were equally Scottish and British – the highest number since 1992. Those describing themselves as Scottish-only fell to 23%, the joint lowest figure since 1997 and the number seeing themselves as more Scottish than British stood at 26% – the lowest the SSA has recorded.
Professor John Curtice, who oversaw the SSA study for the Scottish Centre for Social Research, said his best guess was that, as voters were now being faced with a choice of leaving the UK, some voters felt their identification with being British was strengthening.
Those voters could equally want greater power for Scotland, he added, although the study found support for devolution had dropped to 50% from a high of 61% in 2010. "They don't quite want to leave the UK, therefore the question of 'do I acknowledge some sense of Britishness' is coming to some people's minds," Curtice said
I'm starting to think this independence referendum is going to fizzle out like a damp squib. If the general political mood is statistically in favour of union, I also begin to wonder why we even need the referendum at all. I suppose it'll put the issue to bed for another thirty years until the SNP can push for another one though.
"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.
As for putting the issue to bed, that's an optimistic view of things. The SNP might not be planning to publicly advocating another referendum for a decade or two if there's a No vote this time around, but whatever the picture painted in certain parts of the media of Emperor Alex Salmond and his SNP generals marching at the head of their Cybernat army, they lost control of the Yes campaign a long time ago, and if Unionists believe Radical Independence, Green Yes, Scottish CND, and the hundreds of local autonomous groups across the country are just going to vanish into the ether after a No, and that they won't start getting support from amongst the general public when we get Tories in 2015(which we will), followed by years of austerity(which we'd get even if Labour win in 2015 by their own admission), years of dithering and equivocating over the already weak "more powers" offers(which is inevitable considering prevailing attitudes among English MPs towards further devolution, even token further devolution), further erosion of Scottish representation at Westminster(another inevitability if we stay in, whether it takes the form of fewer Scottish MPs or limiting their voting rights on "English-only issues") and further cuts to the Scottish budget(either due to cuts in England resulting in a proportionate reduction of the block grant, or by the removal of the Barnett Formula which is favoured by many including the Welsh and Barnett himself) - now that's what I call optimism. Personally I'd rather it were just over and done with either way(although I'd evidently also rather it were over with a Yes vote), but we'll be lucky if we make it through a single parliament.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure why when asked about Scotland's Energy Policy nobody is bringing up the vote from December last year in which Renewable Energy powers were handed back to Westminster by Unionist MP's?
It's always struck me that if it could happen in such a manner like that once, it could happen again.
Oh it's more fun that that even, it wasn't elected Unionist MPs, the renewables powers were stripped by the unelected House of Lords. I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.
My two cents (Euro cents, I know which currency I have) as an complete outsider who has nevertheless closely followed the media and other online discussions relating this matter.
Frankly, it seems to me that Salmond's vision for Scotland is based on hot air and wishful thinking. He constantly keeps promising things that are in no way in his power to promise, and some of which seem pretty darn unlikely to go in the way he says. Currency Union, easy EU membership and the oil profits are all things with huge uncertainties. Whilst there certainly have been some exaggeration from 'Better Together', overall they seem way more honest. It is easy for the Yes-campaign to be positive, when they can carelessly make all sort of fanciful promises of how everything will magically be awesome, and then No-side gets labelled as negative scaremongers when they point out that maybe it will not be quite that easy after all.
Furthermore, to me it seems that Scotland has pretty good deal currently overall, they benefit from economic strength and international prestige of UK, while having a partial autonomy that gives them power to offset some of the possible undesired effects of the Westminster policies (of course the exact specifics of that arrangement is something that certainly is worth debating, I'm sure improvements could be made.) I don't think many people in UK quite realise, what sort of influence a great power like UK has. Finland is a country of five million people, about the same as the independent Scotland would be. I can tell you that in the international arenas country of that size has great difficulty of getting their voice heard; Salmond is utterly deluded if he thinks he could get a same kind of deal from EU than UK currently has. Whilst I find it unlikely (but not impossible) that Scotland would be completely denied the membership, it will be the EU dictating the terms. Big countries like, France, Germany and UK can get all sorts of exceptions that smaller countries can only dream of (Cameron has said he want to negotiate even better deal, seems a bit greedy to me, but it is quite possible that he will get it.) Then there is the matter of financial strength. Whilst I by no means think it would be a (complete) disaster, the idea that Scotland would economically be better off as an independent country is a fantasy. A bigger country with a bigger economy is always much more stable than a smaller one, and they have much more options to deal with problems as they arise. This also relates to the international influence, decisions made by bigger economies or international institutions will affect smaller countries, yet they have little or no power to affect these decisions. This is also good to remember when talking about sovereignty gained via independence: independent or not, policies of bigger players will still affect you, but at least by being part of UK, you have some (limited) say to the policies of one of the big players.
As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.
As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.
And even then there'd be people with Multiple Personalities who disagree with themselves.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
Aye.
And while we're at it lets add Hawaii and Texas to that list.
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
Not the answer I was expecting - good to see you're not a hypocrite (advocating the breakup of foreign countries but not your own).
Sounds good to me, just let me finish moving to Houston first. Though I don't quite know if a succession vote would succeed in Texas, they haven't managed to get it on the ballot yet. Anything to ditch the East Coast and the People's Democratic Republic of California.
Not the answer I was expecting - good to see you're not a hypocrite (advocating the breakup of foreign countries but not your own).
Well that's the rub isn't it? Scotland is a nation it's own, and a people their own. Why should they, or the Basques, or the Catalans, the Kurds, or any other people not have the right to go their own way if they wish too?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well that's the rub isn't it? Scotland is a nation it's own, and a people their own. Why should they, or the Basques, or the Catalans, the Kurds, or any other people not have the right to go their own way if they wish too?
Yes, thats my attitude too.
As an Englishman and a Brit, I don't want Scotland to leave the Union and breakup my country. I feel I have much more in common politically and culturally with Scotland, Wales and Ireland than say, Continental Europe.
But if a majority of people in Scotland wish to leave the Union to become an Independent country then I acknowledge and fully support their right to do so. Same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. My belief in democracy and self determination trumps any sense of nationalism. The Scots (well, the ones in favour) want Independence from Westminster in much the same way that I want British Independence from the European Union.
..though I do feel Salmond and co. are being somewhat dishonest and are trying to blackmail the UK(give us currency union or else we'll refuse to take our fair share of UK Debt) and the EU(Let us join the EU or we'll close off Scottish waters to European shipping) to get their own way.
(note that I'm NOT referring to posters in this thread like Yohdrin so its not intended as a personal attack...unless of course he's an actual formal member and activist of the Yes Campaign and/or SNP?)
"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.
I'm not really making any comments on which polls are correct or incorrect. But if the official position of the leader of the 'Yes' campaign is casting himself as the 'underdog', one just begins to wonder slightly exactly how popular his opinion actually is. Polls always have a slight tilt in favour of change in just about any given scenario (as those who take part tend to be politically active, and it therefore doesn't take into account the natural disinclination of the voters to change the status quo). As such, if the polls are generally suggesting (and most of the ones I've seen do) the table tilted in favour of no, I'm expecting to see something along the lines of a 65-70% vote in favour of 'No'.
That would be my current forecast at least. We'll have to see how things progress.
As for putting the issue to bed, that's an optimistic view of things. The SNP might not be planning to publicly advocating another referendum for a decade or two if there's a No vote this time around, but whatever the picture painted in certain parts of the media of Emperor Alex Salmond and his SNP generals marching at the head of their Cybernat army, they lost control of the Yes campaign a long time ago, and if Unionists believe Radical Independence, Green Yes, Scottish CND, and the hundreds of local autonomous groups across the country are just going to vanish into the ether after a No, and that they won't start getting support from amongst the general public when we get Tories in 2015(which we will),
Just to interrupt in mid-flow, there's a high chance of a Lib/Lab coalition majority in the next round of elections. Thanks to New Labour's previous gerrymandering and the refusal of the Lib Dems to co-operate in undoing the effects, it's actually quite difficult for the Conservatives to get an outright majority these days.
If Brown hadn't been so inflexible and certain that Clegg would jump into bed with him without any compromises on his part, it could have happened last election already. I have a feeling that the Lib Dems won't be so quick to go Tory this time, because the Tories refused to undemocratically push through increases in Lib Dem political power (AV & House of Lords). Miliband also strikes me as more flexible (or spineless, depending on your take) than Brown was.
He also, unfortunately, strikes me as a political opportunist with little skill. He's finished if the Lib Dems don't prop him up this time around, as there's little chance of a Labour majority. I think the man would be disastrous for the country. I don't regard Cameron as that much better (ex-spin doctor anyone?), but he's demonstrated a basic level of competence if not excellence thus far.
followed by years of austerity(which we'd get even if Labour win in 2015 by their own admission),
The economy seems to be doing alright. I won't pretend to be an economist, and for a time, was won around by sebster's listing of economic reasons as to why austerity was bad. After some discussion with an academic on Keynesian economics though, I now also understand why Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily apply so much any more to our economy, so I'm torn as to whether austerity is a good or bad thing. The one thing I do know for sure is that whilst probably better educated than the average punter on the whole thing by now, I still don't really have much of a right to an opinion on the subject (or at least, one worth listening to).
years of dithering and equivocating over the already weak "more powers" offers(which is inevitable considering prevailing attitudes among English MPs towards further devolution, even token further devolution), further erosion of Scottish representation at Westminster(another inevitability if we stay in, whether it takes the form of fewer Scottish MPs or limiting their voting rights on "English-only issues")
Do you regard an inability to Scottish MP's to vote on domestic English affairs as being unfair, despite the reverse being true? If so, I'd be genuinely curious to hear a reasoned argument as to why.
I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.
This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.
Yodhrin wrote: Rick, I appreciate that while you're disagreeing with me, you're doing so (mostly)politely and laying out your position thoroughly. I hope you won't consider my continuing to argue the points you raise as an attack on yourself.
Aye, you crack on, I just like a debate. Neither of us will change our minds, its the 14% left that will make any difference.
"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.
I'm not really making any comments on which polls are correct or incorrect.
I don't think there has been a single worthwhile poll (Some people keep quoting a handful of unscientific on line polls by a pro independence news paper that had zero control over who was voting and were so bias in the voting group) that shows No to be ahead. The latest YouGov poll puts No ahead. Yes seem to have made some ground last week, but it has been swinging back and forth for months by 2-3%.
Polls have consistently showed about 35 for yes. It has been this way for years.
I personally think we will see a No vote, but to be honest, polls are useful to political groups to tell them if they are doing the right thing, but for debating the subject it is pointless. What does it matter who is in the lead or not. It is not a useful fact at all.
I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.
This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.
You probably haven't heard anything about it as is has nothing to do with Scottish independence. As usual the "Yes" side are trying to paint anything to do with Westminster as "The big bad evil trying to destroy us". It is, in fact, a stated Labour policy to try and devolve powers across the UK to local government as much as possible to reduce the centralized power of Westminster and introduce more localisms in to politics. If this is a good idea or not is a different matter, but it has nothing to do with undermining Scotland or Scottish devolution. Apparently, however, the SNP are happy to have power devolved and let people have control over there own destiny and how they are governed, as long as it stops at Holyrood.
You probably haven't heard anything about it as is has nothing to do with Scottish independence. As usual the "Yes" side are trying to paint anything to do with Westminster as "The big bad evil trying to destroy us". It is, in fact, a stated Labour policy to try and devolve powers across the UK to local government as much as possible to reduce the centralized power of Westminster and introduce more localisms in to politics. If this is a good idea or not is a different matter, but it has nothing to do with undermining Scotland or Scottish devolution. Apparently, however, the SNP are happy to have power devolved and let people have control over there own destiny and how they are governed, as long as it stops at Holyrood.
The new policy is based on the IPPR report Condition of Britain launched in June this year. The revolution is illusory, as it devolves culpability and authority but not funding, its actually very Orwellian means of centralising power by giving the illusion of the opposite, which is why only Labour proposes it. It can also set up select local authorities to fail or boost visible success of others as fits party policy.
Holyrood is very similar only more so, funding and actual de facto control is extremely centralised, and look to be getting even more so.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not like the Conservatives have a good record of decentralising power either.
Its fairer to say they want things as they are. Lib and Con are happy for the local authorities to have their spheres of control, New Labour actively takes those away, selectively while installing illusory decentralisation, good example of this was the elcted mayors rolled in during the first Blair term in a lot of towns. Sure we have an extra layers of elections at a local level, but it produces only a gravy train not any meaningful decentralisation.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!
We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!
What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it
It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.
I have to travel to Scotland a fair bit for my job, am I going to need a passport for that trip in future? The whole thing just seems fething ridiculous, and just a bunch of people in power there wanting more power (which is what this is about for Salmon and co.) rather than any genuine desire to benefit the Scottish people. Incidentally, none of the Scots I work with are going to vote yes because I think they recognise it for what it is. But, getting 16 year-olds to vote (who will vote with their heart rather than their head), and no doubt some attempts to drum up nationalism through repeat showings of Mel Gibson as Braveheart and you can quite easily swing it to the yes vote.
I work for a rather large energy company. I've heard that the break of the union (if it happens) will cost the company getting on for a billion pounds in realisation of pension funds. Feth knows how they are going to organise the power grid and payment moving backwards and forth, the entire thing is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare and is just going to cost both sides mountains of money. Several large companies have already started buying offices south of the border and will be moving the moment the yes vote is returned, and from what I've read from economists comments on the subject (I'm not an expert on this myself, and therefore have to base my views on this subject on those comments) are that the moment independence happens the banks based in Scotland will default. British (or rather English, Welsh & Northern Irish) taxpayer money will then have to be used to help them. So in this sense maybe the whole of the UK should get to vote for this as we ultimately we are all going to be paying for it.
It's more than 300 years since the act of Union, and the two countries are so incredibly entwined, not just in terms of industry and economy but I think also culturally as well. Separation is going to be like untangling a 3 metre wide ball of wool that has been locked in a room with 50 kittens, and when the scissors come out it's going to result in a lot of tears.
There's no plan to default. There will be a currency union.
All I can say is that I've heard that claims of businesses moving their offices as over exaggerated.
The UK is poised to exit the EU. If anything having a base in Scotland would be good for future business.
The political spectrum in Scotland is completely different than the rest of the UK. We've got a chance to rid ourselves of the House of Lords and Westminster that would smash down the Scottish Parliament when they are given the chance. Borris doesn't want to give us extra powers and we all know UKIP isn't the Scottish Parliaments biggest fan.
It's now or never for Scotland.
Some people call for solidarity among the working classes but I'm sorry, these people have had 30 years to build themselves back up after Maggie neutered them. Labour were in power for 13 continous years during that time. This groundwork shouldn't be getting started now. It's also too late to offer Devo-Max options now. Westminster already spat in the face of Scotland in that regard. This debate has been very telling. Scotland is the benefit scrounging, heroin addict, burden of the UK. Allowed to suffer an existence at the expense of the rest of the UK.
Labour is not the answer. They've already introduced rot into the NHS, the pillar of modern Britain. Watch as that crumbles over the next few years.
A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!
We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!
What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it
It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.
England attacked Scotland in the 13th century and briefly occupied the country but got kicked out pretty soon.
After the death of Elizabeth the First (1603) the next in line to the English throne happened to be the King of Scotland. He became King James 1 of England and James 6 of Scotland however there were still two separate parliaments and separate legal systems.
James's grandson James, brother of Charles II, was kicked out by the English in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for being Catholic, and replaced by WilliamandMary from Holland. (Mary was English.) James went to live in exile in France, and his descendants were used by the French for invading Britain in the 18th century.
The Darien colonisation scheme in the 1690s essentially bankrupted Scotland and was an important factor in bringing about the union.
The two countries were unified by the Acts of Union in 1707, by which the Scottish parliament dissolved itself and the Westminster parliament assumed government of the whole island.
Relations between England and Scotland were worsened by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 by supported of the exiled Stuart royal family (remember this family had been legitimate rulers of Scotland) against the Hanoverian monarchy imported to replace Queen Anne, daughter of WilliamandMary, who died without children.
Repression of these rebellions caused a lot of the historical bad feeling.
But there won't. Scotland may unilaterally decide to use the pound, which it can do. It could also use the dollar, the euro , the bitcoin or the Yap Rai stone if they can get hold of enough. But there will not be a currency union, no matter how much the Yes camp want it.
Why am I so sure? First, because it would be politically disastrous, any party agreeing to a currency union would be torn o bits, both by the media and in the polls. Secondly, it would be economically disastrous for both sides. The Yes camp keep going on about how economically different Scotland is to the rest of the UK, so they would want a different economic policy, damaging both sides as there is either argument, disparity or compromise. The uncertainty would also be devastating for both sides as the markets would not know what was going to happen and if it is going to last.
A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.
I think this sums up everything that the Yes camp is saying. The grass will be greener, England is rubbish, Scotland is brilliant, just held back, and we will fix all of the problems! The Yes camp sound just like every party in opposition in Westminster. Full of vague promises about how they would do things better, nebulous criticism and few real facts witch all dissolves when faced with the reality of life and politics. Unfortunately this is far to important a choice to waste on politics of personality and dreams as you can't simply vote them out again in a few years. This needs facts on how things are going to be funded, what things will be like and what the options and back up plans are if things don't go to plan, which the Yes camp simply have failed to give.
But there won't. Scotland may unilaterally decide to use the pound, which it can do. It could also use the dollar, the euro , the bitcoin or the Yap Rai stone if they can get hold of enough. But there will not be a currency union, no matter how much the Yes camp want it.
Why am I so sure? First, because it would be politically disastrous, any party agreeing to a currency union would be torn o bits, both by the media and in the polls. Secondly, it would be economically disastrous for both sides. The Yes camp keep going on about how economically different Scotland is to the rest of the UK, so they would want a different economic policy, damaging both sides as there is either argument, disparity or compromise. The uncertainty would also be devastating for both sides as the markets would not know what was going to happen and if it is going to last.
A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.
I think this sums up everything that the Yes camp is saying. The grass will be greener, England is rubbish, Scotland is brilliant, just held back, and we will fix all of the problems! The Yes camp sound just like every party in opposition in Westminster. Full of vague promises about how they would do things better, nebulous criticism and few real facts witch all dissolves when faced with the reality of life and politics. Unfortunately this is far to important a choice to waste on politics of personality and dreams as you can't simply vote them out again in a few years. This needs facts on how things are going to be funded, what things will be like and what the options and back up plans are if things don't go to plan, which the Yes camp simply have failed to give.
Yodhrin has made various long and eloquent points in this thread that explain the position much better than myself.
What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises. There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.
Nobody is under the impression that we'll wake up in a Utopia the following day after a Yes vote. It'll be hard to get what we want from Scotland. Retaining the NHS is a safe bet, certainly more so than if we stay in the Union. The point is we'll get to make those decisions. Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country. When I'm saying "look North and wonder where it all went wrong" I'm meaning for you folks down South will perhaps see a reinvigorated Scottish political sphere and that'll get people thinking in the rest of the UK. Maybe get rid of the house of lords and start to shake up the stagnant political system a little bit.
What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.
They have shown what the union brings. Global influence, stability, power within the EU, access to global financial markets through the London Stock Exchange, low interest rates, shared risk. All of the things the UK currently has. By leaving there is a very real risk of Scotland not having any of these things. What many people in the Yes side seem to want is some statement saying how Scotland will get more if it stays part of the union. That is not fear mongering, just statement of what is being walked away from.
This is fear mongering:
There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.
Yes, there may not be more powers, that is part of the point. The No campaign cannot have "more powers" as a bribe to Scotland. That would be wrong. Any further devolution should be looked at as part of a full view as to what is best for the country as a whole. However, the removal of the Scottish Parliament? That is in no way a real risk. In theory possible, but like many things that are in theory possible, like the dissolution of the crown, it is not going to happen, at least not in our life time, and not without the agreement of the Scottish electorate.
Nobody is under the impression that we'll wake up in a Utopia the following day after a Yes vote. It'll be hard to get what we want from Scotland. Retaining the NHS is a safe bet, certainly more so than if we stay in the Union.
The NHS is not going anywhere in the UK. Funding is a political football, but the NHS will still exist. If Scotland becomes independent funding will become the same political football, just because it is a big cost. Anyone who says otherwise is talking nonsense and been listening to too many right wing think tanks and Labour/Union opposition rhetoric.
The point is we'll get to make those decisions. Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country.
Scotland will have more difficulty having its voice heard in the EU on it's own than as part of the UK. It will become another small country among many. At the moment it is part of the big old guard of the EU with real power. Ireland does not get it's voice heard in the EU at the moment and Scotland on it's own will be the same, and without Scotland the UKs voice will be lessened in the EU. As with many things it will be damaging to both sides.
One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-
-The No party does want to concede that there is a possibility of a Yes vote because it damages their position &
-The Yes party does want to discuss it, because they have absolutely no official negotiation power over the process/final terms of dissolution, and the odds are that the final settlement will be far less advantageous then they're painting it to be. If people started working that into the voting equation, it would probably hit their ability to gain votes quite severely.
The whole currency issue is the first thing of that nature that's actually hit the headlines, but it's far from the only thing. Points of negotiation that would have to be considered:-
-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)
-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so). Just to illustrate for a moment:-
Most of the southern half of Scotland votes Conservative/Labour. If these areas wish to stay British, and strongly (say, 65% plus), there's absolutely no way that Parliament will cede them to the new state of Scotland. And if Scotland loses a third of its landmass, what does that do to their predictions about the economy? Most of the remaining non oil related Scottish industry and population is based in those areas.
-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?
-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?
-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.
Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.
-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.
These are just a few of the issues. There are far, far more, but absolutely no-one in either side wants to discuss them. Which I find more than a little vexing, as I believe it really would affect people's opinions on the issue.
What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.
To me this 'fear mongering' seems merely be pointing out the massive risks, and SNP's utter lack of preparation for them, that this independence project involves. As for what Scotland gets from the union, it should be obvious, you got it pretty good. People are always discontent with what they have, and promising them that things could be even better, is a great way to sell things, even if it wasn't true.
There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.
That is completely theoretical. No party would dare to demolish the devolution. It would be a gigantic boost to the independence movement, there would be a revolt.
Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country.
In theory, but not so much in reality. To people in UK their impression of how international organisations work is based on UK's interactions with them. Bot you and Salmond seems to think that independent Scotland could interact with these organisations like UK can. This is a huge fallacy. Influence that a tiny nation of 5 million has is rather miniscule, it cannot be compared to the influence that a great power like UK has.
Ultimately, if Scottish people feel that they should have an independent nations, then it is absolutely right that they get it. But I am afraid that the idea is marketed to them with false promises, and this is not a thing they can later change their mind on if it turns out that the things were not quite so great as advertised.
Well whatever influence the "old guard has" is pretty irrelevant once the UK exits the EU isn't it?
The NHS will exist, as an almost entirely private entity that will completely hollow out what it's original purpose was.
It's not fear mongering to suggest that we'll get no more powers. Better together are claiming to deliver that but only if you vote for Labour at the next general election. Ha on that one. We've already lost powers through the actions of the House of Lords. It can and probably will happen again.
All the questions have been answered, the currency union is a non starter and the only real focus Better Together has. It's not even a major point of confusion if you read the white paper, there are other options, but it's the last thing they'll claw at and shout about. Although they shouldn't shout too loudly because Darling and even Osborne have been in favour of it in the past.
This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.
Ketara wrote: One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-
There has been a date and a road map. Its sometime next year, March 2015 I think, and the details of the negotiations and split are a little vague, but there is structures and processes in place as far as I am aware. It is all a little boring though.
-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)
The costs for the new state will fall to Scotland. The costs for any changes in the UK will fall to the UK. Basically countries will pick up there own tab. Scotland would probably have to borrow, where from would be a difficult question and is reliant on the currency issue.
-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so).
The borders are almost universally accepted as being along the current border, which is well defined because of the different legal systems.
-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?
Yes, they should be, being born in the UK would entitle them to UK citizenship. Scottish citizenship is a little more complex, but it looks like there will probably be a requirement to either be resident or by birth/heritage as with any other passport.
-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?
This is one of the big questions that is still not answered. Most probably at the moment Scottish regiments and there equipment will become Scottish. The bigh budget stuff, like ships, is a bit more complex. I doubt Scotland would want the big stuff, but how the value is split is part of the detail of negotiations. Mid sized stuff like tanks and smaller ships is also a complex issue.
-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.
Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.
Ye, another issue. Salmond making promises he can't keep. The UK has many dockyards and one of the reasons these contracts went to Scottish ones was political, about spreading government spending around the UK. If Scotland is no longer part of the UK the government will try and get out of current contracts and not place any more. Yes will call this fear mongering and bullying, but it is simple political fact that you don't let another government build your warships.
-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.
As far as I am aware the legislation is already in place, there should be no blocking by anyone and independence will happen quite quickly. Wether all of the details on things like the issues you have outlined are hammered out at that point, I don't know, but everything should be in place. Ultimately it will be damaging for the UK to have it hanging around for too long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Well whatever influence the "old guard has" is pretty irrelevant once the UK exits the EU isn't it?
IF. There is no garentee that we will, any more than there is that Scotland will vote Yes.
The NHS will exist, as an almost entirely private entity that will completely hollow out what it's original purpose was.
Realy? You have no proof of that at all. The NHS has some problems, but what you are saying just won't happen. As always the NHS swings back and forwards with more and less private companies involved, but it will not end up as "an almost entirely private entity". It's just not going to happen, and no one seems to have any actual evidence that it will. The government had these big ideas at the start of their term about more private investment, but have quickly gone quiet as they realized that it would not work and would be political suicide to make too many changes.
It's not fear mongering to suggest that we'll get no more powers.
No, but it is fear mongering to suggest you will lose the Scottish Parliament.
All the questions have been answered, the currency union is a non starter and the only real focus Better Together has. It's not even a major point of confusion if you read the white paper, there are other options,
And yet Salmond could not come up with any of them when asked, and no one has been able to give a realistic answer. There are many issues, but this is a major one.
This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.
And I think Scotland and the UK as a whole will be worse off separate. Less stable, less powerful and less successful.
Medium of Death wrote: This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.
That does not sound like a good starting assumption for a reasonable debate to me.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!
You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!
We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!
What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it
It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.
England attacked Scotland in the 13th century and briefly occupied the country but got kicked out pretty soon.
After the death of Elizabeth the First (1603) the next in line to the English throne happened to be the King of Scotland. He became King James 1 of England and James 6 of Scotland however there were still two separate parliaments and separate legal systems.
James's grandson James, brother of Charles II, was kicked out by the English in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for being Catholic, and replaced by WilliamandMary from Holland. (Mary was English.) James went to live in exile in France, and his descendants were used by the French for invading Britain in the 18th century.
The Darien colonisation scheme in the 1690s essentially bankrupted Scotland and was an important factor in bringing about the union.
The two countries were unified by the Acts of Union in 1707, by which the Scottish parliament dissolved itself and the Westminster parliament assumed government of the whole island.
Relations between England and Scotland were worsened by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 by supported of the exiled Stuart royal family (remember this family had been legitimate rulers of Scotland) against the Hanoverian monarchy imported to replace Queen Anne, daughter of WilliamandMary, who died without children.
Repression of these rebellions caused a lot of the historical bad feeling.
Those rebellions where the Jacobites right? That's mostly the highlanders who quite frankly are an unruly lot who would fight anyone including other Scots and even other Highlanders. In fact, especially other Highlanders. Doesn't seem fair to even simplify those as some sort of Scotsman vs. Englishman showdown.
No there wont. The statement not to allow currency union is not a pressure for a No vote that will evaporate after a Yes vote. Its a soklid and well founded concern that if Scotland retains the pound it can borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow and then expect Englsnd to pay when Scotland cant repay.
Salmond has already threatened a debt default, Salmond will threaten to default again when the Scottish economy cant pay its bills.
This is not a concern for Scots frankly, Salmond will be able to borrow with a join account linked to a neighbour nine times its economic size, that is a good position for Scots. It is a disasterous position for ther rUK, and thus the only option available is to say no currency union.
The political spectrum in Scotland is completely different than the rest of the UK. We've got a chance to rid ourselves of the House of Lords and Westminster that would smash down the Scottish Parliament when they are given the chance. Borris doesn't want to give us extra powers and we all know UKIP isn't the Scottish Parliaments biggest fan.
Some people call for solidarity among the working classes but I'm sorry, these people have had 30 years to build themselves back up after Maggie neutered them. Labour were in power for 13 continous years during that time. This groundwork shouldn't be getting started now. It's also too late to offer Devo-Max options now. Westminster already spat in the face of Scotland in that regard. This debate has been very telling. Scotland is the benefit scrounging, heroin addict, burden of the UK. Allowed to suffer an existence at the expense of the rest of the UK.
I have to say that the whole thing still looks like a compromise whatever happens. If Scotland decides it wants to become independent, as is its right to, then it should be full and total independence. It should be treated as a totally separate nation state, with everything that that entails. There shouldn't be all this discussion about what is gong to be be kept and what isn't. If you vote to become independent, then that's what you become.
I fully understand and respect why Scots would want to become independent, but there is a danger that if it isn't a complete separation the rest of the UK will think you want your cake and eat it. What was the arrangement when Eire got it's independence? Surely at a minimum the same should be applied in this situation?
Medium of Death wrote: ...
...
...
What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.
...
The "No" campaign has no need to explain what staying in the union brings to Scotland. You are in it, and know what it brings.
That's true. We do see what it brings. Conservative Governments, the House of Lords, illegal foreign wars, backing unscrupulous regimes, massive/growing wealth disparity etc.
I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?
“If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
By a [...] large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.”
The Times:
“English voters want the government to take a hard line against Scotland even if its residents vote “no” to independence. Funding should be cut and Scottish MPs should no longer have a say over English matters, according to a survey.
The findings will unsettle parties in the pro-Union campaign, who have promised a good deal for Scotland if it remains in the UK.”
The Herald:
“Voters south of the Border want a cut to Scottish annual public spending of almost £1,400 per person if there is a No vote.”
The Scotsman:
“An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum.
Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget.
‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University.
There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’”
It seems safe to say that the lovebombing is over, readers.
The only thing we’re a bit confused about is the £4bn figure. The No campaign has been hammering away for several weeks now on that figure of £1400 “for every man, woman and child” in extra UK spending in Scotland. The population of Scotland is 5.3 million. Multiplied by £1400 that’s £7.42bn, not £4bn.
That’s the £7bn figure we told you about last November, which would be slashed from the Scottish budget were the Barnett Formula (the source of the “higher spending”) to be ended and Scotland made to raise its own tax revenue under new devolved powers proposed by all three Unionist parties – but NOT given control of its oil revenues.
It would be impossible to recoup that vast figure from tax rises, because people would simply flood out of Scotland in their millions. The only way to get it back would be, as noted by Professor Jones, cuts to the Scottish budget of an absolutely colossal magnitude dwarfing anything previously seen under austerity.
Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from that responsibility and go crawling meekly to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them viciously, and can do so in the name of “more devolution”.
We told you nine months ago. Perhaps now the mainstream press has finally caught up with the story, more Scots will face up to the reality of the decision before them.
Medium of Death wrote: I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?
A protest vote in the same way that the rise of the BNP a while ago was, as well as the rise of right wing and anti-EU parties has been across the whole of Europe. And I really wish people would stop posting the crap from Wings Over Scotland. It is like me posting something from the Daily Mail, if the Daily Mail were 100% anti-Scottish...
Poll shows =/= government will do. There has been calls for years to stop Scottish MPs voting on English only laws, yet nothing has changed, despite it being a perfectly fair, simple and reasonable change.
Medium of Death wrote: I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?
A protest vote in the same way that the rise of the BNP a while ago was, as well as the rise of right wing and anti-EU parties has been across the whole of Europe. And I really wish people would stop posting the crap from Wings Over Scotland. It is like me posting something from the Daily Mail, if the Daily Mail were 100% anti-Scottish...
Except that it's quotes from various national newspapers. I'm not commenting on the quality of that website, but the quotes are there and link to the articles.
Again, we have to take notice of these things. The way Boris has been talking hardly inspires confidence. You can bet he'll be the next major Conservative PM candidate and then Prime Minister. The future is looking less bright for Scotland in the Union. We may as well be in charge of our own future.
The borders are almost universally accepted as being along the current border, which is well defined because of the different legal systems.
That's because the subject as an issue has yet to arise. But I would wager good money that that would change in the event of a 'Yes' vote. I think that yes, if you have one small staunchly Pro-Unionist area surrounded by Pro-Independence ones, they'd have to like it or lump it. It would be far too complicated to operate half a dozen enclaves across Scotland.
By the same measure though, if the six Scottish constituencies closest to the ancient border of England voted heavily in favour of Unionism, I would be extremely surprised if their democratic right to self-determination was ignored in favour of a border demarcation hundreds of years old. Their MP's would be jumping up and down in Parliament saying, '75% of my constituents have voted to stay put, how can you try and force them into a new country?'
And to be frank, they'd be right. The whole point of this referendum is for people to exercise their democratic right to self-determination, and whilst you have to temper that with a certain degree of pragmatism (the aforementioned comment about enclaves), moving the border further north in line with the democratic will of its population would present no further complications than those already initiated by the process of independence.
After all, how you claim to be representing democracy when your decision over borders is determined not by the will of the populace, but by boundaries set in place hundreds of years ago? Borders that even at the time, used to move up and down. I mean, it was called Reiver Country for a reason, the Lords who ruled it were of a heavily mixed stock and changed allegiances quite frequently. So even the argument from history is a bit iffy. If you start going down that path, we might as well surrender the Falklands and Gibraltar already, because self-determination is no longer the criteria being used to decide who gets what.
Yes, they should be, being born in the UK would entitle them to UK citizenship. Scottish citizenship is a little more complex, but it looks like there will probably be a requirement to either be resident or by birth/heritage as with any other passport.
So why should someone in Scotland who wants a British passport get one, but someone in the rest of Britain who wants a Scottish passport not get one? Seems to me that if things are going to be fair, I should be able to get dual nationality. Both were parts of my country after all. I can understand children born after independence being limited, but me? I have as much a right to live there as anyone.
This is one of the big questions that is still not answered. Most probably at the moment Scottish regiments and there equipment will become Scottish. The bigh budget stuff, like ships, is a bit more complex. I doubt Scotland would want the big stuff, but how the value is split is part of the detail of negotiations. Mid sized stuff like tanks and smaller ships is also a complex issue.
I don't think you can start parcelling out a tank here and there, tbh. It simply isn't practical.
As I mentioned earlier, Parliament ultimately has the power to decide the terms of independence, not Holyrood. I think the MOD will pressure quite intensively to keep all their toys. The Scots will most likely inherit all the bases up north with it's accompanying equipment and installations, but when it comes down to movable assets like tanks and warships, I'd be doubtful a new Scotland would get a look in.
Ye, another issue. Salmond making promises he can't keep. The UK has many dockyards and one of the reasons these contracts went to Scottish ones was political, about spreading government spending around the UK. If Scotland is no longer part of the UK the government will try and get out of current contracts and not place any more. Yes will call this fear mongering and bullying, but it is simple political fact that you don't let another government build your warships.
It's also good economic policy. There's a distinct lack of shipbuilding work about at the moment. It makes sense to preserve the skills within your own country. In the event of independence, I'm expecting to see Portsmouth & Barrow seriously expanded, and all the Scottish shipbuilders flooding south to where the work is.
As far as I am aware the legislation is already in place, there should be no blocking by anyone and independence will happen quite quickly. Wether all of the details on things like the issues you have outlined are hammered out at that point, I don't know, but everything should be in place. Ultimately it will be damaging for the UK to have it hanging around for too long.
I agree it will be damaging. But I also consider it to be a likely possibility that things might get delayed. The second chamber is a law unto itself, and can block legislation twice and send it back. It also has a lot of people/factions who have assets in Scotland, who are likely to use independence as a bargaining chip until certain conditions are met.
I could be completely wrong, and it could all breeze through, but I don't honestly think that we'll be able to undo this many years of Union in under a decade of protracted wrangling.
We can go back through history and look at ancient borders but we aren't. Scotland has well defined borders. We're not talking about the break up of a single country as many people claim, these are different countries that are severing a union.
Medium of Death wrote: We can go back through history and look at ancient borders but we aren't. Scotland has well defined borders. We're not talking about the break up of a single country as many people claim, these are different countries that are severing a union.
Wonderful. Now are you advocating, that if say, to run with the previous example, 75%+ of the population in each of the six southernmost constituencies vote to remain British, they should be forcibly absorbed into a new Scottish state? Would you support the borders of old school 'Scotland', (at an arbitrarily picked point in time because as I've pointed out, those border territories changed hands a number of times) trumping the right to democratic self-determination?
If they want to remain British that's fine, I'm sure if the split is a drastic as as you're hypothetical there might be some kind of agreement. I doubt the split will be anywhere near as clear cut as 75% so there's no real point in focusing on it.
These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.
Probably a more realistic split might be 60 to 40. In that case what do you do with all the people that voted Yes? Have them banished to Britain when that was never part of the vote? I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.
Medium of Death wrote: I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.
You'd think in such a "destiny defining" vote, they might have actually thought about this kind of thing before now... you know, when they were in the planning stages, not after the fact and it is too late.
Probably a more realistic split might be 60 to 40. In that case what do you do with all the people that voted Yes? Have them banished to Britain when that was never part of the vote?
Let me clarify.
If it was something like 52/48% in favour of Union/Independence, I'd argue that a series of re-votes/campaigning should take place in order to help cement which way things should go. You'd also possibly look at which geographical locales voted which waywithin each constituency, and try and sketch out a new border that took into account as many sensibilities as possible.
If it's 60/40 in favour of Union? I'd say they stay as part of Britain, the same way as I'd say they should be part of a new Scotland if they voted 60/40 in favour of independence.
I think it would be easier to actually think about these things as and when they arise.
But this is the the thing. If we're in a situation whereby only half the population wants independence, why should that trample the democratic rights of the other half? There's no right/wrong answer there. Frankly, I think we need to see at least a 55-60% yes vote before we look at establishing an independent Scotland. And if certain regions are more Pro-Union and joined with Britain at the border, it makes perfectly good democratic sense to retain them.
But such a thing would knock supposed economic projections on the head quite possibly. Which means that it might not all be milk and honey, which would mean that less people might be interested in an independent Scotland to begin with, as its economic forecast looks grimmer and grimmer.
In the same way that Darling should be able to stand up and say that Scotland could quite possibly do alright for itself on its own, Salmond needs to come out and say that actually, his economic projections are very shaky and based on a vast number of variables and 'what-ifs' going his way.
The amount of economic speculation that seems to hover around the 'Yes' campaign simply makes me uneasy. I don't have an issue with Scotland going independent if that's what it wants. It's the thought of my countrymen being conned into a vast, nation-changing decision based on speculative and occasionally deceptive information that disturbs me.
These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.
Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".
I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).
i am english, but if i was scots i would vote for independence like a shot. i would move to an independent scotland like a shot - hell, i'm already looking for work up there anyway, even as a subject nation it's still a nicer place to live than south east england. most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey Please don't use this term on Dakka. Reds8n " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS. that makes me really angry. in general anything that the english upper classes are against can be considered to be a good thing. so good luck scotland, choose yes!
These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.
Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".
I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).
are you from the shetlands?
i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.
it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!
daddyorchips wrote: i am english, but if i was scots i would vote for independence like a shot. i would move to an independent scotland like a shot - hell, i'm already looking for work up there anyway, even as a subject nation it's still a nicer place to live than south east england. most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS. that makes me really angry. in general anything that the english upper classes are against can be considered to be a good thing. so good luck scotland, choose yes!
These aren't autonomous regions were talking about here, they are part of a country.
Really though, we are down to "People must have self determination (Unless it disagrees with what I want)".
I don't think we will see a big difference north/south, but the Islands. Shetland has a deep distrust of Holyrood. They see Scotland as taking their oil and failing to represent their views. In many ways Shetlander's feel closer to England than Scotland, because many of the incomers are English (They feel even closer to Norway, but thats another matter). There is a real chance that they will vote massively No. Historically they HAVE been independent, and are further from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London. If there is a massive vote for No I can see Islands looking for their own independence (and wanting to take the oil and fisheries with them).
are you from the shetlands?
i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.
it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!
Where do you draw the line though? The Cornish are watching this with keen interest with an eye on some sort of self rule / devolved power. Will the Isle's of Man & Scilly be wanting to go down the same route? If Scotland does vote Yes, how do you tell these other interested parties that their claims are invalid?
daddyorchips wrote: most of the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks who aren't fit to run a bath, let alone their own lives - "whiskey Please don't use this term on Dakka. Reds8n " i heard some posh lad refer to them the other day. the scots are patronised and talked down to by every english newspaper and by all the english MPS.
Our last prime minister was Scottish, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Fallon and Danny Alexander are all from Scotland and members of the cabinet (along with the Secretary of state for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael) and Vince Cable was educated in Scotland. It's utter nonsense to say that "the english establishment think the scots are a race of subhuman drunks" as much as it is to say the Scots all hate the English. I think your view is colored more by a hatred of those you consider "posh". I have seen no evidence at all of "scots are patronised and talked down to" by any news paper.
i was in the orkneys a few months back and talking to people there they were broadly in favour of scottish independence - though most people i spoke to were wistful about an independent orkney islands allied to norway rather than scotland or england! it was really eye-opening because to me orcadians were scottish but many of them consider the scottish in the same way that the scots consider the english - i.e. a distant colonial ruling class foisted upon them.
it would be interesting to see the various island groups going independent. good luck to them i reckon!
Kind of. I lived there for several years when I was younger. (Also, it's Shetland or The Shetland Islands, not the Shetlands Some of them get very upset about it)
Ye, people from Shetland see the Scots the same, and from what I know/hear many people see Westminster as something quite a way away, but generally leave them alone. Scotland, however, are seen by some, or at least were last time I talked to people, was seen as stealing oil and fish from waters Shetlanders felt were theirs.
I can seriously see at least a large minority wanting independence, but the Scots government would never allow it.
Kilkrazy wrote: BBC news reported tonight that 54% of English residents want an English parliament.
I'm not sure why you don't just have votes for issues that only affect England being participated in by MP's in England. They've talked about it for a while but I've never seen anything done about it.
Another argument doing the rounds again seems to be that we'd be abandoning people to Tory rule and that sticking together will bring change. Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, on why sticking together to bring change is a positive argument but isn't going to happen.
OK, I'm sure I have folk to respond to who'll have taken further issue with my last post, I'll get to that later on when I have more time, but this...I don't have words.
The following is an official, sanctioned, broadcast-on-the-TV and everything referendum video by Better Together No Thanks, the No campaign here. It is intended, I think, to appeal to women. It ever so slightly misses the mark;
When your brain eventually resets, enjoy #patronisingBTlady on Twitter.
EDIT: Oh yes, and I've just learned that in an extra thick layer of Irony Icing - today is National Women's Equality Day
What I want to know is, what happens to my security clearance?
I'm a defence contractor working overseas, I lose my clearance, I lose my (well paying) job.
If Scotland gains independence, what happens to it?
Also, Border posts.
As I understand it, the UK is not a signatory of the Shengen Agreement (free movement in Continental Europe)
All new members of the EU are required to sign up to it.
If the Yes vote comes in ahead, and the planned EU membership goes through, Scotland will be required to sign up.
this means there will have to be the same border controls as when moving between the UK and France, for example.
marv335 wrote: What I want to know is, what happens to my security clearance?
I'm a defence contractor working overseas, I lose my clearance, I lose my (well paying) job.
If Scotland gains independence, what happens to it?
Also, Border posts.
As I understand it, the UK is not a signatory of the Shengen Agreement (free movement in Continental Europe)
All new members of the EU are required to sign up to it.
If the Yes vote comes in ahead, and the planned EU membership goes through, Scotland will be required to sign up.
this means there will have to be the same border controls as when moving between the UK and France, for example.
I can't really speak to your security clearance, you'll retain UK citizenship(confirmed by Home Secretary), and there's been nothing said about the UK requiring Scots serving in the official military to leave, but it's a pretty specific issue and one I imagine it will be difficult to get a clear answer on given the UK government's position of no prenegotiations. Do you know if there is anyone working for your company with the same clearance from non-UK Commonwealth countries? Since Scotland would remain within the Commonwealth for at least the first parliamentary term following 2016(if the SNP are elected they say they'll keep the monarchy, and even if we elected a republican party, they'd still need time to organise and hold a referendum, time to set up elected head of state etc etc so the Queen would remain head of state for at least seven more years), that might well be your best guide to how it would affect you.
As for borders; the proposition from the Yes campaign is that we would negotiate the same Schengen opt-out that the UK and Ireland currently have with the EU, and would then join the Common Travel Area which currently exists across the British Isles. Given the UK's strident opposition to Schengen, and the fact that any attempt to actually police the land border between Scotland and England would be monstrously expensive if possible at all as there are very few natural barriers along its length, it's reasonable to expect the UK government will back that plan, particularly given that the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland looks like this:
And as for the EU, they've no reason to oppose that plan either, given that Scotland would share no land borders with a Schengen state and so would need passport checks etc to travel to and from regardless since the only ways to get there from a Schengen state are by plane and boat, so to the EU the situation is the same whether Scotland adopts Schengen or adopts a relationship to rUK akin to the one Ireland has now.
The economy seems to be doing alright. I won't pretend to be an economist, and for a time, was won around by sebster's listing of economic reasons as to why austerity was bad. After some discussion with an academic on Keynesian economics though, I now also understand why Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily apply so much any more to our economy, so I'm torn as to whether austerity is a good or bad thing. The one thing I do know for sure is that whilst probably better educated than the average punter on the whole thing by now, I still don't really have much of a right to an opinion on the subject (or at least, one worth listening to).
I freely admit that my preference against austerity is ideological, but that's because I also believe that economics is not a science per se, more like politicised mathematics. In practical terms you could make almost any economic system "work", from the most rabid Objectivist-Libertarian neoliberal dream to the most utopian Anarco-Syndicalist society, providing you have enough people that want the outcomes that form of economic system would generate and who are willing to deal with the side effects. The UK is certainly experiencing GDP growth, but the question is whether the source of the growth is sustainable(and there are indication's a large part of it is being generated by yet another unstable housing bubble in the Greater London area), and whether the effects of that growth are the ones you want to see. If you subscribe to neoliberal economics, then undoubtedly Osborne & Co have turned a corner; the financial services sector are back on their roll, the stock and commodities trading markets are up, and there will undoubtedly be more growth to come given the growing private sector involvement in the NHS and the UK government's determination to fight against even the lightest of light-touch regulation on the City, however; the vast majority of the populace are not seeing any benefit in their own lives from the current GDP growth. Inequality is now at the highest levels it has been since the Victorian era, and the Bank of England recently had to change it's cutoff point before it would consider raising interest rates from 7% to 6.5% unemployment because the bulk of "new jobs" which have been created are zero-hours contracts or people forced off benefits and into precarious and unproductive "self-employment", and so these jobs are not providing anything like the benefit to capital flow which they should if they were proper full-time reasonably-paid jobs.
Austerity is merely the new name for Thatcherism, so whether it's good or not depends entirely on whether you think Thatcherism was a good idea or a bad one.
Do you regard an inability to Scottish MP's to vote on domestic English affairs as being unfair, despite the reverse being true? If so, I'd be genuinely curious to hear a reasoned argument as to why.
As a democrat, I don't actually see it as unfair at all, indeed the SNP's MPs abstain from any vote in Westminster on a devolved issue and I think that's perfectly appropriate. As a Scot considering things in the context of Scotland within the United Kingdom, however, it's not quite that simple. The funding we get is directly proportional to how much England spends on policy areas which are devolved, so while technically in terms of policies themselves some things are "England only", and while I specifically and vociferously condemn the way the Westminster parties have used their Scottish MPs to railroad through unpopular policies that would otherwise not have passed, in practical terms even "England only" issues have a bearing on devolved Scottish governance; if you cut education spending, or health spending, or the policing budget etc etc, there is a proportionate reduction in the size of the Scottish Block Grant, indeed it has been reduced by over 7% since the beginning of the current WM government.
So yeah, I think excluding Scottish MPs from voting at WM on devolved issues is something that should happen, but it has to be acknowledged that even if it's the right thing to do, it is still functionally a reduction in our representation. Of course if we vote Yes there won't be a problem at all
This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that the Labour nonsense was England "imposing" on Scotland or the like, just one illustration, like the example of the House of Lords stripping power over renewables to prevent the Scottish Government opposing the Coalition's fracking plans, that the Scottish Parliament exists only by the sufferance of WM and so it would be inadvisable for anyone to vote No without understanding that they can reduce the scope of the parliament as well as increase it.
And I absolutely agree about local governance, it's atrocious across the whole UK right now but actually slightly worse than the average in Scotland; hell we have a Local Authority that contains more landmass than bloody Belgium! A more European style of local democracy with much smaller municipalities with much greater local control over policy and budgets, coupled with land reform to break up the ludicrous unproductive shooting estates and free that land for more productive use(replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax should sort that one out, and swaps out a regressive tax for a progressive one into the bargain) are both very popular ideas in the Yes movement and with myself as well, but those kinds of reforms aren't what Labour are interested in, they just want to take the powers Holyrood has now and hand them out to the existing Local Authorities without actually changing their structures.
(note that I'm NOT referring to posters in this thread like Yohdrin so its not intended as a personal attack...unless of course he's an actual formal member and activist of the Yes Campaign and/or SNP?)
I don't know if you could call me a "formal" member of the Yes Campaign, not very many people are, the vast majority of those campaigning are doing so off their own backs and in self-organising self-funding local groups, and I'm not a member of the SNP or indeed any political party, but I am campaigning for a Yes vote and I do work with the local branches of the Radical Independence Campaign and Green Yes, so I suppose that makes me an activist. I'm certainly not hiding the fact I'm partisan on the issue, my avatar and sig rather give me away I think
I will say I don't accept the idea that the things you mention are dishonest or "blackmail"; they're negotiating positions. The debt, the timescale for Trident removal, access to our waters and resources for the EU, access to our territories and bases for NATO - these are the cards in our hand, just as acceptance of a currency union, how supportive or otherwise the UK gov will be when Scotland is seeking international recognition & membership of various organisations etc, those are the UK government's hand. Every so often one side reminds the other what cards they have to play, but it's hardly "blackmail".
Crimson wrote: My two cents (Euro cents, I know which currency I have) as an complete outsider who has nevertheless closely followed the media and other online discussions relating this matter.
Frankly, it seems to me that Salmond's vision for Scotland is based on hot air and wishful thinking. He constantly keeps promising things that are in no way in his power to promise, and some of which seem pretty darn unlikely to go in the way he says. Currency Union, easy EU membership and the oil profits are all things with huge uncertainties. Whilst there certainly have been some exaggeration from 'Better Together', overall they seem way more honest. It is easy for the Yes-campaign to be positive, when they can carelessly make all sort of fanciful promises of how everything will magically be awesome, and then No-side gets labelled as negative scaremongers when they point out that maybe it will not be quite that easy after all.
Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your characterisation of the debate, but especially with the idea that Better Together are more honest. The No Campaign have claimed Scottish citizens would be denied access to transplants and be refused treatment at specialist rUK hospitals despite the fact that A; both the transplants service and the hospitals in question have flatly refuted their claim and B; they're baseless regardless since the Scottish NHS has been independent since its inception and so the agreements we have with NHS England and NHS Wales are already exactly the same as the ones we have with almost all European nations and there's no reason for them to change. They've claimed that the UK subsidises Scotland's public spending when in fact the taxes we send to the UK exceed the spending we receive by £700 per-person per-year on average. They've claimed that Juncker unequivocally stated Scotland would be thrown out of the EU, and they kept saying that even after he specifically refuted their claim and stated the remarks to which they were referring had nothing to do with Scotland and that we were a special case. They've claimed that voting for independence is tantamount to abandoning people in the rest of the UK to a perpetual one-party(Tory) right-wing state, when in fact if you remove Scottish votes from the totals at every election going back to 1945 the result would only have been changed three times(the tiny Labour majority in the 1964-66 government would have been a hung parliament, the Labour government of 1974 that lasted mere months would have been a Tory minority government, and the 2010 elections would have been a small Tory majority instead of a hung parliament). They've claimed that Orkney and Shetland would vote to remain within the UK or to become independent from either state, and take all the oil with them despite the fact that there's no polling or indeed any evidence at all that there's an appetite for such a course of action among the islanders(when it comes up in the press it's invariably raised by Tavish Scott, a Unionist Lib Dem politician), and that even if it were to happen, they would be considered "enclaves" within Scotland's territorial waters and thus their basic maritime borders would encompass very little if any of the oil reserves. I could literally keep going for pages, the Better Together campaign have been rampantly dishonest on virtually every subject under the sun.
As for Salmond, putting aside the fact that the Yes Campaign is more than Salmond and the SNP, the man is a former oil economist, being advised by a panel of independent internationally renowned academics who not only back his position on the currency union but in fact came up with it in the first place, and the Scottish Government view on the EU has been deemed perfectly plausible by everyone from Prof David Edwards(a veteran of the European court system and a firm Unionist) to Graham Avery(honourary Director General of the EU Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK's own accession). The man is a politician so he's certainly obfuscated or exaggerated sometimes, but the idea that the case for independence is just a fantasy wishlist hastily scrawled on the back of a napkin just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Furthermore, to me it seems that Scotland has pretty good deal currently overall, they benefit from economic strength and international prestige of UK, while having a partial autonomy that gives them power to offset some of the possible undesired effects of the Westminster policies (of course the exact specifics of that arrangement is something that certainly is worth debating, I'm sure improvements could be made.) I don't think many people in UK quite realise, what sort of influence a great power like UK has. Finland is a country of five million people, about the same as the independent Scotland would be. I can tell you that in the international arenas country of that size has great difficulty of getting their voice heard; Salmond is utterly deluded if he thinks he could get a same kind of deal from EU than UK currently has. Whilst I find it unlikely (but not impossible) that Scotland would be completely denied the membership, it will be the EU dictating the terms. Big countries like, France, Germany and UK can get all sorts of exceptions that smaller countries can only dream of (Cameron has said he want to negotiate even better deal, seems a bit greedy to me, but it is quite possible that he will get it.) Then there is the matter of financial strength. Whilst I by no means think it would be a (complete) disaster, the idea that Scotland would economically be better off as an independent country is a fantasy. A bigger country with a bigger economy is always much more stable than a smaller one, and they have much more options to deal with problems as they arise. This also relates to the international influence, decisions made by bigger economies or international institutions will affect smaller countries, yet they have little or no power to affect these decisions. This is also good to remember when talking about sovereignty gained via independence: independent or not, policies of bigger players will still affect you, but at least by being part of UK, you have some (limited) say to the policies of one of the big players.
As for the issue of sometimes getting a leadership you don't like, as pointed out, that will always happen in a democracy. The only way to avoid it is to have six billion independent countries, each with population of one.
I'll just direct you to the Wee Blue Book link in my sig for this block, because it explains and refutes it much more eloquently and more quickly than I could.
Ketara wrote: One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-
-The No party does want to concede that there is a possibility of a Yes vote because it damages their position &
-The Yes party does want to discuss it, because they have absolutely no official negotiation power over the process/final terms of dissolution, and the odds are that the final settlement will be far less advantageous then they're painting it to be. If people started working that into the voting equation, it would probably hit their ability to gain votes quite severely.
The whole currency issue is the first thing of that nature that's actually hit the headlines, but it's far from the only thing. Points of negotiation that would have to be considered:-
-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)
Scotland would, Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics estimates the cost of setting up the infrastructure of an independent Scottish state, that being defined as any costs for infrastructure over and above those we would have had to pay for through taxation regardless as part of the UK's planned system infrastructure upgrade in the next parliamentary term, could be as little as £200million, up to perhaps £600million, although in his view the lower end of that scale is more likely. Where exactly that cash comes from? Depends on the negotiations. It's widely expected that some of the physical assets to which Scotland would be entitled a share will be things the UK will want to keep, in which case they would either pay out a cash equivalent directly, reduce our share of the debt proportionally, or the Scottish negotiators would opt to forgo some of them to get a deal on something else. So we might pay for it by borrowing, by reallocating tax money as a result of policy changes, or the UK might pay for it as part of the negotiated deal.
-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so). Just to illustrate for a moment:-
Most of the southern half of Scotland votes Conservative/Labour. If these areas wish to stay British, and strongly (say, 65% plus), there's absolutely no way that Parliament will cede them to the new state of Scotland. And if Scotland loses a third of its landmass, what does that do to their predictions about the economy? Most of the remaining non oil related Scottish industry and population is based in those areas.
Scotland's historical border with England is actually one of the oldest stable borders in the world, indeed apart from a few quibbles-at-swordpoint over small areas around Berwick and Carlisle during the 1400's, it's existed in its present form since at least 1237. There could be issues if any one region were to vote overwhelmingly to remain within the UK, but there's no suggestion that's the case currently, and political party is becoming less and less important as a predictor of referendum voting intentions(I believe we're up to around a third of polled Labour voters say they will vote Yes, and only around half were definite Nos, although that's from memory so let me double-check before you hold it against me, heh). I suspect either side will struggle to get above 60% of the vote in any particular region, and in the context of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement surrounding the referendum(national polity, straight majority vote), there shouldn't be any problems defining the border, although obviously nothing's impossible and if things get a bit bizarre that's a bridge we'll have to cross then.
-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?
Yes, No, and because that's the way UK "citizenship"(it always rankles me when the UK government talk about us being "citizens" - constitutional or not we live in a Monarchy, we're "subjects") works ie by right of birth. To expand; by virtue of having been born within what was at the time the borders of the UK, any Scot who presently holds a UK passport, or who wished to claim one, could do so(indeed we'll remain UK citizens unless we officially renounce that status), that was confirmed by the Home Secretary a few months back. The terms for acquiring a Scottish passport will be somewhat more complex simply because right now, there's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen"; as I understand it, anyone born in Scotland who lives here on the day of independence automatically becomes a citizen and is entitled to a Scottish passport, anyone who has permanent leave to remain in the UK and who is resident in Scotland on the day of independence will be offered Scottish citizenship and if they accept can claim a passport, any UK citizen who was born in Scotland but who resides elsewhere will be entitled to claim Scottish citizenship and a Scottish passport just as they could now regards their UK citizenship and passport, and the plan is to extend that to one generation of progeny ie if at least one of your parents meets the above criteria you are also entitled.
-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?
Well, they can either parcel off some of their equipment, or compensate us with a population share of that equipment's value either with a direct payment or by reducing our liability to the UK debt by the same amount. Division of assets is a well established process; geographical assets are assigned to whichever of the states controls the territory the asset exists within, unfixed and overseas assets are divided on a per-capita basis. Realistically, there will probably be some combination of equipment transfer and other compensations in terms of the hardware, the personnel side of things will be more complex. It's expected that Scots currently serving in the UK armed forces will be offered the option of moving into the Scottish Defence Force, and those that choose to remain will be allowed to do so, just as any other citizen of a Commonwealth nation can serve in the UK armed forces. How that will shake out in practice in terms of how many make the switch is anyone's guess.
-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.
Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.
Times change. To begin with, it has already been confirmed by the UK Defence Secretary that the second carrier will be completed at Rosyth, so at that point the old "complex warships" line doesn't really hold up anymore. The simple fact of the matter is, the UK doesn't have anywhere capable of building the Type 26, it would cost BAE vast sums of money to bring Portsmouth back up to the level necessary, and they've already indicated they're not going to bother even trying;
If the UK want to keep BAE as their shipbuilder, the Govan yards are where BAE will build the ships.
That aside, even if the UK government were to take leave of its senses and somehow insist that BAE get Portsmouth back to capacity and fork out the vast sums of cash it would take to revamp their dockyards, the SDF is planned to include(from memory) at least 2 frigates, five or six patrol ships, several minesweepers, a pair of non-nuclear subs, and assorted other small coastal vessels, and that's just for the Faslane base, there will likely be a third frigate and a couple more patrol ships for the East coast base. There's sufficient work there to keep the present yards going while proposals are implemented to diversify the Clyde into a mix of warship, merchant, and energy industry vessels as well as wind turbine manufacture and other associated industries.
And on this point, allow me to get a little saucy; I think it's pretty rich for people to trot out shipbuilding as being at risk from independence - under the Union Scottish shipbuilding has gone from a globally-renowned industry employing over 34,000 people in 1972 to a tiny handful of anemic yards employing less than 6000, and most of those made totally reliant on defence contracts. Compare and contrast the Norwegian shipbuilding industry; 25 yards building new vessels, 50 additional yards repairing and upgrading existing vessels, over 90,000 jobs, building a diverse array of ships of all sizes for all sectors. Independence is a chance for us to save our shipbuilding industry by giving it the support to diversify away from the military contracts that have sucked the life from it.
EDIT: Oh and one last point; the Scottish Government and local council appear to have brokered a deal between the administrators and Jim McColl's Clyde Blowers Capital as preferred bidder to save Fergusons Shipbuilders. When we have the powers, we're perfectly capable of managing our own industry - I'd like to see us have the same options when it comes to other parts of the economy and other industry sectors.
-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.
These are just a few of the issues. There are far, far more, but absolutely no-one in either side wants to discuss them. Which I find more than a little vexing, as I believe it really would affect people's opinions on the issue.
In the run up to the 1979 referendum on the Scottish Assembly, there were months and years of wrangling, blocking, renegotiating, backtracking and so on regarding the powers, procedures, and parameters of the new assembly before they finally called the vote. In 1997, they did things differently - the vote was held first, the mandate was established first; the referendum took place in September 1997, the Scotland Act 1998 was introduced to Westminster early in that year, '98, with the basic framework for the parliament and powers, and by November the negotiations and wrangling was finished and the bill passed. The Parliament opened in May '99.
Once the mandate is established, the posturing and mountainous insurmountable problems just become things to be discussed and settled, and its in the interests of all parties to get it done & dusted as quickly as possible. Scotland will want its negotiations with the UK to go smoothly so they're not unduly distracted from the negotiations with the EU, the UK will want it to go smoothly because they will want to minimise the impact to the "prestige" which they love so dearly, and both sides will want to get everything sorted out before the Almighty Markets start getting jittery. There will be sticking points, horse trading, all the rest, but I think the Scottish Government's projected timeframe of 18 months is perfectly plausible if slightly on the ambitious side(I'd have gone with 24 months just to be safe, but 18 months is the average for these "civilised disentanglements" and there are as many academic experts who agree that it's reasonable as there are calling it wildly optimistic, we'll have to wait & see).
So yeah, I think excluding Scottish MPs from voting at WM on devolved issues is something that should happen, but it has to be acknowledged that even if it's the right thing to do, it is still functionally a reduction in our representation. Of course if we vote Yes there won't be a problem at all
....
And I absolutely agree about local governance, it's atrocious across the whole UK right now but actually slightly worse than the average in Scotland; hell we have a Local Authority that contains more landmass than bloody Belgium! A more European style of local democracy with much smaller municipalities with much greater local control over policy and budgets, coupled with land reform to break up the ludicrous unproductive shooting estates and free that land for more productive use(replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax should sort that one out, and swaps out a regressive tax for a progressive one into the bargain) are both very popular ideas in the Yes movement and with myself as well, but those kinds of reforms aren't what Labour are interested in, they just want to take the powers Holyrood has now and hand them out to the existing Local Authorities without actually changing their structures.
That's fair. I think that ultimately, a certain amount of devolution from Westminster in general is desirable. I don't have an issue with the central Government retaining control of foreign policy, defence, the judiciary/criminal/civil law, etc but I start to think that things like all council related activities, active policing, the NHS, and suchlike should be farmed out to regionally elected Parliaments that take decisions for everything else on the ground. It would be a good way of incorporating other territory into our national governing process as well. So individual Parliaments for London/Wessex, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Orkneys/Shetlands, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc etc.
I will say I don't accept the idea that the things you mention are dishonest or "blackmail"; they're negotiating positions. The debt, the timescale for Trident removal, access to our waters and resources for the EU, access to our territories and bases for NATO - these are the cards in our hand, just as acceptance of a currency union, how supportive or otherwise the UK gov will be when Scotland is seeking international recognition & membership of various organisations etc, those are the UK government's hand. Every so often one side reminds the other what cards they have to play, but it's hardly "blackmail".
See, I would be inclined to say that claiming these issues are cards in Scotlands hand is waaaay overstating things. Ultimately, Her Majesty's Government will decide a timescale, what resources will be parcelled out, and so on. Whilst a Scottish delegation can say, 'We would like this to occur', should Britain choose to ignore it, that's more or less the end of the matter. If Britain chooses to retain the Trident bases until 2028 whilst granting independence everywhere else in the meantime, Scotland will have no choice but to accept it. Bar hastily forming a new army and invading, there is little they can do.
Having said that, I see no reason for these things not to be settled reasonably amicably. An independent Scotland will not get everything it wants initially, because quite frankly, Mr Salmond and his party want the moon and the sun besides, but that does not mean that things won't be worked out over a period of time in a reasonable fashion, so long as all parties remain realistic and accepting of each others needs/concerns.
For example, I would expect an independent Scotland to not quibble over retaining trident until 2029 or so in a small exclave for practicality's sake. Likewise, I see no point in Britain not backing Scotland's acession to the EU, and pushing for it to be done with relative speed. I do not see a currency union occurring (because quite frankly, regardless of what Scotland wants, the polls indicate the democratic majority of the rest of Britain are against it), but common border policy makes sense for all. Scotland won't get most of the physical assets of the military, but I see no reason for us not to pass over two or three of the Type 23 Frigates, providing Scotland can find enough crew willing to transfer out of the British Navy to crew them.
As for Salmond, putting aside the fact that the Yes Campaign is more than Salmond and the SNP, the man is a former oil economist, being advised by a panel of independent internationally renowned academics who not only back his position on the currency union but in fact came up with it in the first place,
I really wish he would stop talking about 'Scotland's right to the pound' then. It's not a divisible asset in that way, and talking about it like it is makes the man look like a fool and his economic plans rubbish. Regardless of Scotland's desire for a currency union, most of us in the rest of Britain aren't interested. And if that's the case, then that's that. No further room for debate. Scotland can use a currency with Queen's head on it and call it a pound, but it won't be backed by the Bank of England. Democracy in action.
Scottish Government view on the EU has been deemed perfectly plausible by everyone from Prof David Edwards(a veteran of the European court system and a firm Unionist) to Graham Avery(honourary Director General of the EU Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, and one of the architects of the UK's own accession). The man is a politician so he's certainly obfuscated or exaggerated sometimes, but the idea that the case for independence is just a fantasy wishlist hastily scrawled on the back of a napkin just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Agreed. But the SNP's projected idea of gravy all the way seems exceedingly overly optimistic, and the likelihood from my reading so far is that there will be economic pain at first until things settle down.
Scotland would, Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics estimates the cost of setting up the infrastructure of an independent Scottish state, that being defined as any costs for infrastructure over and above those we would have had to pay for through taxation regardless as part of the UK's planned system infrastructure upgrade in the next parliamentary term, could be as little as £200million, up to perhaps £600million, although in his view the lower end of that scale is more likely. Where exactly that cash comes from? Depends on the negotiations. It's widely expected that some of the physical assets to which Scotland would be entitled a share will be things the UK will want to keep, in which case they would either pay out a cash equivalent directly, reduce our share of the debt proportionally, or the Scottish negotiators would opt to forgo some of them to get a deal on something else. So we might pay for it by borrowing, by reallocating tax money as a result of policy changes, or the UK might pay for it as part of the negotiated deal.
That seems fair. For example, Scottish taxpayers would have contributed to the new Queen Elizabeth's after all, yet would not be able to gain ownership of them (and talk of 'shares' in war machines in ludicrous). I'd have no issue with a contribution to such things being calculated and deducted from the Scottish side of the national debt or suchlike.
Scotland's historical border with England is actually one of the oldest stable borders in the world, indeed apart from a few quibbles-at-swordpoint over small areas around Berwick and Carlisle during the 1400's, it's existed in its present form since at least 1237. There could be issues if any one region were to vote overwhelmingly to remain within the UK, but there's no suggestion that's the case currently, and political party is becoming less and less important as a predictor of referendum voting intentions(I believe we're up to around a third of polled Labour voters say they will vote Yes, and only around half were definite Nos, although that's from memory so let me double-check before you hold it against me, heh). I suspect either side will struggle to get above 60% of the vote in any particular region, and in the context of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement surrounding the referendum(national polity, straight majority vote), there shouldn't be any problems defining the border, although obviously nothing's impossible and if things get a bit bizarre that's a bridge we'll have to cross then.
A reasonable response. But should a border region gain say, 65% or more in favour of remaining as part of the Union, would you personally have an issue with the aforementioned region being retained as part of Britain? It would be their democratic decision after all.
Yes, No, and because that's the way UK "citizenship"(it always rankles me when the UK government talk about us being "citizens" - constitutional or not we live in a Monarchy, we're "subjects") works ie by right of birth. To expand; by virtue of having been born within what was at the time the borders of the UK, any Scot who presently holds a UK passport, or who wished to claim one, could do so(indeed we'll remain UK citizens unless we officially renounce that status), that was confirmed by the Home Secretary a few months back. The terms for acquiring a Scottish passport will be somewhat more complex simply because right now, there's no such thing as a "Scottish citizen"; as I understand it, anyone born in Scotland who lives here on the day of independence automatically becomes a citizen and is entitled to a Scottish passport, anyone who has permanent leave to remain in the UK and who is resident in Scotland on the day of independence will be offered Scottish citizenship and if they accept can claim a passport, any UK citizen who was born in Scotland but who resides elsewhere will be entitled to claim Scottish citizenship and a Scottish passport just as they could now regards their UK citizenship and passport, and the plan is to extend that to one generation of progeny ie if at least one of your parents meets the above criteria you are also entitled.
Well reasoned. But I still believe that I should be entitled to claim a Scottish passport. It's part of my mother nation (Britain), and whilst I can understand and agree with people being born in Britain after independence having no right to one, I disagree that I should fall into the same category.
Times change. To begin with, it has already been confirmed by the UK Defence Secretary that the second carrier will be completed at Rosyth, so at that point the old "complex warships" line doesn't really hold up anymore. The simple fact of the matter is, the UK doesn't have anywhere capable of building the Type 26, it would cost BAE vast sums of money to bring Portsmouth back up to the level necessary, and they've already indicated they're not going to bother even trying;
Barrow is entirely capable of building the Type 26, and Portsmouth and Appledore are large enough to create the vast majority of the component parts, which could then be transported to Barrow for completion (like the Russian Mistral Class Carriers being put together in France). What's more, allowing Scotland to tender for British contracts would mean that under EU law, Britain would have to allow every other EU country to tender as well. Who would then proceed to undercut Scotland. Barrow's size is also enough that minimal expansion would make it capable of turning out Queen Elizabeth Carriers or new LPD's.
Make no mistake, Scottish independence would be the death of British naval contracts for Scotland. It would be quite the rejuvenation for Barrow though.
There's sufficient work there to keep the present yards going while proposals are implemented to diversify the Clyde into a mix of warship, merchant, and energy industry vessels as well as wind turbine manufacture and other associated industries.
And on this point, allow me to get a little saucy; I think it's pretty rich for people to trot out shipbuilding as being at risk from independence - under the Union Scottish shipbuilding has gone from a globally-renowned industry employing over 34,000 people in 1972 to a tiny handful of anemic yards employing less than 6000, and most of those made totally reliant on defence contracts. Compare and contrast the Norwegian shipbuilding industry; 25 yards building new vessels, 50 additional yards repairing and upgrading existing vessels, over 90,000 jobs, building a diverse array of ships of all sizes for all sectors. Independence is a chance for us to save our shipbuilding industry by giving it the support to diversify away from the military contracts that have sucked the life from it.
It won't happen. The reason the British shipbuilding dominance collapsed just under a decade ago is because everyone else started building merchant shipping and liners cheaper than the Scottish could/would do it for. Independenc won't solve that, and I doubt that Scottish contracts will ultimately be sufficient to keep them going.
It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.
The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.
Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.
Are you meaning to tell me that ships weren't just built on the Clyde?
Surely the Norway example is relevant because they come up a lot in the independence debate with regard to oil. So shipbuilding is just another parallel. "What could have been" and all that.
Industrial relations is a pretty good point about Britain generally. It certainly was interesting listening to a bunch of old socialists complain about privatisation and closing of industries when they could be held as partially responsible for dragging their heels so frequently as to almost bring the country to a halt. Certainly my parents and a few of older friends/acquaintances don't remember their industrial action with such fond memories.
Then again Jimmy Reid's a great example of somebody with socialist principles making industrial action work well for shipbuilding without compromising relations.
I'm not personally bothered about whether shipbuilding gets going again. It's been gone so long now it would take a good while to get up to the standard it used to be at. It's also a highly competitive market to essentially be re-entering. I'm sure there are other options for creating jobs around Scotland.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.
The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.
Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.
This, in a nutshell. The only reason shipbuilding has survived thus far is because despite vast cuts to the Royal Navy,, there is a certain basic level beneath which the Royal Navy will not fall if it wants to maintain it's power & prestige. If you pay any attention to the history of shipbuilding at all, you'll note that the British Government has actually worked quite hard to maintain shipbuilding capacity in the country in several cases over the last half a century. It's quite simply not to our advantage as an island nation to allow those skills to vanish.
Increasing unionisation unfortunately seriously dented our ability to compete though, and we lost substantial ground to South Korean builders who didn't insist on three blokes doing a third of one minor job each to preserve employment. The people who actually ordered ships increasingly complained that the industry was so inefficient and expensive that it became daft to order a British ship anymore, despite the high level of workmanship. The result being that the defence contracts ended up being the only thing keeping shipbuilding going. If the Royal Navy wasn't around, the industries would have collapsed along with the car industry, the mining industry, and all the other unsustainable industries back in the seventies.
But we've sort of levelled out now. You've got the new Type 26 contracts due to be issued, and we'll need a few helicopter carriers/LPD's in the next decade or so, with Illustrious and & Ocean being retired. And by the time those are finished along with the Elizabeth's in 2025-30, the Albion class will need replacing, and the Merchant Auxiliary vessels shortly afterwards. In other words, the current level of shipbuilding now is sustainable. It isn't going anywhere. There are enough defence contracts to maintain the status quo.
An independent Scotland though? Even if they give the industry a short boom at the start, I reckon it'll be about two years before people start pressuring the defence budget as being unnecessary, discussing outsourcing to Norway to save money and put it towards the NHS, etc. If you don't have the Royal Navy, you have no purpose for large scale defence projects. You also have no need to maintain domestic capacity for defence purposes. Ultimately, it might take five or ten years, but a Scottish Government will open up the bidding from elsewhere, and that will be that, much like the rest of the world. Scottish shipbuilding will wither and die.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, the industry is not huge anymore, and there's no reason to prop it up without the RN. But it should be recognised that this is a fairly certain consequence of independence, whereas it most likely will not occur otherwise.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was Japanese and Korean shipbuilders who did for the British shipbuilding industry.
The question that ought to be asked is how the Norwegian shipbuilding industry was able to succeed compared to the British one. Bad industrial relations and lack of investment are part of the answer.
Apart from the Clyde there used to be a massive shipbuilding in Newcastle-on-Tyne too.
This, in a nutshell. The only reason shipbuilding has survived thus far is because despite vast cuts to the Royal Navy,, there is a certain basic level beneath which the Royal Navy will not fall if it wants to maintain it's power & prestige. If you pay any attention to the history of shipbuilding at all, you'll note that the British Government has actually worked quite hard to maintain shipbuilding capacity in the country in several cases over the last half a century. It's quite simply not to our advantage as an island nation to allow those skills to vanish.
Increasing unionisation unfortunately seriously dented our ability to compete though, and we lost substantial ground to South Korean builders who didn't insist on three blokes doing a third of one minor job each to preserve employment. The people who actually ordered ships increasingly complained that the industry was so inefficient and expensive that it became daft to order a British ship anymore, despite the high level of workmanship. The result being that the defence contracts ended up being the only thing keeping shipbuilding going. If the Royal Navy wasn't around, the industries would have collapsed along with the car industry, the mining industry, and all the other unsustainable industries back in the seventies.
But we've sort of levelled out now. You've got the new Type 26 contracts due to be issued, and we'll need a few helicopter carriers/LPD's in the next decade or so, with Illustrious and & Ocean being retired. And by the time those are finished along with the Elizabeth's in 2025-30, the Albion class will need replacing, and the Merchant Auxiliary vessels shortly afterwards. In other words, the current level of shipbuilding now is sustainable. It isn't going anywhere. There are enough defence contracts to maintain the status quo.
An independent Scotland though? Even if they give the industry a short boom at the start, I reckon it'll be about two years before people start pressuring the defence budget as being unnecessary, discussing outsourcing to Norway to save money and put it towards the NHS, etc. If you don't have the Royal Navy, you have no purpose for large scale defence projects. You also have no need to maintain domestic capacity for defence purposes. Ultimately, it might take five or ten years, but a Scottish Government will open up the bidding from elsewhere, and that will be that, much like the rest of the world. Scottish shipbuilding will wither and die.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, the industry is not huge anymore, and there's no reason to prop it up without the RN. But it should be recognised that this is a fairly certain consequence of independence, whereas it most likely will not occur otherwise.
Again though, your analysis rather falls apart when you take Norway into account; they have extensive worker involvement in management and more than half of the population are unionised, and their regulatory regime is extremely strict, but their shipbuilding industry employs more than 10 times as many workers than is the case in Scotland and operates dozens more yards of all types and sizes. At the same time, the UK's shipbuilding industry has been in a constant state of decline that tracks along pretty much the same lines as the nation's general deindustrialisation, a period which has seen the British labour market becoming more and more "flexible", anti-trade union laws implemented, and a generally downward trend in both worker representation generally and union membership in particular, ie all the things we were told business needed to save jobs.
That says to me that, like the desindustrialisation of other sectors, the decline of shipbuilding is the result of ideological politics and incompetence; it was decided first that labour and business must be liberalised, and that was done, but with no real plan in place to transition those sectors or the workers within them into new and more productive formats or other sectors. Without an industrial policy to steer and support shipbuilding it first became reliant on government military contracts, and then saw its decline accelerated as the Royal Navy contracted.
The decline of British industry and the rise of our present low-wage service economy is often presented as an Act of God, an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of "dinosaur" businesses bowing to the march of progress and global capitalism, and that the adversarial relationship between labour vs capital & government was a result of workers unable to accept the unavoidable, but you can look out across the continent and see example after example of nations responding to those same pressures with responsible industrial policy which resulted in the same industries undergoing carefully managed declines to a new sustainable level over time rather than helped over the edge of the cliff by a Minister with a pitchfork, the surplus labour being retrained or steered into other industries with similar skill requirements rather than chucked on the dole and left to rot, because there was a different political dynamic at play. The result is that those industries still exist and flourish, their workers are better paid than ours, their jobs more secure, their representation greater, and yet somehow, despite the dogma of neoliberalism, those workers are more productive, their countries are still wealthy, their businesses still grow, rates of entrepreneurial endeavour are still high.
So if the inevitability of the decline is questionable, why should we not also question the supposed inevitability of its continuation, or at least the notion that we must accept the status quo and not aspire to better?
That's fair. I think that ultimately, a certain amount of devolution from Westminster in general is desirable. I don't have an issue with the central Government retaining control of foreign policy, defence, the judiciary/criminal/civil law, etc but I start to think that things like all council related activities, active policing, the NHS, and suchlike should be farmed out to regionally elected Parliaments that take decisions for everything else on the ground. It would be a good way of incorporating other territory into our national governing process as well. So individual Parliaments for London/Wessex, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Orkneys/Shetlands, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc etc.
And if any of that sort of thing was on offer, I'd be voting No, but given that the UK establishment's response to the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union entirely was to insist that the referendum be a single-question Yes-No affair, specifically ruling out any kind of "devo-max" third question, and over the course of the campaign to offer nothing more than minor alterations to the amount of tax the SG raises and a few token, potentially totally unworkable in practice, welfare powers and has nothing to say about expanding democracy in the rest of the UK at all, it seems difficult to believe the UK establishment is going to suddenly become extremely enthusiastic about federalism in the wake of a No vote.
Actually to be fair, I should say that I would be voting No if that sort of offer was on the table, AND the UK government were committed to disarmament rather than renewing Trident, because even with the maximum-est of devo-max, staying in the Union while defence powers lie with a Westminster obsessed with maintaining their thermonuclear penis extender isn't appealing.
See, I would be inclined to say that claiming these issues are cards in Scotlands hand is waaaay overstating things. Ultimately, Her Majesty's Government will decide a timescale, what resources will be parcelled out, and so on. Whilst a Scottish delegation can say, 'We would like this to occur', should Britain choose to ignore it, that's more or less the end of the matter. If Britain chooses to retain the Trident bases until 2028 whilst granting independence everywhere else in the meantime, Scotland will have no choice but to accept it. Bar hastily forming a new army and invading, there is little they can do.
Having said that, I see no reason for these things not to be settled reasonably amicably. An independent Scotland will not get everything it wants initially, because quite frankly, Mr Salmond and his party want the moon and the sun besides, but that does not mean that things won't be worked out over a period of time in a reasonable fashion, so long as all parties remain realistic and accepting of each others needs/concerns.
For example, I would expect an independent Scotland to not quibble over retaining trident until 2029 or so in a small exclave for practicality's sake. Likewise, I see no point in Britain not backing Scotland's acession to the EU, and pushing for it to be done with relative speed. I do not see a currency union occurring (because quite frankly, regardless of what Scotland wants, the polls indicate the democratic majority of the rest of Britain are against it), but common border policy makes sense for all. Scotland won't get most of the physical assets of the military, but I see no reason for us not to pass over two or three of the Type 23 Frigates, providing Scotland can find enough crew willing to transfer out of the British Navy to crew them.
I think you're rather overestimating the UK's "clout" in this instance. Technically speaking the UK would have the means to run roughshod over Scotland during the negotiations, hell they could technically refuse to pass legislation acknowledging the referendum result at all, under Parliamentary Sovereignty they can do whatever the hell they like about anything at all, just as Scotland could technically refuse to take on a share of the UK's debt without actually defaulting on anything; but given the Edinburgh Agreement, given the precedents generated by previous divisions of states, and given international pressures(you think the developed world would react well to obstructionism by the UK government given the stance of the UK on the situation in Ukraine?), the idea that they could actually do those things in reality just doesn't stack up, just as the idea Scotland would actually walk away from all the debt doesn't stack up - it's posturing.
And no, "Her Majesty's Government" will not be deciding how much of anything, as I said the precedents are well established; geographic assets divide by territory, unfixed assets divide per-capita, one side does not simply dictate to the other. There will be quibbles over what exactly constitutes an unfixed asset no doubt(UK will claim only actual physical reserves of currency in the BoE constitute an asset, Scotland will argue that the BoE in totality is an asset due to its holding title on a third of the UK's government debt etc), and there will be disagreement on whether we get certain physical things or per-capita compensation for them instead, but overall they'll follow the precedents because they know the damage it would do to them internationally if they don't.
As for Trident; not happening. Trident will be gone from Scotland by 2022, because anything else would be political suicide - removing Trident is one of the biggest reasons many people have for supporting independence in the first place, it is reviled, and every organisation involved in the Yes campaign including the SNP has committed to its removal by the end of the first independent parliamentary term. When it comes to the negotiations, the Scottish Government will be walking in with a report from CND and university academics that details how the Trident system itself could be deactivated and out of Scottish waters within two months, and all warheads gone from the depot within six. Now if a sovereign independent Scotland said to the UK, "you have six months to remove Trident", what is their play there? Refuse, and have the EU's biggest nuclear stockpile sitting under the control of another, newly annoyed, country of just a few million people? Go full-Putin, invade, and annex a big chunk of the land and homes just outside Scotland's most populous city? That's why Trident removal is a card in our hand, because it can take place in the context of the UK having seven years to discuss alternatives and plan/build new infrastructure if they wish to, or in the context of them being told, in more diplomatic terms of course, to GTFO as fast as their subs will sail them, and they have no answer to that demand that isn't at least as damaging to the UK as it would be to Scotland.
International relations work on a mixture of posturing and tacit understanding that countries will "do as they would be done by" - how does the UK fare if it decides to go against the result of a democratic referendum it consented to? If it decides to dictate the terms of the dissolution rather than negotiate in good-faith? If it decides to override the right of another sovereign state to decide whether nuclear weapons reside on their soil? Again, I am not, and nobody I've ever heard in the Yes campaign including Alex Salmond even in his most optimistic happy-happy-joy-joy rhetoric mode, claiming that this will be easy, or that Scotland will run rings about the UK, or that we'll get everything we want, but this idea that post-Yes we'll have to abase ourselves and plea for the mercy of the Mighty and Beneficent rUK Government because we're just a poor wee country with no bargaining position at all is one that's been brought up again and again over the course of this campaign and it's a nonsense.
Agreed. But the SNP's projected idea of gravy all the way seems exceedingly overly optimistic, and the likelihood from my reading so far is that there will be economic pain at first until things settle down.
Are you doing your reading in the Telegraph by any chance? Kidding, kidding. To address the point seriously; I don't accept that the SNP are promising sunshine and rainbows.
“We know that tackling these issues isn’t straightforward – building a better country isn’t be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate. Independence isn’t about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and water. It’s about working hard, and taking the right decisions, so that over time we can build a fairer and more prosperous country.”
That's the First Minister speaking in June this year. He's said similar things many times in the past, and many times since, the bolded phrase is a favourite of his. The idea that the SNP or the Yes campaign more broadly are selling hollow utopianism is a fiction, a narrative peddled by Better Together in the media because they have no positive case of their own to make(or lack the wherewithal to make it) and so rely on exploiting people's cynicism of politics and politicians to allow them to cast an aspirational message about building a better future with our own hands as mindless, baseless optimism.
As for economic pains; “An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK...”. That article there in that notorious bastion of wooly leftism and rabid Scottish Nationalism......the Financial Times. Now certainly if all the predictions of doom from Better Together's rogue's gallery of the wealthy, powerful, and land-owning come true we'd be in some real trouble - but funnily enough the Tories paraded almost exactly the same lineup(no really; Standard Life, Ian Wood, the CBI, it's like Groundhog Day at Better Together's press office) in front of us with the same dire warnings when they were campaigning against the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in the '97 referendum, yet in the years since there's been a puzzling lack of companies fleeing screaming across the border as they swore they must do before the vote, so you'll forgive me if I look on their prognostications with somewhat more skepticism this time round.
A reasonable response. But should a border region gain say, 65% or more in favour of remaining as part of the Union, would you personally have an issue with the aforementioned region being retained as part of Britain? It would be their democratic decision after all.
I think that if one of them did come out with a 2/3 majority as you suggest, that would be sufficient justification to organise and hold a second regional referendum prior to independence day in 2016, which would ask the specific question of whether they would rather stay in the UK given the rest of the country has voted to leave, and the result of that second referendum should be just as binding on all parties as this one will be. This is actually a question I get asked quite a lot, although they usually use Orkney or Shetland, it always seems to surprise folk when I say I'm all for it. Democracy is democracy, I'm not an ideological nationalist myself, I'm voting for independence because that's the choice we've got before us and I would rather have more democracy than less; I support self-determination for all as a matter of principle not just in the case of existing "nations" without a state.
Well reasoned. But I still believe that I should be entitled to claim a Scottish passport. It's part of my mother nation (Britain), and whilst I can understand and agree with people being born in Britain after independence having no right to one, I disagree that I should fall into the same category.
Hmm, I can understand that. I'm at a meeting next week with a guy from English-Scots for Yes, I'll bring it up with him and try and figure out if there's an actual impediment that would need to be overcome for that to happen or if it was just overlooked, if there's something that could be done about it they're one of the best groups to advocate for it.
Again though, your analysis rather falls apart when you take Norway into account.....snip.......support shipbuilding it first became reliant on government military contracts, and then saw its decline accelerated as the Royal Navy contracted.
Sorry, but you're quite inaccurate on this one. I'm not saying that 'Union structure' per se was the problem, but rather the actions of the individual unions. And even then, I'm specifically referring to the death knell for the industry as opposed to entire decline process, which spans a far longer unit of time. If you're going to understand the decline in British shipbuilding, you basically have to roll as far back as the 1920's and take it from there. It doesn't just fit into the standard Thatcherite/industry argument. Suffice to say, the subject is extensively documented by many academics (my PHD I'm starting next month is on private Industry and warship construction, so I do know something about it), and can't simply be broken down into an ideological issue to be explored within a paragraph or two. I'd recommend S. Pollard's work, and Hugh Peebles initial analysis of Clyde shipbuilding to begin with if you're genuinely interested in exploring the subject further.
For now though, I'll simply leave that subject alone as things stand, as if I answer, I won't get away with anything less than several thousand words.
And if any of that sort of thing was on offer, I'd be voting No, but given that the UK establishment's response to the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union entirely was to insist that the referendum be a single-question Yes-No affair, specifically ruling out any kind of "devo-max" third question, and over the course of the campaign to offer nothing more than minor alterations to the amount of tax the SG raises and a few token, potentially totally unworkable in practice, welfare powers and has nothing to say about expanding democracy in the rest of the UK at all, it seems difficult to believe the UK establishment is going to suddenly become extremely enthusiastic about federalism in the wake of a No vote.
The reason Devo-max was ruled out was because whenever anyone offers you free stuff, you take it. Devo-max would have been the guaranteed win option, which was why Salmond was so hacked off when he was informed it wasn't on the table.
I think you're rather overestimating the UK's "clout" in this instance. Technically speaking the UK would have the means to run roughshod over Scotland during the negotiations, hell they could technically refuse to pass legislation acknowledging the referendum result at all, under Parliamentary Sovereignty they can do whatever the hell they like about anything at all,
I'm glad you agree.
The rest of your paragraphs on Trident, what Scotland could choose to do after independence, and so forth are really all beyond the scope of my original point. That point being that Britain will try to accommodate an independent Scotland where possible, because there's no ill will, and we want everything to work out, but ultimately, just like Scotland, Britain will look to its own interests and act accordingly. And Britain has most of the cards in their hand, because they can create infinitely more trouble for an independent Scotland than an independent Scotland can create for it.
I mean, saying you won't take on part of the national debt isn't really that big a deal. Not compared to the damage the UK could inflict back.
When it comes to the negotiations, the Scottish Government will be walking in with a report from CND and university academics that details how the Trident system itself could be deactivated and out of Scottish waters within two months, and all warheads gone from the depot within six. Now if a sovereign independent Scotland said to the UK, "you have six months to remove Trident", what is their play there? Refuse
Yes. In a nutshell. You just say, 'We will be retaining control of the base as independent British territory, and a narrow strip of ocean leading in and out, as this is what our national security concerns currently require. We will operate it as an exclave, and will hand it over to the Scottish Government in 2028 when Trident is retired, and new facilities have been constructed elsewhere'.
To throw your own words back at you, what is Scotland's play there? Invade? Talk about not taking on national debt again? To reiterate, Britain can do far, FAR more economic and political damage to an independent Scotland if it chooses to start playing games and making waves. So it wouldn't happen. Everyone will sit down at the table, people will lay out what's most important to them, and we'll all try our best to come to an accommodation that works for everyone.
But by all means, if you can list all the bargaining advantages that an Independent Scotland will have over Britain, I would be interested to hear them. I can think of about three, I'd like to hear more.
Are you doing your reading in the Telegraph by any chance?
The Times, Reuters, the BBC, and occasionally the Guardian.
“We know that tackling these issues isn’t straightforward – building a better country isn’t be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate. Independence isn’t about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and water. It’s about working hard, and taking the right decisions, so that over time we can build a fairer and more prosperous country.”
That's the First Minister speaking in June this year. He's said similar things many times in the past, and many times since, the bolded phrase is a favourite of his. The idea that the SNP or the Yes campaign more broadly are selling hollow utopianism is a fiction, a narrative peddled by Better Together in the media because they have no positive case of their own to make(or lack the wherewithal to make it) and so rely on exploiting people's cynicism of politics and politicians to allow them to cast an aspirational message about building a better future with our own hands as mindless, baseless optimism.
No, I'm taking it from various other statements by Salmond. The ones where he assumes oil will retain its output for an extended period at a high value, the ones where he talks about how Britain is 'holding back' Scottish industry, how he can fix the NHS, the pensions, and practically everything so long as you vote for independence.
I think that if one of them did come out with a 2/3 majority as you suggest, that would be sufficient justification to organise and hold a second regional referendum prior to independence day in 2016, which would ask the specific question of whether they would rather stay in the UK given the rest of the country has voted to leave, and the result of that second referendum should be just as binding on all parties as this one will be. This is actually a question I get asked quite a lot, although they usually use Orkney or Shetland, it always seems to surprise folk when I say I'm all for it. Democracy is democracy, I'm not an ideological nationalist myself, I'm voting for independence because that's the choice we've got before us and I would rather have more democracy than less; I support self-determination for all as a matter of principle not just in the case of existing "nations" without a state.
See, that's good. On that understanding, I would have absolutely no issue with Scottish independence. I fundamentally disagree that we stick to a historical border over the right to self-determination, and it often seems that many pro-yes candidates do not agree.
Interestingly the Norwegians are already planning their graceful exit from the oil extraction industry because they know it will inevitably decline in the coming decades.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing that puzzles me is Salmond's insistence on joining a currency union controlled by Westminster. A central bank, your own currency and therefore control of the interest rate is one of the most obvious things an independent government can use to influence the national economy.
Most of the other things are already in the Scottish parliament's hands, or would be strongly influenced by the EU framework. Thus Salmond seems to be rejecting his potentially strongest tool. He doesn't to have a firm back-up plan if a currency union were refused (which I believe it would be).
I think Salmond expects it to be an equal partnership when by any fair calculation Scotland would always be the junior member in any currency union. As with so many things Salmond seems to believe in democracy, fairness and equality only as long as it suits his cause. I don't believe there will be a currency union, but if there is, it takes away one of the major tools of a country to influence it's economy.
The interesting thing I see is that the Yes camp are now talking of walking away from liabilities as well as assets, which is nonsense about the currency representing all, or even a major, asset. What they are not saying is how they will also then have to find a way to fund many things such as pensions, how they will lose rights to all assets held by the MoD, NHS etc if they walk away. They are relying on people not understanding that assets are more than just liquid assets and include lots of capital assets, land, etc. They assume that they will automatically take over all crown estate lands in Scotland, and that MoD property will automatically revert to the new government. I think they will find that it is not as simple as looking at the government debt and saying "you own lots of money". It is like a divorcing couple arguing over the credit cards and forgetting the value of the house.
Steve steveson wrote: It is like a divorcing couple arguing over the credit cards and forgetting the value of the house.
I wouldn't go that far, I think most things can be settled quite amicably.
However, it should be noted that the Government is far more likely to be made of people like me, who will assume that they have to justify whatever bargains are made with an independent Scotland to the electorate, and will thus be keen to drive an agreement broadly in line with British opinions and priorities.
In other words, we'll be happy to push for an opt out for Scotland from the Schengen agreement in Europe, because it would be a real pain to have to set up border stations. But there won't be a common currency, because the electorate is broadly against it. Which means that we won't really feel the need to push for Scotland to get an opt-out from the Euro, they'll have to do that one on their own. Trident may or may not be moved quickly, depending on the MOD's evaluation of the feasibility and cost.
If Salmond insists the EU gives him an opt out of the euro in exchange for fishing access(as I believe he mentioned), I think he will quickly learn just how little the EU listens to prospective small country nations with six million inhabitants demanding special privileges. They'll most likely wait him out until economic pressure forces him to buckle under and accept the euro.
I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.
Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.
Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.
To be fair on the Greek, that would be a very very small part of the issue considering all the corruption that ended up siphoning tons of money from the government like it was water, not to mention poorly balanced budgets, all the issues with the economy, the issues with the government in hand..
ZebioLizard2 wrote: To be fair on the Greek, that would be a very very small part of the issue considering all the corruption that ended up siphoning tons of money from the government like it was water, not to mention poorly balanced budgets, all the issues with the economy, the issues with the government in hand..
If only they could have split into their original city states again! That would have fixed all the issues caused entirely by those out of touch people in the so-called "capital"!
Yes, that is true. The rate of tax collection was very low, but it was the ability to borrow money relatively easily that led them to go too far. If using the drachma they would have been prevented by unfavourable interest rates from making such large bond issues.
what I like about this post is that people are taking the time to present evidence to back up their point of view. People may not agree with it and present counter evidence, but at least it's being done. Unless the evidence is 100% correct and can't be argued with, that shiny thing in the sky is the sun, type statement, then everything else is down to your own personal opinion / beliefs. Which is how it should be.
I only hope that this is how it goes if / when we have the vote on leaving the EU. You may not agree with the evidence for staying / going but it needs to be presented so you can make a choice (like in this post), not boil down to Daily Mail / The Sun / UKIP "facts".
Sorry, but you're quite inaccurate on this one. I'm not saying that 'Union structure' per se was the problem, but rather the actions of the individual unions. And even then, I'm specifically referring to the death knell for the industry as opposed to entire decline process, which spans a far longer unit of time. If you're going to understand the decline in British shipbuilding, you basically have to roll as far back as the 1920's and take it from there. It doesn't just fit into the standard Thatcherite/industry argument. Suffice to say, the subject is extensively documented by many academics (my PHD I'm starting next month is on private Industry and warship construction, so I do know something about it), and can't simply be broken down into an ideological issue to be explored within a paragraph or two. I'd recommend S. Pollard's work, and Hugh Peebles initial analysis of Clyde shipbuilding to begin with if you're genuinely interested in exploring the subject further.
For now though, I'll simply leave that subject alone as things stand, as if I answer, I won't get away with anything less than several thousand words.
I'll check out your suggestions, until then we can leave this with agree to disagree I think.
The reason Devo-max was ruled out was because whenever anyone offers you free stuff, you take it. Devo-max would have been the guaranteed win option, which was why Salmond was so hacked off when he was informed it wasn't on the table.
That take on events would mean the UK government knowingly kept an option off the ballot paper which would not only preserve the Union, it would put the SNP back in their box for an extended period of time by assuring the UK an easy victory, and which they knew at the time was the clear democratic preference of the Scottish populace. Now to me, that seems like a tactical error on the part of a British establishment which was certain they would get a solid 20-point-minimum lead with a straight Yes-No question. They might regret that in hindsight when today the Scottish Daily Mail of all papers' front page was headlined "UNION ON A KNIFE-EDGE".
There's a media narrative at play which paints the "second question" as being the desperate wish of a desperate man, Salmond, who knew he had no hope of winning independence, but it's not one I find particularly convincing - he's certainly one of the primary architects of the SNP's shift to a "gradualist" approach and would doubtless be happy to accept "devo-max", but that willingness to accept more modest forms of self-governance in the short to medium term sometimes makes people forget that the man wants his country to be independent, and I think he's shown, whether you agree with his politics or not, that he's a savvy enough operator to have been able to spin the "no third option" affair into a reason for refusing to call the referendum at all if he thought there was no chance of winning. It might have caused problems for the party electorally for a few years, but they managed to weather the fallout of refusing to enter into the constitutional convention in the early 90's because it excluded even discussing independence as a possibility, and he will well understand that a decisive No vote in a single-question referendum would set back both "the cause" and his party far more than enduring a few "feartie Salmond" sneers in the press and maybe the loss of a few Holyrood seats in 2016.
I'm glad you agree.
The rest of your paragraphs on Trident, what Scotland could choose to do after independence, and so forth are really all beyond the scope of my original point. That point being that Britain will try to accommodate an independent Scotland where possible, because there's no ill will, and we want everything to work out, but ultimately, just like Scotland, Britain will look to its own interests and act accordingly. And Britain has most of the cards in their hand, because they can create infinitely more trouble for an independent Scotland than an independent Scotland can create for it.
...
Yes. In a nutshell. You just say, 'We will be retaining control of the base as independent British territory, and a narrow strip of ocean leading in and out, as this is what our national security concerns currently require. We will operate it as an exclave, and will hand it over to the Scottish Government in 2028 when Trident is retired, and new facilities have been constructed elsewhere'.
To throw your own words back at you, what is Scotland's play there? Invade? Talk about not taking on national debt again? To reiterate, Britain can do far, FAR more economic and political damage to an independent Scotland if it chooses to start playing games and making waves. So it wouldn't happen. Everyone will sit down at the table, people will lay out what's most important to them, and we'll all try our best to come to an accommodation that works for everyone.
But by all means, if you can list all the bargaining advantages that an Independent Scotland will have over Britain, I would be interested to hear them. I can think of about three, I'd like to hear more.
I don't agree that the rest of the paragraphs are somehow irrelevant to the point, which is that while the British state has that power in theory, in practice it cannot execute it without consequences.
I also don't agree that the rUK would be in as dominant a position as you think. You say Scotland would have no response to rUK simply telling them "we're keeping Faslane as long as we like, neener neener", and we can handily go through the list of cards to play overall in discussing that, but first lets just take a moment to remember that the only way the UK could actually enforce such a decree would be by military annexation, they would have to put "troops on the ground" in another northern European democracy, and if the SG or the populace themselves were to press the issue with force, those soldiers would have to kill people. You genuinely believe the UK could do that and face no international backlash? That the rUK public would be four-square behind their government repeating the same mistakes they made in Ireland - are the English, Welsh & Northern Irish really so fickle that they will profess their familial fondness for Scots one day, and the next call for our invasion? It's absurd, but it's what the rUK would have to be prepared to do if they were to actually threaten to keep nukes at Faslane without the permission of Scotland, and I doubt even the British establishment is arrogant enough to think they could get away with a bluff of that magnitude.
Now on to the "cards in our hand" as it were. We've covered Trident removal and debt, but there's a "nuclear option" that has nothing to do with nukes - we could challenge the UK's claim as continuator state. On the face of it that sounds implausible, but the UK government's legal basis for claiming continuator state is actually extremely weak, it rests on one much-disputed legal opinion by Crawford & Boyle which argues that the Treaty of Union is irrelevant, that legal precedent surrounding the Acts of Union is irrelevant, and that contrary to the explicit statement in said Treaty that both England and Scotland had been combined into the single new and distinct legal entity of the United Kingdom, in fact ONLY Scotland ceased to exist as an entity as it had been absorbed into "Greater England" which seemingly only took to calling itself the UK as a kind of quirky national affectation. If we challenge the claim of continuator state, the rUK's position in Europe becomes questionable, maintaining their seat on the UN Security Council becomes untenable. Would we win that legal battle? I extremely doubt it, and given how long dragging it through the courts would take doing so would be economically suicidal for Scotland which is why the SG is happy to accept the conclusion, if not the reasoning, of Crawford & Boyle's work - but it would be a murder-suicide. The Pound would tank, the LSE would have to be shuttered to prevent it crashing, the UK's cost of borrowing would go through the roof. We both essentially agree that there will be a relatively amicable split with both sides making compromises, because all of these scenarios have terrible outcomes for everybody involved and nobody wants them to happen, I just dispute the contention that the UK has top-trumps in every discussion - every threat they can make either has an answering threat or would do enough collateral damage to rUK to make it untenable, and the same is true in reverse. Both sides are too heavily intertwined to do any significant damage to the other without seriously harming themselves as well, and both sides know that going in.
So yes, the rUK could threaten not to recognise the result of the referendum, but they won't because they know it would damage their credibility on the world stage. They could threaten to keep nukes in Scotland against our wishes, but they won't. We could threaten to walk away without taking the debt, but we won't. We could threaten to challenge their case as continuator state, but we won't. It's diplomatic Mutually Assured Destruction.
The Times, Reuters, the BBC, and occasionally the Guardian.
I was just having a bit of fun there, but frankly that reading/watching list is hardly one that's going to give you a broad view of events, it's a who's who of the British establishment in the media.
No, I'm taking it from various other statements by Salmond. The ones where he assumes oil will retain its output for an extended period at a high value, the ones where he talks about how Britain is 'holding back' Scottish industry, how he can fix the NHS, the pensions, and practically everything so long as you vote for independence.
And this is an example of what I mean just above. Salmond's "assumptions" on oil revenues are neither Salmond's, nor assumptions, they're the projections of Oil & Gas UK and of the UK Gov Department of Energy & Climate Change. They're also on the conservative side of the average of all the various projections of North Sea production and oil value, only the Office of Budget Responsibility make more pessimistic projections and they are derided for it in the industry. Funnily enough it's always the OBR's figures that make it into the media. Britain, or at least the current political settlement in Britain, IS holding back Scottish industry, the most striking example being renewable energy where every extra penny of revenues investment in renewables generates just vanishes into the insatiable maw of the Treasury or the pockets of aristocrats and city financiers, since most of the best locations for siting wind and tide collectors sit on private or Crown estates and the vast majority of the powers we would need to change that situation are reserved. Our NHS IS fixed, it's back in public ownership top-to-bottom, the Scottish Government have ended the PFI/PPP farce, they've eradicated the "internal market" introduced by Thatcher and expanded by Blair - when the FM or the Yes campaign discuss the NHS, they talk about how those gains could be threatened because we don't control our own budget, and because as a "region" of the UK devolution will mean nothing if the UK enters into the TTIP deal without a specific exemption for the health service. He's right to discuss pensions; the UK's state pensions are the worst in Europe, among the worst in the developed world in fact, and are 70% below a "living pension" - independence itself doesn't change that, but it gives us the powers to do so, and just as importantly it gives us the powers over immigration and economic policy that we need to counter our aging population.
The press are wedded to the "slippery Slamond/hopeless optimism" narrative, I would urge you not to just uncritically accept that slant - read the Wee Blue Book, the White Paper, the Common Weal, read Yes: The radical case for Scottish Independence, read Scottish Independence: A Feminist Response, investigate the reports of the Fiscal Commission Working Group, check out Business for Scotland. The information exists, but the media are not interested in presenting it to you, hell the movement is so broad now I doubt the media are capable of presenting it to you given the limitations of format and budget they suffer.
See, that's good. On that understanding, I would have absolutely no issue with Scottish independence. I fundamentally disagree that we stick to a historical border over the right to self-determination, and it often seems that many pro-yes candidates do not agree.
I think the argument around the historical border is based on the idea that Scotland has a right to hold the referendum because it is a nation, albeit one without its own state. That doesn't mean it ends with that historical nation, or that groups of people don't have the right to self-determination unless they also have that same historical context.
Kilkrazy wrote: Interestingly the Norwegians are already planning their graceful exit from the oil extraction industry because they know it will inevitably decline in the coming decades.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing that puzzles me is Salmond's insistence on joining a currency union controlled by Westminster. A central bank, your own currency and therefore control of the interest rate is one of the most obvious things an independent government can use to influence the national economy.
Most of the other things are already in the Scottish parliament's hands, or would be strongly influenced by the EU framework. Thus Salmond seems to be rejecting his potentially strongest tool. He doesn't to have a firm back-up plan if a currency union were refused (which I believe it would be).
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.
Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.
I'll lay out what I understand as the reasoning behind the currency union, but just out of interest regarding the central bank working for the major part of the economy not the periphery; how do you see that as different from the situation presently? The Bank of England already sets interest rates largely on the basis of what's best for the Square Mile, and Scotland is already the second biggest part of the UK economy after London once you include geographic NS Oil which an independent Scotland would. It can certainly be argued that we'd be no "better off" under a currency union than we are today, but I don't see how it can be argued we'd be worse off.
Compared to the alternatives to a currency union rather than to the status quo, that's a different and rather more complex matter.
I'll take a quick aside to day; not spelling out your alternatives in order of preference is not the same as not having any alternatives and not having any preference - if you have a range of options and a publicly stated preference, you don't lay out your entire negotiating strategy publicly ahead of time, because you're only guaranteeing you won't get your first choice, or that the price you get for giving up your first choice will be low. The Fiscal Commission Working Group examined currency union, "sterlingisation"(using the Pound Sterling without agreement), a Scottish currency pegged to Sterling, a free-floating Scottish currency, and the Euro.
Well, the Euro is out; we don't meet the requirements in terms of debt to GDP if we assume roughly a population share of UK debt, and regardless you must have your own currency first and peg it to ERM2 for at least two years, and it must perform at a specific level relative to the Euro for two straight years.
A free-floating currency provides the most economic freedom for an independent Scottish government, but given the oil it would likely become so "hard" that you would have to use up most or all of that additional maneuvering room just counteracting the negative effects it would have on other exports.
A pegged Scottish currency is a mixed bag; it has the same interest rate-related downsides as sterlingisation and currency union, but offers the advantage of being able to rapidly uncouple from the pound if it were to become unstable or our economic policies were to diverge too far to make a continued link rational.
Sterlingisation offers the least control over monetary policy of any option, since it keeps the interest rate issues of a currency union but gives us no representation at all compared to almost none, and it would take a lot longer to move away from the pound if there were issues than would be the case with a pegged currency. On its face, it's the worst of the available options, but for all Darling's arrogant dismissal of countries like Panama, they have remarkably stable financial sectors since the lack of a national lender of last resort forces banks to maintain adequate assets and liquidity. Of course you can achieve the same thing if you have the sack to actually regulate the bloody banks.
Currency union is the option which the FCWG ended up recommending and which the Scottish Government have adopted as their preference. It's argued that the similarities of our economies make any Eurozone-style issues unlikely in the short to medium(decades) term, and that the stability offered relative to other options makes the loss of control over monetary policy a worthwhile tradeoff.
The rub, of course, is that a currency union requires the consent of rUK. The Fiscal Commission argued in their reports(and indeed Stiglitz and Mirrlees have continued to argue in the media) that acceding to a currency union is in rUK's interests as well, on the basis that Scotland is rUK's second largest export market and so it is better for rUK that Scotland's economy remain stable(so better currency union than sterlingisation) and that rUK businesses not have to to endure the transaction costs that would arise from the other options. They further argue that removing nearly 10% of GDP and also Scotland's exports would have a significant, possibly very serious impact on the value of Sterling on currency markets which could have knock-on effects for rUK government borrowing.
It's a reasonable argument, as far as I can tell(not being a qualified economist myself) the evidence they use seems sound. The question of course is whether it will be politically tenable for rUK to agree, given the long-running media narrative of Scotland as a nation of beggars dependent on English largesse, and their more recent and very public hard-line stance on the currency issue specifically. Honestly? No idea. I expect if there is a currency union, it won't be called a currency union, they'll bs it by calling it a "short term currency stability pact" or somesuch doublespeak, but if they refuse completely I expect the Scottish Government's response will be sterlingisation in the short term while the preparations are made for a pegged Scottish currency.
Kilkrazy wrote: Interestingly the Norwegians are already planning their graceful exit from the oil extraction industry because they know it will inevitably decline in the coming decades.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing that puzzles me is Salmond's insistence on joining a currency union controlled by Westminster. A central bank, your own currency and therefore control of the interest rate is one of the most obvious things an independent government can use to influence the national economy.
Most of the other things are already in the Scottish parliament's hands, or would be strongly influenced by the EU framework. Thus Salmond seems to be rejecting his potentially strongest tool. He doesn't to have a firm back-up plan if a currency union were refused (which I believe it would be).
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see how either the GBP or Euro work beneficially as a currency union for a small nation like Scotland. In either case there is the problem of the central bank setting interest rates for the major part of the economy not the periphery.
Look at the trouble the Greeks and Spanish got into, not to mention very small places like Slovenia and Ireland. That was partly caused by the Euro being set to suit the German and French economies.
I'll lay out what I understand as the reasoning behind the currency union, but just out of interest regarding the central bank working for the major part of the economy not the periphery; how do you see that as different from the situation presently? ...
Well that is my point. If independent Scotland joined a currency union with the UK, interest rates would continue to be set by the Bank of England in consideration of UK (England-Wales-Northern Ireland) not local Scottish economic conditions.
This situation would be the same as now, (actually a bit worse if you don't believe that the BoE only considers the City of London in its rate setting deliberations) no improvement for Scotland which is why I don't understand why it is considered the best option by Salmond.
The key difference would be that Scotland could independently issue national debt. At the moment, the Scottish parliament will gain the power to issue bonds next year. Those bonds ultimately will be guaranteed by the UK Treasury, but independent national Scottish debt would not be.
If Scotland is in an international currency union, its bonds would be taken up by the international market at a rate relevant to the Scottish economy, not the whole UK economy, while the Scottish economy would be strongly influenced by the Bank of England base rate over which the Scottish parliament would have no control. This would lead Scotland into the same dangers as Greece and other EU countries face within the Eurozone.
As far as I can see the only advantage that situation brings to Scotland is that if the Scottish economy tanked, the government could hope to call on the UK government for a bail out, as Greece called on the Germans. But for various reasons it would not necessarily be achieved, not least because the UK has enough national debt problems right now.
However judging from your explanation, the currency union is the least bad option available, rather than a very good one on its own merits.
That take on events would mean the UK government knowingly kept an option off the ballot paper which would not only preserve the Union, it would put the SNP back in their box for an extended period of time by assuring the UK an easy victory, and which they knew at the time was the clear democratic preference of the Scottish populace. Now to me, that seems like a tactical error on the part of a British establishment which was certain they would get a solid 20-point-minimum lead with a straight Yes-No question. They might regret that in hindsight when today the Scottish Daily Mail of all papers' front page was headlined "UNION ON A KNIFE-EDGE".
Oh, definitely. The thing is, Salmond's put in a lot of time and effort pushing for every advantage he can get for the 'yes' side. The longer he is left to it, the more people there is a risk he will convince. But as things stand right now, the odds are, the majority still favour Union.
Therefore the British Government figured to call him on everything he's been saying the last decade, but according to their timescale, as opposed to his. Salmond would have preferred a devo-max option for the next five years, and then a further five years to drum up support before pushing for the referendum. Now was too soon for him, but his hand was forced.
As a strategy, it may yet pay off.
I don't agree that the rest of the paragraphs are somehow irrelevant to the point, which is that while the British state has that power in theory, in practice it cannot execute it without consequences.
Certainly. I just vastly, vastly disagree with you on the severity of those consequences.
I also don't agree that the rUK would be in as dominant a position as you think. You say Scotland would have no response to rUK simply telling them "we're keeping Faslane as long as we like, neener neener", and we can handily go through the list of cards to play overall in discussing that, but first lets just take a moment to remember that the only way the UK could actually enforce such a decree would be by military annexation, they would have to put "troops on the ground"
Not really. If it's never handed over, why are troops on the ground needed? You just stick up a honking big wall along the perimeter, and like in a embassy, say that the ground on this side is British, that side is Scottish. The Scottish citizenry isn't going to invade and charge the walls, and quite honestly, with a guarantee that it'll be gone in a decade regardless, I doubt many people will even care (except for when somebody points at it as a distraction from domestic affairs.
Quite frankly, I would contend that you personally regard it as a massive issue, and that colours your perception of how big an obstacle it really is. To anyone who is not overly hung up on it when there are far larger issues to consider, this is something that would be self-solving (the system will be retired), can have a specific timescale set to it, and would require virtually no further difficulty or effort on either side.
You make the statement whilst sorting everything else out, stick up a basic perimeter for the puposes of identifying the territory involved (keeping it as small and functional as necessary, most likely just the military base alone with local residents workers having permits to enter for work purposes), and set a deadline for vacation of the territory in the future at the expected decommissioning date with the option of negotiation if it needs to be extended by a year or something.
Wham, bam, thank you mam. Everyone moves on to more important issues.
Now on to the "cards in our hand" as it were. We've covered Trident removal and debt, but there's a "nuclear option" that has nothing to do with nukes - we could challenge the UK's claim as continuator state. On the face of it that sounds implausible, but the UK government's legal basis for claiming continuator state is actually extremely weak,
Sorry, but de facto would top any sort of de jure here by a gajillion miles, and everyone would know it. This:-
The Pound would tank, the LSE would have to be shuttered to prevent it crashing, the UK's cost of borrowing would go through the roof.
I genuinely regard as so much complete and utter hogwash. I regard that statement with about as much reality as I do Harry Potter's Wizarding World. Any attempt to do the above would be laughed out of Downing Street, and Salmond's pronouncing the above forecast would inspire hoots of derision from the media and about every businessman out there.
So yes, the rUK could threaten not to recognise the result of the referendum, but they won't because they know it would damage their credibility on the world stage.
The world stage regularly puts up with things like Guantanamo Bay and us swapping intelligence with the Americans on our own citizens. It would be a one day headline, and then the media would move back to Syria/Ukraine/ISIL, all of which would be far more readable. Most of the world is run by dictators and corrupt politicians of one stripe or anything, they're not going to let Scottish nuclear issues interfere with trade or diplomacy. Europe has other things to worry about, and I doubt America would care at all.
So, not really a concern there either. Keep the potential reprisals coming though.
I assume the challenge to the UK as a continuator state means the newly independent Scottish claiming that the UK has been dissolved by the exit of Scotland and thus no longer exists as a legal entity.
If that were a serious legal proposition I think it would be fair for the population of the whole UK to have a vote on something so fundamental to their lives, i.e. be involved in the independence referendum.
Kilkrazy wrote: I assume the challenge to the UK as a continuator state means the newly independent Scottish claiming that the UK has been dissolved by the exit of Scotland and thus no longer exists as a legal entity.
If that were a serious legal proposition I think it would be fair for the population of the whole UK to have a vote on something so fundamental to their lives, i.e. be involved in the independence referendum.
Yes. If my country will e dissolved d as a legal entity then I have just as much right to a vote in the referendum as any Scotsman.
If that were a serious legal proposition I think it would be fair for the population of the whole UK to have a vote on something so fundamental to their lives, i.e. be involved in the independence referendum.
That's an excellent point. If Salmond were to even mention that in passing, it would be perfectly legitimate grounds (and fair on just about every level) for Parliament to hold off on any form of independence on the basis that the entire country would be being dissolved, and therefore the referendum would need to be retaken with everyone in the British Isles included.
So if anything, such a 'threat' would either be treated seriously and therefore result in a guarantee that the Scots would not get independence at all, or not seriously at all, in which case it has no effect. The odds of Salmond making such a threat can therefore be judged as non-existent, as neither result would be particularly desirable.
Yodhrin, pretty much everything you say here leads me to conclude that you massively overestimate what sort of power and influence a tiny nation of five million people will have. Ultimately what is just (and sometimes even what is legal) play a secondary role in big international negotiations. Those who have influence will decide. In any negotiation with much more powerful entity, a hard line stance you (and Salmond) seem to present as a possibility, would be disastrous. In fact, what Salmond has said about extorting EU with fishing rights makes me seriously doubt his grasp of reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: What happens to the EU legislation in the period where Scotland reapplies?
Presumably we'd continue to follow it, but would it still be legally binding if we were in some weird EU limbo?
I can't see how it could be legally binding in such a situation.
The rub, of course, is that a currency union requires the consent of rUK. The Fiscal Commission argued in their reports(and indeed Stiglitz and Mirrlees have continued to argue in the media)....
How typically dishonest of you. Stiglitz gave Panama and Equador as his comparisons for Scotland. In other words Stiglitz includes Sterlingisation as an option, which iScotland can choose. However by saying the Uk parties are bluffing and using Panama as an example of a currency solution is at best confused.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28929433
Mirrlees calls for a default on the National debt if Currency union is rejected. Also John Swinney while jumping on Stiglitz confused commentary quoted:
But Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "Prof Stiglitz is right to see through Westminster's bluff and to highlight the fear-mongering of the anti-independence campaign.
"On education, health, growing the economy the Scottish government has supported policies that are good for Scotland while Westminster has simply pursued more and more austerity.
So what we see here is a Scotland that vows not to continue austerity but to spend instead, despite having a poor economic start position to sdo so. In the eyes of any capable analyst it is obvious that Swinney intended an iScotland to borrow heavily, especially as Scotland has a low employment rate and a large underclass. if Scotland borrows and alrasdy has a culture of threatening debt defaults what is to stop them from borrowing, defaulting and leaving the rUK to pick up the tab.
that acceding to a currency union is in rUK's interests as well, on the basis that Scotland is rUK's second largest export market and so it is better for rUK that Scotland's economy remain stable(so better currency union than sterlingisation) and that rUK businesses not have to to endure the transaction costs that would arise from the other options.
Whats the largest export market? whatever it os it doesnt use the pound yet we do ok with it.
Scotlands economy will not remain stable if Swinney foufils his promises of ending austerity and massive spending.
rUK business will have to endure transaction costs anyway as there will be Uk and Scottish taxation involved.
They further argue that removing nearly 10% of GDP and also Scotland's exports would have a significant, possibly very serious impact on the value of Sterling on currency markets which could have knock-on effects for rUK government borrowing.
Actually rUK borrowing will be aided as a large percentage of the UK's underclass are Scots. Glasgow is a huge net drain on the UK economy.
Loss of 10% GDP will be a blow,. but that will happen anyway if Scotland goes independent. Furthermore the real scare on the stock market would be a currency uniojn rather than the lack of one. Salmond doesnt encourage markets especially with so many threats of default.
It's a reasonable argument, as far as I can tell(not being a qualified economist myself) the evidence they use seems sound. The question of course is whether it will be politically tenable for rUK to agree, given the long-running media narrative of Scotland as a nation of beggars dependent on English largesse,
Well thats bollocks for a start. There isn't a narrative of Scotland being beggars on the UK, if there was there would be more people south of the border wishing for a Yes vote. What you are spouting is the usual hardline SNP Anglophobia. A racist assumption that the English cannot look at the referendum with intellegent rasther than bigoted eyes.
Second most voters havent much of an opinion to make the issue politically tenanble or not, most don't care and too many are apathetic.
Its not the voters those who want currency union will have problems with, its the Treasury and the main political parties, all of which have looked at this and come to the same conclusion. Currency union with iScotland will be a disaster.
and their more recent and very public hard-line stance on the currency issue specifically. Honestly? No idea.
I have. First the hard line approach is realistic. Besides the Uk will not be dictated to, leave the Union leave the pound makes sense, leave the Union but rUK having no say as to whether Scotland keep the pound, that will not do.
I expect if there is a currency union, it won't be called a currency union, they'll bs it by calling it a "short term currency stability pact" or somesuch doublespeak,
There wont be a currency union as relations will sour fairly quickly, partly due to this issue. Partly because of other hidden policies manifesting themselves shortly after independence.
but if they refuse completely I expect the Scottish Government's response will be sterlingisation in the short term while the preparations are made for a pegged Scottish currency.
On the currency issue, perhaps this is very ignorant, but when Ireland gained independence it continued to use the pound for a couple of decades before the transition to the Punt.
Can Scotland not do that? I was under the impression that they could keep using the currency if they wanted, just that decisions to do with the currency would depend on the Bank of England and they'd have little say.
But I mean, is that actually really that big of a deal, if you get independence? I don't think it ever surfaced as a big deal for the Republic of Ireland, though perhaps someone can correct me!
Da Boss wrote: On the currency issue, perhaps this is very ignorant, but when Ireland gained independence it continued to use the pound for a couple of decades before the transition to the Punt.
Can Scotland not do that? I was under the impression that they could keep using the currency if they wanted, just that decisions to do with the currency would depend on the Bank of England and they'd have little say.
But I mean, is that actually really that big of a deal, if you get independence? I don't think it ever surfaced as a big deal for the Republic of Ireland, though perhaps someone can correct me!
That is what Salmond is aiming for. The point is that one of the key determinants of economic freedom is setting your own interest rate and a currency union with the UK prevents this from happening.
I honestly don't see that as a huge deal, considering they can use it as a stepping stone to something else- it provides time for things to be worked out and the best options to be considered.
Weird that they've made such a big deal out of it in my opinion.
Da Boss wrote: I honestly don't see that as a huge deal, considering they can use it as a stepping stone to something else- it provides time for things to be worked out and the best options to be considered.
Weird that they've made such a big deal out of it in my opinion.
The big deal is not sharing interest rates its the fact that the UK would become the last lender and would have to guarantee Scotlands debts. This is a non starter.
In a nutshell any borrowing using tghe pound is a debt against the pound. Salmond could run up a huge bill and except rUK to pay. There are lots of pointers indicating this is exactly what her will do.
Really? Why didn't the Irish do that then? Or did we? It wouldn't shock me if we did and it was just left out of Irish history textbooks, but AFAIK nothing particularly dramatic happened with regard to currency.
Da Boss wrote: I honestly don't see that as a huge deal, considering they can use it as a stepping stone to something else- it provides time for things to be worked out and the best options to be considered.
Weird that they've made such a big deal out of it in my opinion.
The big deal is not sharing interest rates its the fact that the UK would become the last lender and would have to guarantee Scotlands debts. This is a non starter.
In a nutshell any borrowing using tghe pound is a debt against the pound. Salmond could run up a huge bill and except rUK to pay. There are lots of pointers indicating this is exactly what her will do.
The UK wouldn't have to guarantee Scotland's debts. Salmond could expect it and the UK government could tell him to feth himself.
Lauren Witherspoon wrote:Police probe as independence referendum votes 'sold' on eBay
Police have launched an investigation after a number of people attempted to sell their votes for the independence referendum online.
Various listings appeared on internet auction site eBay offering bidders the chance to purchase the sellers' personal votes on September 18.
The Electoral Commission confirmed it was aware of the incident and eBay has since removed the listings from its site.
One person, using the identity 'chrisoc1986', and who says on their profile they are located in Glasgow, sold their vote for £1.04.
The listing read: "This is my very own unique piece of British History! It is my personal YES or NO vote for the upcoming Scottish Referendum in September.
"I for one, do not give a flying monkeys about any of this. This could be the deciding vote. Who knows? I am a hard working Scottish citizen with a house, a gorgeous wife and two beautiful kids who are my world.
"This vote will not change anything in our lives so I have decided not to vote my opinion but instead..... ONE OF YOURS! Happy Bidding"
Another listing by 'catfez', believed to be located in the Scottish Borders, placed a £10 reserve on bidding for the vote. The seller states that the money raised from the bid will be donated to charity.
On Thursday Police Scotland confirmed officers were investigating the listings.
A spokesman said: "Our policing arrangements for the referendum are well in hand and will be appropriate and proportionate.
"Police Scotland’s priority is to ensure public safety and security. We will respond appropriately to any issues which arise.
"We are investigating these incidents and therefore cannot comment on the outcome of these incidents until all inquires are concluded. Where other incidents are reported they will be investigated and appropriate action taken. "
A spokesman for eBay said: "eBay does not permit the sale of certain items.
"In addition to our own investigations, eBay uses reports from users and advice from third party experts to keep eBay safe and to ensure that items of concern are not listed for sale.
"The Electoral Commission has an agreement in place where we remove upon request any items posted on eBay that relate to an individual’s vote where the Commission has concerns that this could lead to the law being broken."
Da Boss wrote: I honestly don't see that as a huge deal, considering they can use it as a stepping stone to something else- it provides time for things to be worked out and the best options to be considered.
Weird that they've made such a big deal out of it in my opinion.
The big deal is not sharing interest rates its the fact that the UK would become the last lender and would have to guarantee Scotlands debts. This is a non starter.
In a nutshell any borrowing using tghe pound is a debt against the pound. Salmond could run up a huge bill and except rUK to pay. There are lots of pointers indicating this is exactly what her will do.
The UK wouldn't have to guarantee Scotland's debts. Salmond could expect it and the UK government could tell him to feth himself.
This is how it works:
- Salmond borrows money. Lets call it 'billions'
- Money is spent.
- iScotland defaults.
- The 'billions are still owed, on the pound.
- All stocks in pound adjusted fro the debt unless the rUK defaults.
Currency union = Bank of England being lender of last resort.
This is why you get the 'promise to pay' wording on the pound note. Bank notes are just IOU's
Now Sterlingisation is different.
- Scotland uses the pound
- Scotland can borrow monies but not link them to the pound, some of the monies may appear as pounds but from existing srtocks of pounds
- This is because Scotland cannot liegally print pound notes.
- Scotlands debt is its own.
However
- Scotland may run out of bank notes as it isnt permitted to print any.
- Exchange rates will be set for rUK beneift not Scotlands.
- Scotland will have no say in the running of the Bank of England.
Panamaisation/Sterlingisation only works for small economies.
Hope this is clear now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Didn't see this here so sorry if I'm posting stuff you guys already covered. Link has video content.
Lauren Witherspoon wrote:Police probe as independence referendum votes 'sold' on eBay
Police have launched an investigation after a number of people attempted to sell their votes for the independence referendum online.
Various listings appeared on internet auction site eBay offering bidders the chance to purchase the sellers' personal votes on September 18.
The Electoral Commission confirmed it was aware of the incident and eBay has since removed the listings from its site.
One person, using the identity 'chrisoc1986', and who says on their profile they are located in Glasgow, sold their vote for £1.04.
The listing read: "This is my very own unique piece of British History! It is my personal YES or NO vote for the upcoming Scottish Referendum in September.
"I for one, do not give a flying monkeys about any of this. This could be the deciding vote. Who knows? I am a hard working Scottish citizen with a house, a gorgeous wife and two beautiful kids who are my world.
"This vote will not change anything in our lives so I have decided not to vote my opinion but instead..... ONE OF YOURS! Happy Bidding"
Another listing by 'catfez', believed to be located in the Scottish Borders, placed a £10 reserve on bidding for the vote. The seller states that the money raised from the bid will be donated to charity.
On Thursday Police Scotland confirmed officers were investigating the listings.
A spokesman said: "Our policing arrangements for the referendum are well in hand and will be appropriate and proportionate.
"Police Scotland’s priority is to ensure public safety and security. We will respond appropriately to any issues which arise.
"We are investigating these incidents and therefore cannot comment on the outcome of these incidents until all inquires are concluded. Where other incidents are reported they will be investigated and appropriate action taken. "
A spokesman for eBay said: "eBay does not permit the sale of certain items.
"In addition to our own investigations, eBay uses reports from users and advice from third party experts to keep eBay safe and to ensure that items of concern are not listed for sale.
"The Electoral Commission has an agreement in place where we remove upon request any items posted on eBay that relate to an individual’s vote where the Commission has concerns that this could lead to the law being broken."
This may be legal depending on how its done.
'I will sell you my voting card and you may impersonate me by postal vote', is illegal.
'I will vote as you instruct me and send proof that I filled out a postal vote form that way', is legal.
I believe there may also be a law recently introduced that bans any attempts to stop the anonymity of a vote. - As a result of a large number of new teenager voters taking selfies with their voting slips in the booth...
'I will vote as you instruct me and send proof that I filled out a postal vote form that way', is legal.
I seriously doubt that. Any sort of vote selling is highly illegal in most democracies.
If you sold you you vote and only did so by taking money from a buyer, voting yourself on your own ballot paper and taking a pic of the ballot paper on your cellphone as a 'receipt' for the buyer then its perfectly legal.
You can do what you want with your vote, so long as its you who votes. I cant see how this could be illegal, votes are 'bought' all the time, via persuasion. Its only a short step to paying a voter and asking for proof of sale.
The choice to vote is still your own, and you can stitch up the buyer by voting as you please anyway.
Also voting for the highest bidder is a valid application of democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I believe there may also be a law recently introduced that bans any attempts to stop the anonymity of a vote. - As a result of a large number of new teenager voters taking selfies with their voting slips in the booth...
Voters are not anonymous, they only appear anonymous. Its one of the myths of UK society.
When you vote you get a numbered voting slip, the serial number is logged next to your name. All ballots are actually registered. The goverrnment can track to see your voting record, the question is, why would they want to. It would be a lot of work for a trivial benefit. If the name is on the ballot paper you can legally vote for that candidate.
If you sold you you vote and only did so by taking money from a buyer, voting yourself on your own ballot paper and taking a pic of the ballot paper on your cellphone as a 'receipt' for the buyer then its perfectly legal.
You can do what you want with your vote, so long as its you who votes. I cant see how this could be illegal, votes are 'bought' all the time, via persuasion. Its only a short step to paying a voter and asking for proof of sale.
The choice to vote is still your own, and you can stitch up the buyer by voting as you please anyway.
Also voting for the highest bidder is a valid application of democracy.
It's actually straight illegal in the United States, dunno about the UK however. It's a basis of Electoral Fraud.
Da Boss wrote: On the currency issue, perhaps this is very ignorant, but when Ireland gained independence it continued to use the pound for a couple of decades before the transition to the Punt.
Can Scotland not do that? I was under the impression that they could keep using the currency if they wanted, just that decisions to do with the currency would depend on the Bank of England and they'd have little say.
But I mean, is that actually really that big of a deal, if you get independence? I don't think it ever surfaced as a big deal for the Republic of Ireland, though perhaps someone can correct me!
To be fair, the 'independence' Ireland got wasn't 'full' independence. Ireland after it's treaty in 1921 or 1922 (iirc - haven't read my Irish history book in a while) was was technically a self governing autonomous dominion of the commonwealth. So still linked in a lot if ways to the mothership, although future strides towards true independence were not ruled out- it took us until the late 1940s to cross that final hurdle. It was referred to as 'the free state' for its first twenty odd years. To be fair, it was 'practically' independent in quite a number of ways, but in legalese terms, it was a bit different. For example - Amongst other t&c's, we had to assume some part of the uk's debt, There were three Irish ports on the south coast that Britain retained control of, In addition to all our politicians being required to state an oath of allegiance to the crown, best part was our head of state was a Governor General appointed by London. In my mind, You can't call yourself independent when some if your ports are controlled by a foreign power, when you have to swear oaths to a foreign monarch, and when your head of state is appointed by a foreign nation. In that sense, I dislike the 'Ireland was independent and got the pound, something sonething Scotland pound the same' argument, as I feel it may misrepresent some of the facts on the ground.We kept our currency pegged to the pound until the 70s I think. But even then, from the mid to late twenties, we were issuing our own currency and gad to set up our own central bank in the 40s.
As an aside, At the time of the treaty, it was considered less freedom, and more 'freedom to achieve our freedom'. We kept our currency pegged to the pound until the 70s I think.
Could Scotland share the pound? Maybe. Maybe not. I think there can be arguments both ways. For what it's worth, I'm not weighing in on the debate here.
If you sold you you vote and only did so by taking money from a buyer, voting yourself on your own ballot paper and taking a pic of the ballot paper on your cellphone as a 'receipt' for the buyer then its perfectly legal.
You can do what you want with your vote, so long as its you who votes. I cant see how this could be illegal, votes are 'bought' all the time, via persuasion. Its only a short step to paying a voter and asking for proof of sale.
The choice to vote is still your own, and you can stitch up the buyer by voting as you please anyway.
Also voting for the highest bidder is a valid application of democracy.
It's actually straight illegal in the United States, dunno about the UK however. It's a basis of Electoral Fraud.
It's illegal in the UK too. It may be difficult to police (unless you are stupid enough to use ebay), but it is illegal.
Daily question: What does the future hold for Scotland's pensioners? Colletta Smith By Colletta Smith BBC Scotland Economics Correspondent
As the people of Scotland weigh up how to vote in the independence referendum, they are asking questions on a range of topics.
In this series, we are looking at those major questions and by using statistics, analysis and expert views shining a light on some of the possible answers.
Here, we focus on the issue of pensions, and what might happen to them in the cases of a "Yes" or a "No" vote.
Dozens of news website users have been asking pensions-related questions, including Philip Derivaz, Joanna Higgs, Patrick Swift, D.G.Begg, Marianna Fletcher Williams, Colin Wilson, Harry Sutherland, Ian Brown and Edwin Robertson. And this came from Susan Woods who asked: "Who will pay my state and NHS pension after a yes vote? Will it still increase as it does now? Will this be affected by currency decisions?"
In a sentence, what are both sides saying?
The Scottish government says current pensioners would hardly notice a difference in an independent Scotland, and in fact they've even said they'd up the amount paid in state pensions.
The "No" campaign say the Scottish government couldn't afford the bill for state pensions as they are now, let alone improve them, and people's work pensions or occupational pensions will run into difficulties because of cross-border rules.
And what exactly are they saying about the state pension?
Both sides agree that it's very important that the elderly do not suffer in any transition, and for a lot of people nothing noticeable would change at all. The UK government have agreed that if you've been building up an entitlement to a UK pension, that will be honoured, but it might be dished out via the Scottish Pensions System rather than the UK one. Last year, £1.2m UK pensioners living overseas continued to receive their pensions through a series of bilateral and international arrangements. That's likely to be the case in an independent Scotland.
It's a more complicated picture for those who haven't retired yet. Any future entitlement for work done in Scotland after independence would be paid by the Scottish government. If you're in a generation that would straddle that independence date, then some of your pension would come from London and some from Edinburgh depending on the percentage of your working life which has been in each country.
What has the Scottish government promised?
The Scottish government has guaranteed that pensions would be single-tier to make the system simpler and help those on lower incomes, starting at £160 per week.
Like the UK government they've also said pensions would be triple-locked. That means that the SNP guarantee pensions will rise by at least 2.5%, inflation, or average earnings.
They've also said they'd look at the possibility of lowering the retirement age.
And what does the "No" campaign say about that?
They say that a Scottish government couldn't afford the promises they have made, without big cuts in other areas of the budget.
Scotland's population is ageing faster than the rest of the UK, and the working-age population is smaller, which means fewer people making national insurance contributions to fund more older people. But, although there are proportionately more older people in Scotland, life expectancy is lower, so the Scottish government also say they want to look into the possibility of delaying that rise in retirement age.
This would certainly be a costly move. It's worth bearing in mind that if people retire earlier, not only does that mean an extra cost of more state pension payments, but the loss in Gross Domestic Product because that group wouldn't be working. The UK Department of Work and Pensions forecast the loss to GDP would be around £9bn between 2026 and 2036.
The Better Together campaign has claimed that Scotland pays 8% of UK National Insurance but receives upwards of 9% of the benefits, and that gap between contributions and returns will rise from £425m to £700m per year over the next 20 years.
During a speech the former prime minister Gordon Brown claimed these figures were taken from previously unpublished data from the UK Department of Work and Pensions. The Department say that they have not published anything which reflects that information, and their data is not presented in that manner, so I'm not able to check those particular statistics.
However, DWP figures do show that in 2012-13, when it comes to state pension payments, Scotland received £1,276 per head compared with £1,283 across the UK. But when you add in additional benefit payments to pensioners - disability, housing benefits, pension credits, the figure flips round. Across the UK total pension expenditure was £1,725 a year per head, and in Scotland that figure was higher, at £1,803 per head.
DWP figures also say that the Scottish government's extra pension promises would cost an extra £210 per working-age person per year over the next 20 years. That figure costs in the figure for keeping the retirement age at 67, which the Scottish government have only said they are "considering", and also assumes that the working-age population will stay the same, and the Scottish government are planning for it to grow, which would lower that total.
line
What's the future of the state pension if Scotland stays within the UK?
Paying the pensions bill is difficult for the Westminster government too. The ageing population has meant the government has pushed up the retirement age. All Westminster parties have agreed to honour the triple-lock on pensions, but many are questioning whether the UK can really afford this high bill either.
line
Now, what about private pensions?
Private pension funding is much more straight-forward, if you've put money in to an investment pot, you hope to get it back when you retire with a little interest. The issues around the referendum arise because of EU rules.
In an independent Scotland, overnight all UK-wide pensions would become cross-border. A company scheme could have employees in both Scotland and the rest of the UK who have all paid into the scheme, and money will have to be paid out to them in their respective countries, and potentially in their different currencies.
EU rules state that cross-border schemes need to be fully-funded at all times. Most UK pensions are not fully funded at all times, if everyone wanted to take all their money out all at once, they wouldn't be able to. So overnight there would be "black holes" in lots of UK private pension schemes. To fill the gap it's possible that pensioners would have to pay more in, making pensions more expensive, or the schemes might be split into separate schemes for Scotland and the rest of the UK - again this is likely to cost more.
The Scottish government says that the EU would allow extra time to iron out the problems, and make sure that funds were able to adapt. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland doesn't think the time frame proposed would be long enough.
This for me is the first direct worry about I Yes vote I have come across. Most of it has been nebulous arguments about currency and the armed forces, all of which have been important, but stuff that will be worked out one way or the other with belief and opinion on both sides. The state pension will be the same.
Private pensions however are a big worry. I did not realize that they would have to become fully funded, something that will be a massive cost, and you can guarantee that the people who will have to pay the vast bulk of the extra will be those in there 30's and 40's now. People close to pension age will be protected, like they are every time there is a change in any pension payments with so many scheams, and people already getting there pension will continue to get the same payments having paid in 5-6% for their lives, where as people in there 30's and 40's, already hit by changes from final salary to revalued or losing defines benefit altogether, along with having to 8-9% and reduced employer contributions, will be the ones covering the extra costs to make up the shortfall.
So with George Osborne promising new powers to Scotland to be revealed in the next few days, does he think our heads button up the back?
George Osborne wrote:“You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland. More tax powers, more spending powers, more plans for powers over the welfare state.
That will be put into effect – the timetable for delivering that will be put into effect – the moment there is a no vote in the referendum. The clock will be ticking for delivering those powers – and then Scotland will have the best of both worlds.”
It's too late to vaguely "promise" Devo-Max, George.
