Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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".

Well done people for a strong & heart felt post.

This article on the BBC website is an interesting read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28882770

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

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?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

iScotland should just go with this option anyway.

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.

All I know is I need to eat my cereal.

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

Didn't see this here so sorry if I'm posting stuff you guys already covered. Link has video content.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/289967-police-probe-as-scottish-independence-referendum-votes-sold-on-ebay/

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."

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/289967-police-probe-as-scottish-independence-referendum-votes-sold-on-ebay/

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

'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.

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...

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

'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.

Edited for clarification, and accuracy.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28996416

The Electoral Commission said the selling and buying of votes is illegal.

A spokeswoman said it could lead to a year in prison or a "substantial" fine.

Interesting bit on the nuts and bolts of things that would be a problem for all of us in the event of a yes vote. Pensions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29010571

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.

Would you trust this man?