Scottish Independance

[warspite1]

It's about what is fair - regardless of which way that person would actually vote.

[JudgeDredd]

Well I concede we'll have to disagree on what both of us think is fair.

[Orm]

I wonder if it could work to have people register if the are Scottish or English and so on before the vote. And then those who register as Scottish gets to vote and if independence is decided on they get their nationality as they registered.

Probably a dumb idea. [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as "Scottish" in terms of registered individual nationality. So it would be difficult to suddenly create that and have it work.

I think the way it is being done is totally fair. I don't live there and even though I might/will move back in x years, that does not give me the right to determine that countries future. After all, I might vote yes, it all goes belly up (it won't) and I decide to stay where I am...leaving everyone else north of the border to deal with the consequences.

Though it could also be argued that people could vote yes in the current rule, it goes belly up (it won't) and they move out...leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces.

So there's problems afoot in all options. Obviously a rule for voting had to be made and that's the one they choose.

I know some people think it was "clever" of Salmond...but as I pointed out - for under 18's to get the vote seemed totally logical as they are the ones who are not only hit by current legislation (from all governments) but will endure this legacy the longest.

I did also point out, depending on the poll you choose, it's being said it could backfire on Salmond

[JudgeDredd]

Isn't this the longest purely political post that hasn't been locked? Given the hot topic, that's rather impressive [&o]

[Curtis Lemay]

Just out of curiosity, do the Welsh have any desires for independence? Are there any other separatist groups within England itself? How Balkanized could Britain get?

[JudgeDredd]

Nah. In fact, the Welsh Devolved Government I believe have spoke out against Independence for Scotland (so much for yer pals).

And I do not think England would "split" in any way, shape or form.

I think certainly for the immediate future Scottish Independence, if it comes to fruition, is the only "reworking" the UK will see any time soon.

[decaro]

from Brietbart:

Scotland faces reality as independence referendum approaches

On September 18, Scotland will have a referendum on the question, "Should Scotland be an independent country?" If the vote is "yes" then nobody knows for sure what will happen next. During the last ten days, two major issues have arisen to threaten the viability of an "independent" Scotland:
• Britain's Finance Minister George Osborne said that the UK would be unwilling to enter a currency union with Scotland, presumably meaning that Scotland would have to create its own currency.
•Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said that it would not be automatic that Scotland would belong to the European Union, and that in fact there would be a long process requiring the approval of all 28 countries.

In the worst case scenario, Scotland would be an independent entity completely on its own, like nearby Iceland and Norway.

If the UK continues to refuse a currency union with an independent Scotland, then Scotland will have three major choices:
•Just continue using the British pound sterling as before, in the same way that Panama uses the US dollar as a currency and Montenegro uses the euro.
•Issue a new Scotland pound currency and peg it to the British pound.
•Try to join the eurozone, but once again, this would be a lengthy process ...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... um=twitter

[catwhoorg]

There are some Welsh folks who are all in favour of full independence, most however realise that is not a viable option.

Devolution for Wales, was a very tight vote (50.3% yes, on a 50.1% turnout), though the 2011 follow-up on more powers was strongly in favour. I think both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliament have been sucessful, within the UK framework.

[JudgeDredd]

Whilst I do not understand why Scotland and the SNP would push for Independence in order to look for fiscal control and at the same time look to have a currency union whereby Scotland's fiscal control would be hampered as a Bank of England tries to keep the pound on track, I think it's rather foolish, rash and uninformed of Osborne to suggest such a thing this early - and I do believe his attitude will change if Independence is achieved.

There are two very strong arguments to keep a currency union, both for the UK and Scotland (not that I am even for a currency union necessarily)
1. Balance of Payments. If Scotland were not in a currency union with the rest of the UK, then there's 20+billion pound deficit in the balance of payments - just taking oil and gas out of the equation.
2. Business transaction costs. Exports to Scotland from England and vice versa are somewhere in the region of 60 billion pounds a year. With Scotland having to adopt a separate currency, there are business transactions that would need to be met. In the millions...a fee companies would have to absorb and/or pass on to the consumer.

As I said - I'm not sure about the currency union and I don't think it's the fiscal break required. I also think Salmond and the SNP's may well have chosen that method partly because if the Scots new they would have to adopt a new currency, they may well choose No.

However, the options were apparently looked at by leading figures in the financial sector and they suggested that a currency union would be the best outcome for both parties.

Of course, all this is "who you want to believe". But the hole in the balance of payments for the rest of the UK and the transaction costs, north and south, are real and would affect trade.

I do believe Osborne is playing the game and I do believe he will not stand by that statement if a Yes vote is the outcome.

But - as with most things I've said here, it's conjecture and only 8 months will tell.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as "Scottish" in terms of registered individual nationality. So it would be difficult to suddenly create that and have it work.

I think the way it is being done is totally fair. I don't live there and even though I might/will move back in x years, that does not give me the right to determine that countries future. After all, I might vote yes, it all goes belly up (it won't) and I decide to stay where I am...leaving everyone else north of the border to deal with the consequences.

Though it could also be argued that people could vote yes in the current rule, it goes belly up (it won't) and they move out...leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces.

So there's problems afoot in all options. Obviously a rule for voting had to be made and that's the one they choose.

I know some people think it was "clever" of Salmond...but as I pointed out - for under 18's to get the vote seemed totally logical as they are the ones who are not only hit by current legislation (from all governments) but will endure this legacy the longest.

I did also point out, depending on the poll you choose, it's being said it could backfire on Salmond

This can be perverse, indeed.

As I see it, this is a really important matter, one you find only one time per century, very rarely. Therefore every Scot should be able to vote (yes, even the one who's living abroad). Who should be a Scot? I guess everyone who was born AND lived there (or the parents were born and lived there). Being born (and then leaving) there is not enough. Imagine a plane in transit and a Japanese woman gives birth there; then they leave and continue their trip. Is the baby Scot? Obviously not [;)]

I would even add that ie an English (or any other nationality) living there the last 20 years should NOT be allowed to vote either. He might be *biased*, if you know what I mean. This is a really important matter and should ONLY be left to natives.

If everyone can vote (ie English who happen to live there), then we could have this scenario: really populous states like India and China simply should send some millions to x place. Referendum and they become an Indian or Chinese province... [:D]

In fact this is the scenario in Western Sahara. Morocco sent many Moroccans there and now -if there was to be a referendum- they are the overhelming majority. The natives want independence. The emigrants will obviously vote NO. This is called an "invasion" on my book.

But I agree that in normal elections only those who are currently living there (let's say the last 5 years) should be able to vote. A Scot living in let's say Jamaica has nothing to say about public affairs, basically because he is not even paying taxes in Scotland.

[PipFromSlitherine]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Isn't this the longest purely political post that hasn't been locked? Given the hot topic, that's rather impressive [&o]

Everyone is being so polite. [:)]

I'd just like to say - don't go. We love you guys (and I love scotch!) and frankly we, as a world, need to be more united than fractured.

Cheers

Pip

[JudgeDredd]

Aw....[:D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Isn't this the longest purely political post that hasn't been locked? Given the hot topic, that's rather impressive [&o]

Everyone is being so polite. [:)]

I'd just like to say - don't go. We love you guys (and I love scotch!) and frankly we, as a world, need to be more united than fractured.

Cheers

Pip

Everyone likes the Scots. [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as "Scottish" in terms of registered individual nationality. So it would be difficult to suddenly create that and have it work.

warspite1

I disagree there - as happens with sport - you simply set parameters for who qualifies.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Isn't this the longest purely political post that hasn't been locked? Given the hot topic, that's rather impressive [&o]

warspite1

What's more impressive is that this is hardly a non-contentious subject. Well done everyone on keeping it civil [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Just out of curiosity, do the Welsh have any desires for independence? Are there any other separatist groups within England itself? How Balkanized could Britain get?

warspite1

The way Wales, Scotland and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom is important here. England invaded and effectively took control of the principality of Wales early in the historical timeline (12th century?). When Scotland 1707 and Ireland 1801 came aboard, they were Kingdoms in their own right, with their own laws, more of their own identity etc.

That is the main reason why Scots and Irish (now Northern Irish) law often differs from English law. English law is in fact that of England and Wales.

That is not to say Wales is not separate country with a proud people and national identity (who, as a Celtic nation, absolutely hate England [;)]) but I think the Welsh are bound closer to England for the reason given.

I would not expect a clamouring for independence for the Welsh - unless the Scots make a huge success of independence, in which case they may get ideas....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Whilst I do not understand why Scotland and the SNP would push for Independence in order to look for fiscal control and at the same time look to have a currency union whereby Scotland's fiscal control would be hampered as a Bank of England tries to keep the pound on track, I think it's rather foolish, rash and uninformed of Osborne to suggest such a thing this early - and I do believe his attitude will change if Independence is achieved.

There are two very strong arguments to keep a currency union, both for the UK and Scotland (not that I am even for a currency union necessarily)
1. Balance of Payments. If Scotland were not in a currency union with the rest of the UK, then there's 20+billion pound deficit in the balance of payments - just taking oil and gas out of the equation.
2. Business transaction costs. Exports to Scotland from England and vice versa are somewhere in the region of 60 billion pounds a year. With Scotland having to adopt a separate currency, there are business transactions that would need to be met. In the millions...a fee companies would have to absorb and/or pass on to the consumer.

As I said - I'm not sure about the currency union and I don't think it's the fiscal break required. I also think Salmond and the SNP's may well have chosen that method partly because if the Scots new they would have to adopt a new currency, they may well choose No.

However, the options were apparently looked at by leading figures in the financial sector and they suggested that a currency union would be the best outcome for both parties.

Of course, all this is "who you want to believe". But the hole in the balance of payments for the rest of the UK and the transaction costs, north and south, are real and would affect trade.

I do believe Osborne is playing the game and I do believe he will not stand by that statement if a Yes vote is the outcome.

But - as with most things I've said here, it's conjecture and only 8 months will tell.

warspite1

Economics is not my specialist subject, but I just look at the example of Greece. I do not think the three main political parties were bullying Scotland - I think currency union would be bad news economically.

The thing I do not understand though - if you are to keep currency union (with all that means in terms of having England ruling the roost over Scotland's financial position) how is that real independence? Also for England, why would they agree to it? If trouble does come at some point in the future it will just be Germany/Greece all over again and all Scotland's problems will be England's fault...

Having told us to (politely) bugger off, why would we voluntarily put ourselves in that position? Where's the upside?

[JudgeDredd]

Well let me precede this as I did in my previous post...I'm lost as to why Scotland would want fiscal control but hand it to the Bank of England (not England/the UK - which is a different thing altogether).

However, the example you use is way off the mark. Germany and Greece (hell Greece and most of Europe) are totally different economies. Scotland and the rest of the UK have very similar economies.

No one is saying "bugger off". If that's the impressions south of the border have got, then the media are playing their part. Scotland simply wants to control their growth from home...not from Westminster.

I obviously do not share the view that things will go tits up and therefore the rest of the UK would be on a rack...however, there will be a huge hole in the UK's books if Independence is achieved and Scotland are not within the common currency. There is also the cost to businesses I mentioned in an earlier post.

It is totally up to the UK Government to decide what they will do regarding a currency union. As I said, they can't stop Scotland trading in the pound, but they can block a currency union. However, the experts at hand, and I saw an interview where Salmond mentioned the very people, though I don't know enough about that to categorically say whether they were truthful or not, suggests that a currency union is in the interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK (using my 2 examples as part of the argument, and only part)- and of course that was "that side".

Both Westminster and Scotland signed an agreement (can't remember what it was called) where they would both do whatever was best for both sides of the border...not look out for their own interests...and if that is the case, and a currency union IS the best option, then that is what should happen.

You should also remember that the Bank of England is independent and as such it's job would be to keep the pound strong, regardless of who it affects, north or south of the border...and has done for a decade or more now. So it wouldn't really be back to Westminster over Holyrood.

I'm not arguing the point to stay in the currency union. As I said, I believe it weakens what I thought Independence would bring...however - if it IS in the best interests of both countries (as a panel of financial experts have said) then it would make sense to follow that and not cut off your nose to spite your face...which, from my chair, seems to be what Osborne is doing. I admit my view is skewed of course.

But...as I said, 18th September and after will dictate whether I was right or wrong...and may even be a moot point given a No vote.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well let me precede this as I did in my previous post...I'm lost as to why Scotland would want fiscal control but hand it to the Bank of England (not England/the UK - which is a different thing altogether).

However, the example you use is way off the mark. Germany and Greece (hell Greece and most of Europe) are totally different economies. Scotland and the rest of the UK have very similar economies.

No one is saying "bugger off". If that's the impressions south of the border have got, then the media are playing their part. Scotland simply wants to control their growth from home...not from Westminster.

I obviously do not share the view that things will go tits up and therefore the rest of the UK would be on a rack...however, there will be a huge hole in the UK's books if Independence is achieved and Scotland are not within the common currency. There is also the cost to businesses I mentioned in an earlier post.

It is totally up to the UK Government to decide what they will do regarding a currency union. As I said, they can't stop Scotland trading in the pound, but they can block a currency union. However, the experts at hand, and I saw an interview where Salmond mentioned the very people, though I don't know enough about that to categorically say whether they were truthful or not, suggests that a currency union is in the interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK (using my 2 examples as part of the argument, and only part)- and of course that was "that side".

Both Westminster and Scotland signed an agreement (can't remember what it was called) where they would both do whatever was best for both sides of the border...not look out for their own interests...and if that is the case, and a currency union IS the best option, then that is what should happen.

You should also remember that the Bank of England is independent and as such it's job would be to keep the pound strong, regardless of who it affects, north or south of the border...and has done for a decade or more now. So it wouldn't really be back to Westminster over Holyrood.

I'm not arguing the point to stay in the currency union. As I said, I believe it weakens what I thought Independence would bring...however - if it IS in the best interests of both countries (as a panel of financial experts have said) then it would make sense to follow that and not cut off your nose to spite your face...which, from my chair, seems to be what Osborne is doing. I admit my view is skewed of course.

But...as I said, 18th September and after will dictate whether I was right or wrong...and may even be a moot point given a No vote.

warspite1

No one is saying "bugger off".

Which is why I said (politely)

However, the example you use is way off the mark. Germany and Greece (hell Greece and most of Europe) are totally different economies.

I am not sure that is true. Yes the differences may not be as stark, but I think there is a very big difference between England and Scotland.

You should also remember that the Bank of England is independent and as such it's job would be to keep the pound strong, regardless of who it affects, north or south of the border

I think there is theory and there is practice. The Bank of England is independent (though there is no guarantee that will always be the case) but as the much larger economy it is difficult seeing the BoE doing something that will hurt England over Scotland, when (because of the size difference) hurting England will only hurt sterling more. It will be a vicious circle. Its like saying when Greece and Spain and Portugal and Italy had their problems, why didn't Germany take action on the Euro to suit those nations (and never mind if it buggers up the stability of Germany). Its never going to happen - but the Germans got the blame all the same....