Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have to say I didn't know the UK treasury was apparently campaigning for a no vote using Lego figures on Buzzfeed
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:I think it is fair to say that they wouldn't have gone into that illegal war.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.
I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.
quote:An independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be an SNP-run Scotland.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.
I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.
quote:As pointed out, we're voting for independence not for the SNP. Tony Blair is Scottish. It is quite possible that had Scotland been independent at the time of the Second Iraq War Blair would have been the Scottish First Minister and taken Scotland into it.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The SNP were vociferously opposed to the Iraq War, though.
I think it's fair to say they wouldn't have gone into an illegal war.
quote:But, when the best isn't on offer we have to settle for second best.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would rather have a fully federated Britain, including proper representation for the remaining colonies and crown territories.
quote:The SNP has been crystal-clear and forthright compared to the two failed referendums their siblings-in-spirit the Parti Québecois tried here in Canada. The PQ didn't have a position paper and couldn't bring itself to think about losing the Canadian Dollar.
Originally posted by OddJob:
There may be much merit in the principle, but the current SNP proposal seems half-baked with too many unanswered questions. Personally I've only heard Scots speak against it, whilst everyone in my acquaintance in favour is English or Welsh.
I do find the Conservative position hard to understand, at both an ideological and a pragmatic level.
quote:The reason for Blair being elected disappears in an independent Scotland. Scottish Labour alone wouldn't have picked anyone so right wing without having to try to appeal to tories in the south east.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As pointed out, we're voting for independence not for the SNP. Tony Blair is Scottish. It is quite possible that had Scotland been independent at the time of the Second Iraq War Blair would have been the Scottish First Minister and taken Scotland into it.
(For that matter, it would be a semi-feasible proposition for Cameron to become head of Clan Cameron by strategically bumping off relatives a la Kind Hearts and Coronets.)
quote:I was shocked to realize this. Does this mean that if you're reasonably well off, you have to pay for medicines, hospital treatment, and so on?
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
After ninety three years we've better dole and pensions but means tested medical cards. Mustn't mention the means tested medical cards. Did I mention means tested medical cards?
quote:I think people stopped believing in Britain a long time ago. I am seeing more and more calls for the breakup of England let alone Scotland. I can see England being split into two countries roughly along the line of the old Danelaw yet, the North-South divide goes deep - economically, politically and culturally.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.
quote:Not particularly odd. The Scottish Government has obviously done its calculations and decided that people born in Scotland who are currently living and working elsewhere in the UK are more likely to be in favour of the Union than people from the rest of the UK who are currently resident in Scotland.
I don't have a vote - unless, weirdly, I happen to get a job in Scotland and move. Then suddenly my opinion counts - I do find that odd.
quote:I believe in self-determination. If the Scots want to be an independent country, deciding on everything for themselves without the rest of us getting in the way, then good luck to them.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
My greatest fear is the the Scottish "No" campaign's greatest weakness is people on both sides of the Tweed have stopped believing in the United Kingdom. Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.
quote:The Scottish Government produced Scotland's Future and other pro-Independence propoganda. I see no reason why the Westminster Government can't use Lego bricks to present an alternative position.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Are the Scottish government allowed to campaign for a Yes? I thought the Yes/No campaign groups were supposed to be independent?
quote:Do you think of England or the UK as your country? I worry more about the affect on England of losing Scotland and getting a permanent Tory majority in its place.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm an Englishman, living in England, and I'd like Scotland to vote no. I don't much fancy having my country torn apart.
quote:Then why describe yourself as "an Englishman, living in England" rather than "British, living in the UK?" or even "an Englishman, living in the UK"?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I consider the UK to be my country
quote:I believe that anyone currently living in Scotland would also be able to apply for Scottish citizenship, regardless of their parentage or place of birth.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, people born in Scotland will be able to claim Scottish citizenship, it won't be forced on them.
quote:Because I thought it a more accurate description for the purposes of this discussion. Being an Englishman and being British aren’t mutually exclusive, even if one prioritises one description over another. Since the question in the OP was directed towards Scots, describing myself as an Englishman seemed to make more sense. Describing myself as living in England made more sense to me as it shows that I don’t have a vote in the referendum.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Then why describe yourself as "an Englishman, living in England" rather than "British, living in the UK?" or even "an Englishman, living in the UK"?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I consider the UK to be my country
quote:That will be for them to decide if and when independence becomes a reality. Personally I think it would be a good idea, but it's not my call to make.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though I'm not sure if the Scottish government is considering a test to correspond to the current one for UK citizenship.
quote:If you think the government and the campaign are independent, you're kidding yourself. As an example, I present you the PQ Governments of Quebec and the Liberal Governments of Canada in 1980 and 1995.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Are the Scottish government allowed to campaign for a Yes? I thought the Yes/No campaign groups were supposed to be independent?
quote:Indeed! Not entirely convinced that Ireland of the 1920's is comparable with Scotland of 2014 though. But I guess there must be disgruntled Presbyterians somewhere up there who are poor and trampled and ready to rise up against their British Anglican oppressors. The possibility of a United Celtic Nations forming slightly amuses me.
Slightly amused but not at all surprised that the practical experience of another part of the United Kingdom leaving is hardly mentioned.
quote:Yes, that is what I have been told. I was very worried about that one as I am happy being an Englishman of Scottish birth and descent. If I had to choose I would choose English/rUK/not Scottish.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, people born in Scotland will be able to claim Scottish citizenship, it won't be forced on them.
quote:Well I'd support that Fletcher Christian so that's you and me supporting a Celtic Union. Support for the concept doubled already!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:Indeed! Not entirely convinced that Ireland of the 1920's is comparable with Scotland of 2014 though. But I guess there must be disgruntled Presbyterians somewhere up there who are poor and trampled and ready to rise up against their British Anglican oppressors. The possibility of a United Celtic Nations forming slightly amuses me.
Slightly amused but not at all surprised that the practical experience of another part of the United Kingdom leaving is hardly mentioned.
quote:To state this much: As a Scot living outwith Scotland, I don't get a vote, which I regret but accept. I do however have a keen interest in the outcome. Despite my avator, I too am sceptical of nation states. I do however recognise the there are very different ways to run polities, and Scotland has shown to have a set of politics rather distinct from those of England (despite recently sending a representative of the hideous MEP to Strassbourg). Given full political control, it is safe to assume that Scotland would eventually reorganise much of it administrative structure as well which would be more in tune with its history, environment and brand of politics.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I am - just - favouring a No vote (on the grounds of scepticism about the role of the nation state in an age of globalisation). But I would accept a Yes with equanimity.
quote:Well, every movement for independence is made up of pull and push factors. Obviously, in Ireland's case it was mainly push. The arguments put forward in favour of Scotland's independence are mainly pull. It would be ridiculous to argue that Scotland is oppressed in the current UK. Often forgotten and misunderstood perhaps, but not oppressed.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Not entirely convinced that Ireland of the 1920's is comparable with Scotland of 2014 though. But I guess there must be disgruntled Presbyterians somewhere up there who are poor and trampled and ready to rise up against their British Anglican oppressors. The possibility of a United Celtic Nations forming slightly amuses me.
quote:Poor judge! There was that small matter of a bloody and dirty civil war, an uneasy border, relatively recent terrorism and a period known as 'the troubles', not to mention Ireland's more recent and ridiculous notion of 'citizenship', which when passed was commended by - of all people - the KKK!
Has Irish independence thrown up borders and made family members foreigners? No (and I'll be a judge of that latter point)
quote:I don't think he does anything of the sort. I won't thrash it out here, but for every one of these points there is a counterargument. And the same is true for those forwarded on the Yes side, which takes me straight back to my statement above: We cannot make reliable economic midterm predictions. In fact, we could dedicate a whole thread to that question and get nowhere (except possibly Hell, or course). I think comparative analysis is the only way forward on this matter; an economic argument against an independent Scotland would have to explain why Scotland cannot be as successful as Denmark or Ireland.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've had a closish look at the short and long term economical forecasts and figure that the Scottish people would be worse off.
Not sure I would go as far as this Scottish economist but he does a pretty good job of puncturing some of the optimism in the Scottish Government predictions.
quote:Are you talking about the part of Ireland which is nominally foreign, or rather the part which is nominally British? Whatever, I'm talking about my Irish Republic relatives who are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants. Ain't no foreigners to me.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Molopata:
quote:Poor judge! There was that small matter of a bloody and dirty civil war, an uneasy border, relatively recent terrorism and a period known as 'the troubles', not to mention Ireland's more recent and ridiculous notion of 'citizenship', which when passed was commended by - of all people - the KKK!
Has Irish independence thrown up borders and made family members foreigners? No (and I'll be a judge of that latter point)
quote:I'm talking about families who were pitted against each other in the civil war and who killed each other, claiming they were both interested in an independent Ireland, yet declaring each other to be 'foreigners' to such a 'cause'. I was referring to those families who after the creation of the border found themselves to be on a side if it they weren't too keen to be one with the rest of their family on the other. I was also referring to those who longed to see an Ireland that was united and free, yet had family members who deeply shamed them by being involved in a dirty terrorist war of attrition in a way that neither represented them or the state in which they lived. I was also thinking of those who have come to live here since, sometimes from countries far away and who within even their own family unit have some who are granted citizenship and some who seem to be endlessly pushed away from its attainment, yet they live and work int he state.
Are you talking about the part of Ireland which is nominally foreign, or rather the part which is nominally British? Whatever, I'm talking about my Irish Republic relatives who are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants. Ain't no foreigners to me.
quote:That I fully agree. Fortunately, given the maturity of the process in Scotland (with some exceptions of course), that is hardly on the cards should it decide to become independent.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The creation of the Irish state is a long, long litany of division and separation mixed with family pain.
quote:Ah; happy day! Freedom from the London-centric establishment. According to the unimpeachable Wikipedia, Yorkshire has a population of 5,284,000 similar to the 5,295,000 in Scotland. So, an independent Yorkshire please...
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
quote:I think people stopped believing in Britain a long time ago. I am seeing more and more calls for the breakup of England let alone Scotland. I can see England being split into two countries roughly along the line of the old Danelaw yet, the North-South divide goes deep - economically, politically and culturally.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.
quote:Actually, the polls suggest that it is the most likely outcome of such a vote, partly due to the no campaign's insistence that Scotland is being propped up by England. I think it would equally be a problem is English votes were to prevent Scotland leaving. Either situation violates the right to self-determination. A right that England also has, by the way, and it could be reasonably argued that many English regions do too.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see there would be a bit of a problem if it were to to deliver a No vote in Scotland and a Yes vote in rUK, but that wouldn't really be that likely to happen.
quote:There would be a problem if the rest of the UK had a vote too and voted 'No'. It would be akin to a divorce where one partner refuses to let the other leave, meaning the other had to continue living with them against their will.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I identify as English in this debate, but have a number of quite close relatives who identify as Scottish. I would prefer we didn't have to make that decision.
I resent the fact that the Scots get a vote in this, but we don't. The Constitution and the Union is just as much our Constitution and our Union as it is theirs.
I can see there would be a bit of a problem if it were to to deliver a No vote in Scotland and a Yes vote in rUK, but that wouldn't really be that likely to happen.
I also resent the fact that the other three bits of the UK are consistently better governed than we are. They have governments that are genuinely more responsive to the people they are answerable to than what we get dumped on us. Only having the Westminster Parliament means that our politicians are more interested in how they prance about on the world stage. They take us for granted. They are always telling us what people think - but surprise, surprise, 'the people' always think as they do. This all applies to the Labour ones just as much as the Tory ones.
quote:I am struggling to see how an independent Scotland would be able to set economic policies based on conditions in Scotland, and keep the pound as the SNP, who would presumably be negotiating independence, wish.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think that Scotland will benefit financially from being able to set economic policies based on conditions in Scotland rather than having them set for it based on conditions in London (as with the current talk of interest rate hikes).
quote:To be honest, I wouldn't want them to stay if they wanted to go, but I'd rather they did stay because I think both that the UK is better off together and they have a moderating effect on UK politics (to an extent).
Interestingly, several other English friends that I have discussed Scottish independence with are happy for the Scots to go. Maybe the SNP should have pushed for the rest of UK to have a vote too. The outcome might have surprised them.
quote:It's entirely up to the Scottish people to decide. The idea of a UK wide referendum on this issue is absurd. Only Scotland can give a democratic answer to what Scotland wants. I hope they vote agaisnt it, because I believe that, both historically, and in the present, the UK is bigger than the sum of its parts. England would be diminished enormously by Scottish independence, perhaps to the extent that the City of London's position as a financial centre would drain away to Frankfurt. Neither little England, nor much smaller Scotland would be entitled, IMO, to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Expulsion of the UK nuclear fleet from Faslane would cause immense problems and probably anger our Nato allies.
Originally posted by burlintontiger:
In the meantime though, it is rightly up to the Scottish people to decide. Something tells me, however, that financially, and in terms of world status, both sides will be the worse off if they go independent. I hope I am proved wrong.
quote:Where do you get the impression that the Glaswegian boozing community is pro-Independence?
the Braveheart and Bannockburn mentality of the Glaswegian boozing community
quote:What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound? I imagine that there would be a fair bit of experience from the former states of the old USSR from which to gain ideas about the creation of a new currency.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The currency issue highlights the fact that independence is relative.
If Scotland adopts it's own currency, economic policy will be constrained to a certain extent to maintain favourable monetary conditions with our main trading partners. That includes the rest of the UK and the Eurozone. By having the same currency as some of our trading partners, some economic freedom will be sacrificed for some gains in reduced trade difficulties.
There's probably little difference in practice between the Pound and Euro. But, most Scots have pensions, savings, mortgages, loans all in Pounds, almost always in UK financial institutions (even those with HQs in Scotland aren't purely Scottish). It possibly gives the Pound an edge as preferred currency.
quote:Is the UK Treasury independent of the government?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have to say I didn't know the UK treasury was apparently campaigning for a no vote using Lego figures on Buzzfeed
quote:In that case the Scottish Government will need to rethink their plans. The obvious options are to try and gain entry to the Eurozone or launch our own currency. Off-the-wall options could be to form a currency union with another nation - Norwegian Krone, Icelandic Krona for example.
Originally posted by Gee D:
What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound?
quote:Of course, if Scotland retains the British Pound then the policies of the Westminster government will affect the strength of the Pound relative to other currencies, and also the Bank of England will be setting interest rates etc.
Or the UK government may let Scotland keep the pound, but adopt economic policies which cause the pound to move in directions the new Scots government does not like? Or perhaps in directions positively harmful to Scotland.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And is its (now pulled) campaign representative of the level of debate?
quote:I'd say that, sadly, NEQ pretty much sums up the level of the debate right there.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We have a situation in which the Scottish government are producing very detailed blueprints which may be unworkable, as they haven't got facts from Westminster, and Westminster is playing with Lego.
quote:You may not have voted them in, but by God* once they're in power they dance to your tune, whether they're red, blue, or purple with yellow spots.
So stop blaming the government on us please!
quote:I observed that first hand while I lived in Belfast in the late 60s. The most egregious example came when an additional ferry was acquired to go between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Up until that time you had to queue overnight to book a place for the most popular traveling days of the year. With the new ferry, congestion would be greatly eased. Then someone suggested that the new ferry should go from England, to make it more convenient for people in London. It would mean fewer trips, of course, but the people who came up with this idea thought that was unimportant. There was a loud outcry in Belfast.
Originally posted by Jane R
Yes, but what I was thinking of was that a lot of government policies seem to be aimed at benefiting people who are in or near a large city.
quote:There is no mechanism whereby the rUK government could prevent an independent Scotland from 'keeping' the pound.
Originally posted by Gee D:
What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound?
quote:At present, bank notes issued by Scottish banks are the same currency as those issued by the Bank of England. it isn't a Scottish Pound that happens to be in a locked 1:1 exchange rate with the English Pound.
Originally posted by Jane R:
They could refuse to accept currency issued by the Bank of Scotland south of the border, I suppose, but they can't stop the Scottish government from issuing it and calling it a pound, or prevent the Scots from accepting rUK currency as legal tender.
quote:Minor point of order, but according to the Committee of Scottish Bankers and the Bank of England Scottish banknotes aren't actually legal tender (and in fact Bank of England banknotes are only legal tender in England and Wales). They are however legal currency.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... I have had the "this is legal tender that I want to use to buy your product" discussion several times in southern England when presenting a £10 note issued by the Clydesdale Bank.
quote:Currency is just as good as people's willingness to accept it. As long as enough people think they'll be able to get goods that they want for it then it will be traded for goods.
Originally posted by HCH:
I confess my ignorance: legal tender versus legal currency. My dictionary indicates that legal tender can be offered and must be accepted as payment of a debt and that currency is simply paper money. If currency is not legal tender, what good is it?
quote:It isn't really in the interests of the rest of the UK for the Scottish economy to go to pot, so I suspect that if Scottish independence went ahead Westminster would be more compliant than its current rhetoric suggests.
Originally posted by John Holding:
I guess my question would be about Salmond's ability to deliver what he's promising, when he clearly has no power to force the EU or the British government to do as he wishes. His argument seems to be that "it makes sense" to do it his way. It surely does make sense for Scotland, but it seems to me to be a very disputable matter whether any or all of his assumptions make sense for the people he is counting on to fulfil those assumptions as he hopes they will.
quote:Yet again there is an effectively ignored precedent. The Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland's Saorstat/Irish Pound was convertible at an IR£ for Stg£ rate until 1979. No say on interest rates, and the Irish banks were obliged to keep moneys on deposit with the Bank of England. Consequently we had zero say on interest rates until then.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:There is no mechanism whereby the rUK government could prevent an independent Scotland from 'keeping' the pound.
Originally posted by Gee D:
What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound?
They could make it difficult - but as Alan points out, those kinds of policies would also affect the rUK.
quote:Scottish paper currency is not really relevant in this context. The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not sure that it's all that obvious. At present, paper currency issued by Scottish banks is generally recognised in the remainder of the UK.
quote:If I'm going to England, I try to change my notes before going, to save hassle. I usually go to our nearest shop, and they riffle through their till for B of E notes, which are a small minority. I would say that 80% at least of the notes which pass through my hands are not B of E. At the moment I have a Clydesdale £20 and a Royal Bank £5 in my purse.
The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.
quote:Absolutely, but being able to issue currency is kind orthogonal to whether they are 'allowed to use the Pound as their currency'. Their situation would be more analogous to that of Panama or the Irish state in the era Ronald Binge mentions.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.
And which I still think is obvious, anyway.
quote:Yes, they are two separate issues.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Absolutely, but being able to issue currency is kind orthogonal to whether they are 'allowed to use the Pound as their currency'. Their situation would be more analogous to that of Panama or the Irish state in the era Ronald Binge mentions.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.
And which I still think is obvious, anyway.
quote:At the moment I have £50 in notes in my wallet, all in Clydesdale Bank notes. Occasionally someone gives me a Bank of England £5 as change. But cash machines are almost entirely loaded with Clydesdale Bank or Bank of Scotland.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Scottish paper currency is not really relevant in this context. The vast majority of paper used north of the border was issued by the BoE, the banks that do issue (a very limited amount) of 'Scottish paper currency' do so on the basis that it is backed 1:1 by BoE issued currency.
quote:Unless something got written into the necessary Acts for Independence a continuation of the authorisation for Scottish banks to issue GBP notes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relevant part of the Banking Act 2009 authorising Scottish and Northern Irish notes says that the authorised banks are only authorised to issue notes "in the part of the United Kingdom in which it was authorised [under the old 1845 legislation] to issue banknotes before commencement [of the new legislation]".
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.
quote:Correct. IF the law changed, it could be done. But I can't really conceive of any reason why the UK parliament would authorise a foreign bank to issue its currency. To my mind, only a country that lacks internal capacity to issue currency would consider such a move, and there are English banks to do the job. They're already doing it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Unless something got written into the necessary Acts for Independence a continuation of the authorisation for Scottish banks to issue GBP notes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relevant part of the Banking Act 2009 authorising Scottish and Northern Irish notes says that the authorised banks are only authorised to issue notes "in the part of the United Kingdom in which it was authorised [under the old 1845 legislation] to issue banknotes before commencement [of the new legislation]".
Which reinforces my view that 'once'(if) Scotland is no longer part of the UK, no Scottish bank would have authority under UK law to issue UK banknotes.
quote:I don't see how. Scots banks being unable to print sterling has little or no bearing on whether an independent Scotland could use sterling as a currency.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Good to see that you've come around to what I've been saying all the time, Orfeo.
quote:I wasn't aware that you were talking about esoteric theoretical possibilities. I was coming at it from the realistic angle.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Good to see that you've come around to what I've been saying all the time, Orfeo.
quote:No, you've gone and talked about a different issue again, in a thoroughly confused way. There won't BE any UK notes being printed outside the UK (in Scotland) to make invalid.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I thought that I was as well. I was addressing a point over which the Yes vote materials skate very quickly Unless the separation legislation makes specific provision, notes printed in Scotland would not be valid tender in the remaining UK.
Indeed, the UK govt and the Bank of England could do what the Reichsbank did to combat the rampant inflation in Germany in 1921 (or was it 22?), call in old notes and replace them with new - and then refuse to renew notes from citizens of Scotland. Now that may be a bit remote from reality.
quote:Unlikely in the case of the Crown Dependencies as these get a large chunk of their income from expat British tax avoiders ...
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?
quote:Expat British tax avoiders - I can't help but think that that would include American investments in Canada as well!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Unlikely in the case of the Crown Dependencies as these get a large chunk of their income from expat British tax avoiders ...
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I can't see how we can be saying the same thing, given that my point of view is that there is no possible practical difficulty with Scotland using British pounds if it chooses to.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, I regret that I am unable to convince you that what you and I are saying is identical. I can't put what I've said any other way, but it is the same.
quote:Agreed. There are some big questions that actually can't be answered right now that will have significant impact - membership of the EU, for example. Currency isn't a big issue. There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You had a problem with the Yes case skating over the question. I don't have a problem with them not addressing it in detail, because I can't see that there is in fact any difficult problem to solve.
quote:Of course it means they're using the pound. What on earth do you think they'd be using?
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know what to say which will convince you, except to pick up on what's in Firenze's post: the Scots can use the pound notes for whatever purpose they may wish. That's not to say that they are using the pound.
quote:I'm not convinced about 'little practical difference'. My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably). Having said that, as someone with a vote in this referendum I do agree that, for me, currency isn't a big issue in my thinking. As Alan said, our membership of the EU is a much more important issue, to my mind, and one which seems to be being skirted over in the constant banging-on about the pound.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Agreed. There are some big questions that actually can't be answered right now that will have significant impact - membership of the EU, for example. Currency isn't a big issue. There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You had a problem with the Yes case skating over the question. I don't have a problem with them not addressing it in detail, because I can't see that there is in fact any difficult problem to solve.
quote:Citation needed. This paper argues that perceived inflation far outstripped any acutal inflation. It observes a little inflation on some relatively low-priced (but commonly-purchased) goods, but nothing more.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably).
quote:Oh sure, very probably, and of course I am doing the terrible thing of using a sample of 1, for which of course you can give whatever weight you choose - but given that perception (about many issues) can affect voting (just look at how successfully UKIP, the Daily Mail et al have managed to affect perceptions about Europe and immigration), a perceived loss in income/savings value or increase in prices as a result of independence/currency change could make a difference (a) to where people might choose to cast their vote and (b) how they react and vote in any future post-independence polity.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Citation needed. This paper argues that perceived inflation far outstripped any acutal inflation. It observes a little inflation on some relatively low-priced (but commonly-purchased) goods, but nothing more.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
My sister lives in Germany, and was there when the Euro was introduced. She definitely noticed things becoming immediately more expensive (or, that her wages/savings when converted seemed to shrink somewhat - not extortionately, but noticeably).
quote:Hey, what about joining the Swedish, Danish or Norwegian Krona? After all, our shared history is way older than those Southern Normands, right? (Also, Sweden's second city and main port, Gothenburg, is supposed to have gotten its distinct rolling r's in the local accent from the immense trade with Glasgow a century back or two.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are three option: share the GBP, join Euro, have own currency. The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Speaking in an interview with a Spanish newspaper about Catalonia's conflict with Spain, the Pontiff said "all division" worried him and cited Scotland as another example of an independence movement. Pope Francis suggested the break-up of Yugoslavia was justifiable because the cultures that made up that country were so diverse they "couldn’t even be stuck together with glue". But he told the Barcelona-based La Vanguardia newspaper that in other cases, such as Scotland and Catalonia: "I ask myself if it is so clear" [...] While he said each case had to be judged on its own merits, he suggested he was more sceptical about independence campaigns that involved countries without a history of "mandatory unity" - forcing different peoples to live together.
quote:Jante? Ah kent his faither!
What's your take on the Jante law?
quote:Canada has shown less than zero interest in these proposals floating out of Iceland. Canada had a flexible exchange rate long before most of the world because of our large, open trade with the US. The Department of Finance and Bank of Canada are very, very keen supporters of an independent central bank.
Originally posted by JFH:
Given that Iceland has shown interest of late in adopting the Canadian dollar, can we see an Atlantic union coming up including Scotland, Canada, Iceland and possible some of the semi-autonomous islands surrounding Britain?
As for currency de facto usage, in Laos only one third of the currency in actual use are the national currency Kip, the only legal tender. Another third is USD, the last third is Thai Baht. Laos is about the size of the UK, with about half of Scotland's population and the development level of the Hebrides. Should work for Scotland as well, one would think.
quote:"Little practical difference"? I laugh.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Yes campaign have said their preference is sharing the GBP, but as far as I can see both of the other options are viable (joining Euro being dependent on outside factors) and it will make little practical difference to the people of Scotland which option we end up with.
quote:When things are going well, sure. But when the next recession hits it could be the difference between how the UK coped with the last one and how Greece did.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "little practical difference" was that there isn't much difference in the economic needs of Scotland, the UK or most of the Euro-zone.
quote:It works for Monaco purely because Monaco is a tax haven for a lot of very, very wealthy people. Scotland can try to go down the "we do not collect income tax" route if it wants, but I doubt it could make it work quite as well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it works for Monaco, why can't it work for Scotland (or, indeed the whole UK) with the added influence over policy of representation on the ECB.
quote:I am told Scotland has a (proportionally) very large financial services sector.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are significant differences between Scotland and Greece or Portugal. If Scotland were in the Euro before the recent economic crash it would be very unlikely that it would be in the economic difficulties that other nations have experienced.
quote:I've never lived in an area in which Rangers FC or Orangism have been relevant, and I've never associated Britishness with them.
In consequence, Britishness came to mean the worst caricature southern English snobbishness and greed allied with Orangism and Rangers FC, and despite all that shared culture, Britishness remains associated with those specific things.
quote:See, as a Mercian I'm quite on board with a lot of that, and then they go off on one about priestesses and paganism. Given that it's a real party (slightly unbelievably), and not a spoof, they might actually be on to something if they hadn't then gone totally off-piste.
Originally posted by Cod:
The Mercians look more fun.
quote:Assuming an independent Scotland is granted admission to the EU, then Scotland will have no more say on the continuing EU membership of the rest of the UK than any other EU nation.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
On a slightly different point, an interesting situation would arise if an independent Scotland were to be allowed to remain in the EU but a UKIP-minded England (dragging Wales and Northern Ireland with it) were to stomp grumpily out.
quote:I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it". The only likely candidate is Spain and I think, when push comes to shove, they'll favour being able to fish in Scottish waters and maintain trade links over trying to get leverage over Catalonia (whose hypothetical membership they could block themselves if it ever came to it). They'll huff and puff about it before hand but it's not worth the trouble for them to refuse Scotland membership.
Originally posted by Cod:
Strictly speaking, Scotland can't "remain" in the EU as it isn't currently a member. A newly-independent Scottish state could in theory become a member as soon as it came into existence, but that would require all EU member states (including the UK) to consent to a variation of the relevant treaties.
It is generally assumed by proponents of Scottish independence that an independent Scotland would be welcomed in. Speaking as a resident of a small country, I think this viewpoint overstates the importance an independent Scotland will have on the international scene, ie, virtually none.
quote:Some willl relocate south to protect their business, e.g. those in the pensions industry, who are already making contingency plans.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In a 'Scotland-in, legacy-UK out' scenario, we could see some UK corporations finding it worth relocating to Scotland;
quote:I never really quite understand why remarks like this are acceptable. They bring nothing to the debate. As it is, the most pig-headed English nationalists would probably be glad to have the Welsh and the Northern Irish off their hands, as they are more clearly a drain on the exchequer than Scotland is likely to bein the future.
possibly Wales and (less plausibly) Northern Ireland might want to follow Scotland. The English Mail/Express/Sun reading public would probably be too pig-headed to draw the obvious conclusion.
quote:This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.
quote:The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
quote:One is well aware that states have the capacity to create structures to support their mutual interests, so that Scotland and rUK could make arrangements for the easy flow of individuals between each other to continue more or less as at present in the event of rUK leaving the EU. Problems arise, however, when there are conflicts of interest. Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy. Scottish Nationalists, however, regard an increase in immigration as a solution to their country's need for greater growth. In any event rUK would not wish Scotland to become an open backdoor for European immigration. That is why border control would be necessary, for even if a Scottish passport allowed for automatic access other nationals would not be so fortunate. The sheep and goats will need to be distinguished at Carlisle and Berwick.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.
This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.
The idea that 'and the next day everything stopped' is a brand of fear mongering. Each country would have far too much invested in both free movement and free trade to allow this. If the time came when they didn't, they *might* sleep walk into that position - but then it wouldn't matter anyway.
quote:...In other words it is possible to use a particular currency without there being a currency union. Scotland, therefore, could autonomously continue to use the pound without permission of rUK. The problem is that the Bank of England would cease to be a lender of last resort and guarantor of Scottish government borrowings, which would adversely affect interest rates on its bonds.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
quote:Sentiment against the EU is equally schizophrenic. A majority of voters would be in favour of staying in the EU providing the terms of staying in could be 'renegotiated' along the lines of which Cameron proposes. Only one point of his seven is specifically connected to immigration, and even that is addressing an issue (EU immigrants seeking benefits) that the Germans already want addressing.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy.
quote:But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
quote:I told you the first two did it without asking. That means all the others did ask. They have signed agreements with the EU.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
quote:Judging by his recent performance during the Juncker fiasco, the possibility of looking foolish and petty is not something that is likely to deter Our Glorious Leader from doing something that he thinks will win him votes at the next election.
I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it".
quote:It's also rather inconsistent, when they have been busily insisting that the voters of Scotland should be allowed to put Scotland's interests first (which I agree with). If they do vote Yes, then the voters of the rest of the UK should be allowed to put their own interests first - and as you say, it's not clear that a formal monetary union with an independent Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK.
I will add that the insistence amongst the Yes camp that it is fair that iScotland is morally entitled to a currency union with the rUK shows a real sense of over-entitlement.
quote:Sure, but one must then accept that one represents a fringe party. If the next general election delivers another hung parliament, the views of Plaid Cymru will count for rather less than those of Labour or the Conservatives, and that is the price they pay for ideological purity.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think there was a sound logic in saying 'we're part of a European Parliamentary group which is federalist in outlook. We're not a federalist party - quite the opposite - so we're going to build our own group'.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
quote:Good point!
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
quote:Surely it would be just as valid for England to have a Governor General when the monarch is in Scotland? The current royals are descended as much from the Scottish kings as the English.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:That's like saying London is already part of the EU and so wouldn't need to apply to be a member state of the EU if it declared independence from the UK. Only states are members of the EU. Scotland isn't a member state of the EU - the UK is. Scotland isn't even a state. I could add, "Yet", but...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject. The interesting question then becomes which, if any, EU member states would veto Scottish accession in order to discourage their own secessionist movements.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:That would have been my understanding of it.
Originally posted by Gee D:
... could it be that the UK continues, and that Scotland alone is new? ...
quote:Sadly, I suspect he's a dangerous blend of the two, with a bit of sly cunning thrown in for good measure.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I can't make up my mind whether Salmond is stupid or just plain dishonest ...
quote:Newsflash for Mr Salmond - the other party in your proposed currency union might perhaps have some say in it too.
The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.
quote:But I don't think this point does have any validity. IMO the pound is an institution or instrument of the UK, like the justice system, the trade agreements we have with various countries, and other things like that. Vote to leave the UK and you vote to leave those institutions.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
quote:No it doesn't - the UK will continue pretty much as is under international law: with clearly defined borders (albeit with a different one in the north), the same governmental institutions (minus the Scottish Office and one or two other minor changes), the same diplomatic representation and, oh yes, the same currency.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:Sorry, yes; Scotland's justice system is already separate so there'd be no problem in that area if the vote is for independence. But the point is that Scotland doesn't already have its own currency / monetary system. A vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave the currency system; I don't see how it can be anything else (without the agreement of both parties, I mean).
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Scotland doesn't share a justice system with the rest of the UK. Or an education system, healthcare system (thank goodness) or a number of other things.
quote:The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
quote:
wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland. The pound will continue to be an asset of the UK, just as it is now. Scotland will have no right or standing to demand that the UK enters into a currency union with it. It can, of course, use the pound if it so desires - but the value of that pound, inflation, interest and so forth will be decided by the Bank of England based on what is best for the UK, not Scotland. If those interests were to differ, Scotland would be the one getting the raw end of the deal- and rightly so as it wouldn't be their currency any more than the US Dollar belongs to any of the other nations that use it.
I'm all for Scottish independence, and I'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. But independence means independence, not clinging on to the institutions and services of the country you just left as if you've still got some kind of claim on them. Independence means making your own way, not expecting the ones you've just left to keep looking after you like some kind of feckless 20-year-old still bringing his washing back to mommy every weekend.
quote:Can you provide a link? These figures from the Office of National Statistics suggest otherwise, although they're referring to households, rather than individuals.
And bearing in mind that Scotland has a higher than average proportion of people entirely dependent on benefits that increased tax burden is going to fall onto a small number of the population.
quote:Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
quote:I have no dog in this fight, but I think that's more or less what is said here:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?
Originally posted by l'organist:
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
quote:Source: Scottish independence: the fiscal context by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Allocating a population-based share of North Sea revenues results in a position for Scottish public finances which (measured both by the current budget and by the net fiscal balance) has been weaker than that of the UK as a whole for the last 30 years, with the gap widening over time from around 2% of GDP in the early 1980s to around 5-7% by the mid-2000s. The gap exists because spending is higher in Scotland. It has widened largely because, as we saw in Section 1.3, tax revenues have risen more slowly in Scotland.
quote:How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.
quote:The simple answer is: the one that's talking about leaving and becoming independent is the breakaway.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.
quote:I did a bit more hunting. I remembered it was to do with a dam. I haven't found the full text of the relevant decision, but it seems that Hungary tried to say it wasn't bound any more by a treaty that it signed with Czechoslovakia, and as far as I can work out the ICJ said that no, the treaty still survived and was now between Hungary and Slovakia.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, not a topic able to be discussed when some of us were at Law School, but my memory is that the Czechs and the Slovaks very quickly reached an agreement about that. I can't remember definitely any more than you, but think it was along the lines that neither was a successor state.
quote:For that matter it is generally agreed that Russia alone was the successor state to the USSR after the latter's collapse in the early 1990s. It was simply so much larger than any of the other post-Soviet states, both in terms of area and of population. Likewise, the remaning UK would be so much larger than Scotland that it would clearly be a sole successor state.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
quote:I've seen it all before. All of this is standard rhetoric for the Parti Québecois and has been for 40 years. Pauline Marois recently mused about keeping the Canadian Dollar and getting a seat for an independent Québec on the board of the Bank of Canada. Her musing were greeted with more guffaws inside Québec than out.
Originally posted by Albertus:
This is typical of the fundamental dishonesty of so much of the Yes campaign. 'We want independence but...'
If they took a Braveheart type line and said 'We must be free or die, our nationhood means more to us than our comfort, we will claim our independence and if we have to live in turf shacks on oatmeal and herrings for a couple of generations, it's a price worth paying', I'd have some respect for them. But not this wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
quote:If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
quote:Well, it clearly does affect the rest of the UK. That's not something I'm going to dispute.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
quote:Well, no, it might be that they think that quite a lot of Scots want more autonomy without going the whole hog of independence. This is a perfectly respectable position and it is possible that it may be quite widespread. I haven't looked the the Scottish polls but there has certainly been a trend here in Wales (where we have less autonomy than the Scots do at present), since devolution, towards more support for devolution and more support for more devolution- but the proportion of Welsh voters wanting independence has stayed remarkably constant at about IIRC 15%.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it's just that they've discovered that Project Fear wasn't enough on its own and couldn't think of any positive reasons to want to be ruled from Westminster.
quote:I think (one of) the problems with Mr Cameron is that he's a much better politician than people give him credit for, and so he tends to wrong foot opponents and even sympathisers from time to time.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If David Cameron doesn't want Scottish Independence, then removing the "third question" was a serious miscalculation ....
quote:This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
quote:I disagree. A vote for DevoMax is kicking the can down the road. Westminster will still be the bogeyman to be blamed for any problems north of the border. Future Salmonds will claim Scots didn't have a fair chance at independence because they were offered a compromise.
Originally posted by Jane R:
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.
From where I'm sitting it looks as if Cameron has taken a huge gamble which is by no means certain to pay off.
quote:Indeed. I was rather hoping my use of such terms as:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:quote:This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove.
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
quote:Oh, and FWIW (speaking as someone broadly supportive of a Yes vote), Mr Salmond is asking us to believe that every other party leader is lying when they say there won't be a currency union, Scotland wouldn't be allowed to just join the EU straightaway, and divers and sundry other things.
Originally posted by Jane R:
In this kind of situation someone who deals honestly with the electorate (instead of treating them like idiots or trying to hold them to ransom) would be preferable.
quote:I think the key point on EU membership is that a newly independent Scotland couldn't remotely be sure of either remaining in the EU or of being waved in as a new member with minimal red tape.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Which is it - would we be foolish to vote for Independence because we might end up out of the EU, or would we be foolish to remain in the Union because there will be a referendum and we might end up out of the EU?
Cameron seems to be saying two different things, depending on whether his audience aspires to remain within, or leave the EU.
quote:Fair enough. But can we be guaranteed that the 2017 referendum will be in favour of the UK remaining in the EU? What if we reject independence because we don't want to risk being outwith the EU and then find ourselves out as part of the UK?
I think the key point on EU membership is that a newly independent Scotland couldn't remotely be sure of either remaining in the EU or of being waved in as a new member with minimal red tape.
quote:Nobody wants to renege. We want to know how to pay. But Cameron, Miliband and Clegg are proposing to cut Scotland adrift economically, with no mechanism to take our share of the National Debt.
if Scotland does renege.
quote:But presumably the same thing will occur even in the event of independence? At present, Scotland is the smaller partner in a union with England. If this relationship is 'oppressive', things will presumably be not that much different should Scotland find herself as a middling European country which is bordered by, and is culturally and economically dominiated by, a major global power?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I disagree. A vote for DevoMax is kicking the can down the road. Westminster will still be the bogeyman to be blamed for any problems north of the border.
quote:I can't imagine why they would be complaining about the UK if they've left it, for daring to remain geographically adjacent to Scotland. .
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But presumably the same thing will occur even in the event of independence? At present, Scotland is the smaller partner in a union with England. If this relationship is 'oppressive', things will presumably be not that much different should Scotland find herself as a middling European country which is bordered by, and is culturally and economically dominiated by, a major global power?
quote:But that's not the responsibility of Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or anyone else. It's the job of Salmond et al to explain what a Plan B might look like and how it would work. But as Salmond lives in Salmondland, where everything he says is automatically true, you're not getting Plan B.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We want to know how this will work, but we're not being told. We need the full picture - not just the "no currency union" bit, which in the absence of detail, sounds suspiciously like a sound bite.
quote:True, but the implications of this
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I don't think anyone wants to walk away from our share - that's blatantly unfair - but that seems to be what will happen under Cameron et al's threat of no currency union.
quote:Oh, I'm sure the international money markets will come up with some sort of a mechanism
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Nobody wants to renege. We want to know how to pay. But Cameron, Miliband and Clegg are proposing to cut Scotland adrift economically, with no mechanism to take our share of the National Debt.
if Scotland does renege.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Sorry, I've just seen this question. To be fair to Mr Cameron there is a certain amount of internal consistency (not totally, but a fair amount, in that he's said he's basically pro-EU if it can be renegotiated, and would be, in the event of a referendum, campaigning to stay in - to that extent the referendum is a sop (and, in the case of an EU referendum I really think he's playing a dangerous game).
Originally posted by North East Quine:
One thing I value about this thread, betjemaniac, is getting a south of the border perspective. I'm very aware that our newspapers are not necessarily saying the same as the newspapers south of the border (e.g. the differences I've already referred to between the spin of the Daily Mail and the spin of the Scottish Daily Mail.)
One impression I think we are getting here is that Cameron et al have two versions of what will happen re the EU; telling the Scots that only by staying in the Union can they guarantee EU membership, because the UK will stay in the EU forever; and simultaneously saying that the UK will have a referendum on the EU and might leave.
Which is it - would we be foolish to vote for Independence because we might end up out of the EU, or would we be foolish to remain in the Union because there will be a referendum and we might end up out of the EU?
Cameron seems to be saying two different things, depending on whether his audience aspires to remain within, or leave the EU.
quote:I agree with you about Alex Salmond, but I think both sides are being - shall we say, economical with the truth? I considered mentioning this earlier, but as the subject under discussion was Cameron I decided not to.
From where I'm sitting the prime treater of people like idiots and holder of people to ransom is sitting in Holyrood. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are actually trying to deal honestly ISTM...
quote:Most Scots have family and / or friends in England. This is political; there is a different political mindset in Scotland and the question is - is it sufficiently different for Scots to want to break away from Westminster completely? We don't want to stop being friends; we just want to do our own thing politically.
No: a substantial minority of Scots confirm that they want no more to do with England, to which they are attached for at least another generation.
quote:Certainly if we keep the pound we will remain economically dominated by England.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Given that we have a separate educational system, a separate legal system and a separate church, I'm not sure I'd agree that we are "culturally dominated" by England at the moment. Economically, yes.
quote:I think maybe it is different enough; which makes it so sad that the SNP has completely failed to set out a convincing answer on the currency issue. According to two recent opinion polls, Salmond's floundering on the currency issue in the debate with Darling has significantly damaged the 'Yes' campaign.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
This is political; there is a different political mindset in Scotland and the question is - is it sufficiently different for Scots to want to break away from Westminster completely?
quote:The attention is on Salmond because he's overwhelmingly the public face of the 'Yes' campaign. Simple as that, isn't it?
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
Posters demonising Alex Salmond really are missing the point, though it is understandable given that so much of the press coverage focusses exclusively on him as if independence was his idea.
quote:So what's your explanation for (a) the negative publicity Salmond has got regarding the currency issue (recently, but also going back over several months), (b) the polling I linked to a few posts earlier, which showed 'No' way ahead and linked this to Salmond's equivocation on the currency issue, and (c) the consistent lead that 'No' has had in the polls?
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
The suggestion that this is about one man pulling the wool over the eyes of one of the most highly-educated and electorally-sophisticated populations on the planet is as ludicrous as it is insulting.
If you are going to have an informed discussion on this issue stop obsessing on Alex Salmond and start looking at the massive social conversation that is actually happening in Scotland.
quote:As I said in my post, it probably does seem like that to you because most of the focus in the London-centered media is on Alex Salmond and takes that very tone.
ISTM the independence campaign is about one man trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate, and largely failing. But I for one would be interested to hear a bit about the conversation you say is taking place in Scotland - do you think the final result will be closer than the polls have been suggesting?
quote:I am not Full of Chips (neither literally nor metaphorically) but here are my answers:
So what's your explanation for (a) the negative publicity Salmond has got regarding the currency issue (recently, but also going back over several months), (b) the polling I linked to a few posts earlier, which showed 'No' way ahead and linked this to Salmond's equivocation on the currency issue, and (c) the consistent lead that 'No' has had in the polls?
quote:But the point I am making is precisely that independence is much bigger than Salmond - that he is, if anything, riding on its coat tails. That there is a huge groundswell of "independence yearning" that has nothing to do with him. That's exactly why I suggested that even after a "no" vote this is unlikely to go away.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
If you are going to have an informed discussion on this issue stop obsessing on Alex Salmond and start looking at the massive social conversation that is actually happening in Scotland.
quote:Yes, that's true! I don't know enough to say how likely it is for the same to happen in the independence campaign, but given that the polls are showing no sign of moving this way, a 'Yes' vote would be mighty embarrassing for many pollsters, commentators etc. We shall see soon, as you say.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
As to polls, up to two weeks before the Scottish General Election the polls had Labour with a 10 point lead and were predicting a Labour / Lib Dem administration again. The SNP got a landslide victory.
quote:So why are the polls still so strongly in favour of 'No', do you think? Surely there isn't a 'Shy Yes' effect; why would people be reluctant to express that view when asked in a poll? Looking in from the outside as I am, it would be a stunning turnaround for Yes to squeak home, never mind win comfortably as you think it will...
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
The Yes campaign has spawned hundreds of different groups and there are well-attended public meetings going on all over Scotland all the time.
What you are seeing in the press is a very narrow representation of this debate.
quote:I've previously posted that the YouGov opinion polls (polling just over 1,000 people) have been pretty consistent for months, and don't show much of a change post-debate. (see my posts yesterday at 13.14 and 13.54)
According to two recent opinion polls, Salmond's floundering on the currency issue in the debate with Darling has significantly damaged the 'Yes' campaign.
quote:In the media south of the border, possibly. I think it's more diverse here.
The attention is on Salmond because he's overwhelmingly the public face of the 'Yes' campaign. Simple as that, isn't it?
quote:I was 9 when Margo MacDonald won Glasgow Govan and 15 at the time of the 1979 vote. We debated it in school and I don't think there's been any point in my life in which the possibility of independence wasn't lurking somewhere in Scottish politics.
ISTM the independence campaign is about one man trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate, and largely failing.
quote:Personally, I think it's too close to call yet. There seems to be a disconnect between what the media are saying, and what I'm seeing around me. It could be that the No voters are the silent majority, and the Yes are just more visible. The No campaign have been putting window posters and car stickers through people's doors, and I've been keeping an eye out to see one actually in a window. On a recent bus ride, I counted 8 Yes posters in windows (plus a few Saltires, but that could be a sporting thing)but no No posters. Ok, we're still 5 weeks away from the vote, and the No posters could appear later, but there seems to be more of a "buzz" about the Yes campaign.
So why are the polls still so strongly in favour of 'No', do you think? Surely there isn't a 'Shy Yes' effect; why would people be reluctant to express that view when asked in a poll?
quote:I genuinely do not know. There are a whole bunch of methodologies the pollsters use to weight their data before they come to final results and to my mind some of that reasoning seems a little circular. For example, they include a question asking what you voted in the 2011 SGE and then re-weght the answers of folks from "underrepresented" political opinion groups to compensate. It is not clear though that party political opinion is that good a guide to referendum choice. Some of them also weight by choice of newspaper, but all of the media (except the weekly Sunday Herald) is in favour of No.
So why are the polls still so strongly in favour of 'No', do you think? Surely there isn't a 'Shy Yes' effect; why would people be reluctant to express that view when asked in a poll? Looking in from the outside as I am, it would be a stunning turnaround for Yes to squeak home, never mind win comfortably as you think it will...
quote:This is a really good question and I've been pondering it. I think that there are a significant minority of people who really want full independence. These are the people who have Yes on their Facebook profile, they have the car stickers, they read the blogs, they regularly contribute small amounts of money to various Independence things. Up here, they're visible and they're buzzing.
So why are the polls still so strongly in favour of 'No', do you think? Surely there isn't a 'Shy Yes' effect; why would people be reluctant to express that view when asked in a poll?
quote:Well, 'No' is the status quo position and, as I think others have said upthread, you don't usually need an enthusiastic campaign for 'let's stay with the way things are'.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
You could equally have asked why there is not the strong grassroots No movement to match that of Yes, given their consistent lead in the polls.
quote:Your analysis makes a lot of sense to me, NEQ. So all on the 'Yes' will be praying for rain on the day, so all the relatively unmotivated / unconcerned 'No' people stay at home!
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So I think there's a disconnect between the visible, on the ground impression of "Yes" and the voting intentions the polls are reporting.
quote:I don't remember this. Do you have a link for Darling (or other high profile 'No' people) saying they thought a currency union would be best for both parties, after a 'Yes' vote? It'd be interesting to see how nuanced their view was, whether there were any major caveats etc.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The pro independence argument, expressed very badly by Salmond in the debate last week, is that currency union would be the best option for the rest of the UK as well as the best for Scotland. That is something that has been admitted by members of the Better Together campaign before the campaign started, including Darling.
quote:Yes, that would be lovely. But Salmond's position is more along the lines of losing a surly lodger - along with their rent payments and deposit - but still being held responsible for all maintenance on their house.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Alex Salmond once said that independence would mean that England lost a surly lodger and gained a good neighbour. Perhaps I'm looking through rose-tinted spectacles but I don't see why that shouldn't happen.
quote:I'd add Lallands Peat Worrier to that list too.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
If you are interested in the conversation taking place in Scotland, have a look at websites like Bella Caledonia, Wings Over Scotland and Derek Bateman's blog. This is the tip of the iceberg.
quote:Here is a link that reports an interview with Darling (includes the Newsnight interview) and mentioning earlier comments. The main nuance for his view is that currency union is a big step towards economic and political union - ie: in Darlings opinion currency union is good because it will eventually lead to a re-union between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Do you have a link for Darling (or other high profile 'No' people) saying they thought a currency union would be best for both parties, after a 'Yes' vote? It'd be interesting to see how nuanced their view was, whether there were any major caveats etc.
quote:If you live in a semi-detached house and your neighbours' house catches fire it is most definitely in your own interests to help them put it out. Why do you think the government helped to prop up the Irish economy in the banking crisis?
...Salmond's position is more along the lines of losing a surly lodger - along with their rent payments and deposit - but still being held responsible for all maintenance on their house.
quote:Nobody is talking about trashing the Scottish economy. We're talking about not doing things that would be detrimental to our own just because they would be better for Scotland.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Trashing the post-independence Scottish economy would not be in the best interests of the rest of the UK, however emotionally satisfying it might be to some.
quote:The Republic (and before that the Free State) was also incredibly poor and industrially undeveloped (the industry obviously being in Belfast) for much of the time. To the extent that the Irish pound was pegged to Sterling for again, most of the time. But then, it wasn't really trading with anyone but the UK at an appreciable level. When the UK joined the EEC, the Republic joined too - it didn't really have a great deal of choice but to fall in line with what the UK was up to. Well, obviously as an independent sovereign nation it did, but in real terms....
Originally posted by Jane R:
the Republic of Ireland has been independent for nearly a century and is still a major trading partner.
quote:.......errr, isn't that an argument for the status quo?
Yes, but the point is that the Scottish economy is intertwined with the economy of the rest of the UK to such an extent that there is some truth in the pro-independence party's claims that what's good for Scotland is good for the rest of the UK. For now.
quote:I'm sure we will get on as neighbours. I think the question is more about the economic and social consequences of rUK say cutting Corporation Tax from 21% to 15% say, while iScotland says "that's unaffordable for our economic plans, we're sticking at 21%" (or vice versa) and watching which way the businesses involved jump. Same for VAT, same for Income Tax, NI, Fuel Duty and virtually everything else.
so why should anyone imagine we won't get on as neighbours?
quote:Nothing, bar the language (and I don't think it should be underestimated how important that is) - and it's an object lesson in why economic unions without political union are a bad idea.
Originally posted by Angloid:
But that divergence already exists everywhere (at least everywhere within 100 miles of a border) in mainland Europe. What is so different?
quote:Since you ask, the wiki primer is here:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Luxembourg is a small state adjacent to Germany, Belgium and France. How does that work?
quote:for the avoidance of doubt and any perceived ambiguity, having just read that back again, to clarify absolutely obviously Amazon and other companies operating in Luxembourg are doing so entirely legally and I meant no suggestion that they are doing anything wrong by fully complying with those regulations. The question is more with the government of Luxembourg about its tax arrangements vs those of other jurisdictions immediately adjacent.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Since you ask, the wiki primer is here:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Luxembourg is a small state adjacent to Germany, Belgium and France. How does that work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg
I think the answer would depend on who you ask. On the one hand, Luxembourg also recognised it's disadvantages vs it's larger neighbours with the signing of exchange and customs union with Belgium in 1921 (and the Netherlands, to create the Benelux, in 1944).
On the other hand, it manages to exist quite nicely as a place where the international elite can hide their money, and is ranked the second safest international tax haven after Switzerland. It's also on the G20 Grey List for nations with "questionable banking practices" (linked source from wiki page above) and famous in the UK for being the home and main centre (cough) of Amazon.
So basically, if it wasn't unfortunately on the way to France from Germany, it's the sort of place, like Switzerland, which it would probably have suited the global elites to leave alone.
In terms of how this works on the ground without upsetting the neighbours, well, it helps that there is a broad political consensus in Luxembourg in favour of political military and economic integration with the neighbours. In terms of what the neighbours think of it, and it's place viz a viz them in terms of tax and sharing a currency:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=criticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SVEE_enGB450GB451&q=cri ticism+of+Luxembourg+tax&gs_l=hp....0.0.1.385127...........0.jWmzrUV5Ovw
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/uk-eu-luxembourg-taxavoidance-idUKBREA2N0IR20140324
amogst others. Er, not good and worsening probably covers it.
quote:One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world, and that it could mean the end of the Kingdom. Swiss cross their borders to shop in Germany, and Germans head south to fill their tanks.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
[QUOTE]There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.[code]
quote:Our local petrol stations have introduced "extra long hoses". But, to reach from Germany to the Netherlands definitely qualifies as "extra long"!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I'm in the Netherlands, I often fill my tank in Germany.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:And I know of plenty of Canucks who live close enough to the border that it makes it worth their while to cross into the States to fill up on petrol and probably do a bit of shopping at the same time. Last time I looked, there wasn't much in the way of barbed wire and border guards to stop it happening.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world, and that it could mean the end of the Kingdom. Swiss cross their borders to shop in Germany, and Germans head south to fill their tanks.
And here's a tip: If you find yourself travelling anywhere near Luxembourg, be sure to tank up. A litre of super goes at about €0.25 cheaper than any of its neighbours. Business has adapted to this by setting up huge filling stations along the motorways in order to cater for Germans, French and Belgians putting in a money-saving pitstop.
quote:Look harder! Where will you ever see a nastier looking bunch of armed thugs protecting their homeland from their allies? When they treat their friends like that, it's no wonder that bombing their enemies - real or imaginary - seems such a casual affair. Having a foot in each camp, I hope that Scotland and England can do better.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Last time I looked, there wasn't much in the way of barbed wire and border guards to stop it happening.
quote:I was quite bemused by his claim that "it is hard to see how the rest of the world would be helped by an independent Scotland."
Originally posted by orfeo:
Honestly, I have no idea what my Prime Minister is doing.
quote:Given the current state of relations between Australia and Russia over the downing of flight MH17, that's not impossible.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wonder whether he had the Russians in mind?
quote:betjemaniac's point is that it already has.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world...
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
[QUOTE]There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.[code]
quote:Um, no, that WASN'T the point at all. The point was a claim that it was only okay for this to happen if there was a body of water in the way. To which the response was that Continental Europe has been coping just fine without water barriers.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:betjemaniac's point is that it already has.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:One thing which puzzles me about the British (but maybe particularly the English) is that they think up a problem like this and assume it has never happened anywhere else in the world...
There's already cues at petrol stations and supermarkets on whichever side of the ROI/UK border happens to be cheaper when the financials come out of step. This is going to be that on a much bigger scale, and without the practical barrier of the Irish Sea to cushion the two sides. A small, knowledge based business can up sticks 100 miles up the road without too much trouble if it thinks it's going to advantage the bottom line.
<sarcasm>"One thing which puzzles me about those pesky Continentals is how they think the English never pay attention to what goes on in the outside universe (by which they mean Europe)"</sarcasm>.
quote:Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:This could become a problem in the event of a yes. Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK. That puts a question mark over open borders for security as well as immigration.
Originally posted by agingjb:
I do wonder about delays at the border crossings. I can't see any permutation of EU membership and Schengen agreements on the part of England and Scotland that will permit complete freedom of movement.
(Delays at the road crossings between the USA and Canada south of Vancouver were running at 30 to 40 minutes recently, and the USA and Canada are considerably more amicable than England and Scotland are likely to be.)
quote:I think there are signs that people are waking up to it in England. I noticed Freedland's comments in the Guardian, but that was more to do with sadness.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
The "Nos" are a muted majority; the "Yesses" are ebullient.
There is going to be a "No" rally, but it's by the (cringe) Orange Order and the majority of the No campaigners are actively disassociating themselves from it.
From where I sit, it's too close to call.
quote:In a word, no. Even at the height of the 'troubles' I don't remember delays of any kind. In fact, I don't even recall ever being stopped.
Are there delays at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
quote:Salmond indicated he had a desire to see an immigration policy that attracted skilled workers to Scotland. Not sure how that can be read as a 'more relaxed' policy, although I'm sure the Daily Mail could spin a column out of it somehow.
Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK
quote:Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.
quote:Except Westminster wont be burdened down leftwards by all those Scottish MP's.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I suspect that David Cameron will be blamed and if he doesn't stand down (or indicate a timetable for his resignation ie after negotiations) the Tories could be punished. For better or worse we could have some breakthroughs for minority parties (UKIP, Greens).
quote:Cameron, May, Hague and Hammond would be firmly on the left of such a coalition. Osborne or Gove for PM?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.
* in the event of a UKIP/Tory coalition
quote:Lol; well, yes. You make a fair point.
Well since Cameron is leading the UK into an immigration policy of "practically no one at all, even if they're skilled" ... that's a significant relaxation.
quote:There is one.
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think there are any Conservative MP's from Scottish constituencies, so it would be no great loss to us.
quote:Well the SNP seem to think they want to have a different immigration policy to the English one according to their own website. Lazy reference to the Daily Mail doesn't cut it. If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Spawn:
quote:Salmond indicated he had a desire to see an immigration policy that attracted skilled workers to Scotland. Not sure how that can be read as a 'more relaxed' policy, although I'm sure the Daily Mail could spin a column out of it somehow.
Salmond has indicated a more relaxed immigration policy than rUK
quote:Why would there need to be border controls? If Mr X has a visa that allows him to work in Scotland an English employer would not be able to (legally) employ him unless he also gets a corresponding visa from the remaining UK. AIUI, border controls stop very few people entering any country intending to live and work there without the relevant visa/residence/work permits. Cracking down on criminals (in this case employers falsifying tax records etc to employ someone who doesn't have the relevant permission to work) happens inside the country, not at the borders.
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Some would say it's not as scary as being governed by a bunch of pseudo-fascists* voted for by people more than 300 miles away.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is scary, but I can see the appeal.
* in the event of a UKIP/Tory coalition
quote:Yes, that was pretty much by reaction as well. Borders define whether you're allowed to step foot inside a country, but have very little bearing on what you're going to do or be allowed to do once inside there.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why would there need to be border controls? If Mr X has a visa that allows him to work in Scotland an English employer would not be able to (legally) employ him unless he also gets a corresponding visa from the remaining UK. AIUI, border controls stop very few people entering any country intending to live and work there without the relevant visa/residence/work permits. Cracking down on criminals (in this case employers falsifying tax records etc to employ someone who doesn't have the relevant permission to work) happens inside the country, not at the borders.
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.
Having an additional national border to the north of Cumbria and Northumberland is going to make very little difference. There would, presumably, be cooperation between Scottish and UK border officials such that if someone flies into Glasgow it will be noticed if they fail to leave within 90d (ie: on a tourist visa waiver), even if they leave from Manchester. Indeed, the majority of people would still enter Scotland via England anyway - there are few direct flights from outside Europe into Scottish airports, the majority of international travellers to Scotland use a major hub, often Heathrow.
quote:That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).
Originally posted by agingjb:
The problem with a border crossing is not the actual time taken to make the check, it is the queues that build up on roads and in airports waiting for the check to made.
But clearly my concerns are not shared here.
quote:So, "Yes" then.
Originally posted by deano:
Then they will vote with their wallets and purses, and what it will mean to their children, just like in all elections.
quote:In contrast to the reported large indifference to the vote in England, it seems a matter of considerable interest here. By far the most common reaction from people learning I'm from Scotland is to ask me about the referendum.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's hard to imagine a huge rally in London asking Scots to stay. Maybe this is a factor as well, a lot of English people seem to feel bored or alright, fuck off then.
quote:Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I think there are signs that people are waking up to it in England. I noticed Freedland's comments in the Guardian, but that was more to do with sadness.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Unless the Better Together campaign have some amazing surprise up their sleeves this won't happen here.
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign.
The "Nos" are a muted majority; the "Yesses" are ebullient.
There is going to be a "No" rally, but it's by the (cringe) Orange Order and the majority of the No campaigners are actively disassociating themselves from it.
From where I sit, it's too close to call.
But it's hard to imagine a huge rally in London asking Scots to stay. Maybe this is a factor as well, a lot of English people seem to feel bored or alright, fuck off then.
I mean, is there a lot of love for Scotland coming through in England? I don't see it.
quote:Possibly, although a willingness to engage in discussion of the issues beyond what is necessary for politeness implies a real interest.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't that at least partly because it feels more constructive than "Oh really ? I went to Edinburgh once, its a beautiful city isn't it ?"
quote:But, a rally is an opportunity for all residents in England, not just those who are high profile, to have their say. Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.
Which makes a rally somewhat problematic.
quote:I wonder whether the English will be less forgiving with David Cameron if he gives an independant Scotland anything. I mean, from our point of view you will have made it perfectly clear you don't care for us, so why should we let you have anything?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).
quote:It's a Sunday so I shan't swear, but how on earth does the school one's parents decided to send one to affect the validity of one's views on the dismemberment of one's country?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
quote:I'm not sure that rally did anything except make what we used to call the ROC feel better.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What saved Canada in 1995 was the final two weeks of the referendum campaign. There was a huge rally for national unity in Montreal, completely against Quebec's referendum funding rules. The rest of the country had been tearing it hair out at being excluded from the debate; it wanted and needed a way to show it cared about Quebec.
No, it wasn't a totally cynical ploy, it was a palpable demonstration that this country did not want to die because people still believed in it.
...
quote:It shouldn't. That doesn't mean it isn't perceived as relevant in a campaign where one side has large grass roots support with spokespeople largely from working/lower middle class backgrounds, and the other side has mainly upper middle class spokespeople. If the Better Together campaign wants to appeal to the same people as those who strongly support the Yes campaign then getting a group of people perceived as "English Toffs" to do the talking isn't going to work very well. A display of support for the Better Together from people the audience can identify with, other working/lower middle class people, would be effective. Which is why a rally (or several in different cities) in support of Better Together might be a vote winner - if it wasn't predominantly Orange Order!
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It's a Sunday so I shan't swear, but how on earth does the school one's parents decided to send one to affect the validity of one's views on the dismemberment of one's country?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
Besides which, is the vitriolic, hateful abuse that CyberNats spew out against their fellow Scots directed only at public-school educated Better Together campaigners or is it indiscriminate? I strongly suspect the latter.
quote:It should never have been taken off the table. Scots wanted a 3 question referendum - No, DevoMax, Yes. I read a recent poll which said that 71% of Scots would have voted for DevoMax.
The other side of the "Its really close? Oh God what are we going to do!?!??!?!!" last two week efforts is the outright bribery now rearing its head from Westminster. "If you vote no, now we will give you x". Shoulda been there months ago. Now its just all looks so cynical.
quote:Well, it's become both ironic and farcical that Cameron is now relying on Miliband, Darling and Gordon Brown, so toxic has the Tory brand become north of the border. The leader of the Scottish Tories even helpfully suggested that the Tories would lose the next election, perhaps to assuage Scottish fears of Tory/UKIP!
Originally posted by North East Quine:
By way of an example I give you Exhibit A. David Cameron who gave an interview last week about his love of all things Scottish. He referred to his step-father-in-law, Lord Astor, who has a hunting / shooting / fishing estate in Jura, where DC enjoys holidays.
That is a PR disaster. No Scot will warm to DC when he aligns himself with absentee landlords and the extremely rich.
In fact it was such a stupid line to take, one might even suspect that David Cameron would welcome a "Yes" vote.
quote:But I don't think anything has changed, has it? It was always going to be the case that David Cameron wasn't going to be front and centre in any campaign. Early on, Salmond challenged the Prime Minister to a TV debate and Cameron refused.
Well, it's become both ironic and farcical that Cameron is now relying on Miliband, Darling and Gordon Brown
quote:Why disbelief about this? I don't understand.
People are also saying that many landowners have planted 'No' placards in their fields. You couldn't make it up.
quote:Think The Clearances.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why disbelief about this? I don't understand.
quote:Any yes vote in Scotland is likely to be motivated by the same factors that led to yes votes in the 1997 and 2011 referendums in Wales, namely to reduce London's say in how Wales is governed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wasn't disbelieving it. I mean that the big landowners of course don't want independence; I'm sure that the wealthy in general don't. The yes vote is surely in part a leftwards shift, and in fact, supposedly the Labour vote is shifting to yes.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:It would have be interesting to have held an rUK advisory vote two weeks before the actual referendum - that would have provided a fairly salient piece of information to the referendum voters.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:But, a rally is an opportunity for all residents in England, not just those who are high profile, to have their say. Yes, when some public school Oxbridge graduate in public office or business opens their mouth they're going to get a snide response from the Yes campaign. Thousands of ordinary comprehensive educated people on the streets of England can't be easily dismissed.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Every time any high profile English person says they think the Scots should vote no, they get told to fuck off with their patronising crap by the yes campaign - with the heavy insinuation that such pronouncements actually bolster the yes campaign.
Which makes a rally somewhat problematic.
quote:Well, either you do England as a unit, or county clusters based on population. I think Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland / Norway. I guess it would go by region, as a fair few public services and other national bits and pieces are organised that way.
Originally posted by Stephen:
For a while I've been thinking that a federation would not be a bad thing.......the elephant in the room is England - the largest country with no devolution at all. Yet England itself is quite a complex fact .....
How would it work? An English Assembly/Parliament or further devolution of England's different regions?
I can't honestly say though that I'm enthusiastic about the UK dissolving.......
quote:Voting solely on the latter would presumably break shed loads of anti-discrimination legislation?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
(And frankly I think its weird that referendum voting rights are determined solely by residency - not, say, being born in Scotland and / or having parents born in Scotland.)
quote:This has already been tried. The north-east was offered a regional assembly. They voted against one. The whole thing was shelved.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well, either you do England as a unit, or county clusters based on population. I think Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland / Norway. I guess it would go by region, as a fair few public services and other national bits and pieces are organised that way.
quote:There may be no need for border controls. It depends whether Scotland has Schengen opt-out and a markedly different immigration policy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why would there need to be border controls?
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the policy of the two countries diverges considerably there will have to be border controls.
quote:It's not really embarrassing is it? The point Milliband is making is that if Scotland doesn't have an opt out from Schengen there'll have to be border checkpoints. That's why Ireland opted out when the UK did because it had a land border with UK. And that is why no-one is manning the border crossing because they have the same opt out.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
For instance, I was reading only tonight an article in a newspaper that was talking about setting up border posts to check crossings, mention of Visa'a and how it would be up to England to protect its borders because Scotland would be so loose and useless. It was even quoting Miliband as saying roughly the same things (although I have no idea if he really did). It is this sort of thing that feeds the wrong type of 'yes' vote and makes the government look thoroughly stupid and incompetent. They care so much about the border between Ireland and the Uk that it's not got a single real person manning it anymore. Sooner or later, someone in the press or the 'yes' campaign is going to point out this potentially embarrassing fact.
quote:Great observation, this, and something the Westminster elite just doesn't get. (If they even remember the Church of Scotland exists.)
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[...] I don't think the notion of Presbyterian equality should be underestimated as a cultural factor either. [...]
quote:There has been a tendency for Better Together to create an impression that they (or Westminster government) are a parent who knows best telling a young child how to behave. Like any parent who has repeatedly failed to get children to behave by other means they resort to the exasperated "behave and you'll get a treat" method.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
From the outside looking in, the sort of 'offers' (if that's what they can even be called) that have all of a sudden appeared on the table seem to be a little like telling a child that if it plays nice it will get sweets later.
quote:The reason Scotland was never conquered by the Normans is only because King David I of Scotland invited the Normans in and gave them lots of land in return for them defending his borders. The lowland Scots elite is just as Norman as the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by Byron:
Never having been conquered by the Normans, Scotland's class system is markedly different to England's.
quote:David also had a habit of invading England with
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason Scotland was never conquered by the Normans is only because King David I of Scotland invited the Normans in and gave them lots of land in return for them defending his borders. The lowland Scots elite is just as Norman as the rest of the UK.
quote:His predecessor Malcolm was equally found of harrying northern England, and his eventual defeat by the Normans was far from crushing (he got lands in Cumbria in return for giving his loyalty to William the Bastard).
an execrable army, more atrocious than the pagans, neither fearing God nor regarding man, spread desolation over the whole province and slaughtered everywhere people of either sex, of every age and rank, destroying, pillaging and burning towns, churches and houses.
quote:I think it will probably be painful, and also there will be anger on both sides; in fact, I think this is already happening. However, I don't think that is a bar to it; separations are often painful, but may be still positive.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
If Scotland does go independent, I suspect, ideally, when the financial bits are worked out, it will be a parting as between the Czechs and Slovaks: both immensely decent people. If it happens it doesn't have to be painful. As someone with both English and Scottish ancestors, I think you two nations can still show the world how to do things if you put your minds to it.
quote:I'm struck by the parallel between this and differing notions of divorce.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:I wonder whether the English will be less forgiving with David Cameron if he gives an independant Scotland anything. I mean, from our point of view you will have made it perfectly clear you don't care for us, so why should we let you have anything?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That presupposes some form of check point. The Scottish Government is seeking a mandate to enter negotiations, and on this point are not seeking any form of border check. So, you'll just drive down the M74 straight onto the M6. No stops (well, aside from the inevitable road works and associated tail backs).
quote:An some couples vow to bring in the lawyers and end up spending every last scrap on legal fees. Translate lawyers to politicians and there's a fair risk that more important things will be ignored in a mutual vendetta.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Some couples vow to bring in the lawyers and fight for every last scrap of property.
quote:Perhaps this has not happened because many working/lower middle class people would rather like to opt out of being governed from London themselves?
A display of support for the Better Together from people the audience can identify with, other working/lower middle class people, would be effective.
quote:No it would be insane not to police the border if Scotland's immigration policy poses a security risk. That would be an issue of negotiation.
Originally posted by agingjb:
So, the Irish frontier is lightly policed because both countries have opted out of an agreement to make frontiers more open.
It would, of course, be unpopular and almost insane to impose significant border controls, but with angry politicians who knows?
quote:Why would that make any difference?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.
quote:Some may think this might make a few undecided voters to go all fluffy and vote 'No'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Why would that make any difference?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.
quote:Quite. My understanding (from reading the British press, anyway) was that the Australian republican movement suffered a bit of a setback when confronted with a bouncing baby Prince George. Spending the remainder of the campaign cooing over how delightful the Countess of Strathearn looks would I think, on balance, be beneficial to the Better Together campaign.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Some may think this might make a few undecided voters to go all fluffy and vote 'No'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Why would that make any difference?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perfect timing.
quote:I think you underestimate massively the depth of feeling around this issue north of the border.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Of course, this won't wash with the right-on, leftie Scots Nats shipmates who like to discuss the finer points of the Schengen Agreement, but then we're not exactly typical voters, are we?
quote:Suggesting that only some mythical species of 'leftie right-on scottish nat' is actually engaged in the intricacies of what independence means is fairly deluded.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I guess we'll find out in just under a fortnight!
quote:I'm fairly sure that opportunities to buy Hello magazine will not be affected by a Yes vote.
Spending the remainder of the campaign cooing over how delightful the Countess of Strathearn looks would I think, on balance, be beneficial to the Better Together campaign.
quote:Indeed. And the Royals are very popular in the USA, despite the fact that the Americans fought a war to assert their independence from the British monarchy...
I'm fairly sure that opportunities to buy Hello magazine will not be affected by a Yes vote.
quote:Because it would have won outright. Now that full independence might win, it's ruled back in.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The Westminster politicians seem to be falling over themselves, offering 'new powers' to a Scottish government - but then why was devo-max ruled out on the ballot paper?
quote:The irony is that 'right-on lefties' south of the border won't be so keen on a 'Yes' vote, since it will largely entrench a Conservative majority in Westminster.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Of course, this won't wash with the right-on, leftie Scots Nats shipmates who like to discuss the finer points of the Schengen Agreement, but then we're not exactly typical voters, are we?
quote:They can't change the question on the ballot; they can try and put forward the idea that voting No results in some form of Devo-Max. A variant of 'vote no and get more'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Except that they can't re-introduce Devo Max at this stage, because people have already started sending in postal votes.
quote:They've been doing that for quite some time; in fact Doublethink remarked on it on this thread on 9 Aug.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:They can't change the question on the ballot; they can try and put forward the idea that voting No results in some form of Devo-Max. A variant of 'vote no and get more'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Except that they can't re-introduce Devo Max at this stage, because people have already started sending in postal votes.
quote:What they're doing now is putting more emphasis on this and trying to make it seem "new." The only thing which is new is the promise of a clear timeline.
Theres a weird dynamic in the no campaign though, which is to respond to the independence campaign with the promise of more autonomy.
quote:Up to a point - I think the tone and emphasis has changed in recent days in the direction of inducements - you are welcome to disagree.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
They've been doing that for quite some time; in fact Doublethink remarked on it on this thread on 9 Aug.
quote:In the context of the history of scottish referendums, details are something new - because vague promises were previously tried.
These offers will only seem "new" to people who haven't been paying much attention up to now
quote:I agree about the tone and emphasis having changed. However, I think they're just polishing up previous inducements.
Up to a point - I think the tone and emphasis has changed in recent days in the direction of inducements - you are welcome to disagree.
quote:Am I the only one who remembers that the Conservatives failed to win a majority in the last election, and that the Lib Dems made a surge because of Clegg's promises on tuition fees etc.? The fact that he broke those promises is not indicative of some English-led conspiracy but one of weak leadership on his part.
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.
quote:How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
quote:I'm not sure that Alex Salmond and the Tartan Tories are terribly different, in terms of economic policy, from that nice Mr Blair. For example, the Scottish Parliament has never used it's tax raising powers since devolution. Mr Salmond is currently offering Scots rUK levels of taxation with Nordic Social Democracy, despite the attendant loss of English subsidy that will follow from independence. (Not to mention the financial uncertainty which will follow from the loss of the currency.)
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.
quote:Can you give examples of anti-English cybernatting? I thought their main target had been fellow Scots who support the "No" campaign?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
quote:Ha, I think we'll see the failure of that vision as we are witnessing in France. In the event of a yes vote there'll be bills to pay and tax rises. After the inevitable period of austerity, Scotland will probably reinvent Scottish conservatism in a different guise.
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.
quote:He appears to be the Chair of the Campaign for an English Parliament, which appears to be a kind of UKIP without the easy multiculturalism.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'd never heard of Eddie Bone. Is he a serious figure? The idea that Scots might be "punished" for voting No isn't much of an inducement to do so!
quote:I had heard that same quote last week credited to Paul Nuttall, who is apparently the UKIP MEP for North West England.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Incidentally, a quote by Eddie Bone “If and when the Scots ‘bottle it’ on 18 September and vote no, they will see a stronger English voice because the people of England have had enough of Scottish self-indulgence" is circulating widely here.
I'd never heard of Eddie Bone. Is he a serious figure? The idea that Scots might be "punished" for voting No isn't much of an inducement to do so!
quote:Just in case anyone is wondering:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, just let the Scots go off and do their thing.
Yes, many of us suspect it will end in tears - while many (most?) Scots seem not to have learned about Darien some of the rest of us did.
But if they go off and do their own thing we need to ensure that we don't bail them out again - the economic value of bailing them out of the Darien fiasco would be £7.1 trillion today.
Too much then, definitely too much now.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Beyond the normal anti-English sentiment that is prevalent in Scotland you mean? I mean if you have normalised it...
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
quote:So to you the most important decision made by the Scottish people is nothing more that a prelude to an experiment you would like to run? Even given that mostly that experiment has failed given enough time?
Originally posted by Angloid:
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.
quote:As far as I can tell (from here), the rules are the same as those applied to Scottish students, except the requirement of three years ordinary residence is "in the non-UK EU" rather than "in Scotland".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A non UK EU student would need to apply to SAAS for support in paying tuition fees. There are complex eligibility rules, and successful application just on the grounds of being an EU national is not certain.
quote:Hmm....don't get your hope up. You're dealing with two smaller countries don't forget and the tax base will be less. The same will be true of the reminder of the UK of course.....and Alex Salmond wants to reduce Corporation Tax
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't think it's about 'disliking' each other. There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
As an English supporter of Scottish independence, it seems to me that the Scots see the possibility of their nation being free from the pernicious neo-liberalism which has driven their values, and the values of successive (Tory and New Labour) English dominated UK governments, further apart.
I am hoping for a Yes vote so that we can shortly see, at very close quarters, that a nation can flourish which is based on basically democratic socialist values.
quote:For example I thought the use of 'Quisling' had an anti-English vibe to it.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Can you give examples of anti-English cybernatting? I thought their main target had been fellow Scots who support the "No" campaign?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How would you describe the behaviour of, for example, 'CyberNats'?
Originally posted by Angloid:
There has been little anti-English sentiment around in the Yes camp.
quote:It would be interesting to see how the dissolution of the present Union would affect Ulster, right enough.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I am really surprised by the number of English who are taking this line. I hope that there is a silent majority who would deeply regret the Scots leaving. Do we really dislike each other that much?
Personally I am worried by the effect a Yes vote would have on Northern Ireland. I think it could well start a new round of arguments there, perhaps with an added "Independent Ulster" movement (I don't think I'd like the look of that one).
[edit: reply to L'organist]
quote:The main difference between non-Scottish UK students and other EU students is that the UK (well, England as Scotland, Wales and NI all have their own schemes) charges relatively high tuition fees - most of the rest of Europe have either no tuition fees or very much lower fees. The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation. If you're English and attend an English university you would pay a substantial tuition fee, therefore if you attend a Scottish university you pay a similar fee. If you're Austrian and attend an Austrian university you do not pay a tuition fee, therefore if you attend a Scottish university you do not pay a tuition fee. Independence will not, ISTM, change that.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:As far as I can tell (from here), the rules are the same as those applied to Scottish students, except the requirement of three years ordinary residence is "in the non-UK EU" rather than "in Scotland".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A non UK EU student would need to apply to SAAS for support in paying tuition fees. There are complex eligibility rules, and successful application just on the grounds of being an EU national is not certain.
Foreigners don't seem to get loans or bursaries - just their fees paid.
quote:That is neither my understanding of the rules as expressed on the SAAS website nor my understanding of EU law. Clearly you work for a Scottish University and I don't, so none of my opinions here are first hand, but still:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.
quote:The difference with Scotland, of course, is that English students all speak the language, more or less, and the current situation is that many / most students choose between the "big name" universities throughout the UK with little concern for which country the university happens to be in.
It is, however, the case that an English student could go to an Austrian university and not pay fees. But, the number of British students choosing to study in other parts of Europe is very small (at least full time), so it isn't a substantial burden on universities or government budgets.
quote:I genuinely find it hard to understand what's supposed to have been "learnt" from Darien, beyond 'best not to sink too much money into a speculative colony in Panama'.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, many of us suspect it will end in tears - while many (most?) Scots seem not to have learned about Darien some of the rest of us did.
quote:The UK and Ireland aren't in Schengen. The CTA isn't compatible with Schengen, except in the trivial case of all CTA members joining Schengen (as CTA members agree to maintain & cooperate on their outward border checks, and Schengen forbids border checks between members.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's doesn't seem any reason why an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the same arrangement.
quote:Well, democracy just sucks. As it's been famously said, the worst possible form of government - except for all the others (paraphrase).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Scotland's complaints that it never elected a Tory government are no more relevent than saying London, with twice the population of Scotland, didn't either, or that rural Cambridgeshire never elected a Labour government. That's democracy.
quote:Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Many things will stay the same, and a Londoner will still be able to visit his granny in Glasgow. But where it will lead all the micro nations of the British Isles in terms of world trade and future prosperity for any of us is anyone's guess and it fills me with fear!
quote:Alan, you need to come back to this point. I don't think it's true but given you're in the University system you may be able to defend it. You may be right about high fees in English Universities compared to the rest of Europe but that's irrelevant. If you have rules about equal access across the EU you can't discriminate.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.
quote:EU membership is ultimately a matter of negotiation. It's not like the EU is just going to look at the terms Scotland asks for and say "computer says no". There will be some horse trading, a little media manipulation and probably a series of face-saving gestures which involve Scotland committing to all the "obligations" in the fullness of time just... not yet. The EU is not served be excluding Scotland and even the likes of Spain aren't going to want to embarrass themselves with too much of a flounce over the issue; knowing that if it ever comes to Catalan independence they can just veto anyway.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
New entrants to the EU are obliged to join Schengen. If Scotland were treated as a new EU member, it would have to join Schengen, and so couldn't join the CTA.
quote:Which would break the law on free movement of people within the EU.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not an economist, and I've no idea how the figures would work out, but personally, I'd let the English students study for free, but make some provision that they have to remain here for two years post-graduation?
quote:On the other hand, a lot of foreign students may be less interested in studying in Scotland, if they won't have any advantage in getting a job in one of the large English cities as a result of whatever visa rules come into play.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
To be honest, Uriel, the aspect that interests me most is entrance requirement inflation. With a huge influx of English students, Scottish Universities would end up asking for very high entrance requirements, which could squeeze average Scots kids out of a place. My son wouldn't have got a Uni place if the entrance requirements had been higher. That worries me.
quote:I'm pretty sure that there are not specific EU regulations or legislation regarding charging of tuition fees. So, it's a question of secondary application of more general laws, the most commonly cited are laws against discrimination based on nationality - within the EU you can't have one law for the French and another for the Germans. Although there are various ways of allowing this in practice - the most common is discrimination in favour of home nationals on the basis of a period of residency - thus a nation could pass a law restrict access to a particular benefit to anyone who has been resident within that country for 5 years, this will clearly include all citizens of that country but exclude most other EU nationals. And, there are bases for allowing discriminatory practice on the basis of public interest - which could be security linked (eg: no foreign nationals allowed to work on military sites), or economic (some countries prioritise home students for strategically important university courses, medical courses being the most common).
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Alan, you need to come back to this point. I don't think it's true but given you're in the University system you may be able to defend it. You may be right about high fees in English Universities compared to the rest of Europe but that's irrelevant. If you have rules about equal access across the EU you can't discriminate.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The way the system currently works in Scotland is that EU students pay fees according to the standard of their home nation.
quote:As far as I'm aware, non-EU students enter the UK (or A.N.Other EU country) on a student visa. When they finish their studies they need to apply for a different visa to remain. That could, of course, be another student visa if they wish to continue studies on another course. If it was to work then they would need to have a specific job offer prior to applying. The majority of students, of course, finish their studies and return to work in their home country.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
On the other hand, a lot of foreign students may be less interested in studying in Scotland, if they won't have any advantage in getting a job in one of the large English cities as a result of whatever visa rules come into play.
Apologies if it's been covered in this thread already, but how will visas work for non-EU students and workers? I'm wondering if an Asian/African/American who gets a job in Scotland will be "stuck" there.
quote:I can't speak for PaulTH*, of course, especially with regard to his particular points made here. And 'fear' might be too strong a word for what some Northern Irish people might feel about a 'yes' vote in Scotland. But the re-drawing of political and cultural identities for an already rather insecure and not very powerful population - divided as it is anyway - is surely rather obviously not going to be a comfortable or welcome experience?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Many things will stay the same, and a Londoner will still be able to visit his granny in Glasgow. But where it will lead all the micro nations of the British Isles in terms of world trade and future prosperity for any of us is anyone's guess and it fills me with fear!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.
quote:For reference, I'm an American who came to the UK as a student, stayed on a work visa, and now have indefinite leave to remain. We don't all go back.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As far as I'm aware, non-EU students enter the UK (or A.N.Other EU country) on a student visa. When they finish their studies they need to apply for a different visa to remain. That could, of course, be another student visa if they wish to continue studies on another course. If it was to work then they would need to have a specific job offer prior to applying. The majority of students, of course, finish their studies and return to work in their home country.
quote:Para alentar a los demás.
Gildas: whatever the Spanish is for "pour encourager les autres"
quote:I think it is true that there is a perceived connection, but 'perceived' is the precise term here, as is the 'perceived' connection with Britain as a whole, which is more aligned to the BNP and UKIP than with what Britain and Scotland actually is today. Part of the problem is that Northern Ireland has often been ignored. When the recent flag protests were ongoing, David Cameron appeared to have veered too close to a cat that ate his tongue. Even more recently the first minister uttered disgusting racism publicly that would have resulted in instant dismissal anywhere else in the UK. They have been allowed to play political games like Enoch Powell is still alive in Britain and represents mainline views and opinion. In the event of a 'yes' vote (even in the face of a 'no' vote) Northern Ireland has to wake up to the fact that the Britain it espouses no longer bears any relation to what Britain is today, which to be honest, I think can only be a good thing. If a 'yes' vote goes through, suddenly a lot of Ulster Scot's makey upey language signs (that really have only been erected to intimidate certain locals - in much the same way Irish signs were erected among a non-Irish speaking community) will rapidly disappear, which will be enough to indicate to anyone with half a brain that there was no original interest in a made up language like Ulster Scots and that the whole thing was a ridiculous political game. This, and the disappearance of other similar things in this regard, can only be good.
For many of the Northern Irish - as Scots-Irish descendents with a still very real connection to and tradition of language, politics and culture in Scots-Irishness - their strongest alliance, in terms of national identity, is perhaps with the Scots. It is where, arguably, the seat of mainland Britishness resides for the Ulsterman, apart from the presence of the Queen herself - who is a British queen first and foremost, not merely an English monarch.
quote:Does anyone really think "No" will be translated to "DevoMax"? No will mean no, not DevoMax, not even DevoJustALittleBitToKeepThemHappy. It'll be jam tomorrow at the very best.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The thing that struck me yesterday, when the Unionist parties announced that they were going to shovel new powers north of the border in the event of a 'No' vote was this:
Eighteen months ago, Cameron deliberately ruled out a 3rd option - Devo Max - on the ballot paper, preferring a straight Independence / Status Quo choice.
As of yesterday, the choice is Independence / Devo Max.
Where do the people who wanted the Status Quo maintained put their marks? Are these folk essentially disenfranchised? If so, how many of them will stay at home rather than voting 'No'?
quote:An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.
quote:At present the UK policy is such that they'd be lucky to get a student visa, let alone a post-study work visa. So, post independence the people you know might not have very much choice, there simply won't be as many visas available to take up a job in London. Being more sensible about such things, in an Independent Scotland they'd be welcome to contribute their skills to the common good. Edinburgh, or other Scottish location, can become a thriving cosmopolitan financial and cultural centre while London is starved of the international talent by immigration policies fuelled by fear of UKIP.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I know a few Canadians, Americans, South Africans who were at Edinburgh/St Andrews/Heriot Watt who now live and work in London. Their fields of work are all pretty London-centric (corporate finance, fashion, media), and at the time we were students there was a one year post-study work visa and a highly skilled migrant program that allowed those who came from abroad to do BAs or MAs to stay and pursue work anywhere in the UK. So had they been in an independent Scotland they wouldn't have been able to come to London for work.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not aware of foreign students coming to Scotland and paying full fees as a route to a job in England, but, as I say, my knowledge is limited to personal experience. I don't have facts and figures.
quote:If we accept that London is some kind of horrible black hole for a moment, why would Scottish independence stop activity being sucked into it? Borders would be open so people would be free to move to London if they so wished, and if Scots continue to use the pound there will presumably still be a great deal of economic interdependence.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.
quote:An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If we accept that London is some kind of horrible black hole for a moment, why would Scottish independence stop activity being sucked into it? Borders would be open so people would be free to move to London if they so wished, and if Scots continue to use the pound there will presumably still be a great deal of economic interdependence.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland might not see all the activity in those industries sucked into that Black Hole we call London. It's one of the reasons that if Scotland votes for independence it's a shame we can't redraw the border somewhere south of Chesterfield.
France hasn't been ruled from London for a very long time but that hasn't stopped Parisian bankers fleeing away from President Hollande's socialism to the City.
quote:The fuckers do that anyway, sucking the life out of most of England, never mind Scotland; that's why I refer to that London as a black hole. Where's the HQ of the Halifax for example? It's not in the West Riding - there's a clue.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Indeed, a vote for independence may very well result in businesses based in Scotland relocating to England, which will probably mean...er...London. It could easily cut both ways.
quote:England population: 53 million
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Being more sensible about such things, in an Independent Scotland they'd be welcome to contribute their skills to the common good. Edinburgh, or other Scottish location, can become a thriving cosmopolitan financial and cultural centre while London is starved of the international talent by immigration policies fuelled by fear of UKIP.
quote:Well, how about the useful lesson that putting all your eggs into one speculative basket can be catastrophic?
I genuinely find it hard to understand what's supposed to have been "learnt" from Darien, beyond 'best not to sink too much money into a speculative colony in Panama'.
quote:There are many people in Greece and Cyprus who wish they could become part of Germany! Since 1951 the German economy has been well-run, disciplined and able to sustain such shocks as absorbing a region that increased its land area by more than 30% with an infrastructure either untouched since 1945 or so badly built that it was crumbling to dust, and with little modern manufacturing capability.
What else is supposed to have been learned that is relevant to the 21st century? I mean, look what happens to countries now that get into financial trouble. They have IMF plans and what have you, but they don't get taken over by a larger neighbour. No-one suggested that Greece or Cyprus ought to become a part of Germany.
quote:But she already does, doesn't she?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound...An independent Scotland is surely in a better position to have its own home grown versions of these industries.
quote:I'm sure I'm wasn't alone in moving to London because it's a great place to live (exhorbitant rents and house prices aside).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
At the moment people don't so much move to London "if they so wish", except for a few super-rich financial types; they move there because that's the only place some industries exist in the UK.
quote:In what way is it "great"? Every time I've visited it I've been glad to get away; noise, crowds, prices - the only good things I've ever found there are the NHM and the London Aquarium. I've known several people have to live there and move out when they got the chance.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:But she already does, doesn't she?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An independent Scotland would need its own financial centre, for starters, even if it's using the pound...An independent Scotland is surely in a better position to have its own home grown versions of these industries.
quote:I'm sure I'm wasn't alone in moving to London because it's a great place to live (exhorbitant rents and house prices aside).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
At the moment people don't so much move to London "if they so wish", except for a few super-rich financial types; they move there because that's the only place some industries exist in the UK.
quote:It is, I think, the greatest city in the world. But if you hate the place so much I suspect no words on the internet will persuade you otherwise.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way is it "great"?
quote:Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It is, I think, the greatest city in the world. But if you hate the place so much I suspect no words on the internet will persuade you otherwise.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way is it "great"?
quote:There's a huge amount of culture available - you can see a wide variety of live music, dance, theater any day of the week. You can try nearly every major cuisine (and a great number of minor ones) at restaurants in the city. Your friends and colleagues are from all over the world. There are amazing career opportunities. People who influence the world in business, politics, academia and the arts come through here regularly to give talks and presentations.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.
quote:I can't speak for anyone else, but the older I get the less appealing most of what you describe becomes to me. I'm quite happy to trade off the quantity of what you describe for living on the edge of the Peak District. We get the quality in that I can see shows, films etc. or eat a variety of cuisines etc. but I will happily give up a restaurant specialising in ethnic Borneo cuisine for a stroll along Stanedge Edge.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:There's a huge amount of culture available - you can see a wide variety of live music, dance, theater any day of the week. You can try nearly every major cuisine (and a great number of minor ones) at restaurants in the city. Your friends and colleagues are from all over the world. There are amazing career opportunities. People who influence the world in business, politics, academia and the arts come through here regularly to give talks and presentations.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, I genuinely don't understand what people see in the place. I need something more concrete than "greatest city in the world". In what way? Bow is it "great" to live in a place miles and miles from any pleasant countyside where a normal house costs half a million? That really is a serious question.
London is in a league with New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong - major global cities that attract the world's best and brightest.
It's OK not to like cities but as cities go London is one of the best if you also take the amount of green space (I'm from outside NYC, London is an oasis in comparison), work/life balance (in Tokyo they leave the office at 10 PM as standard), and accessibility to outsiders (Parisians are not the most welcoming bunch).
Edinburgh is lovely - honestly I think it's a fantastic place - but it will never be London, not in a million years. It will be more like Oslo, or Seattle. That's not a bad thing but people need to have realistic expectations.
quote:A quick look at the Global Competitiveness Report reveals that the Scandinavian nations are just as competitive as the UK, if not more. Scandinavian research is cutting edge in most high-tech industries and Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world. But pride and prejudice remains the essence of Englishness, no?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I thought Scotland wanted to become a small Scandi-lite nation in which case "cosmopolitan" and "attracting international talent" are not likely to be priorities or even realistic goals.
quote:The question wasn't "Why is London the greatest place to live" but "Why is London the greatest city in the world."
Originally posted by deano:
London is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
quote:Barring the Dutch
JFH: Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world.
quote:1. I'm American! I happen to live in England but I am not nor ever will be English!
Originally posted by JFH:
A quick look at the Global Competitiveness Report reveals that the Scandinavian nations are just as competitive as the UK, if not more. Scandinavian research is cutting edge in most high-tech industries and Scandinavian people on average speak the most foreign languages in the world. But pride and prejudice remains the essence of Englishness, no?
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.
quote:The Economist
Several factors correlate with English ability. Wealthy countries do better overall. But smaller wealthy countries do better still: the larger the number of speakers of a country's main language, the worse that country tends to be at English. This is one reason Scandinavians do so well: what use is Swedish outside Sweden? It may also explain why Spain was the worst performer in western Europe, and why Latin America was the worst-performing region: Spanish's role as an international language in a big region dampens incentives to learn English.
quote:Alan's comment about visas is relevant in the big picture - a Scotland that welcomed smart foreigners might well look more attractive than an England that excluded them in some kind of misdirected kneejerk animus against Romanian labourers.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of these jobs in some industries are in London. Will those firms recruit from Scottish universities if Scotland is independent?
quote:Isn't that a bit optimisitc?
Originally posted by deano:
An independent Scotland is going to be the same as it is now but without the English to blame!
quote:Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing. I know why they speak 2 languages rather than 1, but people in lots of countries speak English as a second language for the same reason.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
2. Scandinavians speak the most languages in the world because they have to.quote:The Economist
Several factors correlate with English ability. Wealthy countries do better overall. But smaller wealthy countries do better still: the larger the number of speakers of a country's main language, the worse that country tends to be at English. This is one reason Scandinavians do so well: what use is Swedish outside Sweden? It may also explain why Spain was the worst performer in western Europe, and why Latin America was the worst-performing region: Spanish's role as an international language in a big region dampens incentives to learn English.
quote:Because they might want to work in any of the many other countries in the world where no one speaks Swedish.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing.
quote:I just thought it an odd comment, and I still find it odd, because exactly the same rationale would apply to the Dutch, the Czechs, the Slovaks etc etc. There are plenty of other countries, and communities within countries, that have the same basic issue of a language that's only useful within their own relatively small population. That's clearly an incentive to learn at least one other language, with English being a common one. But out of all of those, Scandinavia still ends up speaking more languages. More than anyone else.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Because they might want to work in any of the many other countries in the world where no one speaks Swedish.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, that explains why they learn English. It doesn't explain why they learn more languages than anyone else. Not the same thing.
I'm not sure if you are just interested in debating this point, or if you are suggesting that Scotland being independent means its residents will also become polyglots like their Scandinavian heroes?
quote:That's a fair point; the cynics are saying that Cameron wanted to bury Salmond, since he assumed that no would win handsomely. Well, that worked well.
Originally posted by Lucia:
I had always assumed that the option of 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper was ruled out because of the danger of splitting the No vote.
If there had been three questions on the ballot paper and the result had been:
No change 30%
Devo Max 30%
Independence 40%
would independance have been deemed to have won despite being the wish of less than half of the population? If this was the case I can understand why that option was vetoed.
Would this have been the case? Is that why the nationalists wanted the three questions so as to split the no vote? Or am I missing something here?
I realise in asking this question that in the UK we frequently end up with a majority government that has been voted for by less than half the people! But somehow a vote for something as hugely changing long term and difficult to reverse as independence would seem a different matter! One where there needs to be a really clear line between yes and no.
quote:The Prime Minister is heading to Scotland, along with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at the sight of Gordon Brown proposing Home Rule, while Cameron skulks in London.
quote:The nationalists wanted a Yes / No vote too. But they recognised that the people of Scotland didn't really want full independence. So they proposed a 3 question vote as being the most democratic option. I really don't think that in a three question referendum, there would have been a 40% Yes vote.
Originally posted by Lucia:
I had always assumed that the option of 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper was ruled out because of the danger of splitting the No vote.
If there had been three questions on the ballot paper and the result had been:
No change 30%
Devo Max 30%
Independence 40%
would independance have been deemed to have won despite being the wish of less than half of the population? If this was the case I can understand why that option was vetoed.
Would this have been the case? Is that why the nationalists wanted the three questions so as to split the no vote? Or am I missing something here?
I realise in asking this question that in the UK we frequently end up with a majority government that has been voted for by less than half the people! But somehow a vote for something as hugely changing long term and difficult to reverse as independence would seem a different matter! One where there needs to be a really clear line between yes and no.
quote:Well, I look forward to the cheering crowds, and Cameron outlining his position on Home Rule. Maybe too little too late?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:The Prime Minister is heading to Scotland, along with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at the sight of Gordon Brown proposing Home Rule, while Cameron skulks in London.
quote:This survey from last year predicts that the UK could surpass Germany as Europe's largest economy by 2030, especially if Germany remains tied to the plug hole known as the Eurozone. Factors which could adversely affect that outcome are Britain's leaving the EU and Scottish independence. Although all human societies are flawed, I believe that living in a prosperous country which is democratically governed is the best place to be in this world. The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence, and that the stock market and sterling value has reacted so negatively to the prospect of independence tells its own story. It's not about running out of food, but about losing credibility in a very competitive world.
Originally posted by Ad Orientam:
Fear? Fear of what? I don't understand this. What, like you're going to run out of food or something because you can't afford it because there's no UK anymore?
quote:I entirely agree with L'Organist's assessment of Mr Salmond's competance and integrity to run the Scottish economy well.
Originally posted by L'Organist:
Mr Salmond is a rogue and a stranger to the truth. Scotland alone faces a bleak economic future in his hands and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the rest of the UK to stand idly by while it happens and then pick up the tab to bail them out when it all ends in tears.
quote:If the Loyalists feel more insecure, they're likely to become more extreme, which could further polarise opinion in NI. That would be a pity, because according to this survey carried out in 2011, a majority of the province's Catholics now favour remaining in the UK. But I have wondered if the loss of Scotland from the equation would push NI more in the direction of a united Ireland. We all know that Dublin couldn't afford Northern Ireland. It's hardly Germany reuniting! They would probably expect England to pay the bills for many decades. Like I say, it's the uncertainty which does the damage. Let's hold our breath for ten days and we can reassess the situation in light of the vote.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
One thing I can imagine, is that national identities, on whichever side of the line they settle, will be very starkly drawn should there be a 'yes' vote in Scotland. An Ulsterman without his Unionist brother in Scotland to make him feel at home on the mainland is likely to become a very, very Loyal Unionist indeed!
quote:Is it?
The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence,
quote:Markets react to a lack of clarity. Things will calm down once the decision is made and the major questions, like currency and debt, are resolved one way or the other. Markets react to short term disruption, they're lousy predictors of long term performance.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The fact that the Scottish business community is so solidly against independence, and that the stock market and sterling value has reacted so negatively to the prospect of independence tells its own story. It's not about running out of food, but about losing credibility in a very competitive world.
quote:But my question is still whether a less than 50% yes vote could have led to independence if the no vote was split? They couldn't have been sure how the split between no change and devo max would pan out before the vote. So framing it as a three way split could potentially have led to independence without a majority wanting it? What would have been the reaction in Scotland to being led into independence with less than 50% support? it's hard to see how that could have been viable.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The nationalists wanted a Yes / No vote too. But they recognised that the people of Scotland didn't really want full independence. So they proposed a 3 question vote as being the most democratic option. I really don't think that in a three question referendum, there would have been a 40% Yes vote.
quote:It's possible that DevoMax might have split the No vote, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that. We could still get Independence without the majority wanting it, as DevoMax voters like myself vote Yes.
But my question is still whether a less than 50% yes vote could have led to independence if the no vote was split? They couldn't have been sure how the split between no change and devo max would pan out before the vote. So framing it as a three way split could potentially have led to independence without a majority wanting it? What would have been the reaction in Scotland to being led into independence with less than 50% support? it's hard to see how that could have been viable.
quote:It's 11 days to go. Many people have already posted their postal votes. I don't think 11 days is long enough to answer every question about the current DevoMax offer. People are confused as to what exactly is on offer now. People would need some sort of published document, preferably with some sort of official Westminster sanction. There just isn't time left.
But why not go for it now? It seems that devo max is now on the table anyway.
quote:And yet I am not convinced of this. I don't believe England will be disadvantaged in any way by Scotland leaving the Union.
Originally posted by Lucia:
I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes.
quote:Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes
quote:I hope so, because it strikes me voting for independence because ypu don't like the tories is very short sighted (says she speaking as a labour supporter).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep thinking that something is going on under the surface, apart from 'Scots are fed up with Tories'. For example, globalization is an acid which eats into mass identities, although there is a paradoxical result from that, which is both smaller countries splitting, and also joining in larger groups, such as the EU.
Thus, I'm not sure what 'Britain' or 'UK' signify today.
I agree with some comments on N. Ireland - they may well start feeling lost and abandoned, although I suppose a united Ireland still seems traumatic to many.
quote:It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lucia:
quote:Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes
quote:I think it goes a bit deeper than that, doesn't it? There is a knot of feelings and ideas involved, including resentment at Tories and Labour, and just the simple old formula, found in Boston Harbour, of taxation and representation, plus, as I said, possibly a global movement of centrifugal forces.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:I hope so, because it strikes me voting for independence because ypu don't like the tories is very short sighted (says she speaking as a labour supporter).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep thinking that something is going on under the surface, apart from 'Scots are fed up with Tories'. For example, globalization is an acid which eats into mass identities, although there is a paradoxical result from that, which is both smaller countries splitting, and also joining in larger groups, such as the EU.
Thus, I'm not sure what 'Britain' or 'UK' signify today.
I agree with some comments on N. Ireland - they may well start feeling lost and abandoned, although I suppose a united Ireland still seems traumatic to many.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Yes, it really does annoy me!
quote:There are two poles on Downing Street. When I walked by today it appeared that the Saltire was flying beside the Union Jack.
Originally posted by TonyK:
The last time I checked No 10 was the office and tied accommodation for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - if any flag is flown over that building it should be the Union flag.
quote:Or as I call them, the 'Dream Team'.
Originally posted by Albertus:
[W]e'd still be stuck with Gove, Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson, and the like.
. AFAIK they are the ones that the old crack about haemorrhoids refers to.
quote:Well, if you'd like to turn it up again, HM Treasury around the corner was flying the Saltire. The Treasury is, I think, part of the same network of buildings as DCMS and something else (though they have separate entrances). At the DCMS end, the Union flag was flying.
Originally posted by TonyK:
I 'll turn it down to a simmer...
quote:We'd have oil, and whisky, and renewable energy, and tatties - it would seem greedy to take Gove et al as well. Please, keep them, with our best wishes.
My concern is that if they do get independence, the rest of us wouldn't get the full advantage of it- we'd still be stuck with Gove, Andrew Neil, Fraser Nelson, and the like.
quote:There is a very good book that just came out, The Morning After: The 1995 Québec Referendum and the The Day that Almost Was. In it Chantal Hébert interviews all the key players from that campaign, including Jacques Parizeau, the Premier. Amazingly he didn't write a speech for the event that the "Yes" side lost, he expected to win. He didn't. He made the most tasteless speech possible that night, and it was clear he was "tired and emotional" (euphemism intentional).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just watching TV news, and the question of these late proposals of Home Rule, or devo-max, was put to a few people, and most of them sounded very scornful, and said they would not trust them as far as you could spit (loosely paraphrased). This is probably the result of bitter experience.
I think the no campaign is on the run, searching desperately for a way out. Well, Quebec pulled it out of the bag, so it's possible.
quote:It is, of course, perfectly possible to have the same royal family without being part of the same nation.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But remember folks, we have a royal and unionist foetus! We are saved from disunity!
quote:I've been to a Scottish wedding in England. It already was the culture of a foreign country. There was a certain amout of oohing and ahing by the English guests at the exoticness of it all.
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lucia:
quote:Lol. Where is it going? Is there are plan to saw it off and set it adrift?
I feel the rest of the UK will be much poorer culturally for the loss of Scotland if it goes
quote:I think that this attitude isn't actually helpful. A lot of people in England's "vassals"* find this sort of talk deeply patronising, like English people who say this seem to think that they own somehow Scotland (and Wales, but that's by the by) and have a right to a culture that isn't strictly theirs. No matter how benevolently it is meant, it speaks of appropriation and actually can foster more resentment.
Originally posted by Lucia:
If it goes
It will become 'them' rather than 'us'. It will be the culture of a foreign country. I enjoy the culture of many foreign countries but I am always an outsider. I guess as part of the UK I didn't feel that I was such an outsider as we were also part of something together as the UK.
quote:How old does something have to be before you call it culture? Is Buddhism 'more' of a culture than Christiantity because it's (about) 500 years older?
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?
If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.
quote:Indeed, but regardless of its origins it is associated specifically with Scotland, not with the United Kingdom.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?
If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.
quote:This is true, and I was unclear in my post for the sake of making a point, for which I apologise.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Scotland never has been a vassal. Wales was conquered by the Norman kings of England: Scotland's King inherited the English crown from a distant cousin. That's why Scotland has a separate legal and educational system.
quote:For me, living in area rich in Pictish carvings, my sense of culture goes back to approx C7th; my avatar is of a Pictish carving I pass on an almost daily basis. I worship in a parish church which has been the site of Christian worship for over a thousand years. Although my church building is post-1707, it incorporates elements of an earlier church, including some C16th carving. Walking into church, I pass the grave stones of people born before 1707. Yesterday I went for a walk to the ruins of a medieval castle which Mary Queen of Scots visited. Within a three mile radius of my home are places raided by Vikings, visited by Montrose, tramped past by Jacobites, ridden over by Robert the Bruce and Jamie IV.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some interesting claims about 'Scottish culture: precisely what do people mean by that?
If you're talking about tartan, bagpipes, highland games and the like, then what you're talking about is a mixture of Walter Scott's mediaeval obsessed romanticism and a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's taste in interior decor and family holidays - all played out to music by Mendelssohn.
quote:I don't think anything changed re the UK-Oz constitutional relationship when the Republic of Ireland was formed so I don't see why Scotland leaving the UK would make any difference either.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Someone in Australia has claimed we could actually have a slightly tricky consitutional problem if Scotland achieves independence... I don't think he's right, though.
Our Constitution refers to "the Queen" a lot, originally meaning Queen Victoria. Section 2 says that these provisions extend "to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".
Now, the argument seems to be that you have to be monarch 'of the United Kingdom' for this to work, and that before 1707 personal union meant that a person was monarch 'of Scotland' and monarch 'of England'... and that if we go back to personal union that's what it would revert to.
I'm not so sure. First off, there will still be a country called 'United Kingdom', and that term dates from 1801 not 1707. The "expert" running this argument seems to ignore that 1707 created the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922) or the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I can't see why you can't have a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Technically you might have to make a United Kingdom of England (psst: Wales included) and Northern Ireland, but that would look ugly.
quote:Well, like most people born into a nation like England, you didn't ask to be saddled with a history of injustice, colonisation and land theft (as many people in Wales and Scotland would see it), but England does have a cultural identity. You don't see it because England is the central signifier for the UK (there's a reason Americans so often get England and the UK confused). It's unconsciously considered the default. Like when an English person talks, for instance, assuming they don't talk with an accent, they're mistaken, because they are talking with an English accent. They don't have neutral baseline attitudes. They have English attitudes. They don't have a neutral identity; they have an English identity.
Originally posted by Lucia:
But I don't think the English have such a separate sense of identity as those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and hence there is a cultural misunderstanding. It is hard for me as an English person to identify with the animosity that seems to emanate from some people from other countries of the UK when I don't feel such animosity in the other direction.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I add (and hi Wood! Didn't know you were still around) that if you think Scottish Culture is bagpipes and clan tartans, then it's probably best to just admit to yourself that you don't know what it is and you'll probably offend actual Scots by pretending that you do. It's a bit like equating Chinese culture with a 5, a 36 and a bag of prawn crackers, and the plinky-plonk music any Ealing comedy would use if a Chinese character came on.
Not that I know what it is any more than any other Sassenach, but it's a question for Scots, not us.
quote:This makes sense to me as a reason to vote Yes. It should be because philosophically the voter believes that Scotland should be independent.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Double posting - I'm voting Yes for the future, not for the past, but my sense of cultural identity goes back way before 1707, indeed before 1603 and therefore includes elements which were not, at the time, British.
while at the same time being terrified of the consequences for England and Wales if it happens vis a vis the near-certainty of eternal Tory rule...
quote:If you take out the Scottish seats, we'd have a proper Tory government at the moment with a 20-seat majority.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, and Wood, the idea that we'd have permanent Tory rule without Scotland is a myth. look at the figures- there has been I think one election, 1964 IIRC, which Labour won which would have gone the other way without Scottish MPs. Labour can win without Scotland, albeit of course with smaller majorities.
quote:My impression is that the yes campaign is palpably downplaying the question of oil. I don't think they are saying, 'we will have all this wealth from oil, and we will be scattering largesse'. This strikes me as quite sensible.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A question that's just occurred to me:
I think I'm right in saying that most believe that a lot of a newly-independent Scotland's wealth would come from oil and/or that oil money is required to fund the lavish public services that Yes Campaigners think will follow independence.
And yet I thought groups like the Scottish Greens were generally pro-independence? And I would've thought that left-leaning Yes campaigners (and I presume most do lean left) might be more concerned about things like Global Warming, etc.
How do people square that circle?
quote:As I said in my previous post I think that when you are outside of something you become more aware of it. Living overseas I feel in many ways more aware of my Englishness. I know that I have an accent, many of our American friends think our kids' English accents are cute. I know that I am culturally different to the Americans, that our kids are culturally different to their peers in the French school and that we as foreigners are culturally significantly different to the locals who surround us here in North Africa.
Originally posted by Wood:
England does have a cultural identity. You don't see it because England is the central signifier for the UK (there's a reason Americans so often get England and the UK confused). It's unconsciously considered the default. Like when an English person talks, for instance, assuming they don't talk with an accent, they're mistaken, because they are talking with an English accent. They don't have neutral baseline attitudes. They have English attitudes. They don't have a neutral identity; they have an English identity.
quote:I'm sort of rooting for UKIP to split the Tory vote.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, and Wood, the idea that we'd have permanent Tory rule without Scotland is a myth. look at the figures- there has been I think one election, 1964 IIRC, which Labour won which would have gone the other way without Scottish MPs. Labour can win without Scotland, albeit of course with smaller majorities.
quote:I had the same thought, it both makes the UK look desperate and conveys the idea that the country will be dramatically damaged by Scotland's exit. In my opinion neither is true and I find the grovelling pathetic. If they want to go let them go.
Originally posted by Albertus:
This crazy idea from people like Cameron that the rest of us will somehow feel bereft and incomplete if Scotland goes has, IME, no empirical foundation whatsover. In fact if I were a wavering Scottish voter the whole hysteria that is coming from London this week might well push me to vote Yes.
quote:Scottish Greens are very pro-independence. They want to get rid of Trident, and they want to increase the use of renewable energy.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A question that's just occurred to me:
I think I'm right in saying that most believe that a lot of a newly-independent Scotland's wealth would come from oil and/or that oil money is required to fund the lavish public services that Yes Campaigners think will follow independence.
And yet I thought groups like the Scottish Greens were generally pro-independence? And I would've thought that left-leaning Yes campaigners (and I presume most do lean left) might be more concerned about things like Global Warming, etc.
How do people square that circle?
quote:But sadly the media don't believe actual Greens exist. They might as well be Bigfoot, the way that the mainstream news organs treat them.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Scottish Greens are very pro-independence. They want to get rid of Trident, and they want to increase the use of renewable energy.
The media are suggesting this is all about Alex Salmond and the SNP, but the Greens have been campaigning strongly.
quote:Mainly, I'm aware of not speaking Japanese. So, anyone who speaks English is a treasure, someone I can can have a conversation with (and, that doesn't matter much if they're British, American, Japanese or Russian). Perhaps once I've learnt Japanese I can afford to be more picky about who I talk with and will feel more at home with the very small local British community (I sometimes think I might have just doubled it!).
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think that when you are outside of something you become more aware of it. Living overseas I feel in many ways more aware of my Englishness.
quote:If we add all these people together, do we get to anything like a significant group of people? What you've described there sounds to me like a smattering of small, left-wing groups.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There are dozens of groups - Green Yes, Women for Indy, Academics for Yes, Italians for Yes, Christians for Independence, Yes LGBT etc etc. who won't be swayed by anti-SNP rhetoric.
quote:Identity can be a strange thing. I've lived in Brazil for 13–14 years (with intervals) and I'm fluent in Portuguese. There are very few non-Brazilians in my social circle here (and I mostly speak Portuguese with them). Sometimes I almost forget that I'm a foreigner, sometimes it gets more to the foreground. It depends. I never had a strong Dutch identity, I feel more closely linked to my specific region within the Netherlands.
Alan Cresswell: Mainly, I'm aware of not speaking Japanese. So, anyone who speaks English is a treasure, someone I can can have a conversation with (and, that doesn't matter much if they're British, American, Japanese or Russian). Perhaps once I've learnt Japanese I can afford to be more picky about who I talk with and will feel more at home with the very small local British community (I sometimes think I might have just doubled it!).
quote:If you look at a group such as National Collective there may only be 100 of them, but they include some big names - Alasdair Gray, The Proclaimers, Dougie McLean, Irvine Welsh, Liz Lochhead.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If we add all these people together, do we get to anything like a significant group of people? What you've described there sounds to me like a smattering of small, left-wing groups.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There are dozens of groups - Green Yes, Women for Indy, Academics for Yes, Italians for Yes, Christians for Independence, Yes LGBT etc etc. who won't be swayed by anti-SNP rhetoric.
quote:That's all well and good but it does remind me somewhat of the AV referendum campaign. The Yes to AV group had a lot of vocal supporters and a number of high-profile celeb backers from various fields. They all made a lot of noise but, when it came down to it, it transpired there weren't a lot of them (or not enough, anyway). I wonder whether the same might be true of the Yes campaign here (in spite of what the polls say)?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If you look at a group such as National Collective there may only be 100 of them, but they include some big names - Alasdair Gray, The Proclaimers, Dougie McLean, Irvine Welsh, Liz Lochhead.
(This might also answer l'organist's point about Scottish culture being just tartan and bagpipes)
This is a group entirely separate from the SNP.
quote:Floating their own currency or joining the Euro, I guess.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:I think Monbiot is on a 24 hour work schedule at the moment, he is churning stuff out. He has used that interesting argument, if Scotland had always been independent, would she want to be united with England? Err, doubtful.
Originally posted by Wood:
As a brief aside, the point I raised about British fears that Scottish independence being the cause of the Torypocalypse received a rebuttal from George Monbiot this morning.
quote:That makes me wonder how we have ever managed to accomodate Jersey and Guernsey, which use the pound. They have entirely different economies, commerial law and taxation schemes.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:Of course they can use the pound. But then they are in a weird kind of independence, where monetary policy is decided in another state, and no doubt other financial decisions.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:I'm starting to think that if Scotland does vote 'Yes' next week, the Scottish government will be begging to be re-admitted to the UK within a decade.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Salmond and his gang are driving very fast towards an economical and political brick wall.
quote:Yes, identity can be a strange thing.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Identity can be a strange thing ... Sometimes I almost forget that I'm a foreigner, sometimes it gets more to the foreground. It depends.
quote:Salmond and his gang? Gordon Bennett (was he a Scot?), who's using negative rhetoric now?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm starting to think that if Scotland does vote 'Yes' next week, the Scottish government will be begging to be re-admitted to the UK within a decade.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Salmond and his gang are driving very fast towards an economical and political brick wall.
quote:Having had conversations with Scottish friends’ who are part of the London based Diaspora, they say it’s a combination of both …
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:This makes sense to me as a reason to vote Yes. It should be because philosophically the voter believes that Scotland should be independent.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Double posting - I'm voting Yes for the future, not for the past, but my sense of cultural identity goes back way before 1707, indeed before 1603 and therefore includes elements which were not, at the time, British.
Voting Yes because you believe Scotland will be better off economically, or for improved social welfare, or because you think you can keep the pound, is a bad idea because they are really policy matters that can change over time.
It would be a shame if the Yes vote won for the second set of reasons, and the none of those expectations were actually met. It would be one serious case of buyers' remorse.
quote:Yes, but their monetary policy is not autonomous and they do not claim to be fully independent as Salmond wants to do.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:That makes me wonder how we have ever managed to accomodate Jersey and Guernsey, which use the pound. They have entirely different economies, commerial law and taxation schemes.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:AIUI the overall level of government funding is linked to overall funding in England, but money is not hypothecated within the general settlement. So the Westminster government could- and I think has- cut the overall funding settlement but within that settlement the Scottish Government can allocate the money as it wishes. Of course, the Scots do have powers to vary income tax rates, but have not used them. The Conservatives are I think keen to get the devolved administrations to take taxation powers, because that then pushes responsibility for taxation and overall spending levels in Scotland and Wales onto their own governments, with the potential for unpopularity, and the removal of the 'blame Westminster' excuse, that that implies. For AFAICS precisely that reason, Carwyn Jones, out First Minister, has said that he doesn't want Wales to have taxation powers, which I think is rather a shameful cop-out.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
quote:You mean Labour Party politics singularised by corruption, bullying and nepotism?
I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:It wouldn't. That's one of the issues.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
quote:The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland. At present the Scottish government decides (within some boundaries defined under devolution) how to spend that money. So, on the NHS we don't pay prescription charges, have free eye tests etc. Without independence the Westminster government could impose restrictions on how tax payers money is to spent - the "he who pays the piper" principal. Of course it would be a political stink of the highest order if Westminster made, say, introducing prescription charges a requirement on receiving money from the UK treasury. But, they hold the purse strings.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
quote:There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.
quote:I'm not quite sure where you get that picture from. Well, other than Brent that is ... which is not exactly a stunning reference to Scottish politics.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswellquote:You mean Labour Party politics singularised by corruption, bullying and nepotism?
I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
You surely mean a situation where a small constituent part of the whole is able, through over-representation, to skew the results of elections.
You mean a view that 'spend now, pay whenever' is a responsible and legitimate way to run an economy?
For some reason my mind's eye is seeing those ridiculous road signs such as 'Brent - a nuclear free zone'...
quote:Didn't the Scottish also turn down the NHS supplement that they were offered? (This could be a Metro lie though).
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:AIUI the overall level of government funding is linked to overall funding in England, but money is not hypothecated within the general settlement. So the Westminster government could- and I think has- cut the overall funding settlement but within that settlement the Scottish Government can allocate the money as it wishes. Of course, the Scots do have powers to vary income tax rates, but have not used them. The Conservatives are I think keen to get the devolved administrations to take taxation powers, because that then pushes responsibility for taxation and overall spending levels in Scotland and Wales onto their own governments, with the potential for unpopularity, and the removal of the 'blame Westminster' excuse, that that implies. For AFAICS precisely that reason, Carwyn Jones, out First Minister, has said that he doesn't want Wales to have taxation powers, which I think is rather a shameful cop-out.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
quote:Well, I understand your point - and also the more general one you made about English identity. But I come from a little village that you've probably never heard of that owed allegiance to the Scottish Crown back in the 11th century and is about 30 miles south of the current border (we have a local stone circle too - older than the Picts). I don't identify with the Home Counties is-there-honey-still-for-tea Englishness any more than you do.
However in my experience, a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal, to which the natural response from the English I know who engage on this is "no, we don't," which misses the point in a profound way.
quote:One of the advantages of a 'Yes' vote (from a rUK point of view) is that we could deport him...
Seriously, you can keep him.
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by Jane R:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
quote:And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
quote:Yes. So much yes.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
quote:Fingers crossed.
With luck, if there is a Yes vote it will result in more power being devolved to Wales and the English regions and more investment outside the South-East.
quote:Childish.
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
quote:Maybe not in the short term. Independence would most likely be the cause of a serious financial upheaval for both Scotland and the UK - look at what happened to the pound and the London stock market the other day, just on one queasy opinion poll result. Between "Yes" and independence you'd get companies undertaking all sorts of financial gymnastics, hedging their bets on which side of the border they'd rather be based on, come the Great Day.
Originally posted by deano:
The main issue for me is whether we in England will have to pay more or less in tax if Scotland votes Yes.
Hopefully it will be less, which is a win-win as far as I can see.
quote:Whereas comments about Salmond being a snake-oil salesman, are oh, so mature.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jane Rquote:Childish.
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
quote:True that, but it's still likely that Scotland would have had to pay something towards the bailout of RBS as some of it was triggered by the activities of their commercial arm and the purchase of ABN AMRO. The UK government would have been liable for the retail deposits of people located here, but not necessarily all the other stuff. Then there's the HBOS ...
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.
In the case of total failure, the vast majority of the RBS retail customers were still south of the border, so bailing them out would have still been up to the British tax payer via deposit insurance (as it would be if say the British bit of Santander was in the same situation).
Finally, there is the assumption that RBS would stay nominally headquartered in Edinburgh - this is by no means certain, and in the case of a yes vote, they'd at the very least set up a separate rUK arm in the manner of most international banks operating in the UK (and quite unlike the Icelandic Banks - which were in most cases operating over here as branches of their home banks).
In all cases, if a future crisis meant that the risk of contagion was high in the rUK, we would still bail them out.
quote:You haven't been shy about commenting on your own emotional reaction to Alex Salmond. Emotions do play a part in politics; why do you think the Big Four traipsed all the way up to Edinburgh? Their mistake is in thinking that an emotional appeal along the lines of 'we'll be heartbroken if you leave' is likely to swing the election in their favour. Most people don't care about hurting politicians' feelings.
Childish.
Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
quote:Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by Jane R:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:Because there wasn't a referendum then.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:Are we sure a two-vote one will?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:There's never been any doubt, surely, that David Cameron is an ardent Unionist? Or are we talking at cross-purposes?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:No. But it's close enough to be scaring Cameron. He gambled on a No vote, and I'm guessing he's starting to regret that gamble.
Are we sure a two-vote one will?
quote:Because they are idiots and because they probably thought it was never going to be this close ... This is their own stupid fault. They underestimated the strength of feeling there is about this; insisted on a straight yes or no vote and mis-managed the whole campaign.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:I do accept that. But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:quote:Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
quote:Yes, but as you've pointed out, the whole Irish Free State concept was an interim measure: between 1922 and 1949 there was this entity in the southern 26 counties of what had been 'Ireland' in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' called 'Eire'. That lasted a generation, with significant tweaking in 1937, which enabled matters such as monetary independence and other 'messy unresolved issues' being discussed here plus foreign policy to be adequately thrashed out (someone referenced Norman Davies' Vanished Kingdoms earlier, and there's a whole chapter of that book devoted to this transitional entity). Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Of course they can use the pound. But then they are in a weird kind of independence, where monetary policy is decided in another state, and no doubt other financial decisions.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
Maybe this is workable as an interim measure though, just as Ireland had many interim measures for a while, including the actual Free State.
It's messy of course, but then birth often is.
quote:Whereas most Scots hoped for DevoMax, but once Cameron had taken that off the table, we were left with all-or-nothing, either stop or move at high speed.
Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
quote:Of course, at present. And, at present tax paid by people in Scotland pay for obscenities like Trident. It's swings and roundabouts.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswellquote:And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
quote:Scotlans has had a government, albeit with some key powers held by another government, for 15 years. That's hardly "untried".
So, Scotland will have to live within its means - from the word go, because no sensible investors will be prepared to sink funds into an untried government so credit will be virtually unobtainable.
quote:Well, part of that's going to depend upon what part of the current defence budget Scotland would pick up. If we decide to not fund obscene white elephants like Trident or engage in wars over oil under sand in the Middle East that wouldn't be so expensive. To actually defend Scotland against potential aggressors would cost virtually nothing, it's hardly likely the Norwegians are going to return to their Viking roots any time soon.
And the first thing that will be to be budgeted for is the Scottish contribution to those functions it will still be relying on the rest of the UK for - cheap things like defence.
quote:Which shows how little you know of Scottish politics. 16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
There's also an interesting point whether any majority for YES should be regarded as valid since Mr Salmond is only likely to achieve this with the votes of the 16 and 17 year olds he has enfranchised specially for the occasion:
quote:Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
quote:I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
quote:To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
quote:A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
quote:Frankly, is there anything that any English Conservative MP could say that wouldn't be dismissed by the Scottish people?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:quote:I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
Wood's earlier comment may be relevant again here:quote:To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
quote:I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.
quote:Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
quote:Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
quote:A reasonable concern, I think.
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
quote:This precisely. It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
quote:No, you're missing the point.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.
quote:What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
quote:And the answer is of course it bloody well can be because the minimum voting age for the referendum was a part of the legislation that was passed to enable it. What are you going to do anyway? Storm Holyrood with troops and impose direct rule from Westminster?
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which wasquote:A reasonable concern, I think.
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
(BTW my 20 year olds are horrified that 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote because they say people of that age are too immature and easily led...)
quote:Or, a long winded way of saying that occasion has provided an opportunity to (perhaps temporarily) enfranchise those disenfranchised by the Westminster government. A "Yes" vote will mean that 16-17 year olds will be able to vote, a "no" that they'll continue to be denied a chance to have say in the election of the government that will be deciding policy as they enter university, start their first job etc.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
quote:Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
quote:And, as I've said several times before I think it's an injustice that there is no UK-wide second referendum by which the people of the entire UK can have their say on a major constitutional change. But, that decision was made by the government of representatives elected by the people of the UK.
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which wasquote:A reasonable concern, I think.
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
quote:Nor do you do it by failing to invest in them, which is rather the point. It's not "stop eating the pie" so much as "stop eating all the pie and let us have some you greedy bastards". If "we all share in the wealth generated by London" why, as Wood points out, is London the richest region of Northern Europe whilst nine of the poorest are in the rest of the UK? That's "sharing"?
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
London and the southeast are spectacularly successful and that success has its own costs for those who live there. We all share the wealth generated by London. But you don't make other parts of the UK successful by impoverishing or punishing London.
quote:Can you provide a link to this manifesto pledge for a yes / no question?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"
quote:I work in London and know many Londoners, ordinary people trying to make a living like everyone else. I'm not seeing this magical privilege of which you speak. Unless you're referring to the super-rich of Kensington or the trendy-leftie set of NW London (as examples).
Originally posted by Wood:
No, you're missing the point.
Even if Londoners don't think we are their vassals, they tend to be so blind to their privilege - yes, I said it, privilege - that they behave, not even consciously, as if they are lording it over us.
quote:Yes, that is true. And many ordinary Londoners do not benefit from that wealth either. There are big areas of poverty.
Of the ten poorest regions in Northern Europe, the UK has nine; whereas the richest community in Europe is... London.
quote:Your ordinary Londoner is not actually responsible for this inequity.
This is about a not wholly inaccurate perception of an inequity that is daily perpetrated across the United Kingdom.
quote:What do you suggest ordinary Londoners 'do' besides getting involved in politics and voting just like everybody else?
People in a position of privilege don't ask to be in that position of privilege; they shouldn't feel bad about their privilege either. But to deny its existence and to do nothing about it is to perpetuate the kyriarchy.
quote:DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Whereas most Scots hoped for DevoMax, but once Cameron had taken that off the table, we were left with all-or-nothing, either stop or move at high speed.
Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
Salmond did want a Yes/ No vote, but wouldn't have pushed for it, knowing that it wasn't what the electorate wanted.
quote:The 2011 SNP Manifesto simply says
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Can you provide a link to this manifesto pledge for a yes / no question?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"
quote:Which is a commitment to a referendum with a "yes" option, but nothing concrete about the wording of the question or number of options available.
Independence will only happen when people in Scotland vote for it. That is why independence is your choice.
We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament.
A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation and we can then begin the job of delivering the better country we all know Scotland can be. Independence is enjoyed by nations around the world. That same independence can be enjoyed by Scotland too, with the benefits felt by each and everyone of us
quote:The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
quote:Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I work in London and know many Londoners, ordinary people trying to make a living like everyone else. I'm not seeing this magical privilege of which you speak. Unless you're referring to the super-rich of Kensington or the trendy-leftie set of NW London (as examples).
quote:Despite the fact that they're not strictly supposed to offer incentives so soon before the vote. is that right? I believe there have been complaints about this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The point about Salmond offering snake oil seems ironic to me, since here we have the Westminster politicians offering Home Rule, or whatever they are calling it, a few days before the vote, and in fact, after thousands of people have already voted.
quote:I think there is a wriggle around that, that they are not actually offering a new set of proposals, but a new timetable. It still looks like 'don't panic, don't panic, OK let's panic, think of something'.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:Despite the fact that they're not strictly supposed to offer incentives so soon before the vote. is that right? I believe there have been complaints about this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The point about Salmond offering snake oil seems ironic to me, since here we have the Westminster politicians offering Home Rule, or whatever they are calling it, a few days before the vote, and in fact, after thousands of people have already voted.
quote:Yeah, I thought it wasn't as simple as that. I mean if it really had been as cut and dried illegal as my Scots friends were saying, surely more would have happened.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there is a wriggle around that, that they are not actually offering a new set of proposals, but a new timetable. It still looks like 'don't panic, don't panic, OK let's panic, think of something'.
quote:Yes, it's reminding me of Pavlov. Give them a mention of Burns, a quick flash of a Saltire, and any Scot will start salivating, roll over on his back, and ask a Tory minister to tickle his tummy. Hey, this politics stuff is easy!
Originally posted by North East Quine:
They're pulling various previous vague promises into something that looks like a coherent policy. However, what's being offered is a timetable for change, not specific changes. Decisions to be made on 25 Jan 2015, Burns night, because we all know that Scots come over all sentimental at the name of Burns and lose their ability to think. Ooooh! there's a Saltire!
quote:There is some truth in the cultural hegemony, certainly - I get annoyed with fellow townies who seem utterly clueless about the rules of the countryside, for example - but I would counterbalance that cultural hegemony with the very strong sense of identity of the Celtic nations - or even, heck, the North of England.
Originally posted by Wood:
Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.
(Cue Monty Python joke ...)![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Yes, I agree that this ship has sailed but, in the words of Mr Knightley, it has been 'badly done'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
quote:I think there is a strong sense of alienation throughout the UK, not so much about a London elite, but about globalization. Many areas of life are not only privatized, but sold to multi-national companies, which may not be British.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:There is some truth in the cultural hegemony, certainly - I get annoyed with fellow townies who seem utterly clueless about the rules of the countryside, for example - but I would counterbalance that cultural hegemony with the very strong sense of identity of the Celtic nations - or even, heck, the North of England.
Originally posted by Wood:
Generally, I mean those people in London whose decisions for whatever reason impact the whole nation. And part of that is indeed your trendy lefties and hipsters who read their Guardians and maintain a hegemony that's as much cultural as it is political.
And the Islington set aren't actually oppressing anyone!
As for the political elite - I think that the English and Scots alike are equally screwed.
quote:You and I are in total agreement, Matt!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Yes, I agree that this ship has sailed but, in the words of Mr Knightley, it has been 'badly done'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:The snag is that we're now only 8 days from the vote, and hundreds / thousands of postal votes are already in. It's too late to rejig what voting means.
DevoMax should therefore be the next phase, assuming there is a 'yes' vote, following the 'Eire' example, to avoid such inevitable messiness; ie: a 'yes' vote should be viewed not as a declaration of independence but rather a declaration of intention to be independent, with full independence being granted/ gained when the thorny issues such as currency have been successfully negotiated/ thrashed out. The problem is that DevoMax is now being promised for a 'no' vote which, to me, seems totally arse over tip.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
or that the Apocalypse is nigh ?quote:Well I for one am comforted by that thought.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Mr Knightley did in fact, in the end, win his fair bride. Is Cameron about to clasp an adoring Scottish public to his bosom? Sorry about that image.
quote:Yep
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not wanting to push the analogy too far (but just far enough), Cameron reminds me of Mr Elton, unctuous, unconvincing, hypocritical, oh well, lots of other things.
quote:Or will both surges cancel each other out and just mean loads of people vote?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is all the buzz about the poll results more likely to scare more Scots to show up at the polls to vote no, or to encourage more to show up and vote yes?
quote:The more people that vote, the better. About the worst possible result would be a narrow victory for one side or the other with a small turnout.
Originally posted by Wood:
Or will both surges cancel each other out and just mean loads of people vote?
quote:New poll (Daily Record), has a 6% lead for no; I think Salmond will relish this actually.
Originally posted by Stephen:
Just had a look at the BBC site - the 'no' is leading by 1%
There are a lot of 'don't knows' though - 23%
It really could go either way
BBC
quote:Apparently the Survation poll in the Daily Record has (excluding don't knows) the 16-24 age group on NO at 61%. So maybe younger voters don't favour Yes, though I guess this age group are also thinking about job prospects and tend to be more mobile.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:New poll (Daily Record), has a 6% lead for no; I think Salmond will relish this actually.
Originally posted by Stephen:
Just had a look at the BBC site - the 'no' is leading by 1%
There are a lot of 'don't knows' though - 23%
It really could go either way
BBC
quote:The wording is a weird bit of marketing-speak but this is in fact standard statistical practice. They call only landlines and apply some model about what percentage of people from different age groups have cell phones, and correct their result from this model. Of course it would be better to call both landlines and cell phones (in this case they'd still need a model about the proportion between the two), but every poll includes a correction factor of some sort.
Louise: That's interesting because their methodology says they only phone Iandlines and that they try to make up for the consequent 'under sampling of younger respondents' by 'the use of targeted lifestyle data'-whatever that is.
quote:Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:That is true, but Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are very small countries (total population less than 200,000, compared with 23 million in Australia, so less than 1% of the Australian population), and their economies are a lot smaller than that. So what they do or don't do economically has very little or no impact on Australia. If an independent Scotland kept with the Pound Sterling, then the situation is far more analogous to the Euro than the Australian Dollar, because poor economic management in Scotland (or England) could derail the currency and therefore both countries.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:Wrong way around. The point isn't the impact they have on Australia, the point is the impact that Australia has on them.
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
quote:That is true, but Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are very small countries (total population less than 200,000, compared with 23 million in Australia, so less than 1% of the Australian population), and their economies are a lot smaller than that. So what they do or don't do economically has very little or no impact on Australia. If an independent Scotland kept with the Pound Sterling, then the situation is far more analogous to the Euro than the Australian Dollar, because poor economic management in Scotland (or England) could derail the currency and therefore both countries.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:When I saw on the news that Call me Dave, Red Ed and Oily Nick had gone north yesterday, the first thing I thought is that this means more votes in the bag for Alex! Although no one will be happier than me if the union survives, I think the No campaign has been badly run, focussing only on negative issues. The suggestion that Scotland couldn't keep the pound is total bollocks. There may be disadvantages to using a currency without the backing of a central bank, but it happens in many countries. And Ed's daft comments about border guards are ludicrous.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think a lot of stuff done by the no campaign has been a recruiting sergeant for yes.
quote:Perhaps- I don't know- RBS has some symbolic significance for Scots. But I think that after the events of the last six years, if I were voting in Scotland the prospect of getting shot of RBS would, quite seriously, be an argument in favour of voting Yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond seems to have his work cut out, with several banks saying today that they would move to London, plus Standard Life. I am interested to see how he tackles this one, as you would think it would drive some people back to no.
Also many questions about currency, if they keep the pound, but without the backing of the Bank of England, so no lender of last resort. Of course, the UK helped bail out Ireland but you can't guarantee it.
quote:The 'No' campaign is simply being realistic and inevitably negative. It is all up for negotiation. If Scotland has to join Schengen then there will be some form of border control. Scotland will eventually join the EU but not automatically because Spain will not allow it. There will only be a currency union if Scotland trades back economic sovereignty. Sterlingisation will in the short and medium term impoverish Scotland, as will reneging on debt. NATO membership will probably happen but will entail greater defence spending than the SNP have promised.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Although no one will be happier than me if the union survives, I think the No campaign has been badly run, focussing only on negative issues. The suggestion that Scotland couldn't keep the pound is total bollocks. There may be disadvantages to using a currency without the backing of a central bank, but it happens in many countries. And Ed's daft comments about border guards are ludicrous.
If Scotland votes Yes, it will remain in the EU with a rubber stamped approval. After all, it's already in the EU. It will keep the UK's opt out to the Euro and Schengen if it chooses, because nobody in Europe is going to make life impossible for Scotland. It will remain in Nato, though I could see some members, especially the US being pissed off with the SNP's attitude the the nuclear deterrant.
quote:Yes, but they're not in a currency union, are they?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Haven't we already given the lie to this? A whole bunch of countries use another country's currency. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu are independent countries, not part of Australia, but they use the Australian dollar.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
quote:...unless you're employed by RBS
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Perhaps- I don't know- RBS has some symbolic significance for Scots. But I think that after the events of the last six years, if I were voting in Scotland the prospect of getting shot of RBS would, quite seriously, be an argument in favour of voting Yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Salmond seems to have his work cut out, with several banks saying today that they would move to London, plus Standard Life. I am interested to see how he tackles this one, as you would think it would drive some people back to no.
Also many questions about currency, if they keep the pound, but without the backing of the Bank of England, so no lender of last resort. Of course, the UK helped bail out Ireland but you can't guarantee it.
quote:Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.
quote:Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.
quote:but the point is that they don't have to in a currency union to do so.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
]Yes, but they're not in a currency union, are they?
quote:Well, one argument is that it could wreck the economy of the rump UK not to support the pound in Scotland.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.
quote:There are only two players. As they are playing Brag, a pair is good and a middle pair very good indeed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, one argument is that it could wreck the economy of the rump UK not to support the pound in Scotland.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.
But this is high stakes poker. Salmond thinks that the Bank of England and English politicians are bluffing. But would you gamble your life savings on a pair of eights?
quote:RBS' CEO is based in Edinburgh. If the HQ moved to London so would he. Whoever supports him and works with him in Edinburgh would likely move as well (or at least the roles would).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
quote:Except no wasn't equivalent to DevoMax until the last few days. The entire thing is a fiasco - who offers a referendum and then doesn't think through all the scenarios.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now
quote:The paranoia is unnecessary in this case, as the global markets spoke a few days ago when the GBP hit a 10-month low and the UK stocks started to drop. No conspiracy, just basic reality that investors (who are you and me via our pension funds etc.) don't like the uncertainty that would come with an independent Scotland when there is still no clear plan on the economic structure of that new country a week before the vote is due.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If I was paranoid, I would feel suspicious that yesterday there was a concerted onslaught from effing banks, Bank of England, politicians, other companies - against the yes vote, all on the same day.
quote:Good point. I suspect that Salmond has this at the back of his mind - he has already won really. And yes, the Irish situation is an interesting parallel, I mean, for heaven's sake, the Irish accepted allegiance to the Crown for a period! Of course, this caused a civil war, but the Free Staters judged that it was a compromise they had to make. They didn't get a republic by immaculate conception, but a long and agonizing birth process.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now, the best of both worlds, and then 'do an Eire' over the next decade or so to move to full independence with these unresolved issues being sorted out in the interim.
quote:There are an awful lot of companies registered in e.g. the British Virgin Islands. Do you really think their CEOs all work there?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:RBS' CEO is based in Edinburgh. If the HQ moved to London so would he. Whoever supports him and works with him in Edinburgh would likely move as well (or at least the roles would).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
I'm not saying it's thousands but realistically if the HQ of the bank moves, some staff will also move with it.
quote:I'm unclear as to why you wish to speak in the abstract.
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are an awful lot of companies registered in e.g. the British Virgin Islands. Do you really think their CEOs all work there?
quote:I don't think the London politicians dreamed that the yes vote would climb so much. It did, and they had to come up with something, hence, 'Home Rule' or whatever name it has now.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Except no wasn't equivalent to DevoMax until the last few days. The entire thing is a fiasco - who offers a referendum and then doesn't think through all the scenarios.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I can't see how it would work at such a high speed. The sensible thing would be to vote 'no', which is a vote for DevoMax now
quote:Exactly, the last time I checked the definition of a headquarters is where the core corporate functions including the CEO are based.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
We're not talking about registered offices but headquarters.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Why would RBS or Standard Life move HQ to London because of political and economic uncertainty in Scotland, but leave their chief executives in Scotland? What would be the point?
Just think about it logically for a second - we are not talking about DE or BVI as tax shelters but a fundamental concern about their ongoing ability to do business in Alex Salmond's socialist paradise.
It's far more likely that the reason they are would be planning a move is so that they retain confidence that they would be bailed out by the BoE should a further crisis occur. Which isn't to say that Salmond's plans are coherent - but perhaps you should ask yourself exactly who wants 'socialism' in all of this.
quote:Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.
quote:You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.
I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!
quote:Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.
quote:Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.
quote:Well, specifically, they intend to cut corporation tax, no doubt hoping to attract big business investments.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.
I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!
- cut taxes
- increase social welfare spending
- export oil
- work with the Green party
- use the pound
- join the EU but not the Euro (neither a given)
Have I missed anything?
quote:Yes, it was pure farce, with Prescott as the court jester. I thought Cameron did OK, actually, although no doubt the 'effing' was a calculated ploy, you know those Scots, they're all potty-mouths.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Agreed: sending any of them north of the border yesterday would have been a mistake; sending all three looks like a conspiracy to fuck up the 'no' campaign
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Whereas of course, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg look like 3 angels of salvation. I mean, not.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's as much an issue of perception as reality and in that regard Salmond does have something of an image problem.
quote:Alex Salmond and the SNP are about a socialist as the Lib Dems pre-coalistion. Then again, if "Socialist Paradise" means "Not leaping in the air when the Square Mile/Wall St says jump" you may have a point. That fter all is whre the scaremongering comes from and I am sick of man serving the economy rather than the economy serving man.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Just think about it logically for a second - we are not talking about DE or BVI as tax shelters but a fundamental concern about their ongoing ability to do business in Alex Salmond's socialist paradise.
quote:Or they could have started taking it seriously months ago, and made a positive presentation of the virtues of staying part of the union, rather than endlessly fear mongering.
Originally posted by deano:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
quote:I think this is the point. London basically has ignored the whole thing, no doubt reinforcing the view of many Scots that Scotland is seen as a kind of peripheral nuisance.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Or they could have started taking it seriously months ago, and made a positive presentation of the virtues of staying part of the union, rather than endlessly fear mongering.
Originally posted by deano:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
quote:I think it would be economically myopic if they took that view.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.
I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?
quote:Basically ...
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You're right, I should have been more specific. He wants to:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.
I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!
- cut taxes
- increase social welfare spending
- export oil
- work with the Green party
- use the pound
- join the EU but not the Euro (neither a given)
Have I missed anything?
quote:But these are political questions, through and through. I think the yes campaign has cleverly played on that sense that a super-rich elite in London has been controlling things, and asking us to pay their gambling debts. Well, the Scots are not the only people saying this of course.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I think it would be economically myopic if they took that view.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.
I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?
quote:It's not a threat, it's a reality. It has always been a reality and is nothing to do with Westminster. Salmond's podgy fist needs to be shaken in the direction of Brussels.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think I was wrong to say 'Salmond has won', in the light of Paul Mason's new tweets, that in fact, devo-max has not been offered. No doubt Salmond will pounce on this, as it looks as if London is offering smoke and mirrors.
Salmond is also saying that the Treasury has been leaking sensitive market information - this might be trivia, or nuclear.
I think some of the electorate will resent the banks threatening to move - oh yes, the people with a gambling habit, whose debts we have been paying?
I mean, it could backfire, as many things are backfiring. Threats make bad politics.
quote:You're last paragaph is bang on the money. But, given that the SNP has been campaigning for indendence for ever and a vote was part of their election promises, putting some thought into how this might all actually work in practice might be been helpful! It reminds of the bride who puts all the thought into the big day and none into what happens afterwards.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, sure, an independent country wants to control its own economy. But this is not the immaculate conception; you have to get there first, starting from here.
There is going to be a difficult transition, that's for sure.
I think Salmond is partly gambling that the rump UK would also need Scotland, and dare not pull the drawbridge up.
Well, I think it shows how much conventional politics has failed, if a whole country are willing to go down this road. Isn't this the big shock for London politicians? They were lazily assuming, oh, let's toss the jocks a few crumbs, and carry on as normal. Oops.
quote:I think this often happens. Hell, the Irish were making it up day by day, as were the Brits. They sort of fell into a Free State idea, with allegiance to the Crown, what a barmy idea to sell to Irish Republicans. As Michael Collins said, that was his death warrant, all very badly planned really!
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:You're last paragaph is bang on the money. But, given that the SNP has been campaigning for indendence for ever and a vote was part of their election promises, putting some thought into how this might all actually work in practice might be been helpful! It reminds of the bride who puts all the thought into the big day and none into what happens afterwards.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, sure, an independent country wants to control its own economy. But this is not the immaculate conception; you have to get there first, starting from here.
There is going to be a difficult transition, that's for sure.
I think Salmond is partly gambling that the rump UK would also need Scotland, and dare not pull the drawbridge up.
Well, I think it shows how much conventional politics has failed, if a whole country are willing to go down this road. Isn't this the big shock for London politicians? They were lazily assuming, oh, let's toss the jocks a few crumbs, and carry on as normal. Oops.
Tubbs
quote:Possibly, but would you trust London to really deliver on devo-max or Home Rule, as Brown rather nostalgically called it?
Originally posted by agingjb:
I suspect that Scotland will get more out of the so called Devo Max after a narrow No vote than from the antagonistic negotiations after a Yes vote.
quote:Who does report good news?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
BBC coming under attack now for failing to report material favourable to the yes campaign, e.g. companies reporting that they would not move jobs out of Scotland, also the Treasury release of sensitive information.
Salmond definitely on the counter-attack - but will it work?
quote:I've worked for companies that were registered in Delaware but were headquartered in California. There is no need to base any staff in Delaware. Don't know what the rules are over there.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Delaware is the state of incorporation for a disproportionate number of US companies. There isn't room in that state for anything but rudimentary HQs, like the company secretary and a few clerks. There's no reason why anyone else should be located elsewhere.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Logically speaking, if there are staff based in the HQ their jobs would move to London if their place of employment did as well. That means all senior executives and their support staff, and potentially other corporate functions like communications, investor relations, etc.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not really. Apparently it'd just be the brass plate that would move, not the operations or jobs.
quote:To be fair, although it was Salmond who called the Trump application in and ultimately got him the go-ahead for the Menie estate golf course, it was the previous (Labour) First Minister Jack McConnell who first started courting Trump. If Labour had won the Scottish election in 2007 I'm sad to say I'm not sure the outcome would have been any different in that particular shabby and shameful case.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of Salmond's socialist paradise is a joke. He has been happy to have a coalition with greens, lefts, and anybody really, but he is not a socialist! That's why the left keep warning about him hob-nobbing with Trump and Murdoch.
I imagine Salmond signing a deal for 50 golf courses along the Scottish coast. Jobs! Dollars! Rich Americans! Fuck off England!
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Are we making predictions as to the result yet? Is punditry allowed?
(I reckon it'll narrowly be no, although if my Facebook feed were representative, it'd be a landslide for yes)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Have actually read this thread?
quote:So... All the countries using the Euro are no longer independent????
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Salmond wants a currency union and that is the point that Carney - quite rightly - was making: you can't have full independence and have currency union. Salmond seems to think you can but the answer to that, whatever the vote this time next week, will be a big 'no'.
quote:They do not have independent monetary policy. Carney is of the opinion (as are many economists) that it's impossible in the long-term to have supranational monetary policy without supranational fiscal policy that can work in sync. Which would lead eventually to something that is not independence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
So... All the countries using the Euro are no longer independent????
quote:Well, the specific suggestion is that the English economy will crash, if severed from Scotland. I have no idea if that's correct, but I can imagine that banks and companies don't want to find out.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It's not just political union - the fact that Germany is gaining wealth so fast rel other EU states shows quite clearly that money has different value in different places. Separation of value by separation of currency is one way to buffer the effect on local economy. The Euro is not a sensible answer to whatever the question was supposed to be.
Re previous post by Quetzal coatl
You could say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts
quote:Well, I think continental Europe would pretty much stop caring what the UK thinks about anything, at least for a while. It's not just the actual loss of economic power and size of population, it's also the prestige loss. If you can't even keep your own nation together, then why listen to you internationally?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So all the warnings about Scotland are fair enough, but what about a rump UK? How would it fare? Is there a fear factor here?
quote:It's not an indicator of independence. It's a criterion of independence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just think it's wrong to take a particular thing of that kind and treat it as the indicator of independence.
quote:A bit like Putin, isn't it? He wants the prestige of the Baltic states and others, such as Ukraine, being attached to Russia in some way, rather than the actual well-being of those states, although no doubt, he would argue that their well-being is best served by being connected to Russia.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, I think continental Europe would pretty much stop caring what the UK thinks about anything, at least for a while. It's not just the actual loss of economic power and size of population, it's also the prestige loss. If you can't even keep your own nation together, then why listen to you internationally?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So all the warnings about Scotland are fair enough, but what about a rump UK? How would it fare? Is there a fear factor here?
And if this becomes a trend (Brittany? Catalonia? Lombardy? Basque Country? Wallonia? ...), we might end up with the historically most fractured nation, a recently reunified Germany, completely dominating a splintered Europe of regions rather than nations. It would be a self-inflicted "Divide and Conquer" of Europe, a supreme irony of history.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I think 'a right-wing rump' has a nice ring to it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing that would bother me most about losing Scotland would be the loss of the left wing MPs in Westminter.
Would we end up as the rUK living in Toryland?
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Every cloud, Boogie...
quote:Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing that would bother me most about losing Scotland would be the loss of the left wing MPs in Westminter.
Would we end up as the rUK living in Toryland?
quote:Of course, by that logic, any place where money has a "different value", as you put it, should be separated by currency so the local economy is buffered. So, let's forget about the different economies of Scotland and England retaining a common currency (whether that's the Pound, or both adopting the Euro). What we need is different currencies. And, because the biggest regional economic disparity isn't across that arbitrary line just north of the defensive structure under the orders of Hadrian but the glorified car park called the M25 it's clear that London needs a different currency to the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It's not just political union - the fact that Germany is gaining wealth so fast rel other EU states shows quite clearly that money has different value in different places. Separation of value by separation of currency is one way to buffer the effect on local economy. The Euro is not a sensible answer to whatever the question was supposed to be.
quote:All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
quote:And it can then end the currency union.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:It's not an indicator of independence. It's a criterion of independence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just think it's wrong to take a particular thing of that kind and treat it as the indicator of independence.
Here's a simple example: let's say Scotland votes yes and cuts corporation tax to a minimum to attract companies. Loads of companies set up shop in Scotland and want to export to Europe, which given the tiny size of the Scottish market they will certainly wish to do. They are going to want a cheap pound to make their goods more competitive internationally.
But the Bank of England thinks for the UK, which it is responsible for, it's best to raise interest rates, which tend to move in the same direction as exchange rates. That is, higher interest rates and a stronger pound. (It's not always perfect but this is broadly the way it works).
What is Scotland going to do about that? It will be sitting with a fiscal policy on taxation to attract exporters but a monetary policy that achieves the opposite.
quote:I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
quote:Simple. By taking an aggressive, pro-English, anti-Scottish line in any negotiations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
quote:You're right - but then what would they do? An independent central bank is a requirement for membership into the EMU, which all new EU countries have to join.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it can then end the currency union.
quote:This did occur to me. There is a timetable for independence. If, during any transition, Scots find that the rUK government is resolute in standing up for British taxpayers, if businesses start relocating or cancelling investment plans, if the new Scottish Broadcasting Corporations realises it can't afford to run both BBC Alba and buy EastEnders, a lot of people might soon think 'actually, this independence lark isn't all what it cracked up to be'.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Scotland could change its mind.
quote:They won't need "EastEnders" as they'll be creating the next "Borgen"!
Originally posted by Anglican't:
if the new Scottish Broadcasting Corporations realises it can't afford to run both BBC Alba and buy EastEnders, a lot of people might soon think 'actually, this independence lark isn't all what it cracked up to be'.
quote:Yes Scotland
The examples of Borgen and the Killing from Denmark, The Bridge from Sweden and Denmark, Lilyhammer from Norway show the possibilities for selling quality content beyond your own shores are real and also highlight the opportunities for co-productions between broadcasters. The popular "Mrs Brown’s boys" is a good example of this, a co-production between the BBC and Ireland’s public service broadcaster RTE.
quote:
The Scottish economy will continue to be based on anti-poverty taskforces
quote:Good, but not what I'd been hoping for...
Originally posted by Lucia:
A brief interlude... in the discussion.
quote:I'm not sure how, as the man who granted the referendum in the first place, Cameron would be particularly well placed to recast himself as the voice of resentful England. That said, there isn't an obvious replacement on the Conservative front bench. Boris isn't an MP, Gove is Scottish, Osborne is too implicated in project Cameron.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Simple. By taking an aggressive, pro-English, anti-Scottish line in any negotiations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:I don't see how Cameron can survive as the leader as the Conservative & Unionist Party (as is its full title) if he presides over the fracturing of the union.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:All but two previous majorities. Plus I can see the Tory Party pulling itself to pieces across any independence discussions - there's a whole bunch of people who are wont to take 'constitutional questions' - whether real or imagined - hyper seriously.
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Not necessarily. From what I have read previously on UK Polling Report almost all previous Labour majorities would still have happened without Scottish MPs in the count.
He can say "the Scottish have made their own choice, now England must take priority".
quote:That's why speculation is so interesting. If it's a yes, then the pressure will be on Cameron to set a timetable for his resignation but I can't see who he hands over to in the short term.
Originally posted by Gildas:
An interesting set of variables and no real precedent. People who claim to be certain about such matters are kidding themselves.
quote:My wife - also a Scot living in southern England - would say exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by chive:
I do think that for the length of time I've had any interest in politics, Scottish people have felt very disenfranchised from Westminster. The political culture in Scotland is very different from other parts of the UK. I now live in Kent and I was genuinely surprised how differently people down here discussed and thought about politics.
The no campaign has been a disaster. It has come across as horribly patronising in a 'we know best' fashion which underlies many of the reasons a lot of Scots find UK politics irrelevant and irritating. It reminds me of the Thatcherist attitude to Scotland I saw as I grew up.
If there is a yes vote then I think it's going to lead to enormously difficult negotiations but then politics is about enormously difficult negotiations and if the Scottish people want these negotiations to go ahead they should.
quote:Labour can't push too hard against Cameron, because, aside from the usual suspects, the Tories are busy rowing in behind the line here:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gildas
Yes, spot on. I'm not convinced that a fierce pro-English line will serve Cameron well, although he might take it up, in order to neutralize UKIP.
He may seem like a lame duck; on the other hand, they may stick with him as the lesser of many evils.
I doubt if Miliband will be challenged, unless the vote is yes. The Scottish Labour movement has been in ruins for years.
Salmond will probably be triumphant, even no wins, and I expect his stock to rise.
Watch London backtrack on devo-max also, perfidious Albion?
quote:There's BBC Alba, a Gaelic language channel and if they get a sports presenter like Amanda Protheroe-Thomas, who used to present S4C's Sgorio years ago, they will get some viewers.
Originally posted by Albertus:
And if the Scots are really lucky they'll have a public broadcaster as exciting, original and innovative as, er, S4C...
quote:Ah ha! Now I understand your disappointment!
Originally posted by Albertus:
See my reply to North East Quine about 6 posts up. Your link is great but it's not what I thought it might be!
quote:Which campaign has invited him? I can't help but feel he will be good for the others.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just realized Farage is on his way; will there be a riot, or maybe it's unimportant?
quote:What's not exciting about this? When I was living in Wales, I could watch this for hours when I got home from the pub.
Albertus: And if the Scots are really lucky they'll have a public broadcaster as exciting, original and innovative as, er, S4C...
quote:BBC News
The BBC has learned that key retailers are planning a joint warning of higher business costs should Scotland vote "Yes" as the war of words heats up.
A letter written by the head of the Kingfisher* group is expected to be published in the next 48 hours.
It is thought further signatories will include the heads of John Lewis, Asda and Marks and Spencer.
quote:
On the other side of the argument, the boss of JD Wetherspoon, the UK pub chain, has accused business leaders and politicians of talking "nonsense" over independence worries.
Speaking on Friday, Tim Martin said: "Scotland could do very well on its own".
quote:A likely outcome is hardly punishment. No one is saying they will shut down stores in Scotland, but it is true that every additional jurisdiction a company does business in brings additional costs. Both Kingfisher and Asda (owned by Walmart) have enough international businesses to speak with some confidence on how they would react to an independent Scotland.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.
quote:Well, yes. It will be prosperous, compared to say El Salvador or Rwanda. It's all relative.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.
quote:The Scandinavian countries Salmond dreams of emulating are all known for having ridiculously high consumer prices. That doesn't mean they aren't prosperous. I'm not getting the link Peston is trying to make here.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.
quote:I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:The Scandinavian countries Salmond dreams of emulating are all known for having ridiculously high consumer prices. That doesn't mean they aren't prosperous. I'm not getting the link Peston is trying to make here.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Robert Peston made an interesting comment about the price rise warnings - that they are bonkers and uninteresting. Well, I suppose not for some people, but he also said that Scotland would be a prosperous country, independent or not.
quote:Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.
quote:I think the take home message is that no-one knows the effects of a yes vote. Business people don't like this sort of unnecessary change because it will change the costs and undoubtedly add to them throughout the
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.
If Asda raise prices and Morrisons don't, then people will shop in Morrisons instead of Asda.
quote:How about, 'vote no, and look forward to a Tory government with real teeth'.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Morrisons have said prices could fall, and Tesco have said that some prices will rise whilst others fall, and that overall there is likely to be little difference.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not a 'threat to punish' just a realistic assessment of how prices are likely to rise if the Scots have a floating pound.
If Asda raise prices and Morrisons don't, then people will shop in Morrisons instead of Asda.
Also, one thing everyone agrees will push prices up is an increase in the minimum wage. Saying "Vote no, and ensure the minimum wage doesn't rise. Keep the poor poor!" isn't playing particularly well as a vote winner here.
quote:They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.
quote:Oh of course. Which is why any suggestion that these are bullying tactics is ridiculous. They retailers are simply covering their backs by saying prices might rise. That is, they are not going to pay for Scotland's independence and any additional costs that come with doing business their out of their own pockets. They will make the consumers pay for it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.
quote:I think it's the suggestion that this is being orchestrated by Cameron that is raising eyebrows. Of course, he has the perfect right to do that, I'm sure; but I wonder how it will play amongst voters, who are, let's say, less than enamoured with Cameron.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Oh of course. Which is why any suggestion that these are bullying tactics is ridiculous. They retailers are simply covering their backs by saying prices might rise. That is, they are not going to pay for Scotland's independence and any additional costs that come with doing business their out of their own pockets. They will make the consumers pay for it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think he was making a link. I thought he was saying that yes, prices might rise, and also, Scotland would be fairly prosperous.
quote:A yes vote will give the Scottish government a mandate from the Scottish people to enter negotiations with Westminster, and others, for independence broadly in line with the desires of the Scottish government outlined in the white paper - keeping the pound, remaining in Europe, scrapping the wast of money that is Trident etc.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Is it possible that even in the event of a yes vote, complete independence will not be enacted?
quote:Not yet - just wait til they change the laws on birth certificates though and it'll be fine...
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Donald Dewar is already referred to as the "father of the nation" We can't have two fathers!!
quote:If we're going to have this gay parenting stuff, you have to accept the consequences...
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Donald Dewar is already referred to as the "father of the nation" We can't have two fathers!!
quote:Indeed. Fortunately, Westminster never embarks on a
Originally posted by L'organist:
Donald Dewar, eh?
The same Donald Dewar who announced the cost of the new Parliament building as being 'reasonable' at £109m (double the cost projected by the architect).
And the eventual cost? £412m
quote:If Scotland were no longer part of the UK, would it have its own military? Would it be a NATO member? What kind of relationship would it want with the US? I'm guessing as the political trend is more liberal there than in England (not to mention the US), Scotland wouldn't want the "special relationship" with the US that the UK has, but that's really just a guess.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:A yes vote will give the Scottish government a mandate from the Scottish people to enter negotiations with Westminster, and others, for independence broadly in line with the desires of the Scottish government outlined in the white paper - keeping the pound, remaining in Europe, scrapping the wast of money that is Trident etc.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Is it possible that even in the event of a yes vote, complete independence will not be enacted?
quote:That's what the Telegraph says, but it's not what the poster says. Besides, isn't it going to be a secret ballot?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.
quote:And as if to re-emphasise that it's going to be very close, probably most of my acquaintance (leastways those I know well enough to know how they'll vote) are "No" voters.
posted by chive:
I'm finding this debate fascinating as a Scot living in deepest darkest England who doesn't have a vote. I was up in Scotland a couple of weekends ago and only spoke to one person who wanted to vote no. But then her knowledge of politics is such that she once asked me if Obama was the president
quote:As a British citizen, why are you only interested in the effect on England ?
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not sure that anyone has shown what the downside for England would be. Lots of hope about possible problems for the Conservatives, but no hard evidence backed up with good quality polling data.
Most of what I'm reading on this thread is a wish list of what people want to happen to the Conservative Party.
quote:Thanks for the suggestion. Confirms my view that the 'no' campaign will win by a bigger margin than the polls predict.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would strongly recommend having a listen to More Or Less on radio iplayer - on the statistics in the referendum debate and polls.
quote:Because I am English, I live in England, I work in England and I am raising my family in England.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:As a British citizen, why are you only interested in the effect on England ?
Originally posted by deano:
I'm not sure that anyone has shown what the downside for England would be. Lots of hope about possible problems for the Conservatives, but no hard evidence backed up with good quality polling data.
Most of what I'm reading on this thread is a wish list of what people want to happen to the Conservative Party.
quote:Because they're part of the same nation? It's the same attitude as the SNP: "The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need for you?"
Originally posted by deano:
[Why do I need to bother about the Scottish or Welsh or Irish?
quote:Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?
quote:I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.
quote:Yes, it is a secret ballot. But in what way do you think Iain Martin is wrong?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:That's what the Telegraph says, but it's not what the poster says. Besides, isn't it going to be a secret ballot?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:They can't vote the 'wrong' way: they're being marched to the polls to ensure they vote the 'right' way.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
So some retailers are threatening to punish the naughty Scots if they vote the wrong way.
quote:Yes, all these banks announcing they'll move south. Probably just crying wolf, besides which won't matter much. But, Nessie! Please, No!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I wonder if there's an element of crying wolf about these warnings. It's quite likely that many people will become inured to them, or even cynical - well, they would say that, especially with Cameron breathing down their neck.
quote:She's just goin a donner 'fore the borders change.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, Nessie! Please, No!
quote:Depends what you mean by swingeing. Scotland will need to cut spending, but for different longer term reasons - demographic trends aren't favourable, and North Sea oil revenues are on a decline.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The question then is: will independence enable a Scottish government to avoid such swingeing cuts? I have no idea, and it's possible that the yes campaign don't want to go into this.
quote:I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.
quote:But why would you want to wear a skirt anyway?
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.
quote:Man, and people wonder why English holiday homes in Wales got firebombed so much.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?
We'll just rename The UK as England and job done.
quote:You wouldn't. You're a happily married man whose wife finds you irresistible as you are. But for men who want to create a frisson with the opposite sex, or for men whose wives like to see their husbands looking sexy, kilts are unbeatable.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:But why would you want to wear a skirt anyway?
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:I wouldn't have thought so. AIUI the kilt (as opposed to the plaid) was invented by an Englishman- I think (haven't got my copy of Hobsbawm's The Invention of Tradition any more) a Lancashire Quaker ironmaster who set up a plant in the Highlands some time in the C18.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't wish to be rude, old chap, but isn't that rather regarded as something of a faux pas? Or at least rather rum?
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm English...I wear a kilt.
quote:Ahem. Long-term absence is no excuse for ignoring the 10 Commandments; accusing other posters of trolling breaches them. Please refrain outside Hell.
Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, if he's just trolling, that's ok. I've been away for a fair few years (I think I hit 7500 posts or so in 2005, if that gives you some idea), so I'm not familiar with some of the relatively newer faces.
quote:oops, sorry, Eutychus. I honestly forgot how loaded the T-word is here, and should have phrased my comment more like, "If he's just having a laugh" or something. Won't happen again.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:Ahem. Long-term absence is no excuse for ignoring the 10 Commandments; accusing other posters of trolling breaches them. Please refrain outside Hell.
Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, if he's just trolling, that's ok. I've been away for a fair few years (I think I hit 7500 posts or so in 2005, if that gives you some idea), so I'm not familiar with some of the relatively newer faces.
/hosting
quote:Not much violent repression here in Wales since the later middle ages, or not much based on nationality rather than class or economic interests, anyway. Cultural and linguistic repression is perhaps a different story but even that didn't AIUI really get going until the age of mass education and literacy- which also produced a flowering of (a particular kind of ) indigenous Welsh culture. Gentrification and holiday homes are a real problem for many rural communities in Wales as elsewhere in the UK, although here there is often the languaage question too: but actually questions about affordability and incomers are affecting London too. If I were still living in london I would quite seriously be thinking about attacking some of those big foreign owned investment blocks of luxury flats, if I could be sure of doing so without endangering life.
Originally posted by Wood:
There isn't a direct connection, but everything like that is a reminder of eight, nine centuries, easy of violent repression that continued into the twentieth century. Also, gentrification pisses people off.
Firebombing homes is never ever going to be OK, and a crime is a crime, and a victim, a victim, and I'd never say, you shouldn't have bought a house there, but accounting for the reasons and causes for these actions is not victim blaming.
quote:You are displaying a remarkable - though sadly rather typical - ignorance of your own national history. 'Pandering' is an interesting word to use for the several hundreds' years worth of oppression, conflict and exploitation practiced upon the provincial nations by their 'big brother', in the Union.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Because all the English have to do is wait for the rest to bugger off and we can have all the EU opts outs without the bother of having to pander to the Celtic nations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So why aren't you campaigning for English independence ?
We'll just rename The UK as England and job done.
quote:If you think this is reasonable summary of British history then I have to say that you are displaying an equal, though opposite ignorance.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You are displaying a remarkable - though sadly rather typical - ignorance of your own national history. 'Pandering' is an interesting word to use for the several hundreds' years worth of oppression, conflict and exploitation practiced upon the provincial nations by their 'big brother', in the Union.
quote:Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.
quote:The SNP were willing to go ahead with the vote on that basis. They could have told Westminster where to stick it as they also knew full well that most Scots would have preferred the middle way.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.
quote:Admittedly said Scottish queen trying to steal Liz's throne and/or have her killed wasn't that friendly either.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The English queen imprisoning her Scottish cousin wasn't that friendly...
quote:So what you're saying is that because there are good bits of history, the bad bits of history don't count?
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.
Anselmina's summary of British history is absurd because it is so partial.
quote:No, they both count. But I'm arguing against the idea that history is best seen as goodies and baddies or simplistically retold as such.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:So what you're saying is that because there are good bits of history, the bad bits of history don't count?
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Oh, how oppressed the Scots are because they weren't allowed a multi-question referendum. (For reasons that have already been debated up thread).
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That was a long time ago, Orfeo. For something more recent, how about Westminster's insistence in the Edinburgh Agreement that DevoMax was not an option and that Scots had to vote either "Yes" or "No" despite the fact that Westminster knew that most Scots would have preferred a middle way.
Anselmina's summary of British history is absurd because it is so partial.
quote:No I'd be more likely to buy a narrative of the oppression of the Irish by the British government. But to my mind, the oppression of the Scots by the English is not the dominant theme of the history of the Union.
Originally posted by Wood:
No, of course not, but we're not talking about objective history here. We're talking about systems of oppression, and, more importantly, resentments that come from an historical imbalance of privilege.
And those resentments do come from oppressive acts done by a more powerful nation. Good or bad, this happened.
quote:This makes my point for me. It makes as much sense to say the South 'oppressed' the north, except that people in the South were also 'oppressed'. We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners. Yet poor people in London are as desperate as anywhere else and often more isolated in a place where everything is so expensive. Blaming a geographical location or an entire nation for poverty and injustice is pointless.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well there were the Highland Clearances, though I guess the Lowland Scots were complicit in that.
quote:This is disingenuous and you know it.
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.
quote:The first Duchess of Sutherland, a Scot, was rather more than complicit in the Clearances; and IIRC from John Prebble's book in the subject, there were clan chiefs who went into exile with their dispossessed people and chiefs who more or less sold their people into exile. I suspect that the Scots upper- and up-and-coming- classes, whether Highland or Lowland, were perfectly capable of giving their own poorer countrymen a hard time withou needing any help or encouragement from south of the Tweed.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well there were the Highland Clearances, though I guess the Lowland Scots were complicit in that.
quote:So, I'm Da's favourite 'cause he beats me less?
Originally posted by Wood:
Granted, of the three neighbour nation the Scots have probably had it the least unpleasant.
quote:No it isn't. For a start Jane R and Anselmina used the term vassals. The former in terms of the relationship between Londoners and people in the rest of the UK and the latter to characterise the relationship between England and Scotland. I thought both claims were utter bullshit.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:This is disingenuous and you know it.
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.
quote:Well, quite. I would never suggest that Scotland has had it easy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So, I'm Da's favourite 'cause he beats me less?
Originally posted by Wood:
Granted, of the three neighbour nation the Scots have probably had it the least unpleasant.
quote:Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:No it isn't. For a start Jane R and Anselmina used the term vassals. The former in terms of the relationship between Londoners and people in the rest of the UK and the latter to characterise the relationship between England and Scotland. I thought both claims were utter bullshit.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:This is disingenuous and you know it.
Originally posted by Spawn:
We had this earlier in the thread when there was this daft knee jerk reaction against Londoners.
quote:We're getting reports of flash mobs (and the fact that much of the campaigning is good natured and energetic) but we don't really know how how much significance should be attached to this? Probably not much as it's a group of true believers. My prediction is still for a fairly comfortable win for the UK.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Out of curiosity - what impression are shipmates furth of Scotland getting of the campaign? There is a lot of comment on Facebook / Twitter etc that the media simply aren't reporting Yes gatherings, preferring to focus on statements by business people and politicians.
For example, this was Inverness yesterday, and this was Glasgow - note the chanting of"We still love you even if you're No"
Is this being reported south of the border?
quote:The historical summary from Anselmina was mixed up and vague in the details. It's for her to stand it up. But you can't just characterise the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the UK as one of perpetual domination and oppression particularly during the history of the Union. Two examples were offered by Orfeo and by someone else of the Highland Clearances and they both fall apart under examination. To take one example, the character of the relationship between England and Scotland as far as imperialism goes is one of partnership.
Originally posted by Wood:
Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.
quote:I don't think you're being any less vague than she is. You seem to think that your argument is based on self evident patent facts. "That's bullshit." Great, tell us why. "Here's an example." OK, good, but it doesn't invalidate the other points made."Scotland and the UK have had a partnership vis imperialism." Ok, now back that up.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:The historical summary from Anselmina was mixed up and vague in the details. It's for her to stand it up. But you can't just characterise the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the UK as one of perpetual domination and oppression particularly during the history of the Union. Two examples were offered by Orfeo and by someone else of the Highland Clearances and they both fall apart under examination. To take one example, the character of the relationship between England and Scotland as far as imperialism goes is one of partnership.
Originally posted by Wood:
Yes, and you said so. You never however backed that up. Particularly with respect to Anselmina, whose summary of provincial grievances you never actually rebutted.
quote:I don't need to be specific because I'm making no claims beyond 'it's a lot more complicated than that' (the 'shit happens' school of history). It is Anselmina who is making grandiose historical claims that the relationships amongst the constituent parts of the UK can all be characterised as one of oppression and domination by England. Yes British governments and aristocracies and elites and bureaucracies and establishments did bad things. 'Shit happens' but that shouldn't contribute to perceived grievances today.
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think you're being any less vague than she is.
quote:No, it shouldn't but it does. And the statement "it's a lot more complicated", while it may be demonstrably true, doesn't address that.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I don't need to be specific because I'm making no claims beyond 'it's a lot more complicated than that' (the 'shit happens' school of history). It is Anselmina who is making grandiose historical claims that the relationships amongst the constituent parts of the UK can all be characterised as one of oppression and domination by England. Yes British governments and aristocracies and elites and bureaucracies and establishments did bad things. 'Shit happens' but that shouldn't contribute to perceived grievances today.
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think you're being any less vague than she is.
quote:I'm Scottish, Irish and English by ancestry. Who did what to whom? My English grandparents had much greater experience of poverty than my Scottish grandparents. Please make a case for the seriousness of these historical, institutional wrongs with regard to the English-Scottish relationship. I don't buy it that the Glaswegian Dock worker had it any worse than his counterpart in Liverpool, a miner in Durham, or the women and children who worked in the mills in Lancashire.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
quote:I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
quote:Wood, what then are the particular historical grievances of the Scots? You seem to be suggesting that because there is the perception of a grievance then it is real. My view is that perceived grievances are in some cases unreal and in other cases cannot be explained in relation to national boundaries but are shared across boundaries.
Originally posted by Wood:
Man, this is frustrating. It's not about having it worse. It's not a.competition. That isn't the point
quote:It's interesting how docile the English have been about this. Since devolution - and with the West Lothian question still unresolved - there have been times when sometimes unpopular legislation for England has been passed with Scottish votes. There was disquiet about this but it kind of fizzled out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know why there isn't a legislative assembly for England? Because it's never been felt that strongly that it needed one. The contrast with genuinely federal nations composed of equal units is fairly obvious.
quote:I'd say that if Scotland became independent, there'd probably be less need to resolve the West Lothian question because English constituencies would dominate Parliament even more than they do now.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It's interesting how docile the English have been about this. Since devolution - and with the West Lothian question still unresolved - there have been times when sometimes unpopular legislation for England has been passed with Scottish votes. There was disquiet about this but it kind of fizzled out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know why there isn't a legislative assembly for England? Because it's never been felt that strongly that it needed one. The contrast with genuinely federal nations composed of equal units is fairly obvious.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote next week, will the sleeping English lion awake?
quote:Yes, but you don't necessarily get from noticing that to proving that the dominant historical narrative of the union is one of institutional wrongdoing by the English to the others. My view is that 'British' 'elites' screwed everybody including English people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see what's so extraordinary about noticing that England has generally been the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. It successfully took over Wales. It conquered Ireland. It generally had a lot more success in attacking Scotland than Scotland did in attacking it.
quote:But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Yes, but you don't necessarily get from noticing that to proving that the dominant historical narrative of the union is one of institutional wrongdoing by the English to the others. My view is that 'British' 'elites' screwed everybody including English people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see what's so extraordinary about noticing that England has generally been the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. It successfully took over Wales. It conquered Ireland. It generally had a lot more success in attacking Scotland than Scotland did in attacking it.
quote:Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean? Yeah, your ancestor was wronged by two empires. Well done.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
quote:Why should any of this take this at all seriously?
Originally posted by vw man:
I don't take every word of knowledge or prophecy as from God,but I have read an interesting prophecy regarding Scotland.if you goggle prophecy's about Scotland and read the one on the Scotland ablaze web site .food for thought
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:You mean you actually looked it up instead of treating it with indifference?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:Why should any of this take this at all seriously?
Originally posted by vw man:
I don't take every word of knowledge or prophecy as from God,but I have read an interesting prophecy regarding Scotland.if you goggle prophecy's about Scotland and read the one on the Scotland ablaze web site .food for thought
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles. In many ways, Scotland flourished in the Union and Scottish people dominated the world scientifically and intellectually. Another country, I have lots of connections to - Canada - was opened up, explored and led by Scots.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
quote:
Yeah, your ancestor was wronged by two empires.
quote:Likewise.
Well done.
quote:Names like Macmilllan, Home, Blair, Cameron.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Some of our ... Prime Ministers have been Scottish.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:Most of us south of the border take the newspapers with as big a pinch of salt as those north of it. Some stuff is appearing on the news but many have been discussing things with the various expat Scottish people they work with or looking on social media. All the expats I know would vote no if they could. Of them, their family members who do have a vote rang from rabid nationalists, inbetweeners to no voters.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Out of curiosity - what impression are shipmates furth of Scotland getting of the campaign? There is a lot of comment on Facebook / Twitter etc that the media simply aren't reporting Yes gatherings, preferring to focus on statements by business people and politicians.
For example, this was Inverness yesterday, and this was Glasgow - note the chanting of"We still love you even if you're No"
Is this being reported south of the border?
quote:That's poor form; God casting his vote early and letting it be known publicly. Pft.
'Scotland and Wales will be thorns in the side of England ...'
quote:I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:Yes, this. Plus:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Most of us south of the border take the newspapers with as big a pinch of salt as those north of it. Some stuff is appearing on the news but many have been discussing things with the various expat Scottish people they work with or looking on social media. All the expats I know would vote no if they could. Of them, their family members who do have a vote rang from rabid nationalists, inbetweeners to no voters.
I think it will be extremely close however it falls. Which means there will be endless arguments about whether the result fits the criteria set out in the agreement.
I hope things like the "Let's stay together" rally in London this week is also getting air time north of the border. What the no campaign haven't managed to get across is that a whole is always stronger than the sum of it's parts and that both sides will be poorer and have less opportunities without the other. That's even down to practical things like the ability to move between each other for work. People will need a work permit, won't be entitled to benefits etc.
Tubbs
quote:If you mean the '15 and the '45, surely those were about the Glorious Revolution rather than the Act of Union. AIUI the aim was to replace the Hanoverians on the throne in London, not to spin Scotland off.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:I think we're just going to have to register flat, complete disagreement on this one and move on.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:Inasmuch as empire as a phenomenon is always an historical and institutional wrong, you mean?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I suppose the rise of Wilhelmine Germany and all that that entailed could be regarded as a 'historical institutional wrong'? I ask because one of the Kaiser's soldiers killed my great-grandfather. But, you know, shit happens.
Originally posted by Wood:
Also, "shit happens" isn't really ever an excuse for historical institutional wrongs. Certainly you never ever hear it from people who identify with the people group on the other side. It's pretty lazy and callous.
Erm, no.
quote:With this I agree a hundred per cent.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I think, the grievances which Wood claims are real, are to be found in any country where power is concentrated unhealthily in the capital city.
quote:Of course there are. Starving people need food more than I do. I need to lose weight.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is there any situation in which you believe putting non-relatives needs above your own, or your family's, needs or desires is justified deano ?
quote:Why are you against that? I always thought it might be a good idea - shake things up a bit and all that.
Originally posted by deano:
There is one massive upside for England in the event of a Yes vote... it will kill off once and for all the possibility that Rangers and Celtic will be allowed into the English leagues!
quote:Would starving Scottish people count ? Or starving Syrians ? Or starving Britains only, in any format the UK happens to be at the time ?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Of course there are. Starving people need food more than I do. I need to lose weight.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is there any situation in which you believe putting non-relatives needs above your own, or your family's, needs or desires is justified deano ?
But I don't see any situations involving Scottish people that would qualify. They can deal with whatever mess they leave themselves in. As long as me and mine are not affected then I will sleep soundly in my bed.
quote:French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:The Royal Family is more German and Scottish than English, I believe. The current Monarch traces her lineage to the Stuarts.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb] But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:So you are trying to conflate my positions on the Scottish referendum and the anti-jihadist threads. Oh well, nice try.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
To be fair, starving Syrians are not a hypothetical construct.
I was just interested in how far the logic of your position (across many threads) extends.
As regards the Scots, if there was a rUK referendum after a No vote - which way would you vote deano ?
quote:It's cute how some of you think that "elites" means the Royal Family and that they actually still run things.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:The two are not entirely separate issues.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:If you mean the '15 and the '45, surely those were about the Glorious Revolution rather than the Act of Union. AIUI the aim was to replace the Hanoverians on the throne in London, not to spin Scotland off.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:And, even if there hadn't been riots, and the Union had been by mutual agreement rather than conquest does that make independence wrong? One could debate whether or not other parts of the Empire had been acquired by conquest or not - in Canada, Australia, New Zealand the native peoples were displaced but most of the population in the 1940s would have considered themselves of British descent without a great deal of animosity towards the British government over past injustices that had resulted in them being part of the Empire. Was it truly wrong for Australia, New Zealand, India etc to be granted independence? And, if it was OK for those countries, why is it not OK for Scotland? Just because Scotland was part of the Empire for slightly longer, doesn't make it fundamentally different.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm not sure why acquisition by bribery and corruption should engender a feeling of mutuality any more than conquest. The Act of Union resulted in riots and ultimately armed rebellion.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Mostly overwhelmingly English but not always. Some of our Monarchs and Prime Ministers have been Scottish. In terms of the relationship between England and Scotland in which the Union didn't come about as a result of conquest, there is a mutuality which is absent elsewhere in the British Isles.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:Up to the turn of the last-but-one century, this was indisputably the case, with the Crown and feudal lords, some dating back to the Norman invasion, being the chief land-owners.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's cute how some of you think that "elites" means the Royal Family and that they actually still run things.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:I know, and agree. That's why I was making a similar point about places like Australia where the relationship was also not one of oppressor and oppressed.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Alan Cresswell, the point I was making was that the relationship between England and Scotland couldn't be characterised wholly or mainly in terms of oppressor and oppressed. I'm criticising this overblown sense of historical grievance and arguing that it shouldn't form part of the background to this decision.
quote:Quite right. I don't completely deny them but it is very rare that a historical grievance in the present day should amount to much more than a 'shit happens' attitude. Genocides, ethnic cleansings and enslavement of peoples are the clear exceptions to the 'shit happens' school of history.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The historical grievances are, however, real. To deny them is as wrong as to blow them out of proportion.
quote:Funnily enough, I read two unrelated articles by fairly hardline socialists this last weekend who believed, in terms that didn't fully convince me, that Scottish independence would be disastrous for the working class in both countries, and needed to be avoided at all costs. This was clearly a moral issue for them.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Have many people actually been arguing that Scottish independence would be wrong? Unwise and unneccessarily divise, perhaps, but wrong?
quote:It is somewhat of a pity that it is so close. It might have been better to have the winning vote at 60%, but bloodshed, really?!
What I would say is, for God's sake, (if the vote is close) don't partition anything. Every single place we did that in, ended up with years of bloodshed.
quote:Very true. But some of the horse trading over who is to blame for what side-steps that some sections of Scottish society were also involved in the oppression of their own people; the Scots were as happy as the English to paint the world pink back in the day and that the authors of some of the crap things that are currently impacting the UK were from Scotland.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I know, and agree. That's why I was making a similar point about places like Australia where the relationship was also not one of oppressor and oppressed.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Alan Cresswell, the point I was making was that the relationship between England and Scotland couldn't be characterised wholly or mainly in terms of oppressor and oppressed. I'm criticising this overblown sense of historical grievance and arguing that it shouldn't form part of the background to this decision.
The historical grievances are, however, real. To deny them is as wrong as to blow them out of proportion.
quote:Ditto. I have both Scots and English blood in me and some of my forebears of both nationalities were in the military, defending Great Britain. To throw that shared heritage away would be a great shame IMO; in that regard I echo the sentiments of Lord Dannat reported over the weekend.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Yes, this. Plus:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Most of us south of the border take the newspapers with as big a pinch of salt as those north of it. Some stuff is appearing on the news but many have been discussing things with the various expat Scottish people they work with or looking on social media. All the expats I know would vote no if they could. Of them, their family members who do have a vote rang from rabid nationalists, inbetweeners to no voters.
I think it will be extremely close however it falls. Which means there will be endless arguments about whether the result fits the criteria set out in the agreement.
I hope things like the "Let's stay together" rally in London this week is also getting air time north of the border. What the no campaign haven't managed to get across is that a whole is always stronger than the sum of it's parts and that both sides will be poorer and have less opportunities without the other. That's even down to practical things like the ability to move between each other for work. People will need a work permit, won't be entitled to benefits etc.
Tubbs
It will be a great shame to split up and destroy what others who waged war against us couldn't. It's far better for the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to stand side by side for justice in society than to try to do so in isolated pockets.
I understand the reasons for the call for separation. I think that the debates have encouraged a positive interest in politics that was badly needed. But this is needed not only in Scotland, but in the whole of the UK.
I pray that we will not be divided.
quote:"Some dating back to the Norman invasion" is a bit at odds with your previous post, though, isn't it? Or are you still going to insist on labelling those people as 'French' generations and centuries after they lost the ability to speak the language?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Up to the turn of the last-but-one century, this was indisputably the case, with the Crown and feudal lords, some dating back to the Norman invasion, being the chief land-owners.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's cute how some of you think that "elites" means the Royal Family and that they actually still run things.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
quote:I can't say I find this particular line of argument convincing. Ancestors? Why do I have to have the same national identity as my ancestors?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ditto. I have both Scots and English blood in me and some of my forebears of both nationalities were in the military, defending Great Britain. To throw that shared heritage away would be a great shame IMO; in that regard I echo the sentiments of Lord Dannat reported over the weekend.
quote:On your penultimate point, you could, but of course most people in England are celts not anglo saxons:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:"Some dating back to the Norman invasion" is a bit at odds with your previous post, though, isn't it? Or are you still going to insist on labelling those people as 'French' generations and centuries after they lost the ability to speak the language?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Up to the turn of the last-but-one century, this was indisputably the case, with the Crown and feudal lords, some dating back to the Norman invasion, being the chief land-owners.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's cute how some of you think that "elites" means the Royal Family and that they actually still run things.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:French and German, up to about 1914, when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha decided that they sounded a bit too hunnish for the peasants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the British elites are in fact overwhelmingly English, are they not?
You might as well insist that the English are really from the German/Danish coast.
And really, you think the royal family were in charge that long? Execution of Charles I notwithstanding? William and Mary?
quote:This is a fair point. But then a lot of these things are.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As for the Clearances, surely they were as much about class distinctions as national ones?
quote:Granted, but whilst agreeing with your point I was just pointing out that someone arguing that "the English" were from there would be wrong. It's only slightly less a celtic nation than Scotland in reality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that I'm trying to point out that tracing genetics back through the centuries isn't all that relevant, I'm not finding that piece of information terribly compelling.
quote:I entirely agree. Which is why it has been very encouraging how little the "Union was forced on us in 1707" and similar cards have been played by the Yes campaign. The focus for the Yes campaign has been that independence is better for the people who live and work in Scotland today and for the future, with very little of the campaign looking backwards to past grievances.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The danger with playing on national grievances to drive people to vote and think in a particular way is that it’s very hard to move away from that when it’s served its purpose.
quote:This is all inaccurate and misleading bluster. The pound will stay but on what terms will Scotland use the pound? These terms will have to favour rUK and the view that a currency union without political union is something that has been refused for years. It is not in your gift or Alec Salmond's to state with such confidence that there aren't any potential pitfalls with Scotland and the EU. Firstly, there are opt-outs to be negotiated. Then there is the Spanish veto.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The pound will stay, Scotland will be inducted post haste into the EU and the political issues and the subsequent policies will pretty much be the same as they always were, but with the exception that the political and policy 'control' is an independent country right on your doorstep - both will balance the other.
quote:Well, strictly speaking fletcher is right, the day the results are announced won't result in any changes, yes or no. If the result is Yes then that will mark the start of negotiations for Independence, and though the Scottish government is seeking a mandate to enter those negotiations with particular aims there is no guarantee that they will be achieved.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:This is all inaccurate and misleading bluster. The pound will stay but on what terms will Scotland use the pound? These terms will have to favour rUK and the view that a currency union without political union is something that has been refused for years. It is not in your gift or Alec Salmond's to state with such confidence that there aren't any potential pitfalls with Scotland and the EU. Firstly, there are opt-outs to be negotiated. Then there is the Spanish veto.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The pound will stay, Scotland will be inducted post haste into the EU and the political issues and the subsequent policies will pretty much be the same as they always were, but with the exception that the political and policy 'control' is an independent country right on your doorstep - both will balance the other.
quote:Well yes, obviously there won't be an 'independent country' until the end of negotiations. And the real point is that in the unlikely event of a 'yes' vote there will be negotiations and no one will know for certain what will emerge from those negotiations with rUK, the EU, NATO and so on, until those negotiations are completed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Things will only change at the conclusion of those negotiations.
quote:Well the uncertainty over borders is Schengen. And that is a matter of negotiation with the EU. There could be passport control if Scotland is not part of common travel arrangements in the British Isles. The uncertainty over the EU is not whether Scotland joins (I have no doubt that will happen) but how long the negotiations go on before they are able to rejoin and whether those terms include any opt-outs. Spain may not use the veto but will not wish to make things easy or appear inevitable. Negotiations with NATO may well result in Scotland keeping the base for Trident until it is replaced. The Scottish timetable for their removal is currently an unreasonable one which will not be fulfilled. There is also the matter of new targets of two percent defence spending which Scotland will have to meet.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, there is nothing certain. Somethings are more certain than others though: there won't be border check points along Hadrians Wall, the EU will not throw out one of the major economies in Europe no matter how much a certain southern nation blusters - it's possible that inorder to retain Scotland in the EU there will be some muddle over the Euro so that Scotland isn't forced to commit to adopting it, NATO will not want to loose valuable air and naval bases on the coast of the NE Atlantic, even if there won't be nuclear weapons based here. There will certainly be some scope for negotiation of the details, but the main points are not really uncertain at all.
quote:I don't think the timing is going to be very long, if any time at all, after independence. The precedents in Europe suggest Scotlands entry into the EU will be almost instantaneous. Unified Germany just went straight in as being a continuation of the Federal Republic with all the EU membership status retained. Likewise, Scotland will be a direct continuation of part of a current EU member state. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia resulted in two new nations, both of who were admitted into the UN within three weeks.
Originally posted by Spawn:
The uncertainty over the EU is not whether Scotland joins (I have no doubt that will happen) but how long the negotiations go on before they are able to rejoin and whether those terms include any opt-outs.
quote:Some of the stuff that’s coming out of the more informal channels may not be quite so balanced.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I entirely agree. Which is why it has been very encouraging how little the "Union was forced on us in 1707" and similar cards have been played by the Yes campaign. The focus for the Yes campaign has been that independence is better for the people who live and work in Scotland today and for the future, with very little of the campaign looking backwards to past grievances.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The danger with playing on national grievances to drive people to vote and think in a particular way is that it’s very hard to move away from that when it’s served its purpose.
quote:Some of the language from the yes campaign has been pretty definite – Scotland will keep the pound; they will join the EU etc. Comments to the contrary have been dismissed as “scare-mongering”.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Well, strictly speaking fletcher is right, the day the results are announced won't result in any changes, yes or no. If the result is Yes then that will mark the start of negotiations for Independence, and though the Scottish government is seeking a mandate to enter those negotiations with particular aims there is no guarantee that they will be achieved.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:This is all inaccurate and misleading bluster. The pound will stay but on what terms will Scotland use the pound? These terms will have to favour rUK and the view that a currency union without political union is something that has been refused for years. It is not in your gift or Alec Salmond's to state with such confidence that there aren't any potential pitfalls with Scotland and the EU. Firstly, there are opt-outs to be negotiated. Then there is the Spanish veto.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The pound will stay, Scotland will be inducted post haste into the EU and the political issues and the subsequent policies will pretty much be the same as they always were, but with the exception that the political and policy 'control' is an independent country right on your doorstep - both will balance the other.
Things will only change at the conclusion of those negotiations.
quote:Yes, this is interesting. Some on the left are certainly suspicious of Salmond, but then the vote is not over him. I suppose Labour voters have been drifting to yes; it will be interesting to see if Brown and others have halted that. Possibly.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:Funnily enough, I read two unrelated articles by fairly hardline socialists this last weekend who believed, in terms that didn't fully convince me, that Scottish independence would be disastrous for the working class in both countries, and needed to be avoided at all costs. This was clearly a moral issue for them.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Have many people actually been arguing that Scottish independence would be wrong? Unwise and unneccessarily divise, perhaps, but wrong?
It also interested me because it gave the lie to the people I've heard who say it's a left-right issue. It transcends party boundaries like almost nothing else.
quote:There is a series of step required for joining the EU, see here. Notably, to even get the process started an unanimous agreement of all EU governments through the EU Council has to be reached.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The EU has only committed to considering an application from Scotland that goes through due process. The make up of the EU and the political climate are very different to the ones that applied to the examples in your other posts. The Scottish people would also have to vote on it. And they’d have to join the Euro.
quote:As the Scottish Government (following a yes) will enter negotiations with a mandate for independence with the pound and EU membership, then negotiations which fail to achieve that have failed to give the people of Scotland what they have voted for. I suppose it then comes down to do we have independence at any price, even though the people haven't voted for independence at any price, or do we stick it out in the Union that we've voted to be independent from.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Scotland without the UK pound and without EU access. Good luck with that then...
quote:True, Scottish independence would be a unique event within Europe. So, none of the precedents necessarily apply, though they must surely inform.
Originally posted by Spawn:
The more realistic position is that you just can't know. Scotland's entry to EU depends on negotiations with both EU and rUK. None of the examples you cite are parallels to Scottish separatism.
quote:I thought the referendum was simply about independence, yes or no? Independence-but-only-if-we-keep-the-pound-and-stay-in-the-EU isn't an option on the ballot paper so far as I'm aware, and thus can't really be said to be what the Scottish government is mandated to negotiate for in the event of a "yes" result.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it then comes down to do we have independence at any price, even though the people haven't voted for independence at any price, or do we stick it out in the Union that we've voted to be independent from.
quote:But a yes vote would mean they are no longer part of the Union. Surely, that's the whole point!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The idea of increased strictness on borders and no currency union is an absolute crock. I know the Uk would probably prefer it if Northern Ireland were not part of the UK, but do you honestly think that they will deny a currency union and enforce strict border controls to further isolate a part of the union while at the same time making things more difficult for themselves in relation to it?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
)
quote:True, but not for the reason you're thinking of. There's no doubt about it because it's certain that they would not be a new successor state, but the continuation of the political entity that is the UK, unchanged other than the loss of territory. In the same way that Indonesia did not become a new state when East Timor left, or Ethiopia when Eritrea left.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't think there's any doubt England, Wales and NI would be a successor state.
quote:The UK govenment and the no campaign have pointed out repeatedly that a yes vote is a yes vote - independance whatever form it takes. With no offer of a re-do if the demo progamme doesn't live up to the full install. The scenerio that Ingo has outlined - independence with no EU membership - is within the realms of possiblity.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I thought the referendum was simply about independence, yes or no? Independence-but-only-if-we-keep-the-pound-and-stay-in-the-EU isn't an option on the ballot paper so far as I'm aware, and thus can't really be said to be what the Scottish government is mandated to negotiate for in the event of a "yes" result.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it then comes down to do we have independence at any price, even though the people haven't voted for independence at any price, or do we stick it out in the Union that we've voted to be independent from.
All they will be mandated to negotiate for is independence. They'll want to get as good a deal as they can get for Scotland, of course, but there would be no requirement for that deal to include either the pound or EU membership if neither of those things are actually possible.
quote:Well, the question on the ballot paper is simply phrased. But, it's written within the context of a White Paper on Independence. And, the campaign has been very clear that given a Yes vote the Scottish Government will enter negotiations with a mandate to seek to enact that White Paper. The Scottish Government have not placed a Plan B before the electorate, we have a simple two option ballot paper.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I thought the referendum was simply about independence, yes or no?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it then comes down to do we have independence at any price, even though the people haven't voted for independence at any price, or do we stick it out in the Union that we've voted to be independent from.
quote:The idea that Scotland won't seems fantastic too me. The EU simply can't afford to lose a rich nation from the club, especially not when at the moment it's taking most of what the EU has to support the poorer nations in the Union. For the same reason Spain may bluster while they participate in campaigning, but if it comes to a negotiation on terms for Independent Scotland continuing within the EU the cold hard realism of needing the hard cash Scotland provides will force them to let Scotland retain EU membership with little difficulty.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The idea that Scotland could join the EU within weeks or even months seems like the stuff of fairyland to me.
quote:That is incorrect! Formerly, East Germany was simply "annexed" to West Germany. Before there were two political entities, after there was only one surviving one, the Federal Republic of Germany. And the FRG simply remained a member of the EU throughout, it just got bigger. Possibly one reason why this was legally straightforward is because we had an "annexation clause" explicitly in our constitution (old Grundgesetz, article 23), declaring the FRG's constitution to be valid for all parts of Germany that would join it. So in accepting the FRG into the EU, this constitutional "annexation clause" would have been accepted either implicitly or explicitly by the other EU members.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is precedent for "successor states" automatically retaining EU membership - as in the case of reunified Germany.
quote:How much do you suppose the EU would actually lose if they didn't accept Scotland? This, admittedly old, paper from the Scottish government estimates their contribution in 2007 to be just over a billion Euros, and its receipts to be about 850m Euros. The net gain to the EU of around a quarter of a billion Euros doesn't sound to me like the sort of amount they'll be desperate to keep at all costs, especially considering that other countries that are of a similar size are all net recipients of EU funds.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU simply can't afford to lose a rich nation from the club
quote:True, but it's not the rUK I'm most afraid of, it's mostly Spain. I also think that countries like Germany won't budge on the euro.
orfeo: But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
quote:I guess we both believe in fairy tales then. The difference is, I'm not betting the future of my country on it
Alan Cresswell: The idea that Scotland won't seems fantastic too me.
quote:Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)
quote:Hi Alan, while I don't think rUK will be aggressive or vengeful in the event of an ever-increasingly unlikely 'yes' vote, negotiations will be tough and difficult on some points. A Scottish white papers will be Salmond's negotiating position but rUK's team will regard it as a piece of paper. No politician will want to be seen as conceding too much because they'll be punished by the voters next year.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Well, the question on the ballot paper is simply phrased. But, it's written within the context of a White Paper on Independence. And, the campaign has been very clear that given a Yes vote the Scottish Government will enter negotiations with a mandate to seek to enact that White Paper. The Scottish Government have not placed a Plan B before the electorate, we have a simple two option ballot paper.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I thought the referendum was simply about independence, yes or no?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose it then comes down to do we have independence at any price, even though the people haven't voted for independence at any price, or do we stick it out in the Union that we've voted to be independent from.
quote:If I was a political operator working for the rUK, I would find one thing after another that had to be clarified before the rUK could possibly agree to Scotland as EU member, introducing longer and longer delays. Then as the Scottish economy comes crashing down hard, I would go for a deal that gets me whatever I want from a desperate Scottish independence government that needs to avoid a collapse in order to justify its existence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
quote:England has its own parliament. Until relatively recently the English parliament was in control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that federalism (real federalism, not devolution) is the best option (and a final solution to the West Lothian problem) - and it sadly is not on the ballot. Maybe, if politics and nationalism do not get in the way, some federal solution can be worked out in the end whether the vote is yes or no. However, I'm a yank and so my opinion is not that relevant.
On an unrelated note, why on Earth doesn't your average Englishperson want a English Parliament that allows England to vote on its own issues that Scotland, Wales, N.I., etc., get to vote on for themselves without having Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish in Westminster also able to vote on those England-only issues? It seems so unfair and a federal system seems like a pretty straightforward solution. (Feel free to put this Yank in his place by explaining the British way of government better to me
quote:But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely
quote:Cute, but not true. There's a UK Parliament but nowhere that specifically English issues can be decided. Now that can be resolved within the UK Parliament by having sessions devoted to matters devolved to England when Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots members spend time in their constituencies. We certainly don't want another tier of politicians in
Originally posted by Wood:
England has its own parliament. Until relatively recently the English parliament was in control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too...
Or, to put it another way, it's like saying "why do we need a women's history course? What about a men's history course?" when in fact all the other history is men's history.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:England has its own parliament. Until relatively recently the English parliament was in control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that federalism (real federalism, not devolution) is the best option (and a final solution to the West Lothian problem) - and it sadly is not on the ballot. Maybe, if politics and nationalism do not get in the way, some federal solution can be worked out in the end whether the vote is yes or no. However, I'm a yank and so my opinion is not that relevant.
On an unrelated note, why on Earth doesn't your average Englishperson want a English Parliament that allows England to vote on its own issues that Scotland, Wales, N.I., etc., get to vote on for themselves without having Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish in Westminster also able to vote on those England-only issues? It seems so unfair and a federal system seems like a pretty straightforward solution. (Feel free to put this Yank in his place by explaining the British way of government better to me
Then Northern Ireland and Scotland got parliaments and Wales got an assembly (and don't get me started on that). Each of these has varying, but still limited power over certain segments of law, but is still beholden in some way (to a varying degree, depending on which body we are talking about) to the English parliament.
Or, to put it another way, it's like saying "why do we need a women's history course? What about a men's history course?" when in fact all the other history is men's history.
quote:Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want [...]
quote:(emphasis added)
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... borderline offensive to the English people.
quote:There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely
quote:My pearls of wisdom are mistaken for the views of a whole nation? Happens to me all the time.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want [...]quote:(emphasis added)
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... borderline offensive to the English people.
Please forgive me for snipping very short quotes out of context and for making a procedural rather than a substantive point.
I can see where you're 'coming from' in the points that you've made. You should be free to debate using whatever words you want (within the Ship's policies, of course). No doubt, many English people would agree with you.
And yet ... in the quotes above, an assumption seems to be being made that the English all think the same way about these issues. I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps people could consider talking in terms of 'I don't want' or 'borderline offensive to to many people'?
Sorry for interrupting. Please continue with your debate.
quote:There are also plenty of rumours the moon landings didn't happen. In this case, in run up to a referendum, the question is more who stands to benefit from them? Perfidious may well cover it, but Albion less so IMHO.....
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely
quote:Yeah, but the moon landings weren't organized by Gordon Brown and David Cameron, were they? Let's just say that those two gentlemen are treated with a certain degree of suspicion. Once bitten ...
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:There are also plenty of rumours the moon landings didn't happen. In this case, in run up to a referendum, the question is more who stands to benefit from them? Perfidious may well cover it, but Albion less so IMHO.....
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely
quote:What principle exactly ?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How much do you suppose the EU would actually lose if they didn't accept Scotland? This, admittedly old, paper from the Scottish government estimates their contribution in 2007 to be just over a billion Euros, and its receipts to be about 850m Euros. The net gain to the EU of around a quarter of a billion Euros doesn't sound to me like the sort of amount they'll be desperate to keep at all costs, especially considering that other countries that are of a similar size are all net recipients of EU funds.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU simply can't afford to lose a rich nation from the club
The EU may decide that it would be better off financially without Scotland, especially if there are political pressures from some member states (i.e. Spain) to deny them membersip on principle.
quote:I am mostly Scottish by ancestry, with some Welsh and some English. I was born and raised in England. I speak with a fairly generic southern English accent.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm the product of Irish and English and probably Welsh ancestry. None of which makes me inherently think "oh, what a shame that it's not all one country". Nor does any of that make me feel especially Irish or English. I'm Australian.
quote:The thing is that if you listen to Nationalist propaganda about the English, or at least about the Westminster Elite, is that they are a bunch of heartless effete toffs who are bleeding Scotland dry and if only Scotland could rise up and be a nation again it could fling off the shackles and embrace her true destiny as a free nation.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)
quote:
You probably don’t know this, but you made us. The first European to cross the continent and reach our Pacific coast was Alexander Mackenzie – a Scot. Our first prime minister and chief Father of Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald? Scottish. So too our second PM. Our country’s national dream, a railroad from sea to sea, was realized in 1885 when Sir Donald Smith, head of the Canadian Pacific Railway, drove The Last Spike at Craigellachie – a place named after a village in his homeland. The man who did the most to create Canada’s system of universal public health care, and chosen as “The Greatest Canadian” in a national survey of CBC viewers, was Tommy Douglas. He was born in Falkirk....
quote:You may not have heard of Norway or of Slovakia. Sure, there was a bit of resentment between the countries, but in both those cases they received independence from a larger partner without any forms of punishments. Norway's peaceful pursuit of independence sparked this annual event called the Nobel Peace Prize that you may have heard of. Still, they settled for independence because that's what they wanted and they felt as lesser partners in the countries they were part of. If Sweden could be calm about it 100 years ago, why can't England accept it today?
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:The thing is that if you listen to Nationalist propaganda about the English, or at least about the Westminster Elite, is that they are a bunch of heartless effete toffs who are bleeding Scotland dry and if only Scotland could rise up and be a nation again it could fling off the shackles and embrace her true destiny as a free nation.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)
However, upon asserting her destiny as a free nation the English and the Westminster elite will fall over themselves to establish a currency union and fast track Scotland into NATO.
This appears to be a claim hitherto unique in the annals of nationalist propaganda. I don't recall the aria in Nabucco, right after the chorus of the Hebrew Slaves (representing the Italians under the Hapsburgs), when Moses suddenly appears on stage and announces that the Children of Israel and Pharaoh will sign a Customs Union or the bit when Byron is ruminating upon Marathon looking out upon the Sea and looks forward to the day when an independent Greece and the Ottoman Empire will share a currency. For that matter my copy of Herodotus appears to lack the passage when Xerxes threatens to turn the sky over Thermopylae dark with his arrows and Leonidas ripostes that it will be all the better for signing a treaty of mutual defence between Sparta and the Persian Empire in the shade.
If the English are that reasonable then why should the Scots want independence? If the English are so unreasonable that only independence will do then the Scots should really be wargaming worst case scenarios, rather than asserting that all will be well in the best of all possible worlds?
quote:Which is true of all politicians. Salmond and his pals will be up for re-election in the Scottish Government too, and will need to go to the electorate with clear evidence that they fought for a good deal for Scotland.
Originally posted by Spawn:
No politician will want to be seen as conceding too much because they'll be punished by the voters next year.
quote:There's a simple solution to that. You establish an English Parliament with it's tier of politicians in Birmingham, Manchester, or Winchester. Anywhere that's not London.
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want another tier of politicians in London.
quote:I don't think anyone is seriously considering a transition to independence over the time scale of weeks or months. Six months would be a very rapid timescale for all the negotiations of the terms of independence, drafting and debating relevant Acts in Westminster and Holyrood (and whatever procedures would need to be followed in Brussels and Strasbourg), and then establishing all the infrastructure for an independent Scotland. It took almost two years to get from a Yes vote in a referendum to establishing a devolved Scottish Parliament. A similar timescale for establishing an independent nation would not seem to be out of the question, though we can hope for more rapid progress than that.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But all these things take time. A scenario of weeks or months seems unrealistic to me.
quote:It may be that the Euro could be a trump card for Salmond. After being seen to fight hard to retain the pound, reluctantly agree to the Euro thus solving the main difficulty with England and Europe at the same time. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that, I never agreed with the decision of the UK government to stay out of the Euro in the first place.
And thinking that this can happen without Scotland adopting the euro is crazy talk.
quote:Nope, you missed the point I was making: to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.
But a yes vote would mean they are no longer part of the Union. Surely, that's the whole point!
quote:I think the border control position is quite straightforward. If an independent Scotland didn't join the Schengen treaty, it would join the Common Travel Area with the UK, Ireland, Man and the Channel Islands, and there wouldn't be any border controls.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.
quote:One question I would find interesting is: is it realistic to assume that both things can be done simultaneously? I'm not sure about that. I find it quite probable that the EU will wait for Scotland to become independent before it starts the admission procedures. I mean, before that it won't even be clear how Scotland will be organized financially, so how can you open these chapters, and how will other countries be able to decide on whether to admit it?
Alan Cresswell: drafting and debating relevant Acts in Westminster and Holyrood (and whatever procedures would need to be followed in Brussels and Strasbourg)
quote:I see no other outcome then that the other member countries will want to decide on whether to admit an independent Scotland. Spain's position alone will make this necessary. And this means following the complete procedure.
Alan Cresswell: That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.
quote:It's a chicken and egg story here. To negotiate membership of the EU would require a prior agreement with London about debts etc.
Alan Cresswell: To take one obvious example, the currency. If admission to the EU would require adoption of the Euro then discussions with Westminster over retaining the pound are pointless, so to negotiate currency union with rUK would require a prior agreement with Brussels that Scotland would not be compelled to adopt the Euro.
quote:I'd agree that the other member countries have to decide on the status of an independent Scotland. This doesn't necessarily mean that Scotland would have to go through the normal new entrant procedure. There's no precedent for a member state splitting in two, so, Spanish bluster notwithstanding, the EU is free to make something up.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I see no other outcome then that the other member countries will want to decide on whether to admit an independent Scotland. Spain's position alone will make this necessary. And this means following the complete procedure.
quote:True. There are two things in play here: one is the political decision on whether to admit Scotland. And I have no doubt that it will be a political decision. There's no way in Scotland will automatically stay. That's a fantasy. Legislation on this is unclear at most, and there are too many countries wanting to have a say on this.
Leorning Cniht: I'd agree that the other member countries have to decide on the status of an independent Scotland. This doesn't necessarily mean that Scotland would have to go through the normal new entrant procedure. There's no precedent for a member state splitting in two, so, Spanish bluster notwithstanding, the EU is free to make something up.
quote:I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which, of course, is one of the great inconsistencies of the Better Together campaign. The claim that Scottish membership of the EU is only certain within the UK ... while at the same time many of those same campaigners are looking ahead to an in/out referendum on the UK staying in the EU.
quote:What makes you so sure of that?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.
quote:They are already 'in' as part of the Union so it would be a rubber stamp exercise imo.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What makes you so sure of that?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.
quote:I suppose that the simple answer to that, and to Boogie's posts, is that Scotland would not be remaining in the EU. The pieces of land called Scotland are part of the UK, which is a member; Scotland itself is not. And I don't consider that for any independent Scotland to join the UK would be a rubber-stamping operation. Any Spanish government, with the possibilities of independent Catalonia and Basque country, would not like a joining process for a portion of a member state to be simple.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Where it gets interesting is if Scotland wants to remain in the E.U. and the rest of Great Britain wants to leave. I suppose membership in the club is not an asset in the divorce negotiations.
quote:As far as I can see, applying members need to fulfil several criteria including economic criteria. Unless or until Scotland is an independent country and has some clarity about, say, currency, I don't see how this criterion can be said to be met.
Originally posted by Boogie:
They are already 'in' as part of the Union so it would be a rubber stamp exercise imo.
quote:Wouldn't this depend on the view of the EU - whether it has member states or member citizens? Would Scots as individuals lose their EU membership? That would be the first case of that happening, of people being kicked out, and would justify future EU-breakouts (which is not something Brussels wants). Furthermore, what would happen to all those Scots currently using their EU rights (e.g. to work abroad without need for a visa), would the EU suddenly strip them of that membership and their rights?
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:I suppose that the simple answer to that, and to Boogie's posts, is that Scotland would not be remaining in the EU. The pieces of land called Scotland are part of the UK, which is a member; Scotland itself is not. And I don't consider that for any independent Scotland to join the UK would be a rubber-stamping operation. Any Spanish government, with the possibilities of independent Catalonia and Basque country, would not like a joining process for a portion of a member state to be simple.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Where it gets interesting is if Scotland wants to remain in the E.U. and the rest of Great Britain wants to leave. I suppose membership in the club is not an asset in the divorce negotiations.
quote:That is almost certainly true but it wouldn't happen automatically, would it- surely there would have to be a positive decision to let Scotland join the CTA?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I think the border control position is quite straightforward. If an independent Scotland didn't join the Schengen treaty, it would join the Common Travel Area with the UK, Ireland, Man and the Channel Islands, and there wouldn't be any border controls.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.
quote:I think this is what is so frustrating about the discussion, the way that 'yes' supporters have persuaded themselves that the future promises motherhood and Apple pie without a hint of the real world jolting this myopic view. The problem for the 'yes' campaign is that there are two sides to any negotiation and you cannot take it for granted that everyone wishes you well. Furthermore a lot of the consequences have already been spelled out. There won't be a currency union unless your currency is supervised and you leave the EU on the same day that you leave the UK. Those bolts of reality don't seem to impinge on the alternative reality of 'yes' supporters.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.
But, assuming for the moment that Scotland will be leaving the EU and seeking re-admittance then I can't see how the discussions on terms of re-admission to the EU can be done at any time other than simultaneously with discussions with Westminster. To take one obvious example, the currency. If admission to the EU would require adoption of the Euro then discussions with Westminster over retaining the pound are pointless, so to negotiate currency union with rUK would require a prior agreement with Brussels that Scotland would not be compelled to adopt the Euro.
quote:You mean, like it did the former Communist accession states?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The EU will want to know something about Scotland's financial situation before it will allow it to enter.
quote:It depends on whether the SNP continue to get enough votes to form the government. I think the UK government can refuse referendums in the next five years on the basis that devo max must be bedded in first.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am interested as to what the 'Yes' camp will do with themselves when it comes in a narrow 'no'.
Start campaigning for yet another referendum?
This could be never ending
I'm beginning to think a 'yes' would at least give everyone something positive to do.
quote:As far as I can see it is a whole lot less certain in the absence of a central bank and lack of clarity on it taking its share of sovereign debt.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would have a functioning monetary system and associated financial institutions - the rUK the pound supported by the Bank of England, Scotland is less certain
quote:Well, that would need to be defined in post-yes negotiations. But, of one thing that is certain is that an independent Scotland would need a central bank and would need to take up a fair share of the UK national debt. Post-yes, Scotland can establish a bank without the need to negotiate with anyone, but what our share of the debt will be is something that needs to be negotiated.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:As far as I can see it is a whole lot less certain in the absence of a central bank and lack of clarity on it taking its share of sovereign debt.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would have a functioning monetary system and associated financial institutions - the rUK the pound supported by the Bank of England, Scotland is less certain
quote:It's not a total leap in the dark. There is, IMO, enough light to see that there is solid ground beyond a Yes vote, even if the exact lie of the land isn't clear. An independent Scotland will have a functioning economy, with associated currency - it's just not certain that will be the pound or how that would relate to other nations. We will have a functioning legal system, health service, education system, welfare and benefits, and all the other services for a civilised country. Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.
I find the youthful enthusiasm of the yes vote alluring, but anyone voting who doesn't realise it's a complete leap in the dark is going to have a rude awakening.
quote:I really think there is no certainty at all about the latter assertion, and even less about the first, at the very least until the issues of banking, currency and debt are resolved (along with Catalonia).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.
quote:There is certainty because no one wants Scotland to be outside the EU. Therefore, something will be sorted to make sure that doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I really think there is no certainty at all about the latter assertion, and even less about the first, at the very least until the issues of banking, currency and debt are resolved
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.
quote:There is a very nice word for this sort of statement in German: "Zweckoptimismus". Roughly that means being optimistic in order to achieve an ulterior purpose / aim / goal, not because of a reasonable evaluation of known circumstance.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An independent Scotland will have a functioning economy, with associated currency - it's just not certain that will be the pound or how that would relate to other nations. We will have a functioning legal system, health service, education system, welfare and benefits, and all the other services for a civilised country. Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.
quote:Some people feel that remaining in the UK is a leap in the dark. Given that Scotland is politically to the left of England, the spectre of UKIP looms large; what if we're part of a country that swings even further to the right? There's considerable apprehension about that.
I find the youthful enthusiasm of the yes vote alluring, but anyone voting who doesn't realise it's a complete leap in the dark is going to have a rude awakening.
quote:Spain?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is certainty because no one wants Scotland to be outside the EU.
quote:Ahem ..... Spain doesn't want Scotland as an independent country inside the EU. You are assuming that everybody will bend over backwards to accommodate Scotland. If so, they'll want their pound of flesh. This is all very naive.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is certainty because no one wants Scotland to be outside the EU. Therefore, something will be sorted to make sure that doesn't happen.
quote:If Scotland wants to become an independent nation, it can't remain in anything. It has to start again.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Plus, Scotland does want to remain in the EU
quote:It says here that this is proposed. Do you know something I don't?
But we're part of a country which is having a referendum on EU membership in 2017.
quote:If you (plural) vote yes, you have instant uncertainty. I haven't seen anyone give anything approaching a firm assurance about EU membership that is grounded in fact.
So we have no guarantees about continued membership of the EU if we vote Yes, but we similarly have no guarantees about continued membership of the EU if we vote No.
quote:No they wouldn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would be new countries
quote:It'll only happen if the Tories are returned. Happily for you it is extremely likely that UKIP will split the Tory vote
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Yes, it's a proposed referendum in 2017, but the assumption here is that it will happen. The CBI in Scotland have asked Cameron for reassurances about continued EU membership post 2017 and he has been evasive.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:The thing is that if you listen to Nationalist propaganda about the English, or at least about the Westminster Elite, is that they are a bunch of heartless effete toffs who are bleeding Scotland dry and if only Scotland could rise up and be a nation again it could fling off the shackles and embrace her true destiny as a free nation.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.
(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)
However, upon asserting her destiny as a free nation the English and the Westminster elite will fall over themselves to establish a currency union and fast track Scotland into NATO.
This appears to be a claim hitherto unique in the annals of nationalist propaganda. I don't recall the aria in Nabucco, right after the chorus of the Hebrew Slaves (representing the Italians under the Hapsburgs), when Moses suddenly appears on stage and announces that the Children of Israel and Pharaoh will sign a Customs Union or the bit when Byron is ruminating upon Marathon looking out upon the Sea and looks forward to the day when an independent Greece and the Ottoman Empire will share a currency. For that matter my copy of Herodotus appears to lack the passage when Xerxes threatens to turn the sky over Thermopylae dark with his arrows and Leonidas ripostes that it will be all the better for signing a treaty of mutual defence between Sparta and the Persian Empire in the shade.
If the English are that reasonable then why should the Scots want independence? If the English are so unreasonable that only independence will do then the Scots should really be wargaming worst case scenarios, rather than asserting that all will be well in the best of all possible worlds?
quote:As several have pointed out, what is astounding from an outsider's perspective is the apparent confusion on the "yes" side between certainties (which is, for instance, how you put this prospect in your previous post) and assumptions.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Yes, it's a proposed referendum in 2017, but the assumption here is that it will happen.
quote:If there is the prospect of a referendum, he can hardly be categorical, can he?
The CBI in Scotland have asked Cameron for reassurances about continued EU membership post 2017 and he has been evasive.
quote:I thought Spain didn't want Catalonia to seek independence. Therefore, Spain would prefer it if the Scots didn't vote Yes and set a precedent for other regions in Europe to seek independence. An Independent Scotland outside the EU would be just as bad for the Spanish as Scotland inside the EU.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Ahem ..... Spain doesn't want Scotland as an independent country inside the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is certainty because no one wants Scotland to be outside the EU. Therefore, something will be sorted to make sure that doesn't happen.
quote:Both would be countries reverting to national borders abolished in 1707, so you're right they wouldn't be new countries.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No they wouldn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would be new countries
quote:This is the primary failing of the Yes camp as a whole. They seem to be assuming that everybody else in the world loves Scotland as much as they do, and will move heaven and earth to ensure a successful and prosperous Scotland even if such moves are detrimental to their own interests. There's a profound sense of entitlement, as if all these things are Scotland's by right and nobody else could possibly disagree. If independence becomes a reality, they're quickly going to learn that the rUK and EU don't need Scotland half as much as Scotland will need them.
Originally posted by Spawn:
You are assuming that everybody will bend over backwards to accommodate Scotland.
quote:I agree that Spain would prefer Scotland to vote No, because that would offer a favourable precedent to them re: Catalonia.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Therefore, Spain would prefer it if the Scots didn't vote Yes and set a precedent for other regions in Europe to seek independence. An Independent Scotland outside the EU would be just as bad for the Spanish as Scotland inside the EU.
quote:Well, he can hardly come right out and say 'We're expecting everyone to vote to stay in, and that's what I'm going to be campaigning for, but we've promised the referendum to keep the rest of the EU worried and win back some UKIP voters,' can he? It would be all over the front page of the Sun next day.
The CBI in Scotland have asked Cameron for reassurances about continued EU membership post 2017 and he has been evasive.
quote:Yes, in that sense they would be new countries. OK.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Both would be countries reverting to national borders abolished in 1707, so you're right they wouldn't be new countries.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No they wouldn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would be new countries
Actually, not quite true because the borders in Ireland aren't the same. So, Scotland returns to 1707 borders and the rest of the former UK becomes a state with borders no previous nation has had.
quote:Scotland will automatically leave the EU the moment it leaves the UK unless and until a Treaty of Accession is agreed between it and all EU member states.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.
quote:And also "to placate my Euro-phobic MPs, who want my guts for garters".
Originally posted by Jane R:
NEQ:quote:Well, he can hardly come right out and say 'We're expecting everyone to vote to stay in, and that's what I'm going to be campaigning for, but we've promised the referendum to keep the rest of the EU worried and win back some UKIP voters,' can he? It would be all over the front page of the Sun next day.
The CBI in Scotland have asked Cameron for reassurances about continued EU membership post 2017 and he has been evasive.
quote:Why? Didn't the people of Scotland elect representatives to the Government (or Opposition) that negotiated and signed those treaties? Did not the UK government enter those organisations on behalf of all the people of the UK, not just those of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? What makes Scotland so special that our government is not a continuation of the UK government in Scotland, with all the associated legal status, yet the government in the rest of the UK is seen as a continuation of the UK government everywhere except Scotland?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But in the legal sense that we were actually talking about (i.e. treaties, membership of international organisations, diplomatic relations, etc.) the UK would continue to be the same country it always was, with all the same agreements and arrangements in place, and Scotland would become a completely new country that would have to negotiate everything from scratch.
quote:It is one of the developmentally earliest theories of mind (ToM) that "I want to have X" means "everybody else wants me to have X". Most people grow out of this simple ToM by the age of six, and it is not a particularly good predictor for high politics. Seriously.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is certainty because no one wants Scotland to be outside the EU. Therefore, something will be sorted to make sure that doesn't happen.
quote:No - the precedent for this is the RoI: there was no change in the international/supra-national status of the then 'rUK' when the 26 counties of Ireland left eg: the then 'rUK' didn't have to apply for readmission to the UN in 1949.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Should the vote be YES is there a chance that rUK could argue that it, too, is a new entity and hence outside the EU? Could this be seen as a possible "escape route" from the EU for rUK?
quote:I asked this before but without a reply: will the European citizenship that the Scottish individuals hold be withdrawn? That would be an unprecedented move with far-reaching legal consequences. I can see states and bodies being sued in Strasbourg over this sort of thing.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Scotland will automatically leave the EU the moment it leaves the UK unless and until a Treaty of Accession is agreed between it and all EU member states.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.
quote:It is quite simple really. Scotland is voting to secede from the UK. If Scotland's vote leaves rUK's status in doubt as the successor state then we should have a right to vote.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know that has been asserted repeatedly. But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
quote:I wasn't aware that Scotland was going to become the UK, with the rest of the UK becoming independent nations. If that's the case, then I (and many, many other people...) indeed have to revise my judgement of the political consequences.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know that has been asserted repeatedly. But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
quote:Continuity?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
quote:I'm not sure about that. I would have thought that as long as you had a UK passport and the UK was in the EU, then you would retain 'EU citizenship'. You'd just happen to be resident in a non-EU state.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Correct: unless and until they negotiate accession to the EU, residents of Scotland will lose 'EU citizenship' on independence.
quote:I agree it's inadequately thought through.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[cp - to Eutychus: post-independence you would have no automatic right to a UK passport, unless that was agreed between the Scottish government and the UK government; something else the separatists haven't thought through or explained...]
quote:I don't think that it will play quite like that in practice. There will be plenty of Scots now living and working in the UK and EU based on their current citizenship status. They will likely maintain their right of residence and work through some "emergency provisions", quite possibly by a quick EU agreement affirming their status quo for some transition period (say five years at least). It is highly unlikely that Scots all across the UK and EU will be arrested as now illegal immigrants and deported to Scotland on the day of independence... Stomping on people like that is in nobody's interest. However, if Scotland cannot come to some agreements with the UK and EU, respectively, then indeed Scottish citizens will lose their ability to simply move to these countries and start working there.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Correct: unless and until they negotiate accession to the EU, residents of Scotland will lose 'EU citizenship' on independence. I'm not sure that will result in successful lawsuits as no government will have made the decision to withdraw that: it is simply an automatic consequence of independence in the same way that loss of British citizenship will be.
quote:And ten days before the vote, the no camp start to offer goodies and sweeties, and have front page proclamations signed by 3 leaders. Did somebody mention panic?
Originally posted by Albertus:
How long have the Scots had to prepare for this referendum? Eighteen months at least. And two days before the vote, they don't know what the ersults of independence might be and the Yes camp are sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la can't hear you whenever anyone suggests that there might be the odd complication.
Pathetic. And the Scots were supposed to be the hard headed practical doers in this kingdom.
quote:I do think EU citizenship is a different thing than a national citizenship, and it has never before been lost. Given that this is an unprecedented thing, I think there will at least be some legal debate on how to interpret that - as is always the case with international law.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Correct: unless and until they negotiate accession to the EU, residents of Scotland will lose 'EU citizenship' on independence. I'm not sure that will result in successful lawsuits as no government will have made the decision to withdraw that: it is simply an automatic consequence of independence in the same way that loss of British citizenship will be.
quote:The position of the Scottish government on passports and citizenship is clearly detailed in the white paper. Of course, it will also be a subject for discussion with other parties (eg: whether Scotland issues EU passports will depend on whether Scotland is in EU). But, that one at least has been well thought through and explained - probably too well as it didn't feature in the campaign, presumably because Better Together couldn't find fault with it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[cp - to Eutychus: post-independence you would have no automatic right to a UK passport, unless that was agreed between the Scottish government and the UK government; something else the separatists haven't thought through or explained...]
quote:The No camp have been indescribably clumsy and non-PR savvy, I agree (starting off with allowing the question to be framed as Yes for independence).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And ten days before the vote, the no camp start to offer goodies and sweeties, and have front page proclamations signed by 3 leaders. Did somebody mention panic?
quote:This seems weird to me, as if having a passport determines what citizenship one can hold, rather than vice versa. Surely if one loses one's citizenship one loses one's right to have a passport of that nation? And if secession does not abolish the right to citizenship in the nation one secedes from, then what ever does?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
AFAICS, current UK passport-holders would continue to hold British citizenship, and unless UK law changed dramatically, they would be entitled to renew them indefinitely.
quote:Well it turns out I might qualify for Scottish citizenship after all
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, that one at least has been well thought through and explained - probably too well as it didn't feature in the campaign, presumably because Better Together couldn't find fault with it.
(not sure if dead grandparents count).
quote:You're right to bring up this example. I do think that those were different times though. I agree that there was something of an irrational urge to grant them membership, without looking at the economic consequences too closely. But it is exactly because many people now feel that this was a mistake, and that's exactly why the EU will want to look at Scotland's economical state very closely. Add to this the euro crisis of the last couple of years. And there isn't an irrational movement to grant Scotland membership whatever will happen now; in some of the bigger countries it's quite to the contrary.
Doc Tor: You mean, like it did the former Communist accession states?
The rules will happily be broken if necessity requires it.
quote:That's not true. If Spain concedes membership to Scotland easily (and yes, they will have a veto on this), they'll lose all of their bargaining chips with Catalunya. If they make it difficult for Scotland to join, or manage that it joins under unfavourable conditions, it can say to the separatists: "See? This will happen if you secede."
Alan Cresswell: An Independent Scotland outside the EU would be just as bad for the Spanish as Scotland inside the EU.
quote:Of course the UK will retain all it's powers and treaty obligations, not as a privilege, just simple fact. If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK remains as a nation in the eyes of the world, but a bit smaller with an additional international border.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why? Didn't the people of Scotland elect representatives to the Government (or Opposition) that negotiated and signed those treaties? Did not the UK government enter those organisations on behalf of all the people of the UK, not just those of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? What makes Scotland so special that our government is not a continuation of the UK government in Scotland, with all the associated legal status, yet the government in the rest of the UK is seen as a continuation of the UK government everywhere except Scotland?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But in the legal sense that we were actually talking about (i.e. treaties, membership of international organisations, diplomatic relations, etc.) the UK would continue to be the same country it always was, with all the same agreements and arrangements in place, and Scotland would become a completely new country that would have to negotiate everything from scratch.
I know that has been asserted repeatedly. But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
quote:As far as I know, if you already hold a UK passport, the status of wherever you happen to be residing is not going to affect your right to that passport.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Surely if one loses one's citizenship one loses one's right to have a passport of that nation? And if secession does not abolish the right to citizenship in the nation one secedes from, then what ever does?
quote:As I understand it, EU citizenship exists only by virtue of citizenship of a member state. It is not open to citizens of non-member states.
Originally posted by JFH:
I do think EU citizenship is a different thing than a national citizenship...
quote:I don't think so. EU law is rather clear:
Originally posted by JFH:
I do think EU citizenship is a different thing than a national citizenship, and it has never before been lost. Given that this is an unprecedented thing, I think there will at least be some legal debate on how to interpret that - as is always the case with international law.
quote:EU citizenship is based on having the nationality of a member state, and does not replace national citizenship. A non-EU Scotland will not be a member state, and its national citizens will hence not have EU citizenship. Their loss of EU citizenship is automatic, since there is no such thing as a EU citizenship independent of national citizenship. It has no status other than as an addition based on the membership of that nation in the EU.
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Article 20
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.
quote:I think you've got this slightly backwards.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
AFAICS, current UK passport-holders would continue to hold British citizenship, and unless UK law changed dramatically, they would be entitled to renew them indefinitely. Their children (but not grandchildren) would be entitled to a UK passport - for the UK, this is dependent on parents' nationality and not place of birth. (I have dual nationality and so do my kids, all of whom were born in France).
quote:Please don't casually compare Scotland and Crimea as it makes your post look like Russian psyops.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Imagine that Ukraine was an EU member. If a part breaks away as Crimea has done, would you require Ukraine to renegotiate its membership?
quote:With this I agree. I also agree it will be gradual.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So in a generation there may be lots of Scottish citizens who qualify to be British but do not take it up. The next generation therefore would have even fewer British citizens if their parents never went for it.
quote:Yes, but any change is unlikely to apply solely to residents of Scotland - it would apply to anyone not resident in the UK. Does anyone have a precedent for the holder of a UK passport not being able to get it renewed (unless they acquire a nationality that prohibits dual nationality)?
According to
BBC News UK passports will be valid until expiry, which does not mean they will be renewed indefinitely.
quote:It is?! How do you see this being enforced? I travel on whichever passport is convenient. They are hardly going to carry out citizenship tests at border control, are they?
It's likely that Scotland will require that all who take up Scottish citizenship post-independence travel primarily on their Scottish passport
quote:Who is this 'we'? You don't speak for me.
Originally posted by deano:
... we will want to punish the Scottish by the way ...
quote:Indeed. You may hate the Scots Deano, but that's you, not me, not anyone I know.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:Who is this 'we'? You don't speak for me.
Originally posted by deano:
... we will want to punish the Scottish by the way ...
quote:I stand corrected. I still think the practical situation with Scots abroad will demand an interim solution that may lead to a fast lane to membership, but my thoughts on the legalities were obviously wrong.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I don't think so. EU law is rather clear:
Originally posted by JFH:
I do think EU citizenship is a different thing than a national citizenship, and it has never before been lost. Given that this is an unprecedented thing, I think there will at least be some legal debate on how to interpret that - as is always the case with international law.
quote:EU citizenship is based on having the nationality of a member state, and does not replace national citizenship. A non-EU Scotland will not be a member state, and its national citizens will hence not have EU citizenship. Their loss of EU citizenship is automatic, since there is no such thing as a EU citizenship independent of national citizenship. It has no status other than as an addition based on the membership of that nation in the EU.
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Article 20
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.
quote:Nor me - I'm hoping for a 'no' but opinions like that really screw up its chances; I really don't particularly want your MO on my side...
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:Who is this 'we'? You don't speak for me.
Originally posted by deano:
... we will want to punish the Scottish by the way ...
quote:The UK government seems to think otherwise:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I know, if you already hold a UK passport, the status of wherever you happen to be residing is not going to affect your right to that passport.
quote:The real question is - as it should be! - whether Scottish people will maintain a British citizenship in the case of independence. That, and only that, will determine their right to a UK passport. I think that there is a good legal case that they don't have to, but that there is also a good political case that they will. I expect that every future Scottish national who is a British national now will remain a British citizen, or at least will be able to apply for remaining a British citizen. As far as children born to Scots who remain British citizens go, I expect the regulations to become similar to those for British subjects.
British passport eligibility
You must have British nationality to apply for or hold a British passport.
quote:Hang on, but it's always had devolved government of some form. Scotland has kept its own system of laws the entire time.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Continuity?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
I could see the case for this being seen as a break-up rather than a break-away if the UK had at some prior point adopted the same level of devolved government in England as in Wales, Scotland or NI. It has not, and the result is that Westminster lays a better claim to continuity than anywhere else.
[multi x-post]
quote:I believe according to international law, Crimea is under occupation, not gone. I see the point you're making, but in a global perspective it's important to distinguish the two cases for what they are.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
JFH: My point was that Ukraine is still the same country, even after part has gone.
.
quote:Thing is, this cake-eating debate aligns perfectly with an ongoing global discussion on what nationalities are and should, what international organizations are and should be and what globalization is and should be so as to render the entire discussion a Schrödinger's cake.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sounds to me like having your cake and eating it!
[Reply to IngoB]
quote:Westminster has been the seat of government for the whole of the UK. Rightly or wrongly, England has never had a national assembly that governed solely the affairs of England.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hang on, but it's always had devolved government of some form. Scotland has kept its own system of laws the entire time.
quote:Sure it has. Before the Union. Union caused the dissolution of both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. People tended not to notice the latter disappearing because the new Parliament of the United Kingdom sat in the same location.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Westminster has been the seat of government for the whole of the UK. Rightly or wrongly, England has never had a national assembly that governed solely the affairs of England.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hang on, but it's always had devolved government of some form. Scotland has kept its own system of laws the entire time.
quote:Basically, my predictions is that what will happen will be patterned after what happened with the Republic of Ireland. Having informed myself a bit further now (rather than just reading the government's passport website), I would hence predict that something like the following will happen:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sounds to me like having your cake and eating it!
quote:So that would suggest that not all Scots will remain British citizens in case of independence. If I was Scottish, I would have looked at all this a while ago and now would definitely be the holder of a British passport...
Wikipedia "British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland"
As a result, Irish citizens ("citizens of Eire") lost British-subject status automatically on 1 January 1949 if they did not acquire citizenship of the UK & Colonies or that of another Commonwealth country, notwithstanding that Ireland did not cease to be one of His Majesty's dominions until 18 April 1949.
However, section 2 of the Act allowed certain Irish citizens who were British subjects before 1949 to apply at any time to the Secretary of State to remain British subjects. Applications had to be based on:No provision was made for the retention of British nationality by Irish citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948. British subject status, as distinct from citizenship of the UK & Colonies, was not transmissible by descent.
- previous Crown service under His Majesty's Government;
- possession of a British passport; or
- associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or any Crown colony, protectorate, British mandated territory or British trust territory.
quote:That’s partly why I would be voting no if I had a say. Much of yes case is based on a range of positive assumptions about things that Scotland has no control over. And their definition of independence seems to be somewhat limited.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:This is the primary failing of the Yes camp as a whole. They seem to be assuming that everybody else in the world loves Scotland as much as they do, and will move heaven and earth to ensure a successful and prosperous Scotland even if such moves are detrimental to their own interests. There's a profound sense of entitlement, as if all these things are Scotland's by right and nobody else could possibly disagree. If independence becomes a reality, they're quickly going to learn that the rUK and EU don't need Scotland half as much as Scotland will need them.
Originally posted by Spawn:
You are assuming that everybody will bend over backwards to accommodate Scotland.
And I say that as one who, if I lived in Scotland, would be voting "yes" on Thursday.
quote:Most countries require that citizens enter them on their passports. So a UK/US dual citizen should enter the US on their US passport and enter the UK on their UK passport.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is?! How do you see this being enforced? I travel on whichever passport is convenient. They are hardly going to carry out citizenship tests at border control, are they?
quote:Scotland would be leaving (gaining independence from) the UK. That statement in itself quite clearly indicates that what Scotland will have left will remain the UK.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know that has been asserted repeatedly. But, no one has (to my knowledge) explained why the Westminster government is privilaged in this regard. It better be a reason that's a darn sight better than just size.
quote:This. If I wanted to read some hate filled, anti-Scottish rant, I'd look at the Daily Mail.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Indeed. You may hate the Scots Deano, but that's you, not me, not anyone I know.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:Who is this 'we'? You don't speak for me.
Originally posted by deano:
... we will want to punish the Scottish by the way ...
quote:I can see plenty of pragmatic border-control-related reasons (as Gee D eloquently illustrates) why a dual US-UK citizen would enter the US on their US passport and enter the UK on their UK passport. I can't see any practical way of enforcing that.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So a UK/US dual citizen should enter the US on their US passport and enter the UK on their UK passport.
quote:You only realise the value of a British passport when you start travelling outside the EU - notably in terms of visa permissions and diplomatic representation, as well as (in many places) nary a glance at the passport on entry into the country.
a Scottish/British dual would have limited use for a UK passport
quote:That's a good question. I don't know that I hate them. I suppose that word was wrong of me. Dislike, annoyed by, irritated by, I suppose these are better words and phrases.
Originally posted by Wood:
Help me out here. Does Deano actually hate the Scots or is he just yanking chains in a good natured fashion? I cannot tell.
quote:Enforceability has never stopped governments from having rules! You may be of the opinion that Scotland cannot enforce a rule like this but if it wants anyone get and use a Scottish passport for the next 20 years it's going to have to introduce something like this. And as this is standard for almost all dual-citizens I don't see why Scotland would choose not to do the same.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can see plenty of pragmatic border-control-related reasons (as Gee D eloquently illustrates) why a dual US-UK citizen would enter the US on their US passport and enter the UK on their UK passport. I can't see any practical way of enforcing that.
quote:Agree but again this is an issue of Scotland's global and diplomatic status in the future. If as the Yes campaign claims it will be the same as being British, then there's no problem.
You only realise the value of a British passport when you start travelling outside the EU - notably in terms of visa permissions and diplomatic representation, as well as (in many places) nary a glance at the passport on entry into the country.
quote:Yes, I'm sure you're right, the EU being all about a unified and peaceful Europe.......oh wait a second.
No EU nation which has a region vying for independence will want Scotland to have an easy time joining the EU.
quote:That's a big if. Nationalist proposals assume Scots can benefit from any EU diplomatic representation worldwide, which assumes EU membership. If that doesn't fly (see above), then it's time to go checking out suitable diplomatic residencies to acquire in however many countries the world has this week.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Agree but again this is an issue of Scotland's global and diplomatic status in the future. If as the Yes campaign claims it will be the same as being British, then there's no problem.
quote:It will be dual citizenship - like what already exists in the Uk, and I'm afraid Wiki is wrong. I'm a citizen of Ireland and I live in Ireland, was born well after 1949, have never served in HM's forces nor held a government post, yet I also have a British passport (just because I can)!
I expect that every future Scottish national who is a British national now will remain a British citizen, or at least will be able to apply for remaining a British citizen.
quote:I think this thread has proved that that depends on to whom you are talking.
Originally posted by deano:
There were deep divisions between the two countries that have been masked over by the union but can anyone say they have gone away? Can you really pretend history isn't part of this issue?
quote:Yes it was actually. It was formed with one of its principle aims being to tie Germany and France together, to prevent another war of the same scale as WWI and WWII.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Ingo:
quote:Yes, I'm sure you're right, the EU being all about a unified and peaceful Europe.......oh wait a second.
No EU nation which has a region vying for independence will want Scotland to have an easy time joining the EU.
quote:Not such a big problem. Most nations already have a Consulate in Edinburgh. Just rename it "Embassy" and Robert's your fathers brother.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not to mention freeing up an equivalent number of suitable properties in Scotland for all the other nations flocking to have diplomatic representation in this fledgling state wishing to attract the finest international talent...
quote:The EU arose from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was explicitly founded to prevent future wars between France and Germany by establishing a common market for coal and steel. By extension, you can consider the EU as a project to stop European warmongering - and in particular German warmongering - by making it more profitable and easy to trade for natural resources elsewhere than to blitzkrieg their current owners and steal them.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, I'm sure you're right, the EU being all about a unified and peaceful Europe.......oh wait a second.
quote:Good site. Probably best if a few or the ships more sensitive souls kept away. They might not like some of the less PC concepts, such as a "mong" being used as an "organic sandbag"!
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a related issue, this is one of the better internet threads on the subject, but there are a few others going strong.
I'm not going to link to it, as it's probably bad manners, but I've been reading the one on the Army Rumour Service (Arrse)which is now up 2464 pages and 36,959 posts; because they have a lot of members.... It's linked from their front page.
It's a wee bit salty at times, and NSFW, but as a snapshot of what the service and ex-service community are thinking, from private to about brigadier, it's genuinely fascinating, and covers everything from anger to disappointment, resentment, swearing, consitutional law... Humanity, basically.
Like I said, fascinating.
quote:Well, I've had a look at the UK government's citizenship pages again, and I am uncertain how you managed to get that passport. Were you born in the UK to parents settled there at the time perhaps? Or is one of your parents a British citizen? I do not think that the Wikipedia page is gravely mistaken.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It will be dual citizenship - like what already exists in the Uk, and I'm afraid Wiki is wrong. I'm a citizen of Ireland and I live in Ireland, was born well after 1949, have never served in HM's forces nor held a government post, yet I also have a British passport (just because I can)!
quote:We could have hours of fun with this one at work...
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Enforceability has never stopped governments from having rules!
quote:I understand that it is rather easy to obtain a Hungarian passport, if you can claim direct descent from a Hungarian. Lots of Moldovans have Romanian passports.
Originally posted by IngoB:
They could simply grant their citizenship to everybody in that non-EU nation, thereby de facto making everybody in it an EU citizens. I have a hard time believing that this is not outlawed somehow...
quote:I have no idea why you would think so?! I've been arguing from official UK government documentation and historical precedent concerning the Republic of Ireland.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suspect you might be reasoning from a Jus soli perspective or some such.
quote:And It's A Knockout (aka Jeux Sans Frontieres). Don't forget that.
It was never about small scale peace, just big scale peace???
quote:You seem to be overlooking the obvious fact that people with British parents qualify for British nationality, regardless of where they live. I'm casting around for a reason why.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I have no idea why you would think so?! I've been arguing from official UK government documentation and historical precedent concerning the Republic of Ireland.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suspect you might be reasoning from a Jus soli perspective or some such.
quote:I guess all this would apply to Scotland as well. I do think that Scotland will make it into the EU if they want that hard enough, I just think that it will be with sufficient delays and difficulties to make other regions think twice about seeking independence.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect this latter is the reason nobody cares. All the "EU citizens" who have acquired passports via some generous ancestor law of one of the Eastern European EU member states live in a neighbouring country which is somewhere on the road to becoming an EU member anyway. So in a decade or so, it'll all be the same, and the numbers aren't large enough to cause significant economic shocks.
quote:People are voting to wrench a country apart based on fear of a political party that has 0 seats in the House of Commons? I find that bizarre.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Some people feel that remaining in the UK is a leap in the dark. Given that Scotland is politically to the left of England, the spectre of UKIP looms large; what if we're part of a country that swings even further to the right? There's considerable apprehension about that.
quote:But consulates tend to be smaller than embassies, don't they? Also, there's the cost of establishing (and running) Scottish embassies abroad.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most nations already have a Consulate in Edinburgh. Just rename it "Embassy" and Robert's your fathers brother.
quote:And the result appears to be in!
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not just the Spanish either. An impressive collection of EU heavyweights tell it the way it is.
quote:Again, I'm mystified why you would think so - given that I explicitly suggested that as a way fletcher christian could have obtained a British citizenship (see post here).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You seem to be overlooking the obvious fact that people with British parents qualify for British nationality, regardless of where they live. I'm casting around for a reason why.
quote:Indeed this does (or did) make a difference.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I have some difficulty with thinking in terms of crown vs. country in all this, no doubt due to not growing up in a monarchy...
quote:I expect Betfair are doing this for sound business reasons. If they don't pay out now, people will continue to bet whereas they can stop betting on a No vote now.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:And the result appears to be in!
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not just the Spanish either. An impressive collection of EU heavyweights tell it the way it is.
Tubbs
quote:Sure it could be seen as propaganda, because it's a helpful story for the No camp to run with. But, at the same time, the Telegraph doesn't control Betfair (or didn't, last time I looked).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Tubbs: that might well be a better (ha ha) indication than any opinion poll, but much as I trust it to quote top Eurocrats accurately, I can't help but think this is a piece of propaganda from the Torygraph.
quote:How on earth do people's ancestors live in the UK for 300 odd years without at least one Scot in the family? (outwith those villages in Norfolk where the locals have webbed fingers and go to family reunions to meet women?)
Originally posted by deano:
quote:That's a good question. I don't know that I hate them. I suppose that word was wrong of me. Dislike, annoyed by, irritated by, I suppose these are better words and phrases.
Originally posted by Wood:
Help me out here. Does Deano actually hate the Scots or is he just yanking chains in a good natured fashion? I cannot tell.
But I don't believe I am alone (in the real world, not the Ship!) and I believe the feeling is reciprocated in Scotland.
It's a continuum of feeling from "being mildly bothered" at one end, to "outright hatred" at the other.
I'm sure there is another scale of love and tolerance but I'm not using that one.
I've never really bought into that whole "love your [auld] enemy" thing to be honest.
The emnity between the English and the Scottish is deep and as old as the hills. It isn't going to go away and I'm sure it will only become more prevalent if Scotland becomes independent.
There were deep divisions between the two countries that have been masked over by the union but can anyone say they have gone away? Can you really pretend history isn't part of this issue?
quote:From that article:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just to puncture the misplaced and naive optimism of 'yes' voters the Spanish have their say.
quote:That's so crystal clear that I don't have the foggiest clue what a "partner member-state" is supposed to be.
Mr Mendez de Vigo said: “It is crystal clear that any partner member-state that leaves the member state is out of the European Union. If they want to apply again, they would have to follow the procedure of article 49 of the treaties.”
quote:Actually, objecting to that sort of thing is not "sensitive", it's "non-sociopathic", and is a sign that one is not a total cunt.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Good site. Probably best if a few or the ships more sensitive souls kept away. They might not like some of the less PC concepts, such as a "mong" being used as an "organic sandbag"!
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a related issue, this is one of the better internet threads on the subject, but there are a few others going strong.
I'm not going to link to it, as it's probably bad manners, but I've been reading the one on the Army Rumour Service (Arrse)which is now up 2464 pages and 36,959 posts; because they have a lot of members.... It's linked from their front page.
It's a wee bit salty at times, and NSFW, but as a snapshot of what the service and ex-service community are thinking, from private to about brigadier, it's genuinely fascinating, and covers everything from anger to disappointment, resentment, swearing, consitutional law... Humanity, basically.
Like I said, fascinating.
quote:Watch it. I've posted a general cool it before. This one's for you. Cool it, Deano.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Good site. Probably best if a few or the ships more sensitive souls kept away. They might not like some of the less PC concepts, such as a "mong" being used as an "organic sandbag"!
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a related issue, this is one of the better internet threads on the subject, but there are a few others going strong.
I'm not going to link to it, as it's probably bad manners, but I've been reading the one on the Army Rumour Service (Arrse)which is now up 2464 pages and 36,959 posts; because they have a lot of members.... It's linked from their front page.
It's a wee bit salty at times, and NSFW, but as a snapshot of what the service and ex-service community are thinking, from private to about brigadier, it's genuinely fascinating, and covers everything from anger to disappointment, resentment, swearing, consitutional law... Humanity, basically.
Like I said, fascinating.
quote:Huguenot French ancestry.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:How on earth do people's ancestors live in the UK for 300 odd years without at least one Scot in the family? (outwith those villages in Norfolk where the locals have webbed fingers and go to family reunions to meet women?)
Originally posted by deano:
quote:That's a good question. I don't know that I hate them. I suppose that word was wrong of me. Dislike, annoyed by, irritated by, I suppose these are better words and phrases.
Originally posted by Wood:
Help me out here. Does Deano actually hate the Scots or is he just yanking chains in a good natured fashion? I cannot tell.
But I don't believe I am alone (in the real world, not the Ship!) and I believe the feeling is reciprocated in Scotland.
It's a continuum of feeling from "being mildly bothered" at one end, to "outright hatred" at the other.
I'm sure there is another scale of love and tolerance but I'm not using that one.
I've never really bought into that whole "love your [auld] enemy" thing to be honest.
The emnity between the English and the Scottish is deep and as old as the hills. It isn't going to go away and I'm sure it will only become more prevalent if Scotland becomes independent.
There were deep divisions between the two countries that have been masked over by the union but can anyone say they have gone away? Can you really pretend history isn't part of this issue?
quote:People didn't tend to move around much before trains and cars and so forth. My straight-line male ancestors have been in the same few villages of north Worcestershire for at least the last 300 years.
Originally posted by Gildas:
How on earth do people's ancestors live in the UK for 300 odd years without at least one Scot in the family? (outwith those villages in Norfolk where the locals have webbed fingers and go to family reunions to meet women?)
quote:Crossposted. Karl, please do not imply that posters are cunts. That is a personal attack.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Actually, objecting to that sort of thing is not "sensitive", it's "non-sociopathic", and is a sign that one is not a total cunt.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Good site. Probably best if a few or the ships more sensitive souls kept away. They might not like some of the less PC concepts, such as a "mong" being used as an "organic sandbag"!
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On a related issue, this is one of the better internet threads on the subject, but there are a few others going strong.
I'm not going to link to it, as it's probably bad manners, but I've been reading the one on the Army Rumour Service (Arrse)which is now up 2464 pages and 36,959 posts; because they have a lot of members.... It's linked from their front page.
It's a wee bit salty at times, and NSFW, but as a snapshot of what the service and ex-service community are thinking, from private to about brigadier, it's genuinely fascinating, and covers everything from anger to disappointment, resentment, swearing, consitutional law... Humanity, basically.
Like I said, fascinating.
quote:Ditto - my dad moved away from his birthplace, but doing the family history is incredibly complex as I've got back to 1500ish on the maternal and paternal lines of each of his great grandparents without getting more than 12 miles from where he was born.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:People didn't tend to move around much before trains and cars and so forth. My straight-line male ancestors have been in the same few villages of north Worcestershire for at least the last 300 years.
Originally posted by Gildas:
How on earth do people's ancestors live in the UK for 300 odd years without at least one Scot in the family? (outwith those villages in Norfolk where the locals have webbed fingers and go to family reunions to meet women?)
My mother's side is a bit more "mongrel", but even then we've found no evidence of Scottish blood in any of the lines we've been able to trace - not even a "Mc" surname. The nearest we've got is Blackpool.
I doubt it's as unusual as you're making out.
quote:Yeah, because no one else will be impacted.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, indeed be Scottish without some English ancestry/relatives. Which is why phrasing the question as being about English vs Scottish is so incredibly unhelpful. I'll just stick with the Scottish Government on this, let's talk about people who live in Scotland and what's best for their future.
quote:So they arrived just in time for the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Union, then.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Huguenot French ancestry.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:How on earth do people's ancestors live in the UK for 300 odd years without at least one Scot in the family? (outwith those villages in Norfolk where the locals have webbed fingers and go to family reunions to meet women?)
Originally posted by deano:
quote:That's a good question. I don't know that I hate them. I suppose that word was wrong of me. Dislike, annoyed by, irritated by, I suppose these are better words and phrases.
Originally posted by Wood:
Help me out here. Does Deano actually hate the Scots or is he just yanking chains in a good natured fashion? I cannot tell.
But I don't believe I am alone (in the real world, not the Ship!) and I believe the feeling is reciprocated in Scotland.
It's a continuum of feeling from "being mildly bothered" at one end, to "outright hatred" at the other.
I'm sure there is another scale of love and tolerance but I'm not using that one.
I've never really bought into that whole "love your [auld] enemy" thing to be honest.
The emnity between the English and the Scottish is deep and as old as the hills. It isn't going to go away and I'm sure it will only become more prevalent if Scotland becomes independent.
There were deep divisions between the two countries that have been masked over by the union but can anyone say they have gone away? Can you really pretend history isn't part of this issue?
quote:Well we are all impacted because we're being asked to split the assets of the union. A division of the assets has a knock-on effect on all of us. I wish the debate in Scotland would recognise that this is not merely a matter for those who live in Scotland - even though it is right that we don't get a say.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Yeah, because no one else will be impacted.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, indeed be Scottish without some English ancestry/relatives. Which is why phrasing the question as being about English vs Scottish is so incredibly unhelpful. I'll just stick with the Scottish Government on this, let's talk about people who live in Scotland and what's best for their future.
Anyone who is born in Scotland will automatically be a citizen of the new country, but don't get a say as they live elsewhere. Then there are people who get a vote because they live there but aren't entitled to citizenship.
Tubbs
Tubbs
quote:Anyone who lives in Scotland should get a vote, but it seems wrong that those who were born in Scotland but live elsewhere get no voice.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Well we are all impacted because we're being asked to split the assets of the union. A division of the assets has a knock-on effect on all of us. I wish the debate in Scotland would recognise that this is not merely a matter for those who live in Scotland - even though it is right that we don't get a say.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Yeah, because no one else will be impacted.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, indeed be Scottish without some English ancestry/relatives. Which is why phrasing the question as being about English vs Scottish is so incredibly unhelpful. I'll just stick with the Scottish Government on this, let's talk about people who live in Scotland and what's best for their future.
Anyone who is born in Scotland will automatically be a citizen of the new country, but don't get a say as they live elsewhere. Then there are people who get a vote because they live there but aren't entitled to citizenship.
Tubbs
Tubbs
quote:But you can't talk about people who live in Scotland and what's best for their future because the Scottish Government has consistently refused to talk about anything other than the most optimistic version of what that future might be.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, indeed be Scottish without some English ancestry/relatives. Which is why phrasing the question as being about English vs Scottish is so incredibly unhelpful. I'll just stick with the Scottish Government on this, let's talk about people who live in Scotland and what's best for their future.
quote:For sure, but in the event of a yes vote Westminster will begin negotiating based on what's best for the people who aren't living and working in Scotland, because Westminster will no longer be answerable to the Scots.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there has been recognition of the wider impact - on the rest of the UK in particular, but also wider afield. But, when it comes down to it the decision is one of what's best for the people living and working in Scotland, and that's what the Yes campaign has focussed on.
quote:And the EU will do what's best for the EU. They couldn't give a stuff about what's best for Scotland. If the two things coincide, you're in luck, but if not ...!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:For sure, but in the event of a yes vote Westminster will begin negotiating based on what's best for the people who aren't living and working in Scotland, because Westminster will no longer be answerable to the Scots.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there has been recognition of the wider impact - on the rest of the UK in particular, but also wider afield. But, when it comes down to it the decision is one of what's best for the people living and working in Scotland, and that's what the Yes campaign has focussed on.
The vote itself may be based on what's best for the Scots, but that doesn't mean the entire process will (or even should) be.
quote:Whereas people like Cameron and Gordon Brown have presented deeply researched proposals for Home Rule, based on years of political cogitation. Yeah, right.
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't think either side has come particularly well out of this. But Better Together are not presenting themselves as people you should trust to lead an independent nation. Salmond and his chums are. If they want people to trust them to do that, they have to do better than this shit-and-sellotape smoke-and-mirrors chancily dishonest something-will-turn-up populism.
quote:I had rather thought he was suggesting both sides were as bad as each other...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Whereas people like Cameron and Gordon Brown have presented deeply researched proposals for Home Rule, based on years of political cogitation. Yeah, right.
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't think either side has come particularly well out of this. But Better Together are not presenting themselves as people you should trust to lead an independent nation. Salmond and his chums are. If they want people to trust them to do that, they have to do better than this shit-and-sellotape smoke-and-mirrors chancily dishonest something-will-turn-up populism.
quote:Speaking purely personally, having grown up in the south of England, I can't say that I encountered any greater bad feelings (whether hate, mild dislike, ridicule or whatever) of the Scots than of, let's say, a bunch of Scousers.
Originally posted by deano:
There were deep divisions between the two countries that have been masked over by the union but can anyone say they have gone away? Can you really pretend history isn't part of this issue?
quote:[ to continue].....the best lack all conviction/ While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
But empire ended; Protestantism faded as a force. Ireland had already opted out; the centre cannot hold.
quote:Yeats was always a pessimist. But if the centripetal forces in an area change into centrifugal, should we resist them? Maybe Ireland should return? Damn, we should never have given up India.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:[ to continue].....the best lack all conviction/ While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
But empire ended; Protestantism faded as a force. Ireland had already opted out; the centre cannot hold.
quote:Depends how fast you're spinning - Russia could become part of the Ukraine....
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And Ukraine should definitely become annexed to Russia.
quote:Ideally, both sides, whatever happens, will try to come up with a compromise that's in the best interests of everybody.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:For sure, but in the event of a yes vote Westminster will begin negotiating based on what's best for the people who aren't living and working in Scotland, because Westminster will no longer be answerable to the Scots.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there has been recognition of the wider impact - on the rest of the UK in particular, but also wider afield. But, when it comes down to it the decision is one of what's best for the people living and working in Scotland, and that's what the Yes campaign has focussed on.
The vote itself may be based on what's best for the Scots, but that doesn't mean the entire process will (or even should) be.
quote:We'll have the Channel Islands back in exchange, then, please.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We demand that Calais is returned!
quote:Very unlikely. Everybody will be exhausted. I think there will be a breathing space, while everybody takes in what has happened, and also what is to transpire, in relation to devo-max.
Originally posted by HCH:
As this matter comes down to the wire, the polls (at least those I have heard of) seem to indicate that this will be a very close vote. Suppose it is a close No vote. Will that settle the matter, for now? Will there immediately be a call for another such vote?
quote:Both sides have indicated that it will settle the matter once and for all.
Originally posted by HCH:
As this matter comes down to the wire, the polls (at least those I have heard of) seem to indicate that this will be a very close vote. Suppose it is a close No vote. Will that settle the matter, for now? Will there immediately be a call for another such vote?
quote:Up until Monday, that would have been true. It isn't any more.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The point is that you know what you're getting with a 'no' vote. With a 'yes' vote you don't know, because it hasn't been thought through, talked through and agreed.
quote:I think at this point, we don't know what we are getting - we don't know how many of the promises of devo-max will actually be followed through.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The point is that you know what you're getting with a 'no' vote.
quote:Which indeed I was. And the Home Rule arguments can get thrashed out in public debate and in Parliament and nothing will have changed until something has been agreed. But if Scotland becomes independent and then has to work out the details, the major change has happened.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:I had rather thought he was suggesting both sides were as bad as each other...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Whereas people like Cameron and Gordon Brown have presented deeply researched proposals for Home Rule, based on years of political cogitation. Yeah, right.
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't think either side has come particularly well out of this. But Better Together are not presenting themselves as people you should trust to lead an independent nation. Salmond and his chums are. If they want people to trust them to do that, they have to do better than this shit-and-sellotape smoke-and-mirrors chancily dishonest something-will-turn-up populism.
quote:Nearly but IIRC from my distant days as a law student, not quite. The old Commonwealth of monarchies was starting to change by the late 40s: Eire became the Republic of Ireland, and left the Commonwealth , in 1949, and India became a republic within the Commonwealth in 1950 (having been an independent Empire since 1947). So (i) the UK Parliament specifically legislated to say that citizens of the Republic of Ireland would not be treated as foreigners in any way and (ii) the status of 'Commonwealth Citizen' develoiped, which doesn't give rights of entry or abode but once you are here does mean that you can vote, sit in parliament, and join the forces or the civil service. It's hard to imagine circumstances in which an independent Scotland, under Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, would not join the Commonwealth.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is I guess some major subtlety in all this due to the fact that the loss of the British citizenship was tied to the establishment of a Republic. Whereas, if I get this right, prior to this point Ireland was still sort of under the dominion of the British crown and hence rules for "British subjects" applied. So perhaps this is a practical reason for the wish to keep the Queen: so that a status as British subject prevails and allows to avoid a direct loss of British citizenship for most Scots. But I have some difficulty with thinking in terms of crown vs. country in all this, no doubt due to not growing up in a monarchy...
quote:Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...
Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?
quote:AIUI it's to distinguish it from Brittany.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...
Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?
quote:Heavens you did well. One of my cousins did our (family tree on my father's side. He succeeded in tracing my family back to 1790 ( old Carmarthen family) but it gets more and more difficult before the 18th century
Ditto - my dad moved away from his birthplace, but doing the family history is incredibly complex as I've got back to 1500ish on the maternal and paternal lines of each of his great grandparents without getting more than 12 miles from where he was born.
It actually goes back to the link I posted yesterday about most people in England being Celt - people have not entered the country in sufficient numbers, and nor have they moved around, enough to actually make a difference in most rural areas (except in the areas where they're Viking, or Saxon, but the point stands). Towns and cities I grant you are different.
As a result of mining on my mum's side I've got Scots and Irish, Geordies and Mackems. On my dad's, 500 years of the Dove Valley and a relationship to practically every surname on every village headstone for a dozen miles radius.
I think if more of the rural types looked at their family trees, many of them may be surprised by the sheer lack of variety as they go back over recorded time.
quote:Absolutely. I haven't thought it would be any different.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:For sure, but in the event of a yes vote Westminster will begin negotiating based on what's best for the people who aren't living and working in Scotland, because Westminster will no longer be answerable to the Scots.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there has been recognition of the wider impact - on the rest of the UK in particular, but also wider afield. But, when it comes down to it the decision is one of what's best for the people living and working in Scotland, and that's what the Yes campaign has focussed on.
The vote itself may be based on what's best for the Scots, but that doesn't mean the entire process will (or even should) be.
quote:My guess (and, nothing more than that) is that civil servants are generally quite busy running things on a day to day basis, and so did very little in preparation for independence negotiations. Therefore, the various statements that came out during the campaign were produced from cursory thoughts produced by civil servants and/or paid consultants. However, in the last month or so as a Yes vote has been a real possibility then any civil servant worth their salt would have been thinking about the impact of a Yes vote on their department, and starting to put together the briefing papers their political masters will need for independence negotiations.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some aspects of Scottish government after a yes vote would also hinge on negotiations with the rump UK govt. There are a lot of issues to be decided - currency, debt, defence management, borders, and so on.
It's also likely that the British govt itself is not all that clear about this. Have the London civil service been preparing for negotiations, and will they hand their masters detailed notes on various categories? Well, maybe.
quote:I've found it an amazing few weeks. It's become a very energized debate, involving people who I feel are not normally involved in political discussion.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whatever the outcome, this is a historical moment. I'll follow it with interest.
quote:Or just might be because people don't want to tell you something on the phone.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?
...
quote:The Mail has a photo of "proud" Unionists "King William" banner. Frankly, any mention of the sectarian divide causes trouble in Scotland; this predates the referendum.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?
Some may dismiss this as typical Daily Mail waffle, but I think the piece by Tom Bradby at the foot of the article is worth a look at.
quote:How do you know what the antics of Yes supporters are? Which newspapers are you getting your information from? Most people in Scotland would regard the waving of a King Billy flag as provocative, but the Daily Mail approves of this manifestation of ugly sectarianism as pride in the Union.
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing.
quote:Oh, yes, it could well be that. But I've tended to find the level of reticence higher than on other get-out-the-vote campaigns that I've worked on. I haven't been keeping a tally of responses so don't know for sure, but just a feeling I have.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Or just might be because people don't want to tell you something on the phone.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?
...
It must be disconcerting for some to get a phone call from some English person asking them if they are supporting x or y, all coached in terms to make No sound better.
This on top of the usual annoyance at being asked for an opinion on something that is very personal.
quote:Feel free to think that, but Tom Bradby is a long-standing, respected ITN journalist. He's not Daily Mail twaddle too?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
But much of the rest is Daily Mail twaddle.
quote:Difficult to say; they might not have allowed an independence referendum in the first place, and if they had they'd probably have left DevoMax as an option. I don't think it was in their manifesto. But they would have had to make welfare cuts and they would probably have had to scale down the big projects that they started towards the end of their term, such as 'Building Schools for the Future.' Here's a summary of their 2010 manifesto, if anyone's interested.
I wonder if the Yes Side would have this much momentum if Ed Milibrand was PM.
quote:If he submits his work to a Daily Mail editor, then categorising it as 'Daily Mail twaddle' is reasonable. They are not going to print anything they strongly disagree with, however highly respected he may be.
Tom Bradby is a long-standing, respected ITN journalist. He's not Daily Mail twaddle too?
quote:The SNP won a majority because there was disillusionment with the main parties. It's the same reason the Lib Dems had their best election ever in 2010 and UKIP is starting to make moves.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the Yes Side would have this much momentum if Ed Milibrand was PM.
quote:I think it is wise to take Mr Bradby's word for his own experiences and accept that the enthusiasm of some 'yes' voters (primarily from that camp) has led them to behave inappropriately at times. The heckling and attempts to shout people down are well documented. And then there is the protest at the BBC and the orchestrated attempts to silence a distinguished journalist. To her credit, Sturgeon condemned this, but Salmond describes it as joyous. My impression is that Salmond is a blustering bully and that his behaviour and language has fuelled some of the intimidatory tactics we have seen.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would prefer it to see such a negative comparison with NI at the height of the Troubles being made by more than one journalist, and in a better newspaper than the Mail. Not wanting to impune the integrity of Tom Bradby, but if he's correct that "The Yes campaign's bullying and intimidation is worse than anything [he] saw while reporting on the Troubles in Northern Ireland" then it will be evident to every reporter on the ground who has also reported on the Troubles (he can't be the only one) and others will be able to support that accusation.
Of course, I've been away from the action for the last couple of weeks and things may have gone seriously downhill in that time, but I experienced no indication of anyone being bullied or intimidated (by either side). Just an impassioned discussion happening in practically every part of the country - at work, in the pub, church - with people engaging in politics more than I've ever seen before. Impassioned, lively, intelligent ... but not belligerant or nasty. Perhaps Mr Bradby has been unlucky and missed the demonstration of the democratic process at it's finest. Or, perhaps he's sought out the Orange Lodge and seen the nasty underside of Scottish society from an era long gone, that we all wish would just curl up and quietly die.
quote:Correct, the latter being historically known by some as 'Lesser Britain' (which in turn is to be distinguished with that Lucas-Walliams creation, 'Little Britain').
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:AIUI it's to distinguish it from Brittany.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...
Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?
quote:Yes, and the Orange Order's parade the other day in support of the Union worked in favour of the 'no' campaign about as well as one of Deano's contributions to this thread!
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:The Mail has a photo of "proud" Unionists "King William" banner. Frankly, any mention of the sectarian divide causes trouble in Scotland; this predates the referendum.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?
Some may dismiss this as typical Daily Mail waffle, but I think the piece by Tom Bradby at the foot of the article is worth a look at.
quote:I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...
Originally posted by Jane R:
If he submits his work to a Daily Mail editor, then categorising it as 'Daily Mail twaddle' is reasonable. They are not going to print anything they strongly disagree with, however highly respected he may be.
quote:What did I say that sounded like 'the rules of journalism only apply to the Daily Fail'?
I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...
quote:Nothing baffling about it. He's absolutely clear that this is about his experience as a journalist in both situations. He is not saying that yes campaigners are terrorists or paramilitary but that they are behaving unpleasantly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the comments about N. Ireland baffled me. Is he saying that people treated journalists in Ulster better than in Scotland? Otherwise, it sounds bonkers.
quote:Well, at least one journalist was assassinated in Ulster, Martin O'Hagan, probably by a loyalist group, although nobody was ever charged.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Nothing baffling about it. He's absolutely clear that this is about his experience as a journalist in both situations. He is not saying that yes campaigners are terrorists or paramilitary but that they are behaving unpleasantly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the comments about N. Ireland baffled me. Is he saying that people treated journalists in Ulster better than in Scotland? Otherwise, it sounds bonkers.
quote:If you're only just waking up to the idea that newspapers have a bias, and that as readers, we have to recognise that to try and sort out the propaganda from the facts... that explains a lot of your posts.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...
quote:Well, they’re not going to call themselves Unionists due to the baggage that comes with the name!
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It seems to be assumed that a “Yes” vote will lead to negotiations that will inevitably lead to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I’m not convinced that will necessarily be the case, especially if the “Yes” is carried with only a small majority.
As I understand it the Nationalist prospectus is based on the assumption of a currency union, a virtually automatic membership of the European Union, the end of austerity, and the establishment of a Scandinavian-style tax and welfare system. What, however, if rUK was not bluffing respecting the currency union, that entry into the EU proves as difficult and protracted as its opponents have suggested, and it was to become increasingly clear that independence threatened a period of austerity possibly greater than in rUK, thereby threatening the anticipated welfare bonanza? Is it possible that a significant proportion of the “Yeses” might feel they have been sold a pup and demand a referendum on the negotiated terms?
Furthermore, negotiations are more than likely to continue beyond the optimistic timetable envisaged, and not concluded before the scheduled Scottish Devolved Parliamentary Election in May 2016. If the negotiations were not to have gone well it is possible that a Unionist majority could emerge as a result of those elections, and its leaders would replace the Nationalist negotiators. What then? It could lead to a further referendum, which could lead to a rejection of the independence project.
If it were the case that circumstances led to a demand for a retention of the Union it would not only lead to a mess but the creation of a significant constituency who felt cheated of the 2014 outcome.
quote:Erm, not sure what posts you have in mind, but I think I have as healthy cynicism of the press as the next man. I think everyone has a tendency to question the identity of the messenger when the message is not to one’s liking and was just remarking on this.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:If you're only just waking up to the idea that newspapers have a bias, and that as readers, we have to recognise that to try and sort out the propaganda from the facts... that explains a lot of your posts.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...
quote:Salmond will blame it all on England and/or the EU for not giving Scotland exactly what it wants, like a spoilt child screaming at his parents because he didn't get every single Christmas present he'd asked for.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What, however, if rUK was not bluffing respecting the currency union, that entry into the EU proves as difficult and protracted as its opponents have suggested, and it was to become increasingly clear that independence threatened a period of austerity possibly greater than in rUK, thereby threatening the anticipated welfare bonanza?
quote:....to the worst that happened in the Northern Ireland Troubles.....
He is not saying that yes campaigners are terrorists or paramilitary but that they are behaving unpleasantly.
quote:If there's one thing I've learned by watching this debate from the US, (And no, I can't claim my ancestors 200 years ago were from Scotland) is that *every* no side argument is taken by the yes side as something that will backfire.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Interesting as I'm currently in Edinburgh. It's all very low key to my eyes - not many posters and a few good natured people out trying to persuade late voters.
For many the decision has been made -- they voted by post. For others, I do suspect that the daily McMail's attempt to back "No" will have a reverse effect: it's so transparent that more will now vote "Yes"
All I want to know is this: will someone now tell me how to get rid of Cameron and his cronies too? How can I get home rule for the Fens which as we all know is the real England?
quote:I was questioning his sanity, actually. Or possibly his sense of proportion. See Fletcher Christian's post, above.
I think everyone has a tendency to question the identity of the messenger when the message is not to one’s liking...
quote:It seems to be generally the other way around - it't the arguments from the Yes side that the No side point out are likely to backfire. It's not that easy to point out where the proposals of the No side might backfire because it's so hard to actually get any proposals out of them in the first place!
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
If there's one thing I've learned by watching this debate from the US, (And no, I can't claim my ancestors 200 years ago were from Scotland) is that *every* no side argument is taken by the yes side as something that will backfire.
quote:Likewise, the yes side doesn't seem to actually have any specific proposals rather than wishful thinking.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It seems to be generally the other way around - it't the arguments from the Yes side that the No side point out are likely to backfire. It's not that easy to point out where the proposals of the No side might backfire because it's so hard to actually get any proposals out of them in the first place!
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
If there's one thing I've learned by watching this debate from the US, (And no, I can't claim my ancestors 200 years ago were from Scotland) is that *every* no side argument is taken by the yes side as something that will backfire.
But, of course we recognise that what we want may not work out. It's part of the risk of growing up and leaving home to live on your own. The Yes campaign have invited us to take the risk of being independent, presenting a vision I believe will be worth the risk.
quote:Anything that Scotland has direct control over is realistically achievable. So immigration rules will be relaxed and Trident will be gone.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, I would say the proposals from the Scottish government are very specific. Retaining membership of the EU is specific, as is currency union with the rest of the UK, maintain pensions and health service funding, encouraging inward investment of talent and people through relaxed immigration controls, getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.
The issue isn't their specificity, it's whether or not they're realistically achievable.
quote:There's this thing callen a "general election" that will be happening in May next year...
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
All I want to know is this: will someone now tell me how to get rid of Cameron and his cronies too?
quote:
No, I would say the proposals from the Scottish government are very specific. Retaining membership of the EU is specific, as is currency union with the rest of the UK, maintain pensions and health service funding, encouraging inward investment of talent and people through relaxed immigration controls, getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.
The issue isn't their specificity, it's whether or not they're realistically achievable.
quote:Well indeed. As we're frequently reminded this isn't a vote for the SNP, it's a vote for an independent Scotland.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
quote:Politics.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
quote:Of course, the Scottish government would claim that Scotland is not really a new member because (as part of the UK) it has been in the EU for several decades. But I think you're right; the EU is likely to insist on Scotland adopting the Euro as a condition of membership.
Two of those things on that list are mutually exclusive. Scotland can't have currency union with the UK and be a member of the EU. EU rules say that new members have to join the Euro.
quote:I don't think he's left-wing either. Not if he's convinced Marvin to vote for independence
I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Well indeed. As we're frequently reminded this isn't a vote for the SNP, it's a vote for an independent Scotland.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
Within the Yes camp......:
- The Greens want to keep all the oil where it is, under the sea
- The SNP want to sell the oil at $113 a barrel
- Tommy Sheridan's lot want more regulation
- Business for Scotland want less regulation
- Uncle Jim is fantasising about renationalising whole swathes of it
How can people possibly know what it is they're voting for? Especially the ones who are voting *yes* despite the SNP.
quote:Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
quote:Isn't that rather fighting yesterday's battles? It reminds me of the British military establishment of the first half of the last century who were forever preparing to fight the last war.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
quote:Yes, the rules for new Euro members are clear. There are no rules on whether the parts of an existing EU member nation that divides are still members of the EU. The rhetoric given during the campaign from some senior EU politicians has been that they would consider one part of the divided nation to still be part of the EU, and one part not. But, rhetoric during an election campaign doesn't always translate into what happens after the votes are in.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
EU rules say that new members have to join the Euro. The EU is likely to insist on that as new Euro memmbers would be seen as a positive after the events of the last few years.
quote:As I understand it, an independent currency is also not something a government can have full control over either - at least not without adopting draconian measures relating to currency trading. Trade conditions, currency exchange, financial speculation and investment all affect a currency, sometimes with a central bank being powerless to do anything. The larger the economy that supports that currency, and probably diversity is as important as actual value, the less influence outside financial forces have on the currency and the more control central banks and governments have. A currency union surrenders some control to gain stability and control in other parts of the economy.
[ETA: I'm also completely confused about why a country seeking independence would want currency union with the country it's leaving. It leaves them with less economic control].
quote:I don't see why it's yesterday, since some Scots seem to believe that without independence they are faced with 3 Thatcherite parties in Westminster.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Isn't that rather fighting yesterday's battles? It reminds me of the British military establishment of the first half of the last century who were forever preparing to fight the last war.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
quote:Though, the evidence of devolution is that the Scottish government can manage to run things with rigorous debate but not the fighting we see in Westminster. We've even had some great examples of coalition government - indeed, coalition doesn't describe it well, cooperative government would be a better term. It's one of the big differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK - we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
quote:My views on independence are not determined by whether the person calling for it is on the left or right of politics. I support the principle of self-determination, which means I do not - cannot - oppose independence if that be the will of the Scottish people.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't think he's left-wing either. Not if he's convinced Marvin to vote for independence
quote:I didn't hear mature, intelligent discourse from Alex Salmond on the Today programme. I heard overt lying about what Darling said about currency in the second debate. And I also heard a further attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about what the Spanish have said repeatedly about Scotland and the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
quote:Does anyone have an idea of how many Scottish workers there actually are in the rest of the EU (barring the UK, of course)? It may not be as big a problem for them as you're suggesting.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it is decided that Scotland doesn't retain EU membership that creates a massive headache for the rest of the EU. Do companies in other EU nations currently employing Scottish workers need to sack them, or go through a lengthy and expensive process of seeking visas and work permits?
quote:That would be up to Scotland, not the EU. Given the stated intention to be pro-immigration I can't imagine they'd start by kicking out a bunch of immigrants!
Do EU nationals currently working in Scotland get sent home (or, likewise go through the process of getting visas)?
quote:How much trade goes directly between the EU (again, not counting the UK) and Scotland at the moment? Is Scotland a massive importer of Spanish or German goods, or a massive exporter of goods to France and Italy?
Then there's the question of trade, and the sudden imposition of costs when dealing with someone outwith the common market.
quote:Tell it to Greece.
A currency union surrenders some control to gain stability and control in other parts of the economy.
quote:The attitude seems to be that Spain can't possibly mean what it's saying about not letting an independent Scotland just waltz into the EU on its own terms, because that would be bad for Scotland and who could possibly want bad things to happen to Scotland?
Originally posted by Spawn:
And I also heard a further attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about what the Spanish have said repeatedly about Scotland and the EU.
quote:Fair enough. Thanks for explaining your position in more detail.
My views on independence are not determined by whether the person calling for it is on the left or right of politics. I support the principle of self-determination, which means I do not - cannot - oppose independence if that be the will of the Scottish people.
As to why I would personally vote yes, that's due to my preference for smaller countries in general. The smaller the electorate, the more say each individual voter has in the running of his or her country. I cannot but see that as a good thing in and of itself, and in fact it is for exactly the same reason that I oppose further moves towards a single, massive, European Superstate.
quote:will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
perfidious Albion
quote:There is a simple reason why people band together into larger units, and the reason is that might makes right and in general the bigger the mightier. If you have a Europe of regions with one actual nation left, and Germany is ironically a good candidate for that, then guess who will be calling the shots politically and economically? If Europe seriously splinters into regions, then I predict the de facto rise of a German empire.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As to why I would personally vote yes, that's due to my preference for smaller countries in general. The smaller the electorate, the more say each individual voter has in the running of his or her country. I cannot but see that as a good thing in and of itself, and in fact it is for exactly the same reason that I oppose further moves towards a single, massive, European Superstate.
quote:Why obvious?
It seems obvious that there needs to be either a smooth transition in which Scotland gains full membership of the EU immediately following independence, or some form of unique interim arrangement cooked up - but, if you're going to the trouble to formulate an interim arrangement you might as well use that time and effort to do it properly.
quote:I've posted several times before about the (to me) ludicrous nature of wanting to leave one Union because it's too big for you to have a significant say in how it's run, only to in the same breath call for membership of an even bigger Union where you'll have even less of a say in how it's run. Swapping London for Edinburgh I can understand, swapping it for Brussels I can't.
Originally posted by Jane R:
But that's not exactly what the Yes campaign are saying, is it? One of the arguments they are using is 'Vote Yes to avoid being dragged out of the EU by the English.'
.
quote:Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
perfidious Albion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
quote:No, Scotland is not already *in* the EU: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the EU member.
Is it not the case that Scotland is already *in* the EU? All the European law required to join the EU became part of Scots law separately from English law. I wonder could the EU even keep Scotland out?
quote:Oi. 'The rest of the UK' =/= Westminster. We've had coalition government here in Wales, too- in fact I'd say that the Labour/Plaid coalition of 2007-2011 was maybe our best government so far. And the whole business of arranging the coalition in 2007- in fact, there were two options on the table, the other being a serious possibility of a PC/Tory/LD coalition- was a fascinating process of learning a new style of politics from which all parties (except the Lib Dems, who decided they didn't want to go into government at all) came out well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Though, the evidence of devolution is that the Scottish government can manage to run things with rigorous debate but not the fighting we see in Westminster. We've even had some great examples of coalition government - indeed, coalition doesn't describe it well, cooperative government would be a better term. It's one of the big differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK - we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
quote:It may well be, but, in the context of "perfidious albion", it's a loaded trigger-word. We could go and have an argument about trigger words in the styx, but rather than wasting thousand of innocent megapixels it could just not be used. Perfidious/untrustworthy England, just because it's England, as something inherent/pejorative is crass racial stereotyping. You could just say, "they don't trust the Westminster parliament" for example. Why does there always have to be the slur that *it's because they're English*?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
perfidious Albion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
quote:Independent countries entering freely into mutual trade and defence agreements (EEC, NATO, etc) meets that need just as well as erasing their existence and setting up a single superstate, and has the benefit of not erasing their existence and setting up a single superstate.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a simple reason why people band together into larger units, and the reason is that might makes right and in general the bigger the mightier.
quote:For me, Albion doesn't mean English, it means British. This is actually important, since many of the people who have been hawking devo-max around are themselves Scots - Brown, Darling, Reid, Murphy, et. al.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:It may well be, but, in the context of "perfidious albion", it's a loaded trigger-word. We could go and have an argument about trigger words in the styx, but rather than wasting thousand of innocent megapixels it could just not be used. Perfidious/untrustworthy England, just because it's England, as something inherent/pejorative is crass racial stereotyping. You could just say, "they don't trust the Westminster parliament" for example. Why does there always have to be the slur that *it's because they're English*?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
perfidious Albion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
Even the Yes campaign haven't come out and said that (to their credit). Some within it may be telegraphing such sentiments madly but very few are being that blunt....
quote:That does rather rely on it being a bluff in the first place. I'm not convinced that it is.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I suspect Salmond and friends are hoping to call the EU's bluff over this
quote:But it's not acceptable when linked to 'Albion', which as has been said is Anglo-phobic. Not quite as racist perhaps as the "lying, thieving gypsy bastards" that got Viz into hot water some years ago, but on the same continuum.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
perfidious Albion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
quote:'Anglo-' can mean British too, though? If we talk of 'Anglo-American relations' we're not talking about relations betwen England the US.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that 'perfidious Albion' is British-phobic. Anglo-phobic would not make sense, since the major advocates of devo-max (as I said above), are Scots, esp. Gordon Brown, who is scurrying here there and everywhere.
quote:True. I think 'Albion' has been taken both ways; certainly, in the context of my original post, 'Anglo-phobic' is absurd (meaning English), since Labour is busy sending Scottish spokesmen around, promising heaven on earth. Let's say that there is a certain amount of skepticism about this.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:'Anglo-' can mean British too, though? If we talk of 'Anglo-American relations' we're not talking about relations betwen England the US.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that 'perfidious Albion' is British-phobic. Anglo-phobic would not make sense, since the major advocates of devo-max (as I said above), are Scots, esp. Gordon Brown, who is scurrying here there and everywhere.
quote:FFS against the UK ! (Not England)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think civil wars often follow independence movements and revolutions, e.g. Ireland, the US, Russia.
I don't think it would happen in Scotland, since there has been no armed revolt against England. In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
quote:Hah!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think civil wars often follow independence movements and revolutions, e.g. Ireland, the US, Russia.
I don't think it would happen in Scotland, since there has been no armed revolt against England. In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
quote:I think on balance I agree. Vote Yes. We English could do with a few good laughs.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
quote:That bit is almost inevitable. There is effectively no right-wing party available now (the conservative party being currently toxic, and unionist). But there is plenty of small-c conservatism in Scotland. It could be (and has been in the past) more conservative than England.
In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
quote:I shouldn't really point this out but a previous civil war in England, the War of the Roses only came to an end when you had a Welsh king, Henry V11 to sort the warring English out.....
Originally posted by L'organist:
Talking about civil wars, would it be terribly inflammatory to point out that the so-called English civil war in the 17th century came about when we had a Scottish king?
Of course, the Scots were bound to be on the winning side seeing how the Covenanters were pro-parliament while Montrose and friends were for Charles.
quote:Hmm. My good wishes are accompanied by "be brave, keep calm, and vote no!"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
quote:As are mine.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Hmm. My good wishes are accompanied by "be brave, keep calm, and vote no!"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
quote:I think the Coventanters were pro-monarchy, provided the monarch signed the Covenant. The Scots instituted (no such popish superstition as a coronation) Charles II following his father's exectution, which didn't please them at all.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Talking about civil wars, would it be terribly inflammatory to point out that the so-called English civil war in the 17th century came about when we had a Scottish king?
Of course, the Scots were bound to be on the winning side seeing how the Covenanters were pro-parliament while Montrose and friends were for Charles.
quote:There are a lot of UK laws that have separate Acts for Scotland. One I'm familiar with is the Radioactive Substances Act, which is identical to the Act passed in Westminster with the exception that the geographical extent over which the Act applies is Scotland. You do appear to be correct that the relevant EU treaties were not written into UK legislation with separate Acts for Scotland. What would happen if first thing Monday morning after a Yes vote the Scottish Government drafted copies of the UK Acts changing the geographical extents to cover Scotland and got the Queen to sign them off next time she came to Balmoral?
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, membership of the EU, and subsequent treaties, have not been enacted separately for Scotland - for the purposes of things affecting the whole of the UK laws are put onto the UK statute book only with no separate Acts for Scotland.
quote:Be brave, be calm, and vote!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Hmm. My good wishes are accompanied by "be brave, keep calm, and vote no!"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
quote:Aye! I hope so too. Contrary to popular belief I do have a rebellious, defiant, self-determinate side to me which in turn makes me favourable to a Scottish "yes".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
quote:Yes, it's great!
Originally posted by Firenze:
This is an issue which has incited 97% of those eligible to vote to register - that's 97%.
This is what politics should be like.
quote:/historical trivia
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:I think the Coventanters were pro-monarchy, provided the monarch signed the Covenant. The Scots instituted (no such popish superstition as a coronation) Charles II following his father's exectution, which didn't please them at all.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Talking about civil wars, would it be terribly inflammatory to point out that the so-called English civil war in the 17th century came about when we had a Scottish king?
Of course, the Scots were bound to be on the winning side seeing how the Covenanters were pro-parliament while Montrose and friends were for Charles.
Scots forgive my ignorance of Scottish history. I've tried to understand it, but all the popular books are quiet about the Commonwealth. Surely Cromwell wasn't Lord Protector of Scotland? Who was the Scottish head of state between 1649 and 1660?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I say vote "Yes" Scotland. Don't worry, you won't become Spain's stooge or Brussels' bitch. Remember, Germany is ever kind to its faithful EU vassals. Just keep the whisky and the oil flowing our way, and we will take good care of you. Birds of a feather, that's what we are, nothing like those nasty Brits with whom you have nothing in common...
quote:Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore, Costa Rica: all have populations under 10 million, all doing fine, as far as I can tell from my position here in one of the world's superpowers.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But to wish for a small country as such is simply to wish for being somebody else's political toy. It's naive to believe that there will be some kind of fair consideration of every small nation on the international stage. Money talks, military talks, natural resources talk, population size talks. Fairness is the spin that gets put on the deal after all that talking has been heard...
quote:Surprisingly it doesn't seem that easy to get the numbers. It's about 700,000 in the rest of the UK. So the total must be well over 1 million.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Does anyone have an idea of how many Scottish workers there actually are in the rest of the EU (barring the UK, of course)? It may not be as big a problem for them as you're suggesting.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it is decided that Scotland doesn't retain EU membership that creates a massive headache for the rest of the EU. Do companies in other EU nations currently employing Scottish workers need to sack them, or go through a lengthy and expensive process of seeking visas and work permits?
quote:Wishful thinking is pretty much all that referendums provide when it comes to policy.
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
...Likewise, the yes side doesn't seem to actually have any specific proposals rather than wishful thinking.
quote:Yes, it worries me that a small no majority will leave a lot of yes campaigners roiling and boiling, and Salmond will need to be very statesmanlike then, to calm people down.
Crap spouted by kingsfold:
And whichever way the vote goes, pray that all will have the willingness to work together thereafter. There will be a lot of very disappointed people.
quote:Where is the "holy crap, jaw drop" smilie when you need it?
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:There are a lot of UK laws that have separate Acts for ****land. One * 'm familiar with is the Radioactive Substances Act, which is identical to the Act passed in Westminster with the exception that the geographical extent over which the Act applies is ****land. You do appear to be correct that the relevant EU treaties were not written into UK legislation with separate Acts for ****land. What would happen if first thing Monday morning after a Yes vote the ****t*** Government drafted copies of the UK Acts changing the geographical extents to cover ****land and got the Queen to sign them off next time she came to Balmoral?
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, membership of the EU, and subsequent treaties, have not been enacted separately for ****land - for the purposes of things affecting the whole of the UK laws are put onto the UK statute book only with no separate Acts for ****land.
quote:Too right! * 've had more conversations about the state of the NHS; benefits and food banks; fair ta*tion v austerity; *ho gets to vote on *hat in Parliament etc in the last fe* days than * 've had in ages! Hopefully *e can keep that momentum up *hatever the outcome. Ne*t election could be a doo*y!
Crap spouted by Firen*e:
This is an issue *hich has incited 97% of those eligible to vote to register - that's [* ]97%[/* ].
This is *hat politics should be like.
quote:Oh, for ***** sake, *hy not just ***** the *****, s*allo* your *****, and then take off your *****.
* ******* **** ***** ****?
quote:It might not be that bad, Nor*ay has done okay. Hopefully ****land has put some thought into *hat *ill happen if EU membership takes longer than hoped and if the rUK says no to currency union and becoming ****land's outsourced central services provider.
Crap spouted by L'organist:
Re ****land and the EU:
The Span*** PM, no doubt *ith the approval or at the behest of the EU Commission, has advised that simply deciding it ****es to join/ continue being a member (*hatever your vie*point) is not enough and *on't change the procedure.
He says the ****s should prepare themselves for a *ait of anything up to a decade before becoming EU members - and that assumes the EU *ant them. As he helpfully reminds Mr Salmond and friends, it took Spain - a large country - 8 years to get EU membership, even *ith a follo*ing *ind, a stated desire on the part of the EU's larger countries for it to be a member, and incredible EU pre-accession spending on some Span*** regions (notably some of the islands) to bring infrastructure up to something approaching an acceptable standard.
Vote NO or prepare to be in a declining back*ater.
quote:Democracy? *hen 96% of the UK population don't get any say in something *hich *ill affect us all?
Crap spouted by Alan Cress*ell:
If the predictions for the very high turnout are correct, *hatever the outcome it'll be a victory for democracy and a demonstration that people are interested in politics.
quote:Or as Bo*ie put it:
Crap spouted by Alan Cress*ell:
The ****tidh Government have presented a vision, a dream, something to aspire to. Call it ****ful thinking if you ****. But, * think it's admirable to have a vision of *here you are going. *ithout vision the people per*** (paraphrase of something in some book or the other).
"You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
Ho* you gonna have a dream come true?"
(*hich * al*ays associate *ith Captain Sensible, though * kno* he pinched it from South Pacific)
Dreams and visions are po*erful stuff. "* have a dream that one day this nation *ill rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed "
quote:*hich * suppose is no more or less realistic than some of Mr Salmond's dreams.
Did you ever have a dream or t*o
*here the hero is a guy named you
And the things he does are just too much
Does he fly like Mr. Superman, speak Chinese, French and Dutch?
And did you ever have a dream or t*o?
quote:It may well be the case, as Bagehot opined, that Her Majesty is obliged to sign her own death warrant if it is presented to her after passing through the relevant parliamentary procedures. But she would no more be obliged to sign a hypothetical act of parliament with 'United Kingdon' struck through and replaced by '****land' (presumably in green ink) than she would be to sign an edict, drafted by Russell Brand for a giggle, abol***ing parliament and replacing it with an anarchist collective. A 'Yes' vote would not abol*** the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, even if it would put it on notice that it could no longer command the assent and loyalty of the majority of ****s.
There are a lot of UK laws that have separate Acts for ****land. One * 'm familiar with is the Radioactive Substances Act, which is identical to the Act passed in Westminster with the exception that the geographical extent over which the Act applies is ****land. You do appear to be correct that the relevant EU treaties were not written into UK legislation with separate Acts for ****land. What would happen if first thing Monday morning after a Yes vote the ****t*** Government drafted copies of the UK Acts changing the geographical extents to cover ****land and got the Queen to sign them off next time she came to Balmoral?
quote:Norway has done OK because it is a fundamentally different society.
It might not be that bad, Norway has done okay. Hopefully ****land has put some thought into what will happen if EU membership takes longer than hoped and if the rUK says no to currency union and becoming ****land's outsourced central services provider.
quote:* was responding to Alan's response to your post. It was Alan's comment that was slightly jaw dropping. You and * would both be voting no.
Crap spouted by L'organist:
posted by Tubbsquote:Norway has done OK because it is a fundamentally different society.
It might not be that bad, Norway has done okay. Hopefully ****land has put some thought into what will happen if EU membership takes longer than hoped and if the rUK says no to currency union and becoming ****land's outsourced central services provider.
For a start, they have nothing like the level of welfare dependency of ****land, nor do they have anything approaching the same areas requiring regeneration, nor the same social problems.
To compare Norway now - or when it turned down EU membership - to ****land is rather like comparing lettuce and meat.
Second, the YES campaign would have had far more credibiity if it had actually bothered to hold formal discussions with UK central government departments and the Bank of ***land about what happens if there is a YES vote: they chose not to hold those talks, possibly because they wouldn't have liked the answers they got? Instead we've been treated to a mixture of entirely erroneous reassuring bluster and threats from Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon most of which has no basis in fact and is highly unlikely to be put into place.
Lastly, you may consider my previous post to be 'crap' but its less than polite to head your own as such.
quote:Oh, that's what it was!
Crap spouted by itsarumdo:
* see the crap post header has been turned off again - for now. Gremlins stirring strife.
Thanks for enlightening me. quote:They wouldn't have been able to have formal talks with anyone. Because, until the vote is counted and it comes up "yes" there is no mandate from the people of this land to discuss going it alone. At present everything said by anyone has been informal comments. Campaign rhetoric, probably representing the opinions of those making the comments, in some cases based on advice from people who would actually prepare the formal advice for formal talks. But, until someone has the mandate to formally ask a question there's no one who can give a formal answer. It's why some of us were advocating a two stage process - get the mandate to formally discuss things, work out a plan for going it alone and then put that plan to the vote.
Crap spouted by L'organist:
Second, the YES campaign would have had far more credibiity if it had actually bothered to hold formal discussions with UK central government departments and the Bank of ***land about what happens if there is a YES vote:
quote:If there is a yes vote, the process is that there are negociations and then both sides go their seperate ways with whatever they can get.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:They wouldn't have been able to have formal talks with anyone. Because, until the vote is counted and it comes up "yes" there is no mandate from the people of this land to discuss going it alone. At present everything said by anyone has been informal comments. Campaign rhetoric, probably representing the opinions of those making the comments, in some cases based on advice from people who would actually prepare the formal advice for formal talks. But, until someone has the mandate to formally ask a question there's no one who can give a formal answer. It's why some of us were advocating a two stage process - get the mandate to formally discuss things, work out a plan for going it alone and then put that plan to the vote.
Crap spouted by L'organist:
Second, the YES campaign would have had far more credibiity if it had actually bothered to hold formal discussions with UK central government departments and the Bank of ***land about what happens if there is a YES vote:
quote:Yes, that's the process that we have. It's not the only process we could have had.
Crap spouted by Tubbs:
If there is a yes vote, the process is that there are negociations and then both sides go their seperate ways with whatever they can get.
quote:Screw that. ***land should take them for what they can get. It's not like they won't be trying to do the same thing.
Crap spouted by itsarumdo:
Listening to Alex Salmond, he's gambling that the ***l*** sense of fair play and the long relationship we have with ****land - * .e. ***l*** public opinion - will prevent Westminster shafting ****land when currency agreements are being made.
quote:Could you be any more insulting of people who have been following the issues in this campaign for months now, weighing up the pros and cons, registering to vote in record numbers, with luck *voting* in record numbers, just because some of those voting will have different priorities from you and have dared to vote accordingly?
Crap spouted by L'organist:
Aussi cette fois demain nous pourrions enfin être libre des goûts de Rab C Nesbitt, les râleurs perpétuels qui pensent Braveheart était l'histoire véritable, et les banquiers qui coûtent chaque homme, femme et enfant au Royaume-Uni plus de 800 livres pour renflouer une banque et qui gardent gémissant comment ils ne nous aiment pas.
Au revoir - obtenir votre passeport prêt si vous voulez venir sud.
quote:It was until H&A day impacted us. Normal service may be resumed later.
Crap spouted by Hope:
If this is one of the better threads out there on the subject, then God help us
quote:The ****s there must have thought free whiskey was being given out.
Crap spouted by North East Quine:
The first polling station is now closed, as 100% of their electorate have voted!
quote:Or maybe they were just intoxicated by the rare instance of effective democracy.
Crap spouted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:The ****s there must have thought free whiskey was being given out.
Crap spouted by North East Quine:
The first polling station is now closed, as 100% of their electorate have voted!
quote:which is a bunch of horse puckey as far as predicting the final vote, since support for Yes has been rising, thus rising since the time those absentee ballots were cast.
Confidence rose after the insiders said the postal votes - nearly a quarter of the total ballots cast - showed the No campaign winning comfortably.
quote:Yes, but many of them will have been cast a couple of weeks ago - before the Better Together campaign gave more detail on the increased devolution options. Or at least a timetable.
Crap spouted by Doublethink:
They aren't counted in advance - they are counted at the same time as the rest of the ballot aren't they ?
quote:Movie plot ...?
NPR International Correspondent Ari Shapiro: My fav fun fact about #****land #Indyref: The final result that the counting officer reads is legally binding, EVEN IF SHE GETS IT WRONG.
quote:Whisky, you mean. And * understand that the pubs have extended hours tonight.
Crap spouted by Firenze:
quote:Or maybe they were just intoxicated by the rare instance of effective democracy.
Crap spouted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:The ****s there must have thought free whiskey was being given out.
Crap spouted by North East Quine:
The first polling station is now closed, as 100% of their electorate have voted!
quote:Since the polls closed at 10 pm - which is within normal opening hours - * can't see extended hours having any impact on voting behaviour.
Crap spouted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And * understand that the pubs have extended hours tonight.
quote:Not much of a say in the outcome, though, if you can't vote.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
That's an interesting definition of "rigged". Yes, the eligible electorate was defined as the same as would be the case for any other election but including 16 & 17y olds (who would be eligible to vote in any other election if the Riaghaltas na-h Alba was allowed to make that decision - and, besides, will be old enough to vote come the next election any way). Yes, it has been a sore point for some that because they currently reside in another country they don't get a vote. It doesn't seem to have stopped them having a say though, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some voters who were wavering but eventually went one way or the other because of the views of friends and relatives unable to vote.
quote:That assumes that the expatriates would all vote uniformly and therefore excluding them weights the results.
Crap spouted by Gee D:
Again, AIUI ****s who are presently out of the country - perhaps on a 3 year contract elsewhere - are eligible to vote in an election. Why not a r*******um? That is very much rigging the electorate.
quote:* have no doubt about the sobriety of the vote, but it is convenient to drown one's sorrows, whatever they are.
Crap spouted by Firenze:
quote:Since the polls closed at 10 pm - which is within normal opening hours - * can't see extended hours having any impact on voting behaviour.
Crap spouted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And * understand that the pubs have extended hours tonight.
You don't achieve the nigh on 90% turnout which is currently being reported from all airts by people staggering out the pub at the last moment. * think you have to accept that the result, be what it may, was actually arrived at in a state of sobriety.
quote:1. This admin concurs with Alan's decision.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Given that l'organist at least has been consistently in opposition to you on this thread. Alan, the expression that comes to mind is 'nemo judex in causa sua'. Which for those who insist on a translation is 'no man [shall be] judge in his own cause'. And if you don't like that * don't care.
quote:As someone currently out of the country (on a 2 year half time contract), it is correct to say that people in my position are eligible to vote, and have done so (though as the ballot paper didn't arrive until Tuesday evening it is questionable whether it arrived in time to be counted). People of my acquaintance who have been out of the country longer (eg: 4 years) are not elligible to vote - although to my knowledge they may have been able to retain their right to vote under specific circumstances.
Crap spouted by Gee D:
Again, AIUI ****s who are presently out of the country - perhaps on a 3 year contract elsewhere - are eligible to vote in an election. Why not a r*******um? That is very much rigging the electorate.
quote:Yes, that is what * meant. Legally the result is not official in Canada until the Returning Officer for the Riding counts the ballots, but that is an actual recount.
Crap spouted by Firenze:
When you say 'on site' do you mean at the polling station? There are 5,579 of those: guaranteeing an assured level of accuracy and oversight at all of them would be an ask. * can see why transporting them to 29 local authority centres is preferable - but it does mean delays. * understand there are at least some held up by an accident on the A9, and others having to come by f***ing boat because helicopters are grounded by the weather.
There is also a perception - voiced by the woman who has the job of announcing the final total - that is important that the vote is accepted as accurate and unquestionable. A few hours to guarantee that is time wisely spent.
quote:Though, round to one decimal place and it's **.1% vs 49.9%. Which is close.
Crap spouted by Chesterbelloc:
Inverclyde declares: Yes 49%; No 51%; turnout 87.4%.
quote:The overall number of votes over the whole country, Huia.
Crap spouted by Huia:
Is the final result decide on how many electorates decide yes or no, or on how many people vote for each alternative?
quote:If Cameron, Clegg and Milliband deliver on additional powers for ****land then ****land will be the better for it. OTOH would you trust those three, or Westminster political parties, to deliver any promise?
Crap spouted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Heads Salmond wins, tails Salmond gets more power anyway with none of the financial uncertainty. Did he actually lose?
quote:There are 3 slight practical problems with this (not that * 'm not agreeing with your sentiments).
Crap spouted by Wesley J:
An impressive turnout and possibly a wise choice, IMHO.
Really hope that S-c-o-t-s will now go and mightily kick arse in Westminster and Downing Street! Get the politicoes down south to keep their promises, keep them on their toes, hassle them until they give in to really all they said they would!
quote:Alwyn, do you need to lie down for a bit?
Crap spouted by Alwyn:
This leftie thinks Mr Cameron's speech is good.
quote:Me too. First time * 've heard him without cringing. * 'm in shock. And what with Gordon Brown being passionate and Salmond sounding statesmanlike, * don't know what's come over them all.
Crap spouted by Alwyn:
This leftie thinks Mr Cameron's speech is good.
quote:* think a lot of the people who voted but don't normally vote were galvinised into caring and voted no.
Crap spouted by betjemaniac:
To Alan's point above about the many "ifs" of how good ****land could be in the future, isn't there a slight danger that many people have been galvanised into caring for the first time in their life, voted yes, and not got it? Isn't it quite likely that the disillusionment may equally lead to a resumption of business as usual rather than a new spirit of political activism? * don't know, * 'm just musing....
quote:Thanks for your advice about the entitlement of expat ****s to vote. But an 11% gap is scarcely "a close thing". It's a resounding defeat for Salmond, and he and his government should resign.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
There can't be much doubt now. There's no way the remaining results are going to swing strongly enough towards Yes to result in a Yes victory.
But, it was a close thing. Far closer than many would have predicted 6 months ago. It reflects a very strong campaign from the Yes side, and a frankly awful one by Better Together.
quote:Yeah, we had a similar situation when Obama first ran for office. Usually, most Americans don't vote, but there was a huge turnout. A lot of people thought O. was a/the messiah. (He did try to dissuade them.) Many people, somehow thinking that O. could do anything he wanted (never mind that much of Congress swore to fight anything he came up with), were/are seriously disappointed in him.
Crap spouted by betjemaniac:
To Alan's point above about the many "ifs" of how good ****land could be in the future, isn't there a slight danger that many people have been galvanised into caring for the first time in their life, voted yes, and not got it? Isn't it quite likely that the disillusionment may equally lead to a resumption of business as usual rather than a new spirit of political activism? * don't know, * 'm just musing....
quote:Rather difficult with a secret ballot!
Crap spouted by deano:
If the 16 and 17 year old's votes are removed from the calculations, does anyone know what the percentages would be?
Is there such a breakdown anywhere?
quote:Good for Sccotland, shit for the rest of us.
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
DMax consequences,
quote:MPs from Scootland should be banned from voting on matters that only affect rUK. Same goes for Welsh and NI MPs, for that matter.
West Lothian
quote:Get rid of it completely. Fund the regions based either on what they actually need, or how many people live there. There's no reason whatsoever why some regions should automatically get more per head than others, especially where those regions have the ability to raise extra taxes to pay for any extra stuff they might want.
and Barnett
quote:Is that going to go for London as well, ending for example the thousands spent on transport infrastructure there per head compared with the hundreds everywhere else?
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Get rid of it completely. Fund the regions based either on what they actually need, or how many people live there. There's no reason whatsoever why some regions should automatically get more per head than others, especially where those regions have the ability to raise extra taxes to pay for any extra stuff they might want.
and Barnett
quote:Oh, hell yes. Im sick of London getting all the fancy new stuff while the rest of us have to manage with hand-me-downs, if we get anything at all.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is that going to go for London as well, ending for example the thousands spent on transport infrastructure there per head compared with the hundreds everywhere else?
quote:Yes, hope so. And time to reverse the Thatcher-era's centralisation of power in Whitehall and Westminster.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Is that going to go for London as well, ending for example the thousands spent on transport infrastructure there per head compared with the hundreds everywhere else?
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Get rid of it completely. Fund the regions based either on what they actually need, or how many people live there. There's no reason whatsoever why some regions should automatically get more per head than others, especially where those regions have the ability to raise extra taxes to pay for any extra stuff they might want.
and Barnett
quote:Be careful what you w*** for. London's population and wealth probably means they still get the shiny stuff anyway. Hell, they are subsidising the rest of us.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Is that going to go for London as well, ending for example the thousands spent on transport infrastructure there per head compared with the hundreds everywhere else?
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Get rid of it completely. Fund the regions based either on what they actually need, or how many people live there. There's no reason whatsoever why some regions should automatically get more per head than others, especially where those regions have the ability to raise extra taxes to pay for any extra stuff they might want.
and Barnett
quote:It's a vicious circle. London sucks talented people out of "the regions" so naturally enough these people end up doing their stuff there. If we could enable people to achieve where they are we wouldn't have this issue.
Crap spouted by Spawn:
quote:Be careful what you w*** for. London's population and wealth probably means they still get the shiny stuff anyway. Hell, they are subsidising the rest of us.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Is that going to go for London as well, ending for example the thousands spent on transport infrastructure there per head compared with the hundreds everywhere else?
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Get rid of it completely. Fund the regions based either on what they actually need, or how many people live there. There's no reason whatsoever why some regions should automatically get more per head than others, especially where those regions have the ability to raise extra taxes to pay for any extra stuff they might want.
and Barnett
quote:Some and some. There is urban blight as well as rural blight, and both should be addressed in accordance with need.
Crap spouted by la vie en rouge:
Scötland also gets more money because more of its citizens live in the countryside. Cities are cheaper to administer because services can be centralised.
quote:Well, either London gets less or we raise more taxes. Which would you prefer?
Crap spouted by Anglican't:
* 'm all for having stronger regions, but * don't think we achieve that by dragging London down or starving it of funding.
quote:Actually, * ’m not surprised Aberdeen was a no. Many of the SNP’s sums were based on oil revenue. The FT had some quotes from people who’d worked in the oil industry for years yesterday. They wanted * *******ence, but were voting no because the oil wasn’t there to support it. And, without the revenue from oil, they believed that ****land would be better off staying in the Union.
Crap spouted by North East Quine:
Orkney and Shetland were expected to be No votes, albeit with a smaller No majority. Western Isles were expected to be a Yes, so that was a surprise.
The "romance of the Stuart cause" was never an issue.
It was expected that the urban areas would be Yes and rural areas No. The surprise was that Aberdeen was a no.
quote:Checked horizon and saw no sign of either horsemen or flying pigs. Must be one of those miracle things that the Bible talks about.
Crap spouted by Yangtze:
quote:Me too. First time * 've heard him without cringing. * 'm in shock. And what with Gordon Brown being passionate and Salmond sounding statesmanlike, * don't know what's come over them all.
Crap spouted by Alwyn:
This leftie thinks Mr Cameron's speech is good.
quote:Please God, save us from Boris and Nigel. Amen!
Crap spouted by Spawn:
It strikes me that all the party leaders are pretty much screwed as a result of the vote and campaign. Salmond should hand over to Nicola Sturgeon - far more able and much less of a bully. The other leaders looked hapless and at the mercy of events. They were all manipulated by Salmond and Gordon Brown. Milliband comes out worse because he was upstaged by every Labour grandee around and in the end was deliberately hidden from sight. Clegg's credibility problem remains in spite of all his efforts. Cameron is the obvious victor but has this ridiculous tendency to lurch from one disaster to another making things up as he goes along.
quote:That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a vicious circle. London sucks talented people out of "the regions" so naturally enough these people end up doing their stuff there. If we could enable people to achieve where they are we wouldn't have this issue.
quote:Another tier of career politicians housed in new overspent multi-million pound Parliament building?
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
quote:That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a vicious circle. London sucks talented people out of "the regions" so naturally enough these people end up doing their stuff there. If we could enable people to achieve where they are we wouldn't have this issue.
quote:How else do you deliver real democracy for the E-n-g-l-* -s-h?
Crap spouted by Spawn:
Another tier of career politicians housed in new overspent multi-million pound Parliament building?
quote:Well it doesn't deal with the London issue but ***l*** MPs can legislate alone on specifically ***l*** matters. Let them have two jobs - UK MPs and ***l*** MPs and perhaps that will fill their time.
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
quote:How else do you deliver real democracy for the E-n-g-l-* -s-h?
Crap spouted by Spawn:
Another tier of career politicians housed in new overspent multi-million pound Parliament building?
quote:Exit polling etc.
Crap spouted by Gildas:
quote:Rather difficult with a secret ballot
Crap spouted by deano:
If the 16 and 17 year old's votes are removed from the calculations, does anyone know what the percentages would be?
Is there such a breakdown anywhere?
quote:Which raises the amusing possibility of having a UK parliament with a slim majority for one party (let's call it "Labour") but an E-word parliament with a slim majority for another party (let's call them "Conservative").
Crap spouted by Spawn:
Well it doesn't deal with the London issue but ***l*** MPs can legislate alone on specifically ***l*** matters. Let them have two jobs - UK MPs and ***l*** MPs and perhaps that will fill their time.
quote:Yes. The chance of having a reform in the UK voting age between now and the next election is zero. Everybody has known this ever since the proposal to allow 16-and 17-year-olds to vote in the referwhatnot was mooted.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
What * want to know is are those voters going to be suddenly disenfranchised?
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:It won't make any difference to the r*******um result. But it would be interesting nevertheless.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
What difference would it make?
What * want to know is are those voters going to be suddenly disenfranchised? It would be a tragedy if having inspired a new young generation to get involved in politics and deciding their future that is then snatched back from them.
Of course, they probably are going to be (well, except for the few who have an 18th ******** between now and May).
quote:Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
quote:And they will get their turn in due course. It's not like it was a one time offer.
Crap spouted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Yes. The chance of having a reform in the UK voting age between now and the next election is zero. Everybody has known this ever since the proposal to allow 16-and 17-year-olds to vote in the referwhatnot was mooted.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
What * want to know is are those voters going to be suddenly disenfranchised?
This "disenfranchisement", as you call it, was built in. Nobody needs to go acting all surprised and disappointed about it.
quote:Wasn't allowed. Based on the young people interviewed on TV, it may have been fairly evenly split. Some voted yes because they wanted the opportnity to be involved in building something new. Others voted no because they were worried that the version of * *******ence on offer would limit their future opportunities education and career-wise.
Crap spouted by deano:
quote:Exit polling etc.
Crap spouted by Gildas:
quote:Rather difficult with a secret ballot
Crap spouted by deano:
If the 16 and 17 year old's votes are removed from the calculations, does anyone know what the percentages would be?
Is there such a breakdown anywhere?
quote:Yeah, but it's geographically down south. Viewed from here anyway. But seriously, this does give rise to the follow up - how do we avoid a second London, being great for itself but feeding the rest of us with a few crumbs under the table? * 'm not saying * have answers.
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
quote:Of course, we all know they wouldn't get the vote come May. There's not time to extend the franchise to all young adults by then, even if there was the political will to do so. And, the vast majority of these particular individuals will be 18 by the next ****t*** Parliamentary election anyway. They only have to wait a year or two to vote again anyway.
Crap spouted by deano:
You ask if those 16 & 17 year olds are going to be disenfranchised. Well yes they are. Because UK law says the voting age is 18 - and rightly so.
quote:It was common for the monarch and his court to tour the country and rule from different places. A nomadic parliament would solve some problems. It would sit near most people some of the time. By using existing conference facilities there would be no need for a new parliament building. The influx of MEPs (Members of the ***l*** Parliament ... the potential confusion could exceed the ability of UKIP brains to resolve, which would be no bad thing) and associated advisors would be lots of business for hotels and restaurants spreading money around the country.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah, but it's geographically down south. Viewed from here anyway. But seriously, this does give rise to the follow up - how do we avoid a second London, being great for itself but feeding the rest of us with a few crumbs under the table? [/QB]
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
quote:Really? Now that is interesting. Which side pushed for that? More to the point, why didn't they want exit polling?
Crap spouted by Tubbs:
quote:Wasn't allowed.
Crap spouted by deano:
Exit polling etc.
quote:l’m not so sure. The process of moving the EU parliament between just two cities (Brussels and Strasbourg) is an absolutely outrageous waste of everyone’s time and money.
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It was common for the monarch and his court to tour the country and rule from different places. A nomadic parliament would solve some problems. It would sit near most people some of the time. By using existing conference facilities there would be no need for a new parliament building. The influx of MEPs (Members of the ***l*** Parliament ... the potential confusion could exceed the ability of UKIP brains to resolve, which would be no bad thing) and associated advisors would be lots of business for hotels and restaurants spreading money around the country.
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah, but it's geographically down south. Viewed from here anyway. But seriously, this does give rise to the follow up - how do we avoid a second London, being great for itself but feeding the rest of us with a few crumbs under the table?
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
quote:Birmingham is too close to London IMO anyway
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah, but it's geographically down south. Viewed from here anyway. But seriously, this does give rise to the follow up - how do we avoid a second London, being great for itself but feeding the rest of us with a few crumbs under the table? * 'm not saying * have answers.
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
quote:But it's at the centre of the E road and rail networks, virtually nowhere in E is more than 3.5 hours from it (stand fast Truro), and it's the greatest city in the kingdom...
Crap spouted by Matt Black:
quote:Birmingham is too close to London IMO anyway
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah, but it's geographically down south. Viewed from here anyway. But seriously, this does give rise to the follow up - how do we avoid a second London, being great for itself but feeding the rest of us with a few crumbs under the table? * 'm not saying * have answers.
Crap spouted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Birmingham, surely? It being the second city, and all.
Crap spouted by Adeodatus:
That could be taken care of very easily within a couple of decades - by having an ***l*** Parliament sitting in Manchester.
quote:Don't know, but quite a few of the news sites commented that exit polls weren't allowed.
Crap spouted by deano:
quote:Really? Now that is interesting. Which side pushed for that? More to the point, why didn't they want exit polling?
Crap spouted by Tubbs:
quote:Wasn't allowed.
Crap spouted by deano:
Exit polling etc.
quote:Gateshead?
Crap spouted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*cough*Newcastle*cough*Sunderland
No. We need somewhere further North. The Liverpool-Leeds strip could be considered a distributed city that might work better.
And HS2 trains to run direct from European cities rather than requiring a change and transfer at London. As it is, HS2 is just a fast commuter line for well-paid bankers to live in the nice bits of the country but work in London.
quote:That's the same as with all UK elections. The ballots from general elections are stored in St. Stephen's Tower (aka - wrongly - Big Ben). You can indeed work out who voted for who if you have the electoral registration list and the key to the tower!
Crap spouted by Autenrieth Road:
Regarding anonymity of ballots -- is that true? * saw an interview with some official in Glasgow about the 10 duplicate ballots, and he said they were able to retrieve them because each ballot had a numerical code, which seemed to indicate that the ballot's numerical code was recorded with each person who voted -- so that they knew which numbers they were looking for.
Obviously the ballots are anonymous if you don't have the checking-in list with the names and ballot numbers together (assuming * 've inferred correctly that such a list exists, which * 'm not sure * have), but are there laws which prevent putting these together after the fact to do analysis?
Not that * 'm advocating doing that putting-together; * think anonymity of ballots is a good thing. But * 'm puzzled about what the Glasgow official said.
quote:If ****t*** MPs are expected to recuse themselves from certain votes in future then Clegg could end up in power again after the next election if he can deliver Miliband a majority in ***land as well as the UK. Given that the Lib Dems have been banging on about a Federal Britain for years it must be heartening, if somewhat surprising, to see it on the agenda. More generally it doesn't help the Tories to be seen as a party of government if everyone is reminded that a large swathe of the UK regards them as entirely toxic.
Crap spouted by Tubbs:
quote:Please God, save us from Boris and Nigel. Amen!
Crap spouted by Spawn:
It strikes me that all the party leaders are pretty much screwed as a result of the vote and campaign. Salmond should hand over to Nicola Sturgeon - far more able and much less of a bully. The other leaders looked hapless and at the mercy of events. They were all manipulated by Salmond and Gordon Brown. Milliband comes out worse because he was upstaged by every Labour grandee around and in the end was deliberately hidden from sight. Clegg's credibility problem remains in spite of all his efforts. Cameron is the obvious victor but has this ridiculous tendency to lurch from one disaster to another making things up as he goes along.
Tubbs
quote:Sounds like an Anglican b***op going to the Ordinariate - * 'm going to go, but will stay collecting my salary for quite a bit longer, thanks. After such a thumping defeat, he should resign immediately.
Crap spouted by Barnabas62:
Listening right now to Alex Salmond's resignation press conference - and the early signs that the guarantees re progress on DMax may well have hit an early (Milliband) road-block.
quote:* 've never agreed with you before but this site has gone to shit.
Crap spouted by Anglican't:
Oh, because of the silly changes to the site that link is buggered. Will re-post when sense has returned.
