Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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. My underlying assumption is that, despite its current travails, the EU will continue to move towards closer union both economically and politically. On such a trajectory, Scotland risks not being a region of Europe, but a region of a region of Europe. Gaining independence now and seeking to stay in the EU would be the best route for the people of Scotland to retain a place in Europe which honours its distinctiveness from England, and moreover Westminster politics. On this basis, the argument for independence is not an ethnic nationalist one, but a civic European one.
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
But I think the real argument for studying Ireland is what happened next. Did they ever want to rejoin the UK? No. Did they have a currency union with the UK? For a long time, yes. Has Irish independence thrown up borders and made family members foreigners? No (and I'll be a judge of that latter point). Has Ireland floundered economically? Despite recent travails, no. It is still wealthier than the rest of the UK. And so on.
In other words, the study of Irish independence and countries of comparable size and geography such as Denmark do offer a lot of interesting perspectives. The economic arguments offered by paid academics and institutes on both sides of the debate have so far ended in a stalemate. And rightly so. Given it is nigh impossible to econometrically predict anything more than two years away, and certainly nothing across the process of creating a new state, comparative studies with countries similar to what an independent Scotland would aspire to be is probably the most accurate way of predicting the economic outcome. Hence, I think a close study of Eire is more than warranted.
-------------------- ... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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. [ 08. June 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think I will find myself a little jealous of Scotland if the vote is 'yes'. I strongly dislike the right wing London-centricity of Westminster. The UK has been ruled by a right wing party since 1979, in my view. Blair/Brown were thatcher-lite imo.
I want an independant Lancashire!
-------------------- Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Molopata: quote: Has Irish independence thrown up borders and made family members foreigners? No (and I'll be a judge of that latter point)
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!
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That and the original state being impoverished to the extent of handing over most of its welfare provision to the church - as we have seen, that did not always work out well.
As far as I can tell Ireland was very badly off for decades, thousands of its population emigrated, then it had a boom for a bit and then the economy collapsed and it had to be bailed out - mostly by Britain. Some of that is probably to do with poor organisation of the separation. [ 08. June 2014, 08:59: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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. quote: Originally posted by fletcher christian: posted by Molopata: quote: Has Irish independence thrown up borders and made family members foreigners? No (and I'll be a judge of that latter point)
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!
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.
-------------------- ... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Molopata: 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.
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.
The creation of the Irish state is a long, long litany of division and separation mixed with family pain. [ 08. June 2014, 12:26: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by fletcher christian: The creation of the Irish state is a long, long litany of division and separation mixed with family pain.
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.
-------------------- ... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
burlingtontiger
Apprentice
# 18069
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls: quote: Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid: Nations don't die when they break apart; they die when people stop believing in them.
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.
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...
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.
-------------------- "If this goes on, my beloved 'earers, it will be my painful duty to rot this bargee"
Posts: 31 | From: Yorkshire, England | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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). I honestly don't give a shit about "world status", which seems to me about trying to make others do your bidding without the bother of persuasion or offering incentives.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
As an American, I can assure you that greater control over government locally doesn't make all, or even a small amount, of your dreams come true.
But, I haven't observed that pro-independence folk are that receptive to commentary on their grand plans, so...
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I fully agree wth the things Alan Cresswell said earlier in the thread. I was listening to 'More or Less' on Radio 4 on Friday afternoon which was looking at the claims by Alex Salmond and Danny Alexander that people would be better off if they voted yes or no, and how they had arrived at those figures. Neither figure came out well, due to the unpredictability of the data used to reach them. Apparently, the SNP figure was reached on the understanding that public expenditure wouldn't increase - something which is unprecedented given things like the increasing elderly population. I find it disquieting that an obvious untruth should be used to try and persuade people to vote a certain way. If this is really about the Scottish right to determine its future either in or apart from the UK, then the information should be as accurate and the reasoning behind it as transparent as possible. [ 08. June 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
burlingtontiger
Apprentice
# 18069
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
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.
-------------------- "If this goes on, my beloved 'earers, it will be my painful duty to rot this bargee"
Posts: 31 | From: Yorkshire, England | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The SNP may have wanted a UK wide referendum - I don't actually know either way. I'm not sure the Westminster Government would have been keen, and that is where the referendum would need to be called from.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: 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).
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.
The SNP wanted to take Scotland into the Euro. The reason for switching to the pound can only be that they think it's better for Scotland to have a currency whose value is dictated by the economic needs of the City of London than one whose value is dictated by the needs of Berlin.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Using the pound in the immediate aftermath of independence is transitional. I'm not an SNP supporter so I'm not answerable for their views but I think a separate currency would be in Scotland's long term interests.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
OTOH, it may be that in the mid to long term, the presence of a thriving English speaking country practising social democracy-lite just next door will have a salutary effect on UK politics and talk of there being no alternative.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
Alex Salmond is a wily politician who has spent 30 years building up to his crowning achievement of securing a referendum. But he wants to keep the Queen as head of state and keep the pound. That isn't a lot different from devo-max, which is, again IMO, a better option which would give Scotland the best of both worlds without damage to the international status of the UK. I very sincerely hope that the Scottish business community and media, which are generally against inependence, prevail over the Braveheart and Bannockburn mentality of the Glaswegian boozing community, and that Alex is brought down to earth by a No vote.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Paul BC: quote: the Braveheart and Bannockburn mentality of the Glaswegian boozing community
Where do you get the impression that the Glaswegian boozing community is pro-Independence?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Why would we want a UN security council seat? I would hope that Scottish independence might lead to some reform of that absurd system.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
I hope UKIP save is from the pro EU views of the London boozing community.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Sorry, that should have been PaulTH. By the time I spotted that I'd missed the edit window.
However, since I'm double posting anyway, I would add; Glasgow is still the heartland of Labour, who are campaigning for a "no" vote. Some sections of the Glasgow boozing community, specifically the Orange lodges, will be committed "no" voters.
If you are looking for a stereotypical Scottish Yes voter, then the inebriated Glaswegian isn't it. In fact, the "No" campaign is, to their credit, actively disassociating itself from some of the Glasgow pub culture "No" mentality, over fears of a resurgence of sectarianism.
(crossposted) [ 09. June 2014, 05:43: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
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.
Finally, any negotiations about splitting the existing reserves are going to be fraught with problems. Perhaps part-way through, there's another run on sterling and there's a return to the position of the late 70s. What happens then?
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Gee D, that ties in with my comment upthread:
quote: 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
Is the UK Treasury independent of the government?
Why is it apparently campaigning? Shouldn't it be neutral?
And is its (now pulled) campaign representative of the level of debate? [ 09. June 2014, 06:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound?
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.
The bottom line is that, of course, in an independent Scotland the government of Scotland will need to ensure that Scotland has a viable currency. I can't see how the British Pound won't be at least an interim currency during transition.
quote:
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.
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.
That wouldn't, at present, be a major problem for the Scottish economy. The Scottish economy is not that different from the economy of the rest of the UK, so UK policies may not be optimum for the Scottish economy they also won't be disastrous. If the UK government wished to wreck the Scottish economy by adopting policies that result in unfavourable fiscal conditions that would almost certainly be a disaster for the UK economy too.
The Bank of England already makes decisions on interest rates independent of the UK government. So, it'll make no difference for a Scottish government not having that control.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
While I appreciate both your points Alan, there are a lot of ifs and buts in there. The first, of course, is that a new Scots govt may not seek to join the EU, with the converse position that the EU will not invite it to join. And even in these post-monetarist days, the interest rate is only one of a range of measures which control economic health. Most of them seem very inexact and unpredictable, but that does not stop economists and politicians from espousing them.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, lots of ifs and buts. As I said earlier in this thread, what is meant by "independence" isn't adequately defined. I would have preferred to have a better defined question - ie: one in which a lot of the questions have already been resolved; eg: can Scotland retain EU membership, could we keep the British Pound or join the Euro? But, we're being asked a Yes/No question without having been given that information (because no one has done the leg work of negotiation between Holyrood, Westminister, Brussels that would be needed to answer those questions - and that won't happen until after a Yes vote).
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
It's a chicken-and-egg situation. We'd prefer to have more facts before voting, but the UK government won't commit to a position on e.g. the pound, until we've voted.
It's not ideal.
However, the Scottish government has published a detailed, 670 page, document. We can't force the Westminster government to do likewise.
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: And is its (now pulled) campaign representative of the level of debate?
quote: 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.
I'd say that, sadly, NEQ pretty much sums up the level of the debate right there.
I don't have a problem with Westminster (or the Scottish Govt) campaigning - you could argue that the SNP, whether in government or opposition have been campaigning for independence since their inception anyway. And regardless of whether or not the result is Yes or No, the political landscape has changed to such an extent that the status quo is no longer an option, so Westminster parties need to be (as they are starting to do, belatedly) actively outlining their vision of the post-referendum settlement. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment - staying silent and not campaigning risks handing independence to the Yes campaign on a plate, but in all honesty any time a Westminster politician says anything at all about it, whether it be David Cameron lovebombing the Scots, George Osbourne and Danny Alexander telling us businesses will up sticks and leave en masse if we vote Yes, or George Robertson claiming that independence would be a victory for the forces of darkness, they really aren't doing their cause any favours.
In the interests of disclosure, I am English born and bred, living in Scotland and happily settled here with no great desire to return down south. Although I'd say I was officially still undecided, I have to say that the No campaign are going to have to work an awful lot harder to convince me to cast my vote in their direction.
-------------------- "My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand) wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
As a Londoner, most of what I've seen of the campaign has been things said by idiots trying to bully Scotland. And probably the best campaign material the SNP could ask for.
Also as a Londoner, don't blame the current lot on us. London overall votes red (with the blue sections being either Outer London or West London). And don't blame most of the current lot on us - our highest profile Tory MP is the Scot Ian Duncan-Smith. Second highest is another Scot - Malcolm Rifkind. (Third would probably be Zac Goldsmith who is home-grown). And then there's Vince Cable whose previous seat was ... in Scotland. London is one of the red islands in the middle of the sea of blue. And was notably red in 2005.
It's not London that votes Tory. It's rural England. Urban England, Scotland, and Wales all vote Labour. So stop blaming the government on us please! And home rule for London would be nice (even if there's a chance we'd end up with BJ as PM).
For myself I hope you stay - but it's not my choice. I also hope if you leave Cameron and the Tories become instantly toxic as the people who broke the UK - and there's a home rule for London campaign.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Justinian: quote: So stop blaming the government on us please!
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.
*Substitute 'outdated-concept-on-a-crutch' here if you prefer. [ 10. June 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I wouldn't say that UK government (of whatever colour) dance to the tune set by London. Maybe the tune set by the City of London, but the City is not all of London by a long shot. Generally (and not entirely accurately) a Labour government would be more in tune with the wishes of the population of London, a Conservative one with the wishes of the Home Counties. But, get beyond the economic sphere of London, into Yorkshire, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland or NI then our concerns definitely seem to come in second place.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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. Being able to choose which hospital you have your operation at, for example, is meaningless to someone in the depths of rural Devon who can only travel to their local hospital. Most other large cities have reasonable public transport, but London is far bigger than any of the others and transport infrastructure is designed around London; it takes me almost as long to go from my home to Manchester Airport as it does to go to King's Cross, which is roughly twice the distance (and the links with Manchester Airport from here are quite good!). Choice of schools, again, is restricted by where you can realistically commute to. There's been a lot of angst about a shortage of primary school places; this is much less of an issue outside London and the South East - no doubt partly because young professionals, who are most likely to kick up a fuss if their local school is underperforming, are concentrated down there where most of the well-paid jobs are.
But you're right; the interests of the population of London are not identical with those of the City.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
I actually don't know how this turned out. It happened as we were getting ready to leave.
Moo
-------------------- Kerygmania host --------------------- See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I was a child in the 60s, so I can't tell you either, but nowadays the ferries to Belfast run from Cairnryan (near Stranraer) and Liverpool. Getting to the Republic of Ireland by ferry isn't any easier; the ferries go from Holyhead, Fishguard (both in Wales) and Liverpool. If you're going from London it's not so bad because the roads and railways are laid out for your convenience. Otherwise you have to zigzag. If you're going from Dublin to Scotland and can't go by air it is probably quicker to drive up to Larne (near Belfast) and take the ferry to Cairnryan.
Of course, now that air travel is cheaper a lot of people go by air. You'd only go by ferry if you wanted to take your car with you or were being met at the other end, because the rail links aren't anything to write home about.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D:
What if there be independence and the UK government decides that Scotland cannot keep the pound?
There is no mechanism whereby the rUK government could prevent an independent Scotland from 'keeping' the pound.
They could make it difficult - but as Alan points out, those kinds of policies would also affect the rUK.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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. Think of all the countries that call their money dollars.
From the Scottish point of view it would make sense to continue using the (British) pound, at least in the transitional period; the alternative is switching to the Euro and that doesn't make any economic sense at all, given the woes of the Eurozone. An interest rate imposed by the Bank of England is more likely to be in tune with the Scottish economy. [ 11. June 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
Post independence Scottish banks could continue issuing bank notes, but there is nothing compelling the Bank of England to consider them to be the same currency. At that point you get a Scottish Pound, that initially would be identical to the English Pound but which could fluctuate in value relative to the English Pound. I think that's probably the least prefered option.
If the rest of the UK agrees to both countries having the same currency then the current system could continue. That is what the Scottish Government has said they want in their vision for independence.
If there is no agreement to share a common currency then Scotland will either have to have a Scottish Pound, the Euro or ANOther currency. But, having one currency doesn't stop people using a different currency, they just need to agree between themselves what value that currency has. It is, afterall, not unusual to find shops in the UK that price in Euros as well as GBP. In a lot of countries where the currency is weak the use of an alternative strong currency is very common.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Alan, that's what I was trying to say, but not being an economist I lack the right vocabulary! Thanks for explaining it so clearly. [ 11. June 2014, 14:15: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, I'm not an economist either. But, 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.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I had problems in Northern England trying to use money issued by the Isle of Man (yes, that's legal tender too but try convincing a shop assistant who's never seen any before), so I've been there too. Annoying, isn't it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
SUrely the use of the Pound is not really about whose banknotes will be used -- its perfectly clear that if people in an independent Scotland want to use the British pound they can do so.
THe real question it seems to me from outside is how long an independent Scotland would accept a situation where its government had no say or input into the monetary policy that focuses on the British pound.
WHile Salmond and co may well be right that "it makes sense" for the two countries to cooperate in this situation, he cannot guarantee anything. If feelings in the British govenment run as high as they threatened to do here when a yes vote looked likely, an independent Scotland would be in for a very difficult 2-3 years until tempers cooled. And by that point, the situation would be far different, and who knows how the British pound would look (and how an independent Scotland would look).
In any case, as I understand it, an independent Scotland wants to be part of the EU. Unless it is accepted as a successor state, which seems unlikely based on what I've seen from the EU, it will have to join as a new member -- and as I understand it, that means the euro (and a bunch of other stuff as well).
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. He cannot force the EU to accept Scotland as a successor state, and so on.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote: 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.
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.
-------------------- "My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand) wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Of course they are not legal tender, as Scottish law does not have this concept.
-------------------- Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|