|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Salmond has said there is no Plan B - we will use a currency known as the pound (FWIW, prior to the Union we were using the Scots pound.) What we haven't heard is Cameron, Miliband and Clegg's Plan B regarding the national debt.
If we have a currency union, we also take a share of the National Debt. Cameron et al haven't explained what will happen to the National Debt if there isn't a currency union. It looks like we might get a multi-billion pound sweetener along with the loss of the pound. If we don't have to service our share of the National Debt because we've been cut adrift from currency union then we're £5.5 billion a year better off, according to Glasgow University.
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.
That's why some people think it might be an empty threat in practice - we want a mechanism by which we take our share of the debt, but Cameron et al won't commit to what that mechanism might be.
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
We could help pay for Scotland's share of the national debt out of ditching the Barnet Formula if Scotland does renege.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
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?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
if Scotland does renege.
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.
Which gives the impression of soundbite politics.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
Short of decamping to Panama, I'm not sure how the Scots who complain about this sort of thing will ever rid themselves of this supposed problem.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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. .
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I am sure that civil servants have provisional plans for most eventualities. But it's up to the ones calling for independence to explain how they think it will work.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Can't imagine why they would be complaining? Because this is what slippery populist politicians like Salmond do: they find a bogeyman, preferably an external one, to pin the blame for all their ills onto.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
True, but the implications of this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10099479/Independent-Scotland-could-not-walk-away-from-UK-debt.html
are that walking away from the national debt could hurt Scotland more than the UK. If you take the NIESR's view that the £ is a liability, and the assets are based purely on the history of never defaulting and the likelihood of being repaid, then the rUK is ok if Scotland doesn't pay anything (which is partly why the BoE has already said it will honour the whole national debt if necessary - obviously it would be *fairer* for iScotland to pay it's share, but if they don't then it's already priced into the rUK's borrowing and it's not going to be England, Wales or Northern Ireland that gets hurt).
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/uk-britain-scotland-debt-idUKBREA0B0N820140113
To that extent, given the trillions of national debt, iScotland saying "we'll walk away if you don't give us what we want" is a pretty empty threat as it's not rUK that's going to suffer if they do...
The international money markets might look ever so slightly dubiously at a country which starts off it's existence with a refusal to pay any debt, and price borrowing accordingly.
This is why plan B is so important - it's not just what currency's going to be used, so much as how paying a share of national debt is going to be honoured. Because the iScottish government having a flounce is more likely to hurt iScotland than rUK, however well it initially plays with the public north of the border.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
if Scotland does renege.
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.
Oh, I'm sure the international money markets will come up with some sort of a mechanism ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Fundamentally, how it might work is a figure will be worked out that Scotland "owes" and which will then be a debt.
Beyond that it doesn't much matter what currency it's paid to the BoE in (well, it does, but the fact it's being paid at all makes currency transfer/exchange logistics and calculating interest a lesser order problem).
That can be paid in US$, £ sterling that Scotland just happens to use without a currency union, Euros, whatever. Or not. But if it isn't paid that's broadly Scotland's problem as rUK could cope without it.
Which is why the question to which people want to know the answer (viz "by what mechanism are we going to service our share of the national debt?") is, as OTG has pointed out, very much one for Mr Salmond, "if we can't have a currency union, what are we going to use?"
Everything else flows from that.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
So, in the short term, the Scots can guarantee EU membership by voting to stay in the UK. He believes that we're better together, and so you're basically pricing two things into a No vote:
1) Scotland's place in the UK
2) Scotland's place in the EU
whereas a Yes vote deals with 1 and risks 2 in the short term (in his opinion).
In the event of an EU referendum then the obvious thing is to vote No to exit, and hope that campaign wins (which, IMO, it probably would anyway when the chips are down, so really it won't make a difference to the question being asked this September).
In the event however of the EU Exit voting Yes, then the Scots have got to consider 1 and 2 again, and the extent to which Unionism/cross border economics or EU membership trumps the other. But that's fundamentally a different question to the one that's on the table at the moment.
So, down the line there could be a second referendum on Scottish independence based on UK exit from the EU, with the Yes vote campaigning for Scotland to rejoin/remain in (depending on timing) the EU.
Basically, the deal is to the Scots he's saying (in his opinion truthfully) that we're better together AND Scotland's best bet of staying in the EU in the short term is to vote No.
He's telling the wider country (and sending signals to the EU) that he's unhappy with the EU as it currently is in an effort to head off UKIP, but when it comes down to it he would rather try and stay in than leave - the threat to leave is intended to be leverage (I'm not endorsing the strategy here, but that's the thinking) so actually the disconnect between the two things you've picked up on him saying isn't mutually exclusionary.
Does that explanation sort of make sense? I've pretty well confused myself but I think on version 4 that sort of covers it!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Yes, that makes sense, thank you!
[ 11. August 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: Sorry, I misunderstood your previous comments. I still think Cameron is taking a big gamble, though, and we will have to agree to differ about his political skill.
quote:
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...
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.
I'm hoping the Scots are going to say No (for purely selfish reasons), but (at the moment) expecting them to say Yes.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I suspect that the vote will go against independence, but either way I'm not optimistic.
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.
Yes: who knows? At the extreme, customs barriers and passport checks at two rail and six road crossings, and even barbed wire entanglements across the Cheviots?
Either way, lasting and, in my opinion, unnecessary antipathy.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
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.
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.
Does anywhere in Europe have rolls of barbed wire across the countryside to separate countries? Why would there be rolls of barbed wire between Scotland and England?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Certainly if we keep the pound we will remain economically dominated by England.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I wonder what the long term impact will be of a "no" vote. It seems to me that this is unlikely to be a subject that will go away. If the experience of Quebec and Canada is anything to go by, a "no" vote will quickly be interpreted as "not yet" and so the debate (and campaigning) will continue.
It seems to me that there are a significant number of Scots who want independence almost regardless of the economical impacts. In other words, this is a matter of the heart, rather than the head. Alex Salmond taps (shamelessly) into these emotions. Logically, almost nothing he says makes sense. But I suspect he knows that he doesn't need to make sense - all he needs is to tug on the heart strings.
So I guess one question I have is this: if, as the polls indicate, the referendum result is a clear but not overwhelming "no", how long will it be before there is a push for another referendum? 10 years? Less? More?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full of Chips
Shipmate
# 13669
|
Posted
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.
There have been three constitutional referenda in Scotland in my lifetime. In 1979, a small majority of Scots voted Yes to a Scottish Assembly (with less powers than the current one) but this failed to make a "40% of the electorate" rule and so was not implemented.
In 1997 Scots voted over 70% in favour of the current Scots Parliament.
During that parliament we went from 8 years of Labour Lib/Dem coalitions to an SNP minority government in 2007 followed by an SNP majority government in 2011. It is this majority that has allowed the Scots Parliament to vote for a referendum on independence.
My point is first, that there have been moves towards greater autonomy in Scotland for decades, long before Alex Salmond and the SNP came to power. Second that the independence referendum was a plank of SNP policy on which they were voted into power with an absolute majority - in a proportionally elected parliament. Had the Scots Parliament run a first past the post system it is estimated that the SNP would currently have over 100 out of 129 seats.
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.
[ 11. August 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Full of Chips ]
Posts: 136 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
The attention is on Salmond because he's overwhelmingly the public face of the 'Yes' campaign. Simple as that, isn't it?
quote:
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.
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?
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?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, the thing is that both sides of the campaign have to do a certain amount of spinning in order to conduct any sort of campaign at all. A completely honest answer to the question "What would happen if Scotland became an independent country?" would be "We don't know." (the pound, membership of the EU, what happens to the BBC, etc. etc.) A completely honest answer to the question "What would happen if Scotland didn't become an independent country?" would also be "We don't know." (UK may leave the EU, we could have another banking crisis, etc. etc.) They're both (presumably) telling us what they think is likely to happen - and exaggerating the risks of voting for the other option as much as possible.
I'd vote for the SNP's vision of a fairer, more equal society myself if I was north of the border (and I'm sure Marvin or someone else will be along soon to tell me I'm a starry-eyed idealist). That's why I said I was hoping for a 'No' result for selfish reasons... I don't want to have to take my passport with me and change my pounds into Euros every time we visit our relatives in Edinburgh (though of course I will if the rUK forces me to it; I want to go on being friends with NEQ too).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full of Chips
Shipmate
# 13669
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
Of course I am not personally collecting polling information and can only go by anecdotal evidence but my feeling on the ground is that Yes will win comfortably. The feeling is similar to that in 2011 when the poll predictions seemed very much at odds with what folks were saying.
We will see in September.
Posts: 136 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin: 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?
I am not Full of Chips (neither literally nor metaphorically) but here are my answers:
(a) I think you partly answered this yourself. Alex Salmond is the public face of the Yes campaign (at least, south of the border); also, whether or not Scotland gets a currency union with the rUK after independence is something that the rUK gets a say in and a weak point (ie, depending on the goodwill of others) in the SNP's plans for iScotland.
(b) Polls are not always a reliable indication of how people will actually vote.
(c) In most elections and referendums there is a bias in favour of the status quo, because most people do not want to vote for a change for the worse. Anyone campaigning for change has a harder task.
[ 11. August 2014, 21:55: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
(FWIW, I suspect that the chances of a "yes" vote would be greater sans Salmond. I doubt that there are many who will vote "yes" who have been persuaded to change their mind by him. But I suspect that some people who might have voted "yes" have been put off or made uncertain by him.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
According to two recent opinion polls, Salmond's floundering on the currency issue in the debate with Darling has significantly damaged the 'Yes' campaign.
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)
quote:
The attention is on Salmond because he's overwhelmingly the public face of the 'Yes' campaign. Simple as that, isn't it?
In the media south of the border, possibly. I think it's more diverse here.
quote:
ISTM the independence campaign is about one man trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate, and largely failing.
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.
Before my time, there was the Scottish Covenant which ultimately got 2 million signatures.
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?
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.
The "No" campaign, as someone else has said, has been referred to as "Project Fear" - allegedly a term coined by the Better Together campaign; the Yes campaign has been generally more upbeat and positive.
As I've said, I'm a Yes voter by default - I'd prefer DevoMax to full Independence, and I suspect that's the majority view. The question is - how will the DevoMax majority vote on the day?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full of Chips
Shipmate
# 13669
|
Posted
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...
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.
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.
Posts: 136 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
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?
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.
Then there are people like me - in favour of DevoMax, going to vote Yes, but not willing to e.g. have a Yes FB profile, because I think my views are too nuanced for that.
Then there are those in favour of DevoMax, but who tip towards a No vote. Like me, they're not going to wear the T-shirts etc, because they don't identify strongly as Nos, even though that's the way they'll vote.
And then there are the people who are as enthusiastically committed to a No vote, as their Yes counterparts. Except this group is tiny. As a result, there's no buzz, no posters, no memes, nothing going viral on FB.
So I think there's a disconnect between the visible, on the ground impression of "Yes" and the voting intentions the polls are reporting.
Which way will it go on the day? Too close to call, I'd say. The Nos are worried that many of those polling a No might be too lacklustre to actually vote. So turnout will come into it as well - the higher the turnout, the more likely a No vote. The lower the turnout, the more likely a Yes vote.
Does that make sense? Do other Scottish shipmates agree?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'm following all this with some interest. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the thourght process that seems to be as follows:
If there is a yes vote, then it is clearly in Scotland's best interest for there to be a currency union.
Therefore there will be a currency union, because that's clearly in Scotland's best interest.
It seems to me that there are several questions to be raised -- leaving aside whether a currency union would give Scotland an (adequate) voice in setting monetary and fiscal policy for the union (because no one can possibly have a clue as to whether it would).
Of these the most important is -- Would a currency union be in the best interest of the rUK? And a second would be, whether it is -- and especially if it is not -- why is it assumed that the rUK would enter into such a union? It seems to me that proponents of a currency union -- being supporters of the yes side -- are only too willing to honour emotion when it increases support for what they want -- indendence -- but are oddly reluctant to admit even the possiblity of emotion (resentment, anger and so on) in the rUK if there is a yes vote, and even more reluctant to accept that these negative emotions will affect what the government of the rUK can offer or accept in negotiations.
Can someone here enlighten me?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Here's an article from the New Statesman which appears to me to be written objectively.
If it turns out that we do become independent and rUK reacts with rancour and spite, that would be disappointing, but I think most of us think better of the English/Welsh/ Northern Irish than that.
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.
Besides, if (and I think it's definitely an "if") we do vote for Independence, it'll be because Cameron took the middle ground - DevoMax- out of the equation, not because the Scots themselves did. If DevoMax was a middle ground option I think there's no doubt that's the way the vote would have gone.
(Although had DevoMax been voted for, I think there might have been another referendum in ten or fifteen years for full Independence.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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. At present the "it won't happen" statements appear to be statements made during a campaign, and that after a Yes vote the best interests of both will prevail and a currency union will happen. That, as I understand it, is the basic position of the pro-independence campaign.
There are a few issues. First, of course, is whether the "it won't happen" statements are just campaign talk. It has been several years since the Better Together supporters had stated that currency union is the best position following independence. That has left some considerable time for further thought, and it may well be that it's no longer the best option - in which case it would be great if the Better Together people came up with an honest "yes, we had thought it would be best but we've changed our minds because of x, y and z".
The other issue is that even if currency union is the best for everyone the exact terms of such a union will need to be determined in negotiations following 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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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'.
quote:
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.
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!
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Another thought about the polls, South Coast Kevin; as I've said, the Daily Mail ran two parallel stories - the YouGov poll which showed No 20% ahead in the English editions, and the Survation poll which showed No 13% ahead in the Scottish editions.
There's a danger here for the No camp. Cynical me thinks that's why the Mail is reporting a 20% lead to its English readers, but only a 13% lead to its Scottish readers - if No voters are convinced that it'll be a landslide No vote, and it's raining, casting their individual No vote might not seem that big a deal. Whereas the Yes camp know that as the polls indicate they're trailing, every vote matters.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I'd add Lallands Peat Worrier to that list too.
My (entirely non-scientific) take on how the vote might end up is different to Full of Chips' - from where I am, although I'm seeing plenty of Yes posters in windows etc, and just the occasional 'Naw' sticker on bus-stops, I don't have the impression that the Yes vote will be as impressive as Full of Chips suggests. Interestingly, of the people I know reasonably well here, with a tiny exception most of the passionate Yes voters are not actually Scottish, but English, Polish, Romanian etc. Most of my former workmates for example, with whom I'm still on touch on facebook, who are all Scottish, are surprisingly vociferous in their support for the No campaign (the most vociferous person is also a passionate supporter of the UK Armed Forces). Of the people I've spoken to locally (neighbours, and other mum friends at local baby groups, mostly), the majority seem to still be undecided, or veering towards voting No. Of the Scots I know who are probably going to vote Yes, most of them reflect North East Quine's position of preferring DevoMax but in the absence of that option are veering towards Yes rather than No. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong Yes vote in Aberdeenshire, but from where I am in Stirling and my impressions of the people I know in Glasgow, it's going to be a lot closer.
My (again entirely unscientific) prediction is that overall it will be a really close vote (something like 54/46) with No just squeaking it. As mentioned above, if that happens I suspect what that means is that the debates will continue, as will the rancour, and there will be a call for another referendum in 10 or 20 years time - certainly well within my lifetime.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
Marvin: quote:
...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.
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?
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.
[ 14. August 2014, 08:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Who can say what things will be like in 10 or 20 years' time if Scotland does become independent? But it seems quite likely that the Scottish and British economies would continue to be closely connected; the Republic of Ireland has been independent for nearly a century and is still a major trading partner.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the Republic of Ireland has been independent for nearly a century and is still a major trading partner.
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....
The Irish economy diverged from the UK one (not in terms of being pegged but in terms of being dependent) when the EEC/EU money started coming in, and then with the creation of the Celtic Tiger and the monkeying around with corporation tax rates, etc, to entice business and money into Ireland.
Scotland is not a largely agricultural economy like the Irish Free State then ROI was for many years. Consequently it is going to be starting (assuming independence) a hell of a lot more competitively, and with levers to pull which will lead to economic divergence and competition with the UK economy more quickly. Ireland is thus a poor comparator.
From the off, come independence, it will be in the narrow advantage of both rUK and iScotland to go head to head on corporation tax, income tax, and anything else which will give one competitive advantage over the other. At least rUK better had, because if Edinburgh's got any sense they sure as hell will be.
If both sides were to agree not to do that for the sake of preserving monetary union, then fair enough, but I can't see it happening. Consequently, there's going to be something of a fiscal arms race - 2 countries, same language, relatively short distances between say Leeds and Edinburgh (for example). One country drops/raises business rates/VAT/whatever, and just watch the relocations happen.
All of this will happen in all probability. Why? because if fiscal variance and the ability to run the Scottish economy to the advantage of iScotland (which apparently is being "held back" or wrongly prioritised by the "Westminster government") is off the table, then what on earth is the vote for??
To an extent that was a competition that Dublin and London were in from the late 80s. Difference here is Scotland has got more industry and finance than Ireland so the stakes are higher, the fight less one sided, and the likely results messier.
Be in no doubt, both new countries would have to look to their own people and economies first, and very quickly they're going to become competitors that share a land border.
Unless, as Mr Darling has noted, they share a currency union, in which case, as per the Euro, the inexorable logic will be towards ever closer political union....
A vote for Scottish Independence within a currency union is a vote for restoration of full Union in 20 years time? Now there's an understandably unused slogan for the Yes camp....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jane R quote:
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.
.......errr, isn't that an argument for the status quo?
Perhaps your emphasis, Jane R, is on the "for now", anticipating a break from any currency union in the future. Doesn't that produce the element of instability such a union is designed to avoid, and partially explains rUK's reluctance to go down that road?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't know about the economic parallels between Ireland and Scotland, though I can see the differences. However, some people have suggested that bad feelings between Scotland and rUK could escalate after separation. There was much more cause for antagonism between Ireland and Britain in the 19th century and before - colonial exploitation is one way of putting it - yet the two countries appear to have settled down to a very amicable partnership (any hostility has been focussed in the North, still British). Scotland and England have always been more equal partners (despite episodes like the Highland Clearances, in which I believe Scottish landowners were as much if not more to blame than the English) so why should anyone imagine we won't get on as neighbours?
[ 14. August 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
so why should anyone imagine we won't get on as neighbours?
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.
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.
It's either non-divergent, in which case there's no real independence, or it's inherently a competition.
[code]
[ 14. August 2014, 11:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
But that divergence already exists everywhere (at least everywhere within 100 miles of a border) in mainland Europe. What is so different?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I don't understand why politicans are putting about the idea that the question of an independent Scotland taking a share of the national debt is inherently linked with a currency union. I think it must just be electioneering.
If Scotland were to join the euro zone, it would be in essentially the same position as the other countries who have joined, whose sovereign debts were previously denominated in their individual currencies but are now in euros.
Not that there is anything to stop countries having debts in currencies other than their own if they want to. Quite a few countries issue bonds in USD because there is a stronger market for USD bonds than for those in their own currency.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is no difference. Which is why it's not a logical argument against independence for Scotland. Unless, of course, one applies it as an argument against the independence of France, Belgium, Germany, Austria etc as seperate nation states. But, the Better Together campaign stands on a call to maintain the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK, not campaigning for full political union across Europe.
--------------------
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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
OK, you may not notice much difference between Germany and France in terms of standards of living, but you do between Germany and Greece.
At the same time, the Germans and the French are, while not evenly matched economically, at least not far off. And what were the first demands from the Eurozone paymasters when Ireland nearly went under? "You're going to have to raise corporation tax to fall in line with us."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65bd6068-7b2f-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AMtjAyTT
Thankfully (if you're Irish) that didn't happen - because it would have made the situation even worse - but it shows the resentment particularly France had towards the people in the eurozone who they saw as trying to undercut their economy from within.
A currency union between the rUK and iScotland would be unfair to 2 nation states if it didn't treat them both the same, but, thanks to relative economic and population sizes in reality probably unworkable unless rUK is in the driving seat and iScotland does as it's told or assents to policies designed with the rUK economy in mind. It's exactly the same in the eurozone, which is basically run with one eye on the German economy and hang everyone else - but then, the other countries have a vested interest in Germany continuing to be able to write the cheques. Even the UK, outside the eurozone, has a vested interest in the Germans not going into recession.
That's the problem. There's no issue with the two states competing with one another provided they are completely independent. But big vs little within a 2 nation currency union that has differing tax rates/policies is a recipe for at the least simmering resentment on both sides and at worst an economic nightmare.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Does anyone here know- I'm sure someone does- whether there was any division of the then-UK National Debt when the Irish Free State was established (within the sterling area)?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
